A “title fight” means the race to win the championship for the whole season. If a driver is still in it, they still have a real chance to end up champion.
Kimmy Antonelli is a Formula 1 driver mentioned as Russell’s main rival in the championship. They’re talking about how many points he’s ahead and whether Russell can catch him.
Russell is the driver the hosts are talking about in the championship race. They’re debating if he’s doing enough—on track and mentally—to catch the person in front of him.
The ground effect era is a time in F1 when the cars used the air under them to create extra grip. It made the cars feel different and often faster in corners.
Lewis Hamilton is one of the most successful F1 drivers ever. Mentioning him is meant to show how impressive it is that Antonelli could beat a driver of that caliber.
Kimi Antonelli is an F1 driver. The hosts are comparing his performance to George Russell and saying the points gap is mostly because of reliability issues, not because Antonelli suddenly got much faster.
Reliability problems are when the car has mechanical issues. In F1, that can cause retirements or slowdowns, which then affects how many points a driver scores.
China is another F1 race location on the calendar. The hosts bring it up to describe Russell’s strong early-season run before things became more complicated.
Australia is an early-season F1 race. The hosts mention it to show Russell started the season strongly before the later points gap and reliability swings.
The “ceiling of capability” idea means there may be a limit to how good someone can be. Here, the host is wondering if Russell is already at his best level, or if he can still get better.
A Grand Prix is the official name for a Formula 1 race weekend. The host is saying the real question is whether Russell can be faster than Antonelli in the races themselves.
This means more than one car or team is now capable of winning races. Instead of one dominant group, several different drivers are fighting for the top spot regularly.
Max Verstappen is a top Formula 1 driver. Here, he’s mentioned as someone who’s now showing up at the front of races—so the competition isn’t just one or two drivers anymore.
Pole position is the starting spot at the very front of the grid, earned by the fastest car in qualifying. The host contrasts earlier dominance—Mercedes taking pole repeatedly—with the newer situation where other teams and drivers are also achieving strong qualifying results.
Penalties are official punishments in F1 for breaking the rules. In this segment, Antonelli gets penalties that cost him positions and points, which helps Russell.
Term
safety curve
This sounds like the Safety Car period. When the Safety Car comes out, the race pace changes and gaps can shrink, which can help some drivers score more points than they otherwise would.
A slow puncture is a tire failure where the tire loses pressure gradually rather than instantly. In F1, that typically forces a driver to slow down or pit, hurting lap times and track position—something the host contrasts with the idea that Russell’s pace wasn’t matching his teammate.
A “reliability strike” means the car had a mechanical problem. In F1, that can force a driver to retire early or finish far lower than expected, costing championship points.
Barcelona is a race track on the Formula 1 calendar. Here it’s mentioned because something went wrong for Antonelli there, changing how many points he and Russell had.
“Bad luck gimmick” here means blaming some results on unlucky events (like mechanical issues or race incidents) instead of driver skill. They’re saying Russell’s luck-related explanation doesn’t fit as well anymore.
“Drop points” means the championship rules let drivers ignore their worst results. So if you have a bad race due to a problem or incident, those points might not count the same way.
The safety car is used when there’s a hazard on the track. It slows everyone down and can change race strategy, so it can affect who gains or loses positions and points.
Ferrari is one of the biggest Formula 1 teams. The hosts are discussing whether Ferrari’s results or strategy make it easier or harder for George Russell to win the points battle.
This is just a fancy way of saying races where cars from different teams are fighting for position—like who gets past who, and who ends up winning the race.
Term
Papa rules
“Papa rules” here means some kind of team rule about how drivers are supposed to act—especially when teammates are competing. It’s basically a slogan for the team’s approach to team orders.
A blow diffuser is a type of aerodynamic system used in F1 that uses engine exhaust (or related airflow) to energize the airflow under the car. By improving underbody downforce, it can increase speed and grip—so removing it for a race changes the car’s performance.
Term
Macarena wind
That sounds like a nickname for a specific aero upgrade on the car. The point is that Ferrari has a newer version that should help their speed or grip.
F1 cars can switch between different power settings. “Five straight line modes” means there are several acceleration/top-speed settings the driver can choose depending on the situation.
Aston Martin is the Formula 1 team being talked about. The discussion is about why their newer car has had trouble, and how earlier development choices may have contributed.
Concept
patched and bodged for years
They’re describing a situation where a team keeps using quick fixes instead of solving the real underlying problem. Over time, those workarounds can stop working and make the car-building process harder and less reliable.
Jordan refers to the former Formula 1 team Jordan Grand Prix, which the hosts use as a historical reference point for where Aston Martin’s inherited development processes originated. The idea is that some of the team’s current systems trace back to early Jordan-era practices.
In F1, the power unit is the car’s main engine-and-hybrid system that makes it move. Here, they’re saying fitting it into the car made the overall car heavier than they wanted.
Aerodynamic direction is the team’s overall plan for shaping the car so it grips the track better. In this segment, they’re saying they committed to a big aero idea quickly, and that caused problems they didn’t fully predict.
Term
archaic gear in the terms of Formula One
They’re saying the team is using outdated methods. In F1, that can mean your car setup or development approach isn’t modern enough to compete.
Term
processes underneath
They mean the team’s internal workflow—how decisions get made and how parts get built and delivered. If that foundation is broken, even good people and ideas won’t help much.
Term
parts being ordered late
This describes a supply-chain and development timing failure: components are requested later than needed, even if the people doing their jobs are not the root cause. In F1, late ordering can cascade into late delivery and force rushed design decisions.
Term
parts being delivered late
It means the actual parts arrive after the team needed them. That delay can force the team to rush the car changes.
The “Honda factory” means Honda’s main engineering/production site. In F1, teams often need close coordination with engine suppliers to get the car working right.
Adrian Newey is one of the most famous F1 car designers. He’s known for helping teams build very fast cars, and here he’s being discussed in a leadership role.
Andy Cowell is a senior figure in Formula 1 engineering and operations, closely associated with power unit development and team technical leadership. The transcript frames his departure as part of a broader problem with getting the team’s people and systems aligned.
Term
engine cupboard
“Engine cupboard” just means the area of the car where the engine sits—on an F1 car, that’s in the back. The line is meant as a joke about where people are being put.
Term
engine sorted
“Engine sorted” means the team has fixed the engine so it works properly. In racing, that usually means it’s both fast and dependable.
Term
Spain upgrade
The “Spain upgrade” is a set of changes a team brought for the race in Spain. F1 teams plan upgrades around certain events so they can see how much faster the car gets.
An “overhaul” means the team is making big changes, not just small adjustments. It’s like rebuilding the car’s setup so it works differently and better.
“Weight down” means making the car lighter. A lighter car can accelerate and slow down more easily and usually handles better.
Term
Q1
“Q1” is the first part of qualifying. Drivers try to qualify well enough to avoid being knocked out before the later qualifying rounds.
Term
two seconds away from safety
They mean the team is currently much slower than the pace needed to comfortably qualify. So they’re saying the car is behind by a big margin compared with what’s required to move on.
“Hungary” means the race in Hungary. The idea is that the team’s new parts will show up there and we’ll see if they work.
Term
VA engines
They’re talking about a particular kind of engine for F1. The idea is to bring that engine type back by 2031, which would change how teams build their race cars.
This is about teams getting their engines from an outside supplier rather than relying on the same company that runs the top team. It’s meant to make it fairer for smaller “customer” teams.
This would be a company that builds engines for several teams. Teams could buy the same basic engine package instead of depending on their own manufacturer.
They’re describing an engine that’s the same for everyone and designed to be cheaper. The idea is to reduce expensive engineering while still letting teams race competitively.
Cosworth is mentioned as a company that could make engines for several teams. The idea is that it would be independent from the teams’ main manufacturers.
Alpine is named as another example of a team that might be able to build its own engine system if costs come down. It’s part of the argument that more teams could become self-sufficient.
In F1, the engine manufacturer is the company that makes the engine the teams use. This part of the discussion is about who should control or supply those engines.
Haas is used as the example team that might receive an engine from another brand. The host is arguing that the engine supplier’s involvement could be different depending on who owns the engine program.
Pirelli is a company that makes the tires used in Formula 1. The tires matter a lot because they affect how much grip the cars have and how teams plan their race strategy.
McLaren is a well-known racing team in Formula 1. Here, they’re used as an example of a team that might build its own engine instead of buying one from another supplier.
An engine supplier is a company that provides engines to racing teams. If only a few suppliers can offer the best engines, it can make it harder for smaller teams to compete for championships.
Concept
monopolise the market
To monopolise the market means one or a few large players dominate the supply so others have limited options. Here, the hosts argue that major automotive companies can effectively control access to the most competitive, proven F1 engines.
The Ford Escort is a smaller car made by Ford. It’s mentioned in racing conversations because Ford used it as a base for faster, competition-focused versions. When people bring up Cosworth, they’re usually referring to the performance parts or engines that were developed for racing Escorts.
Car
Honda cars
Honda is a big Japanese car company. Here, “Honda cars” means Formula 1 cars connected to Honda, not a specific street car.
This means teams would have to use an engine they develop or control themselves, instead of just buying one from elsewhere. The discussion is about how the future engine rules might work.
Term
partner with a manufacturer
Instead of building the engine alone, a team could team up with another company that will help supply or develop the engine. It’s presented as a second option in the rules.
BMW is a major car company that the host thinks could come back to Formula 1. They’re using it as an example of how the new engine rules might attract manufacturers.
A V8 engine is a type of engine with eight cylinders arranged in two banks that form a V shape. The point here is that it might be cheaper to run and easier for companies to build because they’ve done it before.
Term
build their own engine
In F1, “building their own engine” means the team designs and makes its own engine instead of using one from another company. It’s a big decision because it can change how much control the team has over performance and how expensive it is.
Term
V8s come back
“V8s come back” means F1 might switch back to engines with eight cylinders in a V shape. That would change how the cars feel and how teams design the engine and cooling system.
“V6 hybrids” are the current F1 engines: a V6 gas engine plus hybrid parts that store and reuse energy. If a team moves away from them, it’s a major change in how the car makes power.
A “V6 hybrid engine” is the F1 power unit that uses a V6 gas engine along with hybrid tech to reuse energy. The speaker is saying it could be about using someone else’s version instead of making their own.
It means an engine that’s basically “off the rack,” not custom-built just for one team. In racing, custom parts can be a big advantage, so using a standard engine can level the playing field.
A “B team” is like a second team connected to a bigger F1 team. The concern is that it can make the championship less fair because it adds extra cars/drivers that can affect results.
Williams is an F1 team. The host mentions it because Mercedes had engine-related ties with Williams, which comes up in the debate about whether engine independence rules are being followed.
Valtteri Bottas is an F1 driver. In this conversation, he’s mentioned as an example of a driver who could be positioned in a way that influences how teams compete over a season.
Secondary drivers are drivers who aren’t the main race drivers every weekend. In this discussion, they’re mentioned because their involvement can still affect who wins and how the championship plays out.
The Concorde Agreement is the big long-term contract that governs how F1 teams and the sport operate. It matters because new rules—like engine independence—have to fit within that agreement.
This is a proposed rule meant to stop teams from gaining an unfair advantage by sharing engine technology or control. The goal is to keep competition more even.
LIVE
Thank you for listening to the Late Breaking F1 podcast. Make sure to check out new episodes
every Wednesday and every Sunday.
Hello and a very welcome to the Late Breaking F1 podcast presented by Sam Sage and me, Ben
Hawking, one week removed from the British Grand Prix one week to go, until the Belgian
Grand Prix gives us a good opportunity to take stock, Sam, and celebrate England's continued
success in the World Cup.
Oh, is that what this episode is about, is it?
Yes. What did you make of Dan Byrne's cameo?
Dan Byrne is my favourite human being of all time. I love that man, and I'm very proud
of him being a Newcastle player.
He is the tallest man alive.
Him and Gary Barlow's son.
I'm really glad we've started this episode here, and apologies to other countries that
unfortunately your terrible teams have already been knocked out.
Did Argentina beat Switzerland?
They did. Needed extra time as well, but yes, they did.
I wanted to play Switzerland.
Never mind. We've got plenty more World Cup chat in another episode coming up.
It's never coming again.
Okay, fine. On today's episode, we're playing Formula Fortunes, the grand return of Formula
Fortunes later on. Some discussion from Mohamed Ben-Souliem on VA engines.
It's all right. He doesn't say anything completely ridiculous this time, which is odd,
because it's probably brewing for something else coming up.
Some comments from Adrian Newey about Aston Martin's struggles to this point in the year,
but we're going to start with Georgie Russ, because he has admitted he needs to raise his game
if he is to remain in the Formula One title fight this season.
After nine rounds, Russell sits 25 points behind Mercedes teammate Kimmy Antonelli in the championship,
although the gap narrowed significantly from the 68-point deficit he faced just a few races ago.
Despite closing in, Russell admits he is still struggling to understand this car
and believes Antonelli has done a better job than me this year to this point,
so he deserves to be ahead of me.
Are these fair comments, Sam? And what are your thoughts on him actually admitting to this very openly?
Let's break it down into two sides of things here. Yes, I think they're fair comments.
And if they come from a journalist, they come from, let's say, the race or something like that,
and I've seen an article that discussed how Georgie Russell does need to up his game to be
a better part of this title fight, I probably would look at that out and go,
yeah, that makes a lot of sense. The fact that these words have come out of Georgie Russell's mouth
is awful, absolutely awful in my opinion. There is a set mentality that world championship
winners must have. It must be cutthroat. so headstrong. And I think Russell is approaching
this quite almost too kindly to his rivals around him. He's almost lost the battle mentally here
before the war has even properly begun. And I just think the way he's talking about Antonelli,
who is a 19-year-old, he's a teenager, and he's mastered these cars faster than you,
Georgie Russell, who is not old as a human being, is younger than me, so therefore he is not old.
And I do believe that he still has the ability to just get to grips with this. He's got rocket
silence. He's got the ability to learn this. He was only in the junior formula less than a decade
ago. He had to go through the trials and tribulations of the Williams in the previous era,
then he mastered the Mercedes in the ground effect era, beating Lewis Hamilton two years in a row.
It's not that much of an extreme challenge to overcome that Antonelli has been that better
than he has. And the only way he's actually caught back so many points is mainly due to reliability
problems. But Antonelli has faced two in the last few Grand Prix, and Russell has been quite fortunate
that the pendulum of luck has swung the other way, and he's been able to finish the races,
arguably not maximising the points that him and Antonelli was able to maximise when Russell
was losing out due to reliability problems. So I do think that that points telling that's
rocked from, like you mentioned, what was it, about 68 points?
68 to 25.
Down to 25. A huge majority of that is because of reliability.
It is. And that's why I think his comments are fair in that, and it's almost encouraging that he
isn't letting the points gap sway him. Like he's gone the right way. That's why I think.
Yeah, but I mean, he's not saying, well, I've been way better. That's why the points gap has come
down. He's being honest in why it's come down. And he's saying that he hasn't been better than
Antonelli. It's just that the reliability has sort of swung the other way. The pace of Russell
versus Antonelli hasn't really changed all that much in the last few races. I still think you have
to go back to Canada for the last time it was even between the two. Antonelli was definitely
stronger in Monaco. Antonelli was definitely stronger when he was overtaking Russell in
Barcelona as well. And he was probably Antonelli on course for victory at Silverstone, if not
second place. And then, of course, that goes sideways thanks to a reliability issue where
George Russell picks up the pieces. So it makes complete sense what he's saying here.
And I think that's why he would say, as part of the statement I didn't read out, that he was
actually feeling better after Canada than he was after Silverstone. Because whilst he didn't come
away from Canada with any points, he at least showed that he could be a match for his teammate,
whereas that wasn't the case, of course, last time out at Silverstone. The thing I'm not sure about,
and I think I've mentioned this before, and I'm still no closer to an answer on this, is whether
he's struggling, George Russell, or more than he was, or Kimi Antonelli has just kicked on as the
season has progressed. Because he was talking earlier in the season after he
swept Australia and the first half of China as well. He was basically leading every session,
and he was, you know, I love this car. Loves this engine, love this car.
You have a dabbadoo. dabbadoo and all the rest.
Very nice. And then all of a sudden, he's not enjoying it anywhere near as much,
and he's really struggling. And I have to ask whether that's actually true, or whether it's just
he's still on the same level he was. It's just Antonelli's click with the car and moved ahead
of him, like leapfrogged him. I don't know much. You're right. There is every chance that Russell
is actually at his ceiling of capability right now that we don't realise, and actually his ceiling
is still very high, and he's a very competent and very good Formula One driver, but maybe that's,
you know, this is just so harsh, but maybe that's all he ever will be, a very good,
very competent Formula One driver. It happens with so many where you think up and up and up,
or you've got the chance at a title car, and you've immediately not been able to rise to that
final challenge. He has got as many winters Ferrari have right now this season. And I think it's
important to note that, because if Russell does turn his form around properly, and it's not just
reliability based, you know, he starts actually beating Antonelli on pace alone in Grand Prix.
He just, he isn't just contending there with Antonelli like he was through
China, Australia, even the likes of Suzuki, which was a bit, you know, safety car tampered with,
which of course he lost out on as well. This is now becoming a multi-car fight for victories on
a regular basis. If it isn't Ferrari, well then McLaren, you seem to rise to the occasion. If it
isn't McLaren, Max Verstappen has put his car on the front row of the grid now. These events have
all taken place in the last four Grand Prix. Before that, it was essentially a mass production line
of Mercedes 1-2, 1-2 with pole positions all the way along. They now have more things to contend
with, and that is a big issue for George Russell. Kimi Antonelli has done the dirty work. He's got
the graph done when he needs a giga dial and the cards are in his favour. Russell now has to climb
a mountain, and that mountain along the way has got Ferrari's obstacles. It's got Antonelli at the
very top, but within that, you've got Verstappen, you've got Landner and Norris, Oscar Piastri,
reliability becoming more and more infrequent as well. Well, upgrades work. It's so difficult to
know at this stage if Mercedes will have the overall ability now to produce the same amount of points
that they were producing for the first Grand Prix for, let's say, the next four Grand Prix.
So, Russell's got it all to do, and I do think he needs to get his mindset correct in order to
actually overcome a lot of these challenges. The only thing we differ on here is I actually
don't mind Russell coming out and saying this in that I don't think it would be fooling anyone if
he'd said the reverse. I think it would be almost that he's in denial, and I think that would maybe
indicate a worse mental state than him just coming out and saying, look, I'm not as good,
I haven't done as good a job as my teammate. I think that at least implies that if he's confident
enough to say that, he's maybe also confident enough that it isn't guaranteed to be that way
for the rest of the year. I haven't changed my view on this, and I still don't think Russell's
going to win this title. I think if it comes from Mercedes, it will come from Antonelli.
I personally don't mind him saying it. I have an issue with him thinking it.
I have a problem with him being so open and honest about it publicly.
I just don't think it'll impact Antonelli either way.
No, it's true. It's true. I think I suppose I'm looking at it in the way that maybe Hamilton versus
Rosberg, they were so at each other at every single moment.
Oh, it's very different to that.
Very different culturally to what they went through, and you would never hear Hamilton say,
I just haven't been as good as Nico over the last few races. I don't think that's the kind
of line that comes out of his mouth. The same is Max Verstappen. I don't think he ever concedes
that he isn't as good. I mean, in Verstappen's sense, it was never his teammate. It'll always be
a title rival from coming from elsewhere. But the point stands, I don't think he gives the
concession that it's on him. That's the reason why there's been a failure of some area, and it's
almost just a world champions mindset of, I will, and it's horrible. It is horrible. I will stamp
on everybody to get to the top, and that is where someone like Schumacher thrived, Senna thrived,
Hamilton thrived, Verstappen thrived, even Vettel, when he was in his evil man era,
you know, when he won four back-to-back, you have to play the bad guy to get what you need to do.
I actually think Russell's been too kind. I think he's been too nice.
I think one of the differences between, say, Rosberg and Hamilton and Antonelli and Russell
is that Rosberg and Hamilton basically came up together. They were carting against each other.
They basically debuted a year apart. They were the same cohort, whereas the only way that Russell
would know Antonelli growing up is if he was babysitting him. They're not in the same cohort,
are they, in any way? I do wonder whether that impacts anything at all. In terms of that point
Scat 25, George Russell says that is reflective of the season so far. That is a fair number.
Do you think it's a fair number? No, I don't. I think it should be more. I think it should be more.
And I do think that he is lucky where these reliability problems have struck, because I
think on both occasions, he was losing to Antonelli anyway. And he's not just carried on with,
let's say, 18 points. He's overhauled it to be larger. Let's take Silverstone, for example.
Russell, at that point, I think is what? P4, maybe P5, when Antonelli actually ends up
having the problem and dropping back through the rankings and then ended up picking up the
penalties, lading the other down. We know he doesn't get points. Russell gains from that,
and then also, of course, gains from the safety curve. That's not Antonelli's fault.
My point here is, if Russell was already second place and Antonelli found out the Grand Prix,
Russell would have gained 18 points. What actually happened is, Russell was only
getting to the 18 points. He actually gains probably an extra five to eight points,
depending on what position he was in, because he's also overtaking his teammates due to the fact that
he has been behind him for the entire Grand Prix. Now, I know that Russell at that point had the
slow puncture or whatever, but the pace wasn't there. He wasn't on the same pace as his teammate.
I think that's happened on both occasions. The same happened in Barcelona. Antonelli passes Russell,
so he's already at a three-point deficit. When Antonelli then has a reliability strike
from Barcelona and Russell gets back past, he's not just gaining the 18 points by finishing second.
He's actually gaining 21 points because he's gained another three back over Antonelli
in the first place. I think there's little bits there, but when Russell has his reliability problems,
Antonelli was already in front, or we could argue that he was going to be in front, and it wouldn't
make that much of an impact. He'd earned the spot before the DNF had actually occurred. I do think
that whilst 6-8 is probably extreme, and whilst 25 is probably too close, I do think it probably
should be a bit more towards the 6-8. I thought 25 was fair enough. I don't think I'd go less than
25 as a fair number at the moment, but I think 25 is about right. I am glad that George Russell
has dropped the bad luck gimmick at this stage because it was valid for a while,
and it's definitely not valid anymore. I think what you're saying is right, that when it comes to
DNFs and reliability issues for one driver, it does impact the other one as well, so there is a bit
of a bit of number working out that you need to do there, but if you look at George Russell,
his drop points due to bad luck this year, you've essentially got Suzuka, Monaco, and Canada. I
calculate that to be about 46 points dropped. Antonelli, his two are Silverstone and Barcelona.
I calculate that at 43 points dropped. Now, what you're saying is right in terms of Monaco, for
example, Antonelli didn't benefit from George Russell's DNF. Well, he didn't DNF in Suzuka,
but he benefited from the safety car in Suzuka. I think Canada, whilst it would have been close,
Russell was ahead at the time of the DNF, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt
that he would have seen that one out, but it could have gone either way. I think actually 25-30
points, I would consider to be about 35, which is where I thought I saw it sitting.
So it leaves us in an interesting spot. We're starting to get into that one DNF could really
swing things again zone. You mentioned Ferrari a little bit earlier on. Do you think the fret of
Ferrari helps or hinders George Russell? I mentioned this. I actually think it makes his life even
harder. I think he's not having a one-on-one battle with his teammate now, where they could get out
ahead, they could qualify on the front row of the grid, and all he's got to do is beat out one
teammate, one driver. We've seen these inter-team battles before, where basically the garages almost
go to war with each other. That might be approached in different ways. We saw McLaren most recently
have to do that with Landon Norris versus Oscar Piastri, and they kept things quite civil. They
kept things quite open. We heard conversations go back and forth between engineers, Zach Brown,
the drivers themselves about how we're playing out. That's where Papa rules comes from, right?
Papyrus. Papa rules now. Sensational soundbite. It's one of those moments that we kind of like,
20 years ago, this was a big outright chaos, and McLaren are trying to handle things differently.
Equally, 10 years ago, we bring up Hamilton and Rosberg again, they did face things very differently.
It was always, what's Eco doing? What's Lewis doing? How can I beat him? What's different to
him? How has he got to hang on me? I don't want to hear anything from him. I'm beating him. It's
not a teamwork situation. It's a, I need to beat him situation. Now, with Ferrari coming into the
mix alongside Antonelli and Spa coming up on the horizon where Ferrari have got to remove
their blow diffuser. That's an extra few horsepower. They've got an improved Evo version of the
Macarena wind. There's five straight line modes, which mean the battery harvesting is not as
important for them. It's honestly going to be such a competition. I'd much rather have one car,
I think called machinery, where I can just be the fastest driver, then three cars, and two of them,
I can't control in any way, shape or form to beat that makes your life more difficult.
So I think, like I said, Antonelli did the groundwork when it was a simple competition
between two people. Russell's now got to do the hard work when it is against possibly three,
maybe more cars that might be in the mix. Yeah. Just to remind everyone the situation exactly,
Lewis Hamilton 32 points behind Antonelli, which means he's seven behind George Russell,
and Ferrari 78 behind Mercedes in the constructors championship.
What's interesting, you mentioned one twos for Mercedes earlier on. I don't think I'm
incorrect on this. The first two races of the year, Mercedes had 12 finishes.
I did. They haven't had one since. They have not.
Yeah. It just tells you how much Ferrari and other teams, how much Ferrari have gotten back
into this fight. I think it's an unknown as to whether a close constructors battle could
rustle or Antonelli, because after Barcelona, in particular, Toto Wolf was very open about
that we might well have cost ourselves today, thanks to an intra-team battle.
If the closer the championship gets, the more Toto Wolf will not be accepting of that. I do
believe him when he says he wants to, as much as he can, let his drivers race. But there is
a limit to that if there is a threat from someone else. And I also believe Mercedes when they say
that there isn't, I don't think they'll favour Antonelli or Russell. I agree. I just think if
they need to make a call based on one of them being quicker than the other,
doesn't matter which way round it is, they will do that. So it's tough to say if that sort of
team order comes about. I don't think they ever asked that team order. I think what they won't
ever go, you need to move out the way for your teammate. I don't think they'll do that,
whilst they're both in contention for a title fight. I think what my point is, they'll let
them get on with it. I don't let them interfere. I think right now, I agree with you. I think if
it gets closer in the constructors, I don't know. If Hamilton, for example, overtakes Russell again,
and let's say Hamilton ends up 10 points behind Antonelli, and Russell is behind Hamilton in
the standings by, let's say, another five points, and there's a few races to go, there will be a
time that needs to come where they go. For example, in this scenario, Russell is no longer the threat,
Hamilton is the threat, and one of us needs to win a title.
Could be interesting. I think Ferrari being involved, by the way, when Russell was 68 points
back, I think Ferrari being involved is a good thing, because it's higher risk and it's higher
reward in that suddenly Antonelli can lose points to someone that isn't you. But I think the closer
it gets, the more you want it to be a one-on-one battle with your teammate, and then just hope that
the reliability goes your way, and you can get enough wins of those one-two finishes to end up
ahead. I will say I am surprised that the gap is back down at 25 points. When it hit 68, whilst I
thought that will fluctuate, that might come down a couple of races, back up a couple of races,
I never thought we'd be basically 40 points closer again to having a nil-nil. I am surprised.
It's because we wouldn't have seen that last year with reliability the way that it was. We
wouldn't have seen these big swings, but we can see that now. I don't think we're done in terms of
DNFs for any team, let alone Mercedes. There will be DNFs still in this season, and how their spread
out might well be crucial. A bit formula one. I'm absolutely gagging to put out that graphic on
social media that shows the little bar chart thing of the points changing throughout this.
They love that. They love a bar chart, don't they? Final question before we go to our first
break. What does Russell need from the last two races before the summer break? We've obviously
got Belgium next week, and then Hungary the week after. I think I was priceless by saying he doesn't
need wings. What I do think he needs is to categorically beat Antonelli on pace. Now,
that might mean that, instead of saying Ferrari gets 2-1-2's in a row, they won't.
But let's say I dream what they do. If Russell could come away from both of those races and say,
yeah, all right, we finished fifth and sixth, but both of those races, I was fifth and he was
sixth, and I did that on pure pace. There was no reliability problems. That will mentally restore
him for the fight for the rest of the season after that summer break. I think he just needs to out
pace Antonelli. I'll just only win the Grand Prix because he can't necessarily control that,
but I do think he needs to out pace Antonelli. I landed on the same conclusion. I don't even
think it needs to be both of them. I think it just needs to be one of them. I don't think it matters
which one either. Just proof for George Russell that he can still do what he did in Australia
and comfortably beat your teammate. Basically, Austria, but just he extends the gap rather
than the gap comes down to a couple of seconds. If he ends up winning a race by five seconds,
between five and 10 seconds, maybe, I think that would do him the world of good.
Star feels like a good place for Mercedes. It feels like it could easily be a
double showing. Maybe more discussion on that midweek. Let's take our first break on the other
side. We've got comments from Adrian Newie. Welcome back, everyone. Comments from Adrian
Newie now, who I keep forgetting this is still Aston Martin team principal.
Yeah, what is happening there? He's given new insight into the cause of the team's dire problems
with its 2026 car and how it attends to address them. He said, we were relying on tools and
processes that had been patched and bodged for years. You could trace some of them right back
to the very early days of the Jordan team. At some point, a system that's just patch on,
patch stops being fit for purpose. The result was a very frustrating car build.
Parts weren't being ordered at the right time, not because people weren't doing their jobs,
but because the underlying system was failing them. On the chassis side, we're quite a long
way overweight. Some of that comes from integrating the power unit, but we also didn't do as good
a job as we should have on our side at saving weight. When you design in a rush, weight is the
first thing that suffers because you don't have the time to thoroughly optimize everything.
Aerodynamically, we also took a bold direction, which was largely pushed by me,
without the luxury of exploring multiple concepts in depth because time was against us.
I wouldn't say the direction we've taken is fundamentally wrong,
but it has thrown up challenges we didn't anticipate.
Quite open comments, I think, here from Adrian Newey.
He's refreshing me, honest.
What do you think is on his reasoning?
I really enjoyed this from Newey. He is right to start talking about the problems,
there are many of those problems. It doesn't surprise me that Aston Martin are a Formula
One team that have got systems that are almost built on other systems that didn't work in the
first place. Built by Eddie Jordan.
Love you. Love you so much, but I'm not surprised that these things don't work as the way they
intended to do so, especially 20 years in advance. Equally, I can't let the blame rest at Eddie
Jordan's door because someone at some point in the long and incredibly esteemed list of
personnel and team principals at that race team, before it was even going to Aston Martin,
should have come along and said, this isn't working anymore. This system doesn't work anymore.
You blame an Op-Ma?
You blame an Op-Ma?
I'd never blamed fellow podcast host, Op-Ma.
Well, I blame an Op-Ma. It's all your fault.
Op-Ma, as a fellow host, you're one of us, and I stand by you. And you're many children.
I'm just not surprised, actually, with the way that Aston Martin have approached the last few
years with their turnover replacement of team principals, the way they brought in so many,
you have Mike Crack, you have Ann Cow, you've got the likes of Nui, of course, coming in.
There was talks of Horne, of course, recently arriving. They're so quick to make changes and
adjustments and go, that's not good enough. That's And they almost didn't have any
foresight. And to have foresight, you need to know your foundation. And these team principals
were not willing to make any actual structural changes. And that includes the system to then
allow them to go almost, we need to take three steps back, we need to pull everything away,
refresh everything, to then rebuild. And it's like the old saying, don't build your house on sand.
And that sand is Eddie Jordan, it's Force India, it's Racing Point, and it's all just scattered.
And you're like, yeah, let's put our house right here on all these teams that never really
actually amounted to any major success. Instead of going, actually, let's take the bricks and
put it over there on a whole new fresh area and just start again. And it's because they don't
allow them on the time to do that. So I'm really refreshed that Nui has come out and said,
the system doesn't work. And the fact that they still got
plasters going on top of plasters of the Jordan days, it just tells you, I think Williams had
a very similar thing recently where they came out and basically said, we're not fit for purpose
almost. We're so using archaic gear in the terms of Formula One, that is, that it's just not able
to compete with McLaren and Mercedes, a Ferrari. It's actually amazing that the Ferrari haven't
fallen foul of this themselves and how long they've been around. And yet they have continually
been able to innovate and change and adapt. Aston Martin haven't done that. So I'm hoping Nui can.
It's interesting. My first note that I've got written down is very insightful.
Sounds a lot like the Williams situation and maybe not on the same scale, but we talk about
Williams and how they've invested a lot particularly in personnel over the last couple of years,
but there are still key systems that are failing them. And it sounds very similar to what Adrian
Nui is describing here. I thought his comments were proof of a couple of things. Firstly,
that signing key staff and investing huge money will only get you so far, which sounds weird.
But to your point, if the systems and the processes underneath all of that are not fit for
purpose, it doesn't matter what you're building on top of it. Those processes, they take a long time
to fix. And I still think it's bitterly disappointing that no one has come along and fixed them to this
point because this shouldn't be a surprise in that Aston Martin have now existed for five years.
The team obviously has existed far longer than that. You kind of knew this day was coming. You
knew that when 2023 you were doing quite well in terms of competitiveness and it fell back,
you were making those decisions based on attacking 2026. And the fact that we've got here and these
things are still present is very disappointing. It also just proves the scale of the challenge.
The other thing I think his comments prove is how much of a knock on impact these things can have
because he's talking here about processes that are old and that they're not working. Well, that
then leads to, as he's outlined, parts being ordered late, not because of people not doing
their jobs, but because the systems are telling them to do that. And then parts being delivered
late, that's leading to a rush in terms of the design. And a rush in terms of design inevitably
leads to an overweight car. An overweight car is pretty awful when it comes to F1. It ain't
going to work anywhere near as optimally as it should do. And then, of course, when, again,
you're running out of time and you can only explore one concept in terms of the aero,
you've got to hope that's the right concept. These other teams are all trying multiple things and
going with what they think is best. Aston Martin have gone, we've got time for this one,
better hope it's good. And right now, it isn't. I agree with what you said as well,
that I think a lack of authority at the top is really hurting them here.
The fact that they didn't visit the Honda factory until November of last year
still and probably forever will baffle me. Yeah, it's one of the most confusing and
bizarre choices in Formula One I've seen for a long time.
The systems obviously aren't good enough, but also, yeah, we've had this revolving door of
people at the top. We've had Mike Crack, we've had Adrian Newey, who's now the team principal,
we've had good old Martin Whitmash, or Martin Whitmash is more commonly known.
Dan Fallow has obviously had a spell. Nothing's come together. Andy Cowell has been there and
now they've sent him off to Japan never to return. I hope he's having a nice time.
Which, to be clear, isn't true. They need someone to basically bring everything together,
and they haven't got that at the moment. Yeah, system is a lot of what needs to
change, but at the same time, you need someone at the very top to turn around and go,
I think the system's wrong. I think what the computer is telling us is not correct to put
it into real layman's terms. It's like, I won't send a rocket to the moon. The system is saying
we should do it at 179.9 degrees. That's how we should get there. Okay. There's no one to say,
actually, what if it's 0.1 degrees out, though? Actually, you end up firing the rocket and ending
up in Jupiter. That would almost be more impressive. Well, in theory, though, that's what's happened,
right? They've gone, we're going for first. And to do that, we need to go down this route. Okay,
but what if we're 0.1 degrees out and actually end up in 21st? We'll be so slow, we go backwards.
Why is the cargo, why is Stoffel van Doorn inside of the engine cupboard?
We've got a Stoffel van Doorn mansion today. That's just bright enough, my Sunday.
That's why the car's overweight, guys. You've got a third driver.
It's a Belgian who's just in the wing. Sir, there's a Belgian in the wing.
No, I'm the reserve driver. I'm Stoffel van Doorn.
Oh, man. I was going to ask you another question. I've completely forgotten it.
In terms of an upgrade that's coming at Hungary, obviously Belgium,
write that off. If you're an Aston Martin fan, just wait.
What if it's Stoffel van Doorn?
Sorry, yeah. Home race for Stoffel van Doorn. And he can claim it because he's on the car.
Is it in the car?
Yeah, he's going to claim it as a home P21. So we've got Stoffel van Doorn on the car,
obviously, at Belgium. But after that, presumably, this upgrade will get rid of him.
What does a successful upgrade look like at Hungary?
Oh, it's a really tricky question and quite theoretical, I suppose.
There's some interesting comics coming out of the Aston Martin camp,
most interestingly, from Lance Stroll, who, you know, let's be really honest,
he gets a break boundaries when it comes to interviews.
What are you talking about, man?
Someone said the man's got the charisma of a ham sandwich once. So, you know,
you're finest.
Don't do ham sandwiches like that.
That's true. They are delicious.
My point here is that he doesn't tend to say things that make you stand up and listen,
but he believes that if it goes really well, they could be fighting for points in Hungary.
Now, on our Patreon episode we just recorded, we spoke about Bortoletto's comments about how
Audi actually, if they got their engine sorted, could be essentially a top team.
And there's always take it with a big assault judgment that comes with
driver's comments. The same can be said for Carlos Sainz.
Well, he was speaking about Ferrari's upgrades a few seasons ago when I'm half a tenth off.
Remember those that came out?
Those at the Spain upgrade or something will bring out knock off half a tenth,
half a second, sorry, not half a tenth, and doesn't.
The same can be said here for Lance Stroll's comments about the fact that actually,
if Aston Martin 2.0 is successful, then they will be fighting for points.
Now, I disagree. I don't think that's going to be the case.
But what I think is a fair and realistic, ambitious target for Aston Martin, if this
overhaul genuinely works, and it will have to be a true overhaul, not just
we've made a couple of proper changes and hope is better, I'm talking weight down,
I'm talking side pod, rejuvenation, I'm talking the way the engine operates and the car is
completely shifted, a proper new car. Maybe one car out of Q1 is a possibility,
because they are two seconds away from safety currently.
So to gain two seconds in a lap is a monumental effort from any team.
And if Mercedes Sunday gained two seconds in a lap, they are 2.3 seconds.
Congratulations, champions.
You've won the title, right?
It is a gulf in pacing Formula One to be two seconds away.
So if they can gain two seconds, they're enough.
You've got a car at six feet and 17th, I think it's a start.
And I think that's a fair start.
The simplest way I can put this is, if when this upgrade comes in in Hungary,
we are talking about how many tenths Aston Martin are faster, it has failed.
Because we can't be talking in tenths, we have to be talking in seconds.
And like you'd say, they need multiple seconds, not to catch up to the leaders,
just to kind of get out of these Q1 spots.
You can go ahead with a strategy of no upgrades for months,
as has been the case with Aston Martin.
They focused on some reliability improvements towards the beginning of the year,
but very little in terms of performance improvements.
That's fine.
You can only do that, though, if when you bring that upgrade,
it makes a monumental difference.
Again, seconds, not tenths.
The crazy thing is, I don't think we knew how bad this was in Australia.
Like, in Australia, obviously, it wasn't good.
Everything was rushed and they weren't competitive.
But it was actually worse than it looked, because they would have known,
at least some key personnel at Aston Martin would have known at that point,
we aren't improving this car for a while.
It's almost like Hass at the beginning of the year.
They were far stronger then than they are now.
And they maybe knew, OK, we need some points early on because they're going to catch up.
Aston Martin was basically in the same position,
except that they didn't start well and they just continued to struggle.
There's a point that their trajectory crosses over at Hungary and has become worse.
Maybe.
I mean, in Australia, to use sort of Mercedes as the baseline,
we'll say they're at 100% and then the further above 100% you are,
the worse it is because that's further away from them.
In Australia, Aston Martin were 104.5% off.
At Silverstone, it was 105.5.
So Mercedes, who most teams have actually caught throughout the year,
are further away from Aston Martin than they were to start the year.
That's why they need to improve by seconds.
They were, Bottas was 1.8 seconds faster than Alonso at Silverstone in qualifying.
So Aston Martin, by your logic, needed to gain about 3%.
So realistically show a proper improvement based on what everyone else has actually
been able to achieve versus Mercedes.
3% in a Formula 1 car is massive.
Yeah.
And that's why I'm kind of worried about this,
because whilst Adrian Newie is talking about some of the improvements,
I'll read some of what he said here.
Chassis mostly unchanged.
Gearbox mostly unchanged.
Front suspension unchanged.
Rear suspension slightly revised.
The engine's the same.
But there are going to be good improvements, don't get me wrong,
and they're going to be far closer to the weight limit.
But this isn't by the sounds of what Adrian Newie is saying.
There's not a new car.
No.
Where are the upgrades coming from?
Where are the upgrades?
Where are you?
Cheers.
There you go.
Stoffel vandals.
I eat them all under the engine cover.
No, that just adds to the weight.
Come on, Stoffel.
Adrian Newie says that Alonso's future might be determined by this upgrade.
But again, another very truing honest statement at Fernando.
Please don't let this be the last time we see Fernando in a Formula 1 car.
I don't even need to win a Grand Prix.
I don't need him to podium.
I just want to see him competitive.
At this point, I think I'd rather see him compete in Indy.
Like, actually compete in Indy for wins, podiums, something that isn't last.
There are certain teams, though, that are looking at drivers for experience up and down the grid,
that probably could have taken Fernando Alonso two or three years ago,
and at least he'd be looking at p10s.
Go back to the comments.
I know he referenced this recently.
Go back to the comments a few years ago that Alonso made about Mercedes,
when he said, why would I go to Mercedes?
Because at that point, I asked him, might I go quicker?
Which is so funny.
That's H well, isn't it?
Fernando Alonso might historically be the worst.
The worst wrong man.
The most incorrect man at picking his own career direction.
He's lucky he's so good behind the wheel of a Formula 1 car,
because he has had so many theoretical opportunities to move
and would have become another world champion and has made the wrong choice.
I like the idea that he's got an agent that's actually preventing things from getting worse.
Like he keeps going.
I'll tell you what, that job in Tesco looks really good.
No, stay in F1.
F1 in any capacity is better than Tesco, Fernando.
But it looks really good, though.
Those trolleys look pretty quick round the car park, you know?
Someone just saving his career over and over.
Fernando should also just mention,
before we wrap up this topic and go to a break,
Adrian Nui, as part of this interview as well,
did speak out a bit on some health problems that he's had recently,
which is why he wasn't at the majority of races to start this year,
despite his team principal position.
So, by the sounds of things, though, things are on the up and improving,
which is great to hear from his side.
I think it's very much crossed, like it says that way.
Let's take our second break on the other side.
I'm a Ben Stallion time.
NBS.
I bet he really wishes that people would chant that.
I course he does.
Welcome back, everyone, as promised before the break.
It's time for some comments from Mohammed Ben Stallion,
because he has spoken further about plans to reintroduce VA engines by 2031,
whilst also highlighting proposals to reduce the influence manufacturers have over customer teams.
A central part of this vision is to guarantee teams access to an independent engine supply,
allowing customer outfits to operate without relying on manufacturers.
One option under consideration is for the FIA to appoint an independent engine supplier
like Cosworth, so they would produce a standardized cost-effective VA engine
that any team could purchase off the shelf.
Ben Stallion believes that if engine development and production costs
can be reduced to a sustainable level,
there are teams that could build their own power units,
citing McLaren and Alpine as examples.
Before we get into, maybe, specific examples of McLaren, Alpine, anyone else,
do you like the idea?
It's a fascinating concept, and, you know, you know what, NBS.
I'm always fair with my criticism.
This is an interesting conversation point.
I don't know if it outright works in the way you're proposing,
but I genuinely enjoy that conversation point,
and I am a big leader in terms of conversation where it comes to believing
that all teams should be of an independent manufacturer when it comes to engine,
and I don't care if that is URA created yourself,
or you have to buy it externally,
and you have like Aston Martin and Honda right now, for example, that's a key area.
I do believe that we should really limit the amount of independence,
sorry, the amount of dependency that you have on another team within the sport
that provides you with more independence.
So McLaren and Mercedes, for example,
it's very hard for them to go out and out and beat Mercedes
because they run on the same power unit.
This theory, in concept, is on the right path to what I want it to be.
I would just be really surprised if any engine manufacturer
would want to do this because I don't see what the benefit is for them.
They get paid great, but the chances of them still winning a title are, I think, very slim.
I do think that the attention to detail that these teams will be given are very, very small.
They don't have the same love and care that maybe a Ferrari engine, in theory,
giving to Haas would actually be given
because Ferrari have a vested interest in their engine being as good as possible.
So whilst I think this incoming engine of whatever it might be
would have to be up to a certain standard,
I believe it would literally have to be at the standard
and not above it, not overperforming.
And also those upgrades, I think, would be few and far between
in comparison to what you might get if you were actually competing in the sport.
And I think here lies the problem with the overall method, for example.
I really like this idea.
My ambition is the same as yours,
which is to have somewhere between 10 and 12 independently-owned teams
who are all factory teams.
Like, that is the ideal.
A much cheaper engine gets us closer to that ambition, for sure.
And I do appreciate there is risk in that as well.
Where we have, like now, for example,
where we've got a regulation cycle that is far more geared towards engine power
than the last one was, of course, the ground effect era that we've just come out of.
Engines were basically balanced and level across the board.
Screw the ground effect era.
Which is not the case anymore.
So I do appreciate there is a bit of a risk that you could,
if you had, say, 11 factory teams, 11 different engines,
and there's a real pecking order of those 11,
you could get some rather dull results where they're just kind of spread out.
Aguo exists, my guy.
Well, that was...
That really good system.
That's what I was going to say.
In theory, we have new rules and a new approach now with Aguo
that could help that a little bit.
But I do appreciate there is a risk still attached.
If that's the ideal, which I'll be honest,
I'm not sure where we're going to achieve.
I'd like to think we will.
Not sure we will.
This independent supplier idea is a...
I think it's a fantastic intermediate solution.
I don't like hearing at the moment about McLaren and how
they don't know what they're getting from Mercedes.
And there's a bit of frustration there
as to what the info sharing agreement is.
I don't like teams being under the thumb of another team.
If F1 can find, and this is the problem,
if F1 can find a reliable partner
who is going to want to be there on a pretty long-term contract
and is willing to work with anyone and everyone, great.
Now, that is going to be a problem because,
and now I know they wouldn't do it obviously because they're in F1,
Audi, they would never supply Mercedes.
And there's so many of these connections in the world.
You would have to find someone who would just go,
does not matter who wants to buy the engines from us.
We have no choice but to say yes to them.
Otherwise, it's an unfair system which is...
A Pirelli of engines, essentially.
Yeah. And maybe Cosworth is that engine.
I don't know.
But it leaves teams in a really interesting spot, I think,
because either you go with that independent engine
and it has a chance of being really profitable for you,
but equally, you might not be contending for a title that way.
Or you have to be brave and go out on your own
and create your own engine, as McLaren could possibly do.
I think it leaves an interesting dilemma for those teams.
Yeah. I like the dilemma.
And I like that teams would have to be forced
to make a decision to not sit and buy an engine
straight off of a manufacturer that's already within the sport.
It's being a weakness of Formula One for not just recent times,
but for decades, where the amount of teams
that can rely on a bigger and stronger outfit.
And I'm talking about the automotive industry here
are able to essentially monopolise the market of Formula One
based on the fact that they know how to make useful,
drivable, reliable engines.
And let's say McLaren, who,
whilst are an automotive industry,
make very specific niche hypercar-based vehicles
that don't have a direct crossover and don't have the impact
that maybe Mercedes might get.
They can't produce the same level of engines,
despite actually in a recent podcast we spoke about,
maybe they are just starting to Titero
being able to make those engines.
I just think that, like you mentioned with Cosworth, for example,
is there a Ford relationship there?
Or if there's a Ford relationship with Cosworth,
as we know that Ford Cosworth have been a thing for many a year,
then actually, is there a subliminal benefit
for someone like Rebel that maybe information might be passed?
And we're really talking espionage and unnecessary rule-breaking,
but it's sport, it's Formula One.
The system has to be strong enough to...
You cannot be able to question the system.
No.
You need to be able to be watertight.
And for that, you almost need someone
that isn't a car manufacturer to come along and make the engine,
because then they don't have any prior relationship
with anyone else.
Let's say Honda decide to buy out Haas,
but Toyota end up being the engine that is provided to everyone.
Well, that's going to be a nightmare,
because that means there's a direct rivalry
between two massive Japanese manufacturers.
And what happens if they then get a message to say,
block the Honda cars,
because we don't want the Honda cars to be at the Toyota cars?
We've heard it before, it's possible.
I would much rather we almost get given a five-year in-a-banks.
The engines in 2031 will be X.
The rule set will be, you must provide your own engine.
That must be either a version A,
you got to make your own engine.
Or version B, you partner with a manufacturer
that is not a part of the sport.
And then essentially, for example,
you might get McLaren Porsche
that was rumoured a little while ago, or something like that.
You might get BMW come back into the sport.
That's the way I'd like to see it happen.
The V8, in theory, would be more cost-efficient.
And a lot of these manufacturers
have experience in making a V8 engine.
So it's not likely it'll be particularly new for them.
So that I am keen for in the guys that MBS is suggesting
do see some problems.
Yeah, I think that's fair.
And as with any comments from Ben Sullyem,
take them all with a pinch of salt, because...
Take the whole box of salt.
Yes, probably safer that way.
There's a concept I'm kind of struggling with here,
because Ben Sullyem has mentioned as part of these comments,
both McLaren and Alpine, as maybe teams
that could go ahead and build their own engine.
Now, my memory isn't great.
I feel like Alpine were building their engines quite recently.
Now...
Things about...
I'm trying to work out if Alpine
have actually been geniuses or stupid here, because...
They are definitely the team to be stupid
and end up looking like geniuses.
Probably the right answer.
Again, yeah, they've moved away from being a factory team.
By the way, it's a decision I still absolutely hate,
because it really did rip all of their identity out of them.
Agreed.
But if V8s come back and they decide
they do want to create their own,
they've essentially ditched the V6 hybrids
for the last few years that they'll be needed,
taken another team's very good V6 hybrid engine,
given themselves more time and maybe more budget
to work on the V8 behind the scenes,
whilst everyone is still finalizing the V6 era.
Now, I'm not convinced they've been geniuses with this,
because they're still the issue of...
They've closed down the engine part of their business,
and they'll need to bring that back,
which isn't terribly efficient.
Maybe they've actually...
Maybe they're on to something here, I don't know.
You know, I've never seen the program,
but there's a meme from, I think it's the boys,
where that guy with the blonde hair
who looks a bit like Superman is a bit like...
Yes.
Wow, have I actually done something correct?
It's got me that's the problem.
That could be them.
Obviously, Renault is still a powerhouse in manufacturing, right?
So, it's not like just because they're...
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know, that's because that's shut down.
They can't have the expertise.
Same with Honda.
Same with Honda.
They have enough capability to kickstart,
and if they do it early enough,
they will overcome those hurdles.
And you're right.
Maybe they'll save themselves a buck or two.
Maybe they're able to sit down
and recreate things and have a whole side project.
They're actually, in 2031,
they are a true powerhouse of engine manufacturing.
I'd be surprised, but it's definitely possible.
Another thing that could be looked at
as part of this is second team ownership.
Most specifically, of course, looking at racing balls and red bulls.
No!
You don't want to look that.
No, I won't.
Band!
Yes, I figured that's what you actually meant.
I feel like it'd be a good time to look at it
in the concord agreement that's in place right now lasts until 2030.
That's when, in theory, we'd get these new engines.
We'd get a new concord agreement.
Just feels like a good time to review this.
If the rule comes in, as we've just suggested,
that every team has to have some form of independence,
then if this off-the-shelf engine goes ahead,
then, in theory, to red bull keep Ford,
and let's say it's Cosworth,
the racing balls take Cosworth.
And again, there, have you got a behind-the-doors link
that allows an advantage, which, again, we wouldn't want to see.
I have been so against B teams in Formula One,
and there have been talks for years about Mercedes having a possible B team.
We know that they had quite interesting ties with Williams,
with the way they sold them in engines,
and we've had secondary drivers sitting there in the lights of,
you have Bottas, and then we've had Russell, of course,
and the most famous one for a long time,
being sat there waiting in the wings for someone to leave.
I do just think that it pollutes the sport.
It stops the competitive nature of the sport,
and it means that you are essentially removing one variable in a championship,
which we don't want.
I don't want that.
Alpine was the most recent of these conversations,
where actually Mercedes were looking at buying a stake in Alpine properly.
If this independent engine ruling aligns with the concord agreement,
we actually can have a rule that says,
you've got to be completely independent with your power unit.
In theory, that would separate racing balls further from Red Bull,
and we would see some at least difference,
but it also opens up the doors of information sharing,
something you're doing differently that we're not doing,
a whole other test bed that actually you could pick up things that work in one engine,
pop it in the other.
That leads to problems.
So, in theory, I do wonder if you have to separate and tether the teams completely.
Yeah, it sounds brutal because I don't mean this towards anyone who's working for racing balls,
but in terms of the model of the team,
I don't want to see that model of team do better than an Audi model.
And it's not down to the teams themselves,
it's just I like the idea of an independent factory team
really committing to the sport rather than racing balls,
which is largely a copy, a sister of Red Bull.
Let's take our final break.
On the other side, we're playing Formula Fortune.
Let's get in there.
Come on!
Let me get my whiteboard and my pen.
Welcome back, everyone, to the final part of today's episode.
We're going to round things out with a game of Formula Fortunes,
which if you haven't been with us for one of these games,
before we bring it out a few times a year, don't we?
Where we have to guess what your answers are to particular F1 questions.
So, we've got eight different questions.
We're not giving our own opinions here.
We're just guessing what we think the most popular answers are.
If we get the most popular answer, we get four points.
If we get the second most popular answer, we get three.
Third most popular answer, you get two.
And then if you get the fourth most popular answer, you get one point.
And it's myself versus Sam.
Now, I feel like you won this last time.
So, I have a sense that I am going to go on a generationally bad streak.
Oh, I thought you were going to say generationally good streak.
Oh, no, no, no.
Okay. It won't be the summer of sage.
It's down.
No, it's got a sage.
Yeah, it's got a sage summer.
Okay.
It's a hocking heatwave.
Oh, I like that.
I like that.
Well, question number one, then.
We asked F1 fans, which current F1 driver would you most like to go for a drink with?
Okay. Tricky.
It's always a tie between, obviously, they might just be a fang of said driver
and they might go, or do they think it's going to be a right rambunctious time?
Yes.
So, immediate names who pop out.
But I'm going to go with this gentleman, I think.
Okay. You got an answer?
I do, sir.
Okay. In 321
Okay. So, we've got a vote for Valtteri Bottas and a vote for X teammate Lewis Hamilton.
Famously known as X teammate of Valtteri Bottas.
Yeah. It's that way round.
I don't know. I was just kind of hoping that the popularity of Hamilton might see me through,
but Bottas is a very good answer, I think.
Now, we quiz our listeners on this.
Yes.
So, I was going down the sense of they're there for a good time, not a long time,
and they just like a laugh.
But there are some Hamilton stangs in the chat, so who knows?
True. Well, those of you playing along at home, make sure you keep track as well.
Fourth place, 7% of the vote, Carlos Sainz.
I knew Sainz would feature. I think he'd be fine.
But I think it'd be going like a round of golf. I don't play golf.
Third place, 13% of the vote.
I might be who I would have gone with, actually, personally.
Fernando Alonso.
Yeah. That was definitely one of the contenders for my list.
Second place, you can give yourself three points, Sam, because 18% said Valtteri Bottas.
Come on, Bottas.
But the top answer, four points, if you said 26% of the vote, Max Verstappen.
How are you feeling in creep up there?
Okay. So, Sam, you take a three-nothing lead.
Question number two, how many more races will Ferrari win this year?
So, we know they've got two already.
How many more are they going to win in the rest of this year?
Okay. I guess your logic would depend maybe on how many upgrades you think they're bringing,
how far the sales might fall, but I'm ready to go.
Yeah, me too. Okay.
I don't know.
And 321
Okay. You went with the answer that I so nearly went with as well.
So, I've gone with four. You've gone with three.
Three!
Oh, you had two, really, didn't you?
Yeah, I can't really get away from it.
Didn't have a choice.
But, what have the people said? That's what's most important.
Um, fourth place, five races.
I think that's too ambitious.
Yes. I'll take two points because third was, third was four races.
Wherever numbers are introduced, man.
Yeah. You're on the whiteboard, mate.
You're on the whiteboard.
Yeah.
You may go on.
Yes, good stuff.
Two points for third place, four races.
17% on the phone.
Um, you can give yourselves three points if you said two races.
But, to get four points.
I swear to God, if it's one.
Three races.
Come on.
Hang on the money, Sam.
Um, one person said 10 races, but also only five people fought that win no more races.
Fascinating.
So, the hopes are relatively high for Ferrari to have a bit more success.
The, some other answers out there.
Someone said one and just Singapore signs.
Bit, bit, bit late for that, I think.
Are you skinning 2024?
Yeah.
It's like one of those Twitter accounts where like the reporting on things that have happened
in the past like number of years ago.
Slow sky sports.
Yeah, yeah.
Someone said all of them, sure.
And someone said as an intellectual, not at all under the influence of Hopium, seven more races.
Seven.
I think you are under the influence of Hopium.
Is that like Goodman?
Seven.
So, this isn't good for me, Sam.
You're taking a good lead.
It's just called me answering early, but look, I might have some reliability problems.
I'm very much banking on that as we go to.
My peg, my break or something.
You know what, I'll take that win by any means necessary.
Question number three.
We asked F1 fans which current F1 driver is the cleanest racer?
Oh, I'm going to think about this.
Yeah, this is a toughie.
A toughie but a goodie.
Yes.
The cleanest racer.
There's going to be some conflicting fan bases here as well, I think,
that might drop some people some points.
Quite possibly.
All right, I have an answer, I think.
Yeah, I don't love it.
I don't know on this one.
You come up with the questions.
Yeah, yeah, but I've intentionally not fought about them since then in any way.
You're a better man than I.
Okay, let's reveal our answers in 321
We're going with the X teammates theme here because I've gone with signs
and you've gone with Charles Leclerc.
Charles Leclerc.
Let's see, okay.
Fourth place is actually a draw.
So you can get one point if you said either of these names,
Lando Norris or Carlos Sainz.
Wey, another point for Ben.
Oh, I've got you exactly where I want you.
Apart from I don't because you can get two points if you said Charles Leclerc.
Yes, he extends.
I considered both of these names as well.
But three points if you said Oscar Piastri at the top answer.
Four points if you said Lewis Hamilton.
Alex Alban would disagree with you.
Yeah, I thought Verstappen fans might end up outweighing the
showers. Why didn't I have any of those two on my list?
Just to have a look through some of the other answers.
Verstappen and Russell only got two votes each, which yeah, that seems pretty fair.
Maybe the hate has shifted to Russell.
Liam Lawson, he doesn't make those people hit him.
That is great logic through politician.
I will be honest, I did not consider Liam Lawson for this one.
Carlos Sainz, duh.
I'm sure he shampoos and conditions his hair twice a day.
Just look at those locks.
Yeah, we get it.
What's this got to do with his gorgeous hair?
Clean hair.
Clean driver, what does that mean?
Clean hair equals clean driver.
Right, sure. Like everywhere else should shower more is what we're saying.
Yeah, pretty much.
Okay, question number four.
We asked F1 fans, who is the best current team principal on the grid?
Oh, I could tell you the other end of the spectrum.
The best current team principal on the grid.
Well, you've answered quite quickly there, Ben.
I have actually, yeah.
I'm not overthinking this one.
That strategy is not going very well for me, you see.
Yeah, I know why I've kind of linked into the the Benghawking realm here.
This is where it all turns around.
I'm going to, I've got to play it safe.
I think it'll be on the board.
I don't think it'll be a leader, but...
Okay, he's playing a tactical game as Sam.
Well, I've taken a lead now.
Now he's got a lead, yeah.
Okay, here we go, I'm ready.
321
Okay, so you've gone with Jungle is Vassive, Fred Vassar.
I've gone with Toto Wolf.
Just to explain, I can't remember how to spell Vassar.
So I've put Vassive.
You could have sold that as well.
Sorry.
Okay, in fourth place again, another tie here,
6% of the vote going to Andrea Stella and James Valls.
I am surprised that James Valls has made that list.
I think maybe Andrea Stella is somewhat hurt as well,
just based on the dynamic between him and Zach Brown.
I think he's almost forgotten.
Yeah, otherwise I think he might score slightly better.
Third place, Io Kamatsu.
That was why I was debating.
I was really debating Kamatsu.
Points on the board for you, Sam, though.
Three points, if you said Fred Vassar.
The safe strategy has worked.
But the comeback starts here.
Yes.
I've gone with Toto Wolf, and that got me four points.
That was the top answer.
Excellent.
You've drawn back the Charlotte Clair Carlos Sainz point there.
A quick shout out to the two people who voted for Flavio Breatori.
That worked.
Okay.
Famously, not the team principal of Alpine.
He's a senior advisor.
And even if he was, don't think I'd vote for him.
Someone said Alan Permain.
Interesting how V-Carbon proved once Mekki's moved on,
needs to be talked about more.
That is a fantastic show.
That is a fantastic show.
Not people aren't talking about that.
And I would argue might be the bottom two of the most underrated team principal was on the grid.
I think you could ask F1 fans who is the team principal of V-Carbon.
And like 90% wouldn't be able to say.
Yeah.
Correct.
Anyway, let's go with question number five.
Bye-bye rough maths that I'm trying to keep up with.
I think I'm like five points down at the minute.
So I still need to recover here.
Okay.
We asked F1 fans, apart from Lance Stroll,
who is the worst driver on the grid?
Now, you're probably wondering why have we added apart from Lance Stroll?
Well, as you know, he does get some, I think, unnecessary hate at times.
I think our Patreon power rankings might sometimes reflect that.
Yeah.
You could get involved on Patreon for your power rankings, right?
You get to be a part of the vote for the driver ratings.
We call it Stroll tax.
And I think Lance Stroll does get a bit of a Stroll tax apply,
where he gets dropped a few points because of who he is.
Quite possibly.
So apart from Lance Stroll, who is the worst driver on the grid?
This is quite tricky.
Yeah.
Because Stroll would have been the answer.
I would have put Stroll because I have the way people vote.
I would have put Stroll for this.
It's a good grid at the moment.
It's a very good grid.
And the fact that we've got the likes of Limblad on the grid right now,
I wouldn't even put as a rookie realistically in how he's performed.
This makes it very difficult.
Also, do I go for what they enjoy?
Do I go for pace?
Do I go for wheel-to-wheel combat?
It's tricky.
Those are the questions.
I do have an answer.
Okay.
This speech is my recital.
I think it's very vital.
Get it?
Cheers.
Run DMC.
It's trick, trick.
Here we go.
Here we go.
This is going to cause some pain.
Okay.
Pain in the membrane.
Not more painful than my answer.
I can guarantee that.
Okay.
Let's reveal in 321
It's because it's the same answer.
Now, to be clear, I am just going with what I think the people are saying,
rather than what I think I've gone with Estaban Ocon.
And so has Sam, which isn't good news for me,
because I need to make up some ground.
Yeah.
My trust queues now match your answer.
Oh, people!
I haven't seen this, but that's a good reaction.
Fourth place, Albin and Lawson.
7% said those two names.
Wow.
Okay.
I'm surprised.
I'm surprised recently by it says I'm playing a bigger part there.
Third place, two points if you said Valtteri Bottas.
Ah, I'll show you how good this grid is.
Multiple time race winner Valtteri Bottas
is the third worst driver on the grid.
Second place, 13% of you said Franco Collapinto.
But.
Silence on the show.
Four points, if you said 43% of you said this,
you disgusting people.
Estaban Ocon.
Mate, cook your baking and go home.
No.
So cool.
I think, do you know what?
It's a really tough one as to who the answer actually is
and who I would say.
We just heard who it was.
No, I wouldn't actually say it was Ocon.
Who would you say it was?
If you could pick, who would you say?
Other things grow.
I probably would have gone Collapinto, but it is incredibly close.
I would probably go Ocon.
He is in the, he has to be in the conversation.
Yeah.
Oh dear, never mind.
Four points for both of us as we now go to question number six.
We asked F1 fans, who is the unluckiest driver on the F1 grid?
The ballateli of the grid.
Yes.
Why always me?
Oh, I know who I'm putting for this.
Okay.
I've got an answer.
I'm good to go.
Cool.
And we'll reveal our answers to this one in 321
Fonando Lonzo.
Yeah, maybe not a massive surprise here.
We spoke about it earlier, right?
My man can't pick a drive to save his life.
No, but what did the people say?
Seven percent said Carlos Sainz.
So that'll get you one point.
Two points if you said Nico Holkenberg.
Oh, okay.
Three points if you said Charles Leclerc.
That's fair.
Yeah.
I think that's fair.
But 31 percent of you said Fernando Alonso.
So four points if you said him.
Leclerc was actually the only other guy I had in my mind.
Well, someone said, I'm going to say shall Leclerc,
but I feel like he brings it upon himself by continuously signing with Ferrari.
Have you yet?
What point is luck more a choice?
And someone also said bearman because being the goat in a shopping trolley is rough.
He crossed the house, mate.
No, it might be a shopping trolley at this point.
Okay.
Well, the same answer again means that that gap isn't coming down at the moment.
It's still five points between us.
Oh, I can't believe we're going to lose again.
Come on.
Come on.
Question number seven.
Hang on to it round.
We asked F1 fans what has been the best F1 race of 2026 so far?
Oh, okay.
I've got an answer.
I'm just trying to think if there's been a better one than that.
Okay.
I've got an answer.
Have you got an answer?
Well, yes, now I have an answer.
Yes.
Okay.
Well, let's reveal that in 321
Okay.
So we do have a different answer here.
Sam, you've gone with Barcelona.
Say.
I have gone with Canada.
We.
Very good.
Very good.
It's not very good at all.
Let's see what the people said, though.
One point if you said the British Grand Prix.
Right.
Okay.
It's the most recent one.
People remember it.
That's true.
Two points if you said the Austrian GP.
Yeah.
Fair enough.
Okay.
Three points if, like me, you said the Canadian Grand Prix.
I swear to God, if we have to go into the final round
and I've only got a two-point lead,
I cannot deal with that stress.
Four points.
Top answer.
37% of you said the Barcelona-Catalonia Grand Prix.
That post.
That burn.
Let's put it away.
You're being swayed by the result, people.
And you're not, folks.
You're being swayed by.
You're the genius.
You're all morons.
The lot of you know.
Oh, good.
It's one over the people of media.
He's lost it.
The race with the least votes.
Australia with just two.
The Bahrain Grand Prix that didn't happen got more with three.
Someone said...
It's great.
Cool about this.
Someone said Bahrain.
I loved when Sines and Albin drove the second car.
I won't throw back coming, that is.
Someone said Silverstone would have got my vote,
if not for the safety car finish.
Yeah.
Wiped it apart.
Yeah.
And an interesting reason.
Someone said Monaco because it was the race least impacted by battery BS.
Which is true.
Most impacted by boring BS there, wasn't it?
That's also true.
So, Sam, you've won this, but...
Get in there, Lewis.
We'll do the last one anyway.
So, this one is slightly different in that we've gone from a scale of one to ten.
Oh, okay.
So, the question is, we asked F1 fans,
how confident are you that Max Verstappen will be racing in F1 next season?
Ten is most likely.
One is least likely.
Doesn't necessarily have to be at Red Bull.
Doesn't have to necessarily be for the full season.
He needs to be in F1 somewhere.
Right, okay.
Yes, interesting.
Yeah, they're straight down the obvious answer, I think.
Okay.
Well, let's reveal our final Formula Fortunes answer in 321
Yes, it's seven.
Len Goodman's out seven for Sam, seven for me.
So, we think it's more likely than not he will be here, but also not a guarantee.
And let's see what the people have said.
If you said ten out of ten, he is 100% going to be here.
That will get you one point.
Fair enough.
We get two points, Sam, for saying seven out of ten.
Here's a safe option.
Three points, if you said six out of ten.
But the top answer, and it was very close to be fair,
so this is just an 18% of the vote.
If you said eight out of ten.
So, we were in the right range.
Yeah, we were.
I think we'll take that.
75% of people voted five out of ten or over,
so more people are confident he will be here than won't.
That's interesting to think that actually the general Liska believes
that we will have Max Verstappen in 2027.
Yeah, we just play a game, but really we're just using this for market research,
to be honest, folks.
This is actually the poll that's defined by a colleague uses in his research.
So, what we need to do is ask a question about the length of races
and make sure we sway people to put longer races.
So, well, we are completely unbiased here.
We won't be swaying anyone.
I didn't know we were that influential.
But maybe you will be now, Sam, after that glorious victory.
Feels good.
Feels good to come away on a Sunday with a big dub,
a one day, as they call it.
You can't say that, though, Ben.
I can't know.
It's just a, it's a lunday for me, isn't it?
Take the L.
Lunday.
Yeah.
Take a breath.
Thanks for listening, folks.
It's been an interesting episode with some, definitely some highs
and mostly definitely some lows.
I hope you enjoyed listening.
We'll be back midweek, of course,
because it is time for the Belgian Grand Prix Preview,
which is great fun.
Five straight mode zones.
You know, upgrades coming in for different cars,
all sorts going on.
We'll also be doing a qualifying review, of course,
at the weekend race review, power rankings.
We've also got some stuff coming out throughout the week
on Patreon as well.
So, if you're interested in joining Patreon,
the link's in the description below.
You can also see we're doing our fantasy.
The way to do it is in the link below as well.
I have a few people asking about that recently.
You don't lose your points.
So, when you join, you keep all the points you've made.
Annoyingly.
Annoyingly for us.
You stop nicely into the league
and you just become a part of the competition.
And then the discord is available.
So, if you'd like to join in, be part of the conversation,
let me hear yourself on the show
for a moment of the race after the Grand Prix.
That's the place to do it.
Thanks for listening.
Thanks for your support.
And we'll see you in the next one.
In the meantime, I've been Samuel Sarge.
And I've been Ben Hawking.
And remember, keep breaking late.
About this episode
Russell’s take on Antonelli’s championship lead sparks a debate: the hosts point to a 25-point gap after nine rounds and argue the narrowing came largely from reliability swings rather than a major pace change. They also weigh whether Antonelli has found a “click with the car” or whether Russell is simply at his ceiling. Examples like Silverstone, plus safety-car timing and “drop points,” shape their championship math. They then broaden into team-order and upgrade/technical discussions.
Ben and Sam discuss Russell's recent comments on the growing points gap between the Mercedes teammates and whether he can turn it around. They also cover Adrian Newey's explanation of what went wrong for Aston Martin this season, the latest plans to re-introduce V8 engines by 2031, and round things off with some Formula Fortunes...
