It's just over a week until the Formula 1 season resumes with the penultimate Dutch Grand Prix at Zandvoort.

It might be the summer break but your questions keep coming and BBC Sport F1 correspondent Andrew Benson has been answering them.

With wet races always being a great race, showing off the drivers' skills and teams' decision-making, do you ever think we will get an artificial wet race in the future? - Kevin

When former Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone first raised this idea 15 years or so ago, it was met with a mixture of horror and ridicule., external

The thing with Ecclestone was you never quite knew when he was being serious. No matter, the idea quietly died down.

There are a few central tenets to F1 and the philosophy by which it is run that are worth mentioning here.

The first is that it is generally considered a good thing to change the rules every few years. Usually, this is to address some kind of issue that has arisen.

For example, the new rules for 2026 have come about because F1 wanted to attract more car manufacturers and the existing hybrid engines were considered too complicated, too expensive, and not sufficiently relevant to the wider world.

In this case, the hope was that both Audi and Porsche would enter; in the event, only Audi did, even if that was not the fault of the rules.

The new chassis rules were introduced because the 2026 engines needed them to change to enable them to be operated effectively, and because it was generally considered that the 2022 ground-effect rules have been a failure - the racing is no better, and the cars have rock-solid suspension and have a fundamental imbalance.

But - and it's a big but - it is considered important that F1 retains its purity, and that artificial gimmicks, even if they are needed, are a necessary evil to be restrained as much as possible, and they should not pollute the essence of natural racing.

The DRS overtaking aid - and the electrical overtaking boost that will replace it next year - is a good example. No-one really likes it, but it's considered necessary at least to make overtaking possible when aerodynamics are so important.

In that context, it's hard to imagine the sport getting to a place collectively where artificially wetting the track is considered something acceptable.

On top of that, there are already enough issues with wet-weather racing in terms of visibility and safety cars and tyres and so on.

Do you have a favourite F1 car, and why? For sheer aesthetics the JPS Lotus 72 and the 1975 312T Ferrari are mine... shows my age I guess. - Geoff

Without wanting to sound pompous, "favourite" is a concept I find problematic - I'm a journalist and my job is to be objective. By definition, therefore, I can't have favourites in F1.

Having said that, if we're talking about aesthetics, that is by definition a subjective concept, and bias doesn't really apply. So perhaps objectivity can be put to one side for this topic!

On that basis, the 1990 Ferrari 641 can literally be considered a work of art. It has been on display in New York's Museum of Modern Art, although the organisation's website says it is "not on view" at the moment.

I'm not aware of any other F1 car that has been granted an accolade of aesthetic merit as powerful as that one.

It's easy to see why that car was chosen. It's simply gorgeous, with its elegant curves and simplicity, as good an example as it is possible to get of "form follows function".

I've always had a soft spot for the 1982 Ferrari 126C2, particularly after the front suspension rocker arms it started the season with were replaced by wishbones and a pullrod, is also beautiful - although its fragility, exposed in the accidents suffered by Gilles Villeneuve and Didier Pironi, has to count against it.

The Renault RE30B of that season is almost as pretty.

There are other obvious contenders, the names of which often come up - the Maserati 250F from the 1950s, the Eagle Mk1 from 1966-69, the Brabham BT46 from 1978 (or 44 or 45 or 52, for that matter), the Lotus 72 and 79, Williams FW07B, McLaren MP4/4, Jordan 191, Williams FW14B, for example.

Of the current cars, the McLaren MCL39 is to my eyes easily the most beautiful, especially from side-on or rear three-quarters. Every line and curve seems to be in the right place. It's exquisite, even allowing for the rather ungainly noses forced on this era of F1 cars by the regulations.

Just the latest of a series of examples of the saying: "If it looks right, it will go right.

Can you explain why a car can be better in qualifying trim but not as good during race day? What are the factors that reduce a car's performance other than tyres and weather? – Brian

The overarching factor is that peak tyre grip tends to hide a car's deficiencies.

So, a car that has significant flaws can look better over one lap when the tyres are working to their maximum than it does over a race stint.

The more flaws a car has, the more it is likely to damage its tyres. So, while an F1 car is sliding at all times during cornering, there is an optimum way to slide it under control, and then how much 'slip' it experiences beyond that depending on its behaviour.

So, a car that has plenty of downforce and a good balance will much more easily stay on its planned trajectory.

Less downforce, or a more imperfect balance, will mean more sliding, and every extra bit of sliding puts more load into the tyres. Which gets them hotter.

This becomes a vicious circle - as the tyres become hotter, the car slides more, and vice versa. So the tyres degrade much faster on a less effective car than on a good one, and that has a significant effect on pace over a race stint, and the potential duration of that stint.

Another factor could be how the car heats up its tyres. Some cars generate tyre temperature quickly, some more gradually.

Getting up to temperature quickly is generally a good thing for a qualifying lap - the tyres will be easier to get into the right operating window for that lap.

But that is also likely to mean that the car works its tyres harder, so they will get hotter quicker during a race and it will be harder to keep the temperatures under control over a stint.

By contrast, a car that is kind to its tyres might not heat them up as effectively for a qualifying lap, and therefore might not be able to show its full relative potential then. But it would be much more effective in a race.

Teams get penalised for more than the allocated engine or gearbox replacements. But what constitutes a replacement? Can they strip an item down, replace bearings/change gearbox ratios for example, or is this considered a replacement? - Tony

All engines are sealed between races and any work on them has to be approved by the FIA.

If an engine suffers a problem, a manufacturer is allowed to investigate the issue up to a point and may be allowed to repair it.

But a replacement is defined as breaking the FIA seals placed on the engine items. Do that, and you've "consumed" it and it's out of the pool.

There is the odd occasion when reaching an unsealed component might need intervention on a seal, and the FIA can grant this permission on those occasions.

Gearboxes can be repaired as long as the work has been authorised by the FIA, and all other competitors have been notified.

The rules say that gears and dog rings can be changed for others of identical specification provided the FIA is satisfied there is physical damage to the parts in question.

But no "significant parts" of a gearbox may be replaced between races unless the FIA has granted permission.