The Late Braking F1 Podcast - Should Massa be awarded the 2008 title?!

Episode Date: April 9, 2023

No race this weekend but that doesn't stop Ben and Sam giving their opinions on what's going on in the world of F1! They discuss the potential for Felipe Massa to appeal the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix (yes, that's 2008!), Ferrari's review of Carlos Sainz's penalty at the Australian Grand Prix, and whether sprint race weekends are in for a shakeup! SUPPORT our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/latebraking JOIN our Discord: https://discord.gg/dQJdu2SbAm JOIN our F1 Fantasy League: https://fantasy.formula1.com/en/leagues/join/C3CCEW8P704 TWEET us @LBraking BUY our merch: https://late-braking-f1-podcast.creator-spring.com/ 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's Age and me, Ben Hocking. I almost said Harry Ead there, but he's not here today. Non-race weekend and he decides... Oh, are we shocked? I'm off. Can't be bothered with this.

I almost feel like there's a phrase we could call him Yeah, late breaking small or late breaking not heavy The free version of late break. How about late breaking light? Oh, I've heard that one before. Exquisite name. A bit of a good news, bad news thing here. The good news is I'm editing it

so he can't actually edit that out or put, you know, post record, put something in there. The bad news is I'm editing it So, you know, it might never actually see the light of day Harry loves a sneaky post-edit Dropping, doesn't he? When I got beef submission wrong After the Melbourne Grand Prix, he roasted me without even my consent on the show

But I guess we love him dearly. I think he's off traversing the world of old school Ferrari, isn't he? Yeah, Milan. Maybe he's just gathering up his history knowledge. He's going to honestly, the midweek episode next week, he's going to shock us with all of his newfound knowledge. It'll do the whole showing Italian, I imagine. Well, stay tuned for that one, folks, but we do have an episode coming up today.

On today's episode, Ferrari, challenging Carlos Seinfant's penalty from the Australian Grand Prix, our reaction to that. More on Ferrari, as they say that Red Bull's form shows that the cost cap penalty has been too light. More on that later on. Should F1 go ahead with a new sprint race weekend format? But firstly, I don't know if anyone had this on their bingo charts for 2023. But here we are. A former driver's championship is being called into question.

And for once, it isn't 2021. We're looking at 2008 as Felipe Massa is reviewing legal options for the 2008 title. Now, I think a bit of context is probably necessary here. So apologies for those of you that do know the whole story. Massa lost the 2008 Formula One Drivers Championship, thanks to a last lap overtake at the Brazilian Grand Prix by Lewis Hamilton. So it was Hamilton's first championship that year by just one point. Massa has looked into action due to recent comments from Bernie Ecclestone

on the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. If you're unaware, Fernando Alonzo then of Renault won the race, but only due to his teammate Nelson P.K. Jr. intentionally crashing his car on orders from his team. That triggered a safety car and then paved the way for the Alonzo win. Details of this only emerged the following season after P.K. had left the team. Massa at the time appealed the existence of the race, a race where he finished outside of the points and Lewis Hamilton was on the podium, i.e. race doesn't exist. Massa wins the title. but his appeal was disregarded due to it being a season after it happened. Ecclestone's recent comments, though, indicate that he and the FIA actually knew about what has become known as Crashgate in 2008, the season when it happened, hence why Massa is now resurfacing this. Sam, what should happen? What do you think does happen? Crikey, it's like someone, I've got all George Russell on you.

It's like someone has created an actual Formula One drama. You know, they've sat down and gone, what event happened in history that was already quite dramatic at the time? And then gone, how do we turn this into almost like a sitcom? It wouldn't be a comedy. No comedy involved, especially for poor old massa. It's quite a lot to deal with. And if you're a new Formula One fan,

and maybe, you know, you've been watching Drive to Survive, maybe you've been here for a couple of seasons, and you haven't maybe gone back and done your old school research yet and watched through the history and the archives and picked up on some of the great seasons of F1. And let me tell you, 2008, a very good season in Formula One. You should definitely go back and do some watching of it.

It was good, good fun. The famous expression, is that Glock, comes from the final corner of the Brazilian Grand Prix on the final race. So it's a very famous moment in Formula One. Go give it a watch the whole season, if you can. But if you're Felipe Massa right now, it must be really confusing.

It must be really emotionally difficult to understand what's going on. Because, okay, you lose the title by one point. So folks, imagine that, right? the sport that you have trained for, loved, giving up everything, blood, sweat and tears, to be the best of. And Massa got essentially one shot at being world champion. That was the one year where he was pretty much at the very, very top of his game,

and the car was still there to support him. And Lewis Hamilton beats him by one point. And not only that, remember, there's a unfortunate instinct during the season that means that you finish outside the points. Lewis Hamilton gets a podium. Now, let's also paraphrase all of this for the fact that none of this is Hamilton's fault either. He had no saying anything that went on. He was just in the right place at the right time to benefit.

He orchestrated it. That's it. He's a little fiend. No, yeah, he absolutely go part in it. It's obviously very frustrating. I imagine for Lewis Hamilton to have to sit here and go, well, now my title was being questioned, but I had nothing to do with it.

So if you're Massa, you find out a season later that the result is essentially bogus. You know, it's a kind of a lie. It's been manipulating in some way, not by you, but by another team. And then you find out later on into the future that everyone who was important in that scenario at that moment knew about this weird crash gate conspiracy well before you did or the public did or the news outlets did and you were told you were not allowed to protest to this decision. Really dodgy. Really, really uncomfortably dodgy.

And you know what? It reeks of old school FIA. A little bit of gorting us, a little bit of behind. closed doors, you know, we will sit on our hands a little bit. It rings of classic old school FAA. Remember that you might listen to it, the historic story I dig about Senga and Prosc, when they were FISA back then, and there were, you know, the issues of, there's a French person on the head of the FISA board.

Prostk started getting decisions going his way. There were a lot of moments where you could almost raise some eyebrows. I go, okay, it's not guaranteed. Look, it feels a bit weird. This is another one of those moments. Philippine Massa has every right to go, can we have a look into this? because it's the sporting thing that he loves. He gave up so much for this.

But at the same time, and I'm not for Lepo Masser, I'm not going through this turmoil of picking up a world championship, post-mortem, affectionately, you know, after the death of the championship. But also why? Why bother?

Why put yourself through it, mate? Do you want to win this title by having a legal battle fight over for you, what, 15 years later, and go, Massa, yeah, you actually did win that title. No, I'm all remember it. it. No one will care about it. No one of the things. Lewis Hamilton will still probably be called a seven-time world champion

by everybody. It's one of those things that maybe for him, the result brings a lot of closure. But I think it's the same. Louis Hamilton has quoted this. I think he said, before this came out, I wouldn't go back and challenge the decision of the 2021 championship because that isn't how I want to win a championship. That decision has been done. It hurt. It was upsetting. But I want to move on now. It's happened. I don't want to win a title in a courtroom. You know, that's got how I want to do it. So I'm surprised that Massa maybe isn't thinking the same way. They'll be very interesting to hear what you think about the controversy

that this is staring up in the World of Formula One. Yeah, because Singapore, 08, as you already mentioned, at the time, and still is, it's one of the more, I think, one of the more sad, most recent episodes in F1 history, really. And this just adds to it. Yeah. Regardless of what the outcome is, regardless of whether they give him his title or whether nothing happens from this, the fact that this is being really,

surfaced at all. It just adds to the whole, the whole sadness of the episode, really. You've got Renault and you've got Briatore and Simmons quite specifically come out of this really badly, of course, and they were banned as a result, and this was a horrible incident for the team.

And now we're questioning, actually, does this go even further? Not to say that the FIA were ever in on it, but the FIA could be another guilty party in terms of they could have done more at the time if they did have that knowledge in 08, which at the time, you know, it was supposedly believed that they didn't catch wind of it until it came out in 2009. So it's almost, is there another party here that doesn't look very good coming out of this? For me, though, as much as Felipe Massa can feel and probably,

and definitely does feel disappointed by this, I feel like the aggrieved party here is actually Formula One as a sport rather than Massa as an individual. You know, Massa can argue that, just to give a bit more context on the race, Massa was, was he leading? He was doing all right. He was higher up and Ferrari and Ferrari in the price. Yeah, and Ferrari in typical Ferrari style botched a pit stop on that safety car. So Massa can claim, well, if the safety car is needed, Ferrari don't mess up

that pit stop. And if they don't miss up that pit stop, Massa wins the title. But the game of what if is a really dangerous one, because then you can apply it to so many situations. So I don't feel like you can go too far down that rabbit hole without getting a bit dangerous. The answer, surely wouldn't be to invalidate the race. It would be to disqualify the Renault from it, in which case Massa still doesn't win the title. In fact, it goes the other way. You know, Hamilton gets the win by three points or however many it would be rather than one point. So it's not, disqualifying the Renault specifically from the Grand Prix doesn't make a difference. And unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't been any incidents really where a whole race has just been invalidated.

if you think back to, as an example, 1984, Teryl that year, so Martin Brondo and Stefan Belfl, they raced for about two-thirds of the season, I think, at which point the FIA disqualified them from the entire season. Every single race of theirs, they had a disqualification against their name. They didn't invalidate all the race. If they invalidated all the races that TIRL were part of in that season, they'd have only been left with about five Grand Prix. But they didn't do that. They just disqualified Tyrell, which is surely what you would do here, which is just disqualified Renault and Fernando Alonzo more specifically,

because of course, P.K was already out of the Grand Prix. I do feel for Felipe Massa. I do feel for him, but it really feels to me like this is reverse engineering. It feels like Massa wants to win the title, and he's working backwards from that. It's like, I want this result. How can I get there. Let's look at Singapore 08. Okay, let's disqualify Renault. Hang on. No, that doesn't give us the title. Okay, let's throw out the whole race then. Oh, that does give us the title. Let's go with that. And I feel like that's not the way it should work. It should work the other way forward rather than backwards. It's like a prosecutor having a 10-year prison sentence in mind and finding a crime to fit that sentence rather than the other way around of investigating the crime

and then laying down the penalty after that, which is the way it should be. I do feel sorry for Massa here, but I don't expect anything to change. A more recent example of that as well would be obviously when McClare and the team had all their points removed for the season, right? Because they obviously were caught under the investigation of essentially spying, spy gate and using illegal information, which was confidential. Yeah, all the same thing. Well, let's open all the gates, folks.

Keep walking through. But of course, if you've done that, the whole season, in theory, we're going to be voided. And we would have not had a, what was it, 2007 season from the whole, the whole Grand Prix, which has been wiped off the field of Formula One. It doesn't work like that, which, again, I think both of us are very sympathetic towards Folli Payne Massa. I can see why he's upset. I can see why he feels let down by the sport that he loved and put so much working to.

And it isn't good enough from the FIA. It's a real letdown of trust, again, from a sporting body. It's almost the level of the other one in the world, of course, that seems to be doing this a lot, is FIFA. You know, globally, they're getting a lot of comments throwing at them, a lot of corruption comments throwing at them. You look at what happened in Qatar for the World Cup. And it seems like maybe while it's not going to that extent,

it's not looking good for the FIA to keep continuously having these decisions where, oh, we maybe held this a little bit too long, or we sat on our hands, or we discussed this behind closed doors and didn't let anyone know about it until a few races later where nothing could really be changed. But Ben, I think you're right.

The decision that comes out of this at the end of the day is you don't disqualify everyone. That doesn't make any sense. You simply just disqualify the criminal party, the ones that were at fault for what they did, which only affected themselves within the team.

And you only have to look at what Nelson P.K. Jr. said after he, after it became knowledgeable, knowledge that, you know, this was what was going to happen. that he was so upset with everyone involved. He was furious with what the team had decided, and it essentially ruined his Formula One career because he was very early in his career, and I'm not saying he was going to go on

to be the next multiple-time world champion, but no one would touch her with a barge pole, no one trusted him. So, you know, it's a way to kill a career for something. I forgot how long so. Look at him now. He's up there getting podiums, left, right and centre. And he was part of the reason this was orchestrated.

So why, whilst several key members of, the Renault team were banned from Formula One for life, Fland Oaksa is still racing around Scott Free. He's still picking up podiums. He still gets sponsorship deals. He's still picking up accolades, at the Friday Centre. On this podcast alone, we still talk about him

very favourably and give him a lot of love. So, you know, maybe more punishment should have been given to the overall Renault team, but the decision to just scrap the whole race to me does not make sense. It's not logical and feels very unfair on a lot of other people involved. It's also not Renault's fault that Ferrari can't do a pit stop without mucking it up. That is Ferrari's fault. And have they got that pit stop correct?

Then there is every chance that Massa would have some more points on the board. You don't know that. But you can't blame that one. Ben, you're right. The what ifs count back. It's just a silly game to play. We'll all end up in a fourth world war, but 153 years ago, if you go back down what ifs. It won't go well for anyone. So for me, Massa doesn't get the title. The FIA may be easy to have a third party, investigate some dealings that they do just to make sure that we're clean and everyone's okay and then it's the right way to do things and I guess Hamilton can I'm sure he was can rest happy in the knowledge that he'll keep the seventh world title or the first of the seven that he picked up all those years ago. You can understand why Mass is fighting this so hard just based on how how Hamilton and Mass's

respective careers went after that Grand Prix. It's insane that those two so close for the entire season one point in it at the end. And from that point onwards, Lewis Hamilton has won another six championships and become one of the greatest of all time. And Felipe Massa, whilst he was in Formula One for almost another 10 years after that Grand Prix, never won another race. I still think it's mad that that Brazilian Grand Prix was the last race he won. It just shows the complete con. Who would have fought at that point in time? I know Hamilton's younger than Massa, so there was always going to be a little bit of this. But who would have fought at the time

that one of the two drivers in that championship fight would go on to match Schumacher's record and the other would never win another Grand Prix? It's insane. How often do you hear that where, yeah, a potential world champion and one point away from it,

you know, there have been people who have gone further away from winging a title but have had more successful careers after go on to get nothing, absolutely nothing. And Massa was a talent. I'm not saying he was the world's greatest,

but he was a real talent behind a racing wheel, you know. He's a great. guy to follow throughout Formula One. Always very nice. Good chap. We don't know how much the spring incident in Hungary 09

actually impacted his career after that point. But it's just very interesting. By the way, with the FIA, I wouldn't expect much to come from this because the FIA probably don't have any reason to delve any deeper into this in the... I know no one, or very few people working there would have been there 15 years ago, but they're probably not going to investigate this too much to, because they're just risking reputational damage.

And also, if they let anything happen here, it opens the door for 2021. It opens the door for, dare I say, 1994. It opens the door for Senna Prost that you've already, Senna Pross, you've already mentioned that. Does that open the door to that? Like, they don't want to start this off. So I can't see them pursuing this in any way. Also, one last mention. The source here is Bernie Ecclestone. Realistically, there's only two people who are going to be in the know enough about this. One of them is Bernie Ecclestone. The other is Max Mosley, who sadly passed away.

And of the two, I trust Max Mosley's word a bit more than Bernie Ecclestone. And I mean, he's no longer with us. That should tell you how much I trust Bernie Ecclestone's words. I had to do some... When this topic came up, I had to do some research, because the first thing I heard was mass are challenging the O.A. decision based on Bernie Eccleston's words. And I thought, wait,

does Felipe Massa still, like, talk to Bernie Eccleston? Like, has this come out in a private conversation? And I'm like, oh, wait, no, okay, it's come out from different channels. Yeah, best mate, sit together all the time. But I was like, still, mate, you might already get yourself another couple of sources because he's not the most respected individual,

especially in the world of motorsport anymore. Got a bag rep. All right, we're going to take a short break. On the other side, we'll be talking about sprint races. Joy of joys. Okay, despite the fact that it is another three years until the next Grand Prix in Baku, we do know that it will be a sprint race weekend, the first one of six in 2023. However, there have been some questions about what exact format the weekend will take.

So traditionally, we've had sprint, we've had, how do you even describe all of these? You've got the sprint race qualifying on Friday. you've then got a free practice session in between that and the sprint race, and then you've got the actual race on the Sunday. That's traditionally how the weekend has gone. However, according to Gunter-Steiner and a few others, there is the potential that this might change to something like this, where Friday we have one free practice session and only one free practice session

before we go into spring quality. We then have another qualifying session on the Saturday morning for the race on Sunday, We then have the sprint race that was set by the grid on the Friday and the Saturday afternoon. And then on Sunday we get the actual race. Is everyone following? Sam, what do you make of this? Do you think this would be a wise shift? Oh, it makes me want to pull my eye sockets out of my head.

It's so horrendous. It's like making a mistake on a piece of paper, but you haven't made it with a pencil so you can rub it out. You've made it with a fountain pen. So there's ink already all over the pages. So instead of having to be able to rub it out, you've had to draw around the stuff you've already done to somehow make it all fit together and you can't get rid of the mistake you made previously.

This is a mess. Oh, it's a mess. The idea of the sprint races was to be more entertaining and create more action for people attending the Grand Prix in person, which again, in theory, I am all for. It makes total sense to give people more fun. Yeah, who doesn't like more fun? And the second thing was to make it more.

entertaining for people who are new to the sport, right? So those coming in from Drive to Survive or maybe picked up Formula One in the last season or so, want to see a bit more actual racing and maybe still learning the sport. Okay. In theory, not a problem. But it was already done in a confusing manner anyway with pole being sprint race pole and then sprint race being baby pole, but not actual baby pole, but it was the race pole. And it was a bit confusing anyway.

And it took morons like us on this podcast, almost deciphering. it and put it together and now we all, you know, generally have an understanding of it. But now you're going to mess with it again. The order was already a bit higgledy-piggledy with that practice in the middle. And the race weekend, it was almost like making a cheese burger, where you have the bun, and then you've got the cheese with the burger underneath it, with, like, some pickles and some onions, and then another burger underneath them the bun. But now you're kind of putting a burger on top of the bread and having the pickles

underneath where your hand sits, and it all just gets a bit gooey and messy. And no one wants you to eat a burger that way. That's not how you eat your burger. It's horrible. Pickly hands. Hashtag Pickley Hands. Hashtag Pickley Hands. That's not how anyone is hashtag. Thank you. Flucenders, hashtag Pickley Hands. Also, shout out to everyone who's commenting our latest YouTube video, Eat Your Jelly. You're smashing it. Great job.

Mike just released a video of me on social media. You say a shout out to anyone who's done that. Literally the only comments on there are about jelly. There's nothing else. You've done a great job, folks. You've made me proud. Anyway, back to sprint races. This isn't the way to do it, Steph. This is not the way to put your race weekend together. And I think the most baffling part of the sprint race conversation is that you quite literally have the perfect version and example of how sprint race weekends should work in Formula 2. It works.

People understand it. It's entertaining. It makes sense. And it fits a normal race weekend. You don't need to have separate qualifying sessions. You don't need to have weird. confusing orders of the weekend. We're essentially having two Grand Prix weekends

or one Grand Prix weekend in your way of explaining things. Have the qualifying on the Saturday morning or late morning, early afternoon, then have the sprint race, but with reverse grid. So, for example, Max Verstappen qualifies pole all the way down to, I don't know, Holkerberg getting 10th place.

For the sprint race, Holkerberg will start on pole. Maxelstappen will start 10th. That's exciting. That's going to be fun. and then for the normal race, ignore the sprint race completely and have the original qualifying grid as laid out. That's all you need to do. And I'm not saying that sprint races are an ideal fix. I'm not saying that this sorts them completely. I'm not saying it makes them a brilliant feature, but it's a darn sight better than what you're proposing, Stefano, and what we've already got

at this current moment. Stop over-complicating things. If you want to make something simple and easy to enjoy, you know how you do that, Stefano? Stop doing extra things to make it where people don't understand, you know? If a wall is white, don't try and call it an amalgamation of every other colour while light is blinding you, it's reflecting all colours. Just call it white. Simple as that, really, ain't it? Sifano, you're making a mess of things. Go with a simpler option. I promise you, it'll work. Yeah, that has to be a consideration here for newer fans, because, like you say, if the likes of us who, I'm not going to blow our own trumpet too much, but we have been F1's fans for quite a long time. So I think we're possibly understand some of these things quicker

than others who are newer to the sport. But if you're new to the sport, especially if it's like your first Grand Prix and you're having to ask the question, what are they qualifying for here, this race or that race? Okay, does that race impact that race? Okay, what's the point system on that race compared to this? Do they get points for qualifying? Do they get, it gets very confusing very quickly. whereas obviously the traditional format is far easier to say, what are they doing at the moment? They're practicing. What are they practicing for? They're practicing for qualifying on Saturday, which will set the grid for Sunday.

That's your explanation. Doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. So there is a consideration here. Definitely understand that. The thing is, there is a dollar of irony here. As you say, Sam, they've essentially, if they do go ahead with this, they've essentially come to the conclusion that two separate ones, Grand Prix on a weekend is the way to go. So what they had initially was a Grand Prix weekend.

And they thought, hmm, let's try something with this format, see if we can get something better. And the result is exactly what they had in the first place, just doubled. One of them might be a shorter race weekend. Sure. I mean, one of them might be a shorter Grand Prix, but it's the same way of approaching it. They are completely independent from one another at this point. So they have just accepted that what they had in the first place is exactly what they should have.

Come on. I don't like the idea of messing with the format during the season. I think anything that isn't safety-related should be sorted before the season after the season in that winter break. I don't think that you should be messing with the format at all,

even though there haven't been any spring races yet whilst we're in the season. I don't like that whatsoever. having said that, if you're giving me the choice here between the way that it is at the moment versus the way that it's proposed here, I'm probably going with this option, the one that's being proposed here, just because it does eliminate some of the things I really hate about a sprint race weekend. Don't get me wrong. If I have the option, I'm not having sprint races whatsoever, but if I have to be between the two, I am picking this proposed option because

I've never really liked that the Saturday practice session is completely pointless. You know, they're in part Fermi. There's just no point in having that practice session whatsoever. So if you're replacing that, then great. That makes sense. And also, we know that thanks to the way that the sprint races work at the moment, these better teams that have a poor qualifying, as in a Friday qualifying, they have more time to get their positions back.

It's essentially one race, the old format, is essentially one race, but it's 125% of a normal race rather than 100% with a mandatory standing start after the first 25%. That's basically what it is, just separated by a day. It's one big race put into two chunks. So it just allows the likes of any Red Bull or Ferrari or Mercedes that doesn't qualify very well to get back with more time to do so. Here, in this proposed format, you don't have that. If you have a poor qualifying for the sprint race, you're going to really struggle to get that back for the sprint race. But then if you qualify well for the other Grand Prix,

you're all right for that Grand Prix. I actually like the independence of it versus what we had previously. Again, I kind of wish we just didn't have to deal with this whatsoever. But if there are the two options available, yeah, I'll go with this option. and get rid of that stupid FP2. The only thing I would say, actually... I was just going to say,

before you move on to the Young Ex, probably brilliant point, and you brought up a good point a minute ago was we haven't even had a sprint race Grand Prix yet this weekend, and yet it's already global Formula One news that we're having to talk about changing the format and changing the understanding

of what a sprint race is and how it's working. And you've got people like Max Verstappen going, if you keep messing with it, I'm probably not going to be here very long because I'm not really enjoying this anymore. And yet they're missing with something that hasn't even had a run through yet of this season. It's really bizarre the way they're dealing with it. Like, you've got a massive winter break.

We've got a large summer break. You can have those conversations in those periods. I'm really surprised of how much of a change they are considering before we've even had a running example of the current series. Sorry to interrupt you, Ben. Go on. It was actually going to be a very quick point to what you said in terms of the cheeseburger analogy, which is another brilliant one. I don't understand why they don't just switch in this proposed format,

the two Saturday sessions around and why they don't just do the sprint race Saturday morning. At that point, the sprint race is closed off, and then you've got normal qualifying Saturday afternoon that goes into the race on Sunday. It just makes it a bit cleaner, I think, for people following. At the moment, you're right. You're getting one qualifying and then another qualifying,

and then the race, and then the race. You're going to get situations where you're sitting, down for the sprint race on a Saturday afternoon and someone starts fifth and you're, why are they fifth? They qualified 12th this morning. They qualified 5th yesterday, which is why they're 5th today. And then you're going to get to the next day and be like, why are they 12? Oh, no, they did actually qualify 12. It was 5th. They started yesterday. So I just switched those two sessions around. Yeah. Simplicity is key here, folks. And again, I hark back to it, but Formula 2 with sprint races does already have a pretty well-established formula that works in keeping them both separate, yet linked

at the same time in a completely understandable fashion without over-complicating a race weekend. So, you know, I also then your system of putting the sprint race on Saturday morning and the sprint qualifying on Friday afternoon. Also fine. I would rather not, but out of the, if we're going on living on what I'm bringing up here, that is the better of the two solutions. The only thing from a Formula 2 perspective, it depends on how you rate reverse grids, right. I don't like reverse grids in Formula One, so I'm never going to advocate that as an approach.

But if you do like reverse grids, you're right, it does work in Formula 2. For me, I actually appreciate it in Formula 2 because I want to see those drivers on the road to Formula 1 have to display their skills by overtaking and starting in the middle of the pack and, I don't know, showing a wider breadth of skills. In Formula 1, I don't like it so much. And I'd rather it be just based on merit. But you're right. It's a system that works. works in F2 for sure. All right. I think I've done all right there. My blood pressure is not too bad. Well, hang on, hang on. That's because that was only the starter course. We're about to get on to the main course later on into the podcast. And I imagine you're going to absolutely lose yourself, I think. Oh, yeah. As if I am Eminem himself, I am going to absolutely lose myself.

It's the penalty talk later wrong. You're going to break down. We've got back-to-back Ferrari topics coming up after this break. I am absolutely petrified. Okay, the first of a double bill of Ferrari here. Firstly, we're going to talk about their comments on Red Bull and the cost cap penalty that was applied last year. So if you've been paying any attention to Formula One in 2023, you'll know that Red Bull have started pretty well. They've been all right of the F1, haven't they? So that's that. But Ferrari, looking at that form seem to think that the cost cap penalty didn't go far enough last year based on the form

they're showing this year. What do you think, Sam? Do you think Big Freddy Vass has got a point here? Oh, Big Freddy Vass. Wicked, Wicked Jungle is vassive, as Ben once said. Maybe the best thing you've ever said. I did say that. Wow. Yeah. Also, I'm getting a heart back right back to the start of the show because, Ben, when you're running through our race schedule to the listeners, you kind of said, oh, you know, we're going to be a discussing Carlos Sikes debating the penalty, and then you went, morong, Ferrari, and it sounded like you went, morong, Ferrari, you know, as in like, Ferrari, you're morons. And I just thought that is so fitting that you've said that. Intentional. Yeah.

Anyway, let's talk about the cost cap, because we all love a good cost cap chat. That always makes us so happy. I mean, in theory, Ferrari coming out and saying it hasn't had enough of an impact, you've got to look at it from two sides. firstly, how long does it take for, you know, windtangle time, for costings to come into effect under the cost cap and how they're spent across the year? Now, we discussed this at the end of last year when the penalty was actually given, when Red Bull got given this reduction in cost cap time, wind tunnel time rather under the cost cap. We said that actually you probably won't see a deduction in Red Bull form up until maybe halfway through the season, two thirds into the season.

Because at the start of the season, they will in theory have the same amount of, time as everyone else because it's a percentage of time given to each team. Every team is going to start with the same amount of hours. It's only until you get towards the end towards three quarters of the season that they'll have run out of hours before everyone else, basically. Now, that means that in theory, this cost cap penalty, the reduction in wind tunnel time, is going to have more effect next year's car than this year's car, because most teams who are leading the way will be developing their new car towards the back end of the season.

So let's say from September through to December, they will have probably started already putting work into the 2024 car. Now, Ferrari, as much as we like to, you know, give them a little bit of stick about what they do and don't understand, they know that's the case. They'll be doing exactly the same thing. They will get to maybe after the summer break and evaluate the current season and go, are we neck on neck with points for a championship? No. Right. So we shouldn't be focusing any more aerodynamic time, really, on this current car unless there is something massive to lose. will plug it all into the new car to try and get a head start.

And they know Red Bull are doing exactly the same thing, especially the fact that they picked up a hat trick of victories at the start of this season for the first time ever. But Ferrari are kind of actually being relatively clever with this. While they know that the wind tunnel time isn't meant to affect this current car, really, they know that they want to jump on this while it's hot, while the issue is hot. You know, they're going to strike now.

And that makes sense. Shoot down Red Bull while they are clearly in such a dominant form that they have an argument to show that the penalty given and they know they'll get the crowd consensus, they'll get the social media consensus, they'll get the Formula One community's agreement behind them to go, well, they broke the rules. And the rules have the rules that you put in place

and the penalty that you put in place, FIA, hasn't affected them. Look at them. They've had the most successful start to a season they have ever had at this point, but they were meant to be penalized. They were meant to be not as good and they're not. Now it's very clever to bring it up now instead of waiting for, I don't know, the summer break or for waiting for November when the season's coming to a close.

Where minds won't necessarily on that. People have moved on to think about the new season if championships are wrapped up. Now is a good time to get on with it. We've got a month break. And if they're going to get anything, I don't know if they're even going to get anything overturned or applied or increased. It feels very unlikely. But they've got every right to stand up and go, in future, we're not breaking that cost cap. but we think Rebel have done it once already, they could do it again,

or a potential other challenger could do it to us. Mercedes, now asking Martin, you never know who's going to be up there. They might break the cost cap agreement. And if that happens, we want to make sure that that penalty is more severe. And we want a public agreement from the FAA, wherever it might be, that actually the punishment wasn't enough. So if this happens again, we will do more to punish the team that's broken the rules. I think that is what they're trying to get at.

So I think actually politically, they've played this quite fair. Quite cleverly, because internally they know the benefit doesn't come until later on in the year, or even maybe the start of next year we might see a drop in Red Bull form. But they've jumped in right now as early as they can do. And I think it's quite well played. Ben, what do you think about the matter? I'm very much agree. Ferrari know exactly what they're doing here. Everyone in the know was aware that this 10% reduction from 70% of wind tunnel time to 63%, which a 10% of 70 is 7.

So it sounds weird. It's either a 7% drop or a 10% drop, depending on what you're using. But they knew that it wouldn't take, it would be later in this season and next season that the biggest impact would be had, not early on in this year. Everyone knows that, including Ferrari.

Ferrari absolutely know what they're doing here. And you're right. They're saying this sort of thing because the timing makes sense. And you're right, that everyone is going to be on their side because pretty much no one, there is some exceptions, but pretty much no one wants to see one team dominating in Formula One. And that's what we're getting at the moment.

So they know they have the, let's call it the sympathy vote, because that's what it really is, that they're appealing to the fan base here, which I understand it completely. I can't hate it. I understand it. for the record, just in terms of the penalty that was applied, my own personal view that I gave on the show last year, was that they should have been stripped of both titles last year. That was my opinion. But my opinion on what the penalty should have been

was based on the season that existed, like the season that it was in. Whereas the FIA obviously went with a much lighter penalty, but not only did they go with a lighter penalty, they decided to penalise based on the future, rather than on the present, which is why they've had the reduction in wind tunnel time. It is to an extent because the fine that they were given,

was it $7 million in the end, the fine that Red Bull were given, that's not being considered when it comes to future cost cap, including this season. So they only to an extent punish them for the future, but certainly in terms of the wind tunnel time they did. But the reality is, I think they've just done a better job. I think Red Bull have just done a better job.

And in fairness, Ferrari do, and Freddie Vassad, they do acknowledge this in the same quote. They do say that Red Bull have done a great job with the car. But I think that's predominantly what's happening here. Can we honestly say if there was a 20% reduction rather than a 10% reduction, I think Red Bull would still be ahead. They would need a lot of penalising to put them back to where Ferrari and Asthmartin and Mercedes they are that far clear at the moment in terms of race pace. So how do you possibly play it? You can't effectively judge performance and say the penalty isn't right just based on the

result because at that point, what happens if the penalty is 20% and Red Bull are still winning? Do you then say, well, the penalty still isn't harsh enough. We have to make it 30%. Because at that point, you're just applying the penalty based on the result, similar to how we discuss actual racing incidents on the track. you say, okay, how far does the penalty have to go before it impacts them? Or is it just, yes, the penalty is being taken into consideration, but the team is doing such an incredible job to get them where they are, that it's being offset by that.

It's a really difficult one. I don't think anything happens from this, by the way. I think it stays in place. But I don't think you can just look at the Red Bull result and say, well, the cost cap penalty isn't harsh enough for two reasons. Firstly, the one you mentioned, Sam, that it's probably not going to take into account that much yet. And also because you can't just look at a result and say that's the result of a penalty 100%. Do you, are you mentioned in your, your good argument there, that you would have stripped Red Bull of both their titles.

And let's say that's off the cards. You clearly have the opinion that the penalty that was given to Red Bull was too lenient. They got away with it a little bit, I think is kind of where your thought process is. What would you say to something like, well, they should have started. I think they can overturn this. Because in football, for example, if you're caught breaking the financial fair play, which is their version of cost cap,

you tend to either start with a, the next season with a points reduction, and almost like a transfer ban, right? You're not allowed to any more players or anything like that. How would you feel if Ferrari were, sorry, Ferrari, sorry, Ferrari, you've had enough trouble off me, if Red Bull were giving a points deduction at the start of the season, let's say they start on negative 50 points,

and they were only told that their cost cap was only allowed to be 110 million, 20 million less than everyone else. No changing windmill on time. They can use all their facilities as they can, but everything else has been reduced to that manner. How would you feel that would scan as a fair penalty? Maybe for a future infringement if this were to happen again. Yeah, if the stripping of the championships is off the table,

then something along those lines, I think, would make sense. Certainly the one thing that was most confusing to me was that there was a fine applied, but that fine wasn't a part of the future cost cap. That didn't make any sense to you whatsoever. And I'd definitely put something in place where the amount that you're over the cost cap penalty, you multiply that by a certain number.

I don't know what that number would be. You multiply that by a certain number, and then that is taken away from you. I'd probably say for the next two seasons, rather than just the next one season. Because ultimately this needs to be a deterrent, right? it needs to be a not necessarily a recurring penalty.

You want the penalty to be so harsh that people don't want to do it again. Like, it can't be worth it to them. If you were to ask Red Bull at this point, was it worth it breaking the Costco penalty last year based on what they won and based on how they're doing right now? You think the answer is anything but yes?

Like the answer is like, yes, give me that now. Like, absolutely, what have we lost? We want a champion, we want two championships and we're looking good for another one this year. We've really been penalised. Thanks, FIA. Yeah, I don't think there's any... A points reduction is tough because trying to find what that number is is really difficult, which is why I think it's far safer to penalising the season that you're having an incident.

But certainly when it comes to a cost cap penalty, you can actually use the numbers that you've gone over to determine what that reduction is, which feels more mathematical and a bit safer to do. I mean, yeah, it's very much in Red Bull's terms, to put it in layman's terms, they took 10 steps forward, and then at the end of the season, they were asked by the FAA to only take one step back.

Well, on aggregate, they're already nine steps ahead of everyone else at that point. And if you're on a boardroom behind closed doors, you're going, I'll take nine steps again. That punishment wasn't bad enough. Let's take another nine steps and see where it lands us. I'm sure Mercedes, Ferrari, Austin Martin, maybe,

and looking at that and going, would we take another 10% of reduction with a 7 million fine, whatever it was, to get back on level terms? I'll spend an extra 10 million over the budget to get back up to that point because to me,

if you're a billionaire, which, you know, the likes of Mercedes, Toto Wolf now accrediting as a billion dollar values, would you not go 10 million and then a 7 million fine? That's pennies.

That is pennies to us. Let's spend it. Let's get back on time. And at that point, the cost cap becomes a laughing stock. It becomes a joke within the sport. So I don't think the penalty was severe enough, but Red Bull are doing a very, very good job at maximising what they have bought themselves, essentially.

So well done to them. It's a shame that the FIA didn't hammer down when the iron was hot. I'll tell you what, when the sad day comes about where Adrian Newey sadly passes away, the investigations into that man's brain. I don't know how it works. I don't understand it.

But that guy... There's a universe in there. There's something in there. Is he human? He might be a robot. I don't know. You know, in Men in Black 2, where the guy opens up, and it's that tiny little alien just controlling that entire man.

I don't know if this is a very niche reference that no one understands. And he's really tired. Yeah, he's really tired. He's literally like the size of, like, if you like, hold up your mobile phone, he's like that big, but he's like inside of a human being. I wonder if that's what's in Adrian Newee. This being from a billion years in the future

is just working on aerodynamic genius because he's got stuck on earth. That is what he's like. He's so bloody clever. It's not fair. For everyone in the world. We'll take one last short break. And there's more Ferrari on the other side.

Yeah. I have to say, Sam, your yay response to another Ferrari topic. I would have added some sort of sound effect from the soundboard in there. But based on me editing this, I've already agreed. I'm not touching the soundboard. Let's just eliminate.

It's better to be safe than sorry, isn't it, really? Sometimes just play it, play it cool, and don't shoot yourself in the foot. Because it will send you for a bag of chips and then you've got to clean up the mess. Yeah, exactly. I don't mind when Harry has to clean up the mess, you know. It's all good, but now I have to actually do it.

Anyway, Ferrari, back to them. So the Australian Grand Prix threatens to be the, race that will never, ever end because Freddie Vassar, back to him, Big Freddy Vass, said this after the race. The biggest frustration was from Carlos. You heard it on the radio to not have the hearing because this case was very special. And because of that, they have, they've appealed signs as penalty. They want it reviewed by the FIA. Sam, should they, based on some of the inconsistencies that we saw on lap one, or the restarted lap? If you're going to argue it like that, I think they have a very fair shout, which is you

didn't penalize anyone else that made any contact at all in the entirety of those restarts. How come Carlos is the only person to pick up a penalty? And again, we're going back to inconsistencies that the FIA have made. That is, they can't make a consistent decision. They are affecting other people more than others. Logan Sargent literally drove someone off the track. into a gravel trap and got away Scott free with it, but Carlos Sainz spings Fernando Alonkso on the restart

and gets a five-second penalty, which of course, because we finish the race under safety car, means that he essentially drops to the back of the grid, which wouldn't usually happen in a normal race length, whatever when the penalty is given. So I understand why he's feeling hard done by. That makes sense. And I think if they're going down that route, they have an argument.

At the same time, Carlos Sanks, just try this, right? Just give this one a go. All right. Get the book out, the book of How to Do Racing from Late Breaking. First page.

Don't crash into, oh yeah, sorry, yeah, Ben, can you get ready, please? Yeah. Please get the notes together.

One page. This one's very crucial. Page, it's one of one, actually. Yes, sorry, if there's a one page book, yes. Yes.

When, when racing alongside other people, wait for it, don't hit them. Oh, yeah. That's, it's in bold. Yeah.

You got that one, huh? That's it, yeah, first word in the book. don't hit other people, Carlos. Now, I know we're all a bit excited because we've got a couple of laps ago and it's a restart.

But again... Oh, I'm being excited. Oh, a couple of laps ago! Honestly, sorry, Murray Walker. That's hanging a bit like you in a weird world. Honestly, you are a professional. I don't care that you might get a bit, oh, I've got a chance here.

You still have to pay things in a cautiously optimistic way. You still have to be sensible. you'll have to take what you can under a certain level of sensibleness, right? Because you're at risk to, and hey, look at that. You ruined someone else's race. Lucky Alonkso is got the IQ of gods combined to understand what's going on in that car that's spinning around. But you ruined your own race.

And if you didn't overshoot your braking and drive into the side of Alonkso, you'd still be in the, you can still finish in what, the top five, maybe fourth. I don't know. But you mucked it up for yourself in a little day. Carlos. I'm not saying it was the worst crash we've ever seen, but we've seen incidents like that throughout the last 10 years. And they all typically get rewarded with a five second time penalty. It's one of the few things that the FIA have actually gotten right in terms of how much of a penalty you should be given. It should be a five second time penalty.

The biggest way to not get your penalty, don't do the crime sunshine. Why have I been put in prison for robbing this bank? That's not fair. Well, you know what? Don't rob the bank. That's the rule 101. Don't break the law. And you did. So, Carlos, why are you checking? Get on with your life. At least Charlotte Clare ain't there winning three races in a row. He's also suffering in woe this Grand Prix this season.

So, yeah, I understand the inconsistencies. The FIA themselves need to be blamed for that. But those inconsistencies do not mean that you get a letoff for your own devilish little crime that you committed on that restart towards the end of the Australian Grand Prix. Ben, this is what we were talking about earlier when your blood pressure was going to go through the roof.

How are you feeling about it matter? Because you've been very vocal on social media about this. Honestly, I think I've lost the plot. Take me out of the oven. I'm done. I don't understand it. I don't understand it. If I get a penalty for something and my appeal is not based on what I've done whatsoever and my appeal is based on what others have or haven't done, I probably don't have a very good case. I probably don't have a very good case. They can't focus on the incident itself in this review because if they do, it's a slam-dunk penalty. The actual incident itself is the most blatant five-second penalty I've ever

seen. If they are, and they probably should at some point, do an FIA handbook for stewards, steward training school, if they were to do a handbook, they should probably put five-second penalty and put this incident as the leading example of how to determine if something is a five second penalty? Because it's that blatant. Should it have been more? Definitely not. Should it have been less? Definitely not. This was clear cut. And yet this is still a week on still going on. Because apparently how other incidents have been treated is impacting this. You're absolutely right with a Rob the bank analogy, Sam. It's like if I rob a bank and then I say, well, I don't think I should be, I should be jailed for that.

Why? Because someone else robbed the bank and they didn't either. That's not a defense. That's just saying they got something else wrong as well. This was the only thing they got right. Three wrongs in this instance don't make a right. Just because they got the sergeant incident wrong and just because they got the Gasly and Ocon incident wrong, doesn't mean they got this wrong. You can't just say, well, signs shouldn't get a penalty for this because then all of them should have got a penalty and didn't and the world is all right. No, the other two are the ones that should be appealed because they should have got penalties for those two. This is the one that

was absolutely spot on. The case was very special. Why? I made the case on this, on the post-race episode that they made this call straight away. The fact that there wasn't. hearing is irrelevant. I don't care that Gassley and Ockon got a hearing. They shouldn't have done either. Hearing shouldn't exist. They should just apply the penalties. And if this incident happened five laps before, there would be no problem. It wouldn't be a special case. There's nothing special about this. They applied it at the time. And it was great. It was great because everyone knew on that last lap behind the safety car what was going to happen. Everyone knew signs had a five second time penalty. And the timing tower on the left down side of the screen updated straight away.

You knew within three seconds of that race ending exactly where Carlos Sines had finished. That's brilliant. That is exactly what we won. Penalties applied straight away and we know what the results are as they cross the line. It doesn't seem like much to ask, but it's not what we always get. And, you know, what would have been the alternative, sat around like the Gasly and Ocon incident for five hours, waiting to see if signs was going to get a five second time penalty, meaning everyone from fourth down does not know hours after the Grand Prix where they finished.

That's not okay. That's not good for the sport. They didn't play much right in this race, the FIA, but this is the one thing they got spot on, and it's the one thing ironically that's being reviewed. It wouldn't make way more sense if they, if they, you know, proteskey's the decision for

Sargent and Gasly, right? If they just said, we're not happy with that. You gave us a five second penalty. They should get one too. We're protesting. That one will make total sense. I've been on their side. We've been praising Ferrari right now.

But once again, they had to just get it wrong. It's just, come on, Ferrari. Just get it right for once. Please, I'm begging of you. Just once. You can shut this down straight away by just asking Big Freddy Vass. or anyone at the team, signs included.

Okay, what was it about your incident that should be reviewed? What was it about your incident that should be overturned? Because you can't answer it. There's literally nothing that Carlos Sines did that is a mitigating factor. It's all based on others. Fernando Alonso drives into Carlos Sikes on that last lap. What do you want to happen to Fernando Alonkso? Would you expect him to be giving a penalty?

Yeah, right. Case closed. That's it. Game over. You're out of here. Thanks for playing. See you, Lego. And we know the five second time penalty. I know how the way that it worked out cost Carla Sites a lot. But as a pure penalty, the five second time penalty is the most lenient thing they give. They don't give anything more lenient than that. They go, you know, you can get a stop go, you can get a drive-through, you get 10 second time penalty. But they don't ever give out three second time penalties, do they? So the only thing they're appealing here is

the existence of the penalty at all. They're not appealing for this to be a lessened penalty. It's just they don't want it there at all. And they don't have a case. And once again, they're currently arguing, and this is a case of maybe teams having too much power within FIA again, they feel they've even got a reason to do this,

but we're not going to start protesting why or where or when penalties are being given. Penalties are only given based on the exact incident that's taken place themselves. Not on, oh, it's lap 56 or 57, and all the cars are grouped together, so actually penalties shouldn't exist now. No, no, no, no.

The same with lap 1, the same with lap 27, the same with that 56. Okay, how close cars are together. If you crush into someone, you will get a penalty. It doesn't matter when or where it is. And you're right, they got the most lenient penalty that on the list of penalties, it almost got off scot-free, essentially.

So you just got to deal with it. You made the bad decision. At that point in the race, bad call from you. Most of the other drivers managed to get through that point completely cleanly. Get on with it. Take, you know, suck it up. Move on to the next race. Move on with your life. I'm genuinely a bit worried because, again, I have to compliment the FIA for how they dealt with this incident. And it's the one that's being brought up a week after the Grand Prix has ended. I really hope this doesn't actually promote the way of thinking that they shouldn't do it straight

away because this sort of thing can happen a week later. Because at the moment, you're looking at this review that's happening. If you're a steward, you're thinking, oh, well, if we hadn't applied it straight away and we had had that hearing, we wouldn't be dealing with this week later. Or maybe we shouldn't apply things in the moment quite as often. That's not good. Yeah. Yeah.

Maybe they need to come up with something that's like, unless special new evidence is unearthed, that changes the whole understanding of what was going on. then you can't protest against more than, I don't know, 24 hours after a Grand Prix. And even that is long, even that is difficult to understand and hard for newcomers to know what's going on. But at least it consolidates it into a maximum time that a Grand Prix will ending theory is Monday. But even then, that's wrong. But yeah, a week later is it is a yoke to quote someone quite famous.

Honestly, if there's any indication that Ferrari are Ferrari in every possible way. They have made me sympathise with the FIA. Ferrari have managed to achieve that. Might be the only thing they achieved this year, but well done, Ferrari. Well, done. Well, it's okay. It's okay. Rescues you, Ben, because you go on the other side of the situation, they got two out of the three wrong. So, you know, refill that anger meter. The blood pressure keeps on rising. To be fair, 33% might be an improvement in terms of success rate. So they might be going in the right direction. Folks, we actually did a little video about the penalty, no penalty thing.

It's on YouTube. You can go and check it out. We did it in the last episode on the podcast as well. But if you missed it, the one topic has been cut up and put onto YouTube. And we're in video. So if you want to see us chatting, we'd appreciate the support. Drop a little like, maybe subscribe to the channel. We're going to be producing a lot more YouTube content now moving forward.

There's a lot of more yub-tubs action on its way. Absolutely. And we're even going to be like young people, and we're going to do shorts and and toxic and we're really down with the kids. I mean, just because I'm short, Ben, I don't need you to insult me like that. Whoa. Just because I'm the small risk of the three of us and we're actually short. Well, you've already given a nice outro for the video stuff.

Is there anything else you want to say before we wrap things up, Sam? Yeah, we've obviously, Patreon. is there and loads of lovely people are joining the Patreon. And the first Patreon exclusive topic for April is live. You can listen to it. Go give it a go. I've already had someone message me because I slating off Formula E in it. Oh yeah, you did.

I did quite harshly. And someone did privately message me going, I can't believe I'm paying to hear you slag off Formula E. Well, you pay you for a slice of the truth and you got it. So anyway, if you want to go listen to that, there's some great topics discussed on there. And they'll never get mentioned. on this main show and this public bit. So if you want more late breaking,

you're more sitting us, more formula on chat, go picking up, it's on the middle tier. I think it's the £5 a month tier if you're in the UK. But there is also the Hall of Fame tier,

the top tier, which so many of you lovely people have subscribed to and you get extra perks, you get a birthday shout out. Of course, you get the likes of ad free podcasts, including in that as well,

but you also get beer with breaking. And that is a once a month video, an hour long of the three of us, having a chat, having a laugh, having a couple of beers, I just chatting life, F1, silly stories. And if you subscribe now, you will get last months, including in that package,

so you can go back and watch that as well. We're also always up for topics or conversation points to have in those videos. So when you join that level, you're welcome to suggest and be involved. And we love that. That's what you're there for. We love you dearly. To everyone that does subscribe to Patreon, you don't know how much you're helping. Thank you.

I think that's everything. The Discord is available. You know where we are on social media. Come and give us a follow. Good stuff. Right. I think that's everything. It's weird without Harry here saying goodbye, which is just the two of us, isn't it?

Yeah. You want to say goodbye? Okay, I'm being Sam Sage. Bye. And I've been Ben Hocking. And remember, keep breaking late. Hashtag pickle fingers, whatever it is. Dastgastong.

This podcast is part of the Sports Social Podcast Network.