GPWizard F1 Forum

F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: monty on May 15, 2019, 12:02:11 PM

Title: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: monty on May 15, 2019, 12:02:11 PM
https://www.planetf1.com/news/mercedes-doing-too-well-says-liberty-media/
This just proves how little Liberty understand sport let alone F1!!
They compare F1 against the biggest European football series. Football (proper football and that American version  ;)) creates 'tribal' followers. They will pay big money to follow their team anywhere and they are more interested in the result than the quality of the game. Sponsors understand exactly the demographic that will be captive, watching each and every game.  Everyone knows that football is the biggest spectator sport in the World and therefore the easiest to monetise!
Motorsport attracts a much wider demographic with different people watching for different reasons.
Of course F1 would gain a bigger audience if the racing was closer and the spectacle was better but it would still have limitations. In F1, the best 'billboards' are the cars but these are small and expensive - attracting a few huge corporate sponsors that have little relevance to the spectators. Then Liberty limit the audience by only allowing pay to view TV deals making 'household' sponsors even less likely to get involved. This isn't brain surgery! Liberty only have to look at 'lesser' series such as Nascar, British Touring Cars, Superbikes, etc. to see how they could increase the spectator base and the number of sponsors.
As I have said many times if they listened to 'us' they could quickly make improvements.
I think they need a massive change to the regs but that is a difficult discussion. They could start with some really easy changes. In my opinion these could include:
allow more free to air TV coverage; distribute funds to the smaller teams to allow them to compete; add more racing to the weekends (why not add the new Womens Series); add a really simple handicap system to stop one team monopolising results.....
I am sure there are lots of good ideas out there. The sad thing is that I do not think Liberty will listen!
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: John S on May 15, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
I'm in line with your thinking Monty of closing the field up with regs, however handicapping the successful cars could prove very difficult.

F1 cars and computer systems are so complex that any attempt at a balance of power by say turbo boost or KERS/ERS limitations will be a nightmare to police.

IMHO the only solution that is really workable is adding success ballast, it's easy and straightforward to check - but and it's a big but - will it really do the job.

If these 'Prima Donna' cars are really right on the edge as we are often told how much weight is right, too little and we may see no difference, too much and we can get the Mercs propping up the back row.

Brawn's guys studying the aero of easier overtaking, for 2 years or more, have so far not succeeded why on earth can we believe they could get penalty ballast right.  :(   

Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: monty on May 15, 2019, 01:13:04 PM
Quote
Brawn's guys studying the aero of easier overtaking, for 2 years or more, have so far not succeeded why on earth can we believe they could get penalty ballast right.  :(
You are of course absolutely correct. I know it would not be easy. My master plan would be to make the leading cars carry more fuel (finish with a slightly higher minimum weight). They definitely have the technology to deal with this and it may even throw a few dice..... we know that in some cases cars do not run at full power or use the peak fuel flow, partly to improve reliability. If they have to carry more fuel they would have the choice of trying to 'drive around' the extra weight or using full power for longer (risking reliabilty, tyre wear, etc.) to compensate for it.
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: John S on May 15, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
That plan of extra fuel sounds fine for the race Monty but what of Quali? If the top team still get the front row this extra weight plan could easily backfire, and slowing cars in Quali could well spoil the real excitement we have at  the moment in those sessions at GPs.

I suggest a speedy, if not immediate, implementation of grid drops at next race for podium finishers. Quali can take place as normal, balls out n' all, then 1,2 & 3 from the last race get 4,3 & 2 grid drops in reverse order for the start.
The beauty is a race winner can't start on the first 2 rows in the next, but they still need to try for pole. This drop will not apply for any driver if tech/mech grid drop is applied, but will be added to any in race penalty given by the stewards at last race.

Might still end up with same winners, but it wont half liven up the racing.   :D 
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: cosworth151 on May 15, 2019, 03:58:00 PM
There is system used at many short oval track over here. After quali, track officials walk out on the start/finish line. They have a small container with10 balls numbered 0 through 9. One ball is drawn out. The number drawn determines how many of the cars are inverted for the start. For example, if the 5 ball is pulled, the first 5 cars start in reverse order.
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: John S on May 15, 2019, 04:18:41 PM
Yeah we have that for Touring cars here in the UK Cos, they also have success ballast added as well, but it's only applied to the 3rd race of 3 on the same day.

Trouble is it can turn the grid around massively and causes even more artificial results than DRS. I feel that a smaller grid drop for only the top 3 will enhance the racing without killing the big teams interest.

We are being told all the time in the media over here that Petrol & Diesel engines days are numbered - we'll all be electric within 10 years they claim - my fear is too much interference in F1 and the manufacturers will pull the plug.

I see Hydrogen as a better solution as a fuel source long term, perhaps F1 should be looking at allowing hydrogen power into the formula. 
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: Jericoke on May 15, 2019, 04:50:49 PM
Formula One is simultaneously the 'richest' racing series, and also the one with the least predictability.  This isn't new to the sport.  There have been run away winners dating back to Fangio, and yet it's the biggest racing series on Earth.

Close racing isn't as important as we'd like to think.  Just like with Football (either kind), fans tune in to see their team win.  It's no coincidence that the largest bloc of F1 fans are Ferrari fans.  They're the biggest name in racing.  If F1 wants to grow, they need to find a way to turn McLaren into the British Ferrari.   Or bring in other global brands like Red Bull.

Mercedes and Renault are great brands, but they're associated with family haulers: no one spends their Sunday cheering for the logo they use to buy groceries, not when you can cheer for Ferrari!  With that said, the most recent era with 'surprising' results was when we had BMW, Toyota, Renault, Honda and Jaguar involved in team ownership.

If F1 is going to grow a fan base, fans need teams to cheer for, and that means household names that are exciting brands.
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: rmassart on May 15, 2019, 06:25:16 PM
I personally don't like penalising successful teams. I think the manufacturers would leave in droves if they are penalised for being successful. What would be the point in investing?

I wonder if the way forward is to simplify and standardise things to the extent that it is hard to gain a significant advantage purely through investing more money. This might also be the way to cut costs. I realise this goes against the ethos of F1 being a highly technical sport, but as with most things in modern life the spoils are increasingly going to one or two big winners and everyone else is left fighting for scraps and finding it impossible to catch up.  At the moment we also seem to waiting for some big bang effect of rule changes that enable one of the bigger teams to leap frog Mercedes. But what if this never happens? If in 2022 Mercedes have again pulled the rabbit out of the hat and left everyone trailing, so we all wait another 10 years before someone else has a chance?

I would like to see a system of chasis and engine manufacturers supplying independent teams.  So you might have McLaren, Williams, Red Bull building the chasis and Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault supplying the engines. These would be supplied at a fixed price determined by the FIA and teams would pick the combination they wanted. I realise there would be all sorts of issues with this and it  would probably not work, but my aim is to separate the racing teams from the technological development. Only then might we be able to see some real racing and different teams being successful in different years.
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: Warmwater on May 15, 2019, 07:34:34 PM
It would be interesting to see how different results would be if all of the drivers were rotated from team to team at every race. That would separate the cheetas from the goats.
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: Dare on May 15, 2019, 09:20:51 PM
It would be interesting to see how different results would be if all of the drivers were rotated from team to team at every race. That would separate the cheetas from the goats.


That would be interesting. Ten teams twenty races. Each driver
drives two races for each team.
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: Scott on May 15, 2019, 09:24:39 PM
I like John’s idea the most.  The ideals of the rest are good, but the 4-3-2 grid drop would indeed make for an exciting start of the race without being too much of a remake of F1.  It’s also good because it is a small step that could still be tweaked if it wasn’t effective enough or too effective.  I don’t think the drivers swapping cars would make drivers, fans or teams at all happy, though it would be a wonderful way to figure out who the best driver actually is.
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: Dare on May 16, 2019, 12:31:56 AM
I like John’s idea the most.  The ideals of the rest are good, but the 4-3-2 grid drop would indeed make for an exciting start of the race without being too much of a remake of F1.  It’s also good because it is a small step that could still be tweaked if it wasn’t effective enough or too effective.  I don’t think the drivers swapping cars would make drivers, fans or teams at all happy, though it would be a wonderful way to figure out who the best driver actually is.


Swapping cars wouldn't work but it would be fun to see
what the top drivers could do in the less than great cars.
I think Danny has already shown us
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: Alianora La Canta on May 16, 2019, 06:26:17 AM
Football mostly went to pay TV in the UK primarily because there weren't enough screens on free-to-air TV to show even a fraction of the matches to which the FA had rights. Even then, they're careful to put a certain amount of live football on free-to-air, using it strategically at the moment for things like the World Cup and the burgeoning area of women's football.

F1 does not have that reason - it only has three series under its control and none of them run simultaneously - and therefore needs to return to free-to-air if it wants the tribal part of the audience back. (I recognise F1 fans watch for many reasons, and some are put off by tribalism, but if Liberty's trying for the tribal audience, it at least needs to look in the right places).

Verstappen is having his most successful season ever in terms of driving ability, but because it doesn't translate to numbers (because F1 isn't built in such a way that a team spending half the victor's budget can actually win at this point), even the Verstappen army doesn't seem to care very much.

Mercedes is too successful for tribalism, given that it does not itself attract tribal fans (Ferrari, of course, would be another matter entirely), but artificially suppressing it by any means won't work either, because those same tribal fans would scream "fix" and stay put in whatever activity they currently do instead of F1. Natural close racing and a reason to care are what the tribal fans want and aren't getting.
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: monty on May 16, 2019, 08:59:59 AM
F1 just needs a little improvement in lots of places. The problem is, 'a little improvement' to make racing closer needs changes to be agreed by the people that are dominating the sport. Understandably they will never volunteer those changes.
I do not agree that a handicapping system would drive manufacturers away - as long as it is fair and reasonable. While overtaking is so difficult a grid drop system would not be acceptable. Any handicapping system must only bring the cars closer and provide potential for overtaking due to slowing the front runners a little, increasing risk of premature tyre wear, forcing a revised strategy, etc.
The much better solution would be to further reduce aero effects and somehow make the team budgets more even - if this ever happens it will take a very long to become reality!   
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: John S on May 16, 2019, 10:18:42 AM
F1 just needs a little improvement in lots of places. The problem is, 'a little improvement' to make racing closer needs changes to be agreed by the people that are dominating the sport. Understandably they will never volunteer those changes.


I'm pretty sure the FIA as the rule making body can force through anything it likes without consensus, it simply means working in advance.

Not sure when cut off point is for unilateral rule changes for next year, it's usually around June/July this year or even earlier.

Trouble is FIA & Liberty are so locked into the negotiations for 2021 and beyond they wont want to rock the boat at present. 


 
Title: Re: Formula 1 in general as “under-monetized”
Post by: Alianora La Canta on May 17, 2019, 06:33:49 AM
F1 just needs a little improvement in lots of places. The problem is, 'a little improvement' to make racing closer needs changes to be agreed by the people that are dominating the sport. Understandably they will never volunteer those changes.


I'm pretty sure the FIA as the rule making body can force through anything it likes without consensus, it simply means working in advance.

Not sure when cut off point is for unilateral rule changes for next year, it's usually around June/July this year or even earlier.

Trouble is FIA & Liberty are so locked into the negotiations for 2021 and beyond they wont want to rock the boat at present. 


 

The cut-off point for 2020 has been, come and gone (it was March 30). Due to the number of side contracts involved for 2021, its cut-off point is June 30 this year (and then 2022's cut-off is March 30, 2021). Safety regulations and re-interpretations of regulations that do not involve any rewordings are allowed to ignore these rules completely. In 2003, the FIA nearly got sued by McLaren and Williams for breaking these regulations; it was only when they discovered they were a lot more competitive and that Max was willing to break their businesses to remain in the wrong. Of course, McLaren's and Williams' instinct that the regulations didn't do what they were advertised to do was proven correct, as half of the regulations were rolled back in the subsequent two years and in any case 2004 was no improvement on 2002...