F1’s “power unit” is the whole engine-plus-hybrid system that powers the car. For 2027, the rules are being changed to try to fix issues they’ve been seeing with how the cars run today.
F1 uses a hybrid system, so the car can use energy from the engine and from electricity. The “50-50 split” is the idea that the rules try to make those two sources contribute about equally.
“Energy-starved” means the car doesn’t have enough usable battery energy when the driver wants it. That can make the car feel less responsive and harder to drive at full pace.
Sometimes when racing rules are designed one way, teams end up making trade-offs that cause problems nobody expected. Here, the hosts think the current battery limits have created extra headaches for how the cars race.
“Prototypes” are early test cars teams build to see how new rules will work in practice. They’re used to try out ideas before the final cars are made for the season.
Concept
new shaped cars
“New shaped cars” means the cars’ body and aerodynamic shapes have been changing due to the rules. Those shape changes can affect grip and speed in important ways.
F1 cars use a battery to store energy and help provide extra power. Here, the hosts are talking about changing how much energy comes from the battery versus the engine.
The combustion engine is the “fuel-burning” engine that makes power. The hosts are saying the rules would shift more of the car’s power toward this engine and away from the battery.
Concept
implement it properly
“Implement it properly” means doing the rule change in a way that teams can actually prepare for. The idea is to avoid surprises once the new rules start.
Concept
PR momentum
“PR momentum” means the good buzz and positive press an organization is getting. The hosts are implying the rule change timing might be influenced by that image, not just technical planning.
A “rushed change” in the context of F1 rules means the sport is moving the timeline forward and implementing major technical regulations quickly. The hosts argue this can limit how thoroughly teams can prepare, validate, and develop the required upgrades before the new rules take effect.
The FIA is the organization that sets and enforces the rules for Formula One. Here, the hosts are saying the FIA’s rule change for 2027 suggests they may be correcting earlier problems.
When F1 changes the engine rules, teams have to redesign their engines to match the new requirements. That can change who is fast and how the cars behave.
In 2014, F1 introduced a new kind of engine that uses both regular fuel power and battery/energy recovery. It changed how teams make and use power during a race.
Mercedes is the team/manufacturer the speaker mentions as being especially dominant in an earlier era of F1. They’re using that history to argue the current changes are happening faster than before.
This is about F1 adding an electrical energy storage system to the car. The battery can provide extra power at certain moments, so it can affect when the driver can attack or pass.
Term
CURS system
They’re talking about an older F1 power-boost system that let drivers add extra power at the right time. The point is that it helped create exciting racing when drivers could choose when to use it.
An overtake is passing another car during the race. The discussion here is that the car’s energy system may push the driver into trying to pass at a moment they didn’t plan for.
They’re arguing that racing should feel like the driver is making the important calls. If the car’s electronics decide when to push, the driver can feel like they’re reacting instead of choosing.
They’re talking about how much of the car’s power comes from the battery versus the engine. The plan was “half and half,” but in practice it’s been more like one side getting a bit more than the other.
In F1 hybrid terms, “harvesting” means capturing energy during driving (for example, recovering energy under braking) and storing it in the battery. The hosts want more driver control over when that energy is captured and how it’s used.
The hosts are talking about the big F1 rule change coming in 2027 and whether it’s really solving the problem. They connect it to how the cars manage battery energy and whether reducing downforce makes racing better.
Downforce is the “squish” effect from the car’s shape that pushes it harder onto the road. Less downforce usually means less grip in corners, but it can also change how the car manages energy—especially with the battery and hybrid parts.
Energy management is the strategy for using the car’s hybrid energy—when to spend it for speed and when to recover it back into the battery. In F1, you can’t just use everything all the time; you have to plan it lap by lap.
Energy recovery is how the hybrid system “gets energy back,” usually when slowing down. The catch is that you only recover it in certain situations, so track and driving determine how much you can store for later.
Recharge rate is how fast the battery can be “topped up” during a lap. If the car is going through corners so quickly that it doesn’t get enough chances to recover energy, the battery won’t recharge as effectively.
“Switchy” means the car can feel like it turns or changes direction more suddenly. If the car has less grip from aerodynamics, it may respond more sharply to steering and pedal inputs.
The “Macarena wing” is a nickname for a rear wing design in F1. It’s meant to help the car’s aerodynamics by changing how the wing affects airflow.
Term
Inlets in the Cypods
This is about openings on the side of the car that pull in air. Engineers use them to manage airflow so the car can grip better and work more efficiently.
Term
aerodynamic airflow
Airflow is how air moves around the car. F1 teams shape it with wings and openings so the car can stick to the track and perform better.
“No man’s land” means you’re stuck in the middle of the pack. You can’t easily catch the cars ahead or get help from the cars behind.
Term
aerodynamic regulation cycle
An F1 “regulation cycle” is the multi-year period of technical rules that define what aerodynamic and technical solutions teams are allowed to use. Each cycle, teams re-optimize their cars to extract the maximum downforce and efficiency within the rule constraints.
Term
aerodynamic brains
This is a colorful way of saying the engineers who specialize in aerodynamics. They use the car’s shape and wings to make it push down on the track more effectively.
Regulation cycles are the multi-year rule-change periods in F1. Teams spend that time learning what works, so the car’s behavior can look different in year one versus later years.
Dirty air is what happens when one car messes up the airflow for the car behind it. The trailing car gets less “aero grip,” so it’s harder to follow closely and pass.
In modern F1, the floor is a key aerodynamic surface that helps generate downforce by shaping airflow under the car. Because it interacts with the car’s overall underbody flow, floor changes can significantly affect efficiency and how sensitive the car is to ride height and turbulence.
F1 cars can store extra energy in a battery and then use it for a temporary power boost. Teams decide when to use it so the car is faster when it matters most.
In F1, “time management” is basically planning the race so you’re fast at the right moments. It includes things like when to pit and how long to run the tires before they get too slow.
A big part of F1 isn’t just driving fast—it’s planning. Teams make decisions during the race (like when to pit and how to manage tires and power), and the results can show up later rather than immediately.
F1 tires don’t stay perfect for the whole race. As you drive, they get worn and lose grip, so the car feels slower and the teams have to plan around that.
The timing tower is the big live scoreboard at an F1 race. It shows who is gaining or losing time lap by lap, which helps you understand what’s happening even when the TV camera isn’t showing it.
F1 uses different tire types (“compounds”). “Medium” is usually a compromise tire—good grip but not the longest-lasting—so the car can slow down as the tires get worn.
The safety car comes out when the track is unsafe. It slows everyone down and bunches the cars together, which can completely change who can overtake and when.
An out lap is the lap right after a pit stop. It’s usually when the tires are freshest, so drivers try to use that lap to gain position or get the best grip.
Track limits are the rules about not cutting corners or going outside the marked area. If you do it, you can get warnings, and if it keeps happening you can be penalized.
This phrase means the tires suddenly lose grip fast. When that happens, the car feels much harder to drive—slower, less stable, and harder to overtake.
DNF means the driver didn’t finish the race. If something goes wrong—like a crash or a car problem—the race ends early and they don’t get a normal finishing result.
Some race tracks have less traction, so the tires can’t “bite” the road as well. When that happens, it’s easier to lose control in braking and cornering, and the car/setup matters more.
In F1, teams bring new parts to improve the car. Sometimes those changes help at one track but don’t give the same benefit at other tracks because each circuit is different.
A sprint is a shorter race weekend event in F1. It gives points and helps decide where the cars start for the main race, so it can swing the championship.
Pole position means starting first on the grid. It’s a big advantage because you avoid getting stuck behind other cars at the start.
Concept
race wing
In F1, the “wing” is an aerodynamic part that helps the car stick to the track. Teams choose different wing setups for practice and the race to get the car to handle better.
F1 is the organization behind Formula 1. In this segment, they’re talking about who decides what gets shown and how that can differ depending on the broadcaster.
F1 cars use a hybrid system that stores energy in a battery. If a team changes parts of that system, it can be because they’re trying to fix performance issues or keep the car competitive, but it can also trigger penalties or strategy changes.
Sky is a TV broadcaster that shows F1. The discussion here is about how the channel’s choices and resources can affect what kind of pre-race shows and information viewers get.
Qualifying is the session that decides where each car starts on the grid. If you do poorly in qualifying, you often have to work harder during the race.
The drivers' championship is the main season contest for individual drivers. They earn points at each race, and the driver with the most points by the end of the year wins.
Concept
regulation related
When a host says performance is “regulation related,” they mean the team’s results are being influenced by rule changes (or how teams interpret them). In F1, regulations can affect everything from car design limits to how power units and aerodynamics are used.
The gearbox is the part that helps the car choose the right gear for speed and acceleration. If it fails or “shuts down,” the car can suddenly lose power or stop working properly.
Term
P7
P7 means the driver finished 7th. In F1, finishing in those positions matters because it can still earn points and show the car is competitive.
“Recovery through the field” means getting back positions after falling behind. In F1, it’s hard because you have to pass other cars while managing tires and staying within the rules.
A penalty is what race officials give when a driver breaks the rules. It usually costs time or positions, so it can swing the outcome of a race.
LIVE
Keep your wellness routine going strong all summer.
Kachava's new travel packs help you stick to your daily ritual even when you're on the go.
Just one packet of Kachava's all-in-one nutrition shake provides complete nutrition
wherever you are. With 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens and more,
simplify your daily ritual. Go to kachava.com and use code NEWS for 15% off.
That's kachava.com code NEWS.
I drive my bus in a busy city. That's why road safety is so important to me.
I know that I must slow down and be extra careful when I make a wide turn.
Buses need more room than cars. Everyone can help keep our roads safe.
Next time you're driving, remember to give buses plenty of time and space to finish turning
before driving ahead. Let's all plan to share the road safely. Learn how at www.sharetheroadsafely.gov.
Hello and a very warm welcome to the Lake Breaking F1 podcast presented by Sam Sage
and me, Ben Hawking, on what is sadly a non-race Sunday. But happily, we're here.
Yay, we are here even though I am an hour late because I overslept. Sorry, everyone.
You know what? It's all right. They'll get at the same time.
I think that delays every part of the podcast after a single person gets an hour late.
So I am humbly apologising to all of you. I hope you understand. You're well, Ben.
I'm very well. Thank you very much. The sun is shining, which I always say is a positive,
but then we just block out all of the light via the curtains and blinds.
How the thickest curtain ever to stop any light interfering with the recording of the show.
And it's like, oh, no sunshine for you.
The sun is shining. In other words, the lights that we have in here are shining. So great.
Yeah, we've got some interesting topics to talk about today. I thought we'd kick off
with a very important one. Good timing on this news. By the way, F1, well done to you
because Formula One teams and championship bosses have agreed in principle to fast track
power unit changes for 2027 in a bid to solve issues with the current regulations.
The plan is to move away from the notional 50-50 split between the internal combustion engine
and electrical systems shifting closer to 60-40 towards the combustion engine instead.
The hope is that more engine power and reduced reliance on the battery will allow the cars
to run flat out a little bit more and avoid becoming energy-starved in certain situations.
It should also make the cars more intuitive for drivers with the current lack of battery power
having created some unintended compromises and complications throughout the season so far.
It feels like a fairly notable change, Sam. What are your thoughts on it?
Yeah, I was quite surprised that it came out to be such an early change in 27 is the start of this.
I was thinking 28 maybe might be more realistic. You think we've been building up to these
regulations for what, three years realistically off the track? That's what we started to see
in the prototypes coming out, the new shaped cars, conversations with manufacturers and
engine manufacturers as to how this might work, what are the benefits, how it might work in terms
of real-life cars. So to get four Grand Prix into a new regulation and then to suddenly say,
within a year, we're changing it. By the start of the next season, it will be different again.
I was very shocked to see such a dramatic change. I'm not saying it's a negative thing.
I am just surprised that they're so happy to be so blasé with the amount of work that's
going into the building of these regulations. It's actually very anti-FIA, anti-formula one.
They are usually quite stubborn about changes that they've made and they backed to the point
where it can be detrimental to the sport. So they seem to be quite flexible on how this might
work. It must have had a really big impact on their viewing numbers, on the criticism they are
seeing online, criticism from the drivers themselves, of course. I wonder if they have
issues with sponsors, maybe. It seems to have really resonated on every level of Formula One
that the new regulations are not delivering the type of racing that they wanted it to
when they were in theory a couple of years ago and they were going through the
realities of what was going into Formula One. So 2017 is a dramatic change.
To see a whole 10% potential reduction in battery power, a 10% increase in combustion engine,
I think it's a good step. I think it's positive. I think they're showing that they are listening
to fans, drivers and sponsors alike. I just hope that we really do take some time to implement it
properly. This is a rushed change against some PR momentum and some positive build in the
Formula One world. Actually, it will have proper impact. It will deliver the results that we want
to see on the racetrack. What do you think, Ben? I think this is an admission from the FIA and F1
that they have got things wrong. I don't think in terms of any more notable changes that was
realistic within the timeframe that we're looking at here. Like you, I think initially,
they probably were thinking towards 2028 for some of these bigger changes rather than 2027.
I think then, bringing it forward, you could argue is a case of FIA and F1 proving that they're
agile, that they're listening and they want to be quick with this. In reality, I think it's just
we've got things really wrong and we need to change it as quickly as possible. I think it's
quite shameful from the FIA and F1 how they've handled it to this point in the year. If you
remember back to many years, to the gap between Miami and Japan, which lasted many years.
If you remember back to that point, Stefano De Manacale did a number of interviews during
those few weeks, essentially saying there are no problems with F1. All of the fans love this.
There's nothing to fix. Whilst I'm not here to suggest that all of the fans hated what's
going on right now, that's definitely not true. There is more nuance to this than what
De Manacale ever let on to. There are some fans that are enjoying what's going on right now.
There are some that are not. There are many in the middle saying that there's potential,
but we're not there yet. They were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the media
and of fans. I think insulting the intelligence of many fans by suggesting we don't need to
change anything, because since then, we have had changes at Miami with the potential for more
changes this year and changes for the beginning of 2027. That's not something you do to something
that doesn't need fixing. I think the way they've handled this is quite poor. I'm glad we finally
got to this. Again, these are solutions that were talked about last year. They were solutions
that were talked about pre-season. I'm not even going to say here that F1 and FIA have been really
quick on this. They haven't. They could have made these changes already. I am glad that they're
happening, but the way in which we've got here, I'm not particularly pleased with.
Last time, we saw a big engine regulation shift, the hybrid era 2014. We saw a domination from
Mercedes for 56 years before cars properly were regularly challenging. Why do you think we're
seeing a change so swiftly now and we weren't back then? We saw on poor racing, we saw on competitive
racing. Was it because the drivers weren't complaining or do you think it's because
that's the only difference between the two or is it because the engines were working exactly as
they were intended and they weren't battery powered? It's a good question. It's difficult to
know exactly why. There are others in the media that have asked this same question,
where is this coming from? Is this coming from
displeasure from the fans? Is it coming from displeasure from stakeholders? Is it drivers?
Is it organizers? Because is it a combination of all of those things? There is displeasure
somewhere in the F1 community that has driven the FIA and F1 to do this. I know these changes are
maybe not as big as some people are making them out to be and that's maybe a point we'll get to
in a moment, but it's still quite notable in that they have tied themselves to this idea of 50-50
split and that's been part of their explainer videos, part of their marketing. Their whole idea
about these regulations is the battery power is as powerful as the combustion engine and they have
voluntarily decided to move away from that. You don't do that unless you have a real reason to
and I'm not sure which stakeholder is the most important here in making this happen.
It could be the drivers. It wouldn't surprise me if the drivers are because I don't remember going
back to 2014 there being a lot of discussion from the drivers that we don't like this formula. I could
be forgetting because it was a number of years ago, but I don't remember the drivers, at least
many of the drivers coming out and saying this isn't the F1 we like.
Yeah, I think there was a unified enemy last time and that it was Mercedes. Mercedes got the
blame. The drivers themselves didn't dislike the cars or the way they drove. They disliked how
competitive Mercedes have become, how dominant Mercedes have become. Here you are seeing drivers
in the Mercedes. You're seeing drivers in McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, all the way down to Cadillac.
We have Sergio Perez has come out and said comments about this saying I don't like how to drive
these cars. It doesn't feel correct to drive these cars. The F1 regulations are the targeted
enemy here, whereas last time the FANG, the driver, the stakeholder, the broadcaster,
they had the crutch of going when Mercedes had the problem. They were too good.
competitive and that's damaging the sport. That's frustrating FANGs, whereas here this isn't Formula
1. I do think the comments are fair of if you're going to have battery in the car, which is fine,
entirely fine. The driver does need to be the one to control it, much like CURS that we had
15, 16 years ago now. We had the CURS system, which was a really effective, almost boost
central version where you could deploy CURS. We saw how the CURS was attracted to deployment
and actually delivered meaningful, interesting racing where overtakes would swap. We had that
solution a decade and a half ago. Here, you've heard so many complaints, especially from the
one around the Norris, Interzuka, stood out to me when he came out and said,
I wasn't planning to go for an overtake, but the battery said that I should go for an overtake
and activated. Suddenly, I was going for an overtake and I wasn't ready for it, wasn't
preparing for it and did what I'll make it at that moment. The fact that a driver is not making a
key decision in a race car throughout a Formula 1 race is terrifying to me and I fully understand
why they're frustrated by that. I think a great example of that as well came from Miami where
we had Charles Leclerc against Oscar Piastry. Charles Leclerc makes an error into the last
corner before the back straight. He goes off the track. Piastry goes by him because Leclerc
slowed right down. Piastry is probably not intending to overtake there because as soon
as he overtakes, Leclerc with no momentum whatsoever from the previous corner is then able to pass
again. With the greatest respect to Leclerc, he's made a massive error and he hasn't cost him at
all. He should have punished but he's been saved. He's overtaken Piastry and you don't look at that
and say, wow, what great skill from Leclerc. It's just he had battery and Piastry didn't.
I wanted to ask you as well in terms of the split because I know they keep attaching themselves to
this 50-50 idea for this year and that's what they intended on doing for 2026. The reality is
we're not actually quite there. We're at about 55-45 and now we're moving to about 60-40.
A lot of people saying these are meaningful changes. I'm not saying they're not but I'm more
doubtful in that it's not that big of a shift. It's a marketing talk to me. This is a marketing
talk. Someone who has spent their entire career working in marketing, this is a way to jazz up
something so that the standard viewer, us, you guys listening, go, I can see that 5% either way,
which is a 10% shift, is a really meaningful adjustment. 10% in anything in your life would
be a meaningful adjustment. Imagine you earn 10% more money. Imagine a fuel cost for that 10%.
These are things that really will impact you in life. It's something that you can understand
and this is the same for the regulations that we're going through. 5% less battery, 5% more
engine power, 10% shift in total, big change. Is it a big change? We're not at the percentage that
you mentioned already, which is a am I realistically? They've sold you 50-50 for years. They sold us
50-50 through the first three grand prix. It isn't actually happening. When we go to another 5%
change either way, a 10% total, is it actually happening? Is it going to actually shift that way?
Will it be 2%? 3%? Will we see a change? I don't think we will see a massive change.
I do not think we get to Australia next year and suddenly the engine reliance is so massively
different with this 10% total shift that we go, wow, the way the Formula 1 works is back. For me,
the change needs to be bring the control in car to the driver and they have total control over
harvesting, delivery, execution of overtakes. That is when you will then get driver skill
coming out above battery power assist gear overtakes. Bear in mind as well, the previous
regulations, that percentage split was about 85.15. Even though we're getting back closer to that,
the shift is nowhere near like what we had from 25 to 26. Like I say, it might make
meaningful changes. I'm not saying it won't, but I'm not as convinced as a lot of people are when
they say it will definitely have these big intended changes. Something else that's been
talked about for 2027 is that the F1 teams will discuss plans to reduce downforce as part of
efforts to, again, improve the energy management. That's the race reporting that.
Early analysis of 2026 races suggests high cornering performance is limiting energy recovery
as faster cornering reduces the opportunity to harvest energy. Nicholas Tombass is one of our
favorites on this show. As previously said, some of the issues stem from teams building cars
performing beyond what the FIA expected. It's believed that there are three options under
consideration here, which will either reduce downforce by 2030 or 50 points, depending on
how aggressive they want to go with that. That was announced before these changes came into effect,
but it doesn't necessarily shelve these talks as well. This could work in tandem, maybe.
Yeah, they go hand in hand. The part of the big issue with the regulations, as we've said so
many times already, only five Grand Prix, four Grand Prix into the season, is recharge rate.
We spoke about Grand Prix where we turn up and the recharge rate is going to be tough here.
In Australia, we've now learned how difficult it was. Suzuka, it was really tough, but
China, Miami, they are assisting pre in the middle of the spectrum of how to recharge the
battering. We've got maybe better racing at those Grand Prix. This reduced downforce would
allow cars to be recharging a little bit, but a little bit more than they already are through
high-speed corners. You imagine recharging actually through 130R or through the S's at
Suzuka becomes more viable. Is this good for Formula One though? Do we need to be stripping
downforce off cars for the ability to have better battery power? I don't like that justification.
Now, what I do like is cars with less downforce. I think that can be fun. We've seen that previously
throughout the history of Formula One that actually cars are a bit harder to drive, cars
that aren't cemented in the corner, and then on rails is the phrase that regularly gets used,
can create more fun. Switchy cars, better driver control, better driver ability,
those are all good things that can come from less downforce. Also, you get a lot of brilliant minds
in the background of teams who are creating solutions to overcome this. You've already seen
Macarena wing, the exhaust pipe rear wing that we've got a lot of cars now,
the way that the Inlets in the Cypods are being used to utilize airflow. These are all things
that are genuinely brilliant ideas that are creating a really unique and divisive Formula One.
The issue is less downforce means less overall speed, which means lower lap times,
and there are a lot of people in the world of Formula One who think that slower cars means
worse formula. That is a direct correlation in terms of how they think. This will produce slower
cars. You saw Lewis Hamilton in Miami have 15 to 20 points of downforce knocked off after the
collision with Colopinto. He was significantly slower than his teammate, than everyone else in
front of him. He was in no man's land for the entire Grand Prix. That will be the case for
everyone in terms of how slow they'll be going. It really is a compromise. This isn't a one solution
fix every problem. This will be a what problem do you want to tackle the most and will it end up
inadvertently causing a bigger problem later on down the road? It's a bit of this,
bit of that. What do you think, Ben? I've tried not to start this episode off with negative energy,
but I've got two massive problems with this. Do it. Come on. Firstly, why are you surprised
at the fact that these really clever individuals within the paddock have been able to create more
downforce than you thought? That is hilarious. Every regulation cycle is the same thing. It's
like, wow, they actually did a better job than we thought they were going to. We didn't think
they'd be this quick. They're like the smartest aerodynamic brains in the world. What are you
realistically expecting? We do this dance every time. That's one annoyance. The other annoyance
as well is that Tom Bass's argument here is, okay, we thought they would be, and slightly visual
reference, we thought they would be here in terms of downforce, but they're actually here.
My question is, you were expecting them to get to here at some point. Okay, you didn't think it
would be now. Let's say you thought it would be six months time. You're still stuck with the same
issue in six months time that these cars have enough downforce that energy management isn't
efficient enough. What was the plan then to, I don't know, make changes in 2028 rather than 2027?
I don't understand this fixation with lap times because whilst you're right,
like Lewis Hamilton had downforce knocked off his car in Miami and therefore was considerably
slower than his teammate and other people in that fight. Correct. It's all relative. If everyone is
at Hamilton speed or slower, it doesn't stand out. I don't understand why we can't have these
lower downforce cars that are trickier to drive and we just have a slightly slower formula. Again,
because of how intelligent these engineers are, intelligent across the whole paddock,
they will find a way to find that speed within a year or two. It always seems to be the case
with these regulation cycles that the organizers and the people who are creating the regs always
think about the first year. What is that first year going to look like? Think about what the last
year is going to look like. Think about what your vision is for the end of these regulations
and work backwards so you can get there because we keep getting stuck in this situation where,
okay, initially, there might be some good things. Teams get smart, they get better,
they create dirty air, racing gets worse, and then just these plasters, these fixes need to be
happening over time. It's not as efficient as it could be.
Two points I want to make on that. The first is how do they actually plan to recruit these
points of downforce as well? Can you take off all the upgrades that you brought again because
we don't want to shape the cars any differently? What do you actually remove to make this more
difficult for someone? The three areas that they're particularly looking at are the front wing,
the floor, and side pod design, but the specifics of what they're looking at, I'm not sure, but
those are the three areas that they're targeting. Which are three areas that are heavily upgrading
already by Formula One teams. You are literally just saying, all that hard work and money that
you spend, can you just now remove it because we don't like you being better?
I think, secondly, a good visualization of what you're speaking about is a Grand Prix right now.
At the start of the weekend, start of a Grand Prix, drivers are a bit better understanding that
some drivers are better understanding the regs, they're better at making overtakes, they're better
at extracting lap time. Come lap like 45 of a Grand Prix, every driver is fully up to speed and they
are basically no mistakes, no problems, executing lap times, battery deployment is great, time
management is easy, and we go back to having a very standard looking Formula One product.
But 1-10 is chaos because some drivers haven't worked it out yet, and I do think that is what's
going to happen with every set of regulations across the years. The first 12 months, chaos.
Some drivers are great, some aren't. By race five, year five, everyone's going to get understood.
Well, we've seen with these four races so far, they've been different, but they followed a very
similar pattern of first 10 laps are great, last 10 laps usually great, the middle section,
nothing's happening. Miami was a good race, and people came away from that thinking it was a
good race, rewatched middle 20 laps. Not a lot happened. The thing is, it is a problem that
Formula One has always had. Yes, you are right. That's not new. It's not new, and that is because
strategy takes place, and they need to almost find a way to jazz up how, to a viewer, strategy
looks on the telly to make it enjoyable and understandable. Tires that wear down.
Exactly right. You need to be able to visualize it properly. Having a little timing tower on the
left-hand side, which I stare at religiously on the Formula One weekend, and going, oh,
color pinto, it's just lost one second to Liam Lawson between 13th and 14th place because
he's been on his medium tires for 15 laps. That could be juicy in three laps time,
and you never get shown. You never see it. You'll see the positions walk over on the timing tower.
It stops the middle of the race being fully enjoyable.
Indeed. Love to hear your thoughts on this, by the way, as well, because this is, again,
going to be something that splits opinions, so do let us know what you think. We're going to
take a break on the other side. We're going to be talking Antonelli and Russell, maybe the fight for the title.
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 BetterHELP.com
slash 89 to get started. We've all been there. You're away for the weekend. The big game is on,
and you realize you're restricted from watching. Or maybe you're trying to check the latest lines
on your betting app, but your local network is blocking the site. These are the ultimate
on force errors. You can prevent this from happening to you with IPVanish. IPVanish is the
powerhouse VPN designed to keep you in the game, no matter where you are. IPVanish helps you stay
connected to your favorite team and streaming services while you travel. But it's not just
about watching the game. For the better's out there, IPVanish provides an extra layer of security
and privacy that helps you access your account safely on public Wi-Fi. Plus, IPVanish is
lightning fast, so you won't have to worry about lag during those crucial live betting moments.
Right now, get a massive discount at IPVanish.com. That's IPVANSH.com to get started today.
Secure your play and go to IPVanish.com.
Welcome back, everyone. I wanted to chat a bit about Kimmy Antonelli and George Russell. Antonelli,
the first person to three figures in terms of the driver's championship on exactly 100 points,
leaving Miami. Not sure we thought that was going to be the case, particularly after Australia,
but here we are. He's got a 20-point lead over George Russell, and I think, as we mentioned,
during that Miami race review, for a time, it looked like it was going to be worse than 20 points.
But he's not far off what I'm going to call DNF insurance, in that I know it's a sprint weekend,
so it's a bit different for Canada. But in a regular race weekend, even if Antonelli were to
retire and George Russell were to win the race, Russell was only leading the championship by
five points. That's a healthy margin at this point.
That's disgusting, man.
With 100 points, 20 points clear of my very senior, very experienced teammate that everyone
backed to beat me. Fair play to you, lad. You're an absolute superstar, and he is delivered on
the promise that we all thought he had about 18 months ago, but we're unsure if it could really
come to life. He's bringing it to life. You are 19 years old. Go and play Fortnite. Stop embarrassing
people that are slightly older than you, like me, that are questioning what they've done with their
lives. Stop it. I wish I was as good at Fortnite as he is at Formula One. I am, actually. I'm a
Fortnite legend. A Fortnite fiend. Yes. You see Hocken come over on the user game. You think I'm
going to game over? Man, that's never played Fortnite in his life. You just live through
Fortnite. Yeah. I don't go by weeks or days. I already go by Fortnite. That's Fortnite
seven of the year, right? Are you available to do something next half Fortnite? Everyone said,
what are you all about, mate? Oh, you call that weeks. Sorry. That's work.
Where do you think George Russell goes from here? Because it felt to me like Miami,
whilst China and Japan ended in Antonelli victories and Russell being frustrated,
Russell could at least at those two Grand Prix point to something. China, he could point to the
fact that he had issues with his car and qualifying. Suzuki, he can point to the safety car,
which helped that Antonelli did not help himself out. Miami, and Russell has admitted this himself,
I think, there is nothing to point at. He was just slower than his teammate. So where does he go from
here? I think the scary part for Russell was he wasn't just slower than his teammate. He was
slower than several competitors around him as well. It wasn't like it was Mercedes versus
Mercedes and the gap was five seconds on lap 40 and come lap 51. The gap was nine seconds. That
isn't the case here. The issue for George Russell is he's no longer beating the cars that are,
the first three Grand Prix, they were a nuisance. They were kind of in the way a little bit. The
Ferraris and the McLaren, they were kind of there for the first half of the Grand Prix. And then,
as time goes on, Kimi Antonelli found a way, sometimes through luck, sometimes through skill,
to work his way through them. China, he gets past Lewis Hamilton nice and easy. He's able to
kind of drive up into the distance, makes one mistake. But the gap never really comes down
to a threatening level. In Japan, of course, he is saved a little bit by the safety car. And I
would like to have seen how Kimi Antonelli would have handled the rest of that Grand Prix without
safety car interference because it would have been interesting to see if Piazza could have held
onto that wing. If Leclerc might have been a bit more competitive, a bit closer. But nonetheless,
it was still clear that out of those two drivers at Mercedes, it was Antonelli who was finding his
way through the traffic and the competitors around him faster, cleaner, more efficiently. Russell
was unable to break through the cars around him. And even with safety car, bringing the field back
together, he could not make moves stick. The same thing has happened in Miami. Kimi Antonelli has
had a competitor in Landon Norris. He's been hurried all the way to the finish line. Some of
his pressurizing him the whole way. Earlier on, it was Leclerc and Norris. It just became Norris.
But nonetheless, strategy had to come into play. Clever racing, great out lap. He had to make
sure that he delivered on every turn. And he did. We had a couple of track limits warnings. But if
that's all your racing gets in terms of negatives, really solid. Russell could not find pace to save
his life. Tires weren't working. No rear grip, got stuck in traffic, couldn't make overtake. He was
being overtaken by cars that were in theory slower than him. Up until absolute chaos ensued around
him, where Leclerc, Spings, and Max Verstappen's tyres fall off a cliff, it looked like he was
going to be finishing sixth, not fourth. So he's absolutely saved by a bold strategy in a slower
car and an era that is very unusual. You can't rely on Charles Leclerc swinging into a wall,
every single Grand Prix to save you. So where he goes from here is, it's going to work out where
the pace is going at the same. It's on how to deliver it. Now, the positives, Canada. He's good
at Canada. He won here last time. He did. He also has got our team bringing a whole set of upgrades
to that car. And the last time that our team brought a whole set of upgrades to Canada,
Kim Yatigami had his best race and they had a really, really long series of his worst races,
where the car just did not work. So I think George Russell is going to be sat there
praying that history repeats itself. It won. But I think that's what he's open for.
Yeah. It's crazy to think. Antonelli now has half of the wins that George Russell has.
George Russell's got six career wins. Antonelli's now got three.
Well, I think the start that came out was that Kim Yatigami has more successive wings than George
Russell has successive podiums. Yeah, that would make sense. Yeah. I mean, Russell's never put
two race wins together in a row. Antonelli here has done three. It is always tough to know when a
driver has struggled so much versus a teammate at a particular race weekend, whether you really dig
into it and work out why or you just completely let it go and move on to the next one. And I'm
not sure what Russell's approach is going to be here because as mentioned, whilst Suzuka and
Shanghai, I think you could point to something, you can't really point to anything here outside of
he was slower. I know he said over the race weekend, it's a bit of a bogey track for him,
but I've made this point before. It didn't really stop him last year. He was strong everywhere. So
whether he digs into it or not, I'm uncertain. I think Russell is and this might sound silly
because it sounds obvious as you say it, but I think George Russell now knows this is going to be
a season long fight. And I think before Miami, he could have convinced himself that that still
might not be the case. So I know again, he lost two of the first three to Antonelli,
but I think with two results, maybe he could be convinced that it's a blip. I'll get back on it
in Miami and Canada and then I'll sail off into the distance and this isn't going to be a season
long battle. I think he now knows that it will be. It's almost similar. I don't know if you agree
with this. Similar to Oscar Piastri last year. I know Piastri wasn't as young as Antonelli was
last year, but equally we went to the season based on Lando Norris finishing runner up in 2024.
If McLaren were going to feature, he'd be the most likely to win the drivers championship. Of
course he did, but early on in the season, Piastri wins races two, races 245 and six.
And now we've got Antonelli, maybe in a similar sport, having won races 23 and four.
I think weirdly, Russell would take confidence in that if he were to pose it to that.
Yeah, yeah. You know, it shows that it can be turned around. After Melbourne, Russell would have
sat there and gone good. This is going exactly the way I wanted it to go. That's the reason why
you've got Borac kind of over the radio when he won the race. You know, he thought, excellent,
I could be excited because it's all going my way. Mercedes had built the monks of car that
they said they were going to deliver. The regulations have again gone Mercedes way, which,
you know, two out of three times when Mercedes are being new regulation changes,
they managed to lead the first few Grand Prix and the championship. And Russell, who rightfully backs
himself, as you should, is a Formula One driver, goes, well, I bet myself to win it. And out of
Melbourne he was, he was comfortably better. And then it is all very quickly tumbled downhill.
But I think he will look at taking reassurance from the fact that a younger teammate, a more
experienced teammate, did lead the championship for a suitable amount of time, realistically,
throughout the 2025 season. And yes, it came down to the wire, which Russell, I'm sure,
will not want to be the case when it comes to this championship. But there's enough time. It's
not like we're racing a 15 race season anymore, or a 16 race season. You've got another seven,
eight Grand Prix after that. You know, it can be unsettling, it can very easily have a four race
streak where it doesn't go to plan. It gets taken out as a DNF, maybe the start you can't make up
from if he has a poor one. It can very easily go the other way. And Formula One is a game of,
some days it goes your way, some days it doesn't, there's a longer days left in Formula One. So I
think Russell shouldn't panic. That's the main thing. Don't go through three Grand Prix going,
I haven't beaten him. That's it, game over. Don't panic. Remember, you are a very, very good,
qualified Formula One driver. You can deliver, get back in your groove, and do the things that
you do well. I want to see a season-long fight. So having Russell on his A-game up against the
brilliant young Kimi Antonelli is vital for keeping this season alive in terms of excitement, I think.
Yeah, I do wonder as well. And I think it's still too early in the season to say this. But if you'd
said to George Russell, beginning of the year before any racing, you're going to be tied with
Kimi Antonelli for points going into Abu Dhabi. Hitter said, what? No, I'm not taking that.
I'm going to be 100 points ahead. No, I do not accept that deal. He offered that to him now.
I still think he says no. But he goes, no, I think I'm okay.
Let me have a think first before I just sign that bit of paper.
Because there's a version of events where it's worse than that, and he's not. But I agree. I think
for now, it is so early in the year that he will back himself to have a run himself of a few race
wins in a row. And he's been in F1 a long time. He's had some great teammates. He's a great driver.
He will still back himself for now. But it'd be interesting to see how that tracks throughout
the year. I did see some theories as well, speculating Russell, maybe not as home on these
low grip tracks, which with Miami obviously being one of those. And there might be some
truth in that as well, in that Mexico and Austin, you'd probably say a low grip as well.
He's never had a podium at either of those races. So there might be some truth in,
and typically early and late in the season, that's where you'll find these lower grip tracks.
To your point earlier, if we get into this European season where Antonelli really struggled last year,
somewhat related to the fact that Mercedes brought upgrades at Canada and they worked for one race
and then didn't work really after that. Russell was able to adapt to those much better than Antonelli.
You said earlier, it's not going to go the same way.
It sounds like you're not concerned that we could get a repeat of this.
Well, George Russell came out and interviewed and said, I'll look forward to Canada and the
European leg of the season. I think he knows that is where he's good. I'm sure he's done his
research against him around there. I've said something very similar to what I said last year,
in that Kim Yentung and he struggled in the European season, the European leg.
The issue are, there's a lot of mitigating factors that aren't just copy and paste from
one year to another. It's not repeating the season because if we were, George Russell would
even be leading the title anyway. The upgrades that are being brought will be different. The way
the car reacts will be different. The way the cars are anyway are different. Kim Yentung and
himself is different. He has grown, he has matured, he's developed hugely year to year. If you are
basing your championship hopes and dreams on the fact that the exact same reactions will occur
year after year, you're a fool. It won't happen. George Russell has to step up. He has to find
something different. He has to make sure that yes, in theory, he could be better in Europe,
that theory has to become reality. He has to deliver on that. Not just hope that Kim Yentung
and he is worse for the sake of being worse. It really was a sizable difference between the
two drivers during that European season last year. I look back to 10 races in the middle of the year
and during those 10 races, George Russell scored 101 points. Antonelli scored 18.
Of those 18, 15 of them came to Canada. He essentially scored three points in nine races.
A few of those reliability reasons, but even some of those that I remember he retired from
from Imola, for example, I don't think he was set to score many points in that when he retired.
He really did struggle as soon as those upgrades were installed. I think you're right. There's no
reason why it will work exactly the same way this year. I think from Antonelli's perspective,
there will be maybe a bit apprehensive at this point, but as soon as those upgrades are on the
car, they're working and he delivers, I think, just one good result. If he wins another race,
I think that will be put to bed. I think you'll just need that one confidence booster
and then it'll be good to go. I think so. I think you're right.
Interesting. In terms of George Russell at Canada, we'll discuss this a little bit more in the
preview, obviously. What does he need to do? With that being a sprint weekend, of course,
does he need a win in the main race? Does he need a win in the sprint race? Does he need to
be Antonelli in both of them? What would he be happy with leaving the weekend?
Yes, two sags to this question, isn't there? There's the championship saga and there's George
Russell's own mentality. From a championship point of view, I think he could comfortably get
away with not winning the sprint. If Antonelli wins the sprint, it's a point. If he's second
down to Antonelli's first, it's a point. You can deal with that being a 21-point gap rather than a
20-gap. He needs to win the feature race here and that's because it will cement so much in his mind
that he can still overcome this challenge, overcome this hurdle. That's where the mental
side of things comes in for a Formula One driver. Realistically, he will want to rock up to Canada,
fill the upgrades, feel that they're working. I think we've got to extend the practice there again
in Canada to make sure that... Oh, do we? I think so. I might be wrong. No, no, I hadn't seen it
confirmed, but yes. Then I think he'll want to essentially do what he was doing in China, which
was dominate every single session up until he didn't, but actually, we will. I think he'll
want to lead practice. I think he'll want to lead sprint qualifying. I think he'll want to win the
race. I think he'll want to get pole position. Then I think he'll want to go on and take the
race wing. If George Russell can do that, which is definitely possible, it has happened before,
I do think that realistically, that will be the booster that he is going.
Back to Europe, back to where I had that significant point swing last year, I now know we're on
my turf and I could deliver the results I need. This could very much be the moment the pendulum
swings if George Russell can actually get it right. I'm not too long until we find out the
answers to at least some of those questions. We'll take a quick break on the other side,
an extended partnership between F1 and Sky Sports.
Welcome back, everyone. F1 has agreed a new long-term partnership with Sky Sports,
which will remain the exclusive live broadcast rights holder in the United Kingdom, Ireland,
and Italy. Under the new agreement, Sky Sports will continue airing the championship for at
least 2034 in the UK and Ireland, while its coverage in Italy is now secured until the end
of the 2032 season. The extension builds on the previous deal signed in 2022, which had originally
kept Sky in place through the 2029 campaign. We're looking essentially at a five-year extension.
Here's Sam. Your reaction to the news?
Mixed. Mixed bag. Like a bag of Rebels. Rebels in years, man.
I actually think they might be discontinued. Don't do this to me.
But you put your hand in a bag of Rebels, folks. If you go to what Rebels are, Rebels
was a bag of chocolate where every single chocolate looked the same, but every single one could be
different. I can't wait. I want to know which ones you're going with the positive ones here.
Well, this is the things. You might put your hand in, you might get something like a Malteser.
Solid. Nice crunchy Malteser. Everyone loves a Malteser. Can't go wrong.
But you put your hand in, you put out the coffee.
There's nothing wrong with a coffee one. Man, that's fine.
And that's why a Rebels works, because the one that someone doesn't like,
which is funny, is a coffee drinker. I don't really enjoy coffee chocolate.
Might work for something else, because, Ben, you don't drink coffee, but you like a coffee
chocolate, and that tells you everything you need to know. My point is, it's a mixed bag.
You're not really sure what you're going to get when it comes to this renewal.
Sky has had some real ups, and they've had some real downs.
And a lot of their product, to be fair to them, especially when it comes to the actual race,
is not dictated by Sky themselves. The graphics are universal that you get given.
So the timing tower will be the same timing tower you see on F1CV, on Apple.
They'll be the same as what you see on Sky Sports. It doesn't really get old,
and it's delivered to everyone. So there's things in that scenario that you can't blame
or praise Sky for if it works or doesn't work. But it's the pre-show, the post-show,
it's the build-up, the commentators. It's what happens not on a race day,
what content are they delivering. I actually think, along the time, let Sky down.
The pre-show has been the same for a very long time. They'll have some kind of
cinematic feature where one of the presenters goes and has a conversation with a driver doing
something benign, like they'll be playing a paddle game, or they'll sit in Lewis Hamilton's
secret cinema. I love Lewis Hamilton's cinema, man.
How many times have you seen it, mate? I've lost count at this point.
They don't utilize historic Grand Prix. The conversations are very surface level.
They very rarely dig into the technical analysis and how programs created that are
separate to just racing. These features that are separate to racing are just the ones that they
play in a 10-minute segment between our break during the build-up to the Grand Prix. They have
a whole channel, Sky, in the UK, which is Sky Sports F1. But I would argue 90% of that coverage
is replays of very regular races, Tech's Talk, again, for the 1000th time, or Lewis Hamilton's
cinema. They don't ever seem to invest wider in the ecosystem to create a regular show,
regular viewing platform. It's very much two-dimensional. We put the race on, we do an
hour build-up, we have a half-an-hour post-show, and then we just let the other stuff repeat,
and I think it's enjoyable because they know the viewing figures aren't the same as a race day,
fair enough. But you've never made any effort to build up the viewing figures off of a race day,
and that's why it's almost like a catchphrase to chicken and egg. Don't make the effort,
people won't come, but people won't come if you don't make the effort. I do think that's why I
struggle with the Sky product a little bit. I do wonder whether there's any connection at all,
and I haven't really been able to put two and two together, and there might not be anything to put
together here, but you've got the news on the one hand of Sky being extended for five years,
and then on the other side, you've also got the news that F1 posted their best-ever Q1 results
financially speaking, and I just wonder if there's any link at all in terms of the timing
of this announcement at all. I don't know, because this wasn't a deal that needed to be made.
Again, they had this until 2029, so there was no rush that they could have waited until next year,
they could have waited a couple of years. I don't know whether Sky maybe timing-wise were looking
at these new regulations and seeing what might that do to viewing figures. Are we going towards
impending disaster, and then I think upon answering the question, no, we're not. Maybe
that's what's caused them to pull the trigger here. Do you think they could get a better deal
because of the fact that it's a bit shaky on the ground to formula one right now?
I don't know. I mean, reports are that this deal is worth up to a billion pounds, or perhaps
dollars or pounds. A ridiculous amount of money. I guess also, there might be fear that a competitor
could have come in. We've just seen what happened in the US.
Well, it's believed that they did outbid others in order to get this.
I'm not surprised that there were other bidders. I imagine someone like Netflix or Amazon were
being very much involved or interested in the product. We've seen documentaries be featured
on the likes of Disney, who are very much involved in formula one. Amazon have done
some kind of documentary series around formula one, of course. Netflix, of course, have drive to
survive, so it would make full sense if you brought the product in-house and then they got
the highlight series, which would allow new viewers to come in. Live Sport is very much a
thing on Netflix. Now, you can watch boxing and other such things on Netflix. I wouldn't be shocked
if that was the case. Equally, with Apple TV and F1 TV coming together and now being a streamable
feature in the US, taking it away from what was ESPN previously. I would not be shocked if there
were conversations in Apple to go, hey, the demographics of the US market and the UK market
are quite similar in terms of language spoken, understanding, presenters having a resonance
across both markets. It is an easy fit to realistically pick up a US product or a UK
product and merge them. I wouldn't be shocked if Apple were curious about how much it would cost
to take it off their hands. That's where most of my surprise comes via this news, because
while Sky, regardless of our thoughts about the content, which have their own merits,
Sky have been a reliable partner for F1 for 15 years. I understand them wanting to continue
that relationship based on that. Equally, there is the whole Apple TV, F1 TV thing going on with the
US. As soon as that was signed, as soon as it was reported even, we were thinking, regardless of
whether it would be them or Amazon or Netflix or whatever streaming service it would be,
there would at some point possibly be the intention to bring this all under one roof.
In some regards, that makes a lot of sense. You do have the potential to
make it more efficient in terms of customer data specifically, if you do have one broadcaster
rather than multiple dotted around throughout the world. In that respect, I was surprised,
because again, there's no rush to make this decision. I thought they might see how Apple TV
went for a couple of years to see if that was a viable option to make this a more global product
rather than a US-centric product. I'm trying to figure out why they would keep the individual
markets. Maybe they can gain a better price from the individual countries rather than one
broadcaster that's doing everything. I also wonder if they eliminate competitors by making it truly
global. There will be some companies, Apple, for example, they might not sell their subscription
service in every country around the world. It might only hit, let's say, 50% of nations can
get Apple TV just as a random number. Does that then eliminate a lot of broadcast opportunities
from countries that go, oh, you've got the global rights. How do I buy my local rights? Let's say
Thailand. Thailand won't watch Formula One. Apple TV isn't there. Are we allowed to? Is there some
legality? Can we get cameras on the grid? How does it work? If they've got total rights to
filming, do you have to buy a subsidiary package? It becomes very confusing. There aren't negatives
to having one global provider. We do sit in a very privileged side of things where as a UK customer,
we do tend to get access to pretty much anything you want to watch. It's typically available to you
in one way or another unless you've got a VPN, which then you can get F1 TV, which I do miss
quite a lot. The archive is still great that we get in the UK, by the way, but yes, it would be
good to have that full time. Sky, you proved you can use the archive. We had a gap. You finally
played a race that was older than this year. They played three more on Wednesday. Just really
ran them United States Grand Prix this time. Let people know what's happening. You're replaying
a whole season one week after another or something like that. I don't get it, man. Who's doing your
programming outside of F1? The other benefit to maybe keeping these deals regional rather than
one global broadcaster is you do have the benefit of tailoring your broadcasting. I can't speak to
this too much because I don't watch it unsurprisingly, but Desone in Spain, for example, can tailor their
content to Alonso. We know that Sky in Italy are doing very well at the moment, probably related
to Antonelli doing very well at the moment, in which case you can focus a lot more on him in terms
of these pre- and post-race shows versus a global broadcaster's got the responsibility to be very
across the board. That is another benefit, I guess, to keeping these slightly regionalised.
I was still surprised that they made a decision at this point. There's also about broadcast
innovation as well that could be good under one global broadcast. You have the potential to,
I don't know, make quicker, better changes to battery, for example, something that we've been
complaining about all year. We don't think it's represented well enough in terms of the graphics.
I think you have the potential to move quicker with that if you've got one global broadcaster.
Including the money to invest in changing it as well. Is there anything you want to see Sky do
differently in the next few years? I do have some sympathy for them in terms of the pre-race stuff,
because it does get repetitive, but I appreciate that they are somewhat limited and they do have
hours to fill. Like you said, in terms of the classic races, I would like to see a more considered
effort there if indeed they do have full flexibility over what they can do. I assume they would, but
yeah, I'd like to see that, for sure. In terms of the lineup... No, I'm not going to...
No, we're going to talk about the lineup. That's got that saga. I know that maybe this comes across
as self-intitled or self-interested. There's a world, there's a plethora, sorry, of fantastic
creators out there who do really good content. There's enough hours to fill. I am surprised
that Sky haven't ever picked up a YouTuber or something had gone. We're going to go and make a
series with you across the season that would air on the Thursday each weekend, before a weekend,
and then before the race weekend, where it's actually a bit of a different angle,
like a community take or something like that. I do think they're missing a bit of an untapped
ability there to create something quite community focused from a fang level.
As creators ourselves of incredibly bad content, we know what good content looks like,
anything that doesn't look like us. That's hilarious that we know what it looks like,
and we still don't choose to do it. I find a question on this one. In terms of the free-to-air
stuff, that doesn't change as a result of these deals. In the UK, at least, the British Grand Prix
would still be displayed on free-to-air, as will extended highlights as well. In terms of the actual
live races, nothing changes there. Any disappointment?
It's really tricky. It's disappointing that in an old-school way of thinking,
free-to-air brings in new viewers, but we have really moved on from the world of free-to-air
TV being particularly popular. You don't sit down and watch the telly in the same way that you
used to. You get home from work at 6 p.m. and then you go, right, I'm going to make Dinger,
and then from 7 to 10, I'm going to have three programs that I always watch. It doesn't work
like that anymore. You've got stuff recorded. If you're starting at 7, you've missed flogging.
Right, well, there you go. I've got homes under the hammer back-to-back on iPlayer,
so it's really tricky to keep up. But this is my point. I watch it on iPlayer and I'm alive
because I'm not at home. My point here is that having it available, not free-to-air,
now makes sense because almost nothing is free-to-air. Everything is part of the subscription
package. Even if you were to have it on the BBC, in the UK, you've got to have a TV license,
realistically, to watch it live. And that is, in a way, a subscription package. So,
not ideal in most scenarios. You see, they're adverts, which you actually get with Sky anyway,
or it's pay for it again on Netflix, or you pay for it on Amazon, and you get adverts anyway.
It's not good. Either way, it's not good. Either way, adverts.
Adverts on Maggie, or both. I'm not surprised that everyone's free-to-air again. I don't think
we'll ever see it on free-to-air again. I think Formula One is just way, way too popular now.
It's such a behemoth of a sporting product that it wants the cash injection. I don't think a
Channel 4, for example, or a BBC in the UK could really rival an Amazon or a Sky or whatever.
So, I'm more shocked. And, equally, I've kind of moved past the time of disappointment for
it now because everything is... I've got every streaming service I've got in the sun. I have to
to keep up with what's going on because otherwise, my sad little short-term brain that can't remember
anything will fall behind. You can't be overly disappointed at something you had zero expectations
for. And that's the case with free-to-air TV, really. I was having a look through some of the
bigger markets to see, basically, are there any free-to-air contracts left with F1? Not really.
Like, you look at... And apologies if any of this information is out of date, by the way,
but I was looking at Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Mexico, Spain, the United States, obviously
the UK, all of these, and Italy as well, we can include with Sky Sports, all of those are
subscription services or in premium products in the case of like Sky. The only two I could find,
and again, could be outdated, Austria have half of the races that are free-to-air, and Brazil is
15 out of the 24. But outside of that, I couldn't find any, at least any, what I would call,
somewhere near major market that is still free-to-air.
What do you Germany watch it on?
I think Sky as well.
I do remember them regularly going on the Sky Sports Germany or in the way, actually,
that rings a bell.
Yes, yeah.
Martin often gets to the other interview.
So, yeah, I think you're right in terms of F1 is being pushed as a premium product. I don't think
that's going to go away anytime soon. And it's not just an F1 thing, by the way, free-to-air TV is,
in terms of life-sport, struggling across the board. But, yeah, no surprise here.
People want it on demand, they want it when they want it.
Yes. All right, let's take our final break of this episode. On the other side,
we're doing a top five best drivers of the season so far. Lovely. I'll be far middleist.
Welcome back, everyone, to the final part of today's episode. We're going to do a top five
of our drivers of the season so far. We've had four races, we've had two sprints as well. So,
we've had a good amount of action to review. And who's going to make that up echelon on our list?
Top five, number five from you, Sam.
I've got Carlos Sainz and number five, which has been really tricky to evaluate.
And actually, I'm sure if you go look at our power rankings, which you can find on Patreon,
I do think that I probably haven't given him his flowers where he deserves them.
But he's driving a real, you know, dumper of a car. That's a real big, big wagon he's got
to pull around. It's heavy. A real dumper. Oh, boy, it's heavy. And yet, he's had two points
finishes in four races. And yes, okay, there's been some development, especially after the
84-year gap between Japan and Miami. But I do think he's been really strong. And he's regularly
overcoming his teammate as well, even with some difficulties in qualifying. So,
I think Sainz has been a bit of a dark course on how well he's been driving.
Number five on my list, I have Charles Leclerc. He's third in the championship. He's the closest
driver in terms of points to the Mercedes duo. He's had a good year so far in terms of qualifying,
even though he hates qualifying the way that it is right now. He is three-one up on Lewis Hamilton
in that regard. And he fought very well in the likes of Australia. He was fighting for the lead
early on, same in Miami. Japan is probably his best race so far. He was on the podium there,
but he was able to keep George Russell behind him for a good chunk of that Grand Prix too.
The reason I don't have him higher than number five is that there have been errors throughout
the year from him as well. If you think about, you made a big error chasing Lewis Hamilton in
China that might have cost him that position. And then, of course, Miami's probably the most
notable one where everything went south on that final lap. And he cost himself at least a few
positions with that. So, he's not actually that far ahead of Lewis Hamilton right now
in the drivers' championship. So, very good season so far from him, but not error-free. So,
that's why I've got number five. Who's at number four, Sam? And number four, I have Charles Leclerc.
For these exact same reasons, he has had electric pace outright. He has done a brilliant job at
challenging Mercedes. He has dominated Lewis Hamilton realistically in two of the four Grand
Prix, but there have been some genuine mistakes that have come out from his pace now, and the
biggest one, of course, in Miami, where he threw away a lot of points through a mistake entirely
brought on himself. But his start has been great. He lost out to Hamilton in China, as you mentioned,
but I thought his Suzuki performance was excellent. And I thought he really delivered a really strong
result in a car that at the Japanese Grand Prix was struggling a big comparison to what we expect,
especially with the resurgence of McLaren at that point. So, I think he's having a really
strong start to the year. I've just got to wiggle out a few things, which I do think are regulation
related. Number four, I've got Lando Norris. Tough to judge the McLarens based on the three
did not starts between them so far this year. But I feel bad for Piastri, who's not on my list,
but Piastri has had one more of those. So, we've had less to judge him on. But Lando Norris has
had a very good year so far. I know Miami's doing a lot of the heavy lifting here in terms of both
the sprint and the main race. But equally, P5 in Australia, I think was pretty solid based on
some disrupted running earlier in the weekend. Same can be said for Japan. I know he didn't
have a great race there, but not everything went smoothly for him in the practice sessions.
And then he was fourth in the Chinese sprint whilst he didn't start the main race. He did
have a pretty good sprint Grand Prix. So, I think it's been pretty solid where he's had the opportunity
to show what he can do.
Who's number three, Sam?
Oh, this is going to get a little bit boring if I keep following this pattern, but that is going to
be Lando Norris. He was circulating probably slightly further back on my list, actually,
and then the Miami GP happened. Obviously, tricky when you don't get to start a Grand Prix,
when the car has been having some problems. But I thought, his performance in comparison
to Piastri Japan was worse. But Australia, of course, we've got a whole race there where
Piastri was unable to take part. And he did really well. China, again, they don't emerge.
Japan off and going near as far as realistically as bad for a teammate.
And then you get to Miami, and he's absolutely dominating the rest of the field. If Antigali's
got in that Grand Prix, he's winning that thing by over 20 seconds, which is really quite impressive.
Obviously, a great job in the sprint qualifying as well was really near the front. Great recovery
from a poor qualifying, but still beat his teammate even in that qualifying session.
He's had a tricky start to the year, but I really think he's starting to step up nicely.
We're now back at ground zero because I've got Carlos Sainz at number three. So we've got all
of the same three drivers so far in a slightly different order. I know Carlos Sainz at third
is going to seem slightly mad to some people listening because the guy has four points right
now. But can anyone actually tell me he should have more than four points? I'm certain that is
the maximum he could have got from this year so far. He is unbeaten against, you know what,
with an asterisk. He's unbeaten against Alex Albin in qualifying. Technically, Alex Albin beat
him in Australia qualifying. Sainz didn't compete in the session. But other than that, Carlos Sainz,
including both sprints as well, has been the better of the two Williams drivers in terms of
qualifying. Excellent defense against Colopinto in both China and Japan. And he was nine seconds
out of Albin in Miami. So I can't really fault anything he's done to this point in the year.
It's just that the car isn't very good at the moment. Okay, I'm interested. I feel like maybe
we do have the same top two, but we'll see who's second. Pierre Gasly. Sausage is out. Sausage
is out for the big Pierre, the big Gazelle. He's been superb. He's been absolutely superb. And I
think Colopinto doesn't count as a rookie anymore. He's done more than a full season of races. And
Colopinto has got a lot of raw speed. I backed him in Miami and he delivered. You know, the guy's
got the ability to have those results. I'm not marking that against Gasly, though, because
Gasly was, you know, unceremoniously dispatched from the Miami GP after Liam Lawson's gearbox
apparently shut down and he rolled straight into him. Can't put that one on him. But he was beaten
in the sprint race for a lot of the race anyway. And it was a very close affair between them,
which shows the Colopinto is growing. But Gasly before that, the three Grand Prix that started
this, he made P7 his own. He was truly exceptional in comparison to the midfield. And that's when
the Alpine hasn't taken that step away from the likes of Haas from Audi, from the racing balls.
He was able to make great overtakes and set himself apart, picking up extra points, which
are doing Alpine very well in the construction standards right now. So I think Gasly has been
electric. I still think he's the most underrated driver on the grid. I think he is showing how
good he is at the start of this season. Yeah, I've got Gasly second as well. Very unlucky in
Miami. But other than that, he has been great so far this year. And you say like he's locked down
P7 as his position, almost like without context, sounds like an insult. That is a massive compliment
in that P7 for Alpine is P1. Like, yeah, he's been brilliant fighting Max Verstappen, obviously,
in a couple of races, even with the issues that Red Bull have had. He has been great in that
midfield. Going to guess, number one is the same here. No, no, no, no, no. It's a me.
Not Lewis Hamilton, obviously. It's Kimmy Adam early. Well, that would have been a real
curveball. I'd have appreciated if it was Lewis Hamilton. Would you have appreciated it or would
you just thought that I was slightly delusional? I'm always thinking of content, my man.
Anything for the clicks. Yeah. Ben is going as the biggest clickbait guy in the world.
Which is why I've got Ocon at number one. Obviously, the fact that that would get no clicks
anyway. No, no, it would get negative clicks. People will be like, okay, we don't move on.
Yeah, it's Kimmy Adam early, isn't it? Yes, Adam early. I will say though,
it's not been perfect even though I've got him number one here. Like those starts are an issue.
And something else that worked out across the two sprints we've had so far this year,
if there was a sprint championship, and I probably shouldn't say that because that's
going to give us fun ideas. Don't do that. If there was a sprint championship, he'd be sixth.
Really? Well, he's got the time to work his way back through the field.
Well, he's had seven points from the two sprint races we've had.
Hamilton has eight, Piastri has 10, and then Russell Leclerc and Norris all have 13.
Wow. Yeah, I guess the starts have been that poor that with the limited laps,
he just cannot get himself back through to lead. And he got the penalty as well,
of course, in Miami. Yeah, but yeah, it's interesting.
That is interesting. You're right. It hasn't been perfect. There have been mistakes.
There has been a penalty for track limits. There's been poor starts.
He got saved by a safety car. He got beaten by George Russell in the first race.
And yet still he is 20 points clear over his experienced teammate.
And yeah, the car is dominant, but clearly not as dominant as you would think when your
teammate is being beaten regularly by other teams around him. The way he held off Norris
recently and Leclerc was phenomenal. The recovery was great. He shouldn't have had
to recover because that is partial in the car and partial on him, but he did.
And that's the point he got to the front. I have just been really amazed with how good
this kid is at driving a race car. It's quite mind-blowing.
Go and play Fortnite. We've got spokes by Fortnite, Ben. Please stop breaking up Fortnite.
Brought you by Fortnite there. Yeah, he's been excellent. So I've gone over really to add outside
of what you said. Yes, there have been a couple of issues, but he has been far and away. I think
the best driver of the season so far.
Bearman was close to making my list. He was probably sixth.
I hang him sixth or seventh. Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to think who else might have been
close to making it. Well, I have Piastri. Yes. Yeah, Piastri as well.
Just outside that top five. Hamilton recently dropped back from after Miami, but it was hard
to judge him. So I wasn't putting too much on him, but I had a couple of great races.
Yeah, Russell as well. It's not too far away despite the let downs.
Piastri is tough as well. Because with him, we have literally only seen two main races outside
of the sprints. He has podiumed in both. Yes, he has podiumed in both. Although one of them,
he was a long way from his teammates. So the P2 in Japan are a lot more impressive than the P3
in Miami. But yeah, he was close for me as well. But I'm sure you've got slightly different lists
to what we have. We're interested to hear them. So let us know wherever you can find us. Not in
Sam, if you wouldn't mind until Wednesday, getting us out of here.
Thanks for listening, folks. Can't wait for you to join us again on Wednesday's episode,
where we've got a whole different set of news, topics, chitchat, a little game as well to play.
So make sure you come on down and check us out. If you want to follow along on social media,
like Breaking F1, subscribe on YouTube, like Breaking F1. You can chat to us at Discord and
over 4,000 other wonderful people, which the link is in the description. You can see your
fantasy. That doesn't remove your points. So get involved. And Patreon is available to those of
you who want more content all of the time. You know, classic Grand Prix reviews. You can have
beer with breaking, extra episodes, video with things as well, and birthday shoutouts for
the top tier. So get involved. We'd love to have everyone over on Patreon. Thank you for your
support. In the meantime, I've been Sam Sage. And I've been Ben Hawking. And remember, keep breaking late.
About this episode
The Late Braking F1 Podcast weighs whether F1’s 2027 engine change reads like an admission of failure. Hosts argue the rules are shifting away from the “notional 50-50 split” toward “60-40” to avoid “energy-starved” moments, but question the speed of the change and whether it’s driven by a real problem. They also debate how battery/energy management affects driver control and overtakes, and connect 2027 downforce talk to recharge-rate limits in 2026.
Join Ben and Sam for a Sunday F1 catch-up, covering the breaking news of F1's 2027 engine shift, the growing Mercedes driver battle amid Antonelli's strong start, and Sky Sports' huge new F1 deal. Plus, their Top 5 Drivers of the Season so far.
