Ask Gary: F1 won't take notice of drivers

What did you think of the GPDA letter about F1 governance?
David Hales, via email

I think it's long overdue. Unfortunately, nobody that has any say in where F1 is going will take any notice of it.

Actually, it's probably done some harm in that it will have driven a wedge between the drivers and the decision-makers.

We've been here so many times over the years. In the end, any group that formed and had any sort of voice very soon got blacklisted and in the end disbanded.

For the drivers to get together and write an open letter to the powers that be, and then make it public, undermined any relationship that might have been in place beforehand.

For Bernie Ecclestone to reply more about the grammar than the content of the GPDA letter shows what he thinks of the group.

Do you think the radio ban and single-clutch rule harmed Mercedes' Australian Grand Prix starts? They were quite terrible!
@eggry, via Twitter

The radio ban and the single-clutch-paddle rule were put in place for just that reason: to make starts harder.

The drivers were getting far too much help from their engineers. In reality, even with these changes they still are.

I don't expect the problem Mercedes had to repeat itself very often as the control system engineers will have burned the midnight oil since race day in Australia to rectify it.

We can only hope Mercedes doesn't get it right for a few races yet, as without doubt it still has the best-performing cars. Without bad starts, Mercedes will be heading off into the distance the same as we saw in 2014 and '15.

What is the main weakness of Manor's package? It was off the pace in Melbourne despite a Mercedes engine and Williams gearbox.
Rob Watts, via Twitter

Rob, the answer is simple: money.

Unfortunately, you need the budget to employ the best people available and then give them the tools to do the job.

Building a competitive F1 car is not a simple task and requires huge resources, especially in terms of aerodynamics.

Manor's problem as far as laptime is concerned is a lack of downforce, but that stems from a lack of budget to invest in what's needed to put together a better aerodynamic package.

If you have a limited budget, it needs to be managed carefully. It costs more or less the same for Manor to go racing as it costs Mercedes, so very little can be saved in that area.

You then have to decide where you can cut expenditure. Normally the bean-counters in the teams, who don't really know much about racing, will cut research and then the performance will suffer.

That said, Manor has made a step forward from last year, but there's still a long way to go.

Would F1 be far better off if the teams had no say in deciding the rules and regulations and just did what they were told?
@diegtristan, via Twitter

You are correct, F1 would be better off if the teams had a lot less to do with the regulations.

The teams are structured with a huge amount of engineering talent and some very experienced drivers. Between them, they will understand the problems and what needs to be done to rectify these problems.

I believe whoever is putting the regulations together needs to use this pool of talent.

Where it all falls down is that the teams - mainly the team principals - have to agree to any changes. Because everyone's trying to have one over on their fellow competitors, nobody ever agrees to what is best for F1 as a whole.

The group conceiving changes would need to be made up of more experienced engineers and a couple of drivers that are independent of the FIA, FOM or any other interest group that has influence on the direction of F1.

They need to weed out the potential pitfalls from the teams' suggestions and then put forward a package that will address the requirements. At the moment that isn't what happens.

We heard about Nico Rosberg having brake problems in Australia - what were they and how does a driver manage problems like this? If it was a cooling issue, why not just overcool as standard to make sure you don't get in trouble?
Ben Eaton, via email

Rosberg's problem was that one of his brakes started to overheat. When that happens, the wear rate of the carbon disc and pads increases dramatically and the caliper temperature increases to a level that can cause the brake fluid to boil. If this happens, it's game over.

The team monitors both temperature and wear, and in the past when the radio communication was completely open it would have told him about the problem and the best way to get out of the situation.

With the limits on radio communication, identifying and rectifying the problem is now down to the driver.

So how would he have done this?

The braking balance is obviously distributed around all four wheels, so what Rosberg would have felt was a lack of braking performance from one end of the car. The sum of the retardation across one of the axles would have reduced, leaving him having to brake a little earlier than before and potentially locking up the tyres.

He would then have had to make a decision on which way to go with the driver-adjustable brake balance. He would also have started to come off the throttle that little bit earlier to let the drag of the car slow him a little before he pressed the brake pedal.

Some drivers could cope with this - and Rosberg is one of them - but others would just keep on driving with the problem until it forced them to retire.

You ask why they don't just run the car with increased brake cooling to leave them with less risk. Well, that's very simple: airflow used for cooling isn't being used for downforce.

The more cooling you have for the brakes and/or the engine, the less airflow is left to produce downforce - and downforce is performance.

If we had reversed grids, the cars' aerodynamic set-up would be very different from what we have now.

They would have to cope with this type of problem and would have to be designed so that ultimate performance could be achieved in traffic as opposed to running in free air.

Haas's debut was one of the most impressive we've seen in a long time. But there has been talk about it being a Ferrari B-team. Do you think the way Haas has done things is right for F1, and should it be possible to run full customer cars?
Benjamin Parkinson, via email

Without doubt, Haas has done a fantastic job. But remember it has a team owner who's been involved in motorsport, albeit in America, for many years.

Gene Haas has a reasonable understanding of what's required to build a competitive team. That, combined with Gunther Steiner's experience in Europe, has stood Haas in good stead.

As for how they went about setting up the team and the involvement with Ferrari, it's to the letter of the regulations. If Haas comes out of that as a Ferrari B-team, then that's all the better for F1.

We also mustn't forget Haas's association with Italian manufacturer Dallara. It's a great little company, and this time it has been contracted, properly paid and allowed to get on with an F1 car project.

Most other new teams didn't take this route because they were too proud or they thought they could do it better or cheaper themselves.

Haas has now set a standard for anyone else who wants to enter F1. The best route has been clearly identified.

We all want more and closer competition and if this is the way to achieve it then it's all the better for us as viewers and enthusiasts. And if it's better for us, then it's better for F1 as a whole.

As an ex-BBC man, what do you think of the news that live F1 won't be available free from 2019? Surely this is another terrible mistake?
Derek Bates, via email

I think it's disgusting. On a very good day, pay-TV channels get no more than 20 per cent of the viewers, so how can this be a good idea when sponsors use F1 as an advertising platform?

The head honchos of some of these big companies don't give a toss for F1. They just want the figures to show that the returns justify their outlay. If Mercedes doesn't sell cars, then it will have no hesitation about pulling the plug on F1.

I think Bernie is trying to follow what football's Premier League has done very successfully in the UK: sell the product on a long-term contract to the big pay-TV channels for lots of money, which goes directly to him and the teams and reduces the potential fluctuation of income from relying on free-to-air TV channels.

But it doesn't make commercial sense because F1 just doesn't have the following that the Premiership has. For most people, F1 is untouchable and a total waste of money. They can relate much more closely to the Premiership, and many of the players come from humble backgrounds.

Given the increasing problems of cars not being able to follow each other because they are built to run in clean air, would a potential solution be that all the teams must run an FIA template car in front of their windtunnel models, and the equivalent in CFD modelling?
Phil Restas, via email

Phil, we've seen over the last six seasons at least that if you have a car that's quick enough to qualify at the front and you get away at the start of the race, there's every chance you will come away with the win.

When Red Bull was dominating, it had a package that was up to 20km/h slower than some of its rivals on the straights. But it had the grip, so was able to produce the laptime to take pole. Only when that plan went wrong did Red Bull struggle.

Now Mercedes has taken it to a new level. It has the car performance, but also the top speed. So its cars get on the front row and it's game over, other than if they screw up the start as we saw last weekend.

We have heard many times drivers complaining that they just can't attack a car that's in front of them. So, yes, you are correct that something needs to be done.

What's planned for 2017 will not achieve this. Yes, the bigger tyres will be an improvement, but increased downforce will offset this so we'll probably just have another change that achieves nothing.

As usual everyone involved in the change will say, 'I told them so but they wouldn't listen'.

They - and I must admit I'm a little confused now as to who 'they' are - need to take their heads out of the sand, and quickly. Otherwise we'll just have another huge outlay for the already cash-strapped midfield teams that gets us nowhere.

After all, the well-financed works teams will have no one to beat if the midfield squads fall by the wayside.

Got a question for Gary Anderson? Send it to askgary@autosport.com, use #askgaryF1 on Twitter or look out for our posts on Facebook giving you the chance to have your question answered