My favourite F1 cars include the Jordan 196 and the Ferrari F310, both of which had distinctive sidepod shapes. Can you talk about the design choices that led to the unique 'double-intake' sidepod design on the Jordan? Do you see such unorthodox designs returning in upcoming seasons, like how the F310-style sidepods came back on the McLaren MP4-26?
Mohammad Khajah, via email
Neither of these cars was the best on the grid, but at least they were different.
To answer your last question first, I don't think you will see this type of design again. The regulations have such tight control that this sort of thing is just not possible.
What led to the design is a little more difficult to explain, but I'll have a go.
The cooling of an F1 car is always a compromise - a very important compromise but a compromise nevertheless.
As a very rough guide, the inlet area needs to be in the region of 18% of the radiator core area and the exit area needs to be about 25% of the radiator core area. If you have this, and the internal radiator ducting is efficient, you will have reasonable flow through the radiator.
These areas need to be set very early in the design. To do this, a team would look at the average car speed for all the circuits and come up with a season-average car speed. At this speed, you want the radiator to flow at its optimum design versus cooling airflow.
For slower circuits, a team will open up the exit cooling but this will make the car less efficient. For faster circuits, it will close down the exit cooling, making the car more efficient.
However, as the car speed increases the radiator cannot flow all the air that is being introduced to it, so you get airflow spillage around the leading edge of the radiator inlet.
The inlet design and the sidepod design need to manage this without adversely affecting the downforce-producing devices.
If the inlet is too small, the car will not cool well enough at low speeds. If it is too big, it will have more spillage to manage.
The same is true of the exit. Too small and it will not cool and the inlet spillage will be higher, too big and it will be draggy.
This is what led me to the tall twin-radiator inlet. I am sure it was similar for Ferrari.
Who has the better shot at achieving success first: Ferrari or Renault? Both seem in disarray...
Tim Ceuppens, via Twitter
Tim, you are correct. They are both in disarray, but Ferrari has the strongest base from which to achieve success sooner.
By success, I mean to run competitively with whoever is leading the bunch. But regarding Ferrari achieving the kind of dominance we've seen from Red Bull or Mercedes in recent times, I think we are a long way from seeing that happen.
Renault is not a proper race team at the moment, for all the strengths that remain from Enstone's glory days. It has a lot to learn about how everything fits together and there seem to be power struggles going on. The management are all employees and all fighting to get recognised.
It will take time to go through this process, and requires a few tough decisions. But I'm not convinced I can see who will make such decisions because the people who should be doing that would also be the ones to suffer as a consequence.
Now that F1 engines last four races, could they actually last that distance without a break, like in the Bathurst 1000km race?
Marty P, via Twitter
I don't see why not. They might need to be run with slightly different oil, as the lubricant might need to be of a higher viscosity and consistency, and/or slightly better control over oil and water temperatures.
But other than that, I'm sure the power unit as we know it is pretty much bulletproof. Other than the ones that Mercedes fits to Lewis Hamilton's car, of course! (That's a joke, for anyone prone to believing conspiracy theories.)
Will the wider tyres for 2017 make pitstops harder due to increased weight and size?
Stephen McEvoy, via Twitter
Stephen, it will make a difference as they will be a lot clumsier. With 20 people around a car there is not much space to work in, so everyone will have to be that little bit further away from what they are trying to do.
As far as the weight is concerned, the guys doing the pitstops are well trained in what they do, so I don't see a big difference here. But it certainly won't be easier.
I'm sure we'll see a few more mistakes in the early part of the season, but they will get ironed out fairly quickly.
What different challenges do the wider tyres for 2017 pose, not just in terms of the airflow, but suspension set-up, contact patch, balance etc?
David Curtis, via email
The cars are also wider, so the internal blockage will not be adversely affected. The front wing is wider so how that deals with moving the airflow around the outside of the front wheels will not change dramatically.
Basically, it's like slicing a current car vertically through the centre of the front and rear tyre and moving it out by the permitted overall width change.
The increased tyre width will increase the overall aerodynamic drag. The tyres are responsible for about 35% of the overall drag of the car so this will increase.
More important - with larger, potentially higher grip, tyres - will be how the teams go about accepting the aerodynamic compromise that will be necessary to make sure that the tyre contact patch is optimised.
There is no point in having higher-grip tyres that are with you no matter what the car speed is, if you compromise that too much for aerodynamic gains.
It's a bit like when we had the V8 or V10 engines. Aerodynamics dominated and the cooling systems were minimised for aerodynamic reasons.
Now, with the power-unit regulations, the priorities have changed and getting the best out of it has taken priority, so the cooling systems have more inlet and exit ducts than an octopus.
Is the 100kg fuel limit for the race alone, or also for the formation lap etc? Will the increase to 105kg next year result in less fuel saving?
Jes G Knudsen, via Twitter
The 100kg is from the lights going out to the chequered flag. The car can carry more fuel for the formation lap or laps to the grid but can only use 100kg during the race.
The 105kg for next year will not be a big change because, as I said above, the drag of the car will be higher because of the extra width of both the body and the tyres, so that extra 5kg will get eaten up by that.
There is a lot of talk about the value of weight in terms of lap time. Do you have an estimate about (sprung) weight influence for a non-wing Formula 3 car around the time of your Anson SA2? What would a difference of 20kg induce?
Roland D Wiltschegg, via email
Roland, weight always has and always will have an influence on the performance of anything that is propelled by a given level of energy.
A typical F1 car that has a consistent balance to weight will be around 0.3 seconds slower per lap for every 10kg. So from qualifying to the first lap of the race, when 100kg is added, the cars should be three seconds slower. Normally, they are even slower because the car and tyres are driven with a bit more care and attention.
With less power and less powerful brakes, the deficit on an F3 car should be higher but to get a true delta the car needs to be consistently driven at the top end of its performance limit.
Half a second for 10kg wouldn't surprise me, and when I look back I think that's why I took up engineering as opposed to driving - I was always a big chap!
Can you explain peaky versus broader aero maps? Does peaky downforce always mean a narrower operating window and higher sensitivity, and does a broader map give you more downforce over a wider range, and by how much? Can a peaky aero map be flattened out without sacrificing too much downforce or must there be a proportionate decrease in downforce?
Pete Bukovca, via email
Pete, you are correct: peaky downforce means a narrower working window, especially as far as ride heights are concerned.
If you have peaky downforce, you have to control the car much more, leading to stiffer springs and less car movement, so compromising the use of kerbs and potential low-speed mechanical grip.
It's the average downforce that is important, not the peaks. If you do your initial simulation with an artificial linear aero map and get the front and rear spring stiffness to suit the best braking and traction, then that will give you a ride-height range that the car will go through over a given lap.
Then the aerodynamic group will start work to get the best average downforce over that ride-height range.
Achieve this and you will have a good car; improve the overall average level of downforce and you will have a better car.
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
My favourite F1 cars include the Jordan 196 and the Ferrari F310, both of which had distinctive sidepod shapes. Can you talk about the design choices that led to the unique 'double-intake' sidepod design on the Jordan? Do you see such unorthodox designs returning in upcoming seasons, like how the F310-style sidepods came back on the McLaren MP4-26?
Mohammad Khajah, via email
Neither of these cars was the best on the grid, but at least they were different.
To answer your last question first, I don't think you will see this type of design again. The regulations have such tight control that this sort of thing is just not possible.
What led to the design is a little more difficult to explain, but I'll have a go.
The cooling of an F1 car is always a compromise - a very important compromise but a compromise nevertheless.
As a very rough guide, the inlet area needs to be in the region of 18% of the radiator core area and the exit area needs to be about 25% of the radiator core area. If you have this, and the internal radiator ducting is efficient, you will have reasonable flow through the radiator.
These areas need to be set very early in the design. To do this, a team would look at the average car speed for all the circuits and come up with a season-average car speed. At this speed, you want the radiator to flow at its optimum design versus cooling airflow.
For slower circuits, a team will open up the exit cooling but this will make the car less efficient. For faster circuits, it will close down the exit cooling, making the car more efficient.
However, as the car speed increases the radiator cannot flow all the air that is being introduced to it, so you get airflow spillage around the leading edge of the radiator inlet.
The inlet design and the sidepod design need to manage this without adversely affecting the downforce-producing devices.
If the inlet is too small, the car will not cool well enough at low speeds. If it is too big, it will have more spillage to manage.
The same is true of the exit. Too small and it will not cool and the inlet spillage will be higher, too big and it will be draggy.
This is what led me to the tall twin-radiator inlet. I am sure it was similar for Ferrari.
Who has the better shot at achieving success first: Ferrari or Renault? Both seem in disarray...
Tim Ceuppens, via Twitter
Tim, you are correct. They are both in disarray, but Ferrari has the strongest base from which to achieve success sooner.
By success, I mean to run competitively with whoever is leading the bunch. But regarding Ferrari achieving the kind of dominance we've seen from Red Bull or Mercedes in recent times, I think we are a long way from seeing that happen.
Renault is not a proper race team at the moment, for all the strengths that remain from Enstone's glory days. It has a lot to learn about how everything fits together and there seem to be power struggles going on. The management are all employees and all fighting to get recognised.
It will take time to go through this process, and requires a few tough decisions. But I'm not convinced I can see who will make such decisions because the people who should be doing that would also be the ones to suffer as a consequence.
Now that F1 engines last four races, could they actually last that distance without a break, like in the Bathurst 1000km race?
Marty P, via Twitter
I don't see why not. They might need to be run with slightly different oil, as the lubricant might need to be of a higher viscosity and consistency, and/or slightly better control over oil and water temperatures.
But other than that, I'm sure the power unit as we know it is pretty much bulletproof. Other than the ones that Mercedes fits to Lewis Hamilton's car, of course! (That's a joke, for anyone prone to believing conspiracy theories.)
Will the wider tyres for 2017 make pitstops harder due to increased weight and size?
Stephen McEvoy, via Twitter
Stephen, it will make a difference as they will be a lot clumsier. With 20 people around a car there is not much space to work in, so everyone will have to be that little bit further away from what they are trying to do.
As far as the weight is concerned, the guys doing the pitstops are well trained in what they do, so I don't see a big difference here. But it certainly won't be easier.
I'm sure we'll see a few more mistakes in the early part of the season, but they will get ironed out fairly quickly.
What different challenges do the wider tyres for 2017 pose, not just in terms of the airflow, but suspension set-up, contact patch, balance etc?
David Curtis, via email
The cars are also wider, so the internal blockage will not be adversely affected. The front wing is wider so how that deals with moving the airflow around the outside of the front wheels will not change dramatically.
Basically, it's like slicing a current car vertically through the centre of the front and rear tyre and moving it out by the permitted overall width change.
The increased tyre width will increase the overall aerodynamic drag. The tyres are responsible for about 35% of the overall drag of the car so this will increase.
More important - with larger, potentially higher grip, tyres - will be how the teams go about accepting the aerodynamic compromise that will be necessary to make sure that the tyre contact patch is optimised.
There is no point in having higher-grip tyres that are with you no matter what the car speed is, if you compromise that too much for aerodynamic gains.
It's a bit like when we had the V8 or V10 engines. Aerodynamics dominated and the cooling systems were minimised for aerodynamic reasons.
Now, with the power-unit regulations, the priorities have changed and getting the best out of it has taken priority, so the cooling systems have more inlet and exit ducts than an octopus.
Is the 100kg fuel limit for the race alone, or also for the formation lap etc? Will the increase to 105kg next year result in less fuel saving?
Jes G Knudsen, via Twitter
The 100kg is from the lights going out to the chequered flag. The car can carry more fuel for the formation lap or laps to the grid but can only use 100kg during the race.
The 105kg for next year will not be a big change because, as I said above, the drag of the car will be higher because of the extra width of both the body and the tyres, so that extra 5kg will get eaten up by that.
There is a lot of talk about the value of weight in terms of lap time. Do you have an estimate about (sprung) weight influence for a non-wing Formula 3 car around the time of your Anson SA2? What would a difference of 20kg induce?
Roland D Wiltschegg, via email
Roland, weight always has and always will have an influence on the performance of anything that is propelled by a given level of energy.
A typical F1 car that has a consistent balance to weight will be around 0.3 seconds slower per lap for every 10kg. So from qualifying to the first lap of the race, when 100kg is added, the cars should be three seconds slower. Normally, they are even slower because the car and tyres are driven with a bit more care and attention.
With less power and less powerful brakes, the deficit on an F3 car should be higher but to get a true delta the car needs to be consistently driven at the top end of its performance limit.
Half a second for 10kg wouldn't surprise me, and when I look back I think that's why I took up engineering as opposed to driving - I was always a big chap!
Can you explain peaky versus broader aero maps? Does peaky downforce always mean a narrower operating window and higher sensitivity, and does a broader map give you more downforce over a wider range, and by how much? Can a peaky aero map be flattened out without sacrificing too much downforce or must there be a proportionate decrease in downforce?
Pete Bukovca, via email
Pete, you are correct: peaky downforce means a narrower working window, especially as far as ride heights are concerned.
If you have peaky downforce, you have to control the car much more, leading to stiffer springs and less car movement, so compromising the use of kerbs and potential low-speed mechanical grip.
It's the average downforce that is important, not the peaks. If you do your initial simulation with an artificial linear aero map and get the front and rear spring stiffness to suit the best braking and traction, then that will give you a ride-height range that the car will go through over a given lap.
Then the aerodynamic group will start work to get the best average downforce over that ride-height range.
Achieve this and you will have a good car; improve the overall average level of downforce and you will have a better car.
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
