F1 Q&A: Andrew Benson answers questions after Australian GP

There was plenty of drama at the Australian Grand Prix as Carlos Sainz led Charles Leclerc into a one-two for Ferrari in Melbourne on Sunday.

Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton were forced to retire, and Mercedes' problems continued after George Russell crashed on the final lap of the race.

There's a lot to talk about before the Japanese Grand Prix, which runs from April 5th to 7th. BBC Sport F1 correspondent Andrew Benson answers all your questions.

Andrew: I'm not going to say what F1's rules should be, but I can say that F1 officials don't want the “tire wars” that are so familiar when multiple tire suppliers are competing. .

But to address the core issue of the problem – tire deterioration and management – there is no need for multiple suppliers to thwart the problem as it currently does.

The Pirelli tires supplied to F1 differ most from what would be called a typical racing tire in that they are very sensitive to heat and usually require gentle treatment to prevent overheating. If it gets too hot, the grip will not return.

This means that drivers are rarely able to push to the limit, even on qualifying laps. This is a very unusual situation. And, competition or not, that was never the case when their predecessors, Michelin, Bridgestone and Goodyear, competed in F1 in the 1990s and 2000s. Tires also behave differently in other categories where Pirelli is not a supplier, such as endurance racing or IndyCar.

Pirelli has been repeatedly asked in recent years to stop this behavior in its tires and make its “Extreme” wet tires better, as well as widening the operating temperature range.

F1 had the opportunity to change tire suppliers last year, with Bridgestone aiming to return. Many encouraged F1 president Stefano Domenicali to switch, but in the end he chose to remain with Pirelli.

Andrew: This year's driver market is unusually open. Yes, Ferrari and McLaren both have seats full, but Red Bull, Mercedes and Aston Martin all have at least one seat available, as do most of the teams in the second half of the grid, the most attractive long-term of the bunch. Nanoha is Sauber. It is said that it will change to Audi by 2026.

Sainz will be near the top of many people's lists, but he is too good to not be at the top. However, due to the other drivers in the picture, mainly Fernando Alonso and Andrea Kimi Antonelli, he is not as appealing as you might think.

For example, you might think Sainz would be a good fit for Red Bull, Mercedes or Aston Martin. And Audi is definitely interested, as Sauber is expected to be in 2026.

However, there was tension between Red Bull, Max Verstappen and Sainz, who were teammates at Toro Rosso.

Mercedes' sights are set on Verstappen (if he becomes available), Antonelli (his F2 protégé) and then Alonso.

And Aston Martin want Alonso to stay, having already offered him a new lucrative multi-year contract and will only look elsewhere if he moves. In other words, Sainz is, in a sense, a hostage to his fortune. He's definitely going to end up somewhere, but it's a very fluid situation and it's hard to predict the outcome.

Andrew: There is currently little prospect of Germany or France returning to the calendar. F1 came close to an agreement with South Africa's Kyalami a few years ago, but those prospects also suffered setbacks.

F1 no doubt wants to race in Africa, but threading the needle is proving difficult. A new race in Madrid for 2026 has already been announced. And in the US, three races are currently sold out: Austin, Miami, and Las Vegas.

As the calendar expands, rotation between Belgium and the Netherlands, for example, will no doubt be on the agenda. But for now, the calendar seems relatively stable. Occasionally, we hear about other countries participating, but nothing is clear in the near future.

This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately I think it's difficult to give a clear answer. On the other hand, cost caps are preventing big teams from spending money to solve problems as they once did. In that sense, I'd say it's probably true.

On the other hand, the budgets of the big teams have also been cut, so Red Bull's development has stopped as much as it could have been. So, in that sense, you could also argue that it didn't change anything, or perhaps it helped suppress Red Bull in some way.

Andrew: Aston Martin have clearly taken a step back since their impressive start to last season. Last season, they rose from midfield to near the front, and were the second most competitive team for the first third of the season.

In terms of average qualifying pace after three races, they are the fourth fastest team in 2024, behind Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren, and just ahead of Mercedes. And it's pretty much the same in racing.

There are unanswered questions about Aston Martin at the moment. We know that Mercedes is struggling with the correlation between wind tunnel and on-track performance. Their cars perform worse on the track than the Tour expects.

So is there a problem with Mercedes' wind tunnel? And does this also affect Aston Martin? Does Aston Martin also use it when building its own new cars? After all, they too got a little lost last year when trying to develop the car.

They say they have developed a development plan this year to address last year's issues and at least keep up with the teams around them. Time will tell.

Andrew: Strategy is mostly computer-driven. The team has complex software that tracks the race and shows live what would happen if different choices were made. In the end, it's up to humans to decide which choice to make.

In other words, if it's a game of chess, it's not a game between computers, but a game between humans with the help of computers.

Andrew: Williams is certainly a bit of a mess at the moment, but it's a mess born of a desire to progress. New team principal James Bolles has been open about the fact that he has pushed the team beyond its limits over the winter, trying to bring the team up to date in terms of technology and working practices.

Evidence of this was also seen in Australia, where the fact that Williams had not yet built a third chassis bothered them. Alex Albon suffered a huge crash on Friday, leaving him with just one car. Vowles felt obliged to remove Logan Sargent from that driver and give it to Albon as the faster driver.

Baules said he would be exposed to this problem in the next race in Japan as well.

In terms of progress, Albon admitted in Melbourne that he had hoped the team would start this year in a more competitive position. Vores is a smart man with big ambitions and big ideas.But time is needed to rebuild a team that still suffers from the effects of nearly two decades of underinvestment.

Andrew: Hmm. It feels a bit harsh to blame George Russell's final lap crash in Australia solely on him. In the end, Fernando Alonso was penalized for “possibly dangerous driving” for slowing down heading into the corner, even downshifting, and then accelerating again. Naturally, this action surprised Russell.

This is a very different situation from Singapore, where he made a simple mistake of clipping into the wall on the final lap, although not as badly, just after Lando Norris had done the exact same thing right in front of him. .

Andrew: Not surprisingly, I've seen many variations of this question come up since I started these Q&As. Of course, it is true that if Verstappen and Red Bull continue to dominate, it is likely to affect audience interest.

However, F1 is a meritocracy. Fast enough to put the best driver (which many in F1 now believe Verstappen is) in the best car and give him at least a run for his money in a less competitive car. This is what happens if you give it to every other driver with .

It may not be pretty or interesting to watch, but Carlos Sainz's victory for Ferrari in Melbourne was undoubtedly one that was most welcomed by all neutrals. But it's not Verstappen's fault or Red Bull's fault. It's up to others to catch up.