How do you see the constant yo-yo-ing of rules in F1 - is it good or bad, say, that refuelling will come back, that tyre selection will be open? It just seems to me that F1 is on this cycle of coming and going.
Robert Pearson, via Facebook
Every race weekend F1 spends its time going around and around in circles and this seems to be contagious. I'm afraid the powers that be seem to have caught a double dose of it.
You are completely right in what you say. It frustrates me that no one seems to be able to think outside the box.
It's time for change to make the sport (a word I am using loosely) more exciting, but I don't think the changes should be the same old thing done slightly differently.
Any change in regulations will be very expensive; just look back to the work done pre-2009 by the Overtaking Working Group.
It was supposed to sort out all the overtaking problems, but in reality what did it do? Nothing but cost the teams a lot of money.
This time around it needs to work. There will be no second chances because if the changes are not in line with reducing budgets, as well as spicing up the show, then we will lose more of the smaller teams.
The group responsible for this (whoever they are) needs to think very carefully before implementing anything that, in the end, will be more expensive.
How will the proposal of bringing back customer cars affect the midfield teams? How can the survival of evocative names like Sauber be ensured?
Surendhar Muthu, via Facebook
I'm not a lover of customer cars because I believe every team needs its own identity within its own design.
The big question is could a team like Sauber buy and run a Ferrari, or Force India buy and run a Mercedes, with the same budget as they currently have?
The answer is very simply 'NO' - it will cost at least 50 per cent more, if not a lot more than that.
If the smaller teams get subsidised by whoever is classified as the potential suppliers, then that's OK. But why not just do that now with the power units?
There are many parts on an F1 car that, in reality, just don't add to the show and they could be standard components.
It works already with the side-impact structures, so why not do the same with uprights, axles, wheels, wheelnuts etc? Even have an internal front and rear crash structure that all the teams have to use that they can then cover with their own aerodynamic surfaces.
The list is endless. It would save a huge amount of money that currently goes into doing all the research required for each team to come up with its own design, even for components that make no real difference to the show.
You're a strong advocate of reducing aerodynamics to increase speed; surely increasing it is another way of allowing the rich teams to pull further ahead as they have more resources to pool into maximising any potential gains? It goes without saying that I don't believe this is the way forward...
John Potter, via Facebook
John, sorry but I think you have got the wrong end of the stick.
One of the changes that needs to be made is to reduce the overall downforce of these cars dramatically, while keeping the drag at current levels.
The loss of grip would then be recouped with wider and larger diameter tyres, which in turn will help to keep the drag levels up.
With this sort of change, the cars would be doing similar lap times and similar straightline speeds.
It would be more cost effective for the smaller teams because a larger percentage of the overall grip that the cars would have will come out of the back of the tyre supplier's truck, so in effect becomes the same for everyone.
But more importantly it would mean you can't spend your way to more grip.
It's difficult to understand what basis the latest Strategy Group decisions have been made on. How does F1 work out the effects of the changes it's made now - and how does that differ from your time in F1?
Marcus Stewart, via email
Marcus, the basic answer to your question is Mr Ecclestone will look at viewing figures and, while they are on the downward slope, he will fight for something to be done.
When Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger were killed at Imola in 1994, the FIA - driven by Bernie – set up the Technical Working Group.
Immediately after the accident, we were meeting weekly and then it went to monthly. But the main focus was on regulation changes on safety grounds.
I have to say that this group worked well and introduced changes that I believe led to some drivers out there today believing they are infallible.
As for other changes, such as the move from the normally-aspirated V8 engines to the current turbo V6 power units, I have no idea how that would come about without the engine manufacturers knowing they were going to be twice the price, and if they did know this, why did the FIA allow the wool to be pulled over its eyes by the manufacturers?
I mentioned above the research that the Overtaking Working Group did, which led to the changes for 2009 (pictured above). But it didn't do anything for the problem, it just cost the teams lots of money.
I read through the report and said that when a couple of hundred F1 design engineers get their hands on this, they will tear it to shreds.
Tear it to shreds they did.
What the hell is the FIA thinking in bringing back refuelling after so many pitlane incidents over the years? Remember the 1994 German GP? We all want safer grands prix – not fuel-related accidents.
Shane West, via Facebook
Shane, I will be very surprised and disappointed if this one sees the light of day. But as I said above, the people who make these decisions don't seem to be able to come up with anything new – they just bring back the old stuff time and again.
The reason refuelling disappeared was nothing to do with safety. It was because the rigs, and shipping them around the world, cost huge amounts of money.
Having said that, safety now needs to be the big concern and to be trying to reintroduce it and allow two or three-second pitstops is madness.
From my point of view, I would like to see fewer people involved in the pitstops to slow them down to around four or five seconds.
This would allow the viewer to actually see what's happening – or what has gone wrong – and still be a fantastic spectacle.
Has everyone forgotten that F1 ditched refuelling to prevent all passes from being done in the pitlane?
Malcolm Strachan, via Twitter
Malcolm, I completely agree with you. From my point of view, the cars need dramatic aerodynamic changes to allow them to run closer together, which will then mean that overtaking can be done on the track.
Just look at Barcelona; Lewis Hamilton in a car nearly a second a lap faster than Sebastian Vettel's Ferrari was unable to attack him on track.
He had to do it in the pits during the tyre stops. So bring back refuelling and what little track action we currently have will be gone forever.
If they make the cars look meaner, surely we will see 2008-style cars with lots of aero elements?
Stefan Ruitenberg, via Twitter
Stefan, I would like to see the cars having tidy body surfaces, but they can be made to look meaner with bigger tyres front and rear, and wider and lower, shorter-cord rear wings. There are lots of things that can be done.
I also don't think the team principals will accept the flicks and aero elements we saw in 2008 returning.
Most of these were actually removed to allow the teams to get more space for their sponsors' logos!
What are the challenges with the prep for the Monaco GP? Do teams have to run suspension, aero and engine maps specifically for this race due to the uniqueness of the circuit?
Luke Stevens, via Facebook
Luke, every circuit has its own set-up requirements, but Monaco is just that little bit more extreme.
More important than the set-up being honed to maximise the car's performance is the fact that it needs to give the driver confidence.
A confident driver around Monaco will find you more time than that last half-millimetre of ride height.
The grip level in Monaco is always very low, especially at the start of the event, so power delivery will need to be as smooth as possible, as will the ERS harvesting.
Because of the slow-speed nature of the track, drag is not so important as it is at other circuits, so the cars will run maximum downforce.
The car will run with slightly softer suspension settings to attempt to induce some mechanical grip.
It's important the car has a positive front end because you need to place it well on corner entry, otherwise you'll lose too much laptime with understeer.
Because of the camber on the road surface in various areas and the softer suspension, the ride heights – especially the front – will be raised slightly.
Normally the front ground clearance would be around 20mm; for Monaco it will be in the region of 30mm.
And, most importantly, you need to make sure you have enough steering lock for the Loews hairpin – around 14 degrees will be enough for most other circuits, but for Monaco you need around 20 degrees.
How do you see the constant yo-yo-ing of rules in F1 - is it good or bad, say, that refuelling will come back, that tyre selection will be open? It just seems to me that F1 is on this cycle of coming and going.
Robert Pearson, via Facebook
Every race weekend F1 spends its time going around and around in circles and this seems to be contagious. I'm afraid the powers that be seem to have caught a double dose of it.
You are completely right in what you say. It frustrates me that no one seems to be able to think outside the box.
It's time for change to make the sport (a word I am using loosely) more exciting, but I don't think the changes should be the same old thing done slightly differently.
Any change in regulations will be very expensive; just look back to the work done pre-2009 by the Overtaking Working Group.
It was supposed to sort out all the overtaking problems, but in reality what did it do? Nothing but cost the teams a lot of money.
This time around it needs to work. There will be no second chances because if the changes are not in line with reducing budgets, as well as spicing up the show, then we will lose more of the smaller teams.
The group responsible for this (whoever they are) needs to think very carefully before implementing anything that, in the end, will be more expensive.
How will the proposal of bringing back customer cars affect the midfield teams? How can the survival of evocative names like Sauber be ensured?
Surendhar Muthu, via Facebook
I'm not a lover of customer cars because I believe every team needs its own identity within its own design.
The big question is could a team like Sauber buy and run a Ferrari, or Force India buy and run a Mercedes, with the same budget as they currently have?
The answer is very simply 'NO' - it will cost at least 50 per cent more, if not a lot more than that.
If the smaller teams get subsidised by whoever is classified as the potential suppliers, then that's OK. But why not just do that now with the power units?
There are many parts on an F1 car that, in reality, just don't add to the show and they could be standard components.
It works already with the side-impact structures, so why not do the same with uprights, axles, wheels, wheelnuts etc? Even have an internal front and rear crash structure that all the teams have to use that they can then cover with their own aerodynamic surfaces.
The list is endless. It would save a huge amount of money that currently goes into doing all the research required for each team to come up with its own design, even for components that make no real difference to the show.
You're a strong advocate of reducing aerodynamics to increase speed; surely increasing it is another way of allowing the rich teams to pull further ahead as they have more resources to pool into maximising any potential gains? It goes without saying that I don't believe this is the way forward...
John Potter, via Facebook
John, sorry but I think you have got the wrong end of the stick.
One of the changes that needs to be made is to reduce the overall downforce of these cars dramatically, while keeping the drag at current levels.
The loss of grip would then be recouped with wider and larger diameter tyres, which in turn will help to keep the drag levels up.
With this sort of change, the cars would be doing similar lap times and similar straightline speeds.
It would be more cost effective for the smaller teams because a larger percentage of the overall grip that the cars would have will come out of the back of the tyre supplier's truck, so in effect becomes the same for everyone.
But more importantly it would mean you can't spend your way to more grip.
It's difficult to understand what basis the latest Strategy Group decisions have been made on. How does F1 work out the effects of the changes it's made now - and how does that differ from your time in F1?
Marcus Stewart, via email
Marcus, the basic answer to your question is Mr Ecclestone will look at viewing figures and, while they are on the downward slope, he will fight for something to be done.
When Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger were killed at Imola in 1994, the FIA - driven by Bernie – set up the Technical Working Group.
Immediately after the accident, we were meeting weekly and then it went to monthly. But the main focus was on regulation changes on safety grounds.
I have to say that this group worked well and introduced changes that I believe led to some drivers out there today believing they are infallible.
As for other changes, such as the move from the normally-aspirated V8 engines to the current turbo V6 power units, I have no idea how that would come about without the engine manufacturers knowing they were going to be twice the price, and if they did know this, why did the FIA allow the wool to be pulled over its eyes by the manufacturers?
I mentioned above the research that the Overtaking Working Group did, which led to the changes for 2009 (pictured above). But it didn't do anything for the problem, it just cost the teams lots of money.
I read through the report and said that when a couple of hundred F1 design engineers get their hands on this, they will tear it to shreds.
Tear it to shreds they did.
What the hell is the FIA thinking in bringing back refuelling after so many pitlane incidents over the years? Remember the 1994 German GP? We all want safer grands prix – not fuel-related accidents.
Shane West, via Facebook
Shane, I will be very surprised and disappointed if this one sees the light of day. But as I said above, the people who make these decisions don't seem to be able to come up with anything new – they just bring back the old stuff time and again.
The reason refuelling disappeared was nothing to do with safety. It was because the rigs, and shipping them around the world, cost huge amounts of money.
Having said that, safety now needs to be the big concern and to be trying to reintroduce it and allow two or three-second pitstops is madness.
From my point of view, I would like to see fewer people involved in the pitstops to slow them down to around four or five seconds.
This would allow the viewer to actually see what's happening – or what has gone wrong – and still be a fantastic spectacle.
Has everyone forgotten that F1 ditched refuelling to prevent all passes from being done in the pitlane?
Malcolm Strachan, via Twitter
Malcolm, I completely agree with you. From my point of view, the cars need dramatic aerodynamic changes to allow them to run closer together, which will then mean that overtaking can be done on the track.
Just look at Barcelona; Lewis Hamilton in a car nearly a second a lap faster than Sebastian Vettel's Ferrari was unable to attack him on track.
He had to do it in the pits during the tyre stops. So bring back refuelling and what little track action we currently have will be gone forever.
If they make the cars look meaner, surely we will see 2008-style cars with lots of aero elements?
Stefan Ruitenberg, via Twitter
Stefan, I would like to see the cars having tidy body surfaces, but they can be made to look meaner with bigger tyres front and rear, and wider and lower, shorter-cord rear wings. There are lots of things that can be done.
I also don't think the team principals will accept the flicks and aero elements we saw in 2008 returning.
Most of these were actually removed to allow the teams to get more space for their sponsors' logos!
What are the challenges with the prep for the Monaco GP? Do teams have to run suspension, aero and engine maps specifically for this race due to the uniqueness of the circuit?
Luke Stevens, via Facebook
Luke, every circuit has its own set-up requirements, but Monaco is just that little bit more extreme.
More important than the set-up being honed to maximise the car's performance is the fact that it needs to give the driver confidence.
A confident driver around Monaco will find you more time than that last half-millimetre of ride height.
The grip level in Monaco is always very low, especially at the start of the event, so power delivery will need to be as smooth as possible, as will the ERS harvesting.
Because of the slow-speed nature of the track, drag is not so important as it is at other circuits, so the cars will run maximum downforce.
The car will run with slightly softer suspension settings to attempt to induce some mechanical grip.
It's important the car has a positive front end because you need to place it well on corner entry, otherwise you'll lose too much laptime with understeer.
Because of the camber on the road surface in various areas and the softer suspension, the ride heights – especially the front – will be raised slightly.
Normally the front ground clearance would be around 20mm; for Monaco it will be in the region of 30mm.
And, most importantly, you need to make sure you have enough steering lock for the Loews hairpin – around 14 degrees will be enough for most other circuits, but for Monaco you need around 20 degrees.
