How to stop dominance in F1

What is your take on the Mercedes dominance? I'm fed up with all the negative comments about it.
Mike Farr, via email

Both the Mercedes engine and chassis groups have done an excellent job. Ross Brawn was the instigator of the staffing structure that he believed was necessary to overpower the Red Bull dominance of 2010-13. Unfortunately, he was replaced before the benefits of his guidance unfolded.

We should also remember he was the man behind Michael Schumacher's dominance at Benetton and then at Ferrari, so he knows how to do it.

When a chassis or engine manufacturer gets it right they usually dominate for a reasonable period. This has been the case for years and I am sure it will continue to happen, but I do worry about the gap.

It is not Mercedes' fault that the rest got it so wrong, but with the power unit regulations so tightly controlled it will be difficult for the others to catch up.

In the interests of F1, Mercedes should relent and, if this silly development-token thing is to continue, it should allow - via the FIA - the other manufacturers extra tokens.

Or we could go way out wacky and have an engine championship. Points would be scored by each power unit's race position and at the end of the season adjusted so no one got an advantage from supplying additional teams.

Say Mercedes has 600 points, divide this by how many cars it supplies (eight), you end up with 75 points per car - with the same approach for each manufacturer.

Then allocate tokens to reflect the points difference between them. So right now, Honda would get lots of tokens and Mercedes none.

As an added bonus, it is important to supply the smaller teams that will score very few points because they still count as an allocated engine supply.

Thierry Boutsen was the last Belgian to take a grand prix win, and I always wondered why his career faded away so rapidly after his Williams heydays. As you worked with him during his last F1 stint, I'd like to know what he was like during the 1993 season, and what exactly made him retire after the Belgian GP? The same question could of course be asked about Ivan Capelli, who had been such a revelation in the Leyton House cars.
Thomas Freres, via email

When Thierry Boutsen joined us he was heading for the end of his career. He came to us because we were sponsored by Barclay, who were Belgian, and as we were not having a great season, it was felt that a Belgian driver would ease the pain and might actually bring us some experience.

When he first tested for us at Silverstone in a car in which he was really cramped, he did a good job. We then made a chassis with a little more room in it but I never saw that same commitment again.

In those days, motor racing was a lot more dangerous than it currently is, so if you decide you just don't want to take those risks anymore it is better to hang up your helmet.

His retirement after Spa was well-timed, he had lost his motivation and the time was right.

As for Ivan Capelli, I don't think he ever recovered from banging his head on the wall at the exit of Turn 4 in Canada in the Ferrari in 1992. Also, being Italian and going from driving for Ferrari to driving for Jordan is a big comedown and difficult to live with.

It seems these days that the technology is all-dominating and the drivers are too little a part of the winning equation. What can be done to put more emphasis on driving skill?
Al Gordon, via email

I agree, but to achieve what you are requesting means stepping backwards and no one ever wants to do that.

So what we need is a set of regulations that allows the driver to show their true talent.

I think the Prost/Senna days are a good example of this. Ayrton Senna could just find that extra bit of laptime when it counted most, but Alain Prost would put his effort into the car set-up and he would find the laptime that way.

Getting a set of regulations that means the car technology does not overpower the driver's talent is not easy but it must be done. I get fed up when everyone talks about changes that are in one week and out the next.

They need to detach themselves from the hype of the event and sit at home with the TV on - they might just realise it isn't the cliff-face action they think it is.

Hi Gary, I'm curious as to why with all the ideas coming out on how to improve the spectacle of F1, I haven't heard or read anything about the possibility of making it mandatory for the teams to make two pitstops within the race? It's already mandatory for the teams to run both compounds of tyres, so why not just make it mandatory for teams to pit twice? Would that not spice up the show strategically speaking, as well as mitigate some of the need for the drivers to baby the tyres?
Eugene Seatter, via email

Your idea would reduce the risk to, as you say, 'baby' the tyres but the problem would be where do you stop? If two makes it better then people will say we should have three.

It is great for the real fans to see how a different strategy works out in the end but during that period the race can be very confusing for the viewer and spectator. It goes into a sort of non-event period and that is when most people head out to mow the lawn.

I think the majority of fans, viewers, spectators and even those involved want to see the racing done on the track. With that in mind the technical regulations need to be altered to allow close racing, the tyres need to be robust enough to withstand close racing, and the sporting regulations need to induce and allow close racing.

At the moment if two cars so much as kiss each other one of the drivers stands a good chance of getting some sort of penalty. That does nothing to encourage racing or overtaking.

Why do you think Honda has made such slow progress in developing its energy-recovery system?
@TheWheelspinner, via Twitter

I have worked with many different engine manufacturers and the Japanese are one of the toughest.

Their biggest downfall, though to some extent it is an asset, is that they have a clear plan. If that plan is correct, they will be the best at what they do. If it is not correct, they don't have a mechanism that allows them to save face and change direction.

I have said since the first McLaren-Honda test last year that someone needs to stand up and take hold of this project because they were all being far too nice with each other. I still don't see anybody doing that.

A number of drivers complain about brakes when following other cars, would movable brake-cooling ducts be possible?
@StegTheDinosaur, via Twitter

The problem with the brakes is self-inflicted.

If teams fit larger brake-cooling ducts then you loose a bit of downforce. So they try to get away with the minimum opening possible, allowing them to have bigger and better turning vanes on the brake ducts to create downforce.

These downforce-producing devices on the brake ducts would be the first thing I would ban. They are actually illegal within the rules as they are currently written, but this is part of the problem that has allowed F1 to get to where it is today.

The rules are not enforced. Take, for example, 'the driver must drive the car alone and unaided'.

If I am given some maths questions, a pencil and paper and told to come up with the answers I have to do it alone and unaided.

If I am given some maths questions, a calculator, a pencil and paper and told to come up with the answers am I doing it alone and unaided?

Yes, I have to press the right buttons on the calculator but the answer is not coming from me, it is coming from the calculator.

This is exactly what the driver does during a gear change. He pulls the right switch and then everything else is done by the computer.

Enforce the rules that exist and a lot of the current problems will disappear.

Is there a realistic chance that DRS will be dropped when the new rules come in 2017?
Calum Edward, via Twitter

I can only hope so.

The DRS is a bandage on the fact that cars cannot run closely without losing too much downforce. This is what needs to be fixed.

Remember, when the new aerodynamic rules came in for 2009 we also had a driver-adjustable front wing.

This was to allow for the loss of front downforce when following another car. It is a very good example of introducing maximum complication to solve a simple problem.

Get the basics right and the rest will look after itself.

Craig Scarborough suggested an axial compressor for Honda's power unit. What are pros and cons of an axial compressor?
@eggry, via Twitter

I don't profess to know the difference in efficiency between an axial and a turbine compressor, but what I do know is that a huge amount of development by many companies for many years has gone into the turbine version of a turbo.

Honda doesn't need to reinvent the wheel and if I was involved in the design specification of the Honda power unit, an axial compressor would have dropped off the bottom of the list very quickly.

I can only comment on what Craig has suggested, but I must admit I am surprised if they have gone down this route.

Got a question for our next ASK GARY feature? Email it to us via askgary@autosport.com or tweet it using the hashtag #askgaryF1