P1 with Matt and Tommy - Choose ONE RULE to make F1 better

Episode Date: May 11, 2023

We asked you on social media what one rule you’d add to F1 to make it more exciting. We pick our choices as well as discuss yours in our latest pod! Follow us on socials! You can find us on Twitter, Instagram, Twitch, YouTube and TikTok.***Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your pods. It means a great deal to the show and will make it easier for other potential listeners to find us. Thanks!*** Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

everybody and welcome back to the P-1 podcast with Matt and Tommy. It is officially off week. We haven't got a race coming up this weekend. We've got time to just and breathe out after the high-octane action that was the Miami Grand Prix. So we thought we would do something quite exciting, quite different today, where we look into one rule that could help Formula One. I've thought of one. Tommy's thought of one, and you at home have also thought of one and sent it in. Very exciting, are we going to fix Formula One today? We are. We're going to fix it, and then we're going to send this video straight to the FAA, and they're definitely going to read it and watch it. Perfect. Before we do that, we have a five-star review to be read out. This one from Cameron Murray

in Indianapolis. Wow, go on. I've had a long-time goal to run a half marathon in under two hours. right, this is the wrong podcast. What's going on? As an F1 fan, an Indianapolis resident, I was leaving for that as restaurant, I thought the Indy 500 mini marathon that goes around the Indianapolis Motor Speedway would be perfect. I was so nervous before the race, but I turned on P1 and listening to Matt, Tommy, and Frank. They helped calm my nerves with their will knowledge. I was able to finish under two hours, one hour 49 and 29 seconds. Love the show, guys. Keep up the great work.

Well done. I don't think Tommy walked a grand total of two hours. I also don't think anyone's ever listened to Frank and said, oh, I feel much calmer after all that barking. Or that dog has got some serious will knowledge. That's incredible. But well done, Cameron. Well done for finishing the half marathon. Maybe me and Tommy could do one, eh?

You want to do a half marathon with me, Tommy? Absolutely. Round Indianapolis. I'll do it if it's around Indianapolis. Yeah, then probably die halfway round. Okay. Let's get into my first suggestion then, shall we? I'll begin.

I will fix Formula One. by bringing a bigger step in performance between tire compounds. I feel as though right now Pirelli have gone the opposite way. We've had moments in time, moments in Formula One, where we've had really high degradation. We've had that big tire differential, not necessarily the steps between compounds, but the fact that some people may have been,

or some drivers may have been on worn soft tires, others on much fresher mediums, for example. And that level of degradation caused a massive pace gap. And I think it almost went a little bit too far the other way when we had that horrendous tire degradation. I remember Canada. I can't remember what year you'll probably tell me, 2011, 2012, something like that, where all of that, the marbles on the outside of the racing line were ridiculous. And I think there was a last lap battle as well where someone went for a move and there

was so many marbles everywhere. They were just literally falling off the track. Yeah, Canada 2010 was the race that, that, that, that, It's funny that you say it was terrible because that's the race they watched and went, this is what Formula One needs. And then Pirelli came in and made those degrading tires, which, to be fair, we had a bang in season when they introduced them, even if it was a bit crazy. But I loved it personally.

Yeah, it certainly was crazy. I think that the way in which they go about it in maybe a slightly less manufactured way and having these drivers as basically sitting ducks is having it. So they have control of their car because the tires aren't degrading as much, but there is a bigger step between the softs, the mediums and the hards. Because then we never see the softs really, apart from the McLaren's trying it in Miami and then quickly realizing what have we done and then pitted after about 10 laps and that just ruined their race. I think having soft tires as a genuine option for a lot of tracks,

all three always as an option. I know it would be very difficult to make sure every single track there's three tires that are all viable. But that is what I think would help. If the soft is a second and a half a lap quicker than the mediums and the mediums are another second and a half lap quicker than the hards, but then I guess then you have to take into account there does need to be a level of degradation there because otherwise everyone will just go on the softs and the mediums. So maybe that's where our next sort of suggestion comes in. But we'll come to that very shortly.

We're getting ahead of ourselves. Tommy, what do you think of this suggestion? I do like it. I think it's a massive problem for me that I don't necessarily think we should go completely hardcore 2012 tires fall apart in three laps and we get five pit stops, however crazy and exciting that was for half a season before they kind of changed it. I think it's a big problem that we've had two races in a row where the hard tires just don't degrade at all.

And not only that, you get a situation where you don't really run. really need to pit, it's only because there's a mandatory stop that you actually pit because otherwise people would probably just start in the hard tires because we sort of a step and just being able to lap really quickly. And the performance wasn't dropping off. Same with Esther Ban Okon couldn't get passed in Baku despite having those old tires. And I think that's a big problem. I personally don't think, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's the kind of thing they should be shouting about going, wow, isn't this great because I thought Pirelli were bought on to make interesting tyres for entertainment and for an

exciting Grand Prix. That's very true. And one stops, in my opinion, are killing the sport in a lot of ways because we need that strategy variation in order for boring races to perhaps have some life to them. And this is where perhaps this next suggestion comes in. And this is from O'Quil, three mandatory compounds to be used during the race would have been Tommy's, but lots of people said it. So yes, this would have been Tommy's suggestion, but... 100%. Everyone said it, so we were like, hey, we'll give it to the fans.

And maybe that's where you tie in my suggestion and O'Quilts, where you have to use all three. There will be stages in the race where drivers will be a lot quicker than other cars around them. We're going to see more overtaking. It will then... Because overtaking is possible. We saw it with Max Verstapp and the pace differential between him and Perez, for example.

Even though they were in the same car, there was a big tire gap there. We had a decent amount of racing for a couple of corners and then it was over, sure. But if we have that all the way down the field, then it should make for some exciting racing. So having that, I'm sure there will still be ways in which teams go around it that one particular strategy will be quicker than others. But that's the job of Pirelli to make sure that that isn't the case. we do genuinely see some drivers starting on softs, some drivers starting on hards and going, right, well, I'm going to have my quick part of the race now and try and fend off the cars later.

It makes sense. This honestly is just, this one's more realistic than the actual one I'm going to mention my one. But for this one, I will shout this from the rooftops forever because this one is like such an easy way of just making racing more exciting. it doesn't make, it's not too ridiculous and silly that it makes it artificial because we're already using different compound of tyres and they already exist. Three compounds of tires exist. So just use them in the race. And the things that I can see this doing is one, you get, the most interesting part of the race is the strategy element and the fact that, and I think this is the problem that's made sprint so boring and something we've complained about so much is

one stint is not particularly interesting, but as soon as you get a pit stop, that's the exciting moment of the race. And what's happened in the last two races is there's only one stop. And I think actually back, it was a perfect example of why it was so dull, was because the safety car came out,

right in the middle, everyone could just do their one mandatory pit stop and it was over. Whereas if you had this, there's still something there. There's another moment where it can change again. People like you say might start the soft, try and fly through the field, then do something different, then they might get a safety

car and then they're on the perfect tyres at the end. There's that. And then another thing that lot of people suggested, which I haven't included in the sheet, just because it kind of can be rounded up in this, people mention the red flag rule and the fact that you can change your tires and it counts as your only pit stop. But if you had this, it doesn't because it only counts one pit stop. So it kind of covers that as well. I think this would be a really, really good thing. And just want two stops back.

Surely it's not that difficult. I feel like pure S just want two stops back. I nearly tweeted that during Miami. I also wanted to say on this that when you're actually looking into it a bit deeper, some of the core problems with teams such as Ferrari, so people might be going, oh, that's why you're backing this, Matt. but teams such as Ferrari and other sort of backmarker teams struggle with tireware. Now, if you have three mandatory compounds to be used,

that element of it actually is taken out of it somewhat where you might see the Ferrari, for example, stick with the Red Bulls for the first 15 laps on mediums, and then the really hard tireware kicks in like it did in Baku, for example. With three mandatory compounds, the moment that hits, Ferrari might just box LeCler, put him on softs for a bit, get track position, whilst the Red Bulls are using their better tire wear for a bit longer to then go for a better stint and use the hards for a lesser time towards the end of the race. There's all that element of strategy that I think would only benefit Formula One.

I can't really see. Some people might argue this is an artificial, superficial way of trying to cause overtakes and it might not actually feel that great if someone on the softs is, fighting someone on the hards, they might very much be a sitting duck. But I think we'd want that than everyone on the same strategy doing the same thing, apart from what, four cars it was, or maybe in Miami, and you had the two McLaren's on softs. Yeah, but that was the, that was the interesting part of the race was the fact that some were on mediums and some on hards.

And I personally don't think that the racing was bad when medium runners were passing the cars on hard tires, if anything. I don't think they were like sitting duck passes because it's a little bit harder to overtake now. The DRS was shorter. It just gave them, we know in Formula One you need quite a big advantage to be able to pass another car. And this would just give it.

Look at someone like a midfield runner. They might start on the soft and they get up to, you know, ninth or tenth and they drop back. then the, I feel like it would just, the positions would be changing all the time and there'd be a lot to like, enjoy and understand. So yeah, this one, get it, get it done, FIA. Sort it out. Yeah, I can't see too many drawbacks to it. So, look, the FIA, I'm sure are ferociously taking notes from the Matt P1 Tommy podcast.

So there you go. You can have that one for free. All right. Tommy, what is your one suggestion that isn't the three mandatory compounds? And it's another one, which I think will cause all kinds of interesting debilms. including Frank, who seems to be running around the floor. Yes. This is a controversial one.

But I have gone for spec cars. Now, there's quite a lot of suggestions about this. We asked on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube. And a lot of people did say it. Then there were also counter-argument saying, it's not Formula One if it's spec cars. And I get both. I understand this is not for everyone.

This is my choice. choice, my opinion. And it's my opinion. I understand that for Formula One, that engineering side is something that people love, and that is the sport to them. And, you know, there's going to be a lot of people here that might even listen to this podcast,

at Dream of Working in Formula One, and that's something that they aspire to, you know, get involved and interesting. But I'll be honest, like, that's not a side to the sport that I've ever been that particularly interested in. I would much rather watch exciting racing. And if you have, even if it's not spec cars,

if it's more spec parts or something like that, will get closer racing. And I think the backlash, I said this in the Ocon thing, because he actually suggested this one as well, that I think the whole off season, if this got implemented, I don't think it will maybe not ever happen. It's unrealistic. But it gets implemented.

There'd be a huge backlash on social media. And then as soon as the first race hits and the entire grid is separated by about a second. And Logi Sarge wins the race. And and but there's so many like the biggest problem with Formula One always has been that one team dominates and people complain about it. And this just covers that indie cars a perfect example. I am also of the same opinion that I think spec cars as as much as it is unrealistic could actually be something that the majority. would love. Now, it's an interesting thing that you say that people love the engineering side of it. They love the fact that Formula One is the pinnacle racing. I think, I'm going to put myself on a whim here,

if you did a poll at a race, Silverstone, for example, whatever, 300,000 people there, you did a poll that says, choose one thing, closer racing, or the teams get to build whatever the car they want and they can go as fast as they want and there could be a massive field spread. I think 90% are picking closer racing. At least. A hundred percent. And you make a very good point. I think there would be massive backlash because that's how social media works these days.

It's an echo chamber for people that go, oh my God, I don't like this. People don't go, I like this and then get massive traction. It's always I don't like, I don't like, I don't like. So I think there could, there would be a perceived backlash. But the minute, as you say, the minute we have a seven car battle for the lead between seven different teams, everyone will go, why the hell did we? we do this in the first place? Now, I know Formula One is not just, and this is why the manufacturers are involved, Formula One is not just about the racing. It's about developing technology that can be

taken into the real world for, you know, Mercedes, etc. All these, you know, the road cars. There is, there is more to it than just, we like racing. Yeah, we. There is more real world concepts to it. And perhaps there is still a way in which they can integrate that interspec car stuff where something is developed and then everybody uses it. Or I don't know. I know this, that's probably a lot of technology that needs to be sealed and sealed away from other teams and manufacturers. But I'm in love with it. I think that as much as I know it's not possible. And it will be controversial.

And I totally understand that there will be some people shouting now going, this is awful. But I think IndyCar is a really good example. So IndyCar has been a spec series for quite a long time now. It was kind of like Formula One. You know, people built their cars. but now you still have top teams. And one thing I don't want is while it would be great having that randomness, which you sometimes get in like a formulary or whatever,

I do think there should be some kind of hierarchy. And I think IndyCar is a perfect example of that. It's a spec car, but they have their own engine. Like there's different engines. They develop certain bits of it. and still by the end of the season, your Chipganesees, your Penskees, your Andretti's win. So I don't think for a second that if you did spec cars,

Red Bull would still win, Mercedes would still win, Ferrari would still win, that's for mine, but, Ferrari maybe, but the whole field is so much closer. And you go into races where you know that last race in Miami, Pierre Gazley might have had the greatest, or like Alex Albin or someone, might have had the greatest drive of their entire life. And we don't know, because the cars are so different

that we don't have a clue. I was actually looking in some, just to convince anyone that's on the fence. The last 10 seasons of Formula One, the championship has gone down to the wire three times and only once between two different cars. Guess how many times in the last 10 years, Indy cars gone down to the final race? Eight.

Ten. Last year, IndyCar Championship went down to the wire. Five drivers could win the title in the final race, and it was the 17th consecutive season where the championship's gone down to the last race. Wow. Who doesn't want that? Yeah, it's interesting, because when you actually, when you say, who doesn't want that.

I suppose for probably some people listening, especially those that are like, Matt and Tom, you are chatting so much wash right now. Is that, and similar, I guess, to sprints and sprint shootouts, sometimes less is more.

When you do get those moments, like 2021 will go down. We experienced that season. Like, we lived it. That will be spoken about for a hundred years, how that went down. because of the fact it never happens.

So in some ways, yeah, that feeling, that one bottled feeling of 2021 was intense, immense. If we had that every season, it wouldn't feel that way. So I can understand that maybe having a championship fight go down to the wire 17 seasons in a row, you're like, oh, well, there you go. We're going to get one in 18 as well. Then one for the 19th year, one for the 20th year. So I can understand that maybe there are some people that would be a bit

hesitant that they actually don't want that because of that reason. But I think there's a happy medium. I'd take 10, 10 in the last 17 or something. You are muted, Tommy, just so you know. You've muted yourself. Is it because you were saying so many washed opinions that you decided to just unmute yourself and stop talking before you get cancelled? Yeah, yeah, fair.

No, I understand why people won't want it, but... I thought I played devil's advocate and just... No, I think you should. I think because there will be people here that don't... that think, you know, everyone's an engineering sport. but I agree with Ocon that, you know, there'd still be an engineering challenge to it. You could give them, I don't know, even if it's not a complete spec car, like something that is more spec parts even, or just something and then maybe the teams

develop like, I don't know, the floor or something. And then stick their own engine in. So the big thing for the manufacturers is developing that kind of hybrid power unit. So you'd still have Mercedes Ferrari Red Bull now with Ford developing like an engine to try and compete and be better. So it's not necessarily like, oh, you're just sticking them in go cuts and it's every man for himself. Although I think that should happen on a Friday. Let's get rid of a practice session and get some championship points on the line for that. Okay, I think we've covered spec cars.

We have. I'm now cancelled. This is the last podcast. Thank you so much, everybody. I won't be appearing anymore. Next suggestion comes in from one racing boy who says, I don't know why I've never seen a weight handicap system mentioned in F1. It's been implemented successfully in the Japanese Super GTT Championship since 1994.

Add weight ballast to the car for each point earned in a given Grand Prix with a maximum amount. No. No. Because this is one of the reasons why I can't, for example, get too involved with like BTCC, for example. They have weight ballast stuff. And I feel like it, and maybe this makes us a hypocrite because we're like, oh, spec cars, let's even the playing field. But weight ballast that evens the playing field, absolutely not. But that feels more artificial. And that feels like, you're doing really well. Here's more weight. So you finish 10th in the next race now. Yeah, I'd rather like spec cars, if someone's doing really well, they do really well, and they're driving well. It shouldn't be a case of like, oh, we'll put loads of weight on. And actually, you know, people have mentioned like balance of performance and stuff that's seen in WC. If you think how much Formula One teams push the rules and what's limited, there's so much room for controversy around it as well and people tactically using it and things like that. because most it in Weck a lot, don't we? Like on the run up to LeMont, they all try and slow down so that they have better BOP for the big race. Exactly. So Ford did that and it's very controversial. They just sandbagged, made themselves look absolutely terrible.

And then they went, right, this is the balance of performance for LeMond. And they were like, cool, turn the engine up now. Boom. We've won easily. So I don't think this could work. And there's been so many suggestions like this. Like, balance of performance, weight, handicap. spec car is the answer because then it's just like if you want the field close

just have them all in a very similar car that's the answer right let's pose the scenario as well because I know one man that would utilise this BOP rule like no other Fernando Alonso this man would have finished last in every race and then as soon as we get to Monaco he'll be on pole by four seconds and then hold everyone up and win the race. I guarantee it. I guarantee it because you want to win these big races. And when would you do the balance of performance? Because you don't have two races. So like, would it be qualifying, then you'd just deliberately be really slow? And Alonso would be that guy. Like, oh, Alonzo is 20 seconds off in qualifying again. He's terrible. And then he's like, ha ha, rocket ship time.

Yeah, exactly. So no, it's a nice suggestion, but I just don't think it works for Formula One, really. And I'm not a particular fan of it. Next up is from Greg Stinson underscore. Points all the way down to last so that there is fighting all the way to the end, all over the track. I'm not against this too much. I think that going all the way down to last, potentially not. But I think more points on offer. I mean, Alex Albin has already said for the sprint shootout.

The top eight is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps top 15. I don't know. I don't know my exact benchmark here, but I like the fact that giving most drivers something to play for would be good. Whether we need to see Logis Sarge and Nick DeFries battling out for 19th place for an extra point, I don't know. But maybe extending it past 10, I wouldn't be against.

Yeah, I'm actually very much for this, and maybe it's the Yuki Sanoda fanboy in me that where he's finished 11th in all these races. But I was actually thinking about this the other day that maybe it's time, to add more points because in the 90s, we had points down to 6th, 2000s down to 8th, and then how long have they done it for the top 10? I can't remember exactly, but 2010s, was it or something like that? But the cars are so much more reliable now. We didn't have a single retirement in the last race. And top 6, top 8, it worked in that era where you would get six, seven, eight retirements every single race.

Now, I think a race of attrition is like four or five cars out. So they've got nothing really to fight for. And I think this argument comes in even more. Now we've got the top eight drivers in those top four teams where there's not a lot of point. If you actually look at the championship table is really close between the bottom guys because there's no real points on offer. the most you can really get is for ninth in a normal race.

So I think this way would give a better indication of who's actually good. And maybe that's just because I'm looking at Yuki Snowder in the championship table thinking he should be about 10th in the championship table, but actually he's like 17th or something. But that is fair to have an indication of where you actually are in the championship, right? Yeah, because what does that realistically change? If there was points all the way down to last or points to 15th, it doesn't really change the landscape too much. It also keeps the championship closer as well. Like that that's something that IndyCar do.

They give points all the way down the field. And that's part of the reason why the championship goes down to the wire because it just keeps it close. So yeah, I'm all for it. I think it is probably, if we get another year of like bulletproof, liability. I do think genuinely that they might actually consider this. Yeah, I haven't really given it too much thought, to be honest. Greg, that is a very good point. Thank you for your suggestion. And I think we are in unanimous decision that we think that it would be a good, good way in some form.

Next one comes from VAMC underscore Fizzy. Introduce refueling. What do you think, Tommy? No, next. I don't, I do like the strategy element, but I think one, we're past. it to all like it just promotes it always promoted overtaking in the pits the only thing I'd be for refueling coming back is if it made the cars so much lighter and smaller because um i think that's a big problem with formula one right now but refueling for me no i just don't think they will just purely from a health and safety point of view as well there was there was a few moments over the years where fuel hoses still attached to the car or the entire pit lane going up in flames. Like there's, there's been plenty of moments that the FIA, I don't think, would ever go.

Yeah, let's bring that back. That was a good time in Formula One. And as you say, it does promote overtaking in the pit lane. Yeah, there was an element of strategy, but the cars rely a lot less on just purely fuel now. Of course, they've got the hybrid engines. It's not just fuel power. So, as you say, if we half the size of the cars and we get better racing and we need refueling, then I'll allow it. Yeah, I'm sure there are ways around it to make it even safer than it was in the past, but I don't think it's on the top of their agenda, really.

It's not when you actually think about it, like take my brain that's just this is part of Formula One and put part of like Grand Prix racing and motorsport for a long time. when you actually think about it all these like pushes towards safety and then they come into the pits they've got to try and like fill a car up as fast as possible and take it out and the fuels flying everywhere like it's a bit ridiculous really to do all that safety stuff

and then you have guys in the pit lane kind of trying to get a very flammable substance in the car as quick as possible and get the car out and try and cut corners with it and stuff It is a recipe for disaster, really. What if? Okay, let's say they half the cars, refueling needs to come back.

Could they have, I mean, pit stops are exciting because you want to see those 2.2 second pit stops. You go, wow, that was amazing. But if we sacrifice that part, we make the cars half the size, the racing is so much better. They can even pass at Monaco. Oh, my God. But then you have like a minimum pit stop time where all of the teams can go, oh, boop. you go, there's your fuel. Lovely. All right, we've got three more seconds till the minimum pitstop time, off you go. And it's a lovely safe environment. What do you think, Tommy? Just came on

that on the spot. I actually, this is for another day because it's going to be a six-hour podcast at this rate, but I'm already thinking. People want the content, Tommy. I don't actually, I will counter that argument to say that I think two-second pit stops are a bit boring now. And just doesn't make the sport particularly exciting. That's coming from a Red Bull fan. Yeah. I don't think I see Ferrari do that all too often. Two second foot stops.

Okay. Next suggestion comes in from James Sibela. Make DRS like an indie car push to pass. You can only use it a certain amount of times during a Grand Prix, makes it more strategic. I am of a positive opinion of this, a positive sentiment, but I think DRS needs to be made more powerful if they are going to have a select usage of them or at least longer.

So don't shorten the Miami DRS straight if you need a few laps of constant DRS in order to actually hit an opportunity to pass. It's not like DRS is a slam dunk every single race weekend we go to. Sometimes they get stuck in a DRS train and they can't even get past. Baku, for example,

they couldn't get passed on 50 lap old hard tires. And if they only have 10 uses of it over the course of a whole race and they still can't get past, then it might actually have the opposite effect and ruin the racing. So I think if they are going to reduce the amount of DRS usage, it has to be more powerful so that, okay, they can get ahead,

but then, oh, the driver behind now has 10 uses. So it's going to be a bit of a swapparoo. I love this. I think it's a really good idea. And the more I'm going through this podcast, I promise I'm not just here to say F1 should be IndyCar, but DRS. Is your name James Cibela?

but this is the thing it's a tactical overtakes are the best like I think DRS is needed in Formula One if I think about overtakes that have excited me it's like Fernando Alonzo diving up the inside of Hamilton at Bahrain because it wasn't a DRS he could have waited for the next corner and got passed easily but where's the fun in that

whereas if you actually exactly so if you have a moment whether it's DRS or a button or whatever, where it is strategic. I think that would make it so much more exciting. So it's not a case of like, oh, let's wait for the main straight and he's going to pass. You might get someone sending it down the inside a very unusual corner because they've got a great run. They can use the DRS.

The other person in front of them maybe is run out of the DRS usage or whatever. We don't need activation zones and things. You can just use it for a certain amount of time during a Grand Prix. and the person in front isn't using it or might use it to counter, and then they might run out of it. I think it's good. I really like it. Okay, so what you're saying here,

unlike what I was saying and the fact that there are specific DRS zones, is that you can use it anywhere. Yeah, anywhere. Okay, so it's a certain amount of seconds, or would you say a usage button? So you can press it this many times? A number of seconds. I think they did that.

I want to say they did that in like Renew World Series or something. Yes, yeah. I've done it on irisings. It's good fun. But yes, I think, yeah, that could make more sense. But then I suppose one of the main reasons we have DRS detection zones is for health and safety. And for the safety of the drivers is that they can only activate it in the designated areas. If we then go, what, it's a free-for-all now.

Are the FIA going to allow that, Tommy? It's the driver's discretion if they want to use it round a corner and spin off and hit the wall. It's also the driver's discretion for Lewis Hamilton to wear jewelry, but then they turn and turn around and say, absolutely not. cannot wed you. So it's an interesting concept. I think there definitely is something around it where I do like the idea of push to pass, the curs of the, oh, I actually really liked the Kerr's era where you had drivers that could use it defensively and drivers that could attack with it as well. And it was a really cool part of Formula One, I think. So there's definitely something there. Let's see if it ever evolves into Formula One, turning into IndyCar,

because this is what Tommy wants. At Dalin PL comes in, with radiocoms only for emergencies. Driver must decide when to pit on their own. Doesn't work. They tried it before. They literally did, didn't they? There's too much tech in Formula One now. If this was before they tried it,

I was one of those people that would totally agree with this where, look, we need less technology, like, should be down to the drivers. It shouldn't be a case of the engineers saying, this is when you pit, because then, of course, it's going to be, they're all going to pit on the same lap because they're running to a computer program. But we saw this and it didn't work. And then you just had ridiculous radio messages of drivers saying, I don't know what switch to press. And then they were trying to do like,

weird radio message. Well, I can't tell you, but if you were to look down to the bottom left. Yeah. Exactly. It just got a bit clumsy. So, no. Okay. Not for Tommy. To be fair, like, F1. If it could work, I'd like, Yeah, it can't work. And the fact is F1 is a team sport. It's not just down to the driver. The driver cannot know what is going on around the track. And I think that that is fine for the team to step in and go, look, this is the best strategy.

Otherwise, it could get a little bit farcical, in my opinion, because the driver cannot, unless they have a little track map built into their little LCD screen, whatever it is, and they can look that. Oh, that's safe, isn't it? Looking down at the screen whilst you're driving. It just doesn't work. As much as, you know, you think that it would actually help the racing, I would argue that a lot of the drivers do choose when to pit.

And the teams are very much relying on the feedback from the driver. And that's why we hear all the time, tires are good, tires are bad. I think we should stop. I think it's Plan A, whatever. And then the team then take that information and go, right, we'll do it plus five, plus six. So I don't mind it too much. I don't think it will change Formula One drastically if they muted the drivers and the teams. No, but I do like this next suggestion just for the banter.

So the next suggestion is at Lysander CG. Proximity chat driver radio. Drive to survive like, yes please. Yeah, this is quite the suggestion. This has got like Caller Duty Warzone vibes to it where you can just shout to someone as you're going for a move. I would, in an alternate reality where no consequences matter, this would be absolutely incredible.

Can you imagine Yuki Sanoda with proximity chat driver radio? This man would just be bleeping at everyone. He gets angry at a free practice one, small amount of understeer from a car three seconds ahead of him. Imagine if he had full access to just chat to the drivers, it'd be unbelievable. But obviously, completely and utterly ridiculous at the same time. But I'm here for comedy, yes. Like reality, no, but it would be so, it would be amusing. using. Just imagine the absolute S-housery of someone like Fernando Alonso.

Bye-bye. Go ahead of him. Go past Hamilton and then says bye-bye. Yeah. Or even just like waits for the drive to get in the breaking zone. It's like, like putting them off instead. Sorry, of all the people you think Fernando Alonzo would make what your baby grace basically makes as a noise down the radio. Look, I think it's a good tactic. I'm sure it will work. I don't think the best racing drives in the world will definitely lock up if they hear

in the radio. Well, there you go. That was a silly suggestion. I hope you enjoyed that. Next up comes from Future Ghost underscore boom. No more blue flags. Slower cars don't have to compromise their race for the faster cars. May slow down the leaders a bit, letting the pack bunch up.

Is this another indie car suggestion that we've got come in? Literally, is your another burner account, this one as well, Tommy? Well, this one I don't actually agree with. So I put it in there just so people will understand that I will disagree with something that Indycard do. Okay, okay. Well, tell us why. I don't think it works for Formula One.

If it was a Spec series, then yes, it would. But if it is the way it is now, I think you just get, I think it would ruin more races than it would make better. It's kind of a bit like DRS and trying to do it one lap in. You know, people would love it if Verstappen was getting held up and it allowed a slower car to catch up and make the race more exciting. But I think realistically, what would happen is

you'd get Verstappen fly past people in the DRS and then Fernando Alonso in or like the Mercedes where they don't have particularly great straight line speed would just get stuck by in the car for 20 laps and it's like, where's the fun in that? That's a really good point actually, especially again, after the example we saw in Baku where drivers couldn't pass a 50-lap old hard tire runner of Ocon and Holkenberg. It's, yeah, it's difficult to say in this current state of Formula One

that that would make any sense because it would actually benefit the leaders and the most competitive cars and the ones, as you say, that don't have that pace differential would be the ones that get held up. Next one comes from GIF-O-7. Every race needs to be run in the wet. Right.

What on earth are you smoking, Gip? because that is ridiculous. And also as well, I say it time and time again, we pray for rain, but then as soon as we get a rainy race, especially if it's a consistently rainy race, it's actually sometimes worse than if we had a dry race. Because you don't have DRS if there are consistent conditions. The only thing really, of course, the wet conditions are difficult for the drivers. Don't get me wrong.

but the most exciting part of a wet race is that transition from dry to wet or wet to dry where you have the element of strategy you have some drivers taking a risk and going on to slintamidiates or interslicks or whatever you want to call them and there is that element of oh who's going to be quicker oh someone's pit early and going five seconds a lap quicker the actual wet component of it if it's consistent is a bit me yeah when it was the last time we actually had a good wet race um i think a lot of the good races in the last few years have been dry races where we've had tired deck and strategy and stuff. And actually the thing that we love about wet races is because, and especially back when,

yeah, you did the 90s and early 2000s and stuff, they could never overtake. You'd barely see any overtaking. So as soon as you got a wet race, they were skating around, they were struggling for grip, and you got lots of passing. So it was really exciting. this just comes back to all the good bits of a wet race are actually come down to kind of your thing where you're saying there's a performance gap in the tyres or tyre deck. You get that same element of a wet race if you have tyre deck because you've got people

struggling for traction, they're a lot slower. If a Formula One car, it's a very weird thing about Formula One. And it sounds, when you actually put it on paper, it sounds like a really stupid thing. thing to say. But Formula 1 cars are quite, the racing would be very boring if it was just build a Formula 1 car as fast as it can go. It's absolutely on rails. They are no regulations and they just fly around the track. You need them to be slow in some parts. It doesn't matter if they're like eight seconds a lap slower. If they're struggling on their tires, that's when you get passing. That's when you get different lines through the corners. That's

what's exciting. So I think this one can be kind of, I don't think it even needs to be wet. You just need to have the tyre deck or the three mandatory compounds. Or perhaps four mandatory compounds. They use inters doing them. And someone has to run inters or wets, even in a dry race. That would be white something. And finally, the final suggestion we have is from F1 Webbit. One shot lap in Q3, one car at a time, starting based on the reverse. first order of Q2. This would allow TV and fans to follow all the drivers, but not only the main

ones. Also, the risk of aborting a lap due to red flag would be eliminated. Now, F1 Webbit is absolutely my burner account because I need it. I need this. I think it is apps. It makes so much sense. The most sense ever. I can't see any drawbacks whatsoever. Some people might go, yeah, but what if rain comes in? Tough. That's the beauty. We get a mix. up grid every so often. It'll be a rare occasion anyway where the end runners, the Vastappans, the Leclerc get, you know, so hindered by a small chance of rain or whatever. So I am all for it. I think that it would add that extra tiny bit of element, as we've experienced and we've spoken about in our qualifying formats from the past, is that I think this is what brings the current

format into a 10 out of 10. You get to focus on every single driver. You get to watch 10th place, Lando Norris put in a worldly lap in the McLaren, but no one ever gets to see it usually, but you get to see it now. And I think it has that element of one lap, championship on the line, three races to go, and you have to perform.

It's great. Did we not see the perfect example of it almost in Miami because Charlotte Glare going off meant that we had one lap to make it count for Stapp and messed up. Started ninth, we had a mixed up grid. Although they didn't know at the time they didn't know at the time but it does show that like you had to make it happen yeah of course and yeah we'd see like the pressure of making it work so would people um would people drive differently

knowing would they leave you know a couple of attempts on the table because it's it's not worth risking and starting all the way down in 10th if you go off or the midfield might go you know what I'm going to be 10th anyway absolutely go for it put in a world in start forth. So yeah, I think this would be really cool. I don't think we should have one lap for everything like this person and says, and I think you agree as well. Just at Q3. Yeah. Everyone get, and it's almost like, it feels like a reward as well. And it's like, oh, reward. But like for getting into Q3, you get your whole lap shown as well. You know, it's great for the teams that make it in, get a full lap watching them. And we don't just see it pop up.

up where we're watching Vastappen and then maybe his in-lap and it just pops up and it's like, oh, Magnuson has just got fourth. Didn't see any of it. How's that happened? Whereas if you actually got to enjoy that lap, it'd be great. So yeah, I love this. We both love it. And it's similar in some ways to how Formula E do their qualifying.

You have these group sessions, although that's not what we're suggesting, but we have all the drivers trying to set a time in however long, 10 minutes, whatever, and then if they get into the top five, then they make it through to, you know, the jewels as it is. Whereas this, you have Q1, Q2 as normal. And then if you make it through Q2, you get through to the one-shot quality. I think it adds that extra level of excitement. So I'm all aboard. And as you already know, if you've listened to the other podcast, you know we're all aboard. Chee, chew, chew, mother truckers. Right, that is it. Tommy, what are your final thoughts, please? My final thoughts are, I'm sorry to all the engineering students.

I've just said F-1 should be a spec series, but it's just an opinion. Yes, I also want to echo Tommy's feelings. This is all just washed opinions. Don't take it too seriously, like our Charlotte Eclure 5 out of 10 grade for the Miami Grand Prix. So some people did not like that. Perhaps it should have been a four, but hey, he finished seventh. Right, that is my final thought. So I hope you have a wonderful day.

We'll see you very soon for another bit of content. we are filming in the Friday drivers next week. Hopefully you managed to see that. Indeed. Hear that, even though I mumbled it. Very exciting. So yes, can't wait.

Look forward to it. Lots of content coming away. Bye! Bye! P1 is a Stack production and part of the ACAST's creator network.