Comments on: The Ben Evans Column: A classic season – on paper

By: gadgets reviews

gadgets reviews — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:39:25 +0000

Probably this blog’s best post around!!!

By: Kirk

Kirk — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:31:09 +0000

Oooh, no Daniel – please don’t give points to the pole sitter – they’ve already got a virtually guaranteed win!

I know it would never work, but I’d like to see some kind of system where they got points for passing… as long as it wasn’t in the pits?

The gap is too small, though.

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:19:37 +0000

When the government and track owners are having to find $2276 per spectator just to pay for Bernie’s track fees (this is not counting the cost of hosting, maintaining and improving the track – the latter being needed if better racing is to be had at a particular venue), then the race economics are not working. There is a limit to the amount of time any government will subsidise an activity – either the people will complain (if it’s from their taxes; eventually they decide other things are more important) or the royalty will complain (if they change their mind about the value of F1). Once this happens, the track has nothing in the kitty to improve itself to make the event seem worthwhile.

Self-supporting tracks, on the other hand, can weather that kind of storm. They can make changes to improve passing, the spectator experience and anything else that can help make the event better. Events that can better themselves would be a big step in the right direction.

And Daniel, you’re right about the points gap being too small.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:23:43 +0000

I agree with Eric, but I would suggest giving the winner 11 points, and an extra one for the pole sitter. Anyway, the current difference is too short, and the best example happened in 2003, when Schumacher won six races, compared to Raikkonen’s maiden and lonely win at Sepang. Despite that, Michael was champion only two points ahead of Kimi.

By: Eric M.

Eric M. — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:01:04 +0000

I’ve never liked the current points structure. I suppose it’s nice that more drivers can find themselves in the points when the race is over, but has it really made things better now that 7th and 8th are points-paying positions? I don’t think it really has. And this whole business of drivers settling for second or third place rather then risk their race challenging for the win is just sad. Two points difference between 1st and 2nd just isn’t high enough. Maybe the winning driver should get 12 points? Someone should ask Kimi what the point differential between 1st and 2nd would’ve had to be for him to at least try an all-or-nothing passing move on Massa.

By: Journeyer

Journeyer — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:28:16 +0000

Ali, countries like Malaysia, Bahrain, Turkey, China, and eventually Abu Dhabi CAN cope with race economics. But if not enough fans watch, the government helps out with subsidies. But where do subsidies come from? It could come from he royal family’s pocket. But if not, it’s from people’s taxes. So if race fans won’t pay, all the citizens are forced to pay. Brute force, but effective.

And interesting races don’t happen with good economics. They happen with good track design. (Hi, Mr. Tilke!)

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:44:04 +0000

The cost of the GP tickets is largely down to Bernie charging large fees. The USA could afford be cheap because a) Tony George had relatively low start-up costs, b) he had two huge events to subside the F1 and c) American people were already educated about motor sport and were happy to try out F1. Many of the new tracks are spending over $50m on construction, rely on (generous) governments to subside them and also need to educate their populations about motor sport and F1.

That Bahrain statistic is embarrassing. They only had an F1Racing-estimated 45000 spectators on race day to start with. If 35000 got free tickets, then only 10000 paid. And at $66 for the cheapest paid race-day ticket, the prices aren’t much higher than in the USA. Since Bernie charges approximately $23m a year for the race rights, that means every paying spectator is shouldering a $2276 portion of the Bernie fee.

Perhaps F1 should take a hint and return to countries that can cope with the true economics of hosting a race. Then we might get interesting races again.

By: Obster

Obster — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:11:32 +0000

This season I have been recording each race-sleeping in-then blasting past the commercial interruptions while viewing during the evening. This actually improves the continuity of the race-and you don’t feel the lack of passing so much.
The “boredom” factor is a bit of a mental exercise-you have to realize each of the top teams is developing their cars between each race at an unbelievable pace. We just don’t get to see this part. This seems to keep one car from becoming better than the others during the season. I think the exception to this was last year with Ferrari-Schumacher “rallied the troops” through the last part of the season, and we saw them put on a great charge.

By: Alex Andronov

Alex Andronov — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:47:13 +0000

The tipping point here in the UK has been largely missed for F1. Sports journalists should be kicking themselves here. Lewis became a genuine super-star here for about a month over the summer. I bet the ITV programs got far more viewers than normal. But the races weren’t very exciting to the non-fans (other than the notable exception of Nurburgring which was interesting simply because the rain removed all of the downforce). Now the football season has started again the opportunity is lost.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:28:03 +0000

Not to defend Bernie E. but one has to factor the cost of the GP tickets. Here in the U.S. the tickets are dirt-cheap. Penthouse seats were less than $200 for the entire weekend.