Should Mercedes just drop Bottas for Ocon now?

Do you think Mercedes should just bite the bullet and replace Valtteri Bottas with Esteban Ocon for 2019? Not sure if Mercedes will need a 'wingman' for the increased challenge of 2019.
Guy Dormehl, via Twitter

I must admit that if I was involved with Mercedes it would be a difficult thing not to do.

I am a Bottas fan but I expected a lot more from him. Year one was OK and it was acceptable, but even then compared to Hamilton he had too many poor weekends. Then, in 2018, it actually got worse when everyone was expecting more.

I do think most of this was because Hamilton found another gear as opposed to Bottas dropping off, but no matter the reason Bottas should have performed better.

To win the constructors' championship, which is the important one for the team, you need two cars scoring big points regularly otherwise someone else will. Ferrari, with Sebastian Vettel and Charles Leclerc, and Red Bull with Max Verstappen and Pierre Gasly, will again be tough competition. But they have new drivers in their camps which throws a question mark over them - if they fit in quickly then the pressure will be on.

If Bottas is to survive with Mercedes then he needs to up his game - and quickly. He will need to pull in some big results before F1 hits the first European race of 2019, otherwise I can see him being replaced.

Everyone keeps talking about how brilliant Lewis Hamilton was this year, but isn't he just a very good driver in an excellent car - one that any top driver could have such a season in?
Maxime Bernard, via email

Yes Lewis is a very good driver in a very good car, but then so is Valtteri Bottas and we all saw how he performed with the same equipment.

It is always difficult to separate the driver and chassis performance but qualifying is more down to the driver. As long as the chassis has a reasonable balance with the new tyres, then that one-lap performance is about maximising the grip available, while the race is more about the chassis and how the balance affects tyre degradation.

With 83 pole positions, 73 race wins and five drivers' world championships to his credit, I don't think you can question that Hamilton is at the top of his game. Could any of the other top drivers have knocked him off his perch?

Possibly, but then that is what competition is all about. Until we get a match-up of, say, Max Verstappen and Hamilton in the same team, then I'm afraid we will have to accept that the best will always gravitate to the best and that is why Hamilton and Mercedes are both at the top together.

More and more people, including you, suggest that the amount of data available for the teams should be limited. What do you think about possibly limiting the number of (engine, brake, perhaps wing and suspension) settings and modes, so that the teams couldn't fine-tune the cars as much as they do now and driving technique would be more important? Or would it have a counter effect and increase the gap between the teams?
Joszef Gerse, via email

I think you are right, it would separate the big boys from the midfield - although there is very little way of stopping that because the big teams will always find the best way to get around any restrictions thrown at them.

My suggestion on reduced data access was to give the driver and their engineer more initial input into the set-up of the car. By doing that, hopefully there will be more set-up errors leading to some more variable results.

We all love it, but in reality it is a ridiculous situation that a new young driver can come into Formula 1 and in year one make the impression that they now can. We are at a point where experience counts for more or less nothing, and that shouldn't be the case.

Why did the McLaren-Mercedes sound so pitchy in the early 2000s? Was it down the longer stroke of the engine, or was it because Adrian Newey already back then was blowing the diffuser, and creating this extremely special exhaust note?
Rasmus Guidberg, via Twitter

Exhaust blowing has always been something that has happened and I'm pretty sure if it was possible during that era then Adrian would have been up to it.

The bore and stroke would normally only change the rpm that the engine can run to. A longer stroke means lower rpm but with the smaller bore there will be a more efficient fuel burn. Shorter stroke will allow higher rpm, but with the bigger bore and the higher rpm it is more difficult to get all the fuel to burn.

That all combines with the exhaust lengths and diameter, larger diameter and shorter exhaust pipes gives more top end power, smaller diameter and longer more mid-range torque.

It's really a lot more complicated than that but as you can see all of the different parameters means that you can sort of play tunes (no pun intended) with the exhaust note. That, combined with, if possible, using smaller diameter exhaust tailpipes to increase the exhaust gas speed to help with any exhaust blowing means a nice high-pitch exhaust note.

We can all dream that this ear-piercing noise returns to F1, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

If I gave you a £100million budget and total technical freedom could you make a faster car than the current Mercedes? In other words could we have a faster, noisier spectacle for a sustainable budget that wouldn't need endless cheques from carmakers to keep the sport alive?
Phil Lee, via Twitter

Phil, why don't you give me £100m and I'll see what I can do!

The simple answer is yes. If you had technical freedom of both the chassis and power unit configuration, you could build a faster and noisier car - and of the type that would work well for wheel-to-wheel racing.

Actually, in the last three years I have had three different people approach me to do exactly that and my answer has been 'yes'. But it's what happens next that is the big challenge.

You need to be able to build a rules formula around it, get at least 10 two-car teams running them, get the backing of the governing body, get the circuits involved to create a championship and then maintain it for quite a few years until it stabilises.

None of this is easy and as we have seen with many different formula creations, the challenge is getting sustained investment.

Carlos Sainz Jr recently talked about leading the McLaren team next year. What does it actually mean for a team to have a 'lead' driver - can they make much difference and what can they do to make life easier for a technical director?
Antonio Fernandez, via email

Remember the last time McLaren had an experienced Spanish driver to lead the team and a rookie British driver as his team-mate back in 2007? It didn't all turn out as planned and that young rookie went on to do great things.

As for your question, it is important to be able to focus your development direction on what the drivers want from the car. If they are always complaining about the stability of the rear of the car under braking then you need to focus on that area. You then need to correlate your changes with the driver's feelings.

As a team, you hopefully have two drivers that want the same from the car but that is not always possible. Some drivers can live with, and even like, the rear of the car to being that little bit nervous. Some can live with and like a little bit of understeer but others, like Kimi Raikkonen for example, hate understeer.

No driver actually leads the team. It is up to the team to interpret drivers' feedback and react as required.

Do you think that if CFD development time can be reduced or regulated, we can have more surprises at the track and closer battles?
Tono Villalobos, via Twitter

It is already regulated, as is windtunnel time. These are very expensive pieces of equipment and there is nothing more wasteful than having an expensive piece of equipment doing nothing. They either need to be used as required or banned completely.

As I said above, the big teams will always find ways around any restrictions. They have more people than the smaller teams, and if you take a general cross section they have twice as many - so why should a smaller team do a better job with half the workforce?

How interested are you in the technology in Formula E? It seems this is one of the few genuinely battlegrounds in motorsport for technical innovations these days? Do you expect a fierce development war this season?
David Martin, via email

I am interested in any form of motorsport and Formula E is just another formula. Having almost been run over by a Toyota Prius under electric power while at a fuel station, I am not a fan of the no noise thing.

Formula E has as many, if not more, restrictions as Formula 1 and in reality it is a one-make formula in terms of the cars - and that is where it needs to be careful. Opening up the restrictions will increase budgets dramatically and I don't think it could sustain itself if it did that.

With the manufacturers now involved, it will be interesting to see which way it will go. They can either make it or break it, so the next two to three years will be interesting.

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