In theory yes but the tracks want certain dates, so it will be a blow for fans that can't see the races, For example the British race always falls on a long weekend, in the summer. If they were to travel around we would end up with dark races earlier times worse weather less fans etc etc, there is a method to the madness

Exactly. Majority of F1 carbon footprint comes from the logistics A lot of it can be saved by optimising the calendar and not making multiple trans-oceanic trips.

@@kristoph7606 Understandable, but the calendar could still be optimised.

They don't use the same stuff on every race, but have about 3 "sets" of everything! Do you really think, they can take entire buildings from place to place with sometimes only about half a week to disassemble, transport and reassemble them?

If America was done in one stint either Canada would be a snowy race or Texas would be too hot

I really love the idea of active aero and the benefits of the cars being able to carry less fuel/be lighter/be smaller. It's actually a feature that many road cars are already using. Hell even my 2014 Mazda 3 has active air shutters that close off part of the grill when I reach highway speeds for better fuel economy. I think they will need to make sure that if the active aero fails, it fails to the high downforce position. That way cars don't go flying off the track by losing all the downforce while in a corner.

Agreed. Setups being altered in a race will be interesting to see

They've had practice with DRS, and that isn't 100% reliable. Looking forward to it

Just be like Max Verstappen this season, win or DNF.

i think less reliability might actually be a good thing. Its getting boring seeing almost all cars finish lol. Reliability issues can add a lot of drama and heartbreak, i think it would be interesting

LMAOOO

So how do you propose they get to the races?

To add to this, transport and cargo only make up 17% of total global emissions.

@@matta2738 instead of going from the US to Europe and back to Canada maybe just stick to the left side of the map until those races are done.

@@matta2738 for starters, there shouldn't be a race in Europe, the next race in the US and the next race in Europe again. Introducing ECO-bullcrap to the cars which is more often than not detrimental to the fan enjoyment of the sport, while also burning metric tons of fossil fuel to move their circus over the big pond and back again just screams PR and hypocrisy.

Agreed, people who watch F1 don't exactly have the cars environmental impact being high on their list of concerns regarding the sport. not saying we dont care about the environment but this is not exactly making a big impact, and just seems like PC PR wankery

They just try to sound eco friendly to get the Gen Z and Gen Alpha kids on the TV

A large part of F1 development eventually gets passed down to road cars, so I'm assuming that, despite the low initial benefit, it will eventually help smoothen the transition to electric cars by making gas cars more efficient. It may be just for PR, but that was my initial thought.

I suspect it's because F1 wants to be seen to be eco-friendly rather than actually try to be eco-friendly.

@@hlidskjalf3050 This is exactly it. The entire comment section is missing the point. Construction, Efficiency, and Technology lessons are often applied to road cars by the manufacturers in F1. Formula E has made huge strides for EVs, with the varied operating temperatures/power flux/etc. between locations.

The should have put miami and Canada races as a back to back or just without the trip to europe inbetween but no, it's really frustrating to see...

@@nielsleenknegt5839 events already scheduled at said places prevent that as well as weather and accommodations availability at those times

I think that -65% is related only on cars emission, not total emission

All cars combined carry just 20 people, a 747 can carry more than 10x that

@@trance9158 zig zagging across the world because of dates lining up makes no sense. Going from Europe to Australia to Europe to Middle East to USA to europe makes no sense from a cost point, scheduling point and basic common sense. And then they’ll go ahead and slightly compromise the sport while jetting 20 cars and thousands of people around the world.

That's what they did in the 80s and 90s; there was Brazil, Mexico, USA and Canada, then all the European races, finishing off with Japan and Australia. Of course, those were the days when the main focus was on countries with a motorsport heritage rather than simply those that had money

if they did that people who work for the teams wouldn't see their families for a long time. most teams are based in Europe so thats why that go back and forth from there, so employees dont get home sick

@@acatinatux9601 Then maybe don't bring the whole circus over with them? Just have less races and give the teams a break to go home and rest.

@@nerd_nato564 what do you mean with "don't bring the whole circus" Should they leave employees at home for the heck of it?

@@gandalf_thegrey "for the heck of it" LOL not seeing your family is not "for the heck off it" these people work 24/7

That automatic crash system is gone next season though 😢

@@dormi_torio no more red flags? 😢

@@ValenGR86 There’s always Stroll

​@@dormi_toriogo easy on stroll, he is definitely better than latifi

@@BirrDetonator1989 True. But that isn’t a hard benchmark to surpass

I highly doubt that'll make it that long, by the early 2030s I wouldn't be surprised if F1 manufacturers demand a change sooner and the FIA would have no choice but to agree as they can't let F1 die.

@@gandalf_thegrey Formula E would probably the same speed as F1 in 2040. That's a long-ass time.

Good

Or they could merge f1 and fe in future.

they can just increase hybrid power bit by bit over the years

DRS is active aero

2014 Mazda 3 crew 😎

@@aizzaddanial2951 This kind of active aero is the kind where DRS wouldn’t be round.

Seve, you're absolutely correct about active aero being on road cars. One of the reasons active aero is still banned is to prevent teams from spending their way to a title. But now that we have the cost cap in place, it's time to loosen the rule book some and allow things like active aero, active suspensions, etc. Let the teams spend their limited budget where they think it will have returns, and if they strike on something really good, it may trickle down to road cars (some sort of mesh network between cars to help prevent accidents could be an interesting idea.)

@@aizzaddanial2951 DRS also should fail into a high downforce position. That did fail the wrong way for Ericsson in Monza a few years back tho.

Im guessing because everyone would switch to lighter engines and ditch the heavy batteries/hybrids

@@jichaelmorgan3796 theres no reason they couldnt keep the hybrid system as far as i can think of. i mean the laferrari is a v12 hypercar hybrid and the porsche 918 is a v8 but the same thing. i just thought it couldbe interesting to see i dunno an naturally aspirated v10 or v12, then i dont know a 4 cylinder twin turbo or flat 6 turbo or something.

Might be that they're much harder to regulate, making situations like the 2019 engine difficult to prevent. Would be cool though if they say "this is the max. fuel flow, fuel weight, battery capacity, etc.: build whatever you want

It was called Group C.

@@duckrutt also late 80s and most of the 90s f1. they had v6 turbos, v8s, v10 and v12s in that period.

Plus engines with horsepower effectively capped and the tech rolled back to be easy for everyone to build. Trophies for everyone.

I mean if u wanna see teams like alpine and Williams win again that’s what u gotta do

yea we have road cars that can go 400kmh plus easily and f1 is still stuck around 350kmh. Pretty boring to say the least. I feel like it's becoming more and more like Indycar

@@maxluthor6800 almost none of those cars will reach those speeds on the straights of a race track. None of those cars have the downforce an F1 car has. Downforce reduces top speed, they could easily make a 400kmh F1 car, it would just be shit in corners

@@maxluthor6800 🤪🤣🙈

U right

Letting the teams self regulate? what a horrible idea.

They already cannot get to minimum weight with reasonable budget, your proposal would be terrible. Right now with budget limits no one would like that, without limit one team would spend billion dollars and dominate every single race. Ligh materials are crazy expensive, even for F1 standards.

lmao. you actually believe that? very strange indeed

Unfortunately I think we’ve seen from the history of f1 that a lot of teams are more than willing to compromise driver safety for more speed, so leaving it up to teams might get a bit dicey for some of the grid

Yeah F1 brought so many cool features to the road cars in the last 40 years

Rn we are starting to approach the peak efficiency we can extract from combustion engines. There is just simply too much energy wasted on friction, drag, and simple physics that are seeing less and less returns every year, add on top budget caps to level the playing field. It’s barely getting to that point that engines are at peak “eco-friendly” regs and power output. And with a stronger push for more eco-friendly racing, u can only get so much power while meeting green emissions. This is where the traditional F1 innovation comes in, every single other piece of the car will be squeezed for every second saved and is gonna be it’s own arms race just like the engines in early F1 days. Engine standardization is best for everyone and has very little negatives to warrant not doing it sooner. The introduction of hybrid engines should have been your sign that traditional engine arms races were on a decline.

Unfortunately I agree. ICE are becoming less relevant these days, but engine better lmao. Also if engines are reaching their peak that surely means we should push new technologies and materials in order to make them more powerful and efficient. Like matt says aswell, there could still be a development route for hydrogen. But for sure some valid points made my guy.

@@dscorpio1626 and another thing (not trying to sound like a whining lil bitch) but f1 should be all about creating new parts, methods, philosophies etc. Let teams create new consepts in freedom rather than force them to have all the same parts. Obviously some parts either for safety or keeping it fair sure thing. At this point I'm reminiscing about memories I dont even have. Started watching f1 properly 11 years ago, but I yearn for the days a v10 may grace our ears once again.

Exactly. If I ever wanted to see standardised cars race, I'd just watch Indycar.

no difference to what they usually do then, it happens every regulation change

That has always been a part of F1 though.

F1 is always evolving wdym

This has been happening for decades bro

You must be new to the FIA and F1.

If think that here they just wanna be innovative and try different solutions out, which is different from taking ideas from the past since security is the only thing that has constantly improved since F1 was born

Is it really overdoing it though? All it entails is that if there's a car stationary/going slowly on track, it directly tells nearing cars that this is happening. Drivers can miss marshals or flag boards, their steering wheel is a lot easier to see.

@@Slimmeyy If its limited to that then it's OK, but anything more, like a proximity alert is too far.

Long as they're alerts and like points to where the crash is about to happen, I'm down. Like if a car is coming in from the back left there's a warning sign and an arrow pointing down and left on the dash. The driver still needs to be in control 100% of the time though. I don't want to see cars avoiding crashes with each other

@@adysun I get where you're going, but doesn't that make mirrors obsolete?

yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup!

Synthetic or bio fuels are the only way to get fully carbon neutral cars in a realistic way and f1 is going to help that development so much. Electric cars have a place but they won't be carbon neutral

@@geekedslotter7948 this or going down the hydrogen route could be very interesting

@@sandalffpv7442 It will never be that unless refueling comesback

@@sandalffpv7442 The hydrogen route is very possible because Toyota has done massive investment in hydrogen combustion they made a hydrogen GR Yaris combustion engine that has been competing in in a races Toyota has also made a V8 hydrogen combustion engine, and Yamaha, Mazda, Subaru and Toyota partnering up together on the potential of Hydrogen combustion.

@@TheHabsification I talked to a McLaren Engineer back in 2019 about a solenoid engine which isn't the same thing but its along the same lines. While it sounds great it just makes no sense. Its wasteful of hydrogen which could be used to make kinetic energy in way more efficient ways. It doesn't matter how efficient you make it it will never be as good as a fuel cell that powers an electric motor. The best alternative is bio-fuel, its technology we know. We've been burning natural "bio-fuel" since the industrial revolution. Bio-fuel is a fancy term but all we've done is essentially speed up the process of fossilising plants to make oil. We then capture those emmisions in plants or as pure carbon and shoving it back in to fuel. While yes this method is a lot less efficient than electric power because electric power is used to make the biofuel and there are losses as no transfers are 100% efficent when working with heat. What this process does do is make the energy we can capture wayyyyyyyy more dense than that of hydrogen or batteries which is useful to us because it means we can save weight and volume making it easier to store and transport. If petroleum was so ineffective we wouldn't have been using it for so long. Making petroleum sustainable is vital in human civilisation no matter what Elon Musk tells you to sell more Teslas. Hydrogen is cool and 100% has a place in semis and transport of heavy goods and will be seen a lot more in the coming years as perhaps a lower weight alternative to batteries in Formula E. There's a lot of potentials but to deny synthetic petroleum its place as the key to performance applications and to be the immediate future to replacing natural petroleum before high quality public transport is implemented that can be more appealing (by being faster and cheaper) is looking for a magic bullet in a really complex situation where we know what works.

Well, forcing the fuel suppliers to produce high quality sustainable fuel might power innovation within the fuel market.

@@TheRuni215 opec only cares about making money. They would never adapt an F1 development unless it was more profitable.

I feel like that's a very shortsighted outlook. I believe what F1 is trying to do is to make the engine manufacturers, and gas companies look into the alternative as a potential long term solution. Similarly to how F1 has impacted a lot of car-related changes over the years

Agreed. If environmental effects were the concern, then F1 would just be formula E (but worth watching). Those race cars don’t put out near the emissions the semi-truck and the aircraft they use to fly around do. They should just the manufacturers go tf off and let them build the best race car they can, really flex the technology that’s available to them right now. 1100hp v10’s vs twin-turbo v6’s or whatever wild combinations Ferrari/Honda/Renault can come up with.

@@TheRuni215 it could do IF the the amount of energy used to make the fuel was less than the amount of energy the fuel produced 🤔 To me it's just the usual corporate BS of misdirection, the amount of extra carbon they produced flying the whole shebang from Italy to the US and back to Spain instead of just going from Italy to Spain is pathetic quite frankly 😤

@@gandalf_thegrey I am a fan of Verstappen. So I don't care about what those cry babies want to be honest. Also improving suspension control via better programming will be beneficial to road cars, including autonomous vehicles of the future. Controlling the suspension during emergency braking would for example shorten the braking distance whilst reducing the discomfort for the people in the vehicle. Now an F1 car doesn't do an emergency stop but it does have the braking performance during normal braking to get up to identical forces a road car would at best meet. So no, I fully disagree and I think the future road car development might benefit from it. Also if you think active suspension will make it easier on the drivers than you are wrong, because that car might turn but the driver's body is still in essence that loose sack of potatoes trying to hold on for dear life. They still need to endure those now even higher G-Forces. Which is the reason why it got banned... as they didn't want the drivers to pass out mid corner and see something bad happen.

@@gandalf_thegrey unless you limit the engine to being a 3 in-line engine like most road cars. Try to get 390kph out of that. 🥲 Top speed can be easily dealt with by limiting engine size. Besides, if they go hydrogen combustion (not hydrogen electric) it remains to be seen how much power they can extract. Where there is a will there is a way. Also racing suits can be active racing suits that inflate like that of a jet fighter, so the blood is always pushed to the brain. Give that some active control with continues blood pressure sensors and blood oxygen sensors and you have an amazing innovative suit that improves the human capabilities.

Personally I think they’re doing it because of Mercedes complaints about porpoising

they can be standardised and are already on plenty of road cars which are orders of magnitude cheaper and F1 cars are all ready very complicated so nothing new, overall it'll likely be cheaper or similar

@@floding22 Road cars are not analyzed to an extent of F1 car. Most road car aero is just marketing, including active elements on sport cars. Look cool, gives 2% more downforce, 20% more drag and separation but no one will ever use it on track so who cares.

@@armadillolover99 that's active suspension

@@lukebennett. Active suspension is banned specifically because of the ban on active aero. Also even if the ban on active suspension stays, active aero would fix the issues Mercedes is having

They are turning f1 cars into airliners, soon they will add Car TCAS

My issue to add, these cars are going at 200 mph *everywhere*... everything is a crash and safety hazard

“I don’t like seatbelts, it makes it so drivers won’t have to pay attention and can just rely on the belts to keep them from dying”. What an absolutely moronic take. Making the sport safer without knocking the sport is always a plus. They’re still driving at 200mph. Of course they’re paying attention lmao

What a moronic comment. As if they magically won’t look on the road then. Having a system where there is less confusion and more safety in blind corners for the drivers is a plus, and you can’t argue against that.

Guys I don’t mind avoiding fast cars going straight into slow cars. They are scary moments. They can still spin out they can still spin each other out they can still kamikaze into barriers. It just stops a car barely moving getting smashed by a car going 360km

dude one is car and another one is a bike both are a different thing

Well said, completely agree. F1 lost me when DRS came in. The racing, which is the main point, is far greater over at MotoGP.

There's a fine line between safety and overprotection. No one wants to see drivers get hurt, but like it or not crashing is a part of racing.

If there's a warning that pops up on their dash if someone crashes / unexpectadly slows down in front of them they're suddenly not racing? I'm really confused as to how.

Surprise lotus debut in 2026???????

They go where the weather lets them. If they did Canada in November, when they're in Texas, Mexico & Brasil, there would probably be snow on the ground. Texas in June during the Montreal visit? Tornado 🌪️ season Miami in November? Hurricanes.

@@AndrewGeierMelons Yeah. Add to that having to negotiate the calendar with the tracks (who have other races to fit in). Plus, planning the logistics of transporting the huge load of "non-essential" equipment between non-European races. All these things make the situation much more complicated than the "just don't travel so much lol" type of comments suggest.

There's a hydrogen combustion engine that were put in a Yaris that competed in a 24h race or something. So having F1 improve upon that concept would be cool. The real problem with hydrogen is that it requires too much energy to be produced to make it a worthwhile investment (at this point in time, before people stop pretending every ICE can be replaced with a large battery pack that wont be refurbished)

🤣🤣🤣👍

I can understand making things such as the rear lights and driver radios standardized, but there comes a point where it's doing more harm then good.

@@Dat-Mudkip stuff like that and safety equipment like the halo and crash structures as well as other things I can understand but I agree that there is a point where it's too much

Isn't the standardised parts concept all to do with the cost cap? It's a way to keep spending down for teams

@@caesaraugustus3749 It's a difficult thing to balance. You want the teams to come up with innovative and interesting ideas that they actually put onto the track, but you also don't want them to spend billions of dollars on something to reduce lap times by 2 tenths a lap.

It is ..

In september 2022 the engines will be frozen!!

Ferrari still has the better engine, and all the engine suppliers knew that only reliability upgrades are allowed until 26

@LeslieS Yeah, but RB have been 8km on average faster on the DRS detention zones in the 5 races this year. That gap is pretty big so I don’t think Ferrari will catch up on that because RB are developing too.

Yep. Starting this year engines cannot be developed anymore until the next regulation change Although i wouldn't say Red Bull have a better engine than Ferrari, its mostly the car philosophies that are giving us the difference in straight line speed which is proven by Ferrari always running higher downforce than Red Bull

I doubt they would allow active aero to completely manage all tracks as that would involve a very sophisticated and complex system which would beat the point of financial sustainability. It also can't be a spec system as every car would use different aero designs and require tweaks to it. So I'm pretty confident the innovation and aero compromises would still exist

@@beaku3 maybe I worded it poorly. I meant that you would not make a different compromise based on the track because no matter how much downforce you have you can just remove the drag for the straights. I am afraid there would be no setup difference between Monaco and Monza. There would still be compromises in design that would affect the drag and downforce for both the high downforce and low drag modes

Its much expensive and it wont be mainstream.

not necessarily, the increase in power also comes with the increase of regen.

Making the engine will be less expensive and the engine itself will be easier to project

@@ricardohenriques6472 but the ammount of regen isn't limited. And now, with other things roughly being equal, 1 source of regen is lost. The PU will get less efficient

The MGU-H’s heat recapture has always contributed significantly less energy than the MGU-K’s brake regen. With a larger MGU-K, they can probably run more aggressive brake regen settings, which will easily make up for the difference lost by the MGU-H

@@vascop3642 this is not the point. The point is, that except for single lap shootouts (aka Quali) the energy recovery/regen is the bottleneck and this will get smaller by removing the MGU-H.

They already did. A while ago.

@@hdr_diamondz o ok ill have to look back. I'm fairly new to the channel and the sport.

true that.

Weather. Going to certain countries at certain times isn't possible, such as Miami in November due to Hurricanes.

I feel like these regulations are also a snapshot from what our society is going to look like in the future. A future in which everyone turns soft because the system doesn't allow us to get dirty, do dangerous things. Having an element of risk added to life is what makes life all the more precious, not always having the guarantee to get old because it can be over within a tenth of a second. Added risk can make people more mindful about their future and also focus a lot more on the present moment. I think that's also what made F1 in the early 90s great. Yes, there was a much greater risk of getting killed in a crash, but it wasn't like the 60s where a crash was a guaranteed death. There's a scene in John Frankenheimer's Grand Prix in which the character Pete Aaron explains how he thinks about being so much on the edge of life and death and it's really inspiring. Highly recommend looking it up or giving the film a watch.

I can imagine the crash prevention will turn out to be more of an automated white and yellow flag trigger for drivers on their steering wheels. It couldn't be advanced and responsive enough to operate in wheel to wheel racing without significant risk of creating even worse flow on impacts caused by automating braking/power lift off/steering etc.

It will be handled automatically or by the team

Active suspension used to be automatic and tuned by teams to bs perfect around a lap.

2stroke oppoesed in HCCI 8 cylinder eqv 16 cylinder ,camless, advanced igntion, smart fuel injection, solid state battery, condessed electric motor in axle, synfuel or hyrdrogen, active aero, 4 wheel steering, full cockpit car design like figther jet. that would be mad bro *my daydream.

we already have standardised parts

@@fkez0510 standardised parts that don't affect the car's speed are fine like lights and the fuel flow meter etc but I don't want standardised parts like wings and certain parts of the bodywork as they should be open for design. I don't agree with the wheel covers being spec parts this year as that can effect the car's speed. For example in MotoGP the wheel covers vary hugely from team to team and I think F1 designers should be allowed the same design freedoms

then the end has already come for you ig, there are dozens on standardised parts on the cars, imo a few more won't hurt too keep costs lower

They are killing our sport for the money(like what they did to their motorsport)

@@floding22 standardised parts that don’t explicitly affect the performance like the fuel flow meter. Wings, bodywork etc are a whole lot different

That would be hilarious but also probably disastrous

Proximity chat might be the best crash avoidance system. “Stroll, I’m on your left”.

Hydrogen will never be the main fuel type for transportation, it just doesn’t make sense in the economic level, not even for trucks and semis. Hydrogen is just a way for big oil to continue with their business model of producing/extracting transporting fuel and then selling it at whatever price they want, plus having people buy car parts and pay for maintenance which are still needed for hydrogen engine whereas evs give you the option to create energy locally and independently plus all the other benefits they bring like v2g

@@henryvalera3480 I know electric is most likely the way it is going to go, but hydrogen gives better range and faster refueling right now. Not that that can't change, but as of now that is the case. Also, you still have to buy parts and replace batteries for electric, that's always going to be a problem.

@@TheSickboy35 Even with slower charging times evs are more convenient than hydrogen, also can we drop the myth of evs batteries needing to be replaced even after 10 years of use which is the advertised battery life you still get ~80% of capacity and that is with old battery tech something that is rapidly changing to provide even longer lifetime.

thats actually pretty good

When was the last time you heard of a driver randomly passing out in the middle of a race?

@@ninetailedfox579121 felipe 🫡

@@ninetailedfox579121 last i remember was Massa when he got hit by a screw and passed out. But then he didn’t fall unconscious randomly

I like the idea, but this obviously shouldn't be active at all times. A team member could make a mistake and now you've sent your driver through a corner at slower speeds than that of they could've gone through it. I think that to activate these systems it should be confirmed by 3 top members present on the pit wall/in the garage. Really nice idea though, however I do think that the technical side of the pit wall would have to be updated, as I am pretty sure that the latency between the car and the pit wall is high. thinking back to 1992 Belgian gp.

That would be awsome!!

@@Gongi55 bruh that would literally be like when you turn on all assists to max

Imagine Lewis Hamilton leaving his turn signal on for 12 laps before someone has the guts to ask him about it.

They said that just the car will be sustainable by 2026m with the transport means by 2030

Not true.

Its not good. Better to go with EV in future than H2.

it's just gonna be the next spec series

@@theveyron164 exactly bud. I loved it when you had front teams off laps ahead then a mid bunch of cars fighting and then the back of the grid and your wildcards and privateers. Like 3 classes all in one race. Cars varied massively in shape and power train, and the levels of innovation before CAD etc, using hand drawn designs, was unbelievable. Not saying today's cars aren't innovative, but they're already so close in basic design it's not like that old style any more.

Refueling is bad for racing, as all overtakes was just timed to be don with pitstops.

never happening. no need for it.

I guess. Maybe mandatory refuel, so the cars are lighter across the race? You can only refuel once, so timing it would be important and could lead to carnage

@@nert-13 That would be the worst idea, that would garantere 100% of all races would be 1 stop from every team. Just drop the refueling thing, it made racing worse and will not come back. Just watch a endurance race and see that refueling adds nothing.

More chance of quick charging if they go electric in the future than refueling.

The future is electric so your comment makes no sense at all lmao

@@H4Hamburger future is not electric lol

because if we didn't have the Hybrid V6's teams like Mercedes would drop out because "we want to have an engine that we can use data for our road cars" and other arguments the teams have.

and you think that when F1 car can run with 100% eco friendly fuel that wouldn't start a change into making roadcars/planes/trains and more all use such fuels?

I didn't say that eco fuel is a bad thing - of course it is a good thing that F1 is going in this direction and it might trickle down to road cars or planes eventually. I'm saying that if they really did care about the environment they would start with a environmentally friendly calendar, they could do that right now, not in 4 years time. When you think about it for a second you know that it's a marketing stunt. "carbon neutral" everywhere, F1 is a business, they don't care about the environment, but they want people to think that they do, and it's a sad because I love the sport. Look at this year's race in Jeddah and say to me that liberty media cares about anything other than cash

@@kubakubicki4014 enviromentally friendly calendar means? to have races in places that can't be raceable due to weather conditions?

@@FaceFish9 Most roadcars, trains, trucks arent going hybrid, they are going full ev. So developing more efficient hybrid engine doesnt solve much. So do efficient fuels. Producing them in small quantity for f1 is one thing, for whole world to be mainstream is another.

@@frankreynolds9930 oh i dunno, most cars are fueled by fuel, making cars that are more efficient with that fuel would make sense no? Electric cars are a stupid gimmick and wont work in places like Finland because of how for example winters are here