Who killed F1

[vatuloa]

This is from a artical on foxsports

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0...-23770,00.html

It's saying any sport controlled do well by 1 team is going to decrease the interest in that sport it does have a strong point lets hope next year is more even

[avsfan733]

no Bernie ecclestone and Max Mosley killed F1

[Dani Filth]

since when is F1 dead ??

[Lods]

Originally Posted by avsfan733

no Bernie ecclestone and Max Mosley killed F1

Agree, Bernie and Max killed F1

[Dani Filth]

if they killed it .who burried it

[903cc]

Herman Tilke has got some explaining to do as well. But then he was probably just the contract killer paid by others...

[Super Tourer]

All sounds rather over dramatic to me, 2005 has the makings of a great season, no need to call the undertaker just yet...

[Gt_R]

A completely trash article which serves no purpose but trying to stir controversies and probably distaste towards Ferrari/Michael.

Formula One is far from dead, and even if it's dead, it won't be Michael and Ferrari who deliver it the blow. Even a bimbo could see through the rubbish provided by the author.

[Adam43]

For those who think that only one team winning is bad for F1 then blame McLaren, Williams et al.

Bernie killed F1. Most of us on this board are into F1 because of Bernie.

Also, if F1 is dead, I pity a lot of other sports.

For those interested, The Times ran a similar article on Friday.

[macdaddy]

The Ferrari domination isn't healthy, but F1 will never die.

[MRJUCY]

F1 has taken a beating but it's not the first time it will adapt & grow from it & keep going & growing.

[Gabrio]

Originally Posted by MRJUCY

F1 has taken a beating but it's not the first time it will adapt & grow from it & keep going & growing.

Yep. The so called decline has more to do with technical regulation and the politics of the Concorde Agreement that with the sport itself.

[Adam43]

Right, here is a bit of a silly post.

I think there may be a general underlying decline, but for this one I don't want F1 to do anything about it. I think pure sports may end up in decline a little. There is no phone voting, the best teams normally win and two hours is a long time to watch something. Imagine a TV executive suggesting F1 for a format! They'd be laughed out of the room.

What to do? 15 minute races, reversed grids, weight penalties? Nah, let it decline into a minority sport once again - far better that than the alternative.

OK, I am being (very) OTT. However what is this fascination with the popularity of F1. I love my motorsport and most of it is nowhere near as popular as F1! Being live on TV is all I think is really needed (for myself).

[frederick]

I think it's really Vainglorious of the teams in F1 to be discussing cost cutting measures, the fact is they are going to have their funding cut drastically if they fail to make 2005 an interesting series of RACES
Viewer numbers will fall, TV stations won't air it, sponsors will flee and the costs will be cut alright! nobody will have the cash to throw around anymore

Who killed F1?
Bernie did, he created it as it is today, one mans' lifes' work. If anyone should carry the can for the current state it's in it's Bernie. The model he created was flawed from the sporting standpoint, but really sucessful from the personal enrichment standpoint. He will soon go the way of all things (and probably be the first man to figure out a way of taking his money with him)

I've been lucky enough to watch it develop since 1980 when I first got to see all the races on TV, here in Australia, (because Alan Jones was winning the WDC)

Now i'm going to watch it evolve into something completely different, maybe return to the amateur series it once was, after the Manufacturers have given up one by one, with Privateers taking their place.

[XJR14/WSC95]

Ferrari and Schumacher haven't killed F1 Mclaren, Williams, and Renault with JPM, Alonso, and Kimi have killed F1 in ‘97, ‘98, and ’99 Ferrari and Schumacher made the championship exciting by providing stiff competition and therefore making the racing exciting. Something the other teams and over hyped drivers have not been able to do in ’01, ’02 and ’04. BAR and Button were the most exciting competition in ’04 but couldn’t manage one win something I’m shore Schumacher would have achieved if he where driving that car.

Then there’s the narrow cars, grooved tyres, manual gearboxes and not introducing sensible Aero regulation and air restrictors to reduce power instead of building new motors (V8s in ’06), lack of sponsorship for mid to small teams (Prost, Minardi, Arrows, Jordan) and most importantly a lack of interesting personalities from the drivers.

That’s the end of my rant. (but I could go on!!)

[Jordi]

I shot the sheriff, but I didn't shoot the F1...

[Sodemo]

Whilst The above article is largely complete shash (blaming schumacher etc), it does some up the current state F1 is in.
In my view, F1 has never been in a worse state - in terms of drama/spectacle/racing, but its not Michael's fault.

[Liz]

I was able to watch only 20 minutes of the hour before I remembered why I had quit watching F1 early in the year. 2004 was stupefyingly boring. I never want to see TGF again.

And please don't bother to tell me that I will be thrown into the fiery furnace unless I bow down and kiss his twinkling toes. I am not watching any more until he is replaced by Kovalennin who beat him at the Race of Champions.

[Adam43]

I hope you didn't watch the ROC otherwise you might have seen Michael.

I am sorry you missed JPM and Kimi going at each other in the final race. Or even the great comeback of the Ferraris at Monza (TGF spun for you there). Or...

[woodbine]

Who killed F1? It's like Murder on the Orient Express, they all did.

Bernie changed it beyond all recognition bringing money to all those involved. Now he charges so much that only governments can afford to run races.

The governments still pay Bernie's ridiculous fees.

Max talks about cutting costs but he has been responsible for causing the awful racing because of bad rules (grooved tyres, narrow chassis, the chicane at eau rouge etc).

The teams complain that the costs are too high and then say that 24 days testing during the season is not enough. They are so intent in getting every extra cent that they change the bodywork so they can fit more ads on.

The circuit designers now seem intent on producing tracks where the cars don't go too fast so that the cars' ads can be easily read.

So, they all did it. Except for one little detail and that is its not dead. Its still got the image and the fans, despite everyone's efforts. There will always be a championship trying to show the best single-seater cars racing each other, and they will always be spending every dollar they can lay there hands on (and a bit more). The amounts may change but the intent will always be there. So long live F1! or GPWC or whatever its called in the future

[Super Tourer]

I don't get the F1 is dead message - look outside the top step of the podium and we have for 2005.

Kimi v JPM surely a fascinating contest.

Webber in a Williams - first time to see MW in a front running car. Maybe Heidfeld too.

Ralf at Toyota will he drag them up to the sharp end.

Massa v JV at Sauber another contest worth watching.

Can Fizzi match or beat Alonso - significant as Alonso and Kimi are the two drivers Ferrari consider worth replacements for MS - when he retires!

Can BAR maintain their momentum it what will be an almight scrap at the top end of the table.

Will all the teams get ontop of the new regs, what effect will tyres have on lap times.

There is plenty to follow in 2005, which has seen more significant moves in the driver market than we have seen for years.

Going to be great.

Dead no - possibly entering a transition period - yes.

[RaceFreak]

The decline of F1 is a natural cyclic occurance in big-money buisness (or sports). When fan interest and profit-taking become the frenzy we have now, competition evolves. Cartels form to corner the industry and 'outsiders' want a piece of the action. In the international arena, governments subsidize unprofitable enterprises to get in on the game. Same happened in other forms of racing (to the detriment of both old and new series, I might add). Same happened several years ago in American Football. Think of Airbus and Boeing. The profit motive is the driving force in all commerce, be it racing or whatever. Think the GPWC folks are entering the market because of an altruistic need to 'save' racing? No way. They (like the present F1 moguls) are there to get rich. And so the cycle turns.
Bring on the racing !

[krt917]

Woodbine and RaceFreak make good points. I don't believe that F1 is dead, but it is a shadow of what it could be.

I agree that the teams, Bernie and Max have all played a part in F1's decline, but I don't think it's so much a question of who caused this, but what? Money did. As the amount of money in F1 rose, so did the stakes. And the involvement of big business (in some cases, car manufacturers), who cared more about cash than any sporting idea grew as well. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Of course, F1 is not unusual, money and big business has influenced other sports - and indeed life in general - in similar ways.

Then, of course, there's the strange paradox that more and more of us have been watching (mainly due to improved coverage and advertising) whilst the show - with some exceptions - has got worse and worse.

The domination of Ferrari and Schumacher has NOTHING to do with all this. Teams and drivers have always dominated and that is a completely different issue. I like Adam's idea - if people want artificial measures to make the racing closer then they can go and watch something else and leave F1 to the enthusiasts and smaller constructors!

[Gt_R]

Why look beyond the top step of the podium? Sure, there is racing behind Schumacher..but that is only because of their incompetence to race Ferrari.

The article blamed "the best driver get the best car" theory. This alone goes to show how ignorant the author is of even significant bit of knowledge - Michael did NOT go to Williams. Instead, he chose to take a risk into the political mess at Ferrari which is not the best team then.

And blame Ferrari/MS for boring championship? In 97/98/99/00, Ferrari started with far from superior equipment, YET they show full capability to provide some competition to bring the fight for championship down to the final race. Ferrari created the show then. And now, Ferrari got their jobs done right, Michael drove brilliantly, and what happened to the rivals? They can't even muster enough capability to put together a couple of victories a season. And what they do is ***** and try to bring the level of competition down to meet their level of competitveness, or rather lack of.

I don't give half a hoot about any millions of viewers out there, as long as F1 still comes on TV every alternate weekend. Don't blame Bernie for F1. It's like blaming your host for not providing a 10 course meal for dinner.

Competition is to strive for the best, and the best win. If fans have a problem with that, if teams have a problem with that...maybe they should go for something else?

[Sodemo]

The thing is though GT-R, it depends on the way you look at it.
I am a Montoya fan, though was bored by the way he romped to his run of wins in summer 2003 esp Hockenheim.
I don't want to see Montoya run away with the race from lap 1, I want to see a scrap!