Be noted that they aren't even using the Chevy or GMC brand.

Specifically Cadillac, which was always seen as a unique brand for sportscars and where GM would gather resources and people to compete in racing events without the risk of damaging the most important brands (Chevy and GMC) image.
They even find NASCAR (Indy comes second) more rewarding when it comes to their purposes.

And here come the armchair experts telling Alex Albon how to drive his car because clearly you all know far better right.

Albon is experienced enough to know how to drive the car.
The ‘armchair experts’ are merely reminding him of the rulebook.
But maybe the dog ate the rulebook ;)

Excuse me for just trusting what the actual drivers who drive these cars say rather than just listening to a bunch of internet people who have zero idea what they are talking about!

The Group C cars were always going to be a tough act to follow, but as fun as some of those mid 1990s entries like the XJ220 were, I'm glad Le Mans went back to the more extreme prototypes later on in the decade.

Now that is hilarious.
If only F1 was allowed to have the integrity to do this, rather than being so consumed by appearances and myth.

However - what matters most in this particular case is that they mustn't follow F1's example of changing the rules (and even the circuits) as a result of everyone breaking them.

Think back a little, and you will see that Ferrari proved just a few years ago that if the PU performs well enough the failings of the chassis can be overcome, the McLaren sudden fall to the back with an under-developed Honda PU was attributed to the Mercedes PU having enough power to mask the failings of the chassis.

When was that? The 2019 Ferrari was the dodgy one, and despite that they weren't all that competitive, winning two or three races and not really being a factor in the championship.

McLaren was also pretty mediocre, as was Force India, back in 2014 with that world-beating Mercedes V6. The third customer Williams was much better than both, and even they were a long ways behind Mercedes proper. A great engine might be able to power through some problems, but if the car itself is unstable, sensitive, and doesn't do well with the tyres (or any of the other problems drivers have talked about recently as it relates to 2023) the car as a whole is still going to struggle.

Please read my second sentence, and let me know what you think!

I've seen a lot of debate online about this, but in my opinion this is a fantastic decision. Obviously, it is far from ideal, but it makes a clear statement that the white line is to be respected and that infringements will be penalised. I'm sure those drivers will likely be more careful in the future. More of this kind of enforcement elsewhere please.

What’s wrong with a back marker?

Nothing is wrong with a backmarker - someone always has to be last anyway.
Any negative consequences of them being a backmarker are worn solely by themselves.

What’s wrong with a back marker?

Bernie let Haas in, knowing that unless they were allowed to pretty much clone the previous year's Ferrari using mostly Ferrari manufactured parts, they would be tagging along behind.
Nobody here seems to support that idea of Haas being there other than a place marker for something else.

I think they should focus on lining up a decent PU and enter with that.
Given the GM engine-power-is-everything, I'd guess they would produce a 2028 PU that would put an average chassis into the mid-field.

Perhaps he was obliged to overdrive the car ie push the limits of traction, in order to be competitive in a tight midfield. Also remember that he scored way more points than Sargeant who probably was unable to keep the car as close to the limit as consistently.

But yeah, you make a reasonable point.

What’s wrong with a back marker?

Especially when they are new to the sport, and didn’t have a chance yet to show how serious they are trying to improve based on experience.

Also, if it is to do with the wind, then every single street circuit with no run off where it was windy and he got track limits - he would have crashed. He managed to not to go off the circuit here as he was more careful which was all he needed to do at the other circuits. His team mate having nearly a third less than him is also an indication that Albon is the problem more than the car.

they might reconsider GM’s bid if it comes in with the full force and budget that manufacturers like Mercedes and Ferrari devote to the program — and waits until 2028

The thing is that the Andretti proposal didn't involve anything from GM except the name until 2028 and until that point the car would be a chassis with no historical knowledge behind it, powered by the lowest performing PU on the grid. That proposal has back marker written all over it.

Think back a little, and you will see that Ferrari proved just a few years ago that if the PU performs well enough the failings of the chassis can be overcome, the McLaren sudden fall to the back with an under-developed Honda PU was attributed to the Mercedes PU having enough power to mask the failings of the chassis. Under power PU and underdeveloped (or badly developed) chassis = back marker.

Most F1 hardware is quite unique and very esoteric that does not translate very well economically for most road cars; meaning GM would still have to spend big money and years channeling their existing knowledge and IP to catch up and come up with race winning F1 parts. I seriously doubt GM has yet invested any significant tooling, facilities, money or time into making any F1 hardware.
They've probably only been spitballing so far until they get the green light from FOM.

However, I do look forward to seeing them in a F1 race.

And of course, GM developed Magne Ride, a suspension technology common on their upper end vehicles (and many European marques) that's too sophisticated for F1. /rolleyes

Nice to see & hear the RB1 in action after a while.

Albon blames Williams’ wind sensitivity for racking up most track limits breaches

Spoken like a true racing driver… "No, I can't slow down to make sure I stay within track limits - it's the car's fault."

So as much as track limits might be seen as a bad thing and a ‘bad boy’ kind of behaviour, it’s just part of the game – pushing it to the limit.

The modern 'spirit' of sportsmanship… Play the rules even harder than the other competitors.

And the Ford Vs GM thing - Apart from the minor detail that Ford purchased and funded Cosworth to build race engines for them rather than actually doing it themselves in-house - GM was only contracted for, and enticed for the purpose of, bringing Andretti to F1. They had no other reason to want to join, and had otherwise expressed little if any real interest in doing so.
Further to that, I think it's quite fair to say that if Red Bull weren't interested in partnering with Ford, Ford wouldn't have gone any further with their relatively sudden F1 plans either. They only wanted to partner with a front-running team - and had it worked out differently with Porsche, they wouldn't have even had the opportunity to do so.