Would Red Bull's best chance of securing the title for Max Verstappen be to promote Isack Hadjar to the second car for the last race of the season? - Andrew

Red Bull are set to announce their 2026 driver line-up on Tuesday, and Hadjar, who has spent his rookie year at Racing Bulls, is expected to take the seat alongside Verstappen.

That obviously means Red Bull perceive Hadjar to be a better bet for the future than either current driver Yuki Tsunoda or Liam Lawson.

Tsunoda, by the way, is expected to be dropped, with Lawson partnered next season at Racing Bulls by Red Bull's British-Swedish junior driver Arvid Lindblad.

But it would be asking a lot to expect Hadjar to step into the Red Bull car at the final race of this season and immediately be in a position to help Verstappen's title bid.

That would effectively mean expecting Hadjar to be at Verstappen's level immediately in a strange car.

Of course, you might say they have nothing to lose, so why not at least try?

On the other hand, whether it would be good for Hadjar's confidence to throw him into that situation with those expectations is another question entirely.

The sensible approach would probably be to just leave things as they are.

If Max Verstappen wins this title, which year will reflect worse for McLaren for losing a drivers' championship with a dominant car: 2007 or 2025? - Nick

If Verstappen leaves Abu Dhabi as world champion, it may well be regarded as the greatest of what would then be his five world titles.

Others might look at 2021, regardless of the controversy at the final race, or even 2024 and the way he managed not to lose any points to Lando Norris over the balance of the second half of the season.

As for how it would reflect on McLaren, that's a matter of opinion, too.

The two seasons mentioned could not be more different.

McLaren's 2007 was marked by intense internal disruption, as Hamilton and Alonso waged competitive war within the team, the management failed to control it, and Alonso's relationship with his bosses crumbled in the context of that and the spy-gate scandal.

This year, by contrast, has been one of remarkable harmony.

McLaren have done their best to operate a culture of fairness between the drivers, in a way hardly any team has ever managed between two team-mates going for the title in modern F1.

Only at McLaren in 1984 with Niki Lauda and Alain Prost, and at Williams in 1996 with Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve, has something similar been pulled off. Usually, it turns toxic.

Both Norris and Piastri have repeatedly said that they recognise the risks of losing the title to Verstappen in this scenario, and that if they do, so be it.

They say they'd rather that, and both have the chance to go for the title, than the team favour one over the other.

Some will see it as admirable. Some as a failure.

But it's up to McLaren to run their team as they see fit, and for them to live with that.

Clearly, McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown and team principal Stella feel more comfortable doing it this way than the other.

Of course, mistakes have been made along the way - particularly in Qatar on Sunday.

But given many fans consistently say they abhor team orders, and want to see drivers race each other without restriction, is it right to criticise them for that if they do end up losing the drivers' title as a result?

Would McLaren have double-stacked on lap seven in Qatar if Lando Norris had been leading? - Katherine

McLaren team boss Andrea Stella admitted that the idea of Norris losing time if they pitted both cars was in the mix at the time they made the decision not to stop during the early safety car period.

"It was in the consideration," Stella said, "but it wasn't the main reason not to stop both cars."

The main reason for the decision was that they erroneously believed not all other teams would pit. In many ways, the biggest question for McLaren arising from the race is why and how they managed to get that assessment so wrong.

In that context, one can only assume, given McLaren have repeatedly insisted this season that they are working on the basis of being fair to both drivers, that they would have made the same decision had their drivers been in the reverse order.

But it's impossible to answer this question with any certainty, because that's not what happened.

It's interesting to note the likely difference to the championship picture, by the way, had they stopped and double-stacked.

Norris would likely have lost out to Mercedes' Kimi Antonelli and Williams' Carlos Sainz. Let's assume everything else happened as it did anyway, in which case Norris would have finished fourth, just as he did.

But Piastri and Verstappen's finishing positions would have been reversed.

So Norris would still have 408 points, but Piastri would be nine points behind him, and Verstappen a further 10 behind Piastri.

In which case, McLaren's publicly stated aim of one of their drivers becoming world champion, and them not minding which, would be considerably easier to achieve than it is now.

Isn't combining the roles of team principal and technical director at Aston Martin simply too much for one person to handle? Does it not also weaken the team by concentrating too much power in that one person? - Stephen

Adrian Newey has given only one media interview since it was announced that he would be Aston Martin team principal from the start of 2026.

He told Sky Sports in Qatar that he did not want anything to distract from the "priority of making the best car possible".

Newey is a single-minded character who is intensely competitive. There is no reason to doubt that he will do his utmost to ensure he is not distracted from his main role.

'Team principal' means different things at different teams, and the specific role can be moulded in whatever way an organisation wants.

Aston Martin are likely to format the role in such a way that it fits Newey, and get other people to fill in the gaps left elsewhere.

It's also worth pointing out that being team principal and technical director is not very different from the structure at McLaren, where Andrea Stella is what Zak Brown calls a "technical team principal".

Stella leads the team in every way, including in engineering and design.

McLaren do not have one single technical director. They have three, each responsible for different areas of the car - Peter Prodromou (aerodynamics), Neil Houldey (engineering) and Mark Temple (performance), in addition to chief designer Rob Marshall and chief operating officer Piers Thynne.

They all report into Stella. Sounds rather similar to what Aston Martin propose under Newey, doesn't it? And one imagines Newey will do rather less media work than Stella does.

As for the idea of too much power being concentrated into one person's hands, all teams need a leader.

At Aston Martin, that leader is owner Lawrence Stroll. Beneath him, Newey will be in charge of the race team, including the design of the car.

As long as they are careful about not overloading him, there is no reason why it needs to be a problem.