Formula 1 has rules that teams must follow. For 2026, the rules are being updated, and those changes can change how the cars are built and how teams race.
In F1, power units are the hybrid engine systems that teams use, and manufacturers supply key components and technology. When CEOs of power unit manufacturers join regulation talks, it signals the changes may directly affect engine/hybrid design, performance, and reliability targets.
The FIA is the organization that makes the official rules for racing. In F1, they help decide what changes teams must follow.
Company
FOM
FOM (Formula One Management) is the commercial and operational arm behind F1’s promotion and race operations. Their involvement in rule discussions reflects how changes can impact the sport beyond just engineering—like scheduling, broadcast, and event planning.
Qualifying is when drivers try to set their best single-lap time to decide who starts where in the race. The hosts are discussing how new rules might change how hard drivers can push.
“Flat out” means driving as hard as the car will go. If the car has limited energy for qualifying, drivers may have to ease off at times instead of pushing the whole lap.
Teams can’t just use full power all the time because the car’s stored energy is limited. So they plan when to “charge up” and when to use that stored energy to go faster.
The hosts reference an earlier qualifying-energy experiment introduced at Suzuka, a circuit known for demanding braking/traction phases that affect how much energy can be harvested. They argue the change didn’t deliver the excitement or performance shift they expected.
Company
Kimi Antigelli
They mention a driver’s qualifying lap and whether it was cut off. The point is that qualifying can be affected by what happens on track and how the session is presented.
Charles Leclerc is cited as still having issues during qualifying, specifically a noticeable loss of pace after a “snap” coming out of a corner. This supports the hosts’ argument that the rule change may not fully eliminate the need for energy/pace management.
They’re talking about the Japan race as the point where the rules changed based on what they saw on track. The idea is that real race data influenced how much energy the cars were allowed to use.
F1 cars can store energy and then use it later to make extra power. When the rules say the allowed energy is lowered (in megajoules), the car has less “boost” available, so it tends to be slower, particularly when teams are pushing for one-lap pace.
Instead of staying on the gas all the time, the driver backs off and lets the car roll. In F1 this can be a strategy to save limited “boost” energy so the car performs better where it matters.
Concept
flat-outness
“Flat-outness” is the idea of how consistently a car can be driven at maximum effort (full-throttle, full pace) without needing to back off for energy management. If energy limits are tightened, drivers may have to lift or coast more often, reducing how “flat-out” the lap feels.
The discussion frames rule changes as not only technical but also a public-relations issue—if cars appear “too slow,” fans and media may perceive the sport as less exciting. That can influence how aggressively the FIA chooses to reduce performance.
Instead of using one energy rule for every race, they’re suggesting changing the limits depending on the track. The goal would be to make the racing more consistent because some tracks naturally demand more braking and slower-speed work.
They mention Singapore because it’s a tough, stop-and-go style track. That kind of layout can make energy and braking rules matter more than on faster circuits.
F1 teams don’t use just one “type” of tyre all weekend. They choose different rubber versions (compounds) for each track so the tyres match how much grip the track needs and how quickly they’ll wear out.
The battery is what stores the extra energy the hybrid system uses. The speaker is saying that if the allowed energy use gets too small, the hybrid hardware might not be worth keeping.
They’re talking about going back to a car that relies mostly on fuel power, not stored hybrid energy. The idea is that if the hybrid energy is limited too much, it stops adding meaningful benefit.
In F1, the car can store energy in a battery and then use it later. “Super clipping” is about how aggressively the car can harvest/store energy during certain parts of the lap, especially on long straights. The hosts think it can make the cars feel less exciting if it encourages too much coasting or “going nowhere” at the end of the straight.
This is a rule that caps how much energy the car is allowed to put back into its battery during the lap. If the limit goes up, drivers can recover more energy in the same situation, which can change how they drive on straights.
Kilowatts are a measure of how much “power” the system can use or generate at once. In this context, it tells you how strongly the car can recharge its battery during certain parts of the lap.
It means backing off the gas and letting the car roll for a moment instead of staying fully on throttle. In F1, it can be used to manage the battery, but too much of it can make the racing look less exciting.
They’re talking about a specific long straight at the Shanghai circuit. The idea is that this is where you’d notice the energy-management behavior most, so it’s a good place to test whether the new rules make the racing better.
This is about getting energy back into the battery instead of losing it. The car can store energy for later acceleration, and the rules decide when and how much it can do that.
F1 cars store energy in a battery and then use it to add extra power. The hosts are saying the new approach should refill that battery faster during slowing, so the team can get the same (or better) benefit with less time spent doing it. That can make the whole race strategy easier to execute.
Concept
energy-management strategy changes
The hosts frame the 2026 update as a change to how energy-management strategies are triggered and timed—specifically, when super clipping starts and how long it lasts. They describe it as addressing issues “we’ve had with super clipping to this point,” implying earlier versions were too abrupt or too frequent. The goal is to preserve the hybrid/energy benefit while improving drivability and race interaction.
The hosts are talking about how predictable the car’s slowing behavior is. If the system is consistent and other drivers get clear signals (like warning lights), it’s easier to avoid surprises. They think the new approach should reduce confusion compared with the more driver-by-driver lift-and-coast style.
This is a computer that checks whether the car is getting up to speed fast enough right after it launches. If it thinks the start is going wrong, it can take action to reduce the risk of a dangerous slow getaway. It’s basically a safety monitor for bad launches.
F1 cars have an electric motor that can add extra push. This rule would automatically turn that help on if the car launches too slowly, so the car doesn’t just stall or crawl away. It’s meant to keep starts safer for everyone behind you.
Clutch release is the moment the driver lets the clutch out to transfer engine torque to the drivetrain at the start. In F1, the timing and torque delivery around clutch release strongly affect launch acceleration, wheel slip, and whether the car gets away cleanly.
This is a set of flashing lights the car turns on when it’s not launching properly. The idea is to warn the drivers behind so they don’t react too late or too aggressively. It’s like a “heads up” signal for a slow start situation.
Mercedes is one of the F1 teams mentioned as having had problems getting off the line. In F1, starts matter a lot because the first few seconds can decide where you end up in traffic. The hosts are saying this new system is aimed at reducing those start issues.
Audi is being brought up as another name associated with start problems. The hosts are talking about how the new rules might make starts more consistent and safer. It’s basically about reducing how badly a launch can go.
Red Bull is the team being referenced in connection with a start problem. The hosts are comparing how different teams/drivers manage launches. Their point is that the new rule might reduce the consequences of a bad start.
Ferrari is mentioned as a team that has been good at race starts. The hosts are using that as an example of how much start execution can matter. They’re worried the new safety-focused system could reduce that advantage.
They’re saying the new system could act like a safety net that saves you from the worst outcome when you mess up a start. Instead of being punished for a bad launch, the car gets help. That could make starts feel less “earned.”
When F1 changes the rules, it can change how teams build the cars and how drivers drive. That can matter a lot at race starts, when cars are close together.
The Australian Grand Prix is being used as a real-world example to illustrate how close racing at the start can lead to dangerous incidents. Referencing a specific GP helps listeners connect the rule discussion to an actual on-track scenario.
The warning lights are meant to help drivers react at the start more safely. The argument here is that when cars are packed together, drivers might not see or process the light quickly enough, so it may not prevent the problem.
The crash cell is basically the driver’s protected “bubble” inside the F1 car. The idea is that if there’s a crash, the car should keep that space intact to reduce injury.
They’re using “high octane” to mean F1 is extremely intense and fast. The point is that even with safety rules, crashes can still happen because the racing is so aggressive.
The halo is a protective bar above the driver’s head in an F1 car. Its job is to help keep the driver safer by shielding them from debris and some types of impacts.
Concept
hand-holding mechanism
They’re talking about a change that makes racing less about raw driver skill. Instead, it sounds like the rules add some kind of help so drivers don’t have to do everything perfectly themselves.
This frames avoidance of trouble at the start as a driver-skill outcome—rewarding good reactions and decision-making. The hosts argue that if rules add assistance, it can “strip that away,” meaning the sport may reward compliance/assistance more than actual driving ability.
Concept
safety conversation
They’re saying the rule change is being discussed as a safety improvement, but it also changes how racing plays out. The concern is that it might make it easier to avoid consequences that would normally happen from mistakes.
Concept
deployment isn't right
“Deployment” here likely refers to how the car’s launch/acceleration system is managed at the start (e.g., how power is delivered and controlled during the initial phase). The hosts argue that if deployment is off, both drivers will struggle, making it a team/engineering problem rather than pure driver execution.
F1 cars can store extra energy in a battery. “Battery deployment” means when the driver releases that stored energy to get a temporary performance boost.
Instead of wasting energy when slowing down, the car can turn some of that motion into electricity. “Harvesting” is the process of putting that recovered energy back into the battery.
F1 cars get extra power from the hybrid system. “Boost limits” are the rules that restrict how much extra power they’re allowed to use, especially in certain parts of the track.
“Closing speed” is how fast one car catches up to another. If cars can suddenly go much faster than expected, it’s harder to judge braking and positioning, which can lead to accidents.
They’re talking about two recent crash situations involving Ollie Bearman and Franco Colapinto. The argument is that the crashes showed a safety risk, which is why the rules are being adjusted.
Some race tracks have stronger crash barriers than others. The hosts are saying the driver hit a barrier that usually isn’t involved in serious impacts, which made the situation feel more alarming.
They’re saying viewers don’t always see clear information on the screen about how much battery the car has used. If the rules change and the car’s power behavior gets more complicated, it becomes harder for fans to understand what’s going on.
Concept
overtake zone
An “overtake zone” is a part of the track where passing is expected to be more likely. The hosts are saying it’s already hard for fans to track all the extra rules and timing cues.
This segment is about how the 2026 Formula 1 regulation changes will be perceived and whether they’ll actually improve the sport. The hosts focus on complexity, fan accessibility, and whether the changes address real issues.
It means someone is changing the outside look of something, but not fixing what’s actually wrong. They’re saying the rule changes might not be as helpful as they sound.
Formula 1 changes its rules periodically. The 2026 rules are meant to reshape how the cars are built and how the racing looks and feels, but it won’t necessarily flip the sport into something totally new overnight.
They’re saying the new rules are mainly about making racing safer. That can mean fewer dangerous situations or better protection for drivers, even if it doesn’t make the racing dramatically different right away.
The “hand-holding” idea means the rules might be telling teams exactly what to do, leaving less room for creativity. The host is saying they don’t love that approach, even though they support the safety goal.
Japan and China are used as comparison points for how different the racing experience might be after the rule changes. The hosts argue that the racing style won’t suddenly become radically different from what fans see in other countries.
They think F1 has to be easier for new fans to follow. If the rules are too complicated, some people won’t feel like they can understand what’s happening and may lose interest.
They’re saying the rules are being “refined,” meaning lightly adjusted instead of completely changed. In racing, small rule changes can still force teams to redesign parts to stay within the rules.
The Barcelona Catalonia Grand Prix is the F1 race at Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, a track teams use to evaluate car behavior and driver adaptation. Practice debuts during Friday sessions are common for giving new drivers track time without affecting the main race lineup.
A “practice debut” is when a driver gets their first official practice run with an F1 team. It helps the team and driver learn how the car works before the main weekend sessions.
The Spanish Grand Prix is the F1 race held in Spain, and the hosts reference it to clarify where the driver first appeared in practice. Different circuits can change car setup priorities, so “where” matters for how useful the practice time is.
A development driver is a driver who helps the team learn and improve the car, often when the main race drivers aren’t available. They can also step in if something goes wrong, like an injury.
To race in F1, drivers need special permission from the FIA called a Super Licence. They earn points by doing well in other racing series, and once they have enough points, they can be allowed into F1.
“Indy” is shorthand for racing at Indianapolis. The point they’re making is that experience at big, fast tracks can help a driver adapt to the demands of F1.
Concept
oval circuits
Oval circuits are race tracks that are mostly oval-shaped, with long, fast turns. Racing there teaches different timing and control than road courses, which can help a driver adapt to new cars and tracks.
They’re saying the team is using practice time in a focused way, not just as a formality. The idea is to let the right driver get consistent time in the car so they learn faster and the team can plan more clearly.
Free Practice (FP) sessions are the non-qualifying practice runs during an F1 race weekend. They’re crucial for learning the car setup, tyre behavior, and track characteristics, and they’re often used to help new or developing drivers get comfortable.
Bahrain is one of the early F1 races. The hosts are saying it’s a good opportunity for newer drivers to get lots of practice laps because teams and drivers are already ramping up for the season.
Cadillac is a car brand. Here it’s being used as shorthand for a team or program the hosts think will improve later, so they hope a driver gets practice time when the car is better.
Formula 2 (F2) is a stepping-stone series that helps drivers prove they’re ready for Formula 1. If the F2 season gets interrupted, drivers lose track time and momentum. That can make it harder to be fully prepared when they finally race again.
Car
Haas
Haas is one of the Formula 1 teams. When they talk about “practice with Haas,” they mean a driver getting time in an F1 car during practice sessions. That’s important because it’s how drivers learn the car and the track before the main weekend action.
The segment references “Grosjean’s crash” as the reason a driver was “in the car.” In motorsport, crashes can trigger reserve-driver call-ups, replacement drives, or additional practice opportunities. These moments can accelerate a junior driver’s exposure to an F1 car.
They mention the Australian Grand Prix to set the timeline for the season. It’s basically saying: F2 started earlier in the year, then later got delayed. That delay affects when drivers can race and practice again.
They’re saying the wait between F2 races got shorter because F2 will race at Miami and then Canada. Instead of missing a long stretch, the drivers get back on track sooner. That helps them keep improving rather than going idle for months.
The hosts mention F2 being run “alongside” Formula 1 at Miami, which is part of the event structure where a support series shares the race weekend. This matters because it changes when and where young drivers get track time and race exposure. It can also affect how teams plan development across the season.
Formula One is the highest level of open-wheel racing. The hosts are talking about how the schedule—how long the gaps are between races—can change how drivers improve and how much attention the sport gets.
Australia and Abu Dhabi are mentioned to show where the season starts and ends. The point is that the schedule isn’t just about the start and finish—big empty stretches in between can hurt momentum.
Concept
F1 drivers go over two in the car
The hosts are saying that driving in F1 is a big jump compared with lower categories. It takes time to adjust to how different the racing feels and how hard it is to be successful right away.
In Formula 1, “constructors” means the teams. The Q&A is about what the 2026 teams might do differently with the new rules, not just which drivers will win.
McLaren is a major Formula 1 team with a long history of competing at the front. Mentioning McLaren usually means the driver is expected to reach a top-level seat.
A “world title” in F1 usually means winning the Drivers’ Championship. Drivers earn points race by race, and the one with the most points at the end of the year wins.
Daniel Ricciardo is an F1 driver the hosts bring up as an example. They’re saying some drivers can be very talented, but the timing and situation have to line up to win a championship.
Oscar Piastri is referenced as a driver who came close to winning a title early in his career but didn’t convert it. This is used to support the idea that early championship contention doesn’t guarantee eventual world championship success.
Lewis Hamilton is a top F1 driver and world champion. The hosts mention him to illustrate how a driver can look like they missed out, yet still go on to win later.
The hosts are describing how a driver can finish a championship “close” (e.g., within about 10 points) yet still fail to win due to the points system and tiebreaks. In F1, small swings—retirements, penalties, or missed podiums—can decide the title.
Kimi Antonelli is discussed as a young driver whose championship prospects are being debated. The hosts contrast their predictions (yes vs no) to illustrate uncertainty around how quickly new talent can convert potential into titles.
“World champion” in Formula 1 refers to winning the drivers’ championship, which is decided by points accumulated across the season. It’s not just about winning races; consistency and scoring well in most events is what typically makes a champion. The hosts are discussing who they predicted would win that title and whether those predictions were correct.
“Vettel” refers to Sebastian Vettel, a famous former F1 champion. Here he’s mentioned because the hosts are talking about who they predicted would win and what actually happened. It’s not a technical discussion—more of a history/prediction reference.
A “rookie season” means a driver’s first year in Formula 1. It’s usually harder at first because they’re learning how everything works—new car, new team, and the pace of F1. The hosts are saying rookies can take time to match the speed of established stars.
A “pole sitter” is the driver who starts the race from the front spot on the grid. That usually happens because they were fastest in qualifying. Starting up front can make it easier to lead the race, so it’s a big deal.
A “championship leader” is the driver who currently leads the drivers’ championship standings based on points. Being a leader early or mid-season can signal strong overall performance, not just one-off race results. The hosts use this as part of a list of Antonelli’s record-setting early milestones.
Car
Lando Norris
Lando Norris is an F1 driver. The hosts are talking about whether he can win another championship after already becoming a world champion.
Term
Technicality
A “technicality” here means the result depended on the rules and how they were applied. It’s not just about who was fastest—it’s also about what the regulations allow.
Car
Verstappen
“Verstappen” refers to Max Verstappen, a dominant recent-era Formula 1 driver associated with Red Bull Racing. The hosts suggest that his “outreach talent” (ability to perform under varied conditions and circumstances) is what makes repeating championship success more likely.
“Outsider” describes a driver who isn’t the favorite to win the championship in a given scenario. The hosts are discussing whether Norris could win again if circumstances break his way (performance, strategy, and luck).
“Luck and timing” in F1 usually refers to race-to-race variables like safety cars, red flags, tire/strategy windows, and avoiding incidents. The hosts are debating how much those factors would be required for Norris to win another title.
Car
Alonso
“Alonso” refers to Fernando Alonso, known for long career longevity and championship-level competitiveness across many seasons. The hosts use him as a comparison point for whether Norris could stay at the top into his 30s.
They’re talking about how long a driver is signed to a team. In racing, that matters because teams plan their future around who they’ll have driving and how long they can keep working on the car.
“Best car” means the team’s car is the fastest and most competitive overall. The hosts are debating whether having the best car automatically leads to success, or whether the driver lineup still matters a lot.
Midfield is the middle of the field—teams that are good enough to score points sometimes, but not usually battling for the podium. The concern here is that the car might not be fast enough to move up.
Late braking means braking later than usual to carry more speed into the corner. It can make you faster, but you have to be precise because braking too late can cause you to miss the turn or lock up.
F1 has two big season competitions: one for drivers and one for teams. The Constructors' Championship is the team version—your team earns points based on how both of its cars do.
When a team is excluded from the Championship, its results are treated as invalid for the standings, which can drastically change who is considered “last.” The hosts clarify that an excluded team is disqualified rather than simply finishing at the bottom.
Alpine is an F1 team. The hosts are wondering whether Alpine or another team finished last in the Constructors' standings.
Brand
Stake
“Stake” here is a team branding/sponsor reference, not a car part. The hosts are using it to talk about which team finished last in the Constructors' Championship.
Concept
F1 rules for 2026
This podcast is talking about new Formula 1 rules that start in 2026. When the rules change, teams have to redesign their cars and adjust their plans, so it can change who’s fast and how racing plays out.
Williams is one of the F1 teams. When they say “Williams days,” they mean the time those drivers raced for that team.
Topic
pub quiz question
They’re joking that if a driver becomes a big champion, it would be a fun trivia question. It’s just a way to talk about driver accomplishments and history.
“Last overall” refers to finishing at the bottom of the season standings, based on points accumulated across races. In F1, that’s a strong indicator of overall competitiveness, but it can be hard to recall because it’s spread across many events.
Car
Mick Schumacher
Mick Schumacher is an F1 driver. Here, the hosts are talking about which driver was associated with Haas in a particular situation.
Term
safes
In F1, there are times when the race is slowed down for safety reasons. When that happens, it can affect who drives and when, which is why they’re talking about a substitute driver.
Sometimes the main driver can’t race, so the team brings in another driver for that event or stretch of races. That new driver might not know the car as well, which can affect results.
“Seb” is a nickname for an F1 driver named Sebastian Vettel. The hosts are using shorthand like this to refer to drivers quickly during the conversation.
Esteban Ocon is an F1 driver, referenced here by his full name. Driver name callouts are common in F1 podcasts, and understanding who they are helps follow the context of race incidents and rule discussions.
LIVE
Thank you for listening to the Late Breaking F1 podcast. Make sure to check out new episodes
every Wednesday and every Sunday.
Hello and a very warm welcome to the Late Breaking F1 podcast presented by Sam Sage
and me, Ben Hawking, back with another midweek episode. But before we crack on with today's
episode, just a quick update from Late Breaking and more specifically from Harry, who sadly isn't
on today's episode. Those that were listening around Christmas time would have heard an update
from Harry regarding a loss in the family. He has decided to take a little break from the
podcast as a result of that. But he's very excited to get back when he's ready. He will
miss you all greatly because you're all wonderful people. And I'm sure he very much appreciates
all of your well wishes that of course come from us as well.
Of course, yeah. Harry has our love and our English support. We're always here to make sure
that he's all good and he just needs a bit of space. So Ben, I reckon we should get on with
what's going on today. Let's do that because we are going to, we're going to go back to some of our
world championship predictions that we made last year. We did a bit of an exercise where
we went through a number of drivers and asked, would they ever win a world title?
So we're going to take a short trip back down memory lane to see how we answered and if we'd
answer those any differently. We've got news from Colton Herter and Cadillac that he'll be doing four
FP1 sessions throughout the 2026 season. But we're going to start with undoubtedly
the biggest news of the week. We knew this was coming at some point and that is that a number
of refinements are taking place to the 2026 F1 regulations. They were agreed on Monday with the
FIA team principals, CEOs of power unit manufacturers and FOM. They were all involved in an online
meeting to determine these changes, many of which will take place from the Miami Grand Prix in just
over a week's time. We're going to try and split this up a little bit because there's maybe four
key elements that they're changing here. We'll try and tackle each one at a time and then maybe
at the end of the segment put together a bit more of our combined thoughts of,
do these go far enough? What might the future look like in terms of other changes?
So let's start with qualifying because that is an area that we have particularly touched on
in the last couple of months as something that needs improvement. They have announced that the
recharge limit in qualifying will be reduced from eight millijoules to seven millijoules. No,
that would be really bad. Eight megajoules to seven megajoules for each lap. This reduction
will ensure more of the lap is run flat out with less need for unusual energy recovery tactics.
Do you think this is a worthwhile step? What impact do you think it will have?
It's interesting that they have decided to offer this one reduction because,
correct me if I'm wrong, Ben, that this is an experiment they brought in for Suzuka
before we had that break. Now, Suzuka was one of those racetracks that we expected to be very
difficult for harvesting and that was proven. The flat outness, as I was going to say,
it's very American. The flat outness of the lap was not complete, was it? It was going
near 100% in the areas you expected it to be. We saw a lot of cutaways from onboard cameras.
We even had the debate of whether Kimi Antigelli's qualifying lap was cut off for
issues with the camera or through reasons to not show certain super clipping,
but this experiment was put in place. If I'm totally honest, I don't think it had a particularly
big impact in what we wanted. I don't think we saw a great significant increase in drivers
running 100%. We saw Charles Leclerc still having issues where he had that big snap coming out of
10 seconds slower as a result. Bad Charles, stop trying to drive it quickly. Drive slowly and you'll
be fast. Listen to the battery. I don't think this goes far enough personally. I think the effect
will be that we will see 90% of what we were seeing anyway where actually we will still have
qualifying laps that aren't flat out properly. We'll still have a lot of harvesting that needs
to happen. We'll still see managing for our qualifying lap. For me, this does not resolve
the lack of excitement, that lack of thrill. The qualifying is currently bringing where once
before it was the most thrilling event. Pretty much every weekend you got exciting. Even if the
race was going to be dull, you knew qualifying was going to be exciting. I still think with this
update, we won't see that. As you mentioned, this is an area that they have previously attempted
to tackle with the Japanese GP. Of course, they were probably anticipating further changes in
this gap that we've had, but it was one of those where they decided it was worth trying
letting it even before we got to that point because it was 9 megajoules and we're now down to 8.
Sorry, they put it down to 8 as a result of that Japanese GP weekend, and now we've gone even further
down to 7. It is very difficult to determine what impact it had because we didn't see what it was
like with 9 and it could well have been even worse, but you're right in saying it didn't solve
the issue because we still had plenty of super clipping. We still had plenty of lifting and
coasting even on a qualifying lap, which just saying that sentence is kind of disgusting.
This will slow the cars down on qualifying laps by, I mean, estimates are one second per lap.
It's difficult to say, obviously, because that number is going to change circuit to circuit,
but the average seems to be they will be one second a lap slower. There was a lot of talk about
they would take this even further and they would go all the way down to maybe like 6 megajoules.
I think that's something we discussed in our regulation special we did immediately after Japan.
Now, that would slow the cars down even more, maybe by a few seconds, but that would increase
the cars being, sorry, I'll go with your term, flat-outness.
Do you think that that's why, though, they think that maybe they were worried that the cars would
look too slow as a PR reaction, that might be quite detrimental to the sport in a different
direction? Sort of, yes, because I think that is one thing they're always concerned about,
is they want to be this pinnacle of motorsport and being the pinnacle is being the fastest.
That is certainly something that they are thinking about here. I think maybe the reason
they've done 8 down to 7 is because they will then have the opportunity to review that again at some
point later in the season. We know based on what they did at Japan, it's not something that takes
a huge amount of effort almost to make this check. They're not fundamentally changing the
regulations here. If they can just, really, a moment's notice as they did in Japan, go,
we're going to drop it even further. The cars don't have to have any actual adjustment made
to them. No, exactly. I think maybe rather than go all the way down to 6 and slow the cars down
even more, they've gone, let's try it at 7. Let's see the next few races. If it's still pretty
bad, then we can take a step further and go down to 6. I would have liked to have more
seeing a variable change with this, where they have stated that certain races where they feel
it may be heavily affected will have a different limit set. Maybe somewhere like,
I could use a drastic example, Singapore, for example, where it's a really tough track,
there's a lot of heavy braking, there's a lot of slow corners coming around.
They could change it to be really drastic, so we see a different result. I would have liked
a more open variable to this, where much like with our tyre compounds that we bring to each track,
you'll have the C2, 3 or 4 and we'll have 6 megajoules on the recharge or something like that.
That's something I would have been quite keen to see.
They might still do that. I think that was their initial idea was what you just laid out,
is that there would be a little bit of variance track to track. Based on the language here,
it sounds a bit more blanket that anything will be 7, but maybe that is the max,
maybe they would go lower than that if they feel it's necessary at some of these circuits.
I do think it's a positive change, even if this isn't a game changer and honestly,
I don't think anything is at this point. Do you think it's resolvable?
I think it can be resolved, but at what cost? They could reduce this down massively
and make these cars like 10 seconds slower. At that point, I'm pretty sure we'd be flat
out all the time, but we would at that point be able to not have a battery in the car, right?
Right. At that point, you might as well take it out and go back to a fuel base car.
Exactly. I think that's the dilemma they're in at the moment. I am at least glad they've
done this though, because I don't know about you. I don't think Norris has spoken about this a
little bit as well. It's not in super clipping. It's when the cars are dropping speed going down
on a straight line. That is the one that really hurts. That's the one that cuts deep.
Yeah. I don't care about Formula One being the fastest car on a straight line or whatever it
might be. Don't care. We can be slower than endurance racing. We can be slower than Indica.
I don't care. What I do care about is how it looks and feels when you watch it. Seeing a car
that's meant to be going up to eighth gear and in theory pushing 220 miles an hour,
actually drop down to sixth gear from seventh, you think, ah, there's no excitement there.
You're preserving. You're conserving. You're trying to look after things and gain rather
than throwing that car into a corner at the optimum speed. It's just not the excitement
that we want. Qualifying, as we mentioned, is where that happens most.
Let's move on to the next thing they've tweaked, which is the super clipping recharge allowance,
which will be increased from 250 to 350 kilowatts in both qualifying and the races.
This should, in theory, avoid the temptation for drivers to lift and coast as much to recover energy.
Do you like this one any more than the first one? This one is quite technically difficult
to explain how this works. Down a big straight, let's take the back straight in Shanghai,
the really long straight. I've seen that the cars were lifting off quite early,
dropping down because they were super clipping. They were using the revs at high power to harvest
the battery, essentially. This now allows you to do that from a higher speed, I believe,
so you haven't got to drop down as much to properly conserve. I think is how it's actually
interpreted that you might be smarter out there listening to me that can tell me otherwise,
but I think that's what that means. Yes. It's incredibly counterintuitive super clipping because
I think maybe we've rallied around super clipping being a bit rubbish, which it is.
You don't want to see cars just hit their maximum and go nowhere at the end of the straight,
so making super clipping more powerful, which is what we're doing here, just doesn't sound right.
You're getting more of what you don't like, but I agree that this is a good step because
whilst I don't like it, I would rather it at least be incredibly powerful when you do it
to avoid using it too often. Yes. In theory, it means that when you do start super clipping,
you'll recharge your battery faster, so you won't need to do it for as long. You'll gain
more benefit whilst doing it, which means you can stop doing it quicker. In theory, you'll start
doing it later. We'll see a car hit eighth gear, and they're actually staying eighth gear for a
moment until the super clipping actually then starts to kicking, where they will then start
to drop down their speeds due to this back in theory. If it works as expected, it will be a
shorter period at a higher speed with more benefit, which those three words sound great. That works.
Yes. It's almost a bit of a necessary evil almost at this point. I'm not saying I'm a
massive fan of it because I'm not, but I think this will at least help solve some of the issues
that we've had with super clipping to this point. As much as I don't like super clipping,
I really don't, and I've already hit my quota on how many times it can be said on a podcast.
I do still just about prefer it to lift and coast, and we will get reduced lift and coast
as a result of this. It's almost like, and they've kind of framed this one from purely a
performance perspective as well. I think there is a safety benefit to this as well, because whilst,
again, super clipping isn't inherently safe, there is at least a predictable element to it in
that you've got the warning lights. You know that it can't really happen at low speeds, so you know
roughly what the other cars around you could be doing in that regard. Lift and coast is far more
driver centric of when they decide to do that. I think that's a lot of the reason why Behrman
and Colopin to their crash in Suzuka was more on a lift and coast front rather than a super
clipping front. Yeah, I mean previous super clipping to put it into real silly layman's terms
was like being punched in the face. The new super clipping is like being punched really hard in the
arm. I still don't want to get punched. It does still hurt, but I'm not getting punched in the
face anymore, which is a bit better. Yeah, it's almost like before you were being punched five
times, and now you're getting punched only twice, but it is being hit a bit harder.
Yeah, I would rather just take two that I'm like guys over and done with.
F1. Good thing allergies here on the show. If people aren't aware of our great analogies by now,
they're lost honestly. Next thing up is a new low power start detection system which has been
developed capable of identifying cars with abnormally low acceleration shortly after clutch
release. In such cases, an automatic MG UK deployment will be triggered to ensure a minimum
level of acceleration and mitigate start related risks without introducing any sporting advantage.
An associated visual warning system is being introduced, activating flashing lights on affected
cars to alert following drivers. So we've seen a lot of teams this year have struggled on race
starts and some Mercedes Audi, Max Verstappen very specifically at Red Bull, and we've seen others
like Ferrari really take advantage of that. It sounds based on this that we're still going to get
a bit of a difference in those that can start well and those that don't, but this is almost like a
failsafe for those that are starting really horribly. I'm going to come out bold. I hate this.
I absolutely hate this. The only good thing that's come from the regulations so far is that the
starts seem incredibly varied. There's a real driver skill in how to deploy it. You get a real
dynamic between someone doing well and there's punishment if you cannot do well, as we've seen
both with Audi, with Max Verstappen, with Kim Yandere and George Russell, Ferrari on the other hand
doing brilliantly to utilise their starts. They've already been pigeonholed by this changing situation
when we've got the longer build up time for starts to spoil up that turbo. Whereas here,
it's now kind of holding the driver's hand. It's a get out of jail free card. I like the light
situation for safety. I think that's sensible. If you get off the line and you're not going anywhere,
a flash of light tells the driver behind you that that's what's going on, all for that.
I just don't need this safety net. There's got to be some risk going on in Formula One,
and I do think this is just bailing out the drivers that just can't seem to get this right.
I do understand where they're coming from in terms of that safety perspective,
and I think we're quite, as a podcast, quite vocal about ensuring that safety remains
very integral to anything that happens when it comes to rule changes in F1.
So I do understand what they're getting at here. They want to ensure that,
remember the Australian GP with Collopinto very nearly going into the back of
Liam Lawson. They want to avoid a situation like that where I know they're not going at
their top speeds, but they're still going fast enough that if you go into the back of another
car off the line, that's going to hurt. That's going to hurt quite a bit,
but I am with you on this because, firstly, in terms of the warning light system,
especially off the line, if you've got three cars, imagine three cars that are all on the
same side of the grid, obviously one after the other, and the first one doesn't get away.
The guy behind has enough time to respond to that, but it has to respond almost straight
away after they've accelerated to go left or right. The third car can't do much.
That car's going to see that car move out of the way. Suddenly, there's an immovable object
right in front of them. Yes, which brings me onto my point. A light isn't going to do anything.
I understand safety lights from a more high-speed perspective because
they are really helpful, but at this point, I think drivers are just operating off reactions
and instinct to the point where I don't think they'll notice a light by the time that they've
made the decision to go left or right. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just...
No, I think that's a very fair point. It's a fair criticism. I just think, look,
we're at Formula One, it's high octane, crashes will happen. No matter what we do, crashes are
going to happen. I'd rather the safety continues to be built around the crash cell of the driver
and ensuring that if there is impacts, they are as protecting as humanly possible,
hence why we now have the likes of the halo, to make sure that they are really looked after
from the head all the way down to the feet. But for me, crashes will happen at the start.
It's going to happen. It always has happened. I just think that this is negating competitive
interest for a point of where we've always had this safety element anyway. These crashes have
happened anyway, having fast reactions to get out of a way of a stalled car, a failed car,
a car that can't gather its battery properly. These aren't new problems off the line. We've
had them for decades. This is no different to me. I don't know why we now have to negate it
with a hand-holding mechanism because you can't get off the line properly.
Honestly, I'm with you. When you look at that, again, that Australian GP start where Colin Pinto
had, he had cat-like reactions in order to get out of the way of loss. Right. And then in the
review and in power rankings, whenever it was, we are complimenting him like, there was no guarantee
you were going to avoid that. And yet your driver skill has enabled you to avoid that.
Incredible moment for him. And if another driver couldn't do the same thing and they were out on
the spot, it's like, that's the punishment and reward that you get from Driver Skill in F1
or what you should get. And this does strip that away a bit. So that's why of the three
things we've discussed so far, this is the one that I'm most skeptical about and maybe least
positive about. The same if you remove the safety conversation at all. I don't want someone like
Kimmy Antonelli on pole who can't get a good start to then get away with only being second
into turn one. Sorry, if you're sick because you're not good enough off the start, you're sick
because you're not good enough off the start. I don't Ferrari punish, for example, because they
can maximize their start and they don't need a handheld device. Yeah. And I know they've said
that they want to maintain that sporting advantage to ensure this MG UK boost that these cars will
get, it will be at the limited minimum amount to ensure they are just, they're getting away,
but they are still getting away far slower than everyone else. It's still a bit of a,
you get what you deserve. And I don't mean that from a driver, just a driver perspective. I mean
that from a team and driver perspective because a lot of these, a lot of these issues with the
starts are not driver specific. Like if you've seen Mercedes, for example, Antonelli seems to
be struggling a bit more with Russell on the starts, but they're both struggling. It's a Mercedes
issue. The deployment isn't right, but you, you win and you lose as a team. And I'd like to see it
remain as natural as possible. Almost these race starts. I want the drivers in charge. I still
want that with the battery deployment. Generally, we, as we mentioned before, you hear stories of
them not having control of that. I want those drivers to be in control of when they deploy or
harvest their battery. Indeed. I agree with that. Let's take a short break on the other side. We'll
finish off this conversation and we'll get into Colton Herter, who'll be doing some FP1 sessions
for Cadillac this year. Welcome back everyone. The final change we didn't quite get to on the
other side of the break that has been announced is that boost limits will be changed during races
to avoid risks of big closing speeds in unexpected areas. So the maximum power available will be
capped at an extra 150 kilowatts above current power levels with limits of 250 in areas that
are not key acceleration zones. We know that after what happened with Bearman and Colopinto,
this was always going to be one of the bigger discussion points with these meetings that
the FIA F1 have had in the last couple of weeks. This feels like one of the answers to that.
Yeah. This is actually a safety problem, proper safety problem, right? We saw the crash that
Ollie Bearman had. Colopinto not a fault in the slightest here. He was just trying to get down
the track at the speed the car was allowing him to do. He ends up really hurting himself as he hits
a barrier that isn't usually hit in any way, shape or form. So it's not one of the kind of
extra secure barriers that you have around some race tracks here. We saw him limping off. I'm
completely fine after that, really. But this is a safety requirement that is likely needed.
I think the negatives for me here is how complex it's going to possibly make the
viewership for us as fans, for you listeners, for broadcasters. You're trying to watch a lot
of new things happen in Formula One. There's so many changes going on. We already don't get
graphic measurements for battery usage, for how much battery a car has got, for if they're in the
overtake zone one second behind the car, right? It's already complex. So now having certain areas
that are capped or not capped, or 150 or 250, it's another scenario for Formula One, for broadcasters,
for us to have to learn, explain, understand. I do just think this is another barrier to entry
to F1 fans that it's going to deter a lot of people from fully immersing themselves in the sport
because they won't understand what's going on. I don't blame you for understanding. It is not
simple to grasp. I do think this will put people off. I've seen the phrase quite a bit over the
last few days, putting lipstick on a pig when it comes to these changes in terms of the regulations.
It's not one I completely agree with. Not because I don't think there are some flaws with what we
have. I think the issue is a pig and lipstick are really simple concepts to understand.
This is all really complex, and it's kind of a result of the design that F1 has created,
even without these changes. This is a complicated formula now for better or for worse, and I think
in a lot of instances, it is for worse. This is tricky. The fact that we've had to break down
these rulesets on the podcast. I had to go and read a lot of articles. I watched a few videos,
and even then, I'm like, are these reliable sources? Am I understanding the information
properly that's being put out? I know we joke about this a lot of the time, but
this would be a weird instance where we don't put ourselves down. We've been F1 fans for a
number of years. We have to do a lot of research for two episodes every single week. We dedicate a
lot of time to this, and we do that for good reason. We love this sport. There are people who
want to sit down as a form of escapism on a Sunday afternoon for two hours, block out the
rest of the world, and just watch fast cars go around a racetrack. They don't want to learn
these terms and don't want to get stuck in the weeds of this regulation and that regulation.
It makes complete sense why you wouldn't want to be that way, but that is where we've been
driven to. You've got to remember that the customer base of Formula One will go from
10-year-old Nubi, who's been inspired by cool cars and great athletes, and 60-year-old Michael
and Margaret, who are doing their part-time work, who just want to come home and sit and watch the
telly together on a Sunday. The difference in access to information or understanding where to
get that information will range drastically between those two ends and what's in the middle.
You have to make this accessible for your lowest common denominator. How is it simple
for the person who understands in the least way? That is not this. This is so tricky to get your
head around. If you're listening at home and you think, I still don't understand, don't beat
yourself up about it, it really is not easy to grasp. I'm not saying that if you want to become a
fan of F1, you shouldn't expect to not understand a few things. If you're picking it up as a new
hobby, you should expect that you will need to at least do a little bit of pre-ready or a little
bit of background research to understand what's going on. Of course, but I think this takes it
to a brand new level. That's not to say I'm against these changes, by the way. I think my biggest
takeaways from all of this is I think they are an improvement. I think we will see improvements
as a thanks to these regulation changes. They've gone further than I thought they were going to,
at least in one go for Miami. But what is also true, my third takeaway from this is,
if you are expecting Miami to be radically different, I think you will end up disappointed.
Yeah, I see your point there. I think I agree. I do think safety-wise, I like that they put
safety as a real paramount of what's going on here. I'm completely in agreement. I don't like
the hand-holding thing that we spoke about at the start, but I do think they've looked at everything
with a safety-first point of view. I'm totally okay with that. I do think it's not going to
spice up the racing. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to see a drastic change in what goes
on with our racing. I don't think you're suddenly going to get a really fresh, competitive, natural
style of racing in Miami. Don't turn up to Miami, expect it to be different to Japan or China.
I don't think that's the case. The third point of view is, they need to find a way to make this
simple and easy for people to grasp, because you are going to lose fans.
I feel like there's a massive disparity between people who like these regulations and people who
don't. I think the easiest way I can put it is, if you think the racing at the moment is an eight
out of 10, this will probably make it a nine out of 10. If you think the racing at the moment is a
three out of 10, all of these changes will make it a four out of 10. I think it will be an improvement,
but it's not going to change drastically where you are in terms of your opinion on where we're at.
It's going to take a lot longer than this one change to really bring it back to a place where
85, 90% of fans love what's going on. Realistically, this year, there's not a huge
amount more they're going to be able to do on top of what they're already planning on doing at Miami.
When you've asked manufacturers and engine buyers to spend so much on research development,
you can't just snap your fingers and make it change because you made a mistake with how the
guidelines are. The final point on this, I just really enjoyed when I was researching this earlier
in the week, and I actually went quote-wise of what f1.com has said itself. I just love they
went with the term refinements to the regulations. I really like the idea of Mr. Feynman-Demangakali
working in F1 refinery, being like press that green button. It's great. We just need to tweak
it ever so slightly to make it even more great. They didn't use the word tweak. They didn't use
the word change. Just refining. That's all we're doing.
Yeah. When I got a D in my AS level psychology exam, my lecturer came up to me, we just got
refined this slightly, and you'll be the best. It's as simple as that. I got that class.
With the greatest respect, Sam, I am absolutely delighted you failed that class because this
wouldn't be if you didn't do that. That's the kindest excuse that you've given to that answer.
Well done. That's the only answer I've ever given.
Well, I was waiting for some kind of psychological insult.
No. I was actually being quite heartfelt and genuine.
You were. I was waiting for the roast. Aren't we all waiting for a roast?
Bring on the roast.
Bring on the roast. Let's move on to Colton Herter, because Cadillac have announced that
Herter will make his practice debut with the team at the upcoming Barcelona Catalonia Grand Prix.
I just don't want to be the Spanish Grand Prix.
After appearing in FP1 in Spain, Herter will tackle three other Friday sessions in place of
regular drivers, Valtteri Bottas and Sergio Perez over the course of the season.
I don't think this is a massive surprise that Herter is at least doing some of these
mandatory sessions, but this is, I guess, an announcement that he will do all of them.
They do have Jo Guan Yu, of course, at the team as well. They've got Pietro Fittipaldi,
I think, is still their development driver, but is this them showing that they are committed to
Herter? Makes a lot of sense that they've gone this way. Jo Guan Yu is there as an experienced
hand in case something goes wrong with Bottas or Perez. They storm off and don't want to drive
the car anymore, or horribly, there's an injury to one of these drivers that needs to be sorted
out quickly. Jo Guan Yu knows how to drive a Formula One car to an acceptable standard.
He has the super license points done and dusted equally, marketing and trying through the roof.
I think we all know that Pietro is probably, unfortunately, not going to be at the quality
that he needs to have become into Formula One. It looks like his trajectory is very much going
to be behind the scenes in other racing formulas and categories. It just happens that some drivers,
Herter is made of the right stuff. We know that. We've seen him go around these proper
tracks in the likes of Indy. We've got Oval's actual considered circuits. I do think that
we know that his trajectory for Cadillac, anyway, is to get him into a Formula One car competitively.
Now, I'm really pleased to hear that Cadillac are taking these practice sessions seriously,
and now giving it to Colton, and they're not sharing it out a little bit. They're not
trying one through another. Their eggs are in one basket.
And announcing it early.
Announcing it early. They're removing any kind of speculation about this.
I think this is the right way to do it. I like the way they're doing it.
They've got two committed drivers that they're happy with right now. Give the young kid a go
to really get comfortable in this car, because let's say he has a smashing F2 season,
even though it is a bit disrupted, he might be ready next year. He might be. He might be another
year, but he'll have, at that point, I imagine, what, eight free practice sessions if he goes
for another year in theory? That's a lot of time. That's a lot of time in a Formula One car to get
yourself comfortable. So they're going the right way about it, in my opinion.
And just a reminder of what the rule is for everyone. Each team or each driver,
with the exception of any rookies on the grid, of course, that's only Arvid Lindblad this year.
But any driver that's not a rookie needs to give up two FP1 sessions throughout the year can be any
race to give up to someone like Colton Herter in this instance. It's been an interesting one this
year for the teams, because, of course, they normally have 24 weekends where they can use
this. That's already been cut down by two, probably, to 22 races. Six sprints still exist,
which cuts it down to 16. We're going to see a lot of FP1 switches throughout the year.
We're already three races into the season as well, so that's 13 available.
Yeah, annoyingly, I imagine Bahrain was one of the ones they were probably targeting as well.
Because we've got so many laps, so much practice. Of course, the pre-season practice session was
happening. Teske was happening at Bahrain as well. So all of our drivers have done endless laps,
countless laps around Bahrain. If it's anywhere they know and they're comfortable to give up
an hour of their time in the car, Bahrain's an obvious hit for these juniors to get involved.
So they'll be quite gutted. They've lost that one, I think.
No doubt. There would have been quite a few teams that used Bahrain for this reason.
It's the same reason why Catalonia is now being chosen.
That's why Barcelona has been picked as well. I do hope for her to say,
actually, the other three happen maybe slightly later in the year, because
that Cadillac right now, it's not great. I'm not saying Hertha will get nothing out of it.
He will get something out of it, but he'll get something a bit more out of a car that is competitive,
which Cadillac will be hoping at least later in this year. It's a little bit more competitive.
I kind of hope that they at least save a couple of them for later in the season.
I have no doubt he will either get Cota, or is it a spring weekend this year?
No, it's not. I think he'll go around there or he'll go around Vegas.
One out of two. Because of the American influence, of course,
I think there'll be a big of a get him out of the track. Let's get American in the American car.
Cota wouldn't shock me at all. That feels the likely one.
I'm glad they're using him for all four of these sessions, with the greatest respect to
to both Fittipal, the Anterjo, they aren't the answers to Cadillac's future.
And Hertha might not be either. We don't know that, but there is at least a chance.
And throughout the course of this F2 season, and these practice sessions,
we'll start to find out a little bit more.
Pietro, get FP practices. Sorry, FP practice is good. That's like any other business AOBs
that we get. Yes. Yes. Did he get free practices with Haas?
I feel like he probably did. There's a chance he's definitely had F1 experience.
I think so. Yeah, I'd be shocked if he didn't.
We know he actually was in the car as well as a result of Grosjean's crash, but
yeah, I feel like he must have done some practice. He's had some laps, unlike Colton.
Yes. Yeah. Something that you alluded to was his F2 season and how it has been somewhat disrupted.
Of course, they did the Australian Grand Prix, did F2 at the beginning of the year.
Their next scheduled appearance was going to be this Bahrain and Saudi Arabia double-header.
And with that cancellation, it looked like it was going to be a full three months
until F2 would next be on track. Instead, it's two months because they are going to be
at Miami and Canada. But it's not the way that Colton, Hertha,
indeed any of these F2 drivers would have been anticipating the start of their season.
No. And at least for Colton Hertha's sake, he's going through the same problems as all these
other drivers. It's not like it's only affecting him. But I think Formula One have done well to
react here and to get F2 alongside them for the support series in Miami. These young drivers
getting time racing properly, competitively alongside others that might be Formula One
challenges is really important. And having a three-month gap causes a lot of problems,
not just for the competitiveness of the drivers who are learning, but also for
interest in the sport, for sponsor interest, for young people who want to get involved in
Formula One. It's the real lack to suddenly lose something for a quarter of a year.
You can very quickly lose interest. And there's a real chance that Formula One
will be suffering with a lack of interest after losing a whole month of racing,
very integral time of a new set of regulations. So I'm glad they brought it forward to Miami.
I wouldn't be disappointed if they also picked up another race they weren't going to a little
later on in the season. Yes. It is tough for Hertha just based on we've got, again, it's a
two-month break between Australia and Miami, but it's also a two-month break between
Azerbaijan and Qatar later in the year as well. So whilst the F2 season does technically go from
Australia to Abu Dhabi, there are a lot more gaps in the middle, which will really just
half the races. Yeah, I think it's 14. And it would have been 12 if not for the pickup of
Canada and Miami. So it is tough for all of them. I think there are some maybe that are
viewing his F2 season as just an excuse for him to get, not even experience, the super license
points. Yeah, but I do actually think the experience element of this is important.
He's obviously done European racing before. He went sort of a long time ago.
I think this is a great way to resettle him. The racing is different. You see that when,
you know, F1 drivers go over two in the car. They don't pick up and wing, right? The success rate
is rare. So it is a big change. It's a big shift. He's young enough that he's got the time to adapt,
to grow and develop. I think he needs two seasons in F2 to really come about. And I'm not sat here
going, got to win it. If he doesn't win it in the first year to failure, I think he needs some time
to re-embed. Yeah, I would think they're targeting 28 if they are targeted in terms of an F1 seat.
I think two years in F2 could be quite useful. I'd like to see him top six, top seven this season,
and then top three fighting for a championship. Realistically, if the development is a good
progress. Yes, we'll have to see how that unfolds. Before we go to our next break, a quick shout
that our next episode is going to feature a Q&A segment. But we're targeting this specifically
towards questions about the 2026 F1 constructors. Might be a slight spoiler that we're going to do
drivers at some point in a future Q&A. But we're looking for your questions about F1 constructors
from the 2026 season can be anything in that department. So if you're on Discord, you've
probably already got the notification that you can fill in the form that exists there.
But if you haven't, if you're not on Discord, we do have the link in the description. You are
going to have to be quick, though, because we're recording this one a little bit earlier in the
week. So Thursday is the deadline for this. Perfect. Hopefully make it fun. I would hope so.
Yeah. I mean, again, constructors, I'm sure you can be creative with what you want to ask.
Indeed. We're going to hold our heads in shame for this next segment. We're going to take a quick
break. On the other side, we're going to revisit some predictions we made last year.
Terrifying and embarrassing.
Welcome back, everyone. On the 10th of August, 2025, we asked the question,
which certain drivers would win a title at some point in their career? We're going to revisit
that today and see if we want to change our answers at all. Stick or twist. A bit of a stick or twist.
Yeah. So we'll run through them in the same order that we did it in August. We'll just see where
our confidence is based on our answers at the time. And again, we can change them now if we want to.
So we'll start with Oscar Piastri. This was an interesting one. All of us, including Mr.
Haried, said that he would win a title at some point in his career. Now, you and many others,
I'm sure, at the time said it was going to be that season. We were so close.
We were close. Does that change your answer long term?
No. I'm very confident. It was his first proper go, right? Even Norris, despite not delivering
the year before, he did have an opportunity to have a crack at a world title where Piastri was
only in his second year in the sport. I do think that as he continues to develop, you look at the
form he displayed in Suzuka after having no long-term racing laps. He was already immensely quick.
The raw talent is there. He's already got the relationships in the right areas.
He's destined for big teams, whether it be McLaren or someone else. I think if he doesn't
win it, it's because he's one of those drivers. A bit like Daniel Ricciardo, maybe, where we look
at him and go, you could have been a world champ. You just were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think he's got the talent to do it. He has the talent to do it, absolutely. That's why I am
sticking with yes. I think he will win a world title at some point in his career. He has only
just turned 25. He has the potential to improve. I am somewhat fearful that the 2025 season,
both for him and Norris, I hope we don't look back at it and say that was the one they both had to
win. Well, you say that. How many champions have we had in the last 15 years? Four. Not many.
Yeah, like four different champions since 2010. I think what? Vettel, Hamilton,
Rosberg, Verstappen, now Norris. The fifth one was only last year. It is slim pickings if you're
in the wrong place. The only thing that I would say is that Oscar Piastri, year three, very early
in his career, comes close to winning a title, doesn't do it. I'm not sure. I can think of
another recent example where someone was close to winning a title that early in their career
and then never did it. Yeah, Hamilton is obviously a media example that you think of.
But then he did go and win a title. That's what I'm saying. I can't think of one that didn't.
No, you're right. They got a single drive where they came 10 points away from
winning it at worst and never actually converted. At least recently. The only one,
and this doesn't quite work is Felipe Massa, but Massa was like six years into his career. It wasn't
three. And even then, you'd argue with what happened with Hungry. He lost something there
and understandably so. Yeah. I'm still going with yes on this one. Kimmy Antonelli,
some really interesting one. You were on an island with this one, Sam, in saying yes.
Both myself and Harry said he will not win a world title.
I regret my words. That boy winning a title.
In that smug pie, I am. I actually was thinking about this the other day when we did our driver's
predictions for this season. You know how in 2019, I said, Charles Leclerc will be world champion.
He beat Vettel. I got one of those two things right. Sure. I was really tempted this year
to say that Kimmy Antonelli would be world champion. And I regret got being bold because
let me just call up my grandmother who has wheels. Oh, yeah. She's actually a bicycle.
Oh, yeah. Oh, maybe I'll give her a ride.
Good. Now, the boys got so much talent, bags of talent, as has been displayed. I think if this
Mercedes is as good as it has been right now for the next three seasons, at least one of those goes
this way. It's really funny. I was listening back to the segment, obviously. And the same,
I made a point that I'm also going to make now, despite the fact that I've changed my mind. Because
I said at the time, this guy is going to have like 25 years to win a title, maybe. Yeah. Great
point, Ben. Say yes. Like the likelihood when you're already in a top car and getting the right
for two and a half decades. My opinion at that point was that Russell was
quite comfortably clear of what Antonelli did last year. And whilst that can be somewhat
expected based on it being his rookie season, I made the point that the likes of Lewis Hamilton
and Sebastian Vettel, they hit the ground running quicker than what Antonelli did. And I stand by
that. Very true. But Antonelli is younger. And I think we've seen such an improvement from him
already this year that I don't know if it happens in 2026. Maybe, maybe not. But if it doesn't,
it's got to happen at some point. Youngest pole sitter, youngest race winner,
Can we hear something really rogue about age at the moment as we're just bringing this up?
Go for it. In my actual job, we have a work experience person. They're here for three days.
They were born in 2011. So they're 15 years old. And when speaking to this child, for some reason,
the subjects of JLS came up. Who's JLS? And he said, who's JLS? No! He's never heard of JLS.
He's never seen. Very Christmas. Put some respect on JB Gil's name. I know I will.
I just have never felt more old in that moment. Do you want me to make you feel even older?
Yes, I do. That kid has lived 15 years of their life. We'll do that again,
and we'll still not be older than what you are now. Yeah. Yeah. That's good. That's good.
I get real good. I love being old. I love my life. Yes. I'd be 31 and I feel like I'm a
bajillion years old. Well, I'm going to kick you while you're down with this next one.
Good. Because the next one we answered was Lando Norris.
You were the only one that said he would never win a world title. I'm sorry.
He already scraped that one over the line. Technicality. Yeah.
Yeah. Well, I'll get technicality. Give it a pass for the time of the season.
Yeah. Well, you know what? I'm an old enough man to realise that I was wrong.
I'll ask you a different question. Will he win a second title? No.
Oh, we're going to replay this in two years time.
No, I don't think so. I don't think he wins a second one.
I think he's done well to pick up one. He's a world champion. He's a Formula One world champion.
There are so many drivers that will never even come close to such an accolade,
and he's a magnificent driver. Great guy. I just don't think it's going to line up again.
I don't think he's got the outreach talent that someone like Verstappen does to make it happen
in a scenario where maybe he's the outsider. I think he'll need a little luck and timing on
his side if it ever were to happen again. I am going no on this. It easily could happen again.
He easily could win a world title. He's got the talent to. I was wrong about him last year.
Another thing that I've with Landon, I know I've kind of alluded to this a couple of times over
the last month or so. I am not certain he's here for the long term. Really?
As in, I don't think he'll be here at 35 or 40. Right. I'm not saying he's gone this year,
but I don't think, I don't think he's Alonso. You're thinking a decade. He's probably gone.
Yeah, I do. I do get button vibes a little bit from Lango. Yeah. You know, great driver,
great personality, but only achieved the one. Maybe. Maybe. George Russell, we all said yes
for George Russell. Yep. I'm saddened by that. I think he does. So I'm still delivered. That man
has got world champion all over him. Does that have to be this year? I think it should be this
year. It should. I think if it gets beaten by Antigone this year, walking, walking lights are
going off. I think he will hope that similar to Mercedes from 2014 to like 2016 or 17 or whatever
a year you want to use there, he will have enough opportunities that one of them is going to happen.
He'll hope for more than one. He's going to be hoping that he's not the Niko Rosberg of the
situation. That's a question. Is George Russell, Niko Rosberg or Lewis Hamilton? They've both got
fantastic hair. True. I didn't know what that word was going to be. Hair, I agree with.
Charles Leclerc, we all said no. Do we actually? Are you mugging me off? No, we all said he's never
going to win a title. That's because he's too committed to that blooming Ferrari. I mean,
yeah, to be clear, this wasn't like we were saying he's terrible. He's not going to win. This is,
he's just going to be stuck at Ferrari forever and isn't going to win one. And he called machinery.
Yeah, no problem. No doubt. In that car, it's not happening. I just liked that at the time.
It was a fairly confident from me like, no, it's not going to happen. And now, no change.
Just as confident, not happening. Contracts still there until 2029. The car is better,
but it's still quite a way off. How have you committed yourself to 2029? He loves red.
I don't know if I'm committed to living here in 2029.
Charles Leclerc would be. He'd be committed until 2050.
If as long as his house was painted in red with a prancing horse on the front of it, he'd be here.
Leclerc's the first person ever to take out a 100-year mortgage. He's that committed.
And as long as the house is called, Ferrari.
Can you tell I'm going for remortgage at the moment, thanks.
How's it going? Oh, great. I love it.
Imagine your rates are ridiculous right now.
Yeah. Cheers. No, I'm not going to.
Mortgage shout on the podcast.
Yeah. It was all looking very rosy until things happened not that long ago in the wider world.
And I'm not blaming anyone.
Let's just move on, shall we?
Let's move on to Isacaja, because we all said no for Isacaja as well.
This is the one I'm probably the most on the fence for, if I'm honest.
You were at the time.
Yeah. And I think, actually, I'm going to change my answer.
Like that.
He's been so much better than I expected, even in a Red Bull that has been dire.
He really has surprised me. I knew he's amazing at racing balls.
I probably backed him the most out of anyone, thought how good he was.
And when you become the second driver at Red Bull, alongside Max Verstappen,
we've seen the trend. We've seen the pattern.
We know that it's a tough gig to get right.
And I think we all expect it to not be good and be okay with that.
That has been a surprise for me, that in the glimpses we've seen of him on track,
when the cars worked, and it's actually been possible to drive it competitively,
for the most part, especially still in qualifying, he is still competitive.
Now, there's a few caveats. I think Max Verstappen has to leave the sport.
Okay. Well, that answers my question, which was going to be if Red Bull delivered the best car
and Verstappen is there, is there any chance he does it, which no.
If they deliver the best car and he's replaced by anyone else.
I think he's got a fair shout. I don't necessarily think he's the favourite,
but I think your odds go right up.
I'm staying with no, but I'm not ruling it out. I have been pretty impressed with how
close he's kept it to Verstappen so far this year. I want to see more of it before I commit to a
yes, personally. But yeah, I'm probably more encouraged now than I was at the time we answered
this. The last thing we asked ourselves was, is there anyone else that we haven't gone through
that you would put on that list? And there was one name that we both had, and that was Gabrielle
Bortoletto. Yeah, I stand by that. I think if Audi could turn that car into a bit of a monster,
which I think they're so out there with their design ideas and their logic, I think if it does
click, it could be magnificent. I really think he's got the raw talent to make it happen.
I just don't want to get left behind, because you see so many of these drivers that are around
him already thriving, winning races, picking up podiums, fighting right at the front.
He's the champ. He's the guy that beat all of those guys. I want Audi to really build on early
games and start being properly competitive in the next couple of years. Otherwise,
I feel like he might end up being lost in the midfield, and that would be a real shame.
I'm sticking with Bortoletto as well, considering Bearman.
I wish I said Bearman now, because in between the start of September, so after we did that show,
and now, he has been phenomenal. Maybe that was the motivation.
Maybe he went, no, World Champ, late braking. Oh, this is your every week.
That sounds like Bearman. How very day. This is exactly how he speaks.
Well, he's besmirched on him. I think you'll find.
I do think that he could have a good chance. If you get, ah, the outbound,
never mind. He's got a Ferrari. Oh, yeah. Well, if Hamilton stays and the
clerk doesn't go, he will have no choice but to go elsewhere or win it with Haas,
which is the obvious solution. Yes. Can't wait to see that.
So we're not changing too much from our original answers.
We'll just pretend the Norris one didn't exist to move on.
Yeah, I'm going to struggle with that one in the comments. So Norris, thanks.
You're going to roast me there. Yeah, never mind. I never mind.
Let's take our final break on this episode. On the other side, we're playing F1 back and back.
Welcome back, everyone. It's time for F1 back and back.
F1 back and back.
There it is.
Bit of a challenge for you here, Sam. See how many you can get on today's back and back.
It's the new game. Yeah. I want you to name the last 20 drivers to race for a team that finished
last in the Constructors' Championship. Oh, okay. And one small disclaimer on this one that
will impact you. If a team was excluded from the Championship, as might have happened at some
points in the not-too-distant past, they are considered to be fully exhausted. They aren't
last. They were just excluded. They are disqualified. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
Or as Outcast once said, all right, all right, all right, all right.
Yeah.
Let me your sugar. That's a bone.
That's a new show, completely now. We are just Outcast.
Big up, Andre Three Stacks. Love that.
The boy is a legend. But so is, is it bad boy?
Big boy.
Big boy. Of course it's big boy. How dare I? The blasphemous terms.
Right. Let's think about things. Now, in theory, Stake came last last year.
Or did Alpine come last last year? Let's try things, because that's how this game works.
Have I got any strikes, by the way?
Fire away, mate. No strikes.
Valtteri Bottas.
Valtteri Bottas is a correct answer because Stake were last in 2024.
Mm-hmm. Zhou Guangyu.
Zhou Guangyu is a correct answer for that very same reason.
Okay. Pierre Gasly.
Pierre Gasly is a correct answer. He finished last as part of Alpine in 2025.
Franco Colopinto.
Franco Colopinto is a correct answer for that same reason.
I'm going to try this one, but it depends how much of a technicality you've gone down.
Jack Dewin.
Jack Dewin is a correct answer. It doesn't matter how many times they raced for them,
as long as they did at least once, because Dewin is a correct answer.
Good. I'm glad I've got the last two teams out of the way.
Yeah, that's fine.
Yeah, that's got the embarrassing bit. Good stuff.
For some reason, I don't think it will count, because you said the last 20 drivers, right?
Last 20 drivers, yeah.
Yeah. I've got Roberto, Merriamird.
Slightly too far back.
Too far back, I just think so. Yeah, I guess you've got, essentially,
a decade in case there's no repeats going on right now.
Yeah, about that.
Okay. Okay.
Why does your brain go blank when you play these games?
I don't have that, but I also have the answers in front of me, so that helps me quite a lot.
I bet if we were down the pub, we were just talking about this.
I'd be like, I'll reel off and go after these immediately.
Oh, no doubt.
No doubt.
We've some random one as well thrown in there as well, for good measure.
Yeah, exactly that.
Exactly that.
Ralph Furman or something.
Oh, it's always Ralph Furman.
He's always here, isn't he?
Right, who came last further back?
Did Gutierrez ever do it?
Gutierrez, no.
He was not last.
Okay.
What about, I've already said Merriamird.
Why can't I get Roberto Merri's hangout, my God?
This is Harry with Brabham all over again.
I was saying Merri, by the way.
Pascal Verlijn?
Pascal Verlijn is a correct answer.
He is the penultimate name on this list.
But yes, he was last with Sauber back in 2017, I think.
Oh, not 2017, damn it.
I've got 20, like 15 drivers in my head, but I've got Will Stevens in my head.
He ain't going to need to go that far back, I'm afraid.
All right, Nick Latifi.
Latifi is a correct answer on two occasions.
Williams were last and he was driving for them.
Kubitsa?
Kubitsa is a correct answer back in 2019 with Williams.
Russell?
Russell is a correct answer.
The other name that's on this list twice with Williams.
That's amazing, isn't it?
If he ever becomes like a multi-time world champion,
that'd be a great pub quiz question.
Alban?
Alban is a correct answer, yes.
Again, going with his Williams days.
Yeah, thank you, Williams, for being so poor for so long.
Pretty much.
Only moment.
Okay, other teams.
How many have I done?
Like seven?
Seven or eight?
You've done 10, I think.
Wow, halfway.
Yeah.
Okay.
I don't think this team have finished last.
Sonoda?
Sonoda's not a correct answer.
No, I didn't think the Alpha Towering team had been that low down.
Gosh, it is difficult.
Because you think like Haas, for example, you're a real slow team.
How many times have you actually been right at their very back?
So if I were to say Grosjean?
No.
Okay.
What if I were to say Magnuson?
If you were to say Magnuson, that would be a correct answer.
Haas were last in 2023 when he was driving for them.
All right, Hülkenberg.
And Hülkenberg was his teammate in that year.
There you go.
Okay.
It's really difficult to remember who is last overall in a season.
Yeah.
Unsurprisingly, not a lot of focus there.
You don't tend to pay that much attention against that far back, do you?
I'll give you a clue.
That's not the last of Haas you will see on this list.
Oh, okay.
So I've got to think of some other Haas drivers.
This is Harry Mann.
Harry will be all over this.
Maybe all over this, okay.
Mick Schumacher.
Mick Schumacher is a correct answer.
I'm assuming for Haas.
Yes, for Haas, yeah.
Okay.
Who was in that car randomly that appeared?
Bearman?
No.
No.
Further back?
Further back.
Pietro Fisselbaldi?
No.
Really thought we got that one.
Oh, Jack Aitken.
Jack Aitken is a correct answer.
Yeah, that's a tough one.
But subbing for Russell when he went to the safes.
Yes, of course, yeah.
See, this is what I mean in the pub.
That one's going to come straight out.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'm going to be really annoyed that I won't get that one that's sitting in Haas right now.
Was it a subbing as well?
No.
He was there full time alongside Schumacher.
Oh, that's even worse.
That's even worse.
He was only there for a season.
Yeah, it was another rookie.
Yeah, he was going to do a second season and his plans were thwarted.
Oh, Mazepin.
Mazepin, yes, is the other Haas driver.
Of course, I forgot that they were that slow.
They were really bad, weren't they, that year?
They were, they were really bad.
Right, how many have I got left?
Six.
Five.
Five left, okay.
Couple of years.
Yeah, so I didn't write them down, but I think you've got two drivers from 2018,
two drivers from 2017, and then you've got a sub driver for 2021.
Wow.
You can tell what?
22, I think, actually.
No, I was right the first time, 21.
Okay, I don't think I'll get the sub.
I don't think so.
Okay, well, you tell me, of course.
That's how it works.
Can I get any more?
I don't want to drag this all either for people listening because it's always that way fun.
No, tell me the answers.
All right, then.
2017, so you've got Verlijn, who raced for Salba that year.
He missed the first couple of races, which saw Joe Benatzi go in the car for a two or three.
And the other driver throughout that year was Marcus Ericsson.
Ericsson hanging my mind.
I just didn't think that with Salba, they were over that far back.
2018 was another instance of it being Williams,
which leads us to Lance Stroll and Sergei Sorokin.
Sorokin, I should have got.
And then the replacement driver is another Williams one from 2021.
And that was the Italian GP, Nick De Vries.
God, that blows... That's a raise from my memory.
Yeah, he did really well.
Yeah, I never would have got Nick De Vries.
You weren't there.
Yeah, that might be why.
Was I on holiday?
Yeah, you definitely weren't on the review for that Grand Prix, I remember.
I mean, I was on holiday in 2021.
I don't think so. What was I doing?
It was COVID.
Unless it was Scarborough, something, yeah.
Well, I got a bloody Bournemouth.
That leads us nicely on to our final segment today,
which is, of course, the greatest segment in all of podcasting.
And it's time for the LB Question of the Week.
Do I have permission?
You have permission.
Week.
That actually leads us nicely on to one of these answers.
We asked the question,
name something, the dangerous question to ask.
Name something longer than the gap to the Miami Grand Prix.
Jackson, first answer from him, which is,
Weeek.
Weeek.
Which one of you put Weeek in the tiny font?
Well done.
Well done.
Sent great comedy from producer Kerske there.
Enjoyed that.
I'm going to go straight in with Hunter,
who has said the item that was between Seb's legs in Brazil.
Great answer.
Love that.
And a great call-back reference as well.
That was one that I was thinking of.
Finn has said Carlos Sainz's full name.
Please read it to us, Ben, if you have it.
Well, I decided to actually go and get this,
because it isn't in the comment,
but his full name is Carlos Sainz Vasquez de Castro.
But I would raise you Esteban Ocon's full name.
Which is?
Which is Esteban José Jean-Pierre Ocon-Celfan.
That's too long.
Come on, Esteban, leave some words for the rest of us.
I haven't got a name yet, because you took them all.
Yeah. Cheers.
I didn't say anything, because you haven't got a name.
I've got an air.
Good.
Fine.
This one comes from Adam,
which I really liked,
the gestation period of an African elephant.
But that does not say how long the gestation period
of an African elephant is.
Have you got that information?
I have got that information.
We're learning a lot.
How long?
You'll never believe this.
22 months.
Wow.
Obviously, leave some gestation for the rest of us.
Oh.
I'm being corrected, because apparently Wikipedia
doesn't have his full full name.
What's the full full name?
Read it out.
Well, it's full full name.
It's Carlos Sainz Vasquez de Castro,
Sennemore, Rincón, Rebollo,
Berto, Moreno, Duran de Don Perro,
Burri... No, no chance.
Perez del Pulga.
And there's one other word in there I'm not even trying.
How long is the birth certificate?
I don't know.
I've seen my birth certificate.
The name for space is not that big.
The good news is, for sure,
you can just call him csvdccrvmdadpupdp.
Yeah, I will start using that.
I think that's much better.
Yes.
Or go even shorter and just go with his last two,
which is DP.
Just go really, really short if you want.
Yeah, sure.
I am actually part of DPD delivery.
Yes, that's why I said that, yeah.
Excellent.
Good.
Next one is from Ryan,
who said the gap in living standards
between Patreon City and Swindon.
Yeah, you got that right.
If you're living Swindon, get down to Patreon City.
You're going to love it.
Big upgrade for a very little price.
Quite sound like a TV advert.
Yeah, that was nice, yeah.
Thank you.
Cheers, JBC.
I like this one from BJ.
The gap to the end of large strolls contract,
just over the horizon, that one, isn't it?
But we never know.
It's always hidden.
Like, what is contract this?
It could be tomorrow, just every day it extends.
Next one from Bungers, the Hundred Years War.
Yeah, just 13 years longer than the gap to Miami.
I'm going to have to say it,
because it annoys me all the time,
but Steve has said the distance between two lakes.
That's a great point from Steve, you know.
He's brought that up well,
and even now, I'm being irritated by that phrase.
Last one from me is from Gary,
Mika Hakkonen's sabbatical great reference.
I've just got to call out the final one,
which I appreciate you always getting a mention on these.
And that is from Mather, who said,
sounds extensivist of vocabulary words.
Do you feel besmirched by that comment?
No, because that's got what besmirch means.
Well, how do you feel as a result of that comment?
Delighted.
Cheers, mate.
Thank you very much for all of your answers
on Question of the Week.
They are much appreciated.
As always, you are some very funny people.
If you wouldn't mind getting us out of here
until Sunday's episode.
Thanks so much for listening, folks.
Hope you're enjoying this weird break content.
Thanks for being very hard-putting together
a schedule that's actually interesting for you.
Get involved in the comments.
Let us know if there's anything particularly you do want to hear.
And do not forget that we've got the Q&A.
The link is in the description.
It's on Discord as well.
It will also be in our social media stories
for the next 24 hours.
If you want to go out there and ask us a question,
try and keep it constructor-related.
I'm sure we'll do another one in the near future
if you have other questions as well.
Speaking of Q&A, though,
if you want to ask more regular questions
or get to know us as people,
or have something burning that you think is interesting,
every beer with breaking,
which is where the three of us sit down with a beer
and we chat sitting us and have a big laugh,
we start that off with a little Q&A.
And that's on Patreon.
And it is only about £9 a month at maximum level.
If you want to try it out, you can cancel it.
Immediately, if you're interested
or you think it's not for me, totally fine.
But it really helps to show.
And we appreciate everyone that does.
Come on down to Patreon City and take-up residence.
Join the Discord. That Q&A is in there as well.
And you can chat to over 4,000 F1 fans
who all love the show as well.
So get involved.
We love having you in there as well.
Follow us on social media,
like Breaking F1.
Subscribe on YouTube.
We're taking a very small and shallow path
to the 10K goal.
Right before Silverstone,
I'm very sure we'll achieve that.
And we will see you on Sunday
for another round of good, old F1 chitchat.
In the meantime, I've been Sgt.
And I've been Ben Hocking.
And remember, keep breaking late.
About this episode
FIA’s 2026 rule refinements get a deep dive, with hosts debating whether the changes will actually improve qualifying and race excitement. Key tweaks include lowering qualifying recharge from 8 to 7 MJ, raising superclipping recharge allowance, adding a low-acceleration start detection/boost failsafe, and capping in-race boost in non-acceleration zones for safety after recent start crashes. The hosts like the safety intent but worry about “hand-holding” and growing complexity for fans. They also cover Colton Herta’s Cadillac FP1 schedule and revisit 2025 world-title predictions, plus a fun constructors-themed quiz and Q&A prompts.
The 2026 F1 regulations have been “refined”... but what’s actually changed, and what impact will it have? Ben and Sam break it down, plus Colton Herta’s F1 practice debut, a revisit of past world champion predictions, and a round of F1 Back (and Back)…
