Join Grace and me as we discuss the Formula 1 news of the week including HALO, McLaren, Renault, Silly Season and Massa. We ask tough questions, mundane questions and questions that make no sense. We offer anecdotal tales of woe and ponder big data and research metrics. We even hand out awards. 

BTR Player:

Fashion Awards:

And Steve’s tie:

An F1 fan since 1972, NC has spent over 25 years in the technology industry focusing on technology integration, AV systems integration, digital media strategies, technology planning, consulting, speaking, presenting, sales, content strategy, marketing and brand building.
  • Nicholas Greene

    Another great pod. At the end, hoped for an Evita drop. The People Want…. Road relevancy, cost savings, safety!

    Think of the balcony, and the people.*

    *They all watched the race and are banging wheels. Be safe out there.

  • Junipero Mariano

    I think the power unit rule is going to affect Renault more than Honda. McLaren’s gone well over their PU allotment this season (in most cases) and still managed to score the points they have.

    • Achim

      true, on the other hand Renault did not develop the car last year. They put all their efforts into the 2017 car very early on. Since regulations keep stable for 2018, they continue to develop this years car, so I expect them to keep improving.

      Still, so far Renault is effectively only a team with one driver. If PAL continues to not-score, McLaren might have a chance.

      • Both very good points, you may be right about the 4-engine rule. Even though Honda has already replaced several, they may still need several more. :)

        • Salvu Borg

          4engine rule, HALO and a host of other things that are introduced has been for some time now agreed upon by those concerned. That in my opinion is a hug improvement on how things used to be done before.

  • Schumi Toronto

    Massa is like a mobius strip! OMG that killed me NC! Also your podcasts aren’t too long – they’re perfect!

    • subcritical71

      Podcast length is just right. I normally listen on the way to and from work so I am able to start listening on Tuesday and finish in time for Friday which sometimes leads into the race weekend!

  • jakobusvdl

    “If you don’t like the podcast, stop listening” – Done!
    I got through the halo section, that was even more disappointing than rantcast #534,
    What is the FIA’s secret agenda?????? Give us facts!!!!!
    I might calm down and listen to the rest another day, or wait until the next race review.

    • jakobusvdl
      I saw this and thought of you guys, turns out it was a complete waste of time to offer facts to contradict your opinions, my mistake :-(

      • Salvu Borg

        JAKO, Sometimes the FACTS are not enough.

        • jakobusvdl

          And now we have a psychological explanation of why that’s the case :-)

    • Well, thanks for giving it a shot. There are other podcasts out there that I am sure you will agree with. It’s a political issue and if you’ve watched the FIA for as long as we have, then you know that there is more to it than just safety. If it were all about safety, they would ban motorsport period. This is an election year for the FIA and it’s not lost on us that there is suddenly a flurry of safety-related activity as well. We’ve covered why we felt it was political and more than just one agenda.

      you may love HALO and that’s perfectly fine but I’m more curious about HALO’s impact in net negative results and net neutral results because the devil is in the detail and I can’t help but think it offers as much risk as it solves for.

      However, the request stands, if you don’t like it, don’t listen…I’d hate to think we’re wasting your time when there are other much better podcasts out there.

      • Salvu Borg

        “HALO might offers as much risk as it solves” an opinion that is a right of yours and that I respect, but is an opposed opinion to yours expressed on here a right as much as yours, or should one that doesn’t like it stop listen and or read?.
        As to the opinion that HALO is a political move, let us for a moment forget it’s validity in protecting the drivers head from flying objects, how can the introduction of a roll over structure that can take about 15 times the car’s weight and allow the driver to exit the car when upside down without the car having to be righted back be political?.

      • jakobusvdl

        As you know Todd, I’ve been giving it a shot for at least the last 12 years. F1B remains one of the most entertaining, and occasionally insightful F1 podcasts.
        I don’t agree with everything said on the podcast or in the blogs.
        Where would be the fun in that? I’d never have my outlook challenged, or learn anything. And I quite enjoy having my outlook challenged and learning things.

        That’s what happened with the Halo.
        I had the same adverse reaction to the toilet seat as the majority of the commentators on this, and other sites.
        But there were some posts that provided links to background on the process that lead to the decision to implement cockpit protection, and to the work that had been done to test options.
        So being curious, I read these and found that most of the things raised as issues had been thought about, tested, or were wrong.
        And you know how it goes, when I get new information, that shows me I was wrong, I change my mind.
        I posted a number of these links and some summaries on F1B, to encourage what I like to think of as my F1B buddies, to read and consider.
        So do i love the halo, no. Do I think it creates more risk than it solves, no.
        Do i think that it is a practical solution to actual hazards to the drivers, yes.
        Do I think there is a better solution, yes, but its not available yet.

        Do I think the whole thing is a FIA power play?
        You might think you’ve provided convincing argument that the whole thing is an FIA power play, but even after 12 years of listening, I haven’t developed the same level of suspicion.
        But you know how it goes, if I get new information, that shows me I was wrong, I change my mind.

        So I’ll follow the other request, if I disagree, I’ll leave a post, and do it with decorum and civility ;-)

  • Graeme Fuller

    To all at FBC, keep up the good work, I love the shows and the length or otherwise is no issue. I can only hope that “Steering Wheel” get more time on the podcast. Is it me or is Ferrari dominating the funny radio stuff.

    After listening to a downshift, with Kym Illman, i now follow him and receive his email from each race, so thank NC for putting up that downshift and I am now seeing amazing photos from an Aussie no less.

    • That’s terrific, Kym is a great guy and very talented photographer.

  • Peter Riva

    Rose wine? Next time ask a wine merchant for “Vin Gris”

  • Ted Swaback

    I have never posted before but have been listening for a little more than a year and I have a question to pose…..

    If “The Sport” (Sorry, Had to do it) wanted to be about sustainability and being “green”, Why are the cars not running some kind of nuclear reactors?

    If I remember right from my college years studying Chemicial Engineering, the cleanest form of energy comes from nuclear fission. I know you may say clean?? Well in terms of power output, it is the cheapest form of electricity we have. Coal, Gas or Wind are not nearly as cheap to run in a power plant as nuclear. As it seems the FIA doesn’t seem to care about costs, why not explore this option? Or for that matter, Cold fusion? Lets just make a mandate that states that by 2020 all cars must be running this type of PU.

    I know I am poking fun at them, but as your discussion this week talked about it, I thought I would throw that out there.

    • subcritical71

      Having worked in the nuclear field, I would say a few things that would prohibit using nuclear fuels…
      1) the weight needed for power unit and shielding would probably make the car unreasonably high (search for nuclear powered aircraft – which didn’t work out so well, look at the wikipedia entry and the size of that thing!). Here’s the spec for a satellite based reactor “The SNAP-10A reactor was designed for a thermal power output of 30 kW and unshielded weighs 650 lb (290 kg)”. To put this in perspective the top of the line Tesla is 100kW. Also, I don’t think transients (braking and acceleration) would be handled very well, reactors like steady state operation, not cycling operation. This is why most reactors startup and run until a refueling is needed.
      2) Accidents would have a whole new meaning!
      Also, I agree completely with it being a green energy source (no CO2 emissions!!), however I believe the cost is heavily subsidized. Without these subsidies the whole financials thing falls apart.

      • Ted Swaback

        While I completely agree with you, this was meant to be tongue in cheek. You are completely correct when you state that reactors do not work the best with ramping up and down for power. Again, from what I remember, nuclear reactors around here (Im in MN) run full tilt. So do wind, but that is dependent on THE WIND, and it is the coal and NG that are ramped up and down based on demand.

        Secondly, the cars would have to be ginormous. That is a technical term btw. Tracks would have to be huge as well!! Crashes would be insane!!

        I will agree that it wouldnt work at all. I just hate watching a sport that I like turn to the kind that massive car companies can only afford and away from the smaller independent companies. There are still lots of gains to be made in the ICE like the pneumatic valves that Konnigsegg has been developing. There are massive efficiency gains to be made.

        • subcritical71

          Yeah, I figured it was tongue in cheek… interesting concept though. I know nuclear power isn’t very popular but it would solve a lot of issues with our current energy supply. Now if non-proliferation treaties could be modified we could minimize the waste generated… but that would be a topic for another forum