2009 F1 calendar: better than ’08? (Poll)
F1 gains Suzuka (above) but loses Montreal in 2009
The official 2009 F1 calendar has been published with the Canadian Grand Prix mysteriously absent. That’s not the only change for next year, with Abu Dhabi arriving on the calendar as the new season finale.
Has the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone done a better job with the 2009 F1 calendar than the 2008 schedule? Compare the two and cast your vote below.
The major changes between the two calendars are:
- The Canadian Grand Prix is dropped for 2009
- The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix arrives in 2009 as the season finale
- The German round will be held at the Nurburgring in 2009 instead of the Hockenheimring
- The Japanese round will be held at Suzuka in 2009 instead of Fuji Speedway
*Exact title TBC. The Hockenheimring owners won’t allow the Nurburgring to use the title ‘German Grand Prix’.
**Exact title TBC. May use the title ‘Mediterranean Grand Prix’ so the Nurburgring can be the ‘European Grand Prix’.
Is the 2009 F1 calendar better than the 2008 F1 calendar?
- Yes, the 2009 F1 calendar is much better (5%)
- Yes, the 2009 F1 calendar is slightly better (12%)
- They are just as good/bad as each other (25%)
- No, the 2008 F1 calendar is slightly better (23%)
- No, the 2008 F1 calendar is much better (31%)
- I have no opinion (4%)
Total Voters: 393
Loading ...
DG said on 8th October 2008, 11:18
Only my usual questions:
Why doesn’t the ‘tour’ start at one side of the world and make its way round, country by country, continent by continent in either one direction or the other?
Why are there 3 and 4 week gaps between some races, with no testing allowed, yet in other places there are back-to-back weekends when surely its just a frantic rush for the teams?
Why are there some countries allowed 2 races in a season when there are more than enough circuits in the world to fill the calendar? (depending on who is in Bernies Blacklist of course…)
Have any of the teams worked out it might be easier to have a separate Asian or Middle East (and American when possible) base of operations to provide backup when the teams are away from home? (thats just an extra thought)
Lustigson said on 8th October 2008, 11:19
Losing Canada is rather sad, for 2009, but gaining Suzuka and another new Grand Prix in Abu Dhabi should make the season worthwile. So I voted that they’re as good/bad as each other.
Lustigson said on 8th October 2008, 11:30
I thought about that, too. Why not start out in Australia, Malaysia, China, Japan, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Turkey, Hungary, Italy, Germany, UK, France, Monaco Spain, Canada, Brazil… or something like that.
However, I reckon spring/summer/fall would need to be taking into account with the schedule. Imagine racing in Malaysia in monsoon season, or in Abu Dhabi during the summer…
Money.
Chalky said on 8th October 2008, 11:51
It’s hard to judge as Fuji hasn’t had a dry race yet and 2009 has a new circuit at Abu Dhabi.
However, I think losing the Canadian GP is a big no and I prefer the Hockenheimring to the new short Nurburgring.
So I went for 2008 is slightly better.
Sush said on 8th October 2008, 12:34
to allow the mechanics, lollipop people and traffic light systems a break to rest and do things like see family’s, or in the case of traffic light system hang around british roundabouts to cause congestion.
beneboy said on 8th October 2008, 12:44
The one thing I’m most disappointed about is the number of races.
There is no reason why we can’t have 20 races in a season.
With the number of suitable tracks available to F1 I can’t see why we have to lose the Canadian GP & can’t have a U.S. GP, it would only add an extra 2 weeks to the calendar.
Without a North American race (or two) it is not a world championship.
Other than that I don’t really care what order the races are in as long as they’re on TV.
Sumedh said on 8th October 2008, 12:53
Why aren’t Baharin and Abu Dhabi together? Won’t that save costs?
Last 3 races : China, Brazil, Abu Dhabi ! ! That is absolute madness.. 4 weeks; the teams will be almost making a full circle around the globe, How much of fuel waste is this ? ?
About the tracks; I guess with 2009 regulations; following cars along long and fast corners is going to be easier. So, Nurburgring, Suzuka will make for interesting races. Even Barcelona should be better than last 2 years.
Ron said on 8th October 2008, 13:12
my opinon is that the races should be bunched up together, sucha s bahrain and Abu Dhabi they should run either back to back or a week apart. they can drive or ship the equipment over.
and countries shouldnt have two GP’s thinking that some countries have amazing tracks, but dont have GP’s.
and it’s a shame about CAnada, i wouldnt want to imagine what the guy went through when he read it in the paper. what? how? why? Bernieeeeeeeeeeeeeee uuuuuuuuu Cre…….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what a weazel this bernie, but i guess he’s the #1 character in F1, shame the drivers’ are uneventful.
ajokay said on 8th October 2008, 13:38
I think they’re both equally as bad as each other. The loss of Canada is made up for slightly by a return to Suzuka.
Journeyer said on 8th October 2008, 14:24
The reason they keep the races apart is because if they’re too close to each other, only one race will have good track attendance – the other track will have to suffer since most people can’t afford attending 2 GPs in succession. And FOM like their income…
This usually happens for places that have small populations in the area, like Bahrain-Abu Dhabi, and Sepang-Singapore in the current calendar, as well as Imola-Monza, Silverstone-Brands Hatch, and Long Beach-Watkins Glen in the past. This could also be one of the reasons why Buenos Aires flopped in the 1990s: it was just too close to Interlagos on the calendar.
On the other hand, races with bigger populations, like Detroit-Montreal-Mexico in the late 1980s, and Shanghai-Fuji/Suzuka in the current calendar, can stick together.
GR said on 8th October 2008, 14:25
I reckon what happened is that the teams put a lot of pressure on Bernie to cut down the number of races, and Bernie had already promised (or been lured into with big $ signs in his eyes) Abu Dhabi. So, the trade off was Canada. What a waste – prob my fave track!
GR
Samuel said on 8th October 2008, 14:36
Hey guys, there’s a phantom grand prix(the 10th), so still there’s room for the Canadian Grand Prix.
Just kidding. There are two 7th rounds and no 10th in the listing…
Bart said on 8th October 2008, 14:37
I like the short Nurburgring better than the short Hockenheimring, it just eats me up every time how they butchered that lovely track. I think Suzuka is much better than Fuji, which only has rain and the view. Dropping Canada is a real shame though, so I voted 2008 slightly better.
Michiel said on 8th October 2008, 15:29
there is one thing I don’t understand, the race in Valencia wass very boring. the canadian grand prix had lots of spectacular moments…
there watched more people to the canadian grand prix than the GP in valencia…
that means more money for ecclestone at the canadian grand prix than in valencia.
why then is valencia on the calender and canada isn’t?
less earnings, and a more boring race. that is a move I don’t understand
the limit said on 8th October 2008, 15:43
Journeyman.
I agree with you, however, alot more could be done to condense the season in terms of back to back races. Pair up races where the demand is greater, rather than in poorer venues where the population are worse off.
But, may I remind you, we have just lost two of the biggest races in terms of support and attendance. Montreal and Indianapolis.
May I also remind everybody, that both races sold far more tickets than Bahrain or Sepang for example, two venues that are still on the 2009 calender.