F1's most important power struggle

So, the power struggle in Formula 1 continues.

Bernie Ecclestone wants the Strategy Group disbanded; he wants FOM and the FIA to make the rules both technical and sporting. For good measure, Max Mosley and Flavio Briatore have chipped in on what needs to be done if there is to be a future for F1.

But it is not only a question of who makes the decisions over F1's direction that's a problem. It's also the power unit regulations, which are crippling some teams.

With only 10 two-car teams, if F1 is to boost its viewing figures it just can't afford to have four Renault-engined cars and two Honda-engined McLarens out of the picture because of a power deficit.

These three teams, plus the two Manor-run Marussia-Ferraris, were not competitive in Montreal last weekend. This means that, straight away, you only really have 12 cars on the grid.

There is nothing more soul-destroying than heading off to a race knowing that the 'space' between the chassis and the gearbox is just not up to it.

Engine regulations are among the issues being discussed behind the scenes © LAT

Montreal is a compromise track. You need low downforce for the long straights, but you also require decent grip to stabilise the car when you land after launching over the kerbs.

Not only that, but the current Pirelli tyres respond to that little bit of extra load. A few more kgs of downforce and the tyre gains a few degrees and the grip level improves.

So it is a vicious circle - if you don't have the grunt you can't add the wing and you don't get the tyre performance.

During my time, I have had my fair share of engine troubles it but there are two examples that definitely added to my grey hairs.

In 1991, when Jordan first entered Formula 1, we had a lovely little Cosworth HB engine. It wasn't the most powerful but it was light and did everything very well. I suppose you could liken it to the Renault V8 that powered Red Bull to four world championships.

For 1992, we switched to Yamaha engines. We needed it financially, but it was a very different story in terms of performances.

It was 25kg heavier than the HB, and was a V12 as rather than a V8, so it was also longer and more difficult to package.

Anderson has experience of working with an engine disadvantage © LAT

It required a huge amount of extra cooling and the internal oil system just didn't work, because when you were going around a right-hand corner, it just filled up with oil!

All that caused us a lot of grief, but these were only small problems. The engine performance itself was random; sometimes it worked quite well, but not for very long, and sometimes a fresh engine would actually seize while it was warming up on the chassis stands.

Stefano Modena used to say it was like driving a sewing machine. It was full of noise and everything was happening around you, but if you put your little finger on the nose of the car it would stop pulling.

Yes, 1992 was a tough year, so I can feel for what McLaren is going through with Honda at the moment.

The other occasion was when we switched from Peugeot to Mugen-Honda for 1998. The engine geometry was very similar, so no big problem with packaging, but power-wise we were at a deficit of something in the region of 50bhp.

The chassis itself was, as every team will tell you when they produce a new car, stiffer, had more downforce, and was more efficient than the previous car. But it had a basic handling problem and the drivers, Ralf Schumacher and Damon Hill, just didn't feel comfortable with it

Red Bull's woes with engine supplier Renault have not abated this season © LAT

So I set about trying to fix both. We knew what we had done aerodynamically was better than before, but there was something we had missed.

So instead of doing the same old thing and just looking for more downforce, we went back to thinking about how a car works and looking deeper at the transient aerodynamics. Something popped up that I didn't feel was right so we addressed it.

In those days, we weren't privy to engine-performance data. We only had what we could generate from the chassis acceleration data. We felt this in no way matched our chassis acceleration data from the previous season.

I travelled to and from Japan five times for meetings with Honda. It just would not accept that the engine was not the class of the field.

However at the last meeting, something seemed to click. Someone produced a piece of paper that confirmed our data-driven horsepower measurement and that it was lacking.

By the morning, they had a plan for a major engine upgrade for the British Grand Prix. That, together with our aerodynamic upgrade, brought the car to life. More importantly, the drivers started to enjoy driving it because it gave them the confidence to push.

It was this problem that led to me leaving Jordan. Not because of Eddie, it was just the management group didn't understand all the things that made a car perform.

When I was under pressure and needed an arm around my shoulder, it just wasn't there. So I felt it was time to go.

I have given these two examples because I think there is a fair comparison to the current situation with Red Bull and McLaren.

Anderson reckons Red Bull-Renault is similar to 1998 Jordan-Mugen Honda © LAT

I think my 1998 problems, where we had a power deficit and a handling problem at the same time, are very much like the Red Bull-Renault situation. Its car is nowhere near as good as it has been over the past five seasons.

My 1992 nightmare with Yamaha is very similar to the McLaren situation.

It has gone from using the Mercedes engine in 2014, which you would have to say is a piece of fine art compared with the Honda for 2015. The Honda may have all the potential in world for the future, but it is time to see just that little step forward.

McLaren probably expected more than it has got from the might of Honda, but I would like to add that from day one of pre-season testing, the McLaren-Honda relationship appears to lack anyone taking control of the situation.

Here we are seven races into the season and I would say the same thing again: someone needs to grab the situation by the throat. McLaren on a good day should not be dicing with the back end of the midfield.

In the interests of F1 as a whole, drop this stupid engine-token regulation for 2016 and let everyone get on with what they are - or should be - good at, and build an engine that has the performance to be competitive.

It won't cost any more money. As a matter of fact it will probably save money because, for a car company like Renault, its performance and the slagging off it is getting from the teams using the engine definitely doesn't allow it to use F1 as a promotional tool.