[Multi 21] F1 becoming a joke

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by Bononi

one would say. TV figures and all stats can prove that

So what would the drop in almost 100 million worldwide viewers since 2008 say about F1?

Failure to promote this excitement or make it interesting to the general public?

[Greem]

What were the figures then, and what are they now? a drop of 100 million is enormous if 200 million people watch, but less so if that's 6 billion. Were the measurement methodologies the same? Do they take into account "delayed" broadcasts, PVRs and so on?

Asking for a friend...

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by Greem

What were the figures then, and what are they now? a drop of 100 million is enormous if 200 million people watch, but less so if that's 6 billion. Were the measurement methodologies the same? Do they take into account "delayed" broadcasts, PVRs and so on?

Asking for a friend...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...formula-one-tv

Originally 600 million in 2008. 1/6 of audience is nothing to sneeze at.

Ironically, most of the major drops were in new markets F1 is clamouring for.

This gives you a bit of perspective on F1 calculations for TV viewership, if you're confused I don't blame you. It really overstates how many people watch F1, for example it claims 9.7 Million watched F1 in North America last year, yet the average race got about 500k viewers in total. :

http://www.pitpass.com/48426-The-tru...iewing-figures

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I'm afraid your post is a bit inaccurate in places.

Really?

Originally Posted by JamesH

1) Even with a faster car, passing is very difficult due to aerodynamic effects.

It was a generalisation. The degrees of difficulty varies accounting for whatver factors are involved. But the generalisation is true.

Originally Posted by JamesH

2) We probably do have the best talent on the grid than ever before.

The use of the word "probably" negates the rest of the sentence, which comes across as definite. Therefore, it is arguable.

Originally Posted by JamesH

3) Eau Rouge is STILL a very scary difficult corner, even in an F1 car.

The super duper areo cars of the last 10 years or so have made the run from La Source to Les Combes a wiggly straight. Pouhon is now the "Big Balls" corner, when before it wasn't the case.

Originally Posted by JamesH

4) Aero means cars are VERY fast round a winding circuit.

Yes.

Originally Posted by JamesH

People want to watch fast cars round a circuit (or they would just watch dragsters).

What?

Originally Posted by JamesH

Make them slower, people won't be so interested in watching.

Physics dictates you can have one or the other, in cars sliding around, seeing the car work, widening the opportunity to create a pass or abnormal speeds but the degree of difficulty in passing being very high, but you can't have both.

Generations of people/fans fans grown up with wings being the norm, despite the fact it is not. Yet, any deviation from this is considered a radical change. In the 120-130 years that take up history of motorsport, wings have been around for 40-50 years. Wings were not designed to gain a performance so it can satisfy fans. If it means cars going slower and a huge culture change is needed which will create other problems in the shor term (like losing some interest), then so be it.

Originally Posted by JamesH

Which is why club racing and almost anything except F1 has terrible audience figures.

Club racing has no interest because it is for the competitors, not for the fans. It's also a low level, people have little interst in low level sport generally. The reason why classes below F1 have less of a following is because it's easier to follow F1 than other classes. Along with the fact it's accepted as the highest level of motorsport. The same applies for other sports.

[browney]

I was at the track for the race and have a question.

Why was Webber put on hard tyres at the end of the race (and pitted second)? Even though they were told to hold station it seems like the strategy was heavily geared towards Vettel as he was pitted first and put on soft tyres allowing him to have the 'undercut' as well as be quicker, regardless of any engine settings.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by browney

I was at the track for the race and have a question.

Why was Webber put on hard tyres at the end of the race (and pitted second)? Even though they were told to hold station it seems like the strategy was heavily geared towards Vettel as he was pitted first and put on soft tyres allowing him to have the 'undercut' as well as be quicker, regardless of any engine settings.

Because Seb is the #1, and the whole strategy is to give him advantage ?

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Because Seb is the #1, and the whole strategy is to give him advantage ?

Hence the show of petulance when he was being beaten by the old bloke No2 driver.

[Aysedasi]

No, he was just worried he might make a 'mistake'........

[Bononi]

Simple as that.

[codename_47]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement in this thread as to what constitutes "proper" F1 racing.

I can only speak for myself but "proper" F1 racing is a race that is settled on track via overtaking, not in pit lane through strategy or radio via orders.

I grew up watching the sport in an era where refueling was king.
Over the off season I went back and watched some season reviews and heard the commentator get excited as he was describing a battle between 2 drivers, one of which pitted earlier and jumped the other while he was still in pit lane.
I shook my head. That isn't racing.
How did we let that get so bad? An era of drivers backing off and waiting for clear air through the pitstop phase, overtaking their rivals through pit strategy then after the final stops easing off and nursing their cars to the finish.
Only if you got a wet race or a safety car at an unplanned moment were you blessed with a race that wasn't a procession but that wasn't the majority of the time.

Now, at least we have cars that give the drivers the opportunity to take their race in their own hands.
Tyres going off? Learn to manage them better?
Someone passes you with DRS? Well now the weapon is in your hands, repass him with your own DRS
KERS leads to someone passing you? Well you have KERS to, what's wrong with you?

F1 atm is generated towards delivering its excitement on track and I don't care if that makes me a purist or a WWE style entertainment first type of fan, that is what I want to see.
To hear complaints against good racing when they happen is baffling in the extreme.

Now, as to the second race in the season being turned into a complete procession because the first 4 cars are told not to race each other, that's not very good news at all.
So from now on we have to hope all the teams 2 cars are jumbled up because if they ever get line astern they'll just be called off and told not to race?
That doesn't bode well for the image of the sport or the action in the races at all!
Something must be done to prevent the teams (who are within their rights to do so atm) from turning the exciting racing we're just getting used to, back into a parade that's not worth watching.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Peralta

With team orders mid way through a race, saving fuel and inferior tires not to mention DSR and KERS, Formula One is becoming increasingly nothing to do about who is the fastest driver out on the track winning the race. Drivers have aids now with KERS and DRS to make passing easier for them. No real skill from the driver. Drivers slowing down to preserve fuel and tires so not really racing is it? Team orders meaning hold station so no racing! F1 is quickly becoming entertainment instead of a race. How will this period be viewed twenty years from now. We have the best driver talent on the greed than any time in the history of F1, yet they are not allowed to race and show who really was the best out there that given day. What a joke, says Villenueve, indeed what a joke.

I would argue it's the other way around.

[Scooter185]

I think part of the procession problem in Malaysia was Hamilton being under fueled, and apparently the team wanted him on the podium. Had he had the gas I think him and nico would have went at it more

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

I would argue it's the other way around.

No I don't think so. Driver aids have always decreased the viability of what the sport is about but minimising the expenditure of what real skill is required in a traditional sense.

That's why Senna has always been closest to the 'best' for me along with Moss, Fangio, Stewart and Clark.

Sport is about using the development of natural inclination and ability to out perform others not using mechanical means to advantage your natural ability. Its simply less a sport now than it has ever been and yes, I am tired of it.

That probably means I am no longer a devoted fan and that is true. I now will not get up and watch it at night, pay inordinate amounts via pay TV for it, nor will give up work and finances to travel to see it.

Its simply not real anymore

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

No I don't think so. Driver aids have always decreased the viability of what the sport is about but minimising the expenditure of what real skill is required in a traditional sense.

That's why Senna has always been closest to the 'best' for me along with Moss, Fangio, Stewart and Clark.

Sport is about using the development of natural inclination and ability to out perform others not using mechanical means to advantage your natural ability. Its simply less a sport now than it has ever been and yes, I am tired of it.

That probably means I am no longer a devoted fan and that is true. I now will not get up and watch it at night, pay inordinate amounts via pay TV for it, nor will give up work and finances to travel to see it.

Its simply not real anymore

Yeah, but the problem you and many others have is it seems that you don't accept that it's called "car" racing, as opposed to "driver" racing. Car racing is a "motorsport", not a "sport". Motorsport is not a sport, they are two separate nouns describing two separate groups of activities. Not having a go at you, I'm just saying...

[John Turner]

Yes, exactly, and what is more is that every technical improvement over the years, whether it's brakes, tyres, aero etc could be regarded as a driver aid, since it enables an improvement in performance over what went before.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by codename_47

How did we let that get so bad?

Williams built the FW14B and 15C. That, and the rise of popularity of Indycar racing and Nigel Mansell joining the series instigated a series of changes to the cars and how the races were conducted. There were many, they were all ridiculous, and they were counter productive to a "natural" car race, particularly races that are as long as 300kms.

Indycar/Champcar continued with a high level of popularity into the late 90s, which then lead to even more ludicrous changes to the cars for 98. This has then snowballed further and further to the abomination of a "high level" motorsport series F1 currently is.

The overreaction by the FIA/Ecclestone of 20 years ago, still has an effect to this day. All they had to do was ban active suspension, and modern day F1 would dominate the world sporting landscape...DOMINATE! All they would have to do nowadays is revert to revised 89-93 F1 (I said "revised"), but for all the intellgence of the significant, leading people of modern F1, they're pretty silly in other areas.

[Marbot]

The main thing is that engineers cannot unlearn things. You could never go back to regulations that were around 20 years ago, the cars would be way too fast, and they would get faster; faster, if you know what I mean.

[MarkG]

One problem is that it may be perceived by many that GP drivers are back to using "driving" skills again, like drivers from the past, because "driver aids" have been removed, traction-control for example. Well, this isn't really true is it? Massive aero performance, ridiculously short braking distances, paddle-style gearchanges mean that it's harder to identify the core skill levels of drivers. The actual technology of the cars are "drivers' aids" in themselves. As long as drivers have the fitness and a required level of skill to be in F1 anyway, then the car becomes the star. That's why, over a season, with the odd wet race or slippery conditions, we do get to see some core skills appear and the guy with the best car isn't necessarily driving off into the distance. If we had a season of ALL dry races and qualifying, that F1 season would likely be a very boring season.

If cars had less absolute performance (aero mainly), such that drivers' skills were easier identified, and that their skills were a bigger percentage of the overall performance of car/driver, GP racing would be the better for it.

[garcon]

The more I've read of the F1 forum over the past week or so, the more stunned I've become how many apparent fans don't even understand what motorsport is.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by garcon

The more I've read of the F1 forum over the past week or so, the more stunned I've become how many apparent fans don't even understand what motorsport is.

Why don't you explain it then?

[garcon]

When I have time I might try to.

It's not easy putting it terms that the intended audience will understand.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by garcon

The more I've read of the F1 forum over the past week or so, the more stunned I've become how many apparent fans don't even understand what motorsport is.

Are you talking out of your bot...? Or are you stunned that people don't share your views, whatever they are?

[MarkG]

The point is. F1 aero performance created quite a few years of GP racing where cars could only overtake via pitstop strategy. We have had some "racing" and unpredictability in Gps these recent seasons because it was decided to provide teams with rubbish tyres and introduce DRS. It appears to me, and I might be wrong, it is ONLY because of aero performance and the processions it creates, that "gimmicks" were introduced. Gimmicks aren't needed if the aero performance is dealt with properly.

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by garcon

The more I've read of the F1 forum over the past week or so, the more stunned I've become how many apparent fans don't even understand what motorsport is.

it's not just this forum too, it's getting quite a beating on many sites, as it should.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by MarkG

Are you talking out of your bot...? Or are you stunned that people don't share your views, whatever they are?

Neither, simply stunned how little understanding there is, particularly that motorsport is about an awful lot more than the driver, and that that's what helps make it a team sport.

Perhaps understanding isn't the right word. We all start somewhere, and I'm not a fan snob (honest). More a lack of willingness to accept it's more complex than some would seemingly like.