Has part-time Newey been Red Bull's problem?

Red Bull is now talking about Adrian Newey increasing his involvement in F1. Is the fact it seems to have a part-timer leading the way technically the reason for it struggling?
Mark Davis, via email

I believe Red Bull had hoped that a structure had been created to work with Adrian's reduced input. But clearly, this has not worked.

Adrian wanted to cut back as he felt the pre-2017 regulations were far too restrictive, but I would have thought that the changes for this season would have re-stoked his fire. After all, 90% of them were in the aerodynamic specification, which is Newey's specialist subject.

Adrian wanted to build his ultimate road car, which Red Bull is doing in conjunction with Aston Martin. But during the concept stages for the 2017 F1 car, his time was obviously limited. You can't be in two places at once and it is difficult to switch into a different mental direction overnight.

Formula 1 is about commitment and it is impossible to design and build a competitive car around ever-more-complicated regulations without that. Red Bull should have understood this from the beginning of the concept stage of the 2017 car, and this is where Newey would have been best placed.

There were probably worries that with him being disillusioned with where F1 had gone over the last few seasons, he might just have walked off into the sunset, built that dream car with Aston Martin and spent some of his well-earned cash.

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has been fairly vocal in saying that the team specifically decided to build a low-drag package. But all of the successes of the past came from designs that simply had more downforce than others, and this was at the price of high-drag cars that were slow on the straights.

Those cars were still all winners, and that philosophy is still the winning formula.

Now he is saying that Red Bull got led astray with the initial tyre testing with Pirelli.

A team of Red Bull's standing should have the equipment around it to ensure it can reduce the risks of guesswork. Take Force India, for example; it has probably one third of the budget, one third of the simulation equipment, one third of the staff but can still come out fighting in its class.

That's because the guys and girls there are totally focused on what they are there to do.

To help close up the grid, should all teams' technical and aero data become 'public info' at the end of the year?
@MuddyTalkerF1

I'm pretty sure there is something in this suggestion. I'm also pretty sure the top teams would put up a good fight to make sure it didn't happen. But somewhere in the middle, there might just be a reasonable compromise.

As an example, the Honda engine is obviously struggling and Mercedes has sort of offered to assist it with some level of consultancy. As we only have four power unit manufacturers currently in F1, this could just be an area to start from. It is also a way of reducing engine manufacturing costs, which after all are crippling for most teams.

As for the teams and their performance, at each circuit very sophisticated GPS data is used and most teams know exactly where they stand against their opposition. It is just a question of admitting it to yourself and trying to work out which direction to go in to reduce that gap.

Some level of chassis data may help level the performance across the grid, but aerodynamically nothing works in isolation - it is a package. Fitting a Ferrari front wing to a Toro Rosso would initially be detrimental, and many of the other components would have to be optimised around its airflow characteristics. So I'm afraid, chassis wise, it wouldn't be easy.

New engine regs are coming, but I can't see V12 or full electric. Can the new engine be cheap while maintaining hybrid elements?
@eggry, via Twitter

I think what we have now is here for the foreseeable future. Yes, there will be tweaks to reduce the power from the fossil fuel side of the package and increase the electrical outputs and different ways of energy harvesting, but I'm afraid the days of the screaming ear-shattering devices are long gone.

Whatever direction the new regulations go in, there also needs to be a total cost built into those regulations so that a power unit manufacturer can only charge 'x' for a season's supply.

We have heard plenty about talk about cost capping, but I believe this is wrong. For example, if Red Bull spends $300million and Force India spends $100m, where would you set the cost cap? If it was set at $100m, Force India doesn't save any money but the bigger spenders who don't need the reduction would find it very difficult.

Doing something for the supply of the engines would be one of the easiest things to police. If, for example Force India, continued its agreement with Mercedes the money passing between the two companies could only be 'x' - I would suggest 50% of what it currently is.

Liberty Media and Ross Brawn could show their commitment to improving F1 by getting their teeth stuck into that.

Why are Stoffel Vandoorne and Lance Stroll struggling so much this year? Is it down to the increased physicality of the cars or is it something more?
Zac Misrani, via email

I would put it down to the packages that they are driving not being confidence-inspiring and, in Vandoorne's case, not reliable enough.

As professional racing drivers, they should be up there with their fitness requirements, so the extra physical requirements for this year's cars shouldn't be hampering them.

Both of them are driving like the next lap might just be their last. To get into the rhythm you need to build your confidence.

In Vandoorne's case, he hasn't had the reliability and he is now starting to show a little bit of frustration. Not publicly (yet), but Barcelona would have been hard to take: Fernando Alonso qualifying seventh while he was at the back and then a very silly mistake eliminating him from the race and earning him a penalty. Vandoorne will have gone home from that race with a lot to think about.

In Stroll's case he doesn't look like he is someone willing to dedicate the time to building his confidence.

Felipe Massa is quick and has qualified well this season. I think Stroll is trying to match his performance far too early. He needs to sacrifice half a season, keep his nose clean, learn from Massa but not try to emulate him just yet and build his confidence for when he is more comfortable in his environment.

Once he has created that base, he can get back to trying to beat his team-mate.

Which one had the most important effect on Alonso qualifying seventh in Spain - McLaren upgrades or Honda ones?
Erkan Kapi, via Twitter

That is a very good question. I am assuming that the cars for Alonso and Vandoorne were the same specification at Barcelona, and if they were then there was a big difference in their individual performances.

I have found that on many occasions the driver can make up a bit for a lack of chassis performance, but I have never found one yet that can make up for a deficit of power.

So looking at it this way, I think the main ingredient that led to that seventh was the guy behind the steering wheel. Yes, both McLaren and Honda will have had upgrades, but then why did Vandoorne never look like getting near Q3?

Alonso was at his home race in Spain, so yes you could expect him to find that little bit more. But that means that he is giving something away at all the other races. If there is time in there, then you should be getting it out of the package at all the events.

What do you think of Alonso's progress at Indianapolis? He made the pole position shootout and seems to have taken to it like a duck to water.
David Atkins, via email

I think it is fantastic. Qualifying fifth is a very impressive effort. I think F1 has worn him down, he hasn't made too many good decisions team-wise of late and the performance of Ferrari must annoy him slightly.

He has taken to Indianapolis like a duck to water, as you say, but I believe that's because he has a spring in his step over there. He is not weighed down with expectations, but the real job starts now.

Practice and qualifying are one thing, the race something very different. In practice, if the balance of the car doesn't feel right, you just lift and come into the pits and do a set-up change.

In qualifying, you are committed to those four laps and you need to drive the car within its potential. He has done a fantastic job, so a big pat on the back for that.

But next up comes the race. Heading into Turn 1 on that first lap with a clear vision of the four or so cars ahead of or around you is one thing, but there are 28 others coming up behind and they are the ones you need to be aware of. One little mistake and it can be all over very quickly.

Each stint in the race is around 35 laps, so if the balance isn't as you like then you either white-knuckle it, which can lead to a Sebastien Bourdais style accident, or you just lose a lot of time and positions by nursing it; it's your decision.

As I said, I believe he is enjoying it and Indy is a fresh approach. The driver still counts much more than in F1, which is now all data and engineering driven.

Do things like the paint on cars, in terms of weight, friction, smoothness etc, have an impact on a car's performance aerodynamically and what do teams do to minimise any disadvantage?
John O'Sullivan, via email

Weight, no matter where it comes from, will always be a penalty. On an average circuit, 10kg extra will cost you 0.3 seconds, so every team will do its level best to minimise the penalty of the weight of the paint.

Surface friction is also something that teams work on, but with such complicated aerodynamic surfaces it is very difficult to see a benefit. On something like an aeroplane, which is fairly uniform, benefits are there to be had.

Smoothness is something that can alter the car dramatically - even the thickness of a sticker can alter the airflow. You will see the teams taping over the body joints with a see-through tape, which is because the thickness of that tape is more uniform than the potential small steps in the body joints. So this just gives that little bit more consistent airflow over the car.

Teams have even used tape strategically placed to improve the airflow separation characteristics of the underside of the front wing.

Why is there no exclusion zone in the design regulations where T-wings are mounted by all the cars? Why was it left as a space designers can do anything with while other areas of the car are heavily regulated?
Haris Malik, via Facebook

It was probably something that was missed at the time. If you sit down and try to read through the regulations as far as where you can place something or not, it is a minefield. So writing them to cover everything from the get-go is pretty much impossible.

That said, some teams did bring to the attention of the FIA that there was room in that area to do something.

The answer was, if someone wants to put something there 'well so what, it's the same for everyone'.

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