With the power units being made simpler next year, will they generate more noise than presently (I accept they will never sound like they did up until 2013)? I consider it an embarrassment for the sport that the F3 cars (and Porsche Cup cars) that also race on the F1 weekends are louder than the main event – Raffi
The impression might be that the new engines being introduced next year should be louder because they will no longer have an MGU-H – the device that recovers energy from the turbo.
But I am told that while they might be a little louder than currently, they won’t be that different, because they still have turbos, which is the overriding impact on the sound.
As you may have read, there is a push from governing body the FIA at the moment to return F1 to older-style naturally aspirated engines, and that’s partly because of the noise.
Initially, this seems to have come from a whim of FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, with influence from Bernie Ecclestone and Christian Horner, rather than a reasoned opinion based on thorough research of the desires of the audience.
However, it does chime with concerns that exist about how F1 will look next year because of the energy-recovery demands of the new engines, which have close to 50% of their total power output coming from the electrical part of the engine.
From what I’m told about fan surveys done by F1, there is no widespread agreement on whether louder engines would be a positive.
Some – like Raffi – obviously think they would be.
But the F1 fanbase has changed a lot in recent years, and inside the sport there is concern that newer members of the audience – more women and children now come to races, for example – would not welcome engines that made so much noise as to be virtually deafening, that made ear defenders an absolute necessity, that stopped people having a comfortable conversation when the race was on, etc. Likewise the guests in the corporate boxes.
Equally, city races such as Miami and Las Vegas would be threatened if the cars suddenly became much noisier than was promised to residents when discussions about the races took place.
It would highly likely revive the complaints that used to take place in Melbourne about this, too.
The world has moved on in many different ways since the first decade of this century, and it’s far from clear that effectively turning the clock back 20 or 30 years would be a good idea, even if it was with the addition of a token hybrid element to the engines and sustainable fuel.
Talks are ongoing on the future direction of engines from 2030 or so onwards, but they are a long way from reaching a conclusion.
There is a sense that V8s might return – many manufacturers in F1 still make V8s for road cars. But most say a hybrid element is non-negotiable, and some – such as Audi – are currently insisting on a turbo, too. A conclusion is a long way away.
Hi, and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell. I hope everyone was as excited for the season finale of “Matlock” as I was.
Newsletter
Are you a true-blue fan?
Get our Dodgers Dugout newsletter for insights, news and much more.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Great news. The Dodgers have the second-best record in all of baseball. Let’s take a look at the top teams:
1. San Diego, 15-4, .789 (on pace to win 128 games) 2. Dodgers, 14-6, .700 (113) 3. San Francisco, 13-6, .684 (111) 4. Arizona, 12-7, .632 (102) 4. New York Mets, 12-7, .632 (102) 4. Texas, 12-7, .632 (102) 4. New York Yankees, 12-7, .632 (102)
Just look. The third-best record in baseball and third place in their division, with the fourth-place team in the NL West right behind them. So, with the Dodgers, Padres and Giants all on on pace to win more than 100 games (they won’t all do that), let’s compare the three teams at each position, just so we can get a sense of the Dodgers’ closest rivals. So as to not overload everyone with stats, we will focus on just the offenses this time around, looking at the pitchers later.
Catcher Dodgers, Will Smith 2025: .367/.475/.551 (198 OPS) Career: .261/.353/.474 (126)
Padres, Elias Diaz 2025: .206/.341/.235 (69) Career: .251/.304/.386 (82)
Giants, Patrick Bailey 2025: .184/.259/.306 (66) Career: .231/.289/.346 (80)
The Dodgers have the clear edge at catcher.
First base Dodgers, Freddie Freeman 2025: .333/.412/.733 (225) Career: .300/.387/.512 (142)
Padres, Luis Arráez 2025: .275/.306/.388 (97) Career: .322/.370/.418 (118)
Giants, LaMonte Wade Jr. 2025: .102/.224/.265 (44) Career: .241/.347/.406 (111)
Arráez has won the batting title the last three seasons, one in the AL, the last two in the NL. Wade is basically James Loney. Again the Dodgers have the clear edge here..
Second base Dodgers, Tommy Edman 2025: .263/.305/.553 (143) Career: .264/.317/.413 (101)
Jake Cronenworth is currently on the IL with a rib fracture but is expected back next week. Fitzgerald and Edman are pretty even, but Tommy Edman is the more dynamic player.
Third base Dodgers, Max Muncy 2025: .193/.309/.263 (69) Career: .227/.350/.471 (122)
Giants, Matt Chapman 2025: .239/.386/.418 (129) Career: .241/.329/.460 (118)
While it’s true that, as Yogi Berra said in the 50s, “Nobody likes Manny Machado,” he’s a heck of a ballplayer and gives the Padres the clear edge at third, especially when you factor in defense.
Jason Heyward is one of those guys you root for no matter where he is playing, except when he’s playing the Dodgers. Michael Conforto is the best of a decidedly average group.
Center field Dodgers, Andy Pages 2025: .175/.299/.298 (75) Career: .237/.303/.393 (98)
Padres, Jackson Merrill 2025: .378/.415/.676 (206) Career: .298/.332/.511 (133)
Giants, Jung Hoo Lee 2025: .348/.403/.652 (203) Career: .284/338/.428 (121)
Lee came from Japan last season. If he has made some real progress at the plate, then the Giants could have the edge here, but it’s far too soon to tell if his progress is real. Jackson Merrill is very good. And the Dodgers will need Pages to start hitting soon or find someone else. Dave Roberts said he would give Andy Pages about 150 plate appearances.
Right field Dodgers, Teoscar Hernández 2025: .265/.292/.529 (133) Career: .263/.320/.489 (122)
Padres, Fernando Tatis Jr. 2025: .348/.425/.623 (195) Career: .282/.353/.537 (142)
Giants, Mike Yastrzemski 2025: .302/.439/.566 (197) Career: .240/.324/.459 (115)
As much as we like Teoscar Hernández, Fernando Tatis Jr. is better. Mike Yastrzemski seems to have rebounded after an off season. And, in an extremely trivial note, I once won a baseball trivia quiz by correctly spelling Yastrzemski, of course, that was Carl, Mike’s Hall of Fame grandfather.
The Padres’ other DH is Yuli Gurriel, as they seem to excel at acquiring players Dodgers fans don’t like. Shohei Ohtani gives the Dodgers a big advantage here.
Just looking at the offense, the Dodgers and Padres seem much better than the Giants. The Giants are hitting worse overall than the Dodgers this season in many categories, but are averaging almost one run more per game thanks to a lot of timely hitting.
All three teams are playing well. Once the NL West teams start playing each other, we should get some separation in the standings as at least one of these teams will have to cool off.
And don’t forget Arizona, who is lurking and waiting to pounce. It should be an exciting NL West race this season, which will make the year a lot more interesting. I’d rather have a close race than one where the Dodgers win by 14 games.
Get well, Manny Mota
Dodgers legend Manny Mota, still for my money the best pinch-hitter in history, is recovering from a stroke.
His son, Dodgers broadcaster José Mota, told ESPN Deportes on Tuesday that his “dad never lost consciousness during the incident and is currently doing well. He’s alert and responding. We’ll see the results of removing the clot. At his age, it’s difficult to predict, but we hope he can recover all his functions.”
When Mota, 82, retired, he had the career record for pinch hits with 150. From 1974-79 he served mainly as a pinch-hitter with the Dodgers and had these averages: .281, .265, .288, .395, .303, .357. He came out of retirement near the end of the 1980 season and went three for seven as a pinch-hitter. That was back in the day when you had one player on the bench who really just pinch-hit. For a couple of season, the Dodgers had two guys who just pinch-hit: Mota and Vic Davalillo.
What is often overlooked when discussing Mota was he was a good player before he became a pinch-hitter. As a regular player with the Dodgers from 1969-73, he hit .315 and was an All-Star in 1973. In a 20 season major league career, he hit .304.
All-time pinch-hit leaders:
Lenny Harris, 212 Mark Sweeney, 175 Manny Mota, 150 Smoky Burgess, 144 Greg Gross, 143 Dave Hansen, 139 John Vander Wal, 126 José Morales, 123 Orlando Palmeiro, 120 Red Lucas, 117
Kershaw returning soon?
Clayton Kershaw made his first rehab start of the season, pitching three scoreless innings for triple-A Oklahoma City on Wednesday, giving up two hits and striking out two.
Kershaw’s velocity was a bit down, but he still needs to build some arm strength.
“I think any time with rehab you want to feel healthy, which I do feel good today,” Kershaw said after the game. “Then you want to see your stuff — obviously — play. There’s some things that I need to work on still, but for the first [rehab appearance] overall, it was a good step forward.”
If all progresses according to schedule, Kershaw would rejoin the Dodgers in mid to late May.
“I could feel it evolving from a team-oriented game to an individual-oriented game,” he said. “I did not play well when I played for myself. If it wasn’t a team-oriented game, I really was not much value. So I decided this was a good time to get out.”
Parker won six straight Gold Gloves and has to be in the argument when deciding the greatest fielding first baseman of all time.
My first exposure to him was when he guest starred in “The Brady Bunch.”
“When I go out and talk to kids, more of them by far knew me from my appearance on ‘The Brady Bunch’ than my entire career,” Parker said. “Of course they weren’t alive when I was playing.”
We received 16,710 votes our annual poll on how you think the Dodgers will do. Will they win the World Series? Reach the NLCS and lose? Click here to vote.
Results
They will win the World Series, 79.8% They will reach the NLCS but lose there, 10% They will lose in the World Series, 7.1% They will reach the NLDS but lose there, 2.8% They will not make the postseason, 0.2% They will lose in the wild-card round, 0.1%
Last season’s results:
They will reach the NLCS but lose there, 42.6% They will win the World Series, 29.3% They will reach the NLDS but lose there, 16.2% They will lose in the World Series, 9.6% They will lose in the wild-card round, 2.1% They will not make the postseason, 0.2%
Treasury minister Darren Jones has apologised for comparing benefits for disabled people to “pocket money”.
Jones, who is deputy to Chancellor Rachel Reeves, was defending welfare cuts on the BBC’s Politics Live after Wednesday’s Spring Statement when he made the gaffe.
Government analysis suggests more than 3 million families will on average be £1,720 a year worse off by 2030 due to benefit cuts.
Jones said this did not take into account extra cash for training, saying it was like his children getting a Saturday job on top of their pocket money, but the minister later said he was sorry about the “tactless” comments after they were branded “offensive” and “patronising” by critics.
On Wednesday evening, Jones told ITV’s Peston programme: “I’m sorry about it. It was tactless and it wasn’t well considered”, adding “I apologise if I’ve offended people.”
Reeves said it was “not the right analogy” when asked about the chief secretary to the Treasury’s comments on LBC Radio.
But she added: “My children and the chief secretary’s children are too young, but if you have a 16-year-old and you say, ‘you know what I’m not going to give you so much pocket money. I want you to go out to work’.
“And then the [Office for Budget Responsibility] does an impact assessment and says you’re child is going to be worse off – well, they’re going to be worse off if they don’t go and get themselves a Saturday job.
“But if they do go and get themselves a Saturday job, they’ll probably be better off and they probably might enjoy it as well.
“Now, that’s not the right analogy, but there are lots of people who have a disability that are desperate to work.”
Pressed further about Jones’s comments on the BBC’s Today programme she said it was a “clumsy” analogy, adding: “Of course it’s not pocket money.”
In Wednesday’s Spring Statement, Reeves announced further cuts to benefits after the OBR said changes announced last week would not raise as much money as ministers hoped.
An estimated 800,000 people will lose out on personal independent payments (Pips) by 2030.
A further 2.25 million people currently receiving the health top up to universal credit will lose an average of £500 a year as a result of the freeze, and 730,000 future recipients will lose out.
About 3.9 million households not on the health element of universal credit are expected to gain an average of £265 a year from the increase to the standard allowance.
And an extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will be pushed into relative poverty by the government’s changes, according to its own impact assessment.
But ministers have been keen to stress that the figures do not take into account of funding for measures to support those with disabilities into employment.
On Wednesday, Jones told Politics Live: “My understanding is what the impact assessment doesn’t account for is the benefit that you get from our additional money into support for training, skills or work.
“Take, for example, if I said to my kids: ‘I’m going to cut your pocket money by £10 per week, but you have to go and get a Saturday job’.
“The impact assessment on that basis would say that my kids were down £10, irrespective of how much money they get from their Saturday job.”
Apsana Begum – the independent MP for Poplar and Limehouse – described the comments as “staggering”.
Lib Dem work and pensions spokesman Steve Darling, who is blind, said it was “incredibly insulting” and showed that the government did not “understand the challenges facing people with disabilities”.
