Ask Gary: How can engine parity be achieved?

With the engine token system being dropped, how on earth can this achieve parity of engines?
@eggry, via Twitter

I don't think we have ever had parity of engines, or power units as they are now called. Something has always made one engine stand above another.

Red Bull changed from Ferrari to Renault in the V8 era because the Renault was easier to cool. This meant the team could use more of the airflow around the car to produce downforce. The Renault was also more fuel efficient, so the car could be lighter off the startline.

In my time of designing cars, we had vast differences in fuel consumption and cooling requirements between different engine suppliers. This can make a huge difference to overall car performance.

I am disappointed that the token is being dropped. Yes, there is a lot wrong with it and some of the penalties are a bit stupid, but if it was kept and a points system created so that the teams that were struggling had the opportunity to catch up I think it would still be a good system.

For example, looking at 2015:

- Mercedes-powered cars (eight in total) scored a total of 1274 points, that averages 159 per car using Mercedes Power Units.

- Ferrari-powered cars (six) scored a total of 474 points, that averages 79 per car (-80 to Mercedes)

- Renault-powered cars (four) scored a total of 254 points, that averages 63 per car (-96)

- Honda-powered cars (two) scored a total of 27 points, that averages 14 per car (-145)

Based on a new system comprising 100 tokens for a complete power unit, I would allow all the power unit manufactures just 10 tokens to allow them to dot the i's and cross the t's of any potential reliability problems.

I would then allow engine manufacturers one extra token per three points difference in the championship. This would mean:

Mercedes = 10 tokens
Ferrari 27+10 = 37 tokens
Renault 32+10 = 42 tokens
Honda 48+10 = 58 tokens

Doing something like this would allow all the manufactures to close up. It would also mean it's in the manufacturers' interest to supply the lesser teams, as the more cars you have running your power units, the lower the average points scored.

It seems F1 is going to go ahead with some kind of 'halo' style head protection. What do you think of this approach?
Sarah Baines, via email

Sarah, I'm not a great believer in this system as I am worried that something that would otherwise be displaced around the driver's head will get trapped between the 'halo' and the chassis and actually cause a head injury.

Considering the technology that is out there today, I refuse to believe it is impossible to come up with a cockpit enclosure or at least a pod section that comes up to the height of the driver's head. It doesn't have to go over the driver's head, it just needs to be there to divert anything that might be travelling towards the head.

If you look at the actual cockpit opening dimensions in plan view it is ideal for a pod coming rearward to where the headrest starts to reduce in section.

Can a different (not low-drag, low-downforce) aero concept work for Williams in 2016 with others two years ahead on such development paths?
@atticvs2, via Twitter

Overall downforce has always been very important to performance, but with the tyre situation we currently have it has now become vital. As long as you can achieve a good aerodynamic balance, you need that extra downforce to get the tyres up and working and then to keep them alive as long as possible.

If the car is sliding, it will be difficult to get the bulk of the tyre up to temperature and it will also overheat the surface. Both of these situations mean less tyre grip.

A car is normally born with an inherent DNA. If you look at Force India through the years, it has always performed very well on circuits like Spa, where aerodynamic efficiency comes into play, more than circuits where out and out downforce is most important and its cars just didn't have that extra bit of downforce available.

For Williams, it is a very similar situation and it's very difficult to change your engineers' mindset overnight. They will need to start optimising around a very different package.

I am sure Williams has always got the best from the package it has had to work with, but with more downforce you will get more drag and your efficiency numbers will start to drop away. To make sure you are not heading down the wrong route, your simulation tools need to be state of the art.

Do the power increases found by Mercedes, Ferrari etc mean fuel saving will become more of an issue?
@GregorF1, via Twitter

I doubt it. The power increases from the internal combustion engine will be from combustion efficiency gains and reduced internal friction. Together they will probably mean that the engines will use less fuel.

The current fuel management systems are so efficient that not a drop of fuel gets away without producing some power. The main challenge for the manufacturers and drivers is to make sure they are not wasting any of that power.

Progressive throttle application is vital because on/off throttle movement is wasted power, any wheelspin is wasted power and using excess revs before changing gear is wasted power.

Optimising all of this will save quite a big percentage of the 100kg you can start a race with.

The big overall gains will also be coming from getting more from the MGU-H. This is the area where Mercedes has excelled and Honda has screwed up.

Teams and drivers talk about using different braking materials. What does this actually mean and what different characteristics do you get out of different materials? Surely you just want one that can stop the car most effectively and be reliable and consistent?
Dan Jones, via email

Dan, the problem is there isn't one material that can stop the car, be reliable and be consistent.

The maximum diameter of the discs and the maximum thickness of the discs and pads are controlled in the regulations, as is the amount of brake pads, callipers and calliper pistons.

The teams will use the maximum available sizes on the front of the car, but because of the ERS battery charging coming from the rear axle they will use a smaller braking system on the rear.

Because of this, everything is working right on the limit and needs looking after. If the carbon gets too hot, the wear rate increases dramatically and you see lots more black carbon dust coming out of the wheels during braking. If it gets too cold going down the straights, then initially it doesn't work.

Basically, there are two types of material. One works at a slightly lower temperature than the other, and this material gives the driver a better feeling when he initially hits the brake pedal. But it doesn't have the ultimate stopping power and it fades earlier at the higher temperatures generated while braking.

The other material has less initial bite and the driver feels it as less progressive, but it has more ultimate stopping power and can cope with higher temperatures.

It is really down to the feeling the driver requires during braking. When you consider that these cars reduce their speed from in excess of 320km/h to 60km/h in little more than a second - or just over 100 metres - it is no wonder braking confidence is vitally important.

We see qualifying differences between team-mates of often less than a tenth of a second. What does this actually tell us about the difference between the drivers? Both cars will often be set up 'equal', but just how equal can two cars be?
Simon Mawdsley, via email

Simon, if you look at more than just a one-off qualifying lap the picture is even more alarming.

Take the end result of the 2015 championship, the top five teams came in like they were boarding Noah's Ark with two Mercedes, two Ferraris, two Williams, two Red Bulls, two Force Indias together. Although then it starts to separate out a bit other than two McLarens.

To me, this shows that the engine and chassis together are overcoming the driver input. There is no way these drivers who are paired together in the same teams are of the same quality.

In years gone by, the real top drivers would always stand out but with engine domination rearing its ugly head and the fact that 99 per cent of the car set-up is being done by the engineers in the back of the garage, the driver only has to drive and experience is virtually irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, they still have to be able to drive a racing car fast, but there should be more to being top of the pile than that.

There are suggestions the new Mercedes will have a narrower and higher nose. Any particular reason this might be the case?
Raz Al-Haddad, via Twitter

Raz, the airflow going through this frontal area is all that the rest of the car has to work with. The higher the mass flow and the higher the velocity of that mass flow passing through between the front wheels relative to the chassis, the more downforce it produces.

However the regulations in this area control the length, width and height fairly well so it would surprise me if Mercedes can do a lot more than it did for 2015. However, I am not sitting there day in, day out trying to find loopholes in the regulations like all the teams will be.

This is the one area on where I believe Ferrari has big gains to make. For some reason over the last two years, Ferrari hasn't gone down this route. If it had a eureka moment and does so for this year, I am expecting the rest of the car to become more responsive to developments.

From stone cold, how many people and how long does it take to start one of the current F1 engines?
Scott McNeil, via email

The current power unit actually never gets stone cold. To allow the teams to use less airflow to cool these power units, they are actually built to work at temperatures of 120 to 130 degrees centigrade so the component machining tolerances mean that if you tried to turn one of these power units over when it was cold it would destroy itself very quickly.

When the power units are sitting on stands or in the chassis the water and oil systems will be connected to heaters and hot oil and water will be pumped through them. This will keep the temperatures at around 80C.

Starting the cars up is not really that difficult; one person on the starter and one person on a laptop can manage it. The person on the laptop basically becomes the driver and he can work the throttle as required or indeed work all the systems. Normally, if they want to go through the gears and check all the systems are functioning as required then one of the mechanics will sit in the driver's seat and have some fun.

Because the engine is already up to a reasonable temperature, it only takes minutes to go through this final system check.

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