The Toyota Highlander is a family SUV with room for up to three rows of seats. The third row is meant for extra passengers when you need it, like for road trips or bigger groups. It’s commonly mentioned because it’s practical for everyday driving and carrying people.
The Saudi Arabian Grand Prix is a Formula 1 race held in Saudi Arabia. It’s a specific event on the F1 calendar, and the track can be tough on cars and tires.
Qualifying is when drivers try to set the fastest lap to decide where they start the race. If the rules for qualifying change, it can change who starts near the front and how the whole race plays out.
In the 1980s, F1 had turbo engines, and teams often had to manage fuel carefully. The point being made is that strategic limits are nothing new—they’ve been part of racing for decades.
Concept
six-season regulations
This refers to rules that are planned to last for multiple seasons instead of changing every year. The idea is to give teams more time to build and improve their cars.
Qualifying is basically about getting the best possible single lap. The hosts are saying the current rules/conditions may be preventing drivers from attacking like they should.
Singapore is another F1 street/urban venue where qualifying performances can stand out strongly. The discussion references a specific driver’s lap being “idolised,” highlighting how qualifying can become the headline even when the race is the main event.
They’re saying F1 isn’t purely “natural” racing—rules and systems are designed to influence how the race unfolds. That can include creating chances to pass, even if it feels less spontaneous.
Fuel saving means driving in a way that uses less fuel than normal. In racing, that can force drivers to go slower or change how they accelerate, which can reduce how “full throttle” the action feels.
This part of the show is arguing about whether Domenicali’s reasoning for the 2026 F1 rules makes sense. The hosts think the key issue isn’t being addressed, and they keep coming back to improving qualifying. They’re basically debating whether the plan will fix what fans dislike today.
Term
CURS
“CURS” sounds like a shorthand for some kind of efficiency or fuel-saving rule/feature in F1. The speaker is saying they would have preferred that kind of approach instead of what was proposed. The exact meaning isn’t fully spelled out in this segment.
Rule changes are when F1 updates the regulations that teams and drivers have to follow. In this context, the host is hoping those updates will make qualifying more exciting and improve the overall race weekend. It’s basically the sport adjusting the “game rules” to fix a problem.
Viewership numbers are basically “how many people watched.” They’re useful, but they don’t automatically prove the new rules are the reason people are watching more or less.
Sample size just means “how much evidence you have.” If you only look at a few races, it’s easier to get a misleading impression because things can change from week to week.
The Oldsmobile Intrigue is an older mid-size car (a sedan) that was sold by Oldsmobile. It was made for everyday driving and family use, like commuting and road trips. It may come up in a podcast when talking about older cars and how regulations affected what automakers built.
Nielsen is a company that helps estimate how many people watch TV. If races move to streaming services that don’t use Nielsen, it’s harder to compare “who watched” across time.
Apple TV is where some people watch F1 races by streaming. The point here is that it may not report audience data the same way older TV systems did, so “more viewers” claims can be harder to verify.
ESPN is a TV network that used to carry F1 in the U.S. The hosts mention it because it used a more standardized way to measure audiences than some streaming setups.
They’re talking about whether passing cars is better or worse now compared to the 1980s. The point is that F1 has always had rules and constraints that can change how easy it is to overtake.
Tyre management is about keeping the tires working well for as long as possible. If you push too hard too early, the tires wear out faster and you lose speed later.
Concept
artificial element of F1
They mean F1 isn’t just a simple race of fastest cars. Rules and strategy requirements can strongly influence how the race plays out.
Fuel management means the team has to make the car use fuel in a smart way during the race. They can’t just drive flat-out all the time because the rules limit how much fuel they’re allowed to carry and use.
A fuel limit is a rule that restricts how much fuel the car is allowed to use in the race. Because of that, teams have to drive in a way that saves fuel without losing too much speed.
Lift-and-coast means you take your foot off the gas and let the car roll a bit instead of powering through. It saves fuel because the engine isn’t working as hard.
Concept
Lyco
“Lyco” is basically a shorthand for a fuel-saving driving style where you lift off and coast. The idea is to reduce how much fuel the engine uses during the race.
Term
fuel next lap
Racing teams sometimes have to plan how much fuel they use each lap. If they burn too much too early, they may not be able to keep pushing later.
Boost is extra “push” from the engine that helps it make more power. Teams may not let you have maximum boost all the time, so you can’t always drive at peak performance.
“Tyres have gone off” means the tires have degraded and lost grip, reducing lap times and making the car harder to push. Tyre wear and temperature management are central to race strategy, especially when drivers can’t run flat-out for long.
Race management is how teams plan the race so the car lasts and stays within limits. It includes things like when to push hard and when to save resources for later.
A “stop” is when the car comes into the pits to change tires (and sometimes adjust strategy). Doing more stops can mean fresher tires, but each stop costs time, so teams balance speed versus time lost.
Energy management is how you decide when to use your limited electric power in the race. If the car controls parts of it automatically, the driver can feel like they don’t fully choose when to go fast.
That battery is the car’s stored electric energy. You can’t use unlimited power, so drivers and teams have to plan when to spend it—and sometimes the car’s system decides for you.
Yo-yoing is when cars keep gaining and losing spots over and over. It happens because everyone is trying to manage limited resources, so the pace isn’t steady.
Concept
tyre strategy (push vs conserve)
Tyre strategy means deciding when to drive harder to get more grip and speed, and when to back off to make the tyres last. The point is that drivers can often choose this more directly than the battery system.
Formula One has a big rulebook that tells teams how the cars can be built and how races are run. If drivers criticize the rules, it usually means they think the rules are making racing less fair or less exciting.
Car
Max Verstappen
Max Verstappen is one of the top drivers in Formula One. The hosts are discussing whether his opinions about the upcoming rules should be taken especially seriously.
They mean how many people watch on TV. The idea is that some viewers won’t like early wake-up times, but others will still watch, so the numbers don’t necessarily collapse.
They’re talking about keeping the best drivers in the sport. If big-name drivers quit, it can hurt F1’s popularity for a long time, not just for one season.
They’re saying being a World Champion gives a driver extra status and influence. If that title goes away, the driver’s bargaining power and impact on the sport may shrink.
They’re arguing about which side needs the other more: F1 or Ferrari. The point is that Ferrari’s brand is closely tied to F1, so if F1 weakens, Ferrari feels it too.
Domenicali is one of the main leaders in Formula One. In this segment, he’s being discussed as someone defending the approach to the new 2026 rules. The hosts are questioning whether that defense sounds fair to drivers.
Porpoising is when an F1 car starts to bounce like a dolphin—nose up, nose down—because the car’s downforce and suspension aren’t staying stable. It can make the car harder to control and less grippy. If a driver isn’t experiencing it, they may not complain as much.
Ground-effect is how an F1 car can “suck” itself to the track using airflow under the car. If the car’s height changes even a little, the downforce can change too, which can lead to bouncing. That’s related to why porpoising becomes a problem.
Engine regulations are the official rules that say what kind of engines teams can use in F1. If the rules change, teams have to redesign parts, which can change speed and costs. That’s why people want to wait for real race results before deciding what to do next.
The FIA (Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile) is the governing body that writes and enforces the rules across major motorsport categories, including Formula 1. In this segment, the hosts discuss “tweaks that the FIA are supposedly bringing in,” meaning rule changes intended to address issues observed after a new era begins. Those tweaks are typically justified with a mix of technical reasoning and early on-track evidence.
“PR stunt” is a critique that a public announcement is being used mainly for media management rather than solving the underlying technical problem. In motorsport, rule changes and promises about the future can be framed to reassure teams, sponsors, and fans. The speaker argues that the timing and messaging around engine-regulation decisions may be more about optics than data.
Cadillac is another car brand mentioned as getting involved with F1. The speaker is basically saying that engine-rule decisions can influence which big companies decide to commit to the sport. That can affect how teams plan for the future.
Porsche is brought up via rumors about wanting to be involved, illustrating how engine-regulation direction can attract or deter major manufacturers. The speaker implies that the sport’s rule decisions have real consequences for who considers joining. Even as a “rumor,” it supports the broader point that engine rules are strategic for long-term participation.
“Road relevant” is basically the claim that F1 rules should help make normal cars better. The sport sets a future target year to prove the tech will matter for everyday driving. The host disagrees and says F1 should focus on making the races fun and competitive.
“Wholesale changes” means major, broad rule revisions rather than small adjustments. In F1, regulations shape car design, costs, and competitive balance, so making big changes soon after a new era starts can undermine teams’ planning and investment. The host argues it’s unreasonable to do that after years of preparation.
The host is talking about how F1 markets itself as more than just racing—it’s supposed to be a “tech lab” that matters to normal drivers. They don’t think that connection is necessary. They just want fast, exciting racing with 22 cars.
This suggests F1 would rely on batteries for a big portion of the car’s power. That affects how the car uses energy during a race and how teams plan their strategy. The host’s message is that the details are less important than getting exciting racing.
This means F1 would run on fuel made to be more environmentally friendly than regular gasoline. Teams would have to adjust their cars to work with it. The host’s point is: if it helps the sport move forward and still produces great racing, they’re fine with it.
“Side by side racing” describes close wheel-to-wheel competition where cars run together and can trade positions repeatedly. In F1 rule debates, this is often used as a proxy for whether the regulations are producing competitive parity and good racing dynamics. The host uses it as the ultimate goal regardless of the technical direction (fuels or electrification).
Red Bull is the main team being discussed. They’re reorganizing their technical staff to keep improving the car and staying competitive, especially during a messy period.
“Road relevancy” means whether F1 tech and branding matter to normal cars you can buy. The discussion suggests some teams care about that link more than others.
A technical department reshuffle is a reorganization of engineering leadership and responsibilities, often intended to improve development focus, communication, and execution. Here, the hosts frame it as a response to internal turmoil and departures, with the risk that new hires may take time to deliver results.
In F1, the technical department is the group that builds and improves the race car. This includes the engineering work that affects how fast and how well the car performs.
Racing Bulls is connected to Red Bull’s wider F1 structure. The idea here is that Red Bull is pulling experienced technical people from that program to strengthen its own engineering group.
Performance engineering is the work that helps the car go faster and feel better to drive. It uses testing and data to improve how the car performs on track.
Car design is how the race car is built and laid out—where parts go and how the body and systems are shaped. In F1, design choices strongly affect speed and handling.
Aerodynamics is how the car shapes the air around it. In F1, that affects grip and speed, so if people leave the aerodynamics team, it can slow down or disrupt development.
A notice period is the amount of time you have to give before you can fully move on from a job. In racing teams, it can slow down when someone can start helping their new team.
Gardening leave is when a person is paid but told to stay away from their new job (or any competitor) for a while. The goal is to stop them from taking useful inside know-how to the other team right away.
Mercedes is another major F1 team. The hosts are using it as an example of how a team might want to hire a key technical person, but timing rules can delay the benefit.
The head of aerodynamics is the person leading the team’s work on how the car grips the road using air. In F1, that expertise is very tied to the current rulebook, so the timing of a hire matters a lot.
“Spec” is basically the rulebook and car design requirements for a certain time. If you hire someone too late, they might be an expert in the old rules, not the new ones.
“Dead weight” here describes a situation where both teams are stuck: the current team can’t fully use the person (because of contractual constraints), while the new team can’t benefit yet. It’s a hiring/timing problem that becomes more pronounced around regulation transitions.
BMW is mentioned as a previous employer for the person being discussed. The point is that top technical people often come from different racing backgrounds, which can bring new ideas.
DTM is a German touring-car racing series. The hosts are noting that someone came from there, which can mean they’ve learned different racing and engineering habits than typical F1-only backgrounds.
Concept
aerodynamic engine design chat
The hosts describe ongoing discussions around aerodynamics and “engine design,” implying that technical development conversations are tightly linked to the rule set and future performance. In F1, aerodynamics is a dominant performance driver, and regulation changes can shift what design priorities matter most.
The “chassis” is the car’s structural and dynamic foundation—how it’s built and how it behaves under load—separate from the engine’s power. The hosts argue the 2026 Red Bull’s chassis is the bigger issue because drivers report poor balance and inconsistent handling, which points to fundamentals like suspension geometry and overall vehicle setup.
In F1, the “power unit” is the hybrid engine system that combines an internal combustion engine with energy recovery and deployment components. When the hosts discuss whether a team is “behind” or “ahead” on the power unit, they’re talking about the overall efficiency and performance of that hybrid package.
A “performance review” is when F1 checks how well teams are doing relative to the front. If you’re judged to be too far behind, the rules can allow you to bring more upgrades.
“Oversteering” describes a handling condition where the car’s rear tends to step out more than the driver expects, especially when cornering or changing direction. In the transcript, it’s cited as part of the chassis imbalance complaints, implying the car’s grip distribution and balance are inconsistent.
Saying the car is “unbalanced to drive” means its handling characteristics don’t stay consistent—front/rear grip and response can vary too much across braking, corner entry, mid-corner, and exit. In F1 terms, that often points to a mismatch between aerodynamic balance, mechanical grip, and setup.
“Understeering” is when the front of the car loses grip first, so the car doesn’t turn as much as the driver commands. The hosts pairing it with oversteering suggests the car’s balance is unstable or changes unpredictably with conditions and driver inputs.
The transcript mentions that “when they go to shift, the car feels really unbalanced,” which implies the car’s behavior changes during gear changes. In F1, that can be influenced by drivetrain behavior, traction control/engine mapping, and how the car’s balance responds to transient load changes.
Concept
aerodynamic development vs horsepower balance
In simple terms, aerodynamics and engine power have to work together. If you have a lot of power, the car still needs the right downforce and low drag so it can actually use that power effectively on track.
Internal promotion is when a team moves someone up from inside the company instead of hiring from outside. It can be faster because they already know how the team works.
McLaren is another top F1 team. The hosts mention it to illustrate that bringing in people from other big teams can sometimes spark breakthrough ideas.
In Formula 1, the car’s shape can push the air in a way that helps it stick to the track. A double diffuser is a special rear design that helps the car make more downforce, so it can go faster through corners.
They’re basically saying: if something risky might happen, you plan ahead so it doesn’t hurt you as much. Here, it’s about adjusting the team’s future plans if a star driver leaves.
Term
Q3
Q3 is the last part of qualifying where the quickest cars compete for the best starting spots. If a driver keeps reaching Q3, it usually means the car is fast and well-balanced.
A “sister team” is basically a second F1 team that’s connected to the same company as another team. Fans worry that having two teams in the same race could lead to unfair help or mixed incentives.
Williams is one of the long-running teams in Formula 1. The hosts bring it up to illustrate that team relationships can make fans wonder whether teams are truly independent.
Alpine is an F1 team. The hosts mention it because the rumor about ownership would mean one person/company could have influence over multiple teams, which fans worry could affect competition.
Formula 1 is the highest level of open-wheel racing. The hosts are talking about how the rules coming in for 2026 could change how teams compete and how fair the competition feels.
This phrase points to the idea that an engine’s headline performance may not translate directly into race-winning results. In F1, overall competitiveness depends on the full package—car balance, aerodynamics, reliability, and how effectively the team can exploit the regulations.
Topic
highbringer era
This sounds like a nickname for a certain time period in F1—basically, a “phase” of how the team was doing. It’s not a formal car or part name, more like shorthand for an era of performance.
They’re about to talk about the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, which is one of the Formula 1 races. They’re saying it was a particularly wild race, likely with lots of twists that affected the outcome.
In F1, the “front row” means the best starting spots on the grid—pole position and second place. Starting there usually gives a big advantage because you’re ahead of most of the field.
They mention the Bahrain GP as the last race they’re talking about. It’s being used as background for what happened next, including some unusual driver-related events.
They’re calling out a particular pass during the race. Overtakes in F1 usually happen because one car can get closer under braking and then use better grip and traction to pull ahead.
They’re debating which team would have done best at this track if the race had happened. They use what they know about each team’s car and the track’s style to guess how tight the podium battle could have been.
Some tracks are more about how the car “pushes down” and cuts through the air. If a circuit is aerodynamically important, small changes to wings and body shape can make a big difference to speed.
A power track is a race track where the car’s speed in straights matters a lot. Cars that accelerate well and reach higher top speeds tend to do better there.
Concept
imaginary Bahrain Grand Prix
They’re talking about a “what if” scenario—how teams might have done if a race had happened. The idea is that each team’s car suits some tracks better than others, so you can guess outcomes from past performance.
They’re talking about a specific race track called Jenner and how its shape affects racing. If a track has lots of corners and few long straights, it’s harder to pass unless you get a good run at the right spot.
Suzuka is referenced as a comparison point for overtaking patterns and race dynamics. The hosts mention the “Casio Triangle” area as a place where overtakes can happen, and they argue Jenner could produce a similar pattern of limited passing opportunities.
The “Casio Triangle” is a well-known Suzuka complex where multiple corners and braking zones create a cluster of overtaking opportunities. It’s used in the discussion as an example of how track geometry can concentrate passing attempts into specific areas.
DRS is a system that helps cars go faster in certain zones by reducing drag. “DRS chicken” means two drivers are basically daring each other to use it first, because whoever times it better usually gains the overtake.
Because F1 uses hybrid power, the car has a battery that can store energy and then release it. “Battery management” is how the team decides when to recharge and when to spend that stored energy so the car is fast where it matters.
Australia is mentioned in the context of how the hybrid/battery rules would play out early in the season. The hosts argue it had an advantage because teams and drivers didn’t yet know what to expect, whereas later races would be judged with more certainty about performance and strategy.
They’re talking about what gear the car is usually in during the lap. Higher gears generally mean you’re carrying speed and using the engine differently, which changes how fast you can go through corners and how the car feels overall.
In F1, the car can store energy and use it later. The hosts are saying you have to drive the first part of the lap in a way that lets you get the most out of that stored energy later.
DRS is a system in F1 that lets the car reduce drag for a short stretch. That usually makes the car accelerate harder, which can help you pass or defend in that “straight” section.
They’re comparing Monza to another race location called “Suzuki.” The main point is that the other race had a similar pattern where a good start helped a driver stay ahead.
A “bad start” means the driver doesn’t get away well and drops places right after the lights go out. In F1, that can be hard to recover from, especially on tracks with tight space early on.
Sim practice means practicing in a computer racing setup. Teams do it to help a driver improve things like getting off the line quickly and consistently.
Miami is the next F1 race location they’re talking about. They’re saying the track’s start situation can affect how many places you can realistically gain or lose.
This means how far the cars travel before the first corner. If it’s a long run, there’s more chance to pass; if it’s short and tight, mistakes cost you more places.
They’re talking about the 2016 Brazilian Formula 1 race. It’s famous for being messy and exciting because the track was wet, so drivers had more trouble and there was more action passing each other.
“Power rankings” are a post-race way to rank teams or drivers based on recent performance. In F1 coverage, they’re often subjective and can reflect form, competitiveness, and results rather than a strict points-based metric.
Topic
beer with breaking
This sounds like a recurring “hangout” segment. The hosts talk casually, answer questions, and do silly games—more fun than technical F1 talk.
Monaco is one of the most famous F1 races. The track is very twisty and narrow, so it can be harder to overtake, and that’s why people debate whether it’s overrated or underrated.
Mexico City’s F1 track is at high altitude. That affects how the engines breathe and how the car feels, so it can change the racing compared to other circuits.
This is the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, the circuit used for the Mexican Grand Prix in Mexico City. The hosts discuss how the track’s layout affects racing—especially overtaking and entertainment in different sectors.
Concept
run to turn one tax
They’re talking about the first part of the lap before the first corner. The idea is that this section can make racing less exciting because it doesn’t help cars pass.
A street circuit is run on regular city streets. Because it’s tight and has walls close by, it’s usually harder to pass other cars, so the race can feel less eventful than qualifying.
F1 changes its rules periodically. The 2026 rules are the big upcoming change, and people are trying to guess whether it will make races more exciting—especially at places like Monaco that can be hard to race on.
A safety car is used when something dangerous happens on track. When it’s a “full-course” safety car, everyone slows down together, and the race can feel less exciting until they go again.
Albert Park is the circuit in Melbourne where the Australian Grand Prix is held. Because it’s set up in a park area and feels more “street-like,” it can change how easy it is to race and pass.
They’re talking about a piece of track infrastructure (like a cover over a drain) that wasn’t secure. If something like that comes loose, it can be dangerous for cars and can force problems during the event.
They’re talking about the Barcelona race track and why it’s fun to watch. They mention that the first part of the lap lets drivers fight side-by-side, and that changes to the last section make the racing better.
A chicane is a sequence of alternating turns that forces cars to slow down and change direction. In F1, removing or altering a chicane can significantly change overtaking opportunities and how fast the cars run through that section.
The hosts discuss the Hungarian Grand Prix circuit (often referred to as the Hungaroring) and why it tends to produce unpredictable races. They cite examples like unusual results and drivers struggling in places you might not expect.
They mean the Hungaroring race track. They’re saying it often gets rain and creates unpredictable racing where the usual front-runners don’t always dominate.
Tyre wear describes how quickly an F1 car’s tyres degrade during a stint due to heat, friction, and load. It strongly affects pace, strategy, and how hard drivers can push—especially on tracks where conditions amplify degradation.
This is the F1 race in Hungary, run at the Hungaroring. People often say it can be either really exciting or kind of dull depending on the year and conditions.
This is the track where the Bahrain Grand Prix is held. The hosts are talking about how the track’s corner and braking layout makes it easier to race closely and pass.
“Wheel to wheel” means two cars are racing side-by-side very closely. It’s a good sign because it usually means the track lets drivers fight for position without immediately getting pushed off line.
Topic
international layout
Sometimes a race track is used in different layouts (different turn-by-turn paths). The host is saying that one of those Bahrain layouts was especially disappointing.
Topic
endurance layout
An “endurance layout” is another alternate configuration of a circuit designed for longer-distance racing. In this segment, the host implies that this layout produced less exciting racing compared with the Grand Prix configuration.
Monza is a historic F1 track in Italy known for being very fast. People debate its ranking, but it’s still widely respected for producing exciting racing.
Silverstone is a famous F1 track in the UK. It’s often considered one of the best because it has a great mix of fast and slow corners that make racing interesting.
This is the entertainment setup for people sitting in the back—usually screens and audio controls. It helps make long drives more comfortable for passengers.
LIVE
Dear Crew, it's Toyota. With an adult-sized third row, everyone's welcome in the Grand
Highlander. From sports fans to eco-buffs and movie fans, sync back in the Sienna with
an available rear seat entertainment system. Slip into the RAV4 with available all-wheel
drive and let's go. Toyota, find yours at toyota.com. Toyota, let's go places.
Tickets to concerts, sports, comedy, and more with Game Time. Download the Game Time app and
create an account for $20 off your first purchase. Terms apply.
Hello, and a very warm welcome to the late-breaking F1 podcast presented by Sam Sage and me, Ben
Hawking, here on this non-F1 Sunday, something I've become far too accustomed to saying.
Sam, how was your breakfast, mate? With that intro, I just want to cut to you,
like black and white. They ask if you're fine. You say you're fine, but really,
you're not fine because you have just been missing Formula One for that long.
Yeah, I had a lovely breakfast, thanks, mate. A sausage roll,
heating up in the air fryer, of course, as well, to re-crisp that lovely pastry.
And then I had these little hash brown tater tots on the side. It was, obviously,
I'm living the dream out here. It was a great time. Being an adult was fun.
The hash and the brown. Wow. You know it. Put them together, you get a tater top.
Love that. Well, yeah, today should have been the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, but we've got a
lovely episode for you anyway. Before we started, Sam said we're going to have a lovely recording
today. So we have a nice recording. So we're going to do everything we can to ensure that is the case.
We're going to do a bit of an underrated, overrated circuit edition later on in the show.
A bit of a reshuffle at Red Bull. But we're going to start with our dear leader, Stefano
Domenicali, because the F1 CEO and president believes the championship will make the necessary
changes to strengthen the 2026 regs while maintaining that the sport is heading in the
right direction amid increasing global interest. He said, I can see an incredible result in terms
of positivity from the bigger fan base on what is the effect on racing. Definitely I take on
board the criticism related to certain situations that we have to manage related mainly to qualifying.
If I see the survey of what is going on all around the world with new fans of Formula One,
the result is magnificent. Generally speaking, when we're talking about something, it's great
because that generates a constructive discussion. What I don't like is people who love to criticize.
Criticizing to criticize doesn't help anyone, and it has really zero effect.
And speaking about a particular criticism related to overtakes, he said, what is artificial?
Overtaking is overtaking. People have a short memory because in the turbo age in the 80s,
you had to save fuel in the race because otherwise the fuel tank was too small,
and it's just part of the game. Plenty to go out there, Sam, but let's start with his
positivity around the racing aspects that we have right now, but also his willingness to maybe
have rule changes related to qualifying. Yeah, it's a really interesting take from
Stefano. He's once again playing Mr Propaganda. It feels like where he's decided to put out a lot
of big key words, such as survey and new fans and things like that. And I don't see any of it
written down anywhere, and I don't remember being part of a survey myself as an existing
fan of if I enjoy what's going on. Have you seen one, Ben? We're important. We deserve to be asked
these things. I'm actually just a little bloke that watches the telly, and I quite like to also
be involved in what's good and what isn't good for the sport I've grown up watching. No, I think
they just had an exclusion list. These people will not be sent this survey under any circumstances,
and it's just the late-breaking audience. Late-breaking audience and hosts only.
The thing about new fans is, if you ask only exclusively new fans, which I have again,
I don't know how you're only exclusively asking new fans this situation as well.
Well, what about old fans? Was for every one fan that joins as a new fan leave, how do you know
if your audience is actually growing at this point? It's a really tricky situation. He is right
though that there is a split specifically between racing and qualifying, where while racing isn't
perfect, qualifying is by far the biggest impacting area of our sport, six-season regulations of
coming. The DNA, if you want to use that phrase, which I'm not particularly keen on, but I understand
where it comes from, of qualifying is that you are meant to have these drivers who are supposed
to be, as Thierry has once said, the 20 best drivers, now 22 best drivers in the world,
go flat out for one lap at a time. The car is absolute best, and they put in the absolute best
lap time around a race track that can be given. Right now, we're not getting that. We are not
seeing these drivers at full chat, full throttle, full anger, and it's a shame. We're missing something.
It is losing the excitement of what was a Saturday because qualifying itself is a spectacle, and
there are many moments that we've spoken about on this show throughout history where sometimes
the race weekend will be memorable for the qualifying lap. You look at, you know, Monaco is
a big one, you know, for that example, right? Might appear in those top three of a rating,
underrated tracks later on. Who knows? It ain't appeared in underrated for you, is it?
Spoilers! You know, we get to Singapore, right, where we've had some dad races there,
but Hamilton's lap, for example, is really idolised. Saudi Arabia has had a couple already,
where qualifying laps seem to come out more than the actual race itself, and qualifying as a spectacle
is meant to be this one off, adrenaline field, what a lap moment, and we're not getting that
anymore. And I'm glad that he has mentioned that in his speech. I'm glad that that's come up as a
topic, but I do think he's also been quite flattering to what the race situation is currently.
And when he brought up this whole nostalgia thing, 80s thing, it's always been the same,
you know, artificial, what's artificial. I've made this point that in Formula One, we have
always had some kind of an element of artificiality. That's what creating a racing programme is.
It's going to be a way to overtake. You have to do that. But when you talk about fuel saving in
the 80s, as your primary example, I'd argue that fuel saving, which has been around since,
you know, dawn of man, because those two things happened at the same time, you know.
We've met with fuel.
We managed to walk on two legs, and then we decided we also need to save petroleum,
very, very similar. My point here is that if you're going to pick up an instance of where we
need to save or manage or do something in the car, the fuel saving is not what I would have
gone for. I've gone for CURS at the start of the, you know, the 12, 13, until they started
to really come in. DRS is the most recent example that people can fully understand.
These things will have made actual sense to a current audience. You're picking up something
that actually, whilst many of this have gone back and watched, you know, parents or people
listen to this show will have been present for, I don't think fuel saving in the 80s era is even
remotely relevant to what we see right now, when you do also have some fuel saving at times in
Formula One. So it's a real mixed part of a statement. I don't think he's been particularly
clear on what he's trying to achieve. And I do think he's saying a lot of positive things about
a lot of backing to them in order to try and make the picture seem prettier than it actually is.
In terms of the qualifying element of what he's saying, because I do agree that there is, to an
extent, a bit of a, eh, qualifying is not very good at the moment, but look at all the racing,
look at all of this. But I am at least glad that he's identified qualifying as the area
to improve, maybe the most. I know it's something that not only today have you just
referenced, but it's something we've spoken about a lot, that there is something missing from a
Saturday at the moment. And I think with Domenicali agreeing with that, at least in principle,
and being open to rule changes, perhaps in the not too distant future, that gives me hope,
because I just don't think there's anyone left on the other side of the debate here.
Like, I think there's a pretty wide reaching consensus that, you know, us as fans, probably
old and new, F1, the FIA, the drivers, it feels like everyone is on the side of we need to fix
qualifying as soon as is conceivably possible. So that gives me some encouragement from the
racing perspective, though, to your point on surveys. Fan interest, somewhere up in the clouds
with the Father Christmas of birthdays, possibly. They're all from the same place.
It is a bit vague. It's not the first time Stefano Domenicali as referenced a survey that I
cannot, despite a lot of research, find any evidence of. He does at least have some proof in
that viewership numbers, he cites both viewership and race attendance. I'll get to race attendance
in a moment, but he does. He does cite viewership as something that has increased in these first
few races, which is good. Don't get me wrong. I don't think he should just use that though,
because there are limitations to it. Firstly, it's three races. It's a pretty small sample size.
There was always going to be a lot of intrigue around new set of regulations. There's no proof yet
that will be sustainable. It might be, and I hope it is, but we don't know that yet. So
I think he needs to proceed with caution in that regard. Secondly, it's not all of their top markets
that are seeing a viewership increase. There have been some key European markets that have
struggled, particularly the Japanese GP. Now, if you look at some of those markets, it's the
German market, it's France, it's Spain, and you can certainly look at a few of those and say,
Germany and Austria seem to be struggling a little bit more. Max Verstappen not as
competitive, might play into that. Spain really struggling. Fernando Alonso is languishing down
in 20 seconds. So you can start to put together that it's not just the regulations that are
feeding into viewership increases and decreases. I mean, for example, Italy. Italy's doing very
well at the moment. That is a shock. I wonder why, Kimmy Antonelli.
What do you mean that France aren't getting behind our Lord and Savior, Pierre Gasly?
I think you managed to mispronounce Esteban Ocon horribly there, but okay.
I don't think he's from anywhere in France. Slander. He's actually from the Changa Islands.
Wow. I didn't know that. Thank you for informing me. And the third point about
viewership as well is that the U.S. has obviously gone on to Apple TV, which don't participate in
the Nielsen sort of rating system like ESPN before did. So with ESPN, we could say this many people
are watching a Grand Prix with Apple TV. I think Stefano after the first race said we had more
people watching it on Apple TV than ESPN last year. It's like, great. We kind of just have to
believe you, I guess. We don't have any subscribing number you've been given by Apple,
surely? Yeah, there's no real way to prove it or disprove it. And then final point on this is
related to race attendance. I don't know why he's talking about this, because it has absolutely
no relevance to this discussion at all. Race tickets aren't sold based on the last month
of F1. They're sold based on what happened last year, sure. Look, you mean you turn up at the
turnstiles outside Fazuka? You go one ticket, please. The last two races were great. You
cannot say, wow, Australian GP attendance is doing really well this year. Thank goodness for
the new regulations. No one has seen any of it. I think it's sold a year before. Come on, man.
Look at next year's attendance if you want any kind of inclination. Also, more than three races
is a good place to start. Yes, indeed. You mentioned a little bit there about the comparison of
overtakes now to the 1980s and talking a little bit about how there has always been an artificial
element of F1. If we're looking more at maybe a management side of things, because fuel management,
tyre management, these things have existed. Energy management is also another form of that.
Do you therefore at least somewhat see where he's coming from? That's a degree of it. But my issue
here is, when you talk about fuel as a product to be managed, as you mentioned in these categories,
it's got like we've lost fuel as an option here in Formula One. We're still using a set limit of
fuel. There will be some cars that will maybe burn through it slightly faster that they do lift and
coast. There's a whole story last year that we went on about with Ferrari having to Lyco everywhere
because of the way the car works. It's not like they're flat out on the actual combustion engine,
100% of the Grand Prix now and all they're doing is managing energy instead. You're now getting both.
You haven't taken away what was seen as a problem in the 80s, which he's identified.
You've just added another thing on the top of it, which is also management. It's amazing that
Formula One manager isn't carrying on because it seems like it'd be a pretty realistic game right
now with tyres. That's the problem. Yeah, you don't want that. Games are meant to be fun.
I just think he hasn't. I tweeted this. I don't think he's fully grasped what the consumer's
problem is with the sport. We'll get on to drivers' opinions later on, but as a consumer,
we're not here to watch people go around at 65, 70%. We're here to see people go racing at full
capacity. I don't want to hear, I'm having to Lyco for a fuel next lap, having to Lyco to make sure
that my boost is charged. Oh, I've got 100% press, but I only get for a lap and then I lose it again
and actually my tyres have now gone off, so I can't push anymore. You think,
you get about three laps of actual hardcore full-on racing at this point, and it is a
frustrating scenario to find yourself in. I don't think it's defined as really clipped,
but that's what the problem is. If you're going to add one, you've got to take away the other one
realistically. I disagree with that in that I think he does know what the issue is. I just think
he doesn't want to think about it. That's even worse. Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm not saying it's a
good thing, but he's a smart guy. I think he knows the issues of older fans. I just think
he's got a job to do and to be able to manage the narrative here. When it comes to race management,
I have always said that not everyone agrees with me on this. It is a really important and also
entertaining part of motorsport, and that goes beyond F1, but it is an important part of racing.
I think the problem here is, I look back to 2012, for example, just as a reference point.
In 2012, we often cite as being one of, if not the greatest season in the history of this sport.
Holy grail. Right? Why is it that entertaining? At least one of the reasons is because every
single Grand Prix, you had someone trying a two-stop, someone trying a one-stop, someone
trying a three-stop, and you had varying degrees of management. Some people's strategy was to
manage as much as they possibly can and try and only stop once, and then you had other people go,
we're not going to do a lot of management whatsoever, but we're going to stop three
times as a result of that. That difference in strategy created really entertaining Grand Prix.
Management helped the entertainment. The problem we have at the moment, I think it's twofold. Number
one, there's a limit. There is a limit to how much management I think you should be able to do in a
Grand Prix. At the moment, it's not a part of racing. It feels like the main event at the moment,
which is not what we need. Secondly, when you go back to particularly tyre management,
maybe fuel management as well. What made it so entertaining is you had, as a driver and as a
team, control. You had control over what strategy you want to do on the tyres. Fuel wise, you had
a bit of strategy to work out how fast you're going to go at the beginning of the Grand Prix
to then maybe take a bit of punishment towards the end of the race. It was within your control
as a driver and as a team. With energy management, it's not quite the same. I know some teams are
maybe a little bit more efficient over a lap on how they use that battery, but for the most part,
everyone's got the same amount to use. That's why we're seeing so much yo-yoing in terms of
these position swaps, because no one can... On that, the point about what you're making is very
valid about its self-control. I can push the tyre, I can choose to conserve the tyre, I can
decide to push the throttle, or I can lift off earlier to make sure that the car has got better
access later on to fuel. With the battery, we're hearing stories so regularly about how a driver
is going. I didn't actually plan to use my battery there with the car deciding for me that we're
going to burn batteries, so I'm off. I've got to go for it. I think Landon Norris came out and spoke
about he was going to attack Lewis Hamilton at one point in Suzuka. He was like, well, I wasn't
planning on doing it that lap. I was going to conserve, but the battery was pushing. I had to go
with it. At that point, the decision had been made for me. I wasn't ready for it. That's taken
the control away from the drivers, which is even more frustrating that the conservation is being
done internally by the car and is not driving control. Yeah, indeed. Let's take a quick break,
but we've got a few other points to hit on this one when we come back.
Big thanks to our sponsor, BetterHelp, for partnering with us for this important conversation
about mental health. This is Steve Smith here, former NFL Y receiver and host of the 89 show on
YouTube. So having a counselor and working with BetterHelp, that gives you an opportunity to
really start to unpack, but people don't understand. When you unpack things, you also open up a box
that you're not always sure what's inside. So I think that's why seeing a professional is extremely
important. If you need someone to open up to, visit BetterHelp. That's better, h-e-l-p.com
slash 89 to get started. Dear crew, it's Toyota with an adult sized third row. Everyone's welcome
in the Grand Highlander from sports fans to eco buffs and movie fans. Seen back in the Sienna
with an available rear seat entertainment system. Slip into the RAV4 with available all wheel drive,
and let's go. Toyota, find yours at Toyota.com. Toyota, let's go places.
Welcome back, everyone. A few drivers have been quite critical of the regulations to this point,
and Stefano Domenicali has spoken about this as part of the interview that he did,
particularly focusing on Max Verstappen, saying that Verstappen's voice needs to be listened to.
Do you think it will? It's interesting, isn't it? I think there's many voices that should be
listened to, and whether they do get listened to or not is a very big question. I think internally,
they will hear his grumbles, but I also think that Formula One has had huge stars, and they've
recovered from not having those huge stars anymore. For a number of instances, through
a fatality, someone like Senga, unfortunately, who was a huge moment for us in Formula One that
we lost, sadly, all the way through to the likes of Schumacher, who decided to step aside when they
got old enough that they decided they didn't want to do it anymore. Of course, we now know
where Schumacher is, and then you've got Hamilton, who's maybe on his way out, and maybe people are
thinking, should he still be listened to? Verstappen is the next iteration of that, where
you have a leading personality within the sport, and your stars, when you've only got 22 of them,
can really have a massive impact. It's not like it's football, for example, and I'm talking about
UK football soccer, European soccer, where in a league, you'll have, say, 20 teams, and there's
11 starting players for each of those, and then they have seven players on the bench every single
time. You're talking hundreds of potential stars that might come out and say one thing,
and you go, well, the percentage of argument there is 0.1%. We could deal with that. That's not
a problem. But when it's Verstappen that comes out and says something, that's immediately like 5%
of your entire star base has come out and said something. And you know it's not 5%. It's not
actually 5% that aren't saying it. There's people that will agree with him on the grid as well,
and internally, we'll go, I agree with what Max is saying, actually. That's a real problem for
Formula One. They know that with TV numbers, for example, as fans, we will still sit down on a
Sunday. We will continue to turn up to qualifying. And those numbers will fluctuate. There were some
people who will be casual who go, I don't want to wake up at 1AM. It's not important to me this
year. It's not good enough. I won't wake up at 1AM. But I'll still watch the 2PM races.
Those people will exist, and they'll always exist. And Formula One are aware of that.
But if you lose someone as captivating as a Hamilton, as Verstappen, as an Alonso,
and Leclerc, someone like that, because of the frustration around the sport,
I think you would be surprised just how powerful their voice is internally. Whether it is actually
listened to, and they do see the other side of, we should pay attention to what these guys are
saying who are driving the cars. That's a different question, because, like I said,
new sensations will turn up, and they will take their place.
I think his voice will be listened to somewhat, in that F1 doesn't want to lose drivers
unnecessarily. There's no point in them losing drivers just for the sake of it. But honestly,
how many drivers do I think could leave the sport almost overnight and F1 feel a tangible,
longer lasting impact? How many drivers do I think that is? Three. Verstappen, Hamilton,
and Norris. And the only reason Norris is on that list is because he's got the label of World
Champion. As soon as he doesn't have that label, I think that list goes down to two. And that's no
disrespect to the other drivers. But that's just the way F1 is bigger than the teams and the
drivers that are in it. I've always said that about the teams as well. People often say,
I don't know, F1 needs Ferrari more than Ferrari needs F1. Rubbish. Ferrari needs F1.
I think Ferrari would crumble a little bit if they didn't have F1. It's their main brand.
I'm not saying it's a good thing that it exists this way, but it is the way that it exists.
Whilst I think Domenicali will listen to the likes of Verstappen, the compromises, I think, will
be smaller. I don't think it's a case of a driver is, and I'm just a bit visual here, but on full
on the right side of the argument, Domenicali is full on the left side of the argument,
and they're going to meet in the middle. That's not happening. Domenicali will almost have this
box of, this is what we're willing to compromise on, and we'll listen to the drivers and tweak
accordingly, but we're not going outside of this box because that box is what's best for F1.
Any other drivers? I don't think that's the way that it will work.
The other thing that he said about Verstappen, he didn't say this about Verstappen. He said it
more generally. He said that the paraphrasing here, the top guys aren't complaining much.
Those that are struggling more are complaining more. I understand what he's saying here,
but, and you can use that argument to an extent on the likes of Verstappen and Norris, who, of
course, have just come from a championship battle a year ago, and are now very much not in a championship
battle. How does that work for someone like Oli Berman, who has been one of the most critical,
like quietly, has been one of the most critical guys on the grid about these ranks?
He hasn't been at the top. He hasn't been winning races. He hasn't had a podium yet.
That logic shows that.
You argue that Charles Leclerc is the same. Sure.
He was more competitive than he was last year in theory. He's already had
more chances at podiums than he did last year. You're right. It immediately falls down the
moment you provide one example. Although, unfortunately, for the likes of Verstappen,
Sainz, those people who are struggling further down, who, rightfully and fairly,
have a problem with the regulations, you have quotes from the likes of George Russell,
who was one Grand Prix this season that come out and went, you know, I'd enjoy
Formula One when we were in porpoising here in my backer, but they weren't complaining when
they were winning. This is so stupid, man, by the way. This is so stupid because, like,
why wasn't Verstappen complaining about porpoising a couple of years ago? Because he wasn't
porpoising. He can't complain about it. He's not suffering from it. The car was legitimately
working unlike George, where your back actually hurts. It would be like, you know, everyone
can complain about the battery and being like, well, why am I saying he's complaining about
the battery? It's because they haven't got battery in their car this year, because I got to do
battery this year. Sam, I've got the sun coming in through the window into my eyes, and it's
really actually not very nice. Why aren't you complaining about that? Why aren't you complaining
about that? Let's go sang in my eyes. It's fine. The sun is a perfect and wonderful thing. It's not
my only thing. It's affecting me, but you should be complaining about it. I know. It's just have
some a little bit of common sense about why some things might be subjective more than others.
Final thing that Domenicali said is about the next set of engine regulations and being like,
we need to decide that this year. Why do you think that is the case? And do you agree with him?
I think this year is a little rash to start with. I do think that, again, with only three
grand preying, I do think there's still plenty of room to tweak what we've got. I know it's
been a big of a PR disaster for Formula One at the start of this era, but that doesn't mean that
the basis of what we're doing is good or bad. I'd like to see more actual evidence on track with
some tweaks that the FIA are supposedly bringing in. I'd like to see how that works. I think this
is another PR stunt. I think this is more words out in the media that tries to bring people on
board to make sure they can commit long-term time to Formula One by going, oh, they're not happy.
Let's promise them a better future in three or four years' time and make it all good. There are
so many things that actually balance on changing engine regulations. Look at the teams we brought
in. Because of these supposing engine regulations that are coming now, Audi have decided to join.
Cadillac are here. We've got Toyota who are heavily investing in Haas. There were rumors of the likes
of Porsche who wanted to be involved. It's not like this has done nothing for us as a sport.
There are some positives. A rash change is not as simple as it might sound of just changing
the words on a bigger paper. I do agree that there need to be some tweaks. I don't think it should
be discussed. Only three races into a brand new set of regulations. I'm fine with the discussion
because it is for years in the future. They can almost work alongside each other. You can try and
fix the current regulations as they are right now whilst also thinking about the next set of
regulations in that it might be something completely different that they think is going to be
I hate this term, road relevant by 2030-2031. I'm fine with them discussing it and even
making a decision this year. I think Domenna Carly just doesn't want to get stuck in the
same situation as what we've got now. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with a lot of
the regs as they are today, one thing that I think we can agree on that is not good is that we are
having to talk about quite significant changes just a few races into this new era. They've had
years to prepare for this. They've had so much time to the point where I'm not saying that there
shouldn't be tweaks when we actually get cars on track and we realise things aren't exactly the
way that they were intended. Sure, tweaks need to be made, but we're looking at quite wholesale
changes to the regulations. That should never happen after having years to prepare for it.
And I don't think Domenna Carly wants to get stuck in the same situation again. I think he
wants to be like, whatever it is we're doing next, we want to be on top of it straight away
and manufacturers and teams know if they want to still be involved in F1 at that point, what
they're getting. I think that's fair. You brought up that phrase road relevant, which I think is
important phrase to use because Formula One constantly tries to be this. We're at the cutting
edge of car development and that's how they almost pretend that they're secretly relevant to the
everyday person driving around. I hate that. I don't care if you're road relevant at all. I don't
care if my car on the driveway outside has a mild similarity to a Formula One car on the racetrack.
I'm not naive enough to think that there needs to be similarities between the two.
I just want to see 22 cars go racing in an exciting way. That's all I'm here for.
So if that means having 100% sustainable fuels or making 50% battery power work,
I don't care if it feels good, it looks good and we get some great side by side racing.
I think it's more about the teams to be honest and whether they want to be invested in something
that isn't as road relevant. Audi, for example, one of the main reasons they listed as being in
F1 is that they can transfer and translate a lot of what they're doing in F1 over to their cars.
And if they were to leave as a result of that, maybe Mercedes would be the same,
then we have to think what would F1 look like. And I'm not even saying that's a bad path to go
down. It's just something we need to think about because there are teams like Red Bull,
where road relevancy is an absolute non-factor because as far as I'm aware,
no Red Bull cans are on the roads. I think I'll have to see one of those mingies with a massive
Red Bull in the back of it driving around the other day. Ah, that was me.
Oh, is that you? I've got to show a new whip. That leads us quite nicely on to our second
topic, actually, because it is about Red Bull. They have recruited a senior figure from Racing
Bulls as part of a reshuffle in its Formula One technical department. While the team
continues to back technical director Pierre Vachet, it is introducing a series of organisational
changes within its technical department aimed at reinforcing its focus on performance and innovation.
As part of this, head of performance engineering, Ben Waterhouse has been promoted to chief
performance and design engineer, overseeing design and vehicle performance, and he will be joined
by new hire Andrea Landy, who arrives as head of performance after serving as Racing Bulls
deputy technical director in charge of car design. So a bit of a shuffle up here after
some other departures recently from Red Bull. What do you make of it?
It's really interesting, isn't it? Red Bull was going through such a turmoil, such
tumultuous times that I'm not surprised that we've seen some internal movement,
especially with the GP announcement that obviously he might be going. We've seen so many
departures over the last 12 to 18 months, especially in the technical area, the aerodynamics
technical area. So it makes sense that we see reporting of people being shifting around the
department or brought in. Unfortunately for Red Bull, it's a really tricky time to make new
hires and especially new hires that can have a direct impact. We're at the start of a new
regulation. If you're going to try and get anyone directly from a new team that is outside of the
Red Bull family, there's going to be gardening leave. There's going to be notice periods. There's
going to be time where you can't transition from one to another. So going out to the, exactly.
So going out to like Mercedes is saying, we want to pick up your head of aerodynamics.
Well, yeah, you can have him in two years when it's no longer relevant to the current spec. Well,
what are Red Bull going to do there? It's not relevant to them right now. It's not useful.
Hence the conversation that we have about GP may be going to McLaren sooner.
If they can try and make it work for both parties, you end up with just kind of having
dead weight in both teams. So what they've done here is promote internally. Obviously,
I think Waterhouse has been a key part of the Torrosso Red Bull family for quite a long time.
I was previously with BMW Salba. Again, that's a really good career in Formula One. And I do
think that because he's so embedded in the wider family of Red Bull, this makes sense to give them
a chance. They don't lose anything here. He's already working within the team. He's already
clearly a key contributor to what's going on in the team. And maybe he has some fresh ideas that
haven't been developed yet because he's coming from a slightly different viewpoint. So I'm glad
that they've done something and that they've not just left this open vacancy available.
And it does allow them to basically give Waterhouse like a year at least before they start to look at
this isn't working, this is working, do we need to go and get an outside hiring out from another team?
That's possible there. With Landy, it's slightly different in the sense that I know that he's had
some more external experience. I think he was previously at Ferrari as well. Which is nice
because it wasn't too long ago. Previously with DTM as well, I think it was as well. So working
outside of Formula One, it will be interesting to see if these are new names that have been around
motorsport for a long time that we start talking about as our regular viewpoints in Red Bull. The
and Nui, for example, like that. These games that are so regularly appearing in this aerodynamic
engine design chat, are these the next two superstars that we see in 10 years time? It's
nice to see Red Bull actually giving them a chance to shine. Whether that comes from fruition,
we don't know. Yeah, I think it was necessary, this kind of a shake up, because
Red Bull does, as you kind of put it at the end there, need to create a new generation of
team members that can thrive in a way that may be the likes of Adrian Nui and Christian
Horner and Jonathan Wheatley, big up Rob Marshall. Those guys did. I think maybe the issue there is
that whilst I don't necessarily think they can't do that, they're not like 25, 30 years old,
new into the sport. These are guys that have been around for quite a while. Maybe they just need
this, I don't know, better opportunity to show what they're worth to Red Bull. But maybe the
chances of being another Adrian Nui or another Jonathan Wheatley, that may be pushing it. I'm
not sure we'll get that from these two hires specifically. But it was time to do a bit of a
shuffle, because the 2026 car has been a disappointment. And I say that about the chassis
in particular, because whilst I think we maybe expected the power unit to be slightly behind,
you could argue that's definitely not the case. Like the power unit has kind of that side of
Red Bull has shown up to the point where there are rumors right now that when we have this first
performance review, and we spoke about this on a recent episode, if you're more than 2% behind
the leader, the perceived leader in terms of power unit, you will get additional upgrades.
And of course, at that point, yes. And of course, at that point, we're like,
that'll be Mercedes and everyone else is trailing them. There are rumors suggesting that
Red Bull might actually have the best power unit at the moment. So even if they don't,
maybe that's second, but even if they are second, they're doing an all right job on that. It's
actually the chassis that is the bigger problem. It's had just had a lot of complaints about it.
It's not the Williams, but it's pretty weighty. It's not a good car at the moment.
It's really unbalanced, isn't it? It's really unbalanced to drive. You hear complaints about
oversteering, understeering, the same event from both drivers, the fact they've got no balance,
that when they go to shift, the car feels really unbalanced and confused with itself.
But pick up the ladies and gentlemen over in the States. You guys at Ford,
go out and put some horses into that power. I mean, going a straight line is the old US.
So let's hope that they can actually create something aerodynamically that suits the amount
of horsepower in the back. You mentioned the advantages to there being no gardening leave for
these two hires. So obviously, one of them is just a true internal promotion from Red Bull.
The other one is coming directly from their sister team racing Bulls, so they're not going to serve
any gardening leave either. That's definitely the advantage that you can get this done very quickly.
Is there a bit of a disadvantage in if you're looking for newer, fresher ideas from someone,
you're maybe not as likely to get it from these two? Yeah, that is definitely part of the
cost of doing an internal hire. You have to have belief that maybe part of your culture,
with the fact that you lost so many high ranking senior members, was suppressing maybe some of
these ideas that weren't able to filter up because you were so relying on the big names that we've
mentioned so many times on this show. Now, you look at Mekis, for example, who of course was
previously Ferrari, then was Racing Bulls and now is Red Bull. Landy's done the same journey
pretty much, right? He's gone from Ferrari to Racing Bulls to Red Bulls. So they'll have a
really good relationship. And if Mekis thought, hey, he was a key person that I looked to when it
came to creating success, each of my departments in those previous areas, and now he's building a
team for himself slowly, and Landy is one of those people that he can rely on, you pair that with
Waterhouse who understands the Red Bull in and out. He knows the aerodynamic journeys, he knows
what has been a positive and a negative, but now he's able to actually create ideas for himself,
and he's not relying on someone above him maybe saying, I actually think this might be the direction
we should go in. Or maybe, oh, I don't love that idea. Let's try this. Here's what the freedom to
make those calls. We might see a very different looking Red Bull, but you are right. There's a
real risk that by not going and getting someone from a McLaren, a Ferrari, a Mercedes, or whatever
it might be, you do risk an idea that might be huge in another team, never even being thought of
in Red Bull. But that's the beauty of Formula One, that one idea could spark somewhere and it
could revolutionize your entire season like the double diffuser at Brawl, right? You have one
thought and it changes your whole year. I think, Landy, despite being the junior of the two here,
is perhaps the more interesting one coming from Racing Bulls, because a comment of Racing Bulls,
particularly in the last couple of years, especially last year, I'd say, was that the Racing Bulls,
whilst not the quickest car on the grid, was pretty easy to drive, at least relative.
Whether that translates over to the Red Bull now will be really interesting because
that could help whoever's in the second seat, that of course being Hajar, who would have been
Racing Bulls last year, but also when it comes to Verstappen. Verstappen has been used to a car that is
typically very difficult to drive, but at its absolute peak, a really quick car.
This is almost maybe a venture away from that a little bit.
Oh, it's not surprising though, is it? If there is a genuine risk that someone like Verstappen
steps away from the sport, then you do have to start to mitigate the direction you're going
in the future. Whether that is even, we're taking 10% off of our Verstappen direction and it's still
80% Verstappen, 20% Hajar. That is understandable from a business direction.
There were many comments last year, I remember us saying, where you could put Verstappen in a
Racing Bulls as a chance that maybe he could get a podium out of that car because it felt so
stable and so capable. In qualifying especially, you saw what Hajar was able to do. The amount of
times you had a Q3 appearance last year, it shows that there was some raw pace. Even this year,
once it hasn't got the outright ability to score points in the same way we think
Red Bull probably could, it is looking like a much more comfortable car. Lawson and Limblard
together are able to both produce very consistent results, unlike Red Bull, who are very much
top and tail of the grid so far. I do have to make a customary comment as well on this
gardening leave and how they won't serve any. It is a joke. To be clear, I'm not saying that about
Red Bull or Racing Bulls, the teams, they're just playing the game. They will do what they need to
do. No shade on them whatsoever. It's just the rules and what they are at the moment that
Racing Bulls are so attached to Red Bull that they have this agreement. Before anyone shouts
to me, by the way, I know that it's not just these two. It's happened before with the likes of
James Vowles. I don't think he served any gardening leaves when he left Mercedes to go to
Williams. It's not just a comment on Red Bull and Racing Bulls, but it's maybe the most extreme
example of it. This concept of the sister team, it really does break 11 individual teams all going
for glory. We know that one of these teams, and we've mentioned it so many times, is never going
to win a championship. That's not the point of why they're there. It is a shame. I've had a few
conversations with casual fans who heard the rumors of, for example, Toto Wolff potentially
wanting to buy part of Alpine. The big question was, oh, that's a bit weird. Isn't that going to be
two teams on the same grid? Does that not mean there'll be some kind of conflicting bias going on
there? He owned part of Williams before. Exactly. It's a great comment, and it's a very fair
comment. These are very fair questions that should be made. That is what happens at Red
Bull. Yeah, Vache, is he in trouble at all? It's not looking good for Vache, is it? I mean,
he's been around a long time. He's a very, very well-respecting individual within the Formula
1 paddock, but you would argue that when this new system comes into play, and if you do mention that
the engine is as powerful as it may seem, there's a real risk that this individual might not be
as successful as Red Bull Family Hangover of Hope. What are your thoughts?
It feels a bit like they are... The clock is kicking?
A little bit. It's almost like they're killing two birds with one stone in that they've brought in
support for Vache to maybe do a better job of all this. If it works, great. If it doesn't work,
they've got more of a backup plan than they had before this reshuffle. If it goes well,
great. If it doesn't go well, we've actually got these pieces in place that we can make
a move maybe quicker than we could have done beforehand. It kind of feels a bit like that.
This is the biggest trouble Red Bull has been in since it became successful for the first time
in 2010. This is the toughest period I think they've found themselves in since that point.
Yes, we saw some downfall in the start of the highbringer era, but that's mostly because of
the saying he's engine power. They still had Horner and Nui at that point. You knew that
it was going to turn around. They had direction. They had a long-term plan. The driver base,
it took a little minute, but it got there and it was good. This genuinely feels like at every corner
for Red Bull, there is something that could potentially break. I'm a little worried that we
might see a longer rebuild than we were expecting. Yes, maybe so. Maybe the Nui exit and other
exits have helped Vache maybe cement his place in the team for now. Last year,
obviously, Christian Horner took the fall for what happened. I can't say I shed any tears at it,
but it could have been Vache. It could have been him instead with what that car was looking like
halfway through 2025, and it wasn't. We don't see too many firings from Red Bull. You might see
taking a driver or taking a team member off their hands. You don't often hear about too many public
you're out. You just haven't been good enough. We'll see how the next few months go for the team.
Let's take our next quick break. On the other side, we're actually going to get into what
happened at the Saudi Arabian GP. I can't wait. I loved it. Best one yet.
We have the tech to get food delivered in 15 minutes, but we all have horror stories about
buying tickets. The Game Time app gives fans the advantage. Get amazing tickets in just a few taps.
Fees are included, so what you see is what you pay, and the Game Time guarantee means
authentic tickets at the best price every time. Take the guesswork out of buying tickets to concerts,
sports, comedy, and more with Game Time. Download the Game Time app and create an
account for $20 off your first purchase. Term supply.
Welcome back, everyone. One week removed from that incredible front row of Hülkenberg and Bottas
at the Bahrain GP, and of course, the rather unusual events that saw the two Williams drivers
get in the same car and operate it together. How many more aren't reporting on it?
Arguably, Saudi Arabia today that we're reviewing was even wilder.
A crazy, crazy race. There's a lot going on in the world. It was great just to hunker down and
really just watch some true Formula One racing. What was your favorite bit?
I did enjoy the Bortoletto overtake on George Russell for the race win. I just didn't appreciate
George Russell after the Grand Prix, calling him a fun vacuum.
I've heard this about George. He loves to get out the vacuum grating.
That was harsh. I did enjoy the retaliation from Audi, of course,
German team on German team. They went over and they did a big dance outside the garage,
and then they made the four rings out of human beings and blocked in the lorry so it couldn't
leave. When the guy who was making up the bottom right of the third ring fell over,
that was foul. Very funny. Very good. Audi's got some good bants, good win for Bortoletto.
You can see his legs going anywhere. That's a tough pose to hold. It's really tricky.
Did you see Ocon cut half the course? It's a cheeky boy. That little nip bit through the middle.
I didn't see that. I think it was legal. That's why he came fifth, sensational result for Ocon.
Man, and Ben was still on the podium so he beat him.
Guy, even a fake Saudi Arabian Grand Prix Ocon can't win. In more serious news,
who do you think this track might have benefited if it went ahead?
I'd like to have seen what McLaren could have done here properly. They were better in Japan,
and Japan is kind of a power track, but also very aerodynamically important. They did have
better pace overall in comparison to where we thought they might sit. They were much more
competitive with Ferrari, where I think the imaginary Bahrain Grand Prix much more suited
Ferrari, the imaginary Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, I think is a much better fit for McLaren. I think
it'll be a shame that they didn't get more running time here because I think they could have been
really competitive. I think the saying is still they've been comfortable. I still think this suits
their car. They seem to be very good absolutely everywhere, but I do think that fight for the
podium spot between those two teams would have been much closer. It's a very different circuit
to Bahrain that, of course, we also didn't go to, but we were speaking about this last week and
who that might have favored. Very different circuit at Jenner. It's 27 corners, so the most
corners that you've got on a track in what would have been the 26th calendar, and there's no real
straights outside of the start-finish straight, really. You've still got areas that should in
theory be full throttle, but the only true straight is that. They're all curved, aren't they?
Yeah, exactly. There are similarities to Suzuka in that if you think maybe main gripe with Suzuka
was almost that you had quite a few overtakes going into the Casio Triangle, and then you
knew that it was just going to be repasses again going into turn one. There aren't that many
overtaking spots at Suzuka. I think we could have had the same situation at Jenner.
Yeah, I fully agree. There aren't many areas outside of that on the track where you can foresee
an overtake happening. We did see it a few years ago with Leclerc and Verstappen playing
DRS chicken at that point. To an extent, I think it was entertaining, but I think we could have
seen the same thing if we went to Jenner this weekend. Yeah, I fully agree. I do think that in
terms of battery management, which I hate that we have to bring this up all the time,
I think it would have been a nightmare for Formula One. There's so much of that lap that's on half
or full throttle that the actual recharging capabilities are, if only we think, are within,
basically turns 27 in turn one for full heavy braking. Everywhere else is very much a kind of
half throttle coming down to maybe third or fourth gear at lowest, which means that recharging is
going to be an absolute nightmare. I would have put it on par maybe worse than Australia. Now,
Australia had a benefit of being the first race of the season. Didn't know what we were getting,
didn't know what we were looking at. Was it good? Was it bad? Don't know. I think with hindsight,
and now knowing what we're doing about the regulations, I think Saudi would have been a
bit of a PR nightmare. I think this could have been atrocious. I think even outside of the global
context here, it might be a very good thing we're not racing here because I think it would have
been the trickiest race yet. I think if we're looking at the entire calendar, I think you
mentioned Qatar a few weeks ago as probably being another problem track. I agree with that.
Monza is going to be an interesting one as well. I think Saudi Arabia is part of that group and
worse than Melbourne. Turn four to turn 12, like that sort of very usually fast sort of left-right
sequence, that's half throttle, I think, with these cars during the Grand Prix.
You'd sit between what, fifth and seventh gear for a lot of that, don't you?
Because where are you recovering this energy? If you think of the rest of the lap as well,
you have to be that way through the first sector because if you're not, from turn 13, I think it
is, which is like the curved left-hander from there, all the way to turn 27. I went back and
watched Verstappen's poll lap from here last year. You are not in a gear lower than fifth.
Yeah. You got the DRS straight, straight after that section, of course, as well, which you
think is full throttle. Now, you've got the really quick left-right hand of the chicane,
which leads you down to what is essentially the straight, but isn't the straight. You're right,
you are pelting it through that second half of the lap.
Or you should be, at least, but if you want to be pelting it through that part of the lap,
you are going to have to be so slow through that first sector, which is why, again, I'm
maybe quite glad we're not racing because I don't think it would have created something
entertaining. No, I fully agree. Entertaining in the wrong way in a way that makes our sport
look like a joke. Maybe. I agree with being intrigued about what McLaren could have done here,
though, because it could have worked in a similar way to Suzuki in that
Piastri has a great start and is able to kind of hold off Russell as a result of there not
being too many passing opportunities. Could have got the same thing. The only problem is
that run down to turn one is far shorter. So inferior Mercedes, bad start, maybe wouldn't
have been capitalized on in the same way, or it would have been more difficult to capitalise on it
versus Suzuki. But I think McLaren could have been all right. If you had to go with a poll,
one, two, three, what would you have gone for? Paul, George Russell,
Wing Russell, second place, Santangeli, third, Piastri. I was going to go with Paul Russell,
Wing Russell, second Norris, third Piastri. Oh, what happened to Kimmy?
Well, he's had a lot of bad starts. And I think at some point, if he doesn't sort that out,
he might get punished for it. Now, I said that he, when we did this for Bahrain last week,
I said he'd win that Grand Prix because I think there's enough opportunity there to get it back.
But he seems to be struggling a bit more at the starts compared to Russell. I think that might
cost him unless he solves it. I wonder how much sim practice they'll be doing with Kimmy over
starts for this next two or three weeks as we finally get closer to Miami. The 87 years are
nearly over. It feels like a good place to focus on. The other thing I want to mention in terms of
midfield teams and who might have done well here, I was having a look at the first three races we've
had so far, Australia, Shanghai, Suzuka, and there is something that connects all three of them.
And Formula One tracks. Apart from that, they're all Formula One tracks. They all have quite
lengthy runs down to turn one. Maybe Japan and China a bit longer, maybe the Melbourne,
but they're both not short run down to turn one. Jeda really, and Bahrain would have been the same,
of course. Jeda is almost the first one where there isn't a lot of room between the grid.
Similar to Miami, actually, which we're coming up to. Very true. Very true.
Audi, who have had horrible starts all year, they might have actually quite liked to have gone
to Jeda because there just isn't as much room to lose spots off the grid.
You've got to lose four spots instead of seven.
And that might be enough for a point or two, which isn't what they're getting with regularity
so far this year. Yeah, take that, George Russell. That's why Bortoletto beat you.
And that is why Bortoletto won. Before we go to our next break, Sam, I've heard patrons a good
place to be. You know what? When you're just sunning around, you've got 87 years before a Grand Prix,
you think, where should I retire to? Where should I relax in? Patron, this is the place.
Put your feet up. What's the level like today? Always 21 degrees Celsius and a light breeze.
I don't know what that is in Fahrenheit, sorry. Just a dapple cloud in the sky, the sun's beaming,
birds are tweeting. It's a gorgeous place. Your electricity is free. The rent is low.
It's about a month. Come check it out. Come on in. We're always about, we're looking for a mayor,
town mayor. We're looking for a bin man still, I've heard. So there's plenty of jobs.
Yeah, but we need to pay more, apparently, because we've gone for about seven bin men.
I think get promoted to other jobs. Keep moving on. Yeah. I think actually,
we're also talking about a single benefit you get from Patron City there, which is great,
important. You get loads of race reviews that we've done in terms of classic reviews. So if you're
looking for something a bit different that isn't about the current Grand Prix, think, oh, God,
I'm sick to death of actually management or something like that. We've loads of classics over
there. So this month game we're doing the 2016 Brazilian Grand Prix, which is a mega-fest of
wet weather and crashes and overtakes and drama. So get excited for that one. We've got plenty of
hours ranging from the 80s all the way through to basically the modern day. Then we've got things
like power rankings that come out after every single race. We've got beer with breaking, beer
breaking is where the three of us sit down over a beer and we just talk silly stuff. We get some
of your questions in. We play some silly games. We revisit old-school late-breaking. It is just
farcical. And if you'd like to laugh at us, that's the place to do it. And many other great things
is one in there. So please check it out. And that's, of course, assuming you don't laugh at us when we
do the regular podcast because we are informed individuals that don't deserve mockery.
We are experts in the subject of Formula One, and we only bring you the best.
Sure thing. With that, let's go to our final break. On the other side, we're going through our
most overrated and underrated circuits on the calendar right now. Where's my list?
Dear crew, it's Toyota with an adult-sized third row. Everyone's welcome in the Grand Highlander.
From sports fans to eco buffs and movie fans,
sync back in the Sienna with an available rear seat entertainment system, slip into the RAV4
with available all-wheel drive, and let's go. Toyota, find yours at Toyota.com.
Toyota, let's go places. We have the tech to get food delivered in 15 minutes,
but we all have horror stories about buying tickets. The Game Time app gives fans the advantage.
Get amazing tickets in just a few taps. Fees are included, so what you see is what you pay.
And the Game Time guarantee means authentic tickets at the best price every time. Take the guesswork
out of buying tickets to concerts, sports, comedy, and more with Game Time. Download the Game Time
app and create an account for $20 off your first purchase. Term supply.
Welcome back everyone to the final part of today's episode. We're going to run through our top three
overrated and underrated circuits on the grid, on the calendar, I mean.
Shame that Mr. Harry Yead can't be with us today, because no doubt number one on his list for
underrated would have been Monaco. We'll see if it makes an appearance on either of our lists.
But of course, plenty other options as well. Should we start negative so we can end positively?
Oh, yeah, go on then. So we'll start with top three overrated calendars. Oh my God, words.
Jeez. You could take like a race review for a while, mate.
Overrated circuits on the calendar. Number three, Sam.
I've gone with Mexico. It's my third most overrated track on the calendar,
is how it's meant to be said. I do just think it gets a lot of hype. Does the old
auto-dromo hermangous Carlos Pache? No. That's the interlagos for fun.
Oh, yeah. You started Mexico and you went to interlagos.
Mexico's singing. Yeah, I just think, you know, it gets another hype with its whole
all really long run down to turn one, then amygdala overtaking to turn four,
and it's got high altitude, so the engines are very different. The middle sector is garbage.
You cannot do anything in that middle sector at all. And unfortunately, you make one DRS pass,
which was DRS, which is still DRS, because with two flappy wings now, halfway down the
start, finish straight, and it's game over. So I just think it was a Red Bull playground a while
ago, and it doesn't produce anything specifically exciting.
Insane opinion. Number three on my list, Mexico City. The auto-dromo hermangous Rodriguez.
Oh, it's Rodriguez. Not Carlos Pache. Go on. No, not quite Carlos Pache. He's a bit,
he's a bit further south of where you're at at the moment.
Stadium tax. Run to turn one tax. That's Mexico. Like the run to turn one is great.
It happens once, so probably shouldn't be factored in all that much. The stadium is cool.
From an aesthetic perspective, it is cool. The corners are not good.
Oh, they suck. I love the crowd in there. The Mexican fans, amazing group of people.
We meet a lot of them in Austin. They frequently sit around us, and they are fantastic
crowd participants. But that is really boring going through there.
Yeah. The middle and the first sector is fine. I actually think the first sector,
you still get some side by sides, like as you go through to the end of the first sector,
which can be quite cool. But as soon as you get into that middle and final sector,
I just don't think there's much there, entertainment wise. We actually had a very
good Mexican Grand Prix last year as well, to say. Like it was one of the better races.
The caveat with this list is that it doesn't mean that these are always bad races or that
we dislike these places. It's just that the hype is maybe a bit more than the track generally
gives out. What's number two on your list?
This one might ruffle some feathers. I've gone with Suzuki.
Because whilst a track to drive, it might be number one. It might be the best racetrack to
sitting a race car and go round there. You know what? If Max Verstappen said to me,
hey, Sam, hop in the passenger seat. I'll take you for a whiz, which is I imagine how he talks.
Then I would go, yes, sir. Thank you very much, sir. Three bags full, sir. And I'll have a great
time. But if I have to watch a Grand Prix, especially at 4 a.m., not complaining, then
regularly it provides a very, very boring processional Grand Prix, specifically last year,
where I think what the top 10 were exactly the same as they were when they qualified,
which is the first time it has ever happened. And that's including Monaco, which is crazy-ness.
So it's a gorgeous place. The venue is stunning. The Japanese fans are mega. The track itself is
amazing to go round at full speed. But as a Formula One race right now,
it does not deliver what it once did. It's not on my list, but yeah, you're right. It just annoys
me because it is a great circuit. And if you want to watch Super Formula there or something like
that, it's really cool. It just doesn't actually create many great F1 races. And it annoys me that
it doesn't. So it hasn't appeared on my list, but I understand why it has. Number two for you, Ben.
This is where Monaco makes an appearance. It's tough with Monaco because some people have a great
opinion of it and some people don't. So it's tough to say whether it's overrated or not.
For me, it's the best quality of the year. It's the worst race of the year. And it's just not
suitable for modern F1. I will say at least I am interested in what it will be like with the new
regulations. There is a chance that this is actually the race where it will be least affected.
You might see a Monaco Grand Prix this year that doesn't actually look
much different to what we've had in the last few years. That's not a good thing. The problem is
we want something better than what we've had in the last few years. So I'll give it a chance in May,
but... We kind of have to give it a chance in May. I've got to do the review show on it.
It's in June this year, actually. Yeah, it's around Canada, isn't it?
Yeah. If you like it, I understand why, but the spectacle of qualifying isn't enough for me
to put it not in an overrated category. What leads your list?
We know what leads the list. The Monaco Grand Prix, it is one of the most amazing spectacles.
The heritage, the fangs that go, the place is incredible. Qualifying is a marvel to watch.
It really is. But 78 laps of absolutely nothing happening. Even when someone hits the wall,
which is not what we should be hoping for on a Formula 1 race to make something exciting,
even that just stops the race because you can't do anything with that. See,
there are full-course safety cars, it's a red flag, and then we go again. It's just not fit for
purpose. I've said it so many times, I'd rather have a one-lap shootout, celebrity style, charity
event worth, I don't know, $10 million that goes to a charity event. That's a bit of a breaking
topic. If we had to put 20 celebrities in a Monaco Charity Grand Prix, who would we pick?
That's basically the real rumble, but actually Formula 1 based. I just think in a bygone era,
it would be one of those places that we dream and fantasize of. Remember when we used to race
there? Remember the days when they used to go around the Monaco Grand Prix in the city?
Incredible. It is incredible as a spectacle, but it just does not produce interesting racing
anymore. Number one on my list is Albert Park Melbourne. Far off mine. A bit of a first race
tax. I agree. I wouldn't. Adelaide was pretty cool. We haven't been there in quite a long time.
Do you think it's better or worse with the recent changes?
I do think it's better with the recent changes, but it just doesn't quite do it for me. In fairness,
I've never been to the track, and maybe I'll need to go one day for it to prove me wrong.
Maybe that needs to happen. Let us know. Should we go? For now, I'm going to have to put this
in number one on my list. That's a shame. Maybe we'll just have to take you, Ben, to make sure that
you change your heart. Maybe one day. Maybe. Top three underrated now, Sam.
Underrated because of how new it is. I don't think it's fully embedding in the minds of F1
fans that I think this is produced, not the best ever Grand Prix races, but pretty good.
I really enjoyed the races we've had at Vegas. We had the stupiness of it being so badly organised.
I can't put that on the racing. That's got nothing to do with the racing, but we had the
drain cover coming out. We had the changing staff that were temp staff that weren't allowed
to work after midnight because of their shift patterns and the law that was there. That was
all farcical. The tickets that weren't fully in burst and the fans only got a gift voucher to the
shop, weren't allowed back. That was all ridiculous and stupid and awful, but it does a racing.
I actually really do look forward to it. I think it's good fun. I've enjoyed the last couple of
years that we've been there. The weather is really interesting. Different teams seem to come out on
top. We've had a runaway winner, sure, but I think the battles going on further back have been
more exciting than a lot of race tracks. I'm glad it's around. I don't need to have a lifelong
contract, but I am glad that it is on the calendar. Number three on my top underrated
circuits on the current calendar, Barcelona, Spain. Fourth on my list. I like turn one at Spain.
I think it is a good turn one that you can... We know. I do genuinely think it because you can go
both inside and outside of that corner and that can, if played right, that battle can continue
all the way through that long curve, all the way to turn number...
Four? Yeah, maybe four. I think it's a great first sector. Obviously, the final sector is
much improved since they got rid of that awful chicane. Now it's just flat out, which I think is
great. Last five or six years, it has produced a consistently good race. I think it's the biggest
improver since the 2021 regulations came in. 100%. Because 10 years ago, we were talking about this,
is this the worst one on the grid? It could be. But I think it's great now. I think it's right up there.
I agree. I hang it forth. I was debating whether to put it on the list or not. I really think it's
really quite good now. Number two? With Hungary. Budapest or the Hungara ring. Just east of the
water park. I think you'll find it on the map. I believe it's raining over the water park. I think
so. I've heard this. It quietly delivers banger after banger. A lot of weird events seem to take
place at Hungary. You'll have cars that were dominant elsewhere that aren't so. You have Max
Verstappen struggling to get into the top 10 very recently, for example. We had that event where it
was just Lewis Hamilton lining up on the start, finish grid on his own when everyone else was in
the pit lane. That's what Ocon got. He's won an only victory. It does produce some really
interesting Grand Prix. Jokes and Buttons first ever win there. We've really had some big moments
throughout that racetrack. People are looking at it and go a bit narrow, a bit like Monaco,
without the walls in it. I just don't think it is. I think it's got a lot more to it. The heat
especially provides some really interesting tyre wear issues that come up. I think it's
quite a good race. I find Hungary to be not with equal amounts, but a bit hit and miss sometimes.
When you have a bad Hungarian Grand Prix, it's pretty bad. It is bad, yeah. But you do also get
some very good Grand Prix there as well. No surprise it's made a way onto one of our lists.
Number two for me is Bahrain. I was thinking about this when creating this list. The first
sector in Bahrain, I think it might be the best first sector in F1. I think it genuinely could be
because the turn one all the way up to turn four battles, always really good because you have a
decision as a driver to either go for that move straight away into turn one or to hang back a
bit and then try and make that move around turn four. But of course, that's a really good corner
as well because you can try and go around the outside of turn four, but you have the possibility
that you're just going to be run out of room by the guy you're fighting. You're not slammed on
the brakes there. It's quite a good corner. Then of course, you get into the rest of the lap. It's
also very good as well. I've often thought this one is definitely a top 10 track, but it's a lot of fun.
Number one on your list. I didn't comment because that is my number one on my list.
It might be the perfect first sector in Formula One. Apart from about three corners around the
Bahrain Grand Prix, I think you could do the whole race wheel to wheel. I think it's wide enough that
the cars can go wheel to wheel. The corners are open enough with enough braking zones that you
can out brake someone or cut back down the inside or try and go for a lunge and that the space is
there. I think what would improve it is maybe having a bit more jeopardy when you come off the
track. A little bit more gravel would be nice to have there or maybe a wall a little closer,
just for a little bit of jeopardy. That would be great, but I do think it delivers every single
year. I can't remember where we get a Bahrain Grand Prix where I leave it and think nothing
happened. That was really boring. That was a waste of two hours of my Sunday and now I've got to
talk about it on the podcast and try and make it exciting for a certain reason. It doesn't
ever really happen. The worst one was the international layout that I think Fernando Alonso is
the only fang of. The endurance layout. That's the endurance layout. Thank you. I think it's a
really fantastic racetrack. I would put it in my top five, but you're right. I think it would
definitely sit in that five to ten comfortably inside that group. I think it's a really brilliant
racetrack. Number one might be a surprise for some because it is viewed to be pretty good. In fact,
it's viewed to be very good by a lot of people, but I think it's even better than very good,
which is why I've got the Red Bull Ring. I've got Austria. Interesting. I think if I was putting
together a top four circuits, it would be in that list. I think so. I think maybe sometimes
people view maybe the best three as Silverstone, Interlagos and Monza. Whilst I would just about
take Silverstone and Interlagos over the Red Bull Ring. Red Bull Ring or Monza? I'm taking the Red
Bull Ring. It's a conversation I would happily listen to. I wouldn't laugh at you for taking one
on the other. To be clear, I've probably got Monza like four, four fifth on my list anyway,
so it's not like I think Monza is terrible. I genuinely think it belongs in that top
echelon of European circuits. I don't think it's quite viewed that way. I think people will often
go to Silverstone. They'll say Spa before they say the Red Bull Ring, but you look at the amount
of good races that track has delivered over the last 10 years. Plentiful. Spa was kind of close
to my overrated. I think it was probably fourth on my list. Again, this isn't because I hate Spa.
Spa is brilliant. I think it gets a lot of love and the races we've had there recently
have not been very good. Yes. Well, there we go. Some similarities in the overrated category,
but quite unique in terms of the underrated category there. Let us know, of course,
what your top three is for both of those. Sam, I don't think there's any F1 next week,
I'm afraid, but we'll be back on Wednesday. It's a real shame. We're going to have our first
week in a long time where we don't have to talk anything race related, which is a difficult one
for us. Hopefully, you stick with us so you get through it, because Miami is just on the horizon
now. Do join the Patreon. You can always cancel after a month. It really won't cost you a lot,
and it massively supports the show. Join the Giscord. Ben, you just did your quiz. I heard it
was a roaring success of many varied topics. Yes. A very close run thing as well. I think it was
maybe seven points separating the top three in the end, so it was a closely fought contest. Fun
had by most. Fun had by all. Great. Follow our social media, Late Breaking F1, everywhere,
if you want to see silly clips. Question of the week, of course, is very important there as well,
and make sure that you subscribe on YouTube, please, because we're on that path. Now,
we're off the road. We're taking a left. We're going down a pathway to 10K, because we're
quite near our destination. It's getting there. We've had to get out the car.
I can see it. There it is. Oh, it's quite close on the map. Anyway, thanks for listening. We'll be back
midweek, and can't wait to talk all more things F1. In the meantime, I'll be salmon sushi.
And I've been Ben Hawking. And remember, keep breaking late.
Dear crew, it's Toyota with an adult sized third row. Everyone's welcome in the Grand Highlander,
from sports fans to eco buffs and movie fans.
Seen back in the Sienna with an available rear seat entertainment system, slip into the RAV4
with available all wheel drive. And let's go. Toyota, find yours at Toyota.com. Toyota, let's go places.
About this episode
Stefano Domenicali’s defense of the 2026 F1 rules gets challenged and dissected, with hosts arguing that his “new fans” and overtaking nostalgia claims feel vague while qualifying remains the sport’s biggest problem. They debate whether race management and energy/battery constraints have taken away driver control and made racing feel too managed. Drivers’ complaints are also weighed—why top stars may complain less, and whether engine-reg changes should be decided so early. The show then pivots to Red Bull’s technical reshuffle and a Saudi GP review, plus overrated/underrated circuit picks.
Ben and Sam break down recent comments from F1's CEO on the state of the sport, cover the latest shake up at Red Bull, and speculate on today's cancelled Saudi Arabian GP. They finish with a Top 3 of the most overrated and underrated tracks on the calendar...
