19 races is too few, not too many
25th September 2009, 9:06 by Keith Collantine 114 Comments »
Too many F1 races? There's no such thing...
After the 2010 F1 calendar was announced I was surprised to see the poor reception it got from some F1 journalists. Ed Gorman of The Times complained:
In my view that is too long and about two races too many.
I couldn’t disagree more. I say a bigger calendar is a better one.
Another writer voicing an objection to the length of the calendar and the increased number of events outside Europe is Grandprix.com’s Joe Saward:
F1 journalism is fast becoming prohibitively expensive. The core of F1 freelances – the people who have the experience – are up to their necks in the costs and many are starting to stay at home. Last year in Japan there was a tiny international press corps and it will be interesting to see how things are this year.
He points out the growing costs that F1 journalists have to face while their margins are increasingly put under pressure by rival sites.
I’m not indifferent to those problems (being made to pay $150 for such essentials as an internet connection is obviously disgraceful), nor the wider challenges journalists face from a difficult economy and rapidly-changing media.
But I think it’s far more important F1 has a decent-sized calendar to increase viewer interest. And when I say ‘decent-sized’, I don’t mean edging up to 20 rounds, I mean pushing towards 30.
F1 should look at how football saturates our screens and take note that when more matches are on, more people are watching (and, of course, more people buy newspapers and visit websites with football coverage).
If F1 is in a state where its journalists, who should have a vested interest in its success and popularity, are arguing against expanding it, then something is clearly wrong.
As ever, the root of all evil in F1 is the vast amount of money being sucked out of the sport to service the debt of owners CVC. That’s why journalists and race promoters alike are being gouged for ridiculous sums of money which seem increasingly unsustainable in the long-term.
This is a complicated problem, but I don’t believe the solution is to have fewer races.
Besides which, I enjoy F1 and I want more races on the calendar. Anyone disagree?
Read more: 2010 F1 calendar
manatcna said on 25th September 2009, 9:13
You’ve got nothing but agreement from me, but maybe 26 rather than 30
Macca said on 25th September 2009, 9:59
I think 30 races maybe over doing it a little. I think there should be 25 races in a season, 1 race every 2 weeks with a months break of the christmas period.
Ronman said on 25th September 2009, 11:12
I agree with you Macca, 25 sounds perfect… but then if Gorman and Saward are complaining about the financial costs they undergo, married fans will have to start counting the cost on their marriage and family time if it goes over 20 weekends a year… especially those who are hooked. so i say keep it as it is…that’s my final answer, although god knows i wouldn’t mind having a race every weekend of the year….but then again that is what put me off Nascar so many years ago…that and the sheer number of cars…
KNF said on 25th September 2009, 17:43
Yeah, agree that 25 races is just nice, we can put the September to March races in the Southern Hemisphere or the tropics and still keep the classic European races from April to August.
Another point to mention is that maybe there be a format similar to MotoGP, with Formula 3, Formula 2 (or GP2) and Formula 1 races run on the same day. Some places don’t have F3 or F2 and GP2, like Singapore, so practically no one was watching the support races (Formula BMW, Astons and Porsche Carrera Cup)…
Keith Collantine said on 26th September 2009, 7:53
Doesn’t NASCAR do something similar as well?
I like the idea of having consistent, quality support packages. GP2 is obviously great but we don’t get it every weekend (this weekend and next, for example). I could live without the Porsche Supercup though.
just me said on 25th September 2009, 19:36
Why not double the number of races (currently 19) with 2 races per track, like GP2 or A1GP. Keep the 3 day format but put the Qs on Sat morning and Sprint race on Sat afternoon. Run the long race on Sun afternoon/night with reverse starting order of the top 8 Sprint finishers.
A reverse grid order would spice up the Sun main race and encourage overtaking of the slower cars in the front of the grid by the Sprint winners.
The costs per journalist would stay the same but much more buzz/hype to report about. The costs of moving between tracks stay the same. TV gets more commercials time. Newspapers get more hype for their weekend Sunday paper (read about the Sat sprint in the Sun morning paper and set the stage for the Sun afternoon main race).
Can’t fathom why Bernie/Max haven’t done this years ago?
Kutigz said on 25th September 2009, 9:15
I’m completely with you on this Keith! I’ll always long for the year that we’ll have F1 races pusing up to 30!
After every weekend race, my appetite as i await the next race is an excrutiating hunger as i count the days, hours, minutes & seconds till the green lights!
benno said on 25th September 2009, 9:19
why not have some novity events – i.e. give the ‘reserve’ drivers a race.
Most teams do atleast one demo a year anyway.
This could be combined with a testing weekend and the tickets flogged off cheap(er). Flog the footage on the internet and everyone wins.
mp4-19b said on 25th September 2009, 9:19
I think we need to have 2 races per week
No winter break. That would make my very happy 
Xibi said on 25th September 2009, 9:22
If they increase the total number of races to about 30, we’ll be losing a lot of small teams that can’t afford to keep up. I don’t think it’s the wisest of ideas right now.
In the future, maybe.
steph90 said on 25th September 2009, 9:33
We need much more races! Australia feels like 5 minutes ago. And look at this year’s championship; the title contenders have simply run out of races to catch Button. It won’t help cut costs, will prolong the season’s development race and might be tricky for the smaller teams but they could gradually keep increasing the number of races to help ease into it. I’m all for it…even if it means another ten Tilke tracks or so lol
HounslowBusGarage said on 25th September 2009, 9:37
I think Ed Gorman’s complaints centre on the cost of keeping up with the series and the travelling time he has to put in. If you read his Blog-thing, he always seems to have ‘adventures’ in getting from home to racetrack and back again.
I’m not totally in favour of increasing the number of races beyond 20 or so. As Xibi says, it would cause the smaller teams greater cost burdens, and it would also dilute the spectacle slightly. I like Christmas, but I’m damn glad it only happens once a year!
Look at the NFL in the States; the Season starts in September and it’s all over by the end of January, but the fans rave about it all year long. The games are in limited supply, and that’s what keeps their value so high.
20 races is enough, otherwise we’ll start to have even more bizarre and remote host locations – Grand Prix of Guatemala, anyone?
his_majesty said on 25th September 2009, 15:53
If it’s not designed by tilke.. sure. I’ll take a race in iraq if the design is cool. Might be a bit of a strecth but you get it. I say race in the mountains, that way you can have corners that would make eau rough look like a walk in the park.
Gman said on 26th September 2009, 3:29
Hounslow, if you mention the NFL, you’re a winner in my book!!! For as much as I love Formula 1, I don’t think any sport will ever overtake the NFL in my book
As a league, the NFL gets a great deal right in many areas, from rules and regulations to promotion and marketing. They have 16 games per season- with only one off week- then the playoffs. There has been some talk about expanding the season, but I woulden;t agree with it- 16 games against top-level hitting is about as tough of a challenge as you’ll find in sports.
The league dose a good deal of keeping traditional rivalries in the same divisions, and the salary cap (which may be in trouble after next year) dose a godo job of keeping a level playing field. That;s why you see a team like Pittsburgh- in a small market- win championships agaisnt teams in big cities like NYC, Dallas, and Philly.
Ah, F1 and the NFL…Sundays just can’t get better on the sports front this time of the year:)
Baz said on 25th September 2009, 9:38
In trying to keep costs down, it does seem strange to lengthen the GP calendar. More races would be great but is it sustainable for the smaller teams?
Richard said on 25th September 2009, 9:41
Have the 19 rounds as planned, then tag on another 11 races at Spa – obviously to annoy the locals, and because it’s awesome
Ali Adams said on 25th September 2009, 10:08
I am with you Richard
I spend (not wasted) 6 months of my life hotlapping Spa in Grand Prix 2 in 1988 with a best of 1.47.low cannot remember now but that was enough for 3rd overall in a worldwide competition. I still miss the bus stop shicane
mp4-19b said on 25th September 2009, 10:19
You’ve missed something Adams!
God > Infinity
Phil T said on 25th September 2009, 17:06
FFS leave it alone
Baz said on 25th September 2009, 12:31
GP2…them were the days.
Keith Collantine said on 26th September 2009, 7:54
Definitely!
IDR said on 25th September 2009, 9:44
He likes sails, no engines at all.
I’m with you, Keith, for that case, “less is not more” (with the permission of Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, of course)
Keith Collantine said on 26th September 2009, 7:57
One of the more high-brow references we’ve had on F1 Fanatic for a while! Am off to read about modernist architecture now…
DC said on 25th September 2009, 9:46
Of course we fans want more races. But it is equally obvious why a segment of the F1 world is complaining. The F1 journalists are seeing increasing costs but no increase in income. They have to buy more hotel rooms, more plane tickets… but how much is their salary going to go up? None. I would complain too.
But I think this is a symptom of what is happening in journalism. It is hard for these journalists to make money when we fans get our news from free websites and refuse to pay subscriptions to racing publications.
Keith Collantine said on 26th September 2009, 8:00
I agree totally – but it’s not a good reason to keep the calendar small.
Brendan said on 25th September 2009, 9:48
I don’t think that any more than about 23 races a year is doable. The 2010 calendar runs from March 14th to November 14th: 8 months. This is already a full month longer than the 2009 calendar, which is March 29 to November 1.
The first issue is how much longer the calendar can reasonably be. An 8 month race schedule only gives the teams a minimum of 4 months to work full-out on next year’s car. Also, as the season stretches earlier into March and later into November, there are fewer venues that will have reasonable weather.
So if an 8 month calendar is the longest we can tolerate, the only option left is to shorten the time between races. The teams really want that August month off, so it’s off limits. Other than that, the week off between some races could be eliminated, but it’s a real effort for the teams to get everything moved in such a short amount of time, and I expect they’d complain loudly if they had to do it often in a season. I remember reading that McLaren had people working round-the-clock to get the “motorhome” moved from Valencia to Spa in 3 days.
Also, 3 races in 3 weeks simply wouldn’t fly with the teams, so for one week to open up, two other races must lose their buffer. It would make the season a real grind, and I think anyone who travels to the races (i.e. not bloggers) would be pretty unhappy by the time Abu Dhabi rolls around.
Ali Adams said on 25th September 2009, 10:20
1)Shorted the event to two days a week Sat+Sun only
2)have semi-permanent bases at the track
3) put a limit on the things you can take to a GP (no fancy motorhomes etc.)
4) reduce the number of team members travelling
5) no tyre change, no refuelling, no service at all. if your car breaks, you have to push it yourself if 100m from the flag
6) no fancy parties
7) have two events on Sundays a lottory based driver-team allocation with reduced max rpm and a normal one
9) kick out Williams and their lack of honour.
10) bring back Ron and Flav immediately after Max leaves
IDR said on 25th September 2009, 10:27
There are no rules no drivers now for repeating what Mansel did at Mexico!
mp4-19b said on 25th September 2009, 10:48
I don’t remember him fainting at mexico, but I fully remember him fainting at Dallas in 1984.
mansell faints at 9:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjI8leOhJUw&feature=related
IDR said on 25th September 2009, 12:39
I’m an old man not using internet…
Dallas, sure.
Martin said on 26th September 2009, 3:58
Dallas..Mexico.. whats the diff
Eddie Irvine said on 25th September 2009, 16:13
Williams??? I don’t beleive you even say that!!!
LAK said on 25th September 2009, 10:31
Yup completely agree with Brendan and gazzap it’s a matter of feasability and what is realistically doable
Scribe said on 25th September 2009, 10:08
The easiest way to increase the size of the calender without pushing travelling costs through the roof is simple.
Have as many Euro GP’s as possible.
Jurez Imola 2 German races Silverstone and Donnigton Magny-Cours and this new one they’re building.
As well as that have an Asian GP season where we do the eastern tracks, followed by Middle eastern followed by european followed by american. Make it possible for as much of the circus as possible to do as little traveling as possible.
But yes I back Keiths point 30 GP’s and a race every weekend! Simply coz i want to be watching f1 all the time
Martin said on 26th September 2009, 4:00
Other than Japan and Austrailia all the other far east tracks are boring..I have not seen S.Korea though.
HG said on 25th September 2009, 10:16
as long as the quality of the races is suitable to justify more events.
gazzap said on 25th September 2009, 10:16
Have to agree with Brendan. Its easy for fans who maybe go to 3 races a season to say they want more and more but those who fly to every race would find 30 races unacceptable. this isn’t like football where you turn up for a couple of hours then go home. This is 4 days away from home and families.
But I think a compromise is required. 23 races sounds plausible. What I dont like is 3 week gaps in the schedule. 2 weeks maximum would be OK for 8 months with that 4 week gap in August. If they put say France and Belgium together then they could be just one week apart.
his_majesty said on 25th September 2009, 16:19
I don’t get why it isn’t feasible. Nascar does it. It may only be in the us but they drive there. It takes about 4 days from coast to coast to MOVE that stuff, it then needs set up. Are you saying nascar is better than f1, are we lazy!!
DMW said on 25th September 2009, 22:02
NASCAR races multiple times a year on the same tracks. That’s not what people have in mind by “more” races.
Most NASCAR races are clumped in the Southeast. In any event, they are not going coast to coast every week–more like driving a few hours from Richmond to Bristol, including a leisurely stop for chicken and waffles.
Truck travel is cheap. Jumbo jet travel is not.
Most teams are based in the geographic center of most races.
NASCAR is not a constructor’s series, whatever the clowns waving Chevy and anti-Toyota banners in the stands think. F1 teams design and build and develop, this is an exciting and essential part of the team competition, and they need time to do that during the season. And you need time at the end of the season to develop a new car.
Finally, you need time off for summer holidays and winter holidays for people who work flat out, weekends, travel constantly. Forcing people either to work like machines or get fired is the American way, but only the American way.
A NASCAR type schedule is totally impractical for F1 and inconsistent with the core elements of the sport.
Gman said on 26th September 2009, 3:42
You should really cut your “American way” junk- and many of those “clowns” in the stands keep a close eye on the F1 happeneings as well.
As for the design, there’s much less of an element of that in NASCAR, but teams still design each car a bit differently..do you really think they run the exact same car at Bristol and Dover as they do at Watkins Glen and Infinion, do you?
The NASCAR guys like the 36-plus races….if woulden’t work for F1, and they would be the first to admit that. So don’t rip on something that works just because it’s not what you think is the best.
Martin said on 26th September 2009, 4:10
Gman I agree with you partly. Nascar is the same car shell for all team and a different paint job and engine. Most every team is located within 30 miles of Charlotte, NC. I have many friends in the sport that work there and they enjoy what they do.
For every clown up there that keeps up with formula 1 there are 50-75 that wouldnt know what a f1 car was..if it has open wheels they are all indycars or f1 cars and they could care less.
They do have as you described different cars for different tracks, superspeedway cars for daytona, taladega and such. short track cars for bristol and others and then a medium speed track like atlanta and charlotte. Each type car is built for a particular track condition.
F1 teams would have a hard time competing at more than 20 races a year I believe unless f1 goes to a universal car and the only difference is the paint and the engine.
That would not be formula1 would it.
Keith Collantine said on 26th September 2009, 8:07
That’s a fair point. But there’s no reason (apart from cost) why the teams couldn’t rotate many of the staff members they send out to races – apart from people like the drivers, of course.
One could argue that as long as the calendar size keeps creeping up slowly, teams will continue to keep covering it with the same number of staff. But if Ecclestone announced today, “OK, in 2011 we’ll have 30 races”, teams would have time to take the decision to hire extra staff.