Ask Gary: Should McLaren fans be worried?

As a McLaren fan I'm desperately in need of an honest answer that I don't doubt you can help with. On the final day of testing McLaren was a good 1.5s off Toro Rosso on ultra-softs. Should alarm bells be ringing for us McLaren fans?
Rob Hitchens, via email

Having worked at McLaren in the long and distant past, I'm also a fan and it's so depressing to see a team of that standing going about its business in the way that it is. There just doesn't seem to be the fight there used to be.

As opposed to a racing team, McLaren seems to have become more of a political animal, always using the correct speak instead of saying it how it really is.

I don't really agree much with what Mike Gascoyne has to say, but when he said on Sky Sports F1 that he felt McLaren was hiding behind Honda's problems, I thought he was right. Both sides have a lot of work to do before McLaren can be the team it used to be.

The big question is, if McLaren had a Mercedes or Ferrari power unit in the back of its cars, would it be able to take on Mercedes or Ferrari in a straight battle? For me, the answer is no.

I'm afraid you need to be prepared to watch your favourite team involved in a lower-midfield battle. If all things are equal, it might just nick the odd points finish.

Everyone says that the cars converge when the rules are stable, but why is that? Given the complexity of the aerodynamics, surely there are other concepts that could be used? Is it because teams focus more on copying other ideas than creating their own, or is there really only one way to skin a cat?
Dan Hawthorn, via email

Dan, the regulations are very controlled regarding the areas where you can or can't place components. Even the components' design - for example a maximum two-element rear wing and the profile of the centre section of the front wing - is defined by the regulations in some areas.

Because of this, it's very difficult not to get led by what others are doing. I wouldn't call it copying - you are just observing the other teams' development directions and trying to use that to shorten your own research time.

Everything is visible at some time during a race weekend, and every team will have its own photographer who's instructed on which areas of which cars they would like pictures of.

Most will focus on the area of the nose and front-wing section as this is the prime mover in overall performance. Get this right and the rest of the car will respond much better to aerodynamic development.

Do you think Ferrari could catch and overtake Mercedes this season? Will we have a proper title fight?
Sam Payne, via Twitter

Catch and overtake is a difficult task, but I believe it will have closed the gap enough to mean Mercedes needs to keep a closer eye in its rear-view mirror.

If Ferrari can do this and apply some pressure, then as we have seen in the past Mercedes may trip up.

Also, the intra-team battle that will rage between the Mercedes drivers will only intensify. This was all OK when it was only between Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton, but if Sebastian Vettel is lurking close by, he won't need many invitations to have them over.

Roll on the start of the season. Hopefully it will be muskets at dawn down in Melbourne.

Looks like Manor will keep the long nose. Will that be a mistake, or are they right to focus development elsewhere?
Rob Watts, via Twitter

I have to say the shorter-nose version that nine other teams (all bar Force India) have gone with would be my first solution.

No matter what the overall car regulations were, there has never been a time when the minimum blockage in this area wasn't the best solution. Higher, narrower or both has always been in vogue.

If you get this area working to its maximum, then the rest of the car will respond.

As an example, look at the multi-element bargeboard on the Mercedes. It only needs this because of the amount of airflow there is coming through between the front wheels.

To get this airflow to turn abruptly across the leading edge of the underfloor requires very detailed design. If it didn't have this amount of airflow, then a much simpler design would suffice but it wouldn't produce the performance that Mercedes has been able to achieve.

Now drivers have to choose tyre compounds several weeks ahead. How they can do this, especially with new tracks and compounds?
@eggry, via Twitter

The drivers will only have a small input into which tyres they will chose. It will be the vast amount of data that the teams have gathered over the years that drives these decisions.

As far as new tracks are concerned, the top teams will visit them and measure the surface roughness, which they will then compare to existing tracks.

This, combined with the cornering and braking forces generated by very sophisticated simulation rigs using detailed satellite mapping and topography, will give them a very accurate tyre-load model.

They will then have a fairly good idea of which compound will give the best laptime and how long each one will last.

From that, they'll decide if they want to play it safe or gamble.

What is the load-test case for the new halo device? What is it designed to withstand? Will there be vision issues in Eau Rouge?
Aaron Steele, via Twitter

Aaron, I'm afraid I don't know in detail what the FIA load test is. I know it was chucking a wheel and tyre at the structure at something like 225km/h, but I was a little concerned that they were more worried about the rebound than the actual impact.

The problem is that it will never be able to withstand everything that's thrown at it. But if it works in one situation, then it will have served its purpose.

Vision will potentially be a bit of an issue, but I'm pretty sure the drivers will get used to it. They are looking a long way down the road, so something as close as the halo will soon disappear in their vision.

I am more in favour of a screen-type device than the tubular design of the halo. I believe, as in the case of Felipe Massa's crash in Hungary in 2009 when he was hit by a damper spring, a screen would help more when smaller objects are thrown at the driver's head.

If this can't be made to work then it's hard to understand how the World Endurance Championship can run closed cockpits on its cars.

Looking at the new cars, there's very little in the way of dramatic changes or innovation. Do you find it harder to get excited about looking at new cars now than you did 10 or 20 years ago when there was more variation?
Sarah Stephens, via email

Sarah, never mind getting excited - it's even more difficult to write about the new cars! Basically, if they were all painted the same it would be very difficult to tell them apart.

It's a bit sad that innovation has been completely eradicated. Where are we ever going to find the new Colin Chapmans, Gordon Murrays, Adrian Neweys?

We all talk about giving up-and-coming drivers an opportunity, but what about the engineers? They also need that challenge. As my answer to Dan Hawthorn's question above covered, it's very difficult to see past what's in front of you when the regulations are so detailed.

Perhaps it's time for a new formula. A maximum of 100 people per team and 100kg of fuel, a £10million budget and a two-metre-wide by one-metre-high set of goalposts at the end of the pitlane. If you comply with the first three and you can drive through the latter, then you're legal.

Do you think the new proposed '17 regs, despite greater aero, can result in a better mechanical:aero grip ratio and make it easier for cars to follow?
Calum Edward, via Twitter

Calum, the detail of these regulations is still in discussion. But anything that allows the aerodynamic influence on the cars to be increased will also increase the losses when following another car. It doesn't really matter if it's ground effect or not, it will still have losses in turbulence.

If we tried to keep roughly the same level of downforce and moved it from the wings to the underfloor, then it would be a positive step. Combined with bigger tyres, this would move the emphasis from aerodynamics to mechanical grip - which would also be a positive move.