Ask Gary: Is there value in crossovers like Hamilton/Rossi?

We saw Valentino Rossi in the Mercedes a few days ago. You had some unusual drivers turn up in your cars, including Colin McRae. What is it like to run a car for a guest driver like that and is there any point in it?

Javier Rodriguez, via email

It's great to see a crossover between top sports personalities, as it gives them a greater respect for what others have achieved.

Rossi is no rookie when it comes to driving an F1 car, as he did a lot of testing with Ferrari and was even considered for a race seat, but I'm happy he didn't take up that challenge. For someone that is used to getting the best performance in a sport that is all about reading the signals that is coming through the seat of your pants, F1 is not all that different from MotoGP.

But finding that last second or even tenth of a second in any ultra-competitive sport is no easy task and he realised that. Having gone through all that, and the hardships required to achieve on bikes, he decided he should go racing and rallying as a hobby.

Lewis Hamilton is also into bikes and has reasonable track experience on a superbike. However, I think this go on a MotoGP bike will have been an eye-opener as to how brutal these things really are to ride. Unlike when his F1 car is not handling the way he wants it, Lewis will understand that when that happens to you on a bike you very quickly end up landing from the roof of a two-story building or sliding down the road on your backside at speed. It's going to hurt, the only question is how much.

We ran Colin McRae at Jordan at Silverstone in 1996. Although I wasn't at the test, by all accounts he had the confidence to wring its neck and on his second lap was giving it full beans. We also had Nick Faldo the golfer drive but that was all a bit more sedate, the best part was that he is about the same size as I was then so to make sure he could drive it all OK I had to do a few laps myself.

Interestingly, that was at the end of 1993 and from those few laps in the car, I learned more about how our electronic clutch and gearchange worked than I had done all year, so it was very valuable. I wonder what Hamilton or Rossi would make of taking on Ronnie O'Sullivan at snooker or the 'other' Gary Anderson at darts.

Is it an advantage or not to have announced the car launch date so soon, like Ferrari just did?

Toni Villalobos, via Twitter

The later you can introduce the car, the more time you have for research and the more up-to-date the car will be.

Over the last decade, most F1 teams have concentrated on reducing their manufacturing time to ensure that, when parts are released for manufacture, they end up on the car in the minimum time possible.

But Ferrari is introducing many new developments on the engine front. Dyno testing is very good but as far as optimising the performance of these hybrid beasts there is no substitute for mileage.

They might just be taking a leaf out of the Mercedes book. Mercedes came to the first test with a car that was really just a testbed, but by the second test was right up there with Ferrari and by the first race they had blown them into oblivion.

If it was me, with the first test starting on 19 February I would be planning for the car to be 100% finished and ready for the first test by Monday February 17.

That gives ample time to get everything to Barcelona and be fully prepared for when the lights go green at the end of the pitlane. This test would then be all about optimising the engine characteristics, checking system functions and reliability and making sure that the aerodynamic characteristics of the car are as predicted.

During the last period of the car build, other improved parts will have been signed off and they would need to start being fitted to the car just before and during the second test. If for any reason the aero platform wasn't performing as predicted, and the expected performance improvements were not showing up on the stopwatch, this would then give some time to rectify the situation with another update prior to the Australian Grand Prix.

Given Mercedes focused development on the 2020 car from midway through the season, do you expect them to start next year as the team to beat?

Martin Collinson, via Twitter

Given Mercedes's performance over the last six years of this hybrid era, anyone who doubts that it will start the season as the team to beat would be either naive or suffering from a bout of wishful thinking.

What we really want is for Ferrari and Red Bull to close the gap to Mercedes and make it at least a three-team, six-car battle. I genuinely don't think there is that much left in the interpretation of the current regulations to think that any of those three will pull a flanker over its rivals and produce a car that will rush off into the distance, so at best all we can expect is the gap between them to get smaller.

But that means that both Ferrari and Red Bull have to get it 100% right for the first race. If they can do that then they can start the season putting the pressure directly on Mercedes. If that can happen then it is going to be nip and tuck in the development race over the season to see who can respond best.

I really hope that one or more of the other teams hit that lucky stream and joins those three at the front. But that will be very difficult, not completely impossible but luck will have to play a huge part in it.

Which driver did you run that most disappointed you, in terms of having the ability but not being able to deliver what their talent should have?

Markus Schmidt, via email

How many drivers do you want me to upset? Drivers usually deliver what they have.

I have always enjoyed young drivers with no or very little experience in F1. Yes, they always had experience in other junior formulas but at least they didn't come into our team, which in itself was fairly inexperienced, and say 'XYZ team does it this way or that way'.

To turn the question around, I think the one experienced driver that I would single out as being a major help to us at Jordan in our first season was Andrea de Cesaris. He brought a wealth of experience and was underrated relative to his true talent. He was good to work with and always gave 100% - if a driver does that you can't complain.

As for new young drivers that I have worked with like Michael Schumacher, Rubens Barrichello, Roberto Moreno, Giancarlo Fisichella, Eddie Irvine, Ralf Schumacher, Luciano Burti and a few others they just drove their hearts out. They had no preconceived ideas about what F1 should be.

Yes, they needed a car that suited their driving style and we would give them the best we could come up with, but they also understood that we weren't Gods and dug deep when the occasion required it.

We didn't know how other teams like Williams, Benetton, Ferrari or McLaren went about their business. When we had drivers from any of those teams their first comment was 'at XYZ they do it this way it' and it always left me questioning why they didn't stay where they had been.

Usually, it was because they were on the decline and using us as a retirement policy - so getting them to stick their neck out and put it on the line was never going to happen.

Why are F1 tyre pressures mandated by Pirelli? Shouldn't teams just run them however they want?

'Brandon', via email

If it was down to the teams, they would run tyre pressures that were far too low for the construction and structure of the Pirelli tyres.

Depending on the circuit characteristics using pressures of around 18-20 psi front and 16-18 psi rear would normally be the best pressures for grip and traction. However, it would mean that in the faster sections of the track there would be a lot of tyre deflection, especially where the tread meets the sidewall.

As we saw a few years ago, this area of the current Pirelli tyres is probably the most critical as flexing in that area can cause overheating and structural failure.

To reduce the risk of this problem, Pirelli requested that the FIA mandate the maximum camber, maximum blanket temperatures and minimum tyre pressures that it felt was required for various circuits. As an average, that is probably 22-24 psi front and 20-22 psi rear.

The front isn't such a big problem as it does offer better car stability, but the rear does nothing but reduces traction and, when the inevitable wheelspin sets in, the tyres then overheat on the surface, causing more wheelspin and more overheating.

So to counteract that, it all got a bit silly. The minimum pressures are checked when the tyre blankets are removed, so for the rears, the teams were taking the blankets off at a pre-determined time before they were going to use them. That meant they had the blankets set to the maximum temperature.

When they reached that temperature, they would then be at the minimum acceptable pressure and they would then sit there and let the temperature reduce. This meant the pressure also reduced.

However, with that overall temperature reduction, the tread temperature also reduced, meaning that when they left the pits the rear grip wasn't there to allow you to work the front tyres hard enough to get them working.

Now it has got even more silly. When the teams take the tyre blankets off they now cool the rims with a fan blowing dry ice through them. This cools the rim mass, which in turn cools the air volume within the tyre.

But as it takes a lot less time, the tyre tread is at a higher temperature when the car leaves the pits. Depending on the teams' requirements or what they think they require, they can do this to the fronts, rears or all four.

No matter what the consequences of Pirelli's higher tyre pressures, it's the same for everyone and what the teams are now doing to the tyres means that when the car goes out on the circuit the pressures are nowhere near what Pirelli wants them to be. On Friday and Saturday nights, Pirelli will dissect some tyres.

If Pirelli sees any potential failures the minimum pressures will be increased for the next day. So, in effect, the teams are just shooting themselves in the foot.

At a time when everyone is shouting about budget controls, the FIA and F1 just seem to stand back and allow these sort of practices to escalate out of control.

Can McLaren close the gap to or even beat Red Bull/Ferrari when they go to Mercedes engines?

ryarama_, via Instagram

I'm pretty sure that's what McLaren's plan is. But there is more to the package than the power unit so it must keep improving at the same rate as it has between 2018 and '19.

Since McLaren instigated various internal changes, installed Andreas Seidl as team principal and James Key as technical director, it now has a structure that has a chain of responsibility within it.

But also, let's not underestimate the fact that it also changed drivers. With Carlos Sainz Jr and Lando Norris, McLaren has two young, talented and hungry drivers. Give them the tools and they will bring back the results.

A lot of McLaren's problems have been down to living in the past. It was one of the first teams to have its own windtunnel and driver-in-the-loop simulation tool. But with equipment like this, time and technology move on and unless you keep up with it you get left behind.

To quantify this, just look at how cameras, computers or mobile phone technology has moved on in the last 20 years. If you want a windtunnel or a simulation tool to be effective, you have to put more into it.

Siedl and Key have been instrumental in getting the team and especially the owners to recognise this and invest heavily in the future. Will all this will be up and running for the design of the 2021 car? I doubt it but at least by recognising it you are on your way to a better future.

What do you make of the decision to ditch the 2020 Pirelli tyres and stick with the 2019 ones?

Michael Smith, via email

I talked above about the problems the high minimum tyre pressures that the current Pirelli tyres require, but the design objective for the 2020 tyres was to be able to reduce these minimum pressures.

To achieve this the sidewall-to-tyre-tread junction was altered to improve the structural integrity in this area. But it didn't seem to achieve the objective and because of this, I see no reason to change to something that is an unknown and could bring another set of problems. At least all the teams understand the current problems and of the can cope with them.

The change in the tyre profile would also have had an effect on the aerodynamics so it would have led to a lot more research and expenditure just to stand still.

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