Which team has done the best job so far?

Which team has the best aero philosophy?
@TeunvOudheusden, via Twitter

I think I'd have to give that to Red Bull. It has a bit of both what Ferrari did with the short sidepods last year and how Mercedes went about making up for it with the longer wheelbase.

These two attributes, plus the fact that it is on top of how to run the car with a high rake set-up, puts it in a good position.

All the teams, especially the frontrunners, know how to get the best from their aero philosophy and mechanical packages. But I think that because Red Bull started last season poorly and suffered the consequences very early on it will not allow that to happen again. It knows it needs to, at minimum, be on the podium from the get-go.

Once again Red Bull's only let-down could be the chassis to gearbox spacer - otherwise known as the engine - and there is very little it can actually do in that area. So, the team will have to make sure it makes the best use of what it has.

Given Red Bull and McLaren are running the same Renault power unit, how do you rate their chassis? How does that translate into lap time on longer runs?
Sai Sandeep Autukrui, via Twitter

I think the above answer gives you a clue as to how I feel about the Red Bull chassis. As far as McLaren is concerned, it also has a very good chassis and both Fernando Alonso and Stoffel Vandoorne know how to use it.

But it is McLaren's first year with the Renault power unit, so it might just take a little time to get on top of how to get the best from it. Especially in qualifying, as we unfortunately know qualifying is everything. If you can do that well then the race will normally look after itself.

As far as tyre degradation is concerned downforce and car balance is a big factor and I think Red Bull also has the upper hand in that area. Added to that, with these wider tyres the need to nurse them has diminished so it is not as big a problem as in the past. If the Barcelona test is anything to go by then the new range of tyres looks more robust than last years.

How would you rate the 2018 crop of drivers?
Simon Curzons, via email

There is such a fine margin between probably 15 of the 20 drivers that currently make up the grid that if the car is good any one of them could very easily float to the top.

Let's not fool ourselves, current Formula 1 is more about the chassis than the driver. Yes, the driver can contribute, but put Verstappen in a Toro Rosso and he would slip down the order. Put Gasly in a Red Bull and he would pull off some good results - probably not consistently, because that is where experience comes in, but on a good day when everything went right for him he would be in the mix.

The cars are engineered from the back of the garage and the link back to base. Gone are the days of the driver coming in and wanting to try a stiffer front anti-roll bar or whatever. The engineers will run probably a hundred different simulations before deciding on a set-up change, so it's the team that is strongest in that area that gets the best results.

Yes, the driver has to be able to drive the car fast and to pick up changing grip levels from circuit conditions but that is a given now. If you can't do that then you have no place in F1.

Do you agree with Adrian Newey that scrapping windtunnels and having standardised CFD software would be a good solution for levelling the field?
Ben Sherwin, via Twitter

You would probably find that Red Bull's CFD potential is better than its windtunnel potential, and that is why Adrian would push for this. Everyone wants to look after their own interests.

Also, he is probably the one and only person that still draws car layouts on a drawing board. When you work like this you have to think in 3D and have a very good understanding of how things package together. If you look at the Red Bull and its packaging detail you can see what I mean.

A car doesn't get born from carving it out of a big rectangular block of modelling foam. It starts from a concept and a design philosophy and then everyone buys into that and starts working on trying to get the best from it in their own individual area. If you can start from a better base then the end result will also be better.

Adrian is not responsible for all of this but he is the instigator of the concept and he is the one that must offer solutions when it gets tough to achieve what he would like to achieve.

You talk a lot about watching trackside in testing, but I find it difficult to see much difference unless a mistake is made. What pointers can you give to help see more detail about what the cars are doing?
Will Johnson, via email

Will, I have spent many years watching cars trackside and I believe if a few other engineers would do the same they might just pick up a little more on what the car is doing.

What I look for is how consistent the driver can be at picking up the same clipping points in a corner. If they come in a little bit too fast, does the rear step out? Does the front end grip? Or do they have to keep applying more steering lock to combat understeer? Can they get on the throttle, or does the rear step out?

Watching the cars through Turns 1 and 2 and then disappearing into Turn 3 at Barcelona gives a good impression of a car's inherent performance and balance.

The Mercedes drivers struggled more than most getting the tyres working, it probably took them a lap, maybe even two, more than the Ferrari but when they were working it looked fine. But will that be a problem for qualifying?

Ferrari looked very consistent, but when either driver tried to push that little bit extra they would just run wide. To me this was Ferrari running at its maximum grip level. The Red Bull looked good, it didn't really have any vices but always looked heavy. It just didn't look as lively coming off the corner - was that the Renault power unit or just running on heavy fuel?

I could go on through all the cars but picking up what they are doing and how consistent they are takes a lot of time. At the tests we have the pleasure of getting up close and personal. We can stand just the other side of the safety barriers, so close enough to get a real impression.

Do you think the Ferrari engine is in danger of losing all its oil during a grand prix? We've all seen the smoky starts in the pitlane, due to the fact they can no longer breathe it back into the engine?
Mark Winter, via Twitter

I think, as does the FIA, that on start-up the smoke from the Ferrari is coming from the turbo, and is nothing to do with oil usage for a power benefit. If it was, Ferrari would be making it pretty obvious to everyone else.

These turbos run at speeds up to 125,000 rpm and require oil lubrication of the bearing assemblies to survive. Keeping the oil and exhaust gas areas apart is a sealing system, and at that sort of shaft speed it means they require intricate pieces of engineering.

You also don't want too much friction on the seals or it will require more energy to spin the turbo, which would be detrimental to the performance of the turbo itself - but more importantly the MGU-H energy recovery system.

Some of the sealing systems I have seen in the past require oil pressure to put the seal in its sealing position, otherwise when the engine is stopped it will just sit there picking up the heat from the turbo, which will be detrimental to the life of the seal itself.

I'm not saying that is what Ferrari has, but if it does it will need the engine to start up and get oil pressure before the seal seals, so for that few tenths of a second you will get oil into the turbo, which burns with the hot exhaust gases, likely producing the smoke you mention.

I've been looking at the size of F1 team factories. How can Force India and Toro Rosso produce similar cars to the big teams while only having a quarter of the real estate of the bigger factories?
Adam Barron, via Facebook

Bang for buck, Force India has shown it is a good bet, but - and this is the big 'but' - as things stand Force India is not taking on the big teams. The gap to the top three is the next step and it's the big one.

At its present size, Force India can operate efficiently and focus on the areas that bring performance. It outsources a high percentage of component manufacturing, and Force India also buys in the Mercedes gearbox, and uses the Toyota windtunnel in Germany.

If you put all the facilities and personnel that contribute to the complete car in one place it would look a very different story.

At the track, Force India is as good as anyone else - it is a team of racers who are there to do the best job they can from what they have, and they do that very well.

Toro Rosso is very similar, but has the luxury of the fairy godmother in Red Bull being there to help if necessary. Force India doesn't have such a luxury, so has to be disciplined in setting and achieving its targets.

At last week's Geneva Motor Show, Zenvo launched a road car with a constantly variable rear wing that moves depending on the amount of steering lock. Formula 1 cars already have DRS but, if the regulations permitted, would teams use active wings that move from side-to-side? Is there a downforce advantage or would it be offset by creating extra drag?
Anthony Dartnell, via email

Teams would love to have active wings and active suspension. Basically, anything active would be welcomed with open arms.

As you know, the regulations don't allow for any of this. If that changed, I am sure we would see many different solutions. Moving the wings from side to side would be interesting, but I think staying with more or less what we have and making them active to increase or decrease the downforce - and also the drag - depending on what the car's demands were at any point in time would probably be the initial direction most teams would take.

However, if this was allowed you could probably double the budgets, and instead of the grid being covered by something like four seconds, you could also double that. The big boys would just be able to do that bit better, leaving the smaller teams behind.

Watching all sorts of top-rank motorsport and seeing a new project like Team Penske's Acura ARX-05 entries taking the lead in the Daytona 24hrs, the term 'preparation' comes to mind - so how big is preparation of a racecar and what defines good preparation? Why are some teams so much better at it than others - is it just manpower times experience?
Steven Urry, via email

Steven, it's not just manpower times experience, it's also budget that allows you to employ the good people, which gives you the manpower and the experience, so it is like a rotating wheel - money gets the wheel rotating, which allows staff increases, which in turn brings more experience, and with that better results, which brings in bigger budgets, which keeps the wheel rotating.

If you have all that then all the other stuff you have mentioned comes with it - concept, design, engineering, development plan, preparation and race execution all comes into it, but only after you have a decent budget in place to get the wheel rotating. After that it is about efficient management. That will bring success. Team Penske has all of the above.