The Late Braking F1 Podcast - Did Red Bull let down Perez in 2023?

Episode Date: December 6, 2023

Ben & Sam continue off-season discussions with the pitfalls of 24-race calendars, Red Bull's claim of partial failure as Perez was unable to master the RB19, and the argument that more flat-out races are needed amidst fears that lack of overtaking and spectacle will continue next year. They finish with a game of Fact or Crap.. FOLLOW us on socials! You can find us on YouTube, Instagram, X (Twitter) and TikTok SUPPORT our Patreon for bonus episodes JOIN our Discord community JOIN our F1 Fantasy League BUY our Merch EMAIL us at [e-mail]   & SUBSCRIBE to our podcast! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This podcast is part of the Sports Social Podcast Network. Thank you for listening to the Late Breaking F1 podcast. Make sure to check out new episodes every Wednesday and every Sunday. And a very warm welcome to the late breaking F1 podcast presented by Sam Sage and me, Ben Hocking. That's been a while, on it, mate. Mate, I've not seen you for absolute minutes. We definitely haven't just done another episode before this one. No, we wouldn't do such a lot.

double record day. Oh gosh, no, that doesn't work here. We don't do that. Also, Harry Ead, don't know where he is. He's been gone forever. Yeah, sorry about that. He will be back next episode. That is confirmed. And, I mean, spoiler, we're discussing our predictions from preseason. Teammate Wars reveal is happening next episode. I say that excitedly. Maybe I shouldn't be. To fair, I've been trying to do the maths in my mind about teammate wars. And I still don't understand the full quantities, obviously, because Harry's technically a point up, which we'll get on to next week. So whilst I've heard rumours that he's giving deep tissue massages to Maying travellers in the Far East at the moment, there's no full knowledge of whether he's actually

going to win team it was for the very first time, which he's never won before, Ben. What's the score? 320, 3 to you, two to me? Yeah, that sounds right. We started 2017, 17, 18, 19, 19, 20. one, two, yeah. I might have four, possibly. I can't remember. Maybe four to zero, depending. Anyway, Harry's never won. That I can be 100% sure about. So we'll see if that changes. And I don't believe you do get any bonus points for giving massages to Mayan travelers in the Middle East. But I don't know all the bylaws. So you never know. That's so true. The late breaking rules are vast and

deep. Indeed they are. What's coming up today then? So we've, We've got fact or crap is making an appearance later on, folks. Very exciting indeed. And I don't have the, because we are using the old soundboard, I don't have the jingle loaded. So we're going to have to do a manual jingle on that one. Not that it's very complicated, but we'll get to that a little bit later on. Toto Wolf comments on F1 needing more flat-out races like Qatar, our thoughts on his comments a little bit later. Red Bull believe they partially failed with the 23 car. We'll investigate why. But let's start out with this, which is, I was going to say comments from George Russell, but it's comments from a few people within the F1 sphere in reality. George Russell

himself has said that banning F1 staff from doing all 24 races next season and indeed in any season would be a good thing. And we've also had the likes of Esteban Okon, who was struggling at the end of the year physically. He said that the body's not designed to do 24 races. James Vowles has also said something separately as well, which is that 24 races is right on the right on the edge of capacity from an F1 team's perspective. So based on those comments, Sam, what are your thoughts? Ah, yeah, I mean, I'm glad that the F1 drivers and very senior members of staff have started to speak up about this. We've had conversations about these topics. I think for quite a few years now on the podcast where every season the calendar grows and it grows. And we've talked about safety issues and

people, you know, you wouldn't be expected to work a 12 hour day, drive six hours through the night and then start working again another 12 hour day without any sleep. And that's what a lot of them had to do, for example, with the transition between Las Vegas and then flying to the season finale in Abu Dhabi. Christian Hornier even came out and said, I won't use the same language that you said, but it was an absolute poo house of a schedule to deal with. He had to put himself through real difficult management to make sure that he was okay. And you're essentially asking these drivers, not only to transition through their time zones, lack of sleep, George Russell had to take multiple naps in the Las Vegas break when we had the delay.

You know, they're having to drive heavy machinery at 200 miles an hour with limited sleep in strange times. And Ben, you've been jet lagged, I've been jet lagged. We know how it feels to go from one time zone to another. And we aren't doing anything of the sort. It is a horrible feeling. you feel exhausted, you feel out of sorts, you don't really know what's going on, and that's without the jet lag after that, we're an absolute nightmare.

So the fact that this F1 staff are, you know, they're driving their heavy machinery with all the parts on it, they're setting up the garages every time, they're building cars that are, oh yeah, they want to win races, but they're also responsible for people's lives when they're driving around the racetracks, they're having to make moment-to-moment calls that cost teams a lot of money or points. It's all very important stuff. So the idea that the idea that drivers are finally coming out and saying not only are we struggling, imagine the staff having to stay up till one, two, in the morning when we crash the car, or having to put the teams together every single time we go to a race is really knackering. I don't think I'd want to do. I've always wanted

to be part of the travelling Formula One calendar. I don't think I could hack it. I do not think I could handle doing that many Grand Prix in a row in that many time zones with that little sleep, not in your own home in a hotel that you're not used to. It's a lot to deal with. It's an uncomfortable, intense type of work to deal with. And I do believe that they need to have a system in place where I think for me, the obvious solution is teams that work time zones. So you have a team that works the US South America leg and then you have a team that works the European leg.

You have a team that works the Asian and Australasian leg. You know, it makes sense to break it down into groups that sit in one time zone and work that time zone. But it shouldn't be this difficult to, make sure that your staff are safe and work in the right amount of hours and I looked after properly. I know they get paid good money. Not everyone in Formula One does. So it's important to care for them. I'm glad that they're speaking up about it. Yeah, that's the first and most important thing is that drivers, team bosses, important people within the world of F1 are speaking

their mind and feel like they can be, I don't know, they can be free in what they're saying, which is good. Certainly, George Russell's suggestion of no staff member being able to do 24 races and whether there should be a ban in that sort of regard, I think is a fundamentally a good idea. I would like to hear from team members themselves actually on this because they're going to be able to give a far more accurate idea of whether this is a realistic and be a good idea. So I'd like to hear from them. But certainly I think on the surface, it sounds like a. it sounds like a smart idea.

And ultimately, anything like this does need to come from F1 itself because sadly, well, I guess sadly, teams aren't going to prioritize this sort of things, especially in a cost cap era. Where you've got a cost cap, everything, you know, not everything, but nearly everything falls underneath it. If a team's got a decision to make between hiring an extra person or spending more on the car, they're going to spend more on the car and ask more of the people that they've already got in the building. That's what's going to happen. Rightly or wrongly, all teams are going to

think with that mentality. So it's almost a case of F1 protecting the teams from themselves, I guess, and putting something in place like what George Russell suggested. Maybe it's exactly what George Russell suggested. Maybe it's a slightly different solution. But I think there does need to be something in place. The time zone idea, I'd argue, is a good one as well. I think F1 has a responsibility that they've somewhat answered with what they're doing with the 24 calendar. The 24 calendar is better laid out than the 23 calendar. It's not perfect, and we picked it apart when it came out a few months ago. But certainly there are strides in the right direction. Las Vegas and Abu Dhabi are no longer back to back. Who would have thought that was a good idea?

Japan being earlier in the season is another one. That makes sense that it's mixed in with the likes of the Chinese Grand Prix and everything else around there. So you're not putting it randomly at the back end of the season. It does geographically make more sense. There are still massive question marks over why Miami and Monaco and that sort of stretch that just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense whatsoever where you're sort of hopping between mainland Europe and North America, but it is getting better. But yeah, 24 races, it's a big commitment. And I would like to see the FIA maybe put something in place where I don't know what the answer. It's not an easy answer, whether it's a minimum number of employees or whether it is this. I don't know whether a certain

percentage of the cost cap must be assigned to staff and you must pay X amount of people. within it. I don't know exactly what it is, but surely there's got to be something in place that's going to protect the drivers for years to come, sorry, protect the team members for years to come because the number of races, it's not going down, let's face it. No, I think for me, you've already brought up one of the options there, which is a number of employees under the cost cap. And maybe there needs to be some exceptions made within the cost cap limit that are, you know, a certain percentage of your cost cap has to be dedicated to staff that are not drivers or the most senior team members that we see.

For example, James Vowell's or Toto Wolf or whoever it is sitting on the side of that pit wall. But actually, your pit crew and the people that put up the car every single time you're engineers and those who are working hospitality and those who are out there doing your PR and marketing who are having to, you know, a lot of people are like, like, ant colonies are working around in the background that you don't normally see. And maybe it needs to be a, like a quota. Maybe you need to have a two, at least of every single one.

So almost like on a football team, if you get an injury, you can have a swap. You could do a replacement, a like for like replacement, like a part for a car. I know that's maybe a little bit insensitive to bore people down to that kind of system. But to have a, well, we've got a 16 man pit crew, eight people go to these eight races, and then we do a like-for-like swap. And then eight people go to these eight races, and then we do a like-for-like swap again. And then the eight people do the next eight races. Maybe that's the way to do it.

And you do that with the entire team. And so maybe the FIA and F-1 need to sit down together. with the teams, work out what a feasible amount of money is for staff, and go to put health first and to make sure that people are safe, what money needs to be spent where, on who and how many to ensure that these teams are properly kitting out. Because, Ben, you are right. I think, I think if they could, all Formula One teams would bore themselves down to a pit crew, two race drivers and a team boss, and every single other penny would be spent on building that car to the absolute best it could ever be built to, if that was theoretically possible.

Of course they would, because that's what leads to success, that's what leads in more sponsorship, that's what it's going to make more money. And historically, that means you break records and you become the most successful team. But that's not how life works. And people are what made this sport, what it is, and they deserve to be able to live a normal life

and be treated as possible. So, yeah, a conversation does need to be happy. You're right, the calendar is better. It still isn't there. There's still a lot to be changed. But thank God we're finally making some adjustments because a couple of years ago, it was a bit farcical.

Due to the cancellation of the Chinese Grand Prix, this year, we had an inadvertent spring break, I guess you could call it, where it wasn't planned in, but there ended up being roughly a month between races, but only a couple of races into the season. I'd be interested here from, again, F1 team members, but do you have an opinion on what you think is better? Do you think a longer season with more breaks is better

than a shorter season that's more intense? For me, I don't think we need more than 19 or 20 races in a season. I would happily just scrap four Grand Prix. And we've discussed it multiple times and we like to go about how it was our clever idea that they should come up with, but a rolling calendar with a few core Grand Prix that stay every year.

Logistically makes sense to me. That way you get to go to so many good Grand Prix over a kind of a three-year period. But for me, I would rather have a shorter season. It feels, I was tired, come Abu Dhabi. I don't know about you, Ben, but I was a bit tired of the F-1 season come Abu Dhabi knowing that, you know,

there's another race, there's another session. I love Formula One more than probably 98% of people. I, you know, live it. But it was, it was tiring. And it was hard getting up for races. And, you know, you've got to factor that in with the fact that we work, normal jobs Monday to Friday. And so imagine what it's like for them having to actually do it and be on planes and

getting there to and from. It's tiring. It's difficult. I would prefer an 18 to 20 race season with a proper summer break. And I think we've seen for many years that that works, especially if you were to logicalize the character, character, calendar, and logicalize isn't a word, but you're with me. Yeah, I wasn't going to focus on that bit, but all right.

Yeah, I mean, both bits don't work, but we're going with it. If you were to put more logic behind the calendar and have an 18 race season, your solution would be there. You have a one-month break over the summer period. You have nine races either side of it. Makes sense. If we're going to have 24 Grand Prix, then I think we need to have eight races and at least then a three-week break

and then eight races and then a three-week break to allow for it. the issue is you start to run out of weeks very quickly within a year that then allow for a proper winter break, development of a car, and, you know, all the changes that need to be made in that winter period, there is only so much time in this season. So for me, a shorter season with less breaks would be preferred. But if they're going to have this 24 race calendar, they've got to make sure that either the staff have the allotment they need, or we are having proper breaks in the calendar to allow for recuperation, for rest, people see their families, for drivers to become mentally and physically prepared, one or the other has to come.

Otherwise, I think there's going to be a break. And I think we will end up seeing something happen that is a step too far. Someone will hurt themselves or something like that because they're so tired or because they can't keep up with this incredibly intense schedule. And we don't want that to happen. No. And I think it would, it would genuinely be interesting to know from team members whether it would be better to have, I think we've got like,

like a 95 or something like that, weight between the last race of this season and the beginning of next season. It's under 100, but I can't remember exactly how many it was, obviously, when we ended the season at Abu Dhabi. But it would be interesting to know whether that is preferred

or whether it would be better to do, I don't know, 70 days between seasons, but you have more rest in between those Grand Prix. Honestly, I don't know the answer to that, and I would be intrigued. I think you're right. If the calendar was 20 races, most of this conversation would be seen off

and you could kind of go at it either way and it would work. If you were just to have the summer break and 10 races either side of it, I think you can make that work quite comfortably. But where there's 24, you're right, you run out of weeks quite quickly and you do need to be a bit more clever

about exactly where you're traveling to and from. in order to make sure we don't get this burnout, because yeah, that's the last thing we want for this sport. Okay, we're going to take our first break now. On the other side, we're going to be discussing Red Bull. Okay, so the Red Bull technical director has made some interesting comments after the season is closed, suggesting that the RB-19, the obviously title-winning car, double-title-winning car this year,

was partially successful. And that is because of the disparity between the two drivers. Of course, Max Verstappen very comfortably winning the driver's championship over second-placed Sergio Perez. Were you surprised at these comments at all that they are acknowledging somewhat of a failure to make this car easier to drive for both parties? I was really surprised. what crazy standards you freakishly genius people hold yourselves to

that this wasn't fully successful it was only partially successful are you mad if someone told me at the start of a year that whatever it was that I did there was only one blemish on my full whatever across a whole year I go oh well I must have done pretty well then

but if someone if my manager turned around and went you're only partially successful I go excuse me what more do I actually need to do to make you happy It just shows the Formula One destination that is always perfection. They're always striving for absolute perfection. But in a Formula One team, I feel like in the perfect scenario,

is you have one driver that leaves the way and picks up everything, and you have a second driver that scoops up the leftovers, that make sure that you get all the spoils for the full team. And as much as it was a bit closer than they probably would like, Sergei Perez thinks exactly that. They got their first ever won two in the championship. Max Verstappen waltzed away with the title. No internal issues there with any management or competition because there's friction

between title championships. You'd argue that this was a perfect scenario for Red Bull. One driver dominates, the other driver picks it out for the rest of the team. I guess what the technical director is striving for here is that maybe it was a little too difficult for Sergio Perez to finish in second place. And maybe this is something historically that they've seen come through. because you look at their other title chases and go all the way back to the first time they won the title

with Sebastian Vettel. Mark Weber, as we've already just said, never finished second place and very rarely actually finish comfortably in third place either. It wasn't like it was kind of a closed title fight and Mark Weber was right there behind them. The points gap was large. And as much as I think there's a gulf in quality

between Mark Weber and Sebastian Vettel, I don't think Mark Weber is a bad driver. I think he had everything he could have taken realistically to have finished second place if the car maybe was more small. suited towards him. And you see it again with the more modern era of the Red Bull domination with both Vastappan and Perez every season.

Perez has struggled realistically to get consistent results under his belt. And maybe they have only taken their lead driver's point of view into account here and only built a car for one driver. Now, you'd argue that that's worked. They've taken home, what, seven constructors titles in the last 15 years. They've taken home seven drivers titles. Oh, sorry, six driver's titles in the last 15 years, or whatever it is, seven and eight. I can't read the exact number.

Math is hard. But my point is... Thank you. Thank you. My point is that maybe they are only designing their key focuses here for one driver, the drug that they believe has the potential is going on with a title, and that if it was more balanced approach, maybe the constructors would be a more guarantee, more obvious guarantee,

and then they can let their drivers battle out however they want. Maybe they're happy for that competition to be a part of Red Bull's culture, and they enjoy that point of view. It was a very interesting comment to make after what has been the most dominant season of all time in Formula One, though, when your car has been that fantastic. But yeah, maybe there's some sympathy internally for Sergio Perez that he could have done more and he was actually achieving more than what people thought he was achieving. And it was the car that was holding him back.

It's a very interesting point of view. Yeah, I mean, we've seen multiple drivers step up to the plate versus Vastappen and ultimately the result has been very similar. and these drivers have had a lot of success everywhere else. Alex Albin has left Red Bull. He's done a great job at Williams. Pierre Gasly has left the system. He's doing a great job at Alpine.

He's outperformed Destabar Knock on in his first year there, and he did very well at Alfa Tauri as soon as he was demoted from Red Bull. Sergio Perez had a great career throughout the 2010s. He is Force India Racing Points, best driver of all time. He's finished on the podium, copious amounts of times before he even made it to Red Bull. So these drivers that have gone up against Vestappen and struggled in comparison, they have all had success elsewhere, which makes you think that that car is just designed for Vestappen. Now, he takes advantage of it better than everyone else,

and it makes complete sense that Vestappen would get dibs on what the car is behaving like. We know that Vestappen likes an incredibly responsive car that he makes work that others don't, quite honestly. So, you know, these comments are interesting. I don't necessarily think that it's going to impact much going into next season because, as you've kind of referenced, Sam, Vettel and Weber dominated throughout 2010 to 2013. Vettel obviously dominated the driver's championship, but the team dominated them. the Constructors' Championship. And that worked. It worked.

And it worked this season as well in that the car was good enough. Vastappan crushed it and Perez did more than enough in order to claim the Constructors championship. That's, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. It might be the mentality going into next year because they're not just referring to this era of F1. They can go back to their first period of success and say they did it the same way. It's not even just them. I mean, you can look back at Schumacher and Barrakello.

same sort of thing, where if you have got this generational talent like you have in Max Vastappen, who can just crush it with the car that's given to him and can adapt it in his own very special way, let him clean up and then make the second driver work it out as best they can. It works clearly. I wonder if what they're going for here, which I agree with you, I think realistically, you let your top scorer continue to be your top scorer and you help the other side, of the team to perform. But I wonder if what they're trying to do here is, say, to Max Verstappen,

we could take 100 points off Max Verstappen and put them in Sergio Perez's part. And it would not alter Max Verstappen's title hopes in any way, shape or form. But it makes Sergio Perez's life far much more comfortable that as a team, we've scored the same amount of points. But it just means that one of our drivers hasn't got to panic, feel under pressure, and they're able to perform. So their ability, because the car works for them. I think that's probably an ideal world, that's what they go for, right?

they still have the gulf between one drive and the other. It would just be slightly smaller, which allows for a bigger gulf between Sergio Perez and the rest of the grid further back. Because as much as we can be harsh on Sergio, he's still, you know, one of the better drivers that we've seen in Formula One for a long time. The guy still does a fantastic job,

and he's still got the ability to win races, pick up podium to do a great job. So it does make sense that the car would be altered a little bit, just maybe, you know, marginally, to allow for Sergio Perez to flourish a little bit more in Red Bull. Yeah, and we have seen dominant teams go the other way with it as well. I know I've just referenced how Red Bull have done it and how Schumacher and Barakello

existed as a duo, but we have also seen the likes of Rosberg and Hamilton. We've seen the likes of Prost and Sena, where you do have two drivers that are very close to one another within the same team. And, you know, arguably the argument against going that way is the added drama. that you don't necessarily need to deal with as much when you've got a dominant car, a dominant driver like Vastappan versus Perez because that championship fight

is never really a fight or at least past Miami, which is so early in the season that they can see out the rest of the year without too much in the way of controversy. But yeah, I mean, to your point, it doesn't really matter to any team, Red Bull included, how the points are divided up. I know a lot of people like to say,

Red Bull is completely biased towards Vastappan versus any other driver, to which the answer is yes and no. Yes, they are. They are biased towards Vastappen, but they're more biased towards his success than they are him individually. The only reason they are biased towards Vastappan

is because he is as good as what he is and scores as many points as what he does. The second he loses that, Red Bull would show no bias to him whatsoever. And that's always been the case across every team, every star driver. So it's a difficult one. But yeah,

Sergio Perez, he has accomplished something this year that Red Bull have never had, which is the one to finish in their history. But yeah, I think there's got to be some acknowledgement how difficult that car is to drive from another driver's perspective.

I find that argument so funny about the whole, you know, Ben, you made the point brilliantly. Why wouldn't you be biased towards your top performer? Why would you not want to continue harnessing? You know, it's not like, oh, you know, Cabri's chocolate, the plain dairy milk bar. Let's stop putting that on sale because the other bars don't get bought as much.

No, just keep making money off the standard cabri's dairy milk chocolate bar because it rakes it in for you. Why would you give that up? Why would I give up Max Verstappel? Why would I not harness every ounce of potential that man has to bring home more titles? As much as we want to give Sergio Pres the credit for the one to finish, You take Sergio Perez out of this entire championship.

Max Verstappen wins the constructors on his own. That's the thing. The car, the system, everything works perfectly as it is, how Red Bull need it. I understand what they're saying, make it more drivable for both drivers. But when Verstappen is this good, do you need to even worry about that? Sergio Perez can have scored 25 points. They're still won the constructors. Sergio Perez can go finishing 19th place.

They can still won the constructors. That does not make any difference overall. to what Verstappen was able to achieve. So, yeah, help him out. But I wouldn't sacrifice it too much when Verstappen is just this good. Do you think they have an eye on some of those other teams that are circling?

And obviously, no one was able to make any sort of a challenge on Red Bull this year. Are they sort of looking towards 2024 and suggesting maybe that's not the case again and they need to be prepared for that? I think you have to account for all possibilities, of course. There's nothing to say that someone like a Mercedes, or a Ferrari.

Don't do what Ashton Martin managed could do at the start of 23, but the next step up and make a monumental leap. They find some loophole or they're able to just crack the system. We already referenced it in Sunday's episodes that Lewis Hamilton and George Russell

could not get the sweet spot at the same time for qualifying. But when they did, they were suddenly incredibly competitive. It only takes a team to finalise that final margin of understanding to suddenly be incredibly competitive. And you compare that with the fact

that Red Bull have have come out and stated, I don't know how true it is, that the penalty that they were given for the cost cap infringement hasn't properly been felt yet. We'll see if that's really going to come to fruition. But if it is to be felt, and we see it in 2024, then they will need Sergio Perez who will find all cylinders. They will need to give him a car that is able to flourishing.

And Max Verstappen, I believe, is probably able to make up the difference if the car is, let's say, only 90% of what he wants, rather than 100% of what he wants. Forstappen has the talent to make up the other 10%. So yes, if they believe that the other cars, it cannot be much closer, they will need both drivers. This year they didn't, but they will need them if the cars are closer. Yeah, I mean, there'll be plenty of staff members that saw what happened in 2020 and 2021 are probably the two years to look at. So 2020, you could argue, yes, the Mercedes was too good for Red Bull to mount a challenge there anyway.

But also, there were so many situations where it was Bottas and Hamilton versus Vestappen that year. which, you know, when we see these two-on-one circumstances, it can be difficult for the team that only has one driver in the fight. And 2021, of course. Sergio Perez was newer to the team, of course, but in a season where Vastappan won the driver's championship, they also did not win the Constructors' Championship. So, you know, many of those team members will have looked back on those two years to say

that sort of thing can happen. We don't know where it's going to be next year. Like you said, it might be the case where they are, as dominant versus this year versus next year, sorry, next year versus this year, getting all my years, metal up. But you can't say that for certain. So, yeah, it makes sense for them to account for this sort of thing. Okay, we're going to take our second break.

On the other side, we're going to be discussing Toto Wolf and his comments regarding flat out races. Some interesting comments from Toto Wolf to discuss next, which is that F1 needs more flat-out races, and he used Qatar of this year as the example. Now, we know Qatar, not for entertainment purposes, but did put together a mandatory three-stop race. And a lot of that meant that it was completely flat-out. Now, temperatures were very high, which meant that it was a strain on the drivers, to say the least. I'm sure anyone who watched the race will remember this very well. But at least taking the Qatar example out of it for the second, Sam,

do you think that this idea that F1 needs more flat-out races versus the conservation that we see at some other tracks, is that needed? I think when you boil it down to conservation versus flat-out racing, that's not the problem. Conservation itself isn't inherently an issue. What's the problem is when every single car and every single team across every single race know that they can go into a conservation period across a Grand Prix. And you hear it when, you know, you hear it on the Sky Commentary when you're watching, Martin Brunner will come out and say, right, they went flat out for the first five or six laps, and now they're into their conservation period.

Now they're settling into the race. And it's to make ties last. It's to make strategies last. And that can be the dull period of the Grand Prix, let's say from lap 11 or 12 to maybe lap 30 when some pit stops start to take place, that you think no one's pushing through fear that a two or three stop is, much slower that, you know, you may as well just drive carefully. And we don't see the moves being made. We don't see the excitement and wheel to wheel action that we did see it, Qatar, even

without the health hazards that took place, we saw a lot of rapid driving. And of course, as you've mentioned, Ben, we have to ignore the kind of shock and awe that the health reasons brought up around Qatar, which brought entertainment in the wrong way, right? It brought spectacle in the wrong way at that point. But what would be exciting, and what we have documented so many times on this podcast, is conservation can be exciting. when directly compared against a flat-out portion of racing. If you have the ability to have strategies that allow for conservation to be competitive, directly compared next to a flat-out three-stop race

where putting your lap times there, a qualifying lap for 60 laps, one after another, you stop again, you stop again, you stop again. And at the end of lap 57-58, the one-stoppers who have conserved their tires all the way through, come directly head to head with the three stoppers who have been motoring it through traffic, overtaken, you know, making sure that pit stops are nailed down perfectly. And we get a direct rivalry between those two strategies to boil down to the end of the Grand Prix. We get a fight for the lead and we get a fight for podiums.

That is excitement. That is fun racing. I don't want every single driver to do flat out every single race. I don't want every single driver to do conversation, conversation, careful driving throughout every single race. You can talk your way through a race if you really want. Let them speak.

Let them talk. If you really want to, sure, what is exciting is when you have the freedom of choice in a competitive element that allow, so you know that whatever strategy you pick, there is a chance at the end of that Grand Prix

that your strategy works and you can come out on top. It is boring when it is always one or always the other. You have to have viable solutions to create for an exciting end of Grand Prix. I think that's what we're, we're missing in Formula One.

We got it. 2012 gets brought up a lot, and it's because it works a lot in that season where we had different race winners. A lot of it was different strategies. The tires were working differently. It was a very exciting and explosive season. You never knew quite what was going to happen.

We haven't had that recently. So I think Qatar gave us a taste of the flat out. I think Monaco regularly gives us a taste of, you know, taking your time and being steady. I think a balance of the two creates an exciting Grand Prix. What do you think, Ben? I agree completely. I think ultimately having both is what we need.

I think certainly whenever a Grand Prix starts and you see that 17 of the 20 drivers are all on the same compound of tire, there's always a bit of a, okay, because you kind of know at that point, unless a safety car is going to come out at the right point where some of Pitt and some haven't, you've essentially got the same Grand Prix that's going to run for nearly all the drivers.

I mean, if we're just looking at the last race as an example, Abu Dhabi, nearly every driver was on a very similar strategy. There were a couple who tried the one-stop, but nearly everyone else was on the two-stop, and it was just a question of when they were going to come into the pits for the second time rather than if they were going to. And I think in terms of conservation, the main issue is, it relates to overtaking.

So Max Verstappen leads that Grand Prix. at the start. He was in full, full save mode throughout that first stint, right? The problem is, if he does that, and he knows the driver in second cannot overtake, even when he's in that mode, it then therefore makes sense for LeClaire in that instance in second, to also go into conservation mode. What's the point in a, if he attacks and he can't get by, what's the point in him being in that attack mode, because he's just going to waste his tires and he's not going to be able to compete at the end of the Grand Prix versus the drivers behind. So it's almost at that point you get the strategy of the first place driver, dictate

the strategy of the second place driver, and it just ends up being this domino effect where there's no point anyone going all out and pushing in that first st, because if they know they can't make the overtake happen anyway in this DRS train, which is, again, one of the reasons I don't like DRS fundamentally is because you do get these DRS trains, which actually don't incentivize. incentivize going flat out. In many respects, they incentivize everyone conserving, so because no one can get by one another because the advantage is completely neutralized to the point where everyone is on that same strategy and not going flat out. I think Abu Dhabi and Qatar, if you were to look at the two races separately, sorry, if you were to compare the two races, they are completely and utterly separate

from one another. There's just nothing that connects them in terms of one of them going, like you say, completely flat out. And then you see some of the fastest lap attempts early on in the Grand Prix for Abu Dhabi, and they are seconds and seconds off the pace of what they did in qualifying. And I think it's sometimes a shame. So I know we bang on about it all the time. But if you were to have something like a push-to-pass system in F1, then suddenly you open up these sorts of conversations a little bit more. So if you were to have a driver who wants to go flat out early on in the Grand Prix, they can use up a lot more of their allowance in order to do so, get the overtakes done, and suddenly they've got some clear air to work with so they can make that strategy

work. A lot of the time in modern F1, it's a case of I can't make the overtake happen in this DRS train. I'm just going to preserve my tyres for now. And then everyone does the same thing. Yeah, fair. And I think the tyres are a problem. And I think Pirelli understand that there's a problem. And I think they've come out and said this because in Australia, for example, they've already announced that the ties are going softer. They're lowering the compounds, right? And part of that was for warm up, which is, okay, interesting.

But it also means that tires will wear faster. So maybe we'll see some more adverse strategies. I know for the first two Grand Prix of the season, it's going to be exactly the same. But then again, Bahrain, as much as Saudi Arabia has its problems, Saudi Arabia, they do tend to create fun races generally. whereas Australia has had its problems. So maybe we'll see a changing how that works. But it's not just the tyres, like you said,

that promote this mix of slow versus fast racing, the ability to keep your tyres in a nice working condition versus using them all up to go for another pit stop and be as quick as possible. If cars can actively overtake and you know you can't just sit in front, then it creates jeopardy for you. Like you said, imagine if LeClaire starting on the soft tie was going to run two softs and a medium

and Verstappen could run a hard to a medium strategy, he knows I've got to either get away or I've got to let LeCler go and I've got to be hitting a certain lap time while he burns through his tires as fast as possible. It becomes a very tactical Grand Prix whilst we get the two versus one another. So make it happen.

You know, we've seen it happen. It should be a more common feature in races. Not every race will have it work perfectly, but we could definitely have it way more common than it is now. And systems like DRS do prevent that from being a more regular the point of view. I mean, what do you make of sort of, in terms of the tyres, at least, we know at the moment in dry races you need to use at least two of the three compounds that are available. Would using all three of them change anything, do you think? The concept of using all three

on not having to use any at all other than the ones you want could be a really interesting point of view. I think I've seen arguments for both and, you know, if you were to say there's no limitation whatsoever. So you can only use, you can use three sets of softs or two mediums or one set of hard if you want to. It's an interesting concept. I also think that the other side of having to use all three. The problem with that is all three becomes a little too predictable.

You get a guaranteed two stops every single Grand Prix. Yes. And I imagine that those very crafty engineers will probably sit there and go, well, we want to be on the soft tire until that life dies off. We want to be on the hard tire for as that it's possible. And the medium tire is probably the optimum rate. tire for most Grand Prix. And I wouldn't be surprised if actually a lot of the races play out the same way.

It's Formula One? I might be totally wrong, who knows? I like the idea that, again, it doesn't matter either way, whether you can use all compounds as many times as you want all three. You have to use two mandatories we have now. But more, as we've discussed, that the soft tyres are absolutely rapid and have just enough life to keep you going. The hard tyres are four or five seconds a lap slower, but can last for eternity.

And the mediums fit somewhere in between. But you have to get off them at some point during the race. So I do think that having a bigger difference in tyres is more crucial rather than having to mandatory use all of the tyres. What do you think? Yeah, I agree with what you say in terms of the difference between the tyres. I would say the soft compound of tyre and it does vary depending on where we go. I think it needs to be more than just a qualifying tire because in a lot of instances, there are strategies that essentially it's just the medium and the hard tire.

And either it's a one stop between them both or you use two sets of hards and one set of medium. So you can get one and two stops and three stops available. But so many times in a Grand Prix we see those soft tires either completely neglected or only utilized for the fastest lap attempt at the end of the Grand Prix, which I mean, we're essentially just wasting a compound at that point. So especially at races where it's like, well, after three laps, the soft tires just die. I don't think that's a good idea. but certainly if you were to create, if you were to say the soft tire at any given Grand Prix could comfortably do 15% of the race, maybe,

but when you get to 20%, it's starting to get a little bit risky or 25%. I think that's maybe the, I was going to say happy medium, but medium just complicates things, doesn't it? It will probably be the right solution versus the hard and the medium tire that could go a little bit longer.

But I think we need three viable tires every Grand Prix weekend. And we don't always get that at the moment. No, I do agree. It is a tricky situation. I do have some sympathy for Pirelli. It's very hard to nail this and to make it work in practice in their testing and then to actually bring it to fruition on a Grand Prix weekend as well. There's many other variables, such as temperature and setups of cars and surface.

It is hard unless you make a bespoke tire for every racetrack. And that's not going to happen in this era of trying to be green that we have Formula One. But they just have, as you said, there needs to be a system where the soft tire can run for at least kind of 10, 15 laps actively. And then it doesn't just drop off a cliff. It's semi-viable. But the median, for example, as I've already saying, is maybe two seconds a lap slower,

but can go for 30 laps. And the hard tire is four seconds of laps slower, but can go for 70 laps. It needs to be a more varied approach to strategy and tactical ability throughout a Grand Prix. And of course, at this point, we do need to do the customary mention of, if you think refueling is the answer. It's not. It's not. Not a fan of overtakes in the pits.

Sorry about it. Oh, God. I can't wait for someone to have a 19 second pit stop because they rang on three laps of qualifying fuel and then went, oh, I qualify on pole, and now I can't get round the track. No, thank you. I know there are people out there that think

that refueling is the right idea. And that's fair enough. Not for me, but fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. of course. Should we take our final break? Because on the other side, a bit of fact or crap.

Damn, that's a fact. What is it crap? Okay, here we go. There's no chance this would ever be in time. So I'll leave the jingle up to you specifically, Sam. But what are we playing? It's fact or crap. Fact or crap.

Fact or crap. Fact or crap. Fact or crap. Yeah! Are we doing ourselves a disservice by calling that a jingle? I mean, it works. It's just shouting, isn't it? Yeah, fair enough. Fact dog crap's a really simple game to get, folks,

because I'm going to say three statements, and it's up to myself and Sam to determine whether we think they are fact or whether we think they are crap. And, well, I've got a bit of help for the first one, in all honesty, because this one was actually raised as a question in our Instagram DMs, I believe. It was a few weeks ago. I think it's Rach, apologies if it's not, who suggested this as a topic. So I thought I'd raise this one.

And apologies if this is slightly worded different to how you put it. Alex Albon has done a better job at Williams than George Russell did. Fact or crap. Oh, I've just looked it up. It is Rachel. So Rachel, I hope this kind of answers a little bit of question. But maybe it leads to a bigger debate because it's a very good question. And I think that, I think it's a very difficult answer.

I'm going to say, I'm going to say crap, but it's like a minor crap. It's like a little crap. It's like a crap. No, come on. We can't get it to me. It's crap. Okay, I think it's crap because I have to sit at once. I'm not Harry.

I can't sit up a fence. And I think there's too many various. variables in this, you know, I think, I think Russell was early in his career, very early in his career. Alex Albin was not so. He had time to become a Formula One driver properly and learn the ropes and whatnot. The car, that car was, you know, Alba's had a tough time, but Russell's Williams was beyond dreadful. Golly it was bad. Oh, boy. I also think the standing of teammates that Russell went up against, well, you know, Cubitzer is a great driver, right? Even with his, you know, a fortune accident at how he was driving.

He's still a very good driver. I think Albon has had the better of the rub since he's been at Williams in that respect. But yeah, so I think crap, but there's no, you know, that's no disrespect in my mind. Alex Album has been absolutely phenomenal in what he's doing and he deserves all the praise.

Yeah, I know. It's something that we've discussed when it comes to Alex Alburn and Logan Sargent. Obviously, we debated that on our previous episode about whether it was the right idea to bring Logan Sargent along for another year. But it's almost like this has been a problem for Williams for a while and that they just can't, they can't get a line up with two good drivers at the same time because the exact same thing

happened for George Russell where you're right, Robert Kubitsa. Kubitsa was a great driver, but the key word there is was. He's not anymore and he wasn't in 2019 when he went up against Russell. Although Kubitsa did get the last laugh because technically he beat Russell that season. and Nicholas Latifi obviously similarly wasn't of an F1 standard. I am also saying, crap, I think George Russell did a slightly better job than Alex Albin has done, although Alex Albin, yeah, if we're looking at it from a pure points perspective and what they had available to them, sure, Alex Albin has done a better job because he's at the car.

But if we're looking at them individually and taking the car out of it, I am still just going to side with George Russell. But it's close. Yeah, it would be like saying, you know, cut down 100 trees in your career, George Russell had to do it with an axe. And then someone invented the chainsaw. And then when, well, Alex Albon is he doing a better job, well, he had better equipment that George Russell just didn't have access to. You know, in their own respects and their own time, they both have done a very good job.

I mean, what's the upgrade from a chainsaw? Because there's still places for Williams to go. What's next? Lasers. Lasers. Oh. just Logan's lasers. Oh, that's a brand.

If he fails in Formula One, he can go for one of those laser shooters that you used to go to, laser arcades. Yeah, yeah. A bit of laser tag with Logan Sargent. I love this. Oh, the Sargent as well. Sarg will be his name on the battlefield.

Perfect. Logan's lasers with Sargent. Oh, boy. Right. We do still have two other questions that I've got here, or two statements. Next one.

McLaren now have a top three driver line up, fact or crap? Oh, I'm going to say, fact. I think it just sneaks into facts, but this is, I think there are four lineups that you can argue put together, and that is obviously for Stapin-Perez, Hamwood and Russell, Sykes and LeClerc and Norris and Piascarat. Oh, yeah, sorry, how can I forget? They're so above that I don't really consider them.

Um, yes, clearly fine. And I think on their day that we've seen, oh, my issue is who do I take out of that top three? You've got to take one of them out if it's a fact. The debate for me is Red Bull had the Stappen, who on his own is by far the best driver. But Sergio Perez is, I think out of those eight drivers I've just mentioned, I actually think he's probably now the least, the least good because he's still incredibly. good out of the eight. That might be a little harsh and certainly. You know what?

No, I've taught myself out of it. Crap, only just because I need another season from Piastri. Okay. But again, it's a close one from your side. Bloody close. Bloody close. I mean, you're right. There are just four teams in this discussion from my point of view.

I don't think there's another driver lineup that could. Obviously, Alonzo's great, Astor Martin, but Stroll just is not good enough to be considered a top four. I'm also saying crap because I still do think McLaren are fourth in that lineup. I think whilst, I think, I think Lecleron signs are currently clear of Norris and Piastri. And I would say the same thing about the Mercedes duo with Red Bull. I would still put Perez clear of Piastri in all honesty. And I would need to see at least another season from Piastri before I would put him above Sergio Perez.

And obviously Vestappen is the best driver in the sport. So I'm going forth. but a very comfortable fourth. I don't think whoever's fifth, whether that's Aston Martin or Alpine, I guess. I still think is a fair way off the fourth place finish of McLaren there. Yeah, I agree. And the last one for today.

Charles LeClaire will be racing for Ferrari in 2025. As of right now, Sam, fact or crap? I'm going to say fact. we spoke about this a little while ago. I think he's such a true romantic. I think he's so in love with Marinello and the Tofosi and winning with Ferrari. I think Sebastian Betel had that dream as well. We saw that's why he moved from Red Bull to Ferrari.

And I think even if the drive came up, I don't, you know, for example, let's say Red Bull dropped everyone at the end of the next season. It went, Charles LeClaer. Here is an equal driver contractor, Max Verstappen. I really think he would have to have an internal debate with himself and I'm not certainly takes it. So for me, he stays at Ferrari. I don't think there's a guaranteed option that gets him what he wants in Formula One and I don't think that Red Bull will go for him.

So for me, yeah, it's a fact. He's still there. My answer is not fact. It is sci fact. Yeah, it'll be there, won't he? He'll be there. for better or worse, and it's probably worse, he will be there, free Lecler. Yeah, he loves that team, the team loves him.

He's winless in three or four seasons with them, which is just a really sad statistic. But yeah, I think he will be there. I don't know if anything else will open up for him. We know Red Bull have got a lot cooking at the moment in terms of their driver lineup for 2025 onwards. If Lewis Hamilton doesn't decide he wants to go anywhere, it's difficult to see them doing anything there. I feel like Norris at McLaren, he's been patient,

and this is like the best it's ever been for him at the team. And Oscar Piastri, I feel like they probably wouldn't have gone through all the trouble to get him away from Alpine just to ditch him after two years. So, Leclair, where does that leave him? well, it's probably Ferrari or Ferrari. So I'll go with fact. Free LeClauer merch is still available. That's a good segue into our goodbye messages, I guess, Sam.

It is, yeah. As I said, merch is available. Free LeClelemerch Pacific. And if you're a patron subscriber, you'll get a discount code that you can use. Still in time for Christmas, if you agree with now, if you want to give it as a little gift to yourself or to a loved one,

and it massively supports the show. So thank you to everyone that does that. Discourse is also available. Linked to the description. We're talking through loads of stuff across the winter break. We're here, loads of times, two episodes a week.

Patreon episodes get extra as well, be able breaking. Oh, I can do so much more. Late breaking, everyone on all social media. Give us a follow. The more you support us as an ecosystem of late breaking. The world of breaking. An ecosystem.

I love it. An ecosystem of late breaking. We are agreeing indeed. But the more you support us, the more content we can make for you. And that includes going on watching our stuff on YouTube, the yub tubs. We've got shorts on

there, TikTok's going as well, loads of different videos, full length, short length, medium length, much like Pirelli tyres. You never know which one's going to work well for you, but you need to give them all a try to find out. Thanks for your support. We're here for the whole winter break. We've got our review of our predictions coming up on Sunday's episode, and Mr. Harry Ead is flying back in from the far east after all of his deep tissue massages

have been completed. So I'm sure his hand will be sore. So I bet he can't wait to rub them together over a fire of failure. Anyway, I've enjoyed it in the meantime. I've been sending the stage. And I've been Ben Hocking. And remember, keep breaking late. Bye!

This podcast is part of the Sports Social Podcast Network.