GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Irisado on January 23, 2014, 06:08:07 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25859321 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25859321)
I've made my displeasure at this known previously, so I'll be brief and just say this. It's clear that the teams don't like it, so to not protest against it just because they are, to all intents and purposes, intimidated by Ecclestone, highlights everything that is wrong with the way in which this sport is currently run.
-
Stupid - just for TV. Bernie's a jerk, but the coffee's not bad.
Clarification...we aren't getting an auto double up for the GG, right Dare?
-
I haven't found anybody who will justify or praise this absurd point system, not even the so called Bernie's men in the F1 press, who would defend his outrageous activity with some blabbering, and which goes to show how stupid, worthless and unpopular this decision is |-(
-
It's as totally pathetic an idea as finishing the season in Abu Dhabi, Brazil is undoubtedly the best venue for the last race.
-
Actually, I think it's very appropriate to end with Abu Dhabi. F1 will now be a series with low level, pretend race cars with a low level, pretend scoring system. What better than to end on a low level, pretend circuit?
Besides, if somebody does get the nerve to call for a protest boycott of the last race, nobody would really mind missing Yas Marina. Nobody would want to miss Interlagos.
-
Besides, if somebody does get the nerve to call for a protest boycott of the last race, nobody would really mind missing Yas Marina. Nobody would want to miss Interlagos.
I'd love to see that. The teams could do a 1982 style boycott of the race :D. That would mean that the season would effectively finish in Brazil, and all would be right with the world.
I still think that the best outcome would be that whoever is leading the championship going into the Abu Dhabi round is ahead by 51 points. That would really rub Ecclestone's nose in it.
-
Seb has won three of the last five races in Abu Dhabi, and would have made it four if he hadn't started from the back a couple of seasons ago. Based on recent history the plan is likely to backfire even if he isn't already 51 ahead, perish the thought…
Pardon? What was that? Red Bull might not have the best car this year??? Hahahahahaha that's a good one :D :D :D :D
-
Not my personal views but I thought I would share them with you.
Alongside the already contentious decision to award double points at the last race, an FIA source confirmed that the new scoring system will award half points at the first race, one third points at the third race and ‘some old sh*t Bernie’s made up in desperation’ at other races during the season.
Although exact details have yet to be released, it’s believed that at the Monaco GP all points will have a zero added to the end to reflect what happens to bar prices when the F1 fans arrive in town, at the US race there will be a ‘wall of points’ and the top three will score according to which number they can hit with their podium Champagne corks, while for the Spanish Grand Prix all available points will be awarded directly to any TV viewers who can stay awake to the end.
The new points system is now certain following this week’s meeting of team bosses at which everyone was shown a picture of some money and told to keep their f***ing mouths shut. Probably.
Source Sniff Petrol
-
Why not give 1 point for first and1/10 points from
2 to 10.Wou'dn't change a thing who wins the title but
would give the illusion of a close season.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26071434 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26071434)
The saga continues. Ecclestone's even more ridiculous plan to extend the number of double points races comes under fire from just about everyone. The man is in total denial and completely out of touch.
-
World wide TV audiences for F1 are falling, in part because it's moving to pay channels, but Bernie feels the huge drop this past year was because Vettel clinched before the last 2 races, COTA and Brasil. Those races normally draw very well. If the WDC goes down to the wire, more people watch. Double points for the last 2, 3, 4 races keeps the championship in doubt. Just guarding the old income stream as usual.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26071434 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26071434)
The saga continues. Ecclestone's even more ridiculous plan to extend the number of double points races comes under fire from just about everyone. The man is in total denial and completely out of touch.
If Bernie just implemented popular opinion, then CVC wouldn't need him.
I'm not saying that all of Bernie's ideas are winning ideas, just that he has to have a steady stream of 'new' ideas to keep his job. To be fair, he has gone back on ideas that are universally reviled (such as the medal system, which I'm still sure he would implement if he could)
-
I have a bit better plan brewing in my mind. Why don't they apply for the whole second half of the season. That way t may eliminate any early advantage of a team, as this has been a huge regulation change.
At times there were point system where the best results of two halves where accumulated to decide the overall winner, so this may keep people as well as the teams interested till the last.
-
Forget the points, pay the winners cash. Half for the driver, half for the team. :crazy: :crazy:
-
Forget the points, pay the winners cash. Half for the driver, half for the team. :crazy: :crazy:
Interesting... so the teams and drivers are racing for some sort of Big Prize?
Of course, since the FIA is French so they might need to translate it. Anyone know what French for 'Big Prize' is? :crazy:
-
Forget the points, pay the winners cash. Half for the driver, half for the team. :crazy: :crazy:
Interesting... so the teams and drivers are racing for some sort of Big Prize?
Of course, since the FIA is French so they might need to translate it. Anyone know what French for 'Big Prize' is? :crazy:
:DD :DD :DD :DD
-
If someone is on a winning streak too much bring back drop scores for the season. Not just drop 4 from whole season make it one dropped from each five races - or part for last races. >:D :D
Any individual wins where the score is dropped still count in the record books, but the WDC should stay more closed up. ;)
-
If audiences are falling because of free to air television losing the rights, then Ecclestone should stop asking television companies to pay so much to screen them. Whichever way you cut, it's his responsibility.
-
If audiences are falling because of free to air television losing the rights, then Ecclestone should stop asking television companies to pay so much to screen them. Whichever way you cut, it's his responsibility.
An interesting question. How much is a fan who won't pay to watch the sport 'worth'? If you're not willing to spend $2 to watch a race (what it works out to in Canada), then are you really going to go out and buy a Red Bull just because Vettel won a race?
The sponsors are trying to set themselves up as 'premium' brands, which means they need fans willing to pay a 'premium'.
Marketting is not my area of expertise, but I do know that marketting only works if people are willing to pay. Viewing numbers have fallen, but that doesn't tell the story that Bernie wants to hear. He wants to know how many people watching are willing to spend money on the sponsors. If that number is up, then is there a problem?
-
That's good value Jeri, in the UK if you don't have the sky sports package sky charge you £10 for sky F1 for 24 hours, that's not good value if you only want to watch the race.
-
That's good value Jeri, in the UK if you don't have the sky sports package sky charge you £10 for sky F1 for 24 hours, that's not good value if you only want to watch the race.
TV in the USA (and by extension Canada) has become almost the opposite.
Big ticket live sports are available for free, through over the air broadcasting. Any 'critically acclaimed' shows are only available by subscribing to premium TV channels.
I can watch all 82 Toronto Maple Leafs games plus all the NHL playoffs, all 162 Toronto Blue Jays Games, plus all baseball playoffs, my choice of approximately 6 NFL games a week, plus all playoffs, including the Super Bowl, and every NASCAR race, including the Chase for the Whatever it's called this month Cup (this isn't the place for any comment on racing 'playoffs')... all in high definition... with my $30/month basic cable. If $30 is too steep, I can still see the Leafs once a week for free, along with Football and NASCAR at no cost beyond acquiring a TV and paying for electricity.
The point is... in our culture sports are the only thing that TV networks like to put on TV at low cost, because it's the only thing that sponsors are interested in paying for. The NFL makes more money than all of F1 just from TV rights... and they let you watch the games for free.
-
I think you are missing the point. The money from spectators (at the venue or watching on TV) is irrelevant. It is numbers of spectators seeing the advertising that is important. The sponsors (on the cars and all around the track) will only stump up tens of millions of marketing dollars if the selected demographic are watching, the TV companies will only pay the fees if the sport attracts enough viewers to keep the TV advertisers happy to place adverts in the breaks. Without advertising the sport dies.
-
I think you are missing the point. The money from spectators (at the venue or watching on TV) is irrelevant. It is numbers of spectators seeing the advertising that is important. The sponsors (on the cars and all around the track) will only stump up tens of millions of marketing dollars if the selected demographic are watching, the TV companies will only pay the fees if the sport attracts enough viewers to keep the TV advertisers happy to place adverts in the breaks. Without advertising the sport dies.
It's not the number of spectators who watch that's important.
It's the number of people willing to spend money on advertisers' products that's important. if 9 out 10 F1 fans don't drink Red Bull, won't use Shell gas and don't use Vodaphone, why would sponsors pay for those 9 people?
-
Marketeers (as they call themselves) will select a channel (TV, radio, magazine, etc.) that they believe will be seen by their selected demographic and then saturate that channel.
In marketing terms it is a 'targeted blunderbuss'. They know that their message will be seen by 3 groups; existing customers (the message is then 'positive reinforcement'); undecided customers (positive encouragement); and non-customers (brand recognition).
A lot of advertising is about creating subliminal stimuli and requires the largest audience possible - so as long as the advertiser believes they have access to the correct demographic it is all about the number of spectators. The end result remains..... without advertising, the sport dies.
-
Marketeers (as they call themselves) will select a channel (TV, radio, magazine, etc.) that they believe will be seen by their selected demographic and then saturate that channel.
In marketing terms it is a 'targeted blunderbuss'. They know that their message will be seen by 3 groups; existing customers (the message is then 'positive reinforcement'); undecided customers (positive encouragement); and non-customers (brand recognition).
A lot of advertising is about creating subliminal stimuli and requires the largest audience possible - so as long as the advertiser believes they have access to the correct demographic it is all about the number of spectators. The end result remains..... without advertising, the sport dies.
Agreed.
But if the advertisers know that the people they can get to are watching F1 pay per view, then they won't be bothered that there are fewer people watching who they aren't getting through to anyway.
As stated earlier, I'm not an expert on this. I agree that having the most people watch as possible seems like a good idea. But I also think that eating doughnuts for breakfast is a good idea. (Well, I don't think it's a good idea, but I do it anyway...) The people in charge aren't making decisions on a whim. They believe they know what they're doing.
As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly. It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA. Why not Formula One?
-
As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly. It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA. Why not Formula One?
I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope; if we say an average of 50,000 spectators paid for entrance to every F1 race and the average entrance fee was $100 the total annual income would only be $95million - this wouldn't cover the costs of the tracks let alone the teams and drivers. Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. :DntKnw:
-
Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. :DntKnw:
Not if everyone's paying to watch online, or on TV. I don't have any answers on this either but I think that's what Jeri was getting at. Like in boxing, every big fight is pay per view, at least in the UK.
Anyway, don't worry, it'll be alright. Bernie will die and things will change. Some for the worse, some for the better. The problem isn't Bernie anyway, it's the fear of lawsuits after a driver hurts a nail during a crash, making for super-safe 'racing'. If racing was more dangerous then more people would watch. What's the most common complaint by non-F1 fans? They say 'It's boring.'
Crashes aren't boring.
-
As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly. It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA. Why not Formula One?
I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope; if we say an average of 50,000 spectators paid for entrance to every F1 race and the average entrance fee was $100 the total annual income would only be $95million - this wouldn't cover the costs of the tracks let alone the teams and drivers. Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. :DntKnw:
The numbers I'm finding online say that 450 million people watched F1 last season.
If everyone paid $10 to watch, then the sport would have made 4.5 billion dollars without selling a ticket, a t-shirt or a billboard.
Of course, not everyone is willing to shell out $10 for 40+ hours of entertainment. But that seems like a pretty low price point to me. However, they're probably not going to buy a Ferrari, a Red Bull or use Vodaphone either.
-
Jeri, if it was $10(or the equivalent) in the UK to watch the weekend of F1 I would pay it, but it ain't.
-
As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly. It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA. Why not Formula One?
I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope;
I'm sure TV rights are available and negotiable for any motorsport out there, even grass track banger racing. ;) The stumbling block is not how much the TV will pay for these lesser series, most will grant rights for free to get on the box, it's whether the cost of filming and broadcasting can be covered by sufficient audience numbers to attract the ads.
You are right to say it all comes down to the right audience for TV at least for free to air, however pay to view like SKY and others have a much more sophisticated model and can show some sports with less on air ads.
F1's issues with global TV audience is more about the sponsors that teams rely on rather than the direct income for FOM. Pay TV channels with smaller but more dedicated audiences tend to increase FOM/CVC revenues, the team sponsors however find this less acceptable. Perhaps this explains the drop in stand alone big money sponsors for F1 teams, leading to a rise in sponsor backed drivers? :DntKnw:
-
As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly. It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA. Why not Formula One?
I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope; if we say an average of 50,000 spectators paid for entrance to every F1 race and the average entrance fee was $100 the total annual income would only be $95million - this wouldn't cover the costs of the tracks let alone the teams and drivers. Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. :DntKnw:
The numbers I'm finding online say that 450 million people watched F1 last season.
If everyone paid $10 to watch, then the sport would have made 4.5 billion dollars without selling a ticket, a t-shirt or a billboard.
Of course, not everyone is willing to shell out $10 for 40+ hours of entertainment. But that seems like a pretty low price point to me. However, they're probably not going to buy a Ferrari, a Red Bull or use Vodaphone either.
I have a feeling Jeri that these number are a bit flawed, in a way that they count each individual per race, so if you are a regular fan of F1, you will be counted as 19 for the last season, 20 for the season before. And we the bunch here will make about 200 people as because we watch the sports pretty regularly. So if we have to pay $10 for a spectator, I have a feeling that you may have to end up paying $190 yourself, which is quite a lot. (This is my assumption as I have failed to get any information how this 450 million viewer is calculated, if anybody has details please post it)
-
Audience numbers are calculated several ways. If you are watching on cable, the cable company knows what channel you are watching through their addressable cable box. Then there are the ratings companies Neilson etc, who use surveys to extrapolate audience numbers. If you buy a package deal, the company knows how many they sold whether you actually watched or not. Advertisers look at two things, total number of viewers and viewers in demographic groups. For F1 they generally want males aged 18 to 40 or so, as they feel these are the people who spend money and can be influenced by an ad. They can't know if you buy the peoduct because of their ad, but they can tell if sales go up or down according to where they place their ads. It's all really estimates and assumptions. The 450 million figure is total viewers for all F1 races, and includes a large drop in China where the broadcasts were changed from national to regional companies.
-
Wow we have gone massively off topic!
The actual truth is somewhere amongst all of these posts. I think it is generally accepted that the figures of around 450million represent total views (not consistent viewings) and certainly cannot be assumed to be spectators prepared to pay.
My point was that the sport needs a global TV coverage and the only way the TV companies will provide the fees for the coverage is if they can assure their advertisers that the correct demographics will be watching. No advertisers = no F1.
The pay per view model simply doesn't work. Companies like Sky need the regular monthly subscriptions to survive. The pay per view specials create additional revenue and work for very popular soccer games, the odd big fight but would almost certainly not get a large enough audience for an annual series like F1.
-
I would give traditional TV only a few more years before it is passed by internet viewing, either tablet, computers or 'Smart TV'. People want to control their own TV, and even the ability to record your shows and watch them when you want hardly holds a wick to the way kids today are viewing their media.
How times have changed. I would be pleased if my kids sat down and watched an hour or two of TV. The only way we can get them to do that is to get a kid-friendly movie (just enough violence and risky scenes for 12 & 14yr olds...days of the romantic comedies or animated movies is now over) and practically force them to watch it with us. This of course means taking away their ipods and in my son's case, his phone.
They both would spend their entire lives either in front of a game console or on the internet (instagram or some other stupid app) if allowed. We have had to institute a couple of 'Electronic Free' days per week and make them hand over the gadgets after certain times, including mealtimes and bed time.
My point is, watch the kids. They are going to rule where the advertisers and broadcasters go to get their revenue. And if I am paying attention correctly, TV's won't be plugged into anything but the internet in the near future.
-
As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly. It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA. Why not Formula One?
I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope; if we say an average of 50,000 spectators paid for entrance to every F1 race and the average entrance fee was $100 the total annual income would only be $95million - this wouldn't cover the costs of the tracks let alone the teams and drivers. Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. :DntKnw:
The numbers I'm finding online say that 450 million people watched F1 last season.
If everyone paid $10 to watch, then the sport would have made 4.5 billion dollars without selling a ticket, a t-shirt or a billboard.
Of course, not everyone is willing to shell out $10 for 40+ hours of entertainment. But that seems like a pretty low price point to me. However, they're probably not going to buy a Ferrari, a Red Bull or use Vodaphone either.
I have a feeling Jeri that these number are a bit flawed, in a way that they count each individual per race, so if you are a regular fan of F1, you will be counted as 19 for the last season, 20 for the season before. And we the bunch here will make about 200 people as because we watch the sports pretty regularly. So if we have to pay $10 for a spectator, I have a feeling that you may have to end up paying $190 yourself, which is quite a lot. (This is my assumption as I have failed to get any information how this 450 million viewer is calculated, if anybody has details please post it)
That's what I was thinking, but if you do the math, that means the GLOBAL TV audience for F1 is 23 million people per race. That doesn't sound right at all. Or is all of this put on so that Santander and Vodaphone can get their message out to 23 million people, at least half of which can't use Santander or Vodaphone?
-
As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly. It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA. Why not Formula One?
I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope; if we say an average of 50,000 spectators paid for entrance to every F1 race and the average entrance fee was $100 the total annual income would only be $95million - this wouldn't cover the costs of the tracks let alone the teams and drivers. Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. :DntKnw:
The numbers I'm finding online say that 450 million people watched F1 last season.
If everyone paid $10 to watch, then the sport would have made 4.5 billion dollars without selling a ticket, a t-shirt or a billboard.
Of course, not everyone is willing to shell out $10 for 40+ hours of entertainment. But that seems like a pretty low price point to me. However, they're probably not going to buy a Ferrari, a Red Bull or use Vodaphone either.
I have a feeling Jeri that these number are a bit flawed, in a way that they count each individual per race, so if you are a regular fan of F1, you will be counted as 19 for the last season, 20 for the season before. And we the bunch here will make about 200 people as because we watch the sports pretty regularly. So if we have to pay $10 for a spectator, I have a feeling that you may have to end up paying $190 yourself, which is quite a lot. (This is my assumption as I have failed to get any information how this 450 million viewer is calculated, if anybody has details please post it)
That's what I was thinking, but if you do the math, that means the GLOBAL TV audience for F1 is 23 million people per race. That doesn't sound right at all. Or is all of this put on so that Santander and Vodaphone can get their message out to 23 million people, at least half of which can't use Santander or Vodaphone?
Now if 450 Million is total count for the whole season, then in simple calculation they missed out around 23 million as 2013 had one race less than 2012.
I think companies like Vodafone or Santander may not be available in all the region, but I have a feeling if they are willing to go to those region .Like it or not F1 is going to the places of emerging economies so these companies will definitely like to wet their beak hence their initial brand recognition through F1.
-
Newey has weighed in on the DU rule (as if you didn't already know, he doesn't like it).
Interesting bit at the bottom...Vettel would have clinched the title in India with DU rule or not. :fool: :fool:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112556
-
Which only goes to show how risible it is :D. I just don't understand why, in the face of so much disquiet from the teams and the fans, Ecclestone doesn't withdraw this idea. I've never seen a rule change which has caused quite so much irritation.
-
I just don't understand why...Ecclestone doesn't withdraw this idea.
Gee, and I always thought the FIA made up the rules. ;)
-
I just don't understand why...Ecclestone doesn't withdraw this idea.
Gee, and I always thought the FIA made up the rules. ;)
Exactly! If it were up to Bernie, then we'd be stuck with medals. I mean who on Earth would watch a competition where the athletes win medals? The Winter Olympics only have 1.8 billion viewers. Can't imagine anyone wanting a part of that
http://www.olympic.org/documents/ioc_marketing/broadcasting/vancouver2010olympicwintergames-broadcastcoverageaudienceoverview.pdf (http://www.olympic.org/documents/ioc_marketing/broadcasting/vancouver2010olympicwintergames-broadcastcoverageaudienceoverview.pdf)
-
I just don't understand why...Ecclestone doesn't withdraw this idea.
Gee, and I always thought the FIA made up the rules. ;)
To get more money from FOM in the new Concorde some small power has shifted from FIA to the new technical working group, it was Bernie's idea of double up for the last three races in that working group that started all this.
The working group which is made up of bigger and selected teams, FOM & FIA delegates, diluted the 3 races to one in a vote. Some of the recommendations of the group are now automatically adopted without further voting within the FIA it seems.
-
Gee, and I always thought the FIA made up the rules. ;)
Apparently not these days :P.
Exactly! If it were up to Bernie, then we'd be stuck with medals. I mean who on Earth would watch a competition where the athletes win medals? The Winter Olympics only have 1.8 billion viewers. Can't imagine anyone wanting a part of that.
Winning the world championship on the basis of how many gold medals you have is not sound practice for Formula 1. It's very different for athletics style events. The two are not comparable.
-
Medals does not an Olympics make.
One major difference between F1 and most other sports is that other sports don't change very much. Big changes in hi-tech motor-sport are natural enough ANYWAY, without having the comedy of double-points added as a desperate lunge for 'bolted-on excitement'.
I imagine that if you're a huge fan of curling, you always will be. I don't think the same can be said for F1. How often do we read a fellow member's post about maybe having had enough of F1?? It happens. F1 needs more stability and less senility.
-
Medals does not an Olympics make.
One major difference between F1 and most other sports is that other sports don't change very much. Big changes in hi-tech motor-sport are natural enough ANYWAY, without having the comedy of double-points added as a desperate lunge for 'bolted-on excitement'.
I imagine that if you're a huge fan of curling, you always will be. I don't think the same can be said for F1. How often do we read a fellow member's post about maybe having had enough of F1?? It happens. F1 needs more stability and less senility.
Too many people are involved in F1 for 'stability'. If everything stays the same, then what's the point of FIA, FOM or FOTA?
If you want stability, then hand the reigns to one person. Otherwise everyone is going to fight to get their ideas in the sport: everyone gets something, no one gets everything.
-
Medals does not an Olympics make.
One major difference between F1 and most other sports is that other sports don't change very much. Big changes in hi-tech motor-sport are natural enough ANYWAY, without having the comedy of double-points added as a desperate lunge for 'bolted-on excitement'.
I imagine that if you're a huge fan of curling, you always will be. I don't think the same can be said for F1. How often do we read a fellow member's post about maybe having had enough of F1?? It happens. F1 needs more stability and less senility.
Too many people are involved in F1 for 'stability'. If everything stays the same, then what's the point of FIA, FOM or FOTA?
If you want stability, then hand the reigns to one person. Otherwise everyone is going to fight to get their ideas in the sport: everyone gets something, no one gets everything.
Not stay the same, just more stability than we have now. Double points and unnecessary tinkering makes for a fair-weather fan-base. I agree about handing the reins to one person - I'm not against that or Bernie per se, just double-points and desperate measures.
In fact, I love Bernie, don't tell anyone though.
-
Medals does not an Olympics make.
One major difference between F1 and most other sports is that other sports don't change very much. Big changes in hi-tech motor-sport are natural enough ANYWAY, without having the comedy of double-points added as a desperate lunge for 'bolted-on excitement'.
I imagine that if you're a huge fan of curling, you always will be. I don't think the same can be said for F1. How often do we read a fellow member's post about maybe having had enough of F1?? It happens. F1 needs more stability and less senility.
Too many people are involved in F1 for 'stability'. If everything stays the same, then what's the point of FIA, FOM or FOTA?
If you want stability, then hand the reigns to one person. Otherwise everyone is going to fight to get their ideas in the sport: everyone gets something, no one gets everything.
Not stay the same, just more stability than we have now. Double points and unnecessary tinkering makes for a fair-weather fan-base. I agree about handing the reins to one person - I'm not against that or Bernie per se, just double-points and desperate measures.
In fact, I love Bernie, don't tell anyone though.
F1 teams are more stable now than ever. They may struggle, but most of the teams on the grid have been continuously in operation since I started watching F1 in 1996 (even if the ownership has changed). The barrier to entry in the sport is enormous, but it's a serious enterprise: if you're not prepared, you won't make it.
I don't think the double points is a 'good' idea, but I don't see it as the end of days either. No one is going to stop watching F1 because of it, and some people might start. Most fans start as fairweather fans, so the sport needs to attact them.
-
I have pretty much lost interest in NASCAR since they instituted "The Chase". That and the cars are all the same. Used to be you could tell a Ford from a Chevy from a Dodge anywhere on the track. Now you need a full frontal shot because only the grills and taillights are different. I have other issues, but this is an F1 forum. :D
-
I don't think the double points is a 'good' idea, but I don't see it as the end of days either. No one is going to stop watching F1 because of it, and some people might start. Most fans start as fairweather fans, so the sport needs to attact them.
I agree double-points isn't 'the last straw', but as Lonny clearly illustrated how unnecessary tinkering alienates fans. I bet some people are turned off enough by it to stop watching.
I'm hoping it becomes a pointless exercise, i.e., whoever is leading by then is too far enough ahead for it to matter.
-
I hate the idea. Double points will make such a significant effect I can imagine team strategies being specifically tailored towards the last race. Teams may choose to accept a lower finishing position in the penultamate race but hold a new engine for the last race so they can go four a double points win.
In 2013 I would suggest Vettel's dominance was exceptional (I still maintain that the RBR car was in a different league to the others). If I remember correctly, the other WDC points after the pennultimate meeting were close enough that a 50point last race win could have made massive changes to the finishing positions of any of the next 6 drivers.
-
2013 WDC
01 Sebastian Vettel 397
02 Fernando Alonso 242
03 Mark Webber 199
04 Lewis Hamilton 189
05 Kimi Räikkönen 183
06 Nico Rosberg 171
2013 WCC
01 Red Bull Racing-Renault 596
02 Mercedes 360
03 Ferrari 354
04 Lotus-Renault 315
05 McLaren-Mercedes 122
06 Force India-Mercedes 77
If this had been in force last year, it would have affected things only slightly. Last year the Brazil podium was Vettel, Webber, Alonso. So in the WDC Webber would have been slightly closer to Alonso, but not ahead.
In the WCC, Ferrari would have jumped Mercedes for second, as in Brazil Ferrari were 3rd and 7th, with Mercedes 5th and 9th. Neither would have had half the points of Red Bull.
-
I can't remember who was where at the end of the penulimate race but even on these final positions you can see that double points could have made a difference to positions 2-6 and a great deal of difference to 3-6. I still feel that in a more typical season where the WDC does not have such a run-away leader the double points system will result in teams preparing specific strategies for the last race.
-
Nope, there would have been zero change to the top 6. I'm not arguing, here's the maths!
2013 WDC
01 Sebastian Vettel 397
02 Fernando Alonso 242
03 Mark Webber 199
04 Lewis Hamilton 189
05 Kimi Räikkönen 183
06 Nico Rosberg 171
Would have become
2013 WDC
01 Sebastian Vettel 422
02 Fernando Alonso 257
03 Mark Webber 217
04 Lewis Hamilton 191
05 Kimi Räikkönen 183
06 Nico Rosberg 181
So no change there.
2013 WCC
01 Red Bull Racing-Renault 596
02 Mercedes 360
03 Ferrari 354
04 Lotus-Renault 315
05 McLaren-Mercedes 122
06 Force India-Mercedes 77
Would have become
2013 WCC
01 Red Bull Racing-Renault 638
02 Ferrari 375
03 Mercedes 372
04 Lotus-Renault 315
05 McLaren-Mercedes 142
06 Force India-Mercedes 77
So the ONLY change would have been Ferrari jumping Mercedes in the WCC.
-
I think you are missing my point.
Of course the maths don't work on last years results because there was no special strategy in place.
However,if a team had worked a strategy to help win the last race; with double points it could jump them up the table.
Last year Vettel, and to a lesser degree Alonso, scored exceptionally high so for this example I choose to ignore their results, but to make a point if Mercedes could have somehow ensured that Rosberg won the last race gaining 50points and, just for arguments sake, none of the top 5 scored he would have jumped up the table.
I am simply pointing out that this stupid double points rule suddenly makes it necessary for teams to plan special strategies for one race, which is ridiculous.
-
I can't remember who was where at the end of the penulimate race but even on these final positions you can see that double points could have made a difference to positions 2-6 and a great deal of difference to 3-6. I still feel that in a more typical season where the WDC does not have such a run-away leader the double points system will result in teams preparing specific strategies for the last race.
That certainly encapsulates the problem doesn't it?
One race to decide it all! It all comes down to this. This ONE RACE is the race to watch...
So... why bother watching the other 19? (or however many actually happen)
F1 risks giving up a series of 20 high profile events in exhange for one?
-
Gotcha. So it's a stupid rule for even more reasons!
I take your point but don't think strategies will be unduly affected. It might even encourage sabotage, perish the thought.
Double points make one think of 50 points up for grabs. But the difference between first and second only changes from 7 points to 14. Hence the likely scenario is that nothing will change. If that's the case, then it'll only really come in to play if scores are very tight, and if scores are tight then no one's run away with the championship anyway, so it's simply unnecessary.
-
I don't think they'll put their beans in one pot just for the DU race. Last year nobody had a chance, regardless of strategy, to beat Vettel in the last race.
The only hope to take advantage of the DU rule is if a team develops the car right through to the end of the season instead of abandoning development over the last 3-4 races to concentrate on the following year's car. Only the big teams are capable of financing that, so again, this is a rule that doesn't help anyone.
-
I don't think they'll put their beans in one pot just for the DU race. Last year nobody had a chance, regardless of strategy, to beat Vettel in the last race.
The only hope to take advantage of the DU rule is if a team develops the car right through to the end of the season instead of abandoning development over the last 3-4 races to concentrate on the following year's car. Only the big teams are capable of financing that, so again, this is a rule that doesn't help anyone.
They could develope the car with an eye towards the types of tracks that offer the most points, essentially giving up points at other tracks.
Currently it's not uncommon to see different teams stronger at different types of tracks, but if there are more points available at a similar layout, then we'll see the resource strapped teams homogonising their strategies. (While this is an attempt to make the championship a nail biter, the real effect is that a suprise podium for a midfield team could bump them up a couple places in the concorde prize money)
-
I get that, but I still don't think it will make a difference if all the backfield teams are gunning for the same race (s).
-
I get that, but I still don't think it will make a difference if all the backfield teams are gunning for the same race (s).
I think it's more interesting when some teams are stronger at fast tracks and some teams are stronger at 'technical' tracks.
If the points are loaded to one type of track, the teams would be foolish not to focus on those types of tracks. That will affect sponsorship, local sponsors aren't going to be interested in sponsoring a team that isn't giving 100% at the 'home' race.
Drops in sponsorship certainly hurts the small teams more than the big ones.
-
I get that, but I still don't think it will make a difference if all the backfield teams are gunning for the same race (s).
I think it's more interesting when some teams are stronger at fast tracks and some teams are stronger at 'technical' tracks.
If the points are loaded to one type of track, the teams would be foolish not to focus on those types of tracks. That will affect sponsorship, local sponsors aren't going to be interested in sponsoring a team that isn't giving 100% at the 'home' race.
Drops in sponsorship certainly hurts the small teams more than the big ones.
This is why Jimmy Johnson is a 5 or 6 time champion. The Chase races are tilted toward 1.5 mile tracks like Charlotte that he excels on.
-
F1 teams are more stable now than ever. They may struggle, but most of the teams on the grid have been continuously in operation since I started watching F1 in 1996 (even if the ownership has changed). The barrier to entry in the sport is enormous, but it's a serious enterprise: if you're not prepared, you won't make it.
Even if you are prepared you won't necessarily make it. Look at all the resources that Toyota and Honda had at their disposals, and they didn't come close to making it. Not that I minded unduly, because it shows that money isn't the only thing you need to do well in Formula 1, but it sends out the message that Formula 1 is a club not to join.
In 1996 the following teams lined up on the grid:
Williams-Renault
Ferrari
Benetton-Renault
McLaren-Mercedes
Jordan-Peugeot
Ligier-Mugen Honda
Sauber-Ford
Tyrrell-Yamaha
Footwork (Arrows)-Hart
Minardi-Cosworth
Forti-Cosworth
Of those we've lost Ligier (Prost), Arrows, and Forti completely, and most of the others have turned into other teams over time. Apart from Force India (which is still fairly close to Jordan in terms of staff, location, and how it operates), I'd say the others are now so far removed from what they were that the attrition rate has been pretty high. Toss in the teams which have come and gone since then too, and you've got a fairly lengthy list, so I wouldn't say that Formula 1 has been all that stable in this respect. I would, however, agree that the revolving door of teams that arose in the late 1980s and early 1990s has not been repeated.
The double points issue may not persuade people to turn off Formula 1, but it will do the sport no favours in encouraging fans to give positive feedback, and if it does change the result of the championship, especially through one driver who has a substantial lead let's say suffering a DNF through no fault of his own, there will be a lot of complaints, and that cannot be good for the sport.
-
F1 teams are more stable now than ever. They may struggle, but most of the teams on the grid have been continuously in operation since I started watching F1 in 1996 (even if the ownership has changed). The barrier to entry in the sport is enormous, but it's a serious enterprise: if you're not prepared, you won't make it.
Even if you are prepared you won't necessarily make it. Look at all the resources that Toyota and Honda had at their disposals, and they didn't come close to making it. Not that I minded unduly, because it shows that money isn't the only thing you need to do well in Formula 1, but it sends out the message that Formula 1 is a club not to join.
I would suggest that the stories of Honda, Toyota show that 'resources' aren't the same as 'prepared' in F1. Without the right people, it just won't happen, no matter how much you spend.
You're right that there are some fundamental problems with F1 that double points (or not) is hardly going to solve it.
As for team consistency... not many sports have the same personnel 20 years on. I wouldn't expect F1 to be any different in that respect. There are more teams that are 30+ years old than there were in 90s though. We have the same number of teams on the grid. I'm happy that when Honda, Ford, BMW, Minardi, Renault, Tyrell and Jordan were looking to step away they were able to find people willing to step in. (Not to mention BAR, Stewart, Bennetton, Paul Stoddard and Tom Wikenshaw... even if Arrows' successors eventually quit). F1 has a history of teams just evaporating. That's become very rare.
-
I think Jeri is spot on.
Toyota was an exceptionally bad example. Power and money controlled in Japan, best engineers sourced in UK and the team based in Germany solely because it was close to the Group European HQ. A classic corporate c*ck-up!
The problem of course is that F1 is no longer a sport run by enthusiasts, it is now a business run by suits.
The long term success of Mercedes interests me. The brilliant and enthusiastic Ross Brawn took a good team and made it successful, he then used Mercedes money to make it even better. The suits then got rid of the enthusiastic Ross Brawn and now run the business with a committee. The 2014 car was developed under the Brawn influence. I wonder what will happen in the future?
-
The long term success of Mercedes interests me. The brilliant and enthusiastic Ross Brawn took a good team and made it successful, he then used Mercedes money to make it even better. The suits then got rid of the enthusiastic Ross Brawn and now run the business with a committee. The 2014 car was developed under the Brawn influence. I wonder what will happen in the future?
Brawn's title winning car may have been conceived by him but it was Honda's team and money that developed it, they even assisted with a few £million legacy to allow the team to stay in F1. Terrible shame they had to drop out just on the cusp of being race and possibly championship winners. Yeah I know it was a Merc engine bolted on the Honda(Brawn) chassis when it took the championship, it would still have been a race winning car with a Honda V8, it was the double diffuser that won it for Brawn really.
I guess though Honda's exit only proves the point of how fragile the existence of some manufacturer F1 teams can be. However it's good to know that new owners are willing to see the skills and creativity in these F1 outfits and keep their technology and dreams alive.
-
Hmmmm, backtracking now?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113375
Really? Finally listening to the fans? Um, just exactly WHERE can we tell you things that you will listen to? We've got so much more to say ;) ;)
-
Hmmmm, backtracking now?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113375
Really? Finally listening to the fans? Um, just exactly WHERE can we tell you things that you will listen to? We've got so much more to say ;) ;)
The FIA sent me a survey by email a year or two ago, based on my membership at Formula1.com
-
Hmmmm, backtracking now?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113375
Really? Finally listening to the fans? Um, just exactly WHERE can we tell you things that you will listen to? We've got so much more to say ;) ;)
The FIA sent me a survey by email a year or two ago, based on my membership at Formula1.com
Was there any hint of double points a year ago? I guess not, so what exactly was the survey for Jeri :P
May be you are the one who gave them these idea :tease:
If you had let us to give you a little help, we the GPW members could have changed the world :D
-
For once I agree with Lauda's comments. I really hope that fans are listened to, and that it is binned. It's really unfair on any drivers who fail to finish the race, especially if they get taken out by another competitor or caught up in another driver's accident. Such incidents shouldn't distort the championship at either end of the table.
-
Here's an interesting scenario, Lewis wins 13 eaces but loses the WDC!!
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/07/22/hamilton-win-13-races-lose-world-championship-title/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+f1fanatic+%28F1+Fanatic+-+The+Formula+1+Blog%29 (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/07/22/hamilton-win-13-races-lose-world-championship-title/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+f1fanatic+%28F1+Fanatic+-+The+Formula+1+Blog%29)
-
Well yes, but he would also have to finish 10th in the last race with Nico winning it, a rather unlikely event.
Seriously though, that is exactly why this stupid double points system is a really bad idea. A driver/team can work all season towards the WDC and then have a crappy race in Abu Double Up Dhabi and be finished.
Maybe they should give all the drivers a scratch off card at the end of each race and see if their points were doubled for the race they just finished. |-( |-(
-
Given the split of luck on the Mercedes Team this year, a DNF for Lewis doesn't seem so farfetched.
-
It could happen that Hamilton does finish tenth. Say, for example, he has a technical failure in qualifying, as happened last weekend, starts from the back, and loses his front wing at some point relatively early during the race. They have to pit, he gets stuck in traffic (overtaking at Abu Dhabi is difficult), and ends up finishing tenth by the end of the race while Rosberg wins.
All that happening because of a technical issue which the driver has no control over.
I hope that none of this comes to pass, but if it does, it will show what a complete fiasco the double points rule is.
-
Anyhow...that's a scenario that likely won't happen. I don't think the Merc has shown us it is bulletproof, and there will be more failures of Nico or Lewis's cars through the rest of the season, and it may simply come down to who has the worse luck.