Wimbledon’s roof, F1 and television
Roofs at F1 circuits would be impractical, but useful
There’s no escaping the Wimbledon tennis tournament here in Britain. Last night F1 broadcasters BBC attracted 12.6m viewers as British hopeful Andy Murray scraped through to the next round after a four-hour match that lasted well into the evening.
But there has been criticism of the decision to keep the match going under Wimbledon’s new extensible roof – and questions about whether it was done to help keep viewing figures strong.
It would not be the first sport where compromises have been made to suit the demands of television – Formula 1 is much the same. But this sort of thing can easily go too far.
The roof at centre court was constructed before this year’s event to allow the organisers to keep the tournament running when the British summer runs true to form – i.e. cold and wet.
You can imagine what has happened. London is presently basking in a heat wave, with temperatures up to 32C. Then, vexing the organisers further, fat dollops of warm rain fell yesterday afternoon.
The roof was duly rolled across to keep everyone dry. The match was finished but afterwards the players complained of being roasted in the heat under the cover.
The BBC has denied it asked for the roof to be used to keep the game going – but the desire to keep international broadcasters satisfied may well have played a role in the organiser’s decision.
It certainly would not be the first time sport has taken a back seat to commercial imperatives. It’s the same reason why the British football Premier League has been considering adding an extra round of matches to be played in cash-rich eastern countries.
F1 has been making similar concessions to economic demands in general – and television in particular – for some time.
Elimination qualifying
F1′s ‘elimination’ qualifying system was partly designed to allow advert breaks after Q1 and Q2.
I think it’s a neat solution which satisfies the demands of fans, television and the sport: fans needn’t miss any of the track action, the television companies can run their adverts and the sport has a qualifying system which works and is entertaining.
But in other areas striking this sort of balance may be very difficult. What if the sport tried to apply the same model to the race format?
Shorter races?
This is not unlikely – it was one of FOTA’s recommendations following its survey of F1 fans in March. Flavio Briatore and Felipe Massa were among those backing the idea, and Briatore has in the past suggested F1 should run to a GP2-style format with two races per weekend.
It’s not hard to see why this might appeal to television companies: two 45-minute races with a break in between could allow the races to be broadcast in full with advertising breaks confined to the ‘half-time’ break. This is similar to how A1 Grand Prix is broadcast on Sky Sports.
But would fans like it? As ever, please have your say below – but I’m going to hazard a guess that the response will be largely negative.
The best solution for F1 on TV
A poll on this site in March showed 89% of readers did not want to see race distances reducing. When much has already been done to make F1 more ‘TV-friendly’ – shorter circuits, maximum time limits etc… – this could be a concession too far.
The fixed Grand Prix distance of two hours or 200 miles is part of what defines the sport. From the lower echelons through F3 and GP2, race distances get progressively longer, building drivers up for the demands of Grand Prix racing.
FOTA has made a lot of strong arguments about how F1 should be run in the future and enjoys a lot of support from fans in its dispute with the FIA. But cutting race distances, for whatever reason, will in all likelihood cost them some of that good will.
Before going down the road of cutting race distances, FOTA should look at offering a two-tier solution for F1 fans: free coverage with ad-breaks for the masses, and an ad-free subscription service, perhaps with extra features and camera angles, for hardcore fans.
Ron said on 1st July 2009, 12:28
Well the TV fans can be given what they want by the simple fact of keeping the F1 feed running in a reduced window during the commercial break. i would be annoying, but it’s better than missing a moment, like a crash, an overtake, stuff of that sort. that i think is a good compromise.
as it comes to HD, I’m surprise it’s not available for F1, but i don’t really care. I’ve been watching F1 like this for 16 years with no complaints on quality. I’d just wish the speed of the cars is a little more perceptible. is that what HD does?
matt said on 1st July 2009, 15:02
I hate the idea of 2 short races. If it was spread across the weekend I’d find it very annoying having to watch 2 seperate races, taking up more time in a more awkward way as a result. And surely the distance is part of the challenge. I have enormous respect for drivers at the end of a hot race, especially if their water bottle failed or something. The race distance is just one of the things that makes it f1.
scunnyman said on 1st July 2009, 22:01
I agree Matt F1 is supposed to different to minor categories by being longer and more demanding. That is why people thought that lewis hamilton may not have been able to handle the length of F1 races when he moved from GP2 to F1.
BC said on 1st July 2009, 16:26
F1 races should be made longer, not shorter. Fill them out to approximately 2hrs in length. In fact I’d like to see race lengths vary from the avg 90min they are now to 2hrs on the circuits that are not so hard on the machinery.
It would be difficult to reconcile that with the current 3-race engine rule, but maybe throwing in a second “free engine change” during the season would make up for some longer races.
HounslowBusGarage said on 1st July 2009, 16:57
Wouldn’t it be a bit difficult to extend races from next year when re-fuelling is not allowed? Two hours worth of fuel on board an F1 car would make it desperately heavy at the start.
scunnyman said on 1st July 2009, 22:22
Why would it be difficult Houslow? Just make the rules cover a fuel tank big enough to take enough fuel to last the long race. All cars would be as heavy as each other. And then they just race, yes lap times would be slower but not by as much as you might think. It does not make the racing bad.
How do yoy think the racing was like before refuelling? Slow was it?
TommyB said on 1st July 2009, 19:40
F1 needs a roof. One that has sprinklers underneath so every race can be wet
Bas said on 2nd July 2009, 14:28
Interestingly, very few talk in the race length debate has turned to lengthening races further. Nowadays, races are 200 statute miles or 2 hours, the latter being a limit set for considerations of driver wear and rarely reached. But at the same time, endurance drivers can drive stints of up to 3 hours, even at night, even in physically wearing races like 12h Sebring and 24h Le Mans. Drivers of the Coke 600 spend even more time in the car (on an oval, that is) and so do RallyRaid drivers regularly. Highlighting that drivers ought to be capable of driving more extended periods safely.
But they cannot do so at the very peak of their attention. There is a maximum extent of time for which a human being can maintain attention with changing external factors, and current F1 drivers are coming close to that boundary at the moment. We have in the past seen drivers critisized for ‘falling asleep’ during races: Trulli and Frentzen most prominently. Fastest laps of a race have traditionally come from the first half of the race. Also, we have many times seen drivers slow down a little bit towards the end of races if there is no pressure. And longer races, often under rainy circumstances, make it difficult to see how consistently drivers are running at the best of the abilities. All these things together can be interpreted as possible driver fatigue towards the end of races.
If we make races longer, we will see more (probably all) drivers dropping off a bit in concecntration and hence running slower laptimes for some duration of the race (not necessarily the end). That means that the driver who can best handle a drop in focus has a competitive edge over the others for some duration of the race. Drivers who drive with physical exhaustion by G-forces in mind and might therefore brake a bit earlier than others early on might have the energy to brake later than others towards the end of the race. As some drivers drop off more than others, you will see the field’s laptimes reshuffle somewhat, rather than settle towards the end of the race as is currently often the case. A winning driver will have to balance his effort over a full race.
Therefore, I would suggest races to be run over 300 statute miles (which was actually the standard race length back in the early days of F1) or 3 hours, with average races lasting 105 to 135 minutes (1h45′ to 2h15′).
Sorry this is largely off topic, but I felt like sharing it here.
scunnyman said on 2nd July 2009, 17:54
I really agree with you Bas, and if you look at the British grand prix where Mansell chased down Piquet in the last 20 odd laps breaking lap record almost every lap, he obviously didn’t lose much concentration. Drivers of F1 calibre should be able to last at least 2 hrs racing time.
tibia character said on 12th November 2010, 10:48
sell tibia chars,