F1 Television ratings... new rules do nothing...

[Inigo Montoya]

http://www.eurodatatv.com/get_doc.ph...f604fd9603ceb0

Interesting that even with the introduction of changes to qualifying, etc... the numbers are basically (except for Finland's Raikonnen blip) steadily decreasing since the start of the Ferrari domination.


Also interesting to me is how low the numbers are in the UK compared to Italy and Finland... With most of the teams based in the UK, this is surprising!

The worst year was, predictably, 2004.... with Michael and Ferrari firing off all those successive wins to start the season...

Guess we now can see why they changed the points formula to try to make things closer...

[ensign14]

I wonder whether tyregate had anything to do with it. I know for a fact it put some people off who considered the rules were being fiddled to help Ferrari.

[Gt_R]

Oh yes...not forgetting the fiddling of points, regulations and qualifying format in a bid to drag Ferrari down. The "some people" who considered tyregate a pro-Ferrari decision are those who fail to understand where Michelin has overstepped the regulations.

[ensign14]

'Cept they didn't...the regulations were changed. No question about that. Michelin didn't have the balls to resist.

[ASCII Man]

It sure wouldn't be the first time the FIA interfered to 'create' a more interesting and close championship battle...

[Glen]

The regulations were not changed! You do not have your facts straight.

The regulations always said that the tyre size should be a certain limit at all times - they were in the habit of scrutineering the tyre size when the tyres were new, until they realised that Michelin had a clever little trick going, and then they said that the tyres were going to be measured at any time. The rules never changed.

[Dutton]

Also, as I recall, prior to Monaco Mich put in an objection Bridgestone tyres.

Now, Ferrari suddenly Ferrari stopped winning. Michael didn't lead a race for 6 races, or soemthing similar, as I recall.

Anyway, with regards such considerations due to rule changes and TV effects. I seem to recall reading as well that the amount of air time the samller teams, such as Minardi, received in the post-2002 was format was actually LESS than that they got in pre-2003. They couldn't run early etc, or otherpoints whne emptiness may have occured. Only two set moments. A lot of people would not wait until the end of pre-qual, or the start 2nd qual. Not the big names out.

Not too surprising, but something a lot of people didn't seem to anticipate for some reason.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Glen

The regulations were not changed! You do not have your facts straight.

*sigh* Yes they were. The regulations stated that the tyres should be a certain size when measured. The regulations also stated that the measurement should take place at a certain time.

Then the FIA changed the regulations to say the measurement should take place at a different

Of course, if the regs were not changed, then the Michelin runners were all in breach of regulations. Therefore they were all disqualified from Hungary and previous races. Weren't they? Oh, of course they were not.

Whatever spin was put on things at the time, from a legal perspective the regs WERE changed. Perhaps to how they were always MEANT to have been read, but on a plain reading of the regs they were changed. This was all gone into at the time ad nauseam.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by ensign14

*sigh* Yes they were. The regulations stated that the tyres should be a certain size when measured. The regulations also stated that the measurement should take place at a certain time.

*double sigh* I suggest you do your research - the regulations DID NOT specify a time at which the tyres should be a maximum size, and they DID NOT give a time for scrutineering them.

The rules stated that the tyres should have a maximum width.

OTHER rules specified things such the size of the grooves, and they stated "when new".

NOWHERE in the rules does it say when things should be measured, except by inference when it is a dimension of "when new" category.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Glen

*double sigh* I suggest you do your research - the regulations DID NOT specify a time at which the tyres should be a maximum size, and they DID NOT give a time for scrutineering them.

Regs at the time:

c) Each front dry-weather tyre, when new, must incorporate 4 grooves which are :
• arranged symmetrically about the centre of the tyre tread ;
• at least 14mm wide at the contact surface and which taper uniformly to a minimum of 10mm at thelower surface ;
• at least 2.5mm deep across the whole lower surface ;
• 50mm (+/- 1.0mm) between centres.

Furthermore, the tread width of the front tyres must not exceed 270mm.

It's all in the same clause. Legally interpreting the rule, the tyre width is taken when new.

[Glen]

That's exactly what I'm talking about - it is right in front of you... If that were all under the heading "when new" the front tyre width would be number five in that bullet list. It isn't.

[N I Tram]

Exactly Glen. If something isn't in a bulleted list, then the clauses stated in the sentance leading up to the bulleted list don't apply.

Right now there's a lot of stigma to being a Formula 1 fan. In the eyes of the general public it's boring and one-sided, and getting worse. Radical changes are required, as no sport can continue without TV support, especially one that so expensive and thus sponsorship-dependent.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by N I Tram

Exactly Glen. If something isn't in a bulleted list, then the clauses stated in the sentance leading up to the bulleted list don't apply.

Yes they do. The bullet points all relate to grooves so the last sentence cannot be included with them.

However, they all fall within sub-clause (c). Had the requirement for tyre width not been "when new", the requirement would have been in a separate sub-clause. Standard statutory interpretation. The use of the word "furthermore" also suggests that the last sentence is dependent on some previous sentence (otherwise it would be redundant) and narrows down requirements already set out.

Trust me, I've had years of practice at this and won Court of Appeal cases on interpretations of clauses.

[Glen]

How astonishing that Michelin didn't get you in at the time - could have made them millions of quid.

The furthermore simply refers to an additional feature of the front tyre tread.

Also, specifically designing and developing a tyre which intentionally grows in width when part-worn is clearly an attempt to get around the spirit of the rule - I take it you studied the pictures at the time? Actually, I assume that you didn't, because you're still arguing the point.

[Sodemo]

In my eyes Michelin's tyres fully complied with the rules that were set out in 2003 regarding tyre width.
The regs stated that tyres were measured when new, and Michelin's tyres were passed when new.
True it might not be in the spirit of the rules to have tyres where the width widens during use, which is why the rules were changed so that they were checked before and after the race.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by The Monster

The regs stated that tyres were measured when new...

Nope. Didn't specify a time for measuring at all.

None of this is really a problem - except for the very important point of propogating the myth that the FIA has Ferrari bias - and the more that is spread, the more the casual viewer will be put off F1. As has been pointed out, Bridgestone themselves were subject to technical warnings from the FIA in the same season - this doesn't get talked about because it inconveniently doesn't fit into the big picture for the typical anti-Ferrari ranter.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Glen

How astonishing that Michelin didn't get you in at the time - could have made them millions of quid.

If I'd've been advising them, I would have told the FIA that the tyres complied and dared them to DQ Michelin after the next race and challenged the "reinterpretation" as being a new regulation. However a multibillion buck company would be disinclined even to take the risk when they were erroneously confident of being able to produce a tyre to the new regs instantly.

Plus it is very difficult to challenge sporting bodies in Court. This would have gone to arbitration, almost certainly, but there is an in-built bias towards governing bodies. Remember international arbitration often puts a purposive interpretation on things.

Originally Posted by Glen

Also, specifically designing and developing a tyre which intentionally grows in width when part-worn is clearly an attempt to get around the spirit of the rule...

Oh, certainly. Hence the FIA shut the loophole as soon as they spotted it. IMO, however, they were not entitled to shut it because of the provisions as to when rule changes can take place.

The spirit of the rules, or the spirit of the wording, is irrelevant. All you can do is look at the exact words. Only in the case of clear ambiguity (not the case here) can you look at intention. After all, imagine looking at something 5 years after the people negotiating it had all died. How can you determine the spirit? You can't. You only go on the words. Michelin know this and did so. Bstone know this and tried, but failed, to produce a similar tyre. So they *****ed about it until the rule was changed.

Of course, if you look at the spirit of the rules on (say) team orders, Ferrari has been running illegally for the past couple of years. But not according to the letter.

[Glen]

It seems you only see one team, one way. How have Ferrari been going against team orders? Do you mean by splitting their strategies, putting RB on the "second choice" one? Like McLaren do. And other teams. Or do you mean not racing after the final 'stops? Like all teams do if they can, to ensure reliability. You construct a good enough argument (if far from unarguable - I still believe the rule clearly infers tyre width at all times) and then lose credibility by betraying an obvious bias.

The acid test of the tyre regulation, by the way, is to look how the rule is phrased now - is there a rule change (your assertion) or a clarification, or no change at all?

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Glen

How have Ferrari been going against team orders? Do you mean by splitting their strategies, putting RB on the "second choice" one? Like McLaren do. And other teams.

Ferrari hardly devote equal resources to the 2 cars and it is a pretty strong possibility that Rubens is contractually bound to be the number 2. I don't say it's wrong, it certainly works for Schumi, and is not against the regulations, but it is not in the spirit of the regs. It is however one of the reasons for TV ratings dropping; after all, when the Ronnie Macs were sweeping the board in 1988, you did not know which one would win.

Dunno what the current regs say, the FIA web****e keeps crashing on me.

[Dutton]

The new regs bascially say the saem thing, but add a proviso that says teh FIA reserves the right to measure the grooves et al at any time they want - and, when measured, the tyres must conform. I have interpreted as being ala post-Monza 2003, except it is not necessarily goingto be done to every car after every race.

With regards contracts. All drivers will have a clause stating that they are obliged to follow team orders. There would be no reason for Rubens to have anything else in his contract. All they would have to do is give him the order.

Also, BAR said last year, in open public, on air during the races, that they were operating team orders. It surprised me they were so blatant. However, no-one seemed to mind. I suppose because the driver who could benefit wasn't a successful German, and the team doing it were not a particular successful Italian squad might have had something to do with it.

ALL teams use orders in one way or another, if they see it as fitting a particular situation, they always have and always will. It is just now they are driven undergorund, to a degree. Thus the person it costs is far less able to openly get the credit they deserve.

This is a superior situation apparently................... I can only presume it works on the hear-no-evil-see-no-evil theory.

With regards the orders rule. In the version of theregs I have, article 155 states: "Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited".

I guess they better not tell their drivers to pit; or to look after their tyres; or to change fuel mixtures; or engine maps or whatever else.

[Knowlesy]

I'm with you on tyre-gate ensign....

I don't want to debate whether it was pro-Ferrari or not. But the actual changing of a rule with but three races to go stinks. And whatever spin you put on it, the rule was changed.

they should have left it until the end of the season IMO.

[Rich R]

tyres aside, i find those figures slightly worrying for the uk, a drop of 1.8 million viewers since 2001 can't be a good thing. even taking into account schumacher's dominance in 04, and 03 being an unusually exciting year, i am surprised the viewing figures fell, we did after all have a british driver doing quite well last year.

[Knowlesy]

F1 does have a bad reputation at the moment for one reason or another, so inevitably viewing figures will be down a little. But rest assured they will rise again and no doubt fall again. Peaks and troughs.

[Inigo Montoya]

But why, with most of the teams being based in the UK, are the numbers overall (as a %) so small compared to Finland and Italy?

[ensign14]

The British don't have the same love of machinery and do not see the team element as being nationalistic. And indeed why should they? Show me a uninational team.

I don't think the points system helps. Imagine Monty goes toe-to-toe with MS next year, they're trading wins. Then JPM retires with MS 1st. He has to get 6 wins with MS 2nd to overtake him. The closeness is artificial and does not work with near 100% reliability. And the sheer number of races detracts from the importance of any single one - they all merge into a seamless whole.

Then again, who cares about ratings*? It should be about sport and not about artificial handicaps for The Show.

*yes, I know, but still...can't help feeling the racing was better when there was less money.