F1 Decoded: Tyres Explained - Part 2

F1 Decoded returns with Part 2 of Tyres Explained, this time exploring the history of F1 tyres and how they shaped the sport. From tyre wars to modern compounds, we unpack how rubber became one of F1’s biggest performance battlegrounds. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:00

Fox now, fox now, fox, fox, fox.

SPEAKER_01 0:27

Welcome to F1T Caroline, a boxboxbox podcast. I'm joined today with Mohan. How are you, Mohan?

SPEAKER_02 0:34

Uh I'm good, thank you, and nice to hear you're sounding a lot better than last time.

SPEAKER_01 0:38

I certainly am. My name's Scott, by the way, for uh anyone who missed my poor introduction. Um the uh I am feeling better. I don't know uh what that was. It went for three weeks, it was awful. So um but anyway, back to it. Uh and today we're talking uh about tires. It's our second episode on tires. Uh and you know, what struck me just recently, um especially when we go back and watch our our old races like we've been covering the uh 2003 season, uh is the repurposing of tires for the uh the crash walls to, you know, protect the drivers. Like that's that's it's not made for that, right? You know, a tire's made to go on a wheel.

SPEAKER_02 1:16

That's correct, actually. So it's just I guess it's uh part of the sustainability initiatives as well at the end of the day to try and try and reuse these as much as possible rather than rather than breaking them down. Uh but no, they certainly weren't originally designed for that purpose.

SPEAKER_01 1:30

Aaron Powell I think the thing is these days, I think that uh those Aramco barriers or whatever they're called are actually a lot more fit for purpose than the other. Yeah, the tech providers that are so yeah, Aramco, that's the the the company. So yeah, yeah, that's it's um I think we should we should definitely do a decoded episode just on the runoffs and the different ways, you know. I think um Paul Ricard is a classic example example of a track with a very unique kind of runoff and and the the barriers and how they've evolved over time. And you know, it's the uh what's that Italian track that has the that's quite uh quite sketchy?

SPEAKER_02 2:04

Imola, or yeah, Imola, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 2:07

So you know that they're just like they're just like, you know, these these the barriers are so close and they they don't seem to they don't seem to be too well designed for the the kind of speeds Formula One has these days. So but anyway, that that's that's for another time. Um how have you been anyway?

SPEAKER_02 2:20

No, it's good actually. It's uh nice that we can keep rolling some of these uh some of these episodes through while we're waiting for a few more weeks before Miami comes into it.

SPEAKER_01 2:30

Yeah, that's right. So there's a there's a bit going on.

SPEAKER_02 2:32

There's been a lot happening, obviously, and I think what would be useful is when just before Miami, we might actually do a catch-up on all the movements and goings-on that have been happening in the sport as well in these few weeks. There have been uh obviously team changes, there's been regulation particular discussions that have been changes. There's a lot that's happened in this time. It'll be good to do a catch-up on its own, just in all that all that noise, basically.

SPEAKER_01 2:54

It's it's it's definitely a sport that doesn't seem to be able to take a day off, even when they've had two cancelled Grand Prix. So Well we'll we uh we're trying not to take a day off either, and uh we'll dive straight into our our second tire discussion because we couldn't cover it all last time. So tell me, Mohan, we're talking more, I suppose, uh, about the history of it all, but but how did Formula One's early tire competitions shape the way teams approach performance in the different areas of the sport?

SPEAKER_02 3:21

So from the early decades of F1, the tires were, I guess, seen as not just a component of the car. They're seen, they often were the difference between uh a car that was simply quick versus a championship car as such. So in the night, going back to the 1950s, Purelli were quite influential back then. They won the first five uh Formula One world titles between uh 1950 and 54. This actually meant that teams learned that they had to tire choices quite uh would define a season and would define an era as such, and this became quite critical. Later on, Goodyear became the long-term partner for the sport, especially from the mid-1960s onwards. And as a result of it, the teams actually started to build a more integrated relationship with the tire companies rather than treating them as simple supplies as they would do with other parts of the car. What that created overall was sort of a culture where the teams sort of tailored the suspension geometry, the weight distribution, and the overall race strategy around the tyres themselves. So teams like Lotus, Williams, McLaren, or Ferrari weren't just designing a fast car in isolation. They had to design a car that worked in the optimal operating window that a particular tire partner would provide for them in that sport. So, in these, there were obviously various periods of the sport that were sort of classified as tire war periods. And as a result of it, this actually became a lot more intense moving forward. So teams would actually often be given quite bespoke constructions and quite bespoke compounds, especially if they were a front-running team as such. And as these are the days before cost caps and things like that. So the the sport itself, I think, as a result of it, there was a learning that the performance of a car wasn't just one-dimensional. A team could have a strong engine and a good aerodynamic package. Uh, but if its tires weren't up to scratch, or for instance, if they overheated too quickly, they didn't come up, come alive fast enough, or they didn't actually survive the layout of a particular circuit. That advantage of having a strong engine and a good aerodynamic package would dissipated very, very quickly. So this is why sort of the historical eras of Formula One are remembered not just uh by the cars and the drivers, but the tire identities as well. So if you think of uh Ferrari on the Pirelli's in the late 1980s, uh Williams and McLaren and Goodyear through various dominant spells that they have had. Uh, the the association of Ferrari and Bridgestone, uh, Renault and Michelin, um, and then the later adaptation to um the Pirelli's quite deliberate high degradation philosophy that they brought into it. So, this I guess overall shaped the engineering mindset of the sport itself. Um, and that there was a learning for the teams and for the sport that the speed of a car is only useful if the tires that are holding it up can actually unlock that speed over a track.

SPEAKER_01 6:40

So tell me, before the modern single supplier era, how much of a competitive advantage could a tire partner really deliver to a front-running team?

SPEAKER_02 6:51

So uh a TARC partner can actually deliver quite a large competitive advantage. And in in some seasons, this has shown to be worth more than a small engine gain or uh a significant aerodynamic tweak, as such. So the key point is that a top team in a tire war was usually not getting the same tire as a midfield customer, and that was how it used to work back in those days. The leading outfits were often given priority when in terms of development, and that meant they got early access to compounds, they got early access to the construction designs, and these were prioritized around the characteristics of those top teams' cars. So they, as a result of it, obviously were able to give better feedback back to those tire manufacturers as well. So, in practical terms, what that actually meant was that the team can actually gain qualifying performance, improve tire warm-up, and things like that by gaining early access to those aspects. Um, a good example of this is when uh Bridgestone arrived in the sport in 1997, and they had their breakthrough, I guess, season in 1998. Uh, so effectively in their second year, they played a significant part in McLaren and Mickey Hackett and winning both the constructors and the drivers' championships. This wasn't purely because of Adrian Newish's genius at the time in the and the car that he developed. Bridgestone's performance, but particularly in terms of adapting to the roles in 1998 and the change in the rules in 1988, played a massive part in those in those championships. So it wasn't, I guess, as this is this is a reaffirmation that the tires weren't just an accessory on the car, that they were, I guess, pillars of the car, shall we say, and played quite a quite a significant um part. The same applies in rivers to some extent as well, where sort of Ferrari's dominance was quite heavily reinforced with uh with quite a in-depth relationship that they had with Bridgestone in the early 2000s, particularly once the the Michelin and Bridgetone tire war commenced as well. So Ferrari seemed to look like they had quite the perfect synergy between the chassis, the driver's style, and the behaviors of the tyres. And particularly at the time uh Schumacher's ability to exploit the most out of out of uh out of those tires as such. So um this this wasn't just a competitive advantage, it turned out to be the edge in the sport as such.

SPEAKER_01 9:30

Yeah, Michelin and Bridgestones often referred to when tire, I guess, rivalries are brought up in F1. What made that rivalry of the early 2000s so defining in F1 history?

SPEAKER_02 9:44

The reason that this battle or this war is was considered to be so defining is it kind of felt like the last great industrial war, I said, particularly in the modern Formula One era. This wasn't just a simple sort of no romantic 90s, 70s tire battle that happened. This was peak data-driven Formula One at the time, uh, with sort of very sophisticated aerodynamics, uh, very intense testing that was done. Um, and teams actually fighting at the absolute limit. Um what made it um the defining rivalry and actually a story around this, particularly in uh 2003, uh, and this this is a race that we will come to um here when we're looking in the racing rewind uh uh series, um, about a particular stage in that season where uh Ferrari uh had actually lodged a complaint to FIA because of the Michelin ties that were that were um that were presented. And what was actually happening was this is a situation where manufacturers, whether it's car component manufacturers or the tire manufacturers, tinkering with the edges of the regulations. And what they had found, Bridgestone had found, sorry, Michelin had found a way to add a significant amount of flexibility to the sidewalls of their tyres, so that when they were measured cold, they were measured, or when the car was stationary, they were measured at the correct width. But because the sidewalls had a certain amount of flexibility, when the tyres were laid down coming around a corner, the tires would widen basically. So thereby giving those cars a lot more grip. Ferrari actually noticed this and they lodged a complaint with FIA, and that led to uh a significant change in the construction of the tires moving forward as well. So that actually translated to quite a significant change um uh in that season and then moving forward as well. Uh, and then of course um we have the 2005 uh US Grand Prix, uh, where it's quite an infamous Grand Prix because um all of the teams that were carrying Michelin tyres had to withdraw over safety concerns. So we actually meant 14 cars withdrew from that race. And so the only there were six cars left on the tr on the and on the grid, uh, and they were all bridgestone-supported cars. So that actually was quite a significant turning point in that battle as well. So this, I guess, is part of it also is the fact that it shows that uh as competitive as it is, and and and and as um when you're dealing with the elite of engineering for the sport, that the tire manufacturer is still forced to redraw sort of uh that competitive map as well.

SPEAKER_01 12:40

So, how closely were certain teams' golden errors tied to their tire supplier relationship rather than just the chassis or engine superiority?

SPEAKER_02 12:51

I think this is uh looked at very closely. Um we obviously, as fans, we tend to remember golden eras through the most visible elements of the sport, where it's a brilliant designer, a superstar driver, a powerhouse engine, and things like that. But when you look at it properly, ties are actually embedded in many of those success stories. Uh, and and a good example of that is Ferrari's dominance in the early 2000s. Uh, yes, the team had Schumacher, Ross Braun, and Rory Byrne, and quite a lot of operational discipline. But they also had a very deeply integrated relationship with Bridgestone, which seemed to produce the exact kind of tire that would benefit someone like Schumacher. And that that alliance, I guess, is seen as somewhat of a dynasty, shall we say, and not just a footnote to that season. Another example is McLaren's 1998 season that we mentioned before. Also, I mean, a part of that was also Adrian Newey's brilliant car that he designed for McLaren. But Bridgestone's adaptation to the new sort of narrow, narrow specifications, the more grouped tire regulations, all of these actually translated to an immediate edge to McLaren as well. Um, and then moving along, uh, you've got teams like Renault uh in 2005 and 2006, and their success cannot be separated from um the Michelin tyres that they actually employed at that time. Uh and you could go back even further if you're looking at golden periods for um uh Williams and McLaren, particularly during the Goodyear years. Um, and that the fact that the success they had with those tyres uh helped to shape the seasons that they had.

SPEAKER_01 14:39

So, which drivers from those tire war years were especially good at adapting their style to the different tire behaviors?

SPEAKER_02 14:48

So for me, Schumacher I think has to be at the top of that list. And he was so good at um building races around what the tire actually needed. During the Ferrari Bridgetone uh association, he and Ferrari seemed to develop uh almost a near-perfect understanding of how to get the front end working optimally, how to keep performance over a stint, and how to turn consistency into an actual weapon come Sunday afternoon. And this was quite quite significant if you're looking at uh sort of standouts as such. And um again, he was actually outstanding again when the when the Michelin era rolled around with with Renault as well, because he was able to actually combine um his skills, his skills at that time. The other person I I consider as part of this is also um someone like uh Fernando Alonso. Um and his involvement with Renault at the time, uh, and particularly the 2005 and 2006 seasons that he had. Um his uh results out of that speak uh speaks volumes in this in this space. Um then if you look at um connecting that to the current grid, shall we say, there are definitely active drivers who should feature as modern examples of that same skill. So for me, someone like Alonso is is an obvious bridge, given the fact of how long he's actually been racing. He has lived through the Michelin Bridgestone and the Pirelli eras, which actually gives him quite a unique place in the history of these tiles moving forward. Hamilton is obviously always in the conversation. And he actually arrived in F1 just as the sport moved from the Michelin Bridgetone competition to Bridgestone being the single supplier as such. And then you've got definitely you cannot discount someone like Max O'Stappen. And there's so much analysis out there about his skills, and particularly in in relation to his tire management, and how that is actually a decisive factor in in his wins and not just his role pay.

SPEAKER_01 16:58

Well, on that, I suppose, because certainly the sport did change and in a choreographed way, I suppose. So how did Tyre strategy change once Four Wheel One moved away from the flat-out sprinting and began leaning more into race management?

SPEAKER_02 17:14

So the biggest the biggest change that that came out of this was that uh ties were no longer viewed as simply enabling performance in and they became quite a strategic resource for each of the teams. But it in the earlier era, especially when refueling was involved, that seemed to shape um a significant format of the races. Um the goal in those days was to attack hard within a defined window pit and repeat again, basically. Um once Formula One and the sport actually began to move more decisively towards preserving tires and managing degradation, uh, particularly in the Pirelli area era from uh 2011 onwards, uh the drivers and the teams had to start thinking in a very different way. So um pace was no longer about how fast the car could go. It was purely about how much pace you could afford to use at a particular stint in the race.

SPEAKER_01 18:16

Yeah, big changes, and it's uh it's kind of strange how um as a tire manufacturer you'd want tires to do degrade in the way that they do. But I guess that just shows how meticulous Pirelli can be to be able to make that, I guess, almost a linchpin for strategy in modern Formula One. So tell me Mohan, uh, what were the biggest turning points that pushed F1 toward a single supplier model? And was that move ultimately good for the sport?

SPEAKER_02 18:43

Uh the push towards a single supplier came from uh uh a combination of factors. Uh there were cost, safety, there was politics involved, um, and sort of no competitive distortion as well. Um attire war, obviously, while it existed, was quite exciting to watch. Uh, but it is actually quite an expensive process. Um, it is quite secretive. Um and it can actually split the field in a way that has very little to do uh with which team has best uh built the best all-round car. So those factors, I guess, uh collectively uh led to uh the move to a single supplier. Um and uh particularly given uh what happened in the in the, as I mentioned, the 2005 race in the US was quite a defining factor. So um this introduction of a single supplier was basically to reduce that overall volatility that existed in the sport. So initially uh Bridgetone were uh tasked as the single supply in 2007, which purely led to COVID in 2011. Uh the benefit was pure was largely sort of controlling costs um and having a more fair baseline conditions across all the teams. Was it good for the sport? I think on balance I would probably say yes, particularly if the priorities are stability, fairness, and control as such. But something was also lost in that process. The tire of our years had quite a raw uh intensity, shall we say, pretty clear from a technical point of view, that actually felt very much it's like a very Formula One unique intensity. So that the supplies actually pushed really hard, the top teams got tailored solutions, and the tire story itself was quite a fascinating one. So overall, I would say yes, uh it it had the single supply model is good for governance of the sport and for consistency, but it it removed one of the purest technological backgrounds for the sport.

SPEAKER_01 21:01

Just if you could dive into it, uh moving from the groove tires to, you know, refueling, not refueling to the current paraly philosophy. How have the tire rules um been used over time to influence the show that is Formula One?

SPEAKER_02 21:16

So this, I mean, tyre rules have certainly played a big part in not only sort of shaping performance, but also shaping the spectacle of the sport overall. So a big example of this came in 1998 when the sport introduced narrow cars and groove tires to cut cornering speeds. So this was not a subtle technical adjustment, it was quite a deliberate intervention in how fast the cars could be and how they behaved dynamically. Formula One's historically actually shows that 1998 is still flagged as one of the major regulation pivots in the modern era, particularly when it came to tires. During the years where there was refueling permitted, uh, tires were a Part of a much broader tactical package. The show actually came from how short or long that stint could be on the track. And whether a team, for instance, could run a soft rubber on a lighter car, or how the pit timing windows would actually flip track position. In the moving on to the Pirelli area, that philosophy has actually been more about entertainment, I think, more about degradation, the variety of compounds and the strategy, the divergence of the strategy that has been used to encourage overtaking. This is not a criticism by itself, but it's simply a recognition that the tires are now part of the sports storytelling, shall we say? They influence whether the well hopefully or whether they try to influence whether the races are processional or whether there is a lot more volatility on race day. So for this the governing body, I think, has used tires not just to govern how the machinery of a car works, but also to govern how the spectacle of the sport is as well.

SPEAKER_01 23:15

So have F1 tires become more of an entertainment tool than a pure engineering battleground? And when did that shift really begin? It was Pirelli, wasn't it?

SPEAKER_02 23:23

Yeah, and um I think I I think certainly actually they've become an entertainment tool on a significant level. Um and this particularly changed when they moved to moved away from the tire was and moved towards a single supplier. So initially Bridgeton, which then moved on to Pirelli. Um under the Pirelli era, the the brief from Formula One has been a bit more uh nuanced, where the tie is actually expected to be safe and competitive at the same time, but also to create variation in strategy that the teams can employ. It it rewards tie management over a race distance. And it basically has also then stopped or tried to stop every race from becoming just a flat-out one-stop match, as such. So that shift didn't obviously happen overnight. But 2011 is quite an obvious landmark, and particularly when when Purelli came into the fold. This there is a lot of debate as to whether this actually makes a sport less pure as a result of it. The traditionalists and the purists, like me at times perhaps would say that yes, it does make it less pure, because there is a belief that the fastest car should simply be able to push flat out and win the race. Um, that others would actually argue that the tire management, given how highly technical it is and how highly skilled the drivers have to be to manage those tires, is good for the sport overall. So there is there's a mixed debate in this. I think the fairest answer in all of this is the fact that it is still as a as a component, it is quite an engineering challenge. But I think it is undeniably a tool that is used by the governing body to influence what kind of a race unfolds on Sunday.

SPEAKER_01 25:09

It could be more of a challenge now as well, given that they're trying to uh create these constraints and parameters and and and whatnot, rather than just trying to have the best tire, uh, which is a, I guess, a very linear goal. So Tell me, Mohan, um, looking across the decades, which tyre regulation change had the biggest impact on racing quality and I suppose the championship outcomes?

SPEAKER_02 25:34

Uh so the strongest candidate for this is the rule that came in in 2005, uh, which effectively banned uh normal in-res tyre changes. Uh that yeah, that one regulation on its own had quite an immediate and dramatic effect uh on the sport. Um Ferrari and Bridgestone, uh, who had been at the heart of the sport's dominant force up to that point, were hit quite badly. A team like Renault partnering with Michelle's uh Michelin seemed to adapt a lot better. It was a year where uh Alonso took the driver's title and Ferrari's era of dominance was broken as well. Official, sort of if you look at retrospective views of the Renault in 2005 season and Ferrari's struggles, they attribute that quite significantly to that tie regulation change. Um in terms of racing quality, you could also argue that the 1990s switched to groove ties and narrow cars. Uh, because it sort of changed the visual and dynamic character of the sport for quite a few years to come after that. Um they played a significant part as well. But it would feel that that was to a lesser extent than what happened in 2005. And the particular reason that regulation standout is, stands out is that that proved that ties are not just a marginal rule area such that they can be central to the entire championship and how the narrative of the championship unfolds as well. So they play quite a significant role.

SPEAKER_01 27:08

Well, are there any famous races or seasons where tyres were the central storyline rather than a supporting factor? I'm probably thinking about those runaway races back in the early 2000s. Would that be something?

SPEAKER_02 27:21

And I think as I mentioned before, one probably for me the most significant one is still that 2005 U Grand Prix at uh Indianapolis. And as I mentioned before, the Michelin Thaheids were judged to be unsafe, and all 14 of those drivers had to pull out.

SPEAKER_01 27:34

That's definitely one of the uh most insane things that's probably happened in F1, really.

SPEAKER_02 27:38

Absolutely. It still stands out in that sense, and which basically left six cars to fight it out. For the sport itself, we at the time I remember sort of seeing it, and it was just a massive public relations disaster as well. It was seen as this massive farce across the sport. And also because it was seen that FIA kind of allowed the politics around tires to swallow the race itself, basically, which was which was quite unsightly overall. Um and it's if you ever talk about that race, all they ever talk about is is the is tires itself. So I think that for me um is probably if I had to look at one race in all the time in recent times as well, that would be the one that stands out a lot. Um sort of you can pick individual races out after that. So you got races like '89, there's Hungary, where Pirelli's qualifying limitations sort of affected Nigel Mansell's race day as such. But if I had to pick one, I would still go back to the 2000 April.

SPEAKER_01 28:43

So as Formula One heads into its next regulatory era, is there still room for tire history to repeat itself in a new form?

SPEAKER_02 28:51

There is room, but not in the same form of the old Goodyear versus Michelin or the Michelin versus Bridgestone tire wars that existed. Um, the because particularly because the modern version of Formula One is a lot more controlled. There's a lot more commercial integration in the sport. And politically, the sport and the governing body and teams tend to tread very carefully. So they will, I do not ever see us returning to a full open tire war. Um, and largely because I think it would be a very expensive exercise to do that. Um, and it would reintroduce the risk of the competition being uneven, which is what existed in those days. But who's to say that that's going to happen in the future? And the uh if I have made strange decisions over the years, that this is it's not unreasonable to think that they would return to that. What may repeat is the idea that tires actually once again become quite a decisive separator, particularly during a new rule cycle as we are facing now at the moment. So if a team actually nails their suspension, if they can nail their error balance, uh the temperature management, then the only defining or the differentiating factor becomes tires as such. And this is why I think the history remains quite relevant. It's useful to look back on how things worked in the past and also how things didn't work in the past. But um it's still there is still room for that to happen. And and you hope that there is a better way forward that is seen for the sport going forward.

SPEAKER_01 30:27

Well said. Thank you, Mohan. Anything else you want to add on ties?

SPEAKER_02 30:30

Um, there was actually when we presented the last um the initial episode, and that was a lot uh largely around the technical aspects of the current ties as well, I did receive a comment. Um, and particularly for this would translate to uh newer followers of the sport um uh needing to understand uh tire compounds uh and particularly uh the Pirelli C1 to C5 compound that we hear just about every weekend and what that actually means. So, just as a quick overview, that that system came in uh into play in 2019 when the sport actually moved away from the old hard, medium, and soft style compound names that they use. So the drop slick predictor slick tires were numbered in a fixed order, with C1 being the hardest and C5 being the softest. Um, and each race weekend, only three compounds are selected, but that can be a sliding scale. So um a C5, say for instance, a C2 on one weekend can be a C4 in another weekend. So it so it doesn't necessarily it depends on the on the on the surface of the particular track that they are racing. Pirelli and FIR did trial a C6 compound last year, which is the softest still. But uh this was actually quite disappointing because obviously the softer tires translate to uh faster speeds, but a lot more degradation. But teams actually finding that they were getting optimal performance out of the C5 still. So the C6 was done away with, and I don't see that returning anytime soon. So this is just a quick quick overview for our listeners who are not familiar with what those compounds mean. Uh, because uh when you're watching races, they do get talked about a lot, basically.

SPEAKER_01 32:16

All right, so what's next on our list for um F1 decoded?

SPEAKER_02 32:20

Do you have any uh Yeah, actually you've given me a good idea about speaking earlier about the barriers actually, and I've got a few things here that actually might be the evolution of that would be a good topic to look at. And I think what we are trying to do, particularly with the decoded aspect, is to try and pick aspects that are a bit left of center, I guess, that are not necessarily covered on a race weekend and are almost taken for granted and not explained well enough. So these are the kind of topics that we're looking at. And barriers would be one that is uh I believe we've all got used to what they are and what they think, but no one fully, a lot of people don't fully understand what it all means. So I think that would be a good topic to pick up next.

SPEAKER_01 32:58

Yeah, barriers and just runoffs in general, they're they've changed over time so much. It's just a uh and yeah, it's one of those things you just uh it's a lot of a lot of technology and thought goes into these things just to make sure the drivers are safe when they run off that uh we we don't really think about. And it is when you watch those old races, these things really they really become clear that that the safety in the sport's changed dramatically.

SPEAKER_02 33:19

And particularly when you talk about energy absorption, basically, the technology behind it. As opposed to running into a concrete wall. How these modern compounds actually work to absorb these immense amounts of energy uh in a crash.

SPEAKER_01 33:34

Aaron Ross Powell You probably hit that nail on the head for the like I guess exactly what the focus has been over time. It's just the technology around it, energy absorption is just yeah, the the evolution of that's insane. Uh it's uh it's yeah, it's just it's just amazing uh just to think in my lifetime how how much this has changed. Uh you know, because uh used to watch these races 20 years ago, say, and and think that this is as safe as it gets. And just just to look back now, is it's um yeah, it's just hard to comprehend. So um well, thank you. Uh thank you for your time, Mohan. Um do you want to shout out the socials for our listeners?

SPEAKER_02 34:07

Uh yes, uh uh social handle is boxboxbox A-U-S, uh, which points up comes to be on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and X. Our website is boxboxbox.net.au. Please like, subscribe, provide us feedback, um, send us suggestions, send us things that you don't agree with as well. Um, and uh we look forward to hearing from you.

SPEAKER_01 34:28

And this is the the the decoded stuff's definitely where we want your suggestions for the uh you know for for what topics you'd like to learn about. And um, given our level of traffic, if you can think of some sort of left-to-center very obtuse idea that we want us to unpack, I I reckon we're uh a sure thing to do it. So uh please reach out. Uh and anything else from you, Mohan?

SPEAKER_02 34:51

Uh no, that's actually good, but your point's actually very valid because it benefits us as well. And the fact that no, we've come into this with a certain level of knowledge. But I mean, looking at a particular topic actually encourages us to do a deep dive ourselves into a lot of this and and and provide our listeners with uh with the information. So any suggestion, no matter how small you might think it would be, please send it to us and we will we will look at it.

SPEAKER_01 35:12

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Rohan. Uh, thank you for joining us, and we'll see you next time.

SPEAKER_02 35:17

Thank you.