“What’s the point of Formula One?” – Radio 4 programme featuring me today
A pointless endeavour?
A few weeks ago I mentioned I was being interviewed for a Radio 4 programme called “What’s the point of Formula 1?”. The finished show airs today.
You can catch the half-hour show on Radio 4 at 9am and 9.30pm, and after that it should be available on BBC iPlayer for a week. As far as I’m aware you don’t have to be within the UK to listen to it.
The programme also includes contributions from Frank Williams, Stirling Moss, Jackie Stewart, The Times F1 correspondent Ed Gorman, FIA technical advisor (and former Jaguar F1 team principal) Tony Purnell and motor racing correspondent Doug Nye.
Update: Listen to the show here in iPlayer
I recorded my interview over six weeks ago with host Quentin Letts, a journalist for the Daily Mail. Obviously there have been many developments in F1′s political sphere since then and I’ve had several conversations with the programme makers who’ve been striving not to get caught out by the unfolding events of the past few weeks. I should point out, however, that I’ve had no input into the editorial direction of the show.
As you can guess from the title the programme is intended to be light-hearted but a bit provocative. It’s part of a series that asks “What’s the point” of various things – last week it was the Privy Council and they previously did Michelin Stars.
It’s not intended to be taken terribly seriously, but I hope you feel I give a fair and accurate representation of what F1 fans think of the sport and the people involved in it. Look forward to hearing what you make of it!
See the official site for “What’s the point of Formula 1?” here.
K said on 19th May 2009, 19:09
Considering it was presented by Quentin Letts it wasn’t too bad I guess, very authoritative Keith and a shame they didn’t speak to you a bit more over some of the others. I wasn’t really into that woman talking about “green” issues. Don’t get me wrong I’m all for sustainability and I think F1 should be at the forefront of that, up until now and for the foreseeable future F1 has been in denial really, but she didn’t make good arguments. F1 is a clear and easy target which should make change more possible it’s just lame that it is yet to happen.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 19th May 2009, 20:24
I thought Jackie Stewart telling him he doesn’t pay enough attention when watching the races was hilarious.
I did the interview with Quentin around six or seven weeks ago and he was really easy to get on with, very chatty. It was pretty obvious what tone they were aiming to strike with the programme and I think they did it well. Inevitably hardcore fans like ourselves were going to find some of the criticisms put forward a bit naff.
As I mentioned above recording the programme so early made the logistics a little complicated. One point I mentioned – about the ‘most wins’ system potentially being introduced next year – is now off the table (for the time being at least).
james_mc said on 19th May 2009, 22:23
Oh that tree-hugging woman obviously likes fresh air… there’s plenty of it between her ears. How bigoted/ignorant can you get?!?
159Tom said on 19th May 2009, 22:45
You’re in illustrious company there Keith – Nigel Roebuck, Doug Nye, Jackie Stewart etc – maybe it’s a generation thing but I thought you came across better than some of them, just by engaging with the interviewer a bit more.
On green issues, and ignoring the hopeless “comedian” woman, Tony Purnell’s comments bothered me – 3-cylinder engines? (they’ll sound rubbish!) Rewards for the best fuel economy? I hope that’s just Max Mosley advising Purnell to stir up another argument.
persempre said on 19th May 2009, 23:21
He`s Max` heir apparent which is definitely worrying, 159Tom.
F1Yankee said on 19th May 2009, 23:02
stewart was my favorite part :)
i think you had a very strong analogy with the helium and triangular pitch. accurate, illustrative and comprehendible.
Owen G said on 20th May 2009, 5:27
I found it hilarious that the “comedienne” lady tried to make a point about F1 using up a finite resource and comparing it to people starving in the world.
No problem with people not enjoying Formula 1, but at least come up with a decent reason why! I’m sure she never leaves a morcel of food on her plate at dinner what with all the starving people.
Well done to Sir Jackie Stewart for giving him a dressing down about paying attention. Another pointless argument. The commentators constantly give you the running order and it is almost always on the screen.
I presume it was supposed to be a light-hearted look at it, but I found anti-F1 (for want of a better term) came across as ignorant, whereas the pro-F1 side put forward their case very well. Or maybe I’m just biased because I’m pro-F1 myself.
djdaveyp said on 20th May 2009, 13:16
****NEWS FLASH*****
Ferraris appeal has been rejected by the court of appeal! Good News in my opinion.
goldenboy91 said on 20th May 2009, 14:32
Thanks for your response Keith…
I’m very grateful that you give me such opportunity to write an article about Global TV’s F1 coverage in your blog…
I will do my best to write the article after the Monaco GP…
PS.:I’m sorry if I have no decent English language…
Thanks again, Keith
timmyM said on 20th May 2009, 15:05
the argument that it’s difficult to understand is moot. as stewart said, there are organisations such as the BBC, Speed and others, that provide information specifically to aid comprehension, and do a great deal to make the sport accessible to new followers.
the green agenda always comes across as a dubious argument because all people see is cars going fast, which equals bad. i think the environmental argument will only start to hold water once there are real visible changes ie – hybrid cars, fuel cells etc. but it takes time, so that doesn’t really answer the question either.
sponsors agendas are driven by commercial aspects, but they are there to fund the sport and are not the basis for its existence. if it were self-funding, as in the days of the silver arrows, cooper and vanwall, we wouldn’t need them. but it’s not, so we do. a necessary evil then.
the point that was missing from the programme is that the point of F1 is that there are (for good reasons or bad) millions of people around the world, petrol heads and normal people, that just find it great entertainment. full stop. nuf said.
i wonder if they have planned a programme entitled “what’s the point of the olympics?” or “what’s the point of the world cup?”
if they did i think that the arguments for and against would be similar in many ways, but i can’t believe that they would miss out the fact that it is simply entertainment, created for interested people!
Chaz said on 20th May 2009, 18:16
Nice one. Just listened to the show…
James_mc said on 20th May 2009, 23:41
Owen G – I agree, and I can’t just believe that it is because we’re F1 fans.
Timmy M – I like the sound of “what’s the point of the Olympics”, I can’t stand the bloated, out of proportion “celebration” of who can pump themselves full of the most steriods.
(Actually, I don’t mind it that much but I thought I should take up the ignorant viewpoint…)