2016 F1 Schedule Changes

[cosworth151]

It still lists 21 races - for now, at least. One change is that Mexico City is now the week after Austin, and Austin is now provisional. That move makes sense to me. It will be much easier to move the circus from Texas to Mexico in one week than to move it from Mexico to Brazil. Also, if Texas goes under, it will prevent a three week break between Japan & Mexico.

The good news is that Germany is back on the calendar, this year at Hockenheim.

Baku is still on, with a note that the start time will be adjusted to be after Le Mans ends. Personally, I think it's still a long shot.

2016 F1 World Championship
 
March 20 - Melbourne, Australia
April 3 - Bahrain, Bahrain
April 17 - Shanghai, China
May 1 -  Sochi, Russia
May 15 - Barcelona, Spain
May 29 - Monte Carlo, Monaco
June 12 - Montreal, Canada
June 19 - Baku, Azerbaijan*
July 3 - Spielberg, Austria
July 10 - Silverstone, United Kingdom
July 24 - Budapest, Hungary
July 31 - Hockenheim, Germany
Aug. 28 - Spa-Francorchamps, Belgium
Sept. 4 - Monza, Italy
Sept. 18 - Singapore, Singapore
Oct. 2 - Sepang, Malaysia
Oct. 9 - Suzuka, Japan
Oct. 23 - Austin, USA**
Oct. 30 - Mexico, City Mexico
Nov. 13 - Sao Paolo, Brazil
Nov. 27 - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/fia-says-2016-f1-us-grand-prix-not-sure-thing

[Jericoke]

Given that F1 is supposed to be seen as rich and glamorous, all these tentative races has  got to be off putting on some level.

I can't blame major sponsors for not wanting to be associated with cancelled events/tentative events.

How many other 'top' sports have to cancel events on a regular basis, aside from weather based interruptions?

[Andy B]

21 for the season? I doubt that I'm willing to bet some of your money that its only 19 or 20 at best.

[Irisado]

I remain very dubious about the US Grand Prix.  I cannot see the organisers being able to satisfy Ecclestone's financial demands.

As for Azerbaijan, I'd like to see that removed on the basis that the country has even less Formula 1 heritage than some of the other venues which are there solely because they can afford to pay Ecclestone his millions.

[Jericoke]

I remain very dubious about the US Grand Prix.  I cannot see the organisers being able to satisfy Ecclestone's financial demands.

Recently teams have been kicking in a little to help cover the costs of their 'home' grand prix.  If the USA market is 'so important' to Mercedes and Ferrari, I'm wondering if Bernie might approach them to cover a short fall.

As for Azerbaijan, I'd like to see that removed on the basis that the country has even less Formula 1 heritage than some of the other venues which are there solely because they can afford to pay Ecclestone his millions.

I don't have a problem with new races in theory.  Every race has the potential to be brilliant.  Sticking only with places who used to like F1 racing won't grow the sport.  Granted many new races seem to be folly, but that's a problem in execution, not optimism.

[J.Clark]

I too fear that the USGP is jeopardy.  Losing it will be bad for Formula 1.

I actually miss Turkey too.  It was one of those few new circuits that actually produced some good racing.

It is good that they moved Mexico up.  I agree that is is likely to prevent the 3 week gap.

[Scott]

I'm with Jeri on the new vs old track argument.  Though I think the core European races should remain and return (France and maybe Portugal), I don't think you have to prove F1 heritage to get a sport.  A little like trying to get a job without experience, yet all the jobs require experience. 

[Irisado]

The analogy does not work for me.  This is because to obtain the job in the first place usually requires you to have a qualification or set of skills related to the job which you are applying for.  A number of these new countries have no heritage, no driver for the fans to get behind, and no team for fans to support.  There is, therefore, no basis, other than lining Ecclestone's pockets, for them to be awarded Grand Prix.

I am not saying that these countries should never be hosts for Grand Prix.  Instead, an interest in motorsport needs to be generated through other means first.  Why do they have to be awarded Formula 1 races straight away?  Why not start with lower level formula races?

[Jericoke]

The analogy does not work for me.  This is because to obtain the job in the first place usually requires you to have a qualification or set of skills related to the job which you are applying for.  A number of these new countries have no heritage, no driver for the fans to get behind, and no team for fans to support.  There is, therefore, no basis, other than lining Ecclestone's pockets, for them to be awarded Grand Prix.

I am not saying that these countries should never be hosts for Grand Prix.  Instead, an interest in motorsport needs to be generated through other means first.  Why do they have to be awarded Formula 1 races straight away?  Why not start with lower level formula races?

Monaco has no racing heritage, they don't make cars or racers, yet Monaco is as synonymous with racing as Indy or Lemans.  It's because some rich guy put up a pile of money.  How's that different from any of these other races funded by petro dollars?

As for lower series racing... does anyone attend them in countries with 'racing heritage'?  (Aside from races paired with F1 weekends)

If Brits aren't lining up for F3, I doubt Azerbaijani will.

[cosworth151]

The principality has a long and distinguished racing heritage. The Grand Prix of Monaco dates back to 1929. The circuit has remained pretty much the same, except for the portion between Tabac and the current starting line. The Monte Carlo Rally, the most famous rally event in the world, goes back to 1911. The Rallye Monte Carlo Historique has become one of the finest historic racing events. 

None of the empty-stands dictator derbies could come close to that.

[Scott]

The principality has a long and distinguished racing heritage. The Grand Prix of Monaco dates back to 1929. The circuit has remained pretty much the same, except for the portion between Tabac and the current starting line. The Monte Carlo Rally, the most famous rally event in the world, goes back to 1911. The Rallye Monte Carlo Historique has become one of the finest historic racing events. 

None of the empty-stands dictator dictator derbies could come close to that.

No question.  Without a doubt...

...however it started from nothing, no lower tier racing, no racing culture of any kind aside from the rally, which was a bunch of rich kids and their fast cars, which pretty much defines the Middle East at the moment. 

[cosworth151]

They did it for love of racing. That's vastly different than a race being held as a publicity stunt for a dictatorship. In any case, any new venue should have to prove itself by successfully running races in the various junior series before being awarded an F1 date.

[Irisado]

Monaco has no racing heritage, they don't make cars or racers, yet Monaco is as synonymous with racing as Indy or Lemans.  It's because some rich guy put up a pile of money.  How's that different from any of these other races funded by petro dollars?

Monaco was established by wealthy people who loved racing.  The passion was there from the start, even if the event is really a parade of the rich and famous more than it is anything else.  These new venues are soulless by comparison.

Also, how many years are we going to give these new venues?  Monaco established itself as being a popular venue for crowds to go to watch, even if they have to be rich and famous to do so.  These new venues fail to attract the crowds on the whole, and even if they do, there is rarely any drama, and there's next to no challenge for the drivers either.  At least mistakes have consequences Monaco.

[Alianora La Canta]

I feel like Baku's being set up to fail, which is a shame (even if that would resolve the Le Mans clash - I for one am not missing any of Le Mans to watch the F1). As such, I expect the total number of races in 2016 to be 19, slightly more manageable than last year.

F1 has been cancelling races on a frequent basis for many years. It even had to do so back in the 1950s, often for financial reasons (even back then, circuits often underestimated the cost of a Grand Prix). It would be better if F1 was better at calculating which venues were actually plausible, but this have proven difficult to do. At one point, it was necessary to run an international race before a Grand Prix could be granted to a new venue, but that stopped when it became clear this wasn't necessarily improving the cancellation rate. (The cancellations that led to the rule's removal were attributable to the 1973 fuel crisis, but still...)

Then we occasionally get totally random stuff from circuits. I'm tempted to class events at Austin as one, and an example I'm completely sure of is Brands Hatch. It was meant to get a Grand Prix for 2000 under the leadership of Nicola Fulston. Bernie entered negotiations with Brands Hatch, which got very involved and at one point involved a large company called Octogan effectively buying Brands Hatch, Silverstone and two other circuits. But nobody except Nicola realised the whole thing was a ruse. She'd figured a loophole in the system, delayed environmental consultations she suspected would fail long enough to get Bernie to pay an event transfer fee (from Silverstone to Brands), took the money and headed for early retirement (she was 34, and was apparently trying to ensure she didn't die of overwork at 40 like her father did). It turned out to be quite legal, so a furious Bernie could only get the (expected) no-go report from the environmentalists and beg Silverstone to take the British Grand Prix. (Another thing Bernie has never forgiven BRDC for).  Nicola is one of the few people who has successfully outplayed Bernie Ecclestone at financial negotiations.

[Jericoke]

Nicola is one of the few people who has successfully outplayed Bernie Ecclestone at financial negotiations.

I have a new heroine!