F1 ‘should be unpredictable like Race of Champions’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Nico Hulkenberg says F1 can learn from the example set by the Race of Champions.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Hulkenberg isn’t the only person who thinks the Race of Champions had some good ideas:

Went to the Race of Champions on Sunday. Some great competitors but disappointed they cancelled the go kart race. I would have loved to see Vettel, Button, Massa, Grosjean etc… battle it out in the same kart actually racing rather than time trials.

Come on FIA, how about a kart race every day at a grand prix? Friday, Saturday and Sunday?
Depailler

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Heart Of The Sunrise, Nakavich, Beverly Sanford and Haziq Danish!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Maurizio Arrivabene took over as Ferrari team principal on this day last year. His predecessor Marco Mattiacci had only been in charge for seven months.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

81 comments on “F1 ‘should be unpredictable like Race of Champions’”

  1. When was the last time a kart race ran on the support bill to a Grand Prix?

    I remember watching SuperKarts at the Aus GP in Adelaide as a support race.

    1. They could have a fastest lap competition in a reasonably priced car. The drivers seemed to take their times seriously on Top Gear so it could be quite entertaining.

      1. That would be great.

      2. New FIA rule: celebs who want to hang out adding to the crowd on the grid on Sunday need to set a decent time in a reasonably-priced car on Saturday.

      3. They should do the qualifying in a reasonable priced car and have the F1 cars setup for pure racing.

  2. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
    24th November 2015, 0:35

    Haryanto is an interesting pick, quite like him as a driver. King probably needs another year in GP2 to develop. He’s a decent overtaker but hasn’t had a big result yet. I suppose his dad has the money to throw at the drive though.

    1. I don’t know about King’s dad but I believe Haryanto’s dad still has the money to support his son even after major fire hits his book factory in August. But for an entrepreneur who had fought hard earn money for 30 years to throw money on some sport that barely had any coverage here in Indonesia is just not realistic.

      1. Haryanto has oil backing also. And like the most his gp2 results came way to late

        1. Currently the money he raised from sponsor for a single season of GP2 is not enough for a top team, let alone for F1. Hence his two season campaigns in Barwa Addax and Caterham are completely wasted. Good thing is, he appeared to get much upper hand of Pic in Campos this year. F1 teams should consider that. After getting very competitive result, his market value is increased here in Indonesia, and more sponsor is coming, but still not in spectacular number like Maldonado with PDVSA for example.

          1. @aditya

            Good thing is, he appeared to get much upper hand of Pic in Campos this year. F1 teams should consider that.

            I’m sorry, but no they shouldn’t. There are a good number of drivers with actual good results to consider first. Haryanto’s results simply do not warrant an F1 seat. 0 feature race wins and 1 feature race podium in four seasons of GP2, that is simply not enough. Beating Pic doesn’t change that fact.

          2. Thing to remember is that some guys like Evans and Haryanto have basically gone ‘all-in’ with GP2/GP3. Evans is actually younger than King for example, it’s just that he’s been driving GP2 since he was 18/19, same for Haryanto. Among the top guys, the youngest is Gasly (19), followed by Sirotkin and Marciello (20).

      2. I rather like to see Rio in Blancpain GT & WEC.

  3. Of course F1 should be unpredictable, but the chances of it happening now are essentially nil. Certain teams have too much power, as do certain individuals, primarily Ecclestone, Todt and Whiting. Short of discarding the entire formula, creating a new one and then transferring the F1 branding to the upstart, there is zero opportunity to fix this mess properly because every one of these teams and individuals are too greedy and self-interested to even slightly consider the greater good of the sport.

    The best we can hope for is another rules change that will (likely very briefly) stir the pot again. F1 as we once knew it is a dead duck.

    1. In what way does Charlie Whiting hold too much power? As far as I can tell, he has very little input on how F1 is governed. And given how little the FIA does to govern F1, I’d say Todt is a long way from having too much power also.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        24th November 2015, 11:20

        @raceprouk – Because he regularly states that going off the track is ok because it doesn’t give the other driver an advantage. This of course is completely ignoring the fact that drivers can push that bit harder knowing they’ll lose nothing by going off the track and in doing so, are therefore gaining an advantage.

        How someone can overlook something so simple suggests that he’s not in the job because of his intelligence but instead, because of his “friends.”

        1. So Whiting has too much power because he interprets rules others have written? By that logic, the stewards also have too much power. So let’s remove that power… and now there’s no-one left to enforce the rules.

    2. Sorry, unpredictable? With qualifying? How, when you start the race in order of speed?

  4. The predictable result for every race from the start of the season would be HAM, ROS, VET, RAI and BOT. How many races have we had that? We’d all be tied on the Predictions championship if it were so easy.

    Don’t get me wrong the final standings aren’t far off it, and but for some really inconsistent performance from Raikkonen they would be exactly but those standings have been made on merit. I don’t want to watch 19 lotteries where contrived show biz tactics leaves us wondering what the results are. People can watch X Factor if they get high on that drama.

    I like watching a meritocracy.

    That being said I think the most interesting races have been those where practice has been disrupted with very little running done. I think that could deliver something that would please both sides. I would be happy knowing that the team and drivers best able to take to the challenge with little preparation came out on top, people would get the spiced up show. I don’t think completely cancelling running is what’s needed, leave Saturday practice as is. But maybe Friday could be restricted to test or reserve drivers. That way we get to see some up and coming talent in the cars, prospective drivers get some needed F1 experience on their way to finding a race seat, and the lead drivers don’t get to hone their laps down to metronomic fashion, we get to see some seat of the pants driving.

    1. The biggest problem with reducing or eliminating practice is that there’s then less F1 running for the fans who have paid to watch there favorite drivers & favorite teams.

      And you also hand an advantage to the teams with the best simulation tools as they will turn up far better prepared than teams with less advanced simulations or in the case of some teams who have no simulator at all.

      And of course with no testing outside of race weekends if you cut practice where are the teams going to test there new upgrades or do the running to ensure they have enough cooling for not just the engine but also the brakes which is a serious safety issue.

      This is supposed to be a sport, not a lottery. Teams & drivers need practice, Fans who pay to attend the race weekends deserve to see there favorite F1 drivers out on track driving the F1 cars that they have paid to watch.
      The support classes are all well & good as is things like reserve drivers sessions & F1 kart races or whatever.. But if they cut Friday F1 practice for all that I know that i’d be far less interested in attending as thats not what I pay/drive to the track on a Friday to go & watch. I want to see as much F1 running with F1 race drivers as possible.

      1. There are ups and downs to any change and I suspect attendance is the main reason we will always see the actual drivers on a Friday as it would result in reduced crowds.

        But there are plenty of occasions where weather has made Friday running effectively useless for getting data for the race and we haven’t had any safety issues.

    2. @philipgb
      I’ve often thought that Friday should be for young development drivers and rookies. Give the regular drivers a practice session on Saturday morning, then in to qualifying.

      I agree with you about the lottery aspect too, although I’d love to see a one off season with each driver driving a different car at each race. If we had 10 teams, 20 cars, drivers, and races the drivers could get one weekend in each car. It’d be interesting to see who could adapt best, and if anyone really can win in a Mercedes, and how well the champions would do with a Marussia.

      1. @beneboy

        McLaren are giving us a pretty good indication how well champions do in Manor level cars :)

        It’d be interesting to have one of the support races a stock car race with the drivers. F1 is my favourite sport because of the combination of man and machine, but I think everyone would truly like to see them pitted against each other in equal machinery.

      2. Agree, this way cars wouldn’t have unexpected problems in race day given 3 normal sessions but 2 being run by rookies means they get to understand the cars and its development also the much needed opportunity to be in F1 and the grid drivers would have to adapt really quickly in a single session.

    3. You’d be in the top 20 in the predictions championship if you went with HAM pole, HAM ROS VET RAI BOT every single race, though — I think you don’t have to worry about watching a lottery any time soon.

    4. It’s been pretty boring whenever they missed the practice.

    5. Why not “do as many practice laps as you want on the special Pirelli ‘practice-compound’ (same at every race)” and then distribute the two race compounds only for qualy and the GP.

    6. I like watching a meritocracy.

      F1 is supposed to be the premier motor racing series, and amongst other things that means watching the best drivers racing in the best cars, and seeing the very best driver driving the very best car winning.
      While there may be extra interest created by some sort of random factor, and maybe the series format does need some “fine tuning”, but the real problem isn’t actually the format of the series, it is the simply F1 doesn’t want to be popular. We know this because in many countries you have to pay to watch F1, which equates to one being fined for wanting to watch it, or you can watch another motor racing series and not be fined. If F1 wants to be popular then they need to make it a requirement of their broadcasting rights contracts.

  5. I love F1 as much as anyone else here in this forum, and being in Argentina, my nearest GP is Brazil, and it’s quite expensive -if not unaffordable- for me. If the F1 return to Argentina it most certainly will be hosted at Buenos Aires, so it’s a 300km trip, i can go to the circuit and return to Rosario by night. I should be thrilled for that opportunity! But i’m not. My country isn’t in the best economical shape, and knowing as we all know how high are Bernie’s fees to host a Grand Prix, there’s no way a private local business man will but all of the money, so he will turn to the goverment for money. And i don’t want that. Not at all. This isn’t an oil country like Russia, or Abu Dabhi. We’re an undeveloped south american country and we have far more important things to do with our money (as a country) than filling the already fat pockets of Bernie.

    1. It’s sadly the case that F1 necessitates a gouging of the public purse. Which is sad, because it prevents it from going and racing where the fans will follow it most. Surely Argentina would fill the stands I think.

    2. Great comment – sir, you get my COTD vote

    3. Yes, Argentina unfortunately in recent decades has had an extremely erratic economy. But who knows- the investment may pay off in the end and bring more tourists and business to Argentina. Buenos Aires has been described as the Paris of Latin America; it has been along with Rio de Janeiro the most popular tourist destination. And with a country that has such a rich heritage of racing- that would. be refreshing to see. Another Argentine GP would fill the stands at the Buenos Aires Autodrome.

      1. well, it’s the most popular location for tourist because it’s the front door of the country. Believe me, there’s plenty more to visit than just Buenos Aires. the stands may be completely filled up, but still losing money, and as i’ve said, i don’t want a penny from tax payers to F1, we have much more important things to do :)

    4. you do realize that US$50m is a tiny drop in the government bucket, even for cash strapped Argentina. It’s promotional value is worth more than that, if it is done well… for example I may choose to visit Argentina to see the GP, stay a week, decide to open my next factory for poly tanks there, creating jobs and injecting foreign currency…. Or I might just keep making them in Brazil….

      1. indeed, it’s a little drop for a government, BUT a lot can be done with that money! Argentina is a beatiful country (and i’m not saying that just because i’m argentinian) but it have a little big problem: our political class. Corrupt, self centered, and so on. And if you want to place your poly tank factory… well, stay in brazil, sadly they have more respect for the law than we do…

    5. @matiascasali I agree with you here. As a South African I would also love a race at home but with the current government already plundering the tax-payers pockets, I would not want to have to surrender what is needed to have a GP here.

      Alex W if that is the only reason for not having a factory somewhere is because they do not have a GP there for you to see how good/bad it would be to have it there, how many places have you been? GP & business opportunities don’t always run hand in hand…

      US$50m multiplied by the current exchange rate of R13.89 to US$1 works out at R694,500,000.00 Just a little pricey!

      1. I have never been to Argentina, would love an excuse to go thre though. It was just a hypothetical example.

        1. don’t need f1 to come! just go to Peninsula Valdés starting in october and you can do the most breath-taking whale watching you’ll ever imagine. Just to say something.

      2. @friedatwo, on the other hand, it is still pretty small when compared to the annual expenditure of the Argentinian government (approximately $110 billion).

  6. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    24th November 2015, 1:06

    F1 should be unpredictable, but not artificially unpredictable via designed to degrade tyres, DRS or any of those sorts of gimmicks.

    The unpredictability should come from the closeness of the competition. That’s what makes sport dramatic, when two teams are closely matched and the game could go eitherway. That’s what F1 should aim for.

    I also think that we should stop expecting every single race to be like Brazil 2012. Like all things in sport, there’s going to be some good ones and some bad. It’s all just part of the game.

    1. Agreed.

      I’ve said recently a few times that I think one of the problems with F1 the past 2-3 years from a fan standpoint is that in 2011/2012 we had DRS/Pirelli high-deg tyres introduced to F1 & those 2 years saw a massive jump in passing figures & at times some fairly random results (Early 2012’s 7 winners in 7 races for instance) & this raised fan expectations where that sort of thing is now expected & anything other than that is a let down.

      2015 has been far from a classic but there have been some races this year that have been scored very low despite the fact those races featured some good, close racing & a lot of overtaking.. Far more than the average race from the Pre-DRS/Pirelli era featured. There have been races this year that scored below 4 in the rate the race poll that I honestly believe Pre-2011 would have been scored at 7 back then because they featured a lot of what fans from the time were crying out for.

      Lets look at Nascar as another example.
      You have the 2 restrictor plate tracks (Daytona & Talladega) & fans now have expectations & expect those tracks to feature 2-3 wide flat out pack racing all day long. On the rare occasion where those races turn into a more traditional race then even if the racing is still very good they call the race boring because there expectations were not met based on the last race held there.

      The problem is that once you introduce gimmicks to spice things up people expect things to be spiced up all the time so you end up having to rely on those gimmicks more & more to keep things spiced up. It becomes no longer about racing & more about the show & the more down that route you go the harder it becomes to take the gimmicks away.

      1. That’s not exactly true. You should properly take a look at overtaking numbers over the years.

    2. The problem is we want everything.

      We want unpredictability, we want design freedom, we want close racing, we want pure racing, we want excitement, we want battles on track, we want strategy, we want etc….

      We want all those things and more, but they most of them conflict.

    3. Agreed, And that closeness happens naturally. Big rule upheavals are what bring about dominance. Every time teams close in on performance the rug gets pulled from under them and they have to start again.

      2007 and 2008 there was nothing to choose between McLaren and Ferrari. Red Bull, Honda, Williams and Toyota may all have been their as well has they not had focussed switched to 2009.

      2012 we had McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari and Lotus all with properly competitive machinery. They went too far in 2013 with the useless tyres stopping Mercedes getting in on the fun before they turned the sport on it’s head again for 2014.

      And now we can already see Ferrari closing in on Mercedes. All Red Bull need is to have a decent power unit behind them, and in a couple of years I’d expect McLaren to finally be back to form. But rather than the rule stability that’s needed to bring about that parity we’re already expecting knee jerk reaction rule changes that so the next team get’s the music stopped on them.

      1. @philipgb

        Agreed, And that closeness happens naturally. Big rule upheavals are what bring about dominance. Every time teams close in on performance the rug gets pulled from under them and they have to start again.

        I can already see it happening now. 2016 is going to be a brilliant season with a year long battle between Mercedes and Ferrari, and with Red Bull, Williams and McLaren also being competitive; then the 2017 regulation changes will completely spread apart the field again with one team being dominant and the racing being dreadful.

        Watch this space.

      2. But rather than the rule stability that’s needed to bring about that parity we’re already expecting knee jerk reaction rule changes that so the next team get’s the music stopped on them.

        Bingo!

        Leave the rules alone for a few years, and the teams get much closer together naturally. In ideal circumstances, this can even happen over the course of the season (look at the Brawn episode). Today, however, we have a dominant player, and the powers that be want to change the rules to bring them closer together. We can see with Ferrari are already close, and will be closer (if not roughly on par) next year.

        The only real issue is power unit pricing, which could be fixed by a more equitable distribution of funds and a workable power unit cost cap (somewhere around what they are currently charging, maybe a little lower). This would be much better than the “customer engine”, which will either perform better (so all teams will switch to it) or worse (which will leave only the low-end teams using it, with no chance of challenging for the championship).

    4. I agree with that too @tophercheese21. I have actually quite enjoyed the last couple of races. We have had the mercedes guys giving eachother chase, clearly pushing and not leaving much on the table to one-up the other on track. And we have had a midfield with interesting battles, several lap long fights and some daring overtakes.

      All in all I would say many of the races have been above average quality this year. But we might have become spoilt a bit from the seasons prior to this and now expect more.

      And I would think that next year we will get a closer top end of the grid once more, when Ferrari make another step, Mercedes is inching towards the limits of their package (or maybe slip up a bit with a new concept even), Red Bull remains a very efficient operator and surely we can expect McLaren to at least get into the midfield. Off course we also have a very solid field of drivers overall.

      Rather a shame when a “radical overhaul” for 2017 will once again bring us a new dominant team and leave the others to catch up really.

  7. Scrap either FP1 of FP2, replace it with something fun for the fans to watch.

    1. @weeniebeenie
      The F1 drivers competing in equal GP2 cars on Bridgestone tyres, no DRS, random grid order. Doesn’t count for anything other than a bit of fun.

    2. 3 words: SUPER STADIUM TRUCKS

      yeehaaaw!

  8. F1, by its nature, is never meant for close racing. When 99% of the car is custom build it’s already amazing they all have similar performance. Yes, from Ferrari to Sauber is separated by 1-1.5s, but I bet most of people here can tell the difference if they’re riding inside the car. Mercedes, McLaren, and Manor currently have bigger performance delta than the average, for better or worst. Also, we have the drivers. The fact is the drivers have their own tier. Based of performance alone (disregarding PR and money issue) no sane team principal will pick Hulkenberg over Hamilton for example. All of F1 is basically designed to get different performance from each competitor and the winner can brag how much better they do their job or shows other how suck are they on doing their job. Close racing is possible and can happen, but its the exception rather than the norm.

    If what you want is to watch close racing with lot of overtakes, you should watch spec series or series that artificially equalizing the performance between cars. Even then, you will still see the front, mid, and end fields seems to have their own pool of drivers.

    1. @sonicslv

      Also, we have the drivers. The fact is the drivers have their own tier. Based of performance alone (disregarding PR and money issue) no sane team principal will pick Hulkenberg over Hamilton for example.

      No sane team principle would have picked Ricciardo over Vettel at the end of 2013, look at how that turned out.

      The drivers’ tier is a largely fabled concept by F1 fans that has a very unreliable real life correlation. There is absolutely no way to prove that Hamilton and Vettel are any better than Sainz and Verstappen, for instance. We can only compare teammates, and even that can be unreliable, as we have seen with the Hill-Villeneuve-Frentzen paradox.

      Close racing is possible and can happen, but its the exception rather than the norm.

      Disagree. The vast majority of F1 seasons are interesting and generally speaking there is no dominant team; seasons as dreadful, stale and uneventful as 2015 are very rare. I only expect things to get worse in 2017 when it becomes even more difficult to follow cars closely. The people who run this sport truly are clueless.

      1. The drivers’ tier is a largely fabled concept by F1 fans that has a very unreliable real life correlation.

        There’s a clear tier structure @kingshark, as we see in what teams pay them, or get paid by them. There are exceptions of course (FA, KR) but overall the best drivers end up in the best cars, as @sonicslv says, and that helps to spread the field.

        Tho I totally agree:

        The people who run this sport truly are clueless.

        :)

      2. @kingshark I still stand on my statement that there are drivers tier. I still willing to bet (again outside PR and money considerations) every team principal will pick Vettel over Ricciardo for this or next year. If you believe every driver has same performance, then no reason to pay Hamilton, Alonso, or Vettel enormous amount of money. Just pick Magnussen, Grosjean, Hulkenberg, or Perez.

        And dominant team is always in F1 since its inception in 1950 (hello Alfa Romeo). What we seldom see is the super dominance like Mercedes enjoyed now, McLaren in late 80’s, or arguably Red Bull on 2010’s. There is a recent article here That shows dominant team in F1 since 1998, and there are 8 season where the dominant team is at least 0.25% faster than the rest. For the rest of the seasons, it doesn’t mean the field is equal because the battle is often only 2 or 3 way battle between top teams.

        1. @sonicslv, it reminds me of the statistic that, when Brawn won the title in 2009, they were the first constructor since 1978 to win the title that wasn’t either Williams, Ferrari, McLaren or the team from Enstone (under the guise of Benetton or Renault).

          In reality, success in the sport has traditionally been monopolised by a very small group of teams over the years and, as you say, normally there will only be two, perhaps three teams at most, which can realistically compete for the titles.

        2. @sonicslv

          If you believe every driver has same performance, then no reason to pay Hamilton, Alonso, or Vettel enormous amount of money. Just pick Magnussen, Grosjean, Hulkenberg, or Perez.

          The pay argument really doesn’t work very well when you consider that Raikkonen is one of the best paid drivers on the grid, he was paid exponentially more at Ferrari than Massa was during the same timespan, Alonso was paid 3 times as much as Hamilton in 2007, etc… the examples go on and on and on.

          I still willing to bet (again outside PR and money considerations) every team principal will pick Vettel over Ricciardo for this or next year.

          You have neither any evidence to prove that, nor does it make any rational sense as Ricciardo beat Vettel when in the same cars. Granted, Vettel was probably not at his best in 2014, but there still isn’t any evidence to prove that he’s better than Ricciardo.

          There is a recent article here That shows dominant team in F1 since 1998, and there are 8 season where the dominant team is at least 0.25% faster than the rest. For the rest of the seasons, it doesn’t mean the field is equal because the battle is often only 2 or 3 way battle between top teams.

          Out of all the “dominant cars” in that article, the 1999 McLaren and 2010 Red Bull are automatically disqualified because they were too unreliable to dominate, nor was their advantage particularly enormous. In the vast majority of seasons, the cars are close enough for the drivers to make a difference. I don’t recall a single season where the pecking order between the top teams was quite this blatantly stale.

  9. F1 could probably learn a thing or two from other series but I do not think it can learn anything from the Race of Champions because it is not really a race, it is just a fun event in a stadium that consists of short runs, has nothing to do with engineering competition and does not aim to determine the best driver either. I agree with Rob Smedley that fans need to be entertained and I agree with Nico Hulkenberg that unpredictability is good but Smedley does not bother to explain how exactly F1 fans should be entertained and can you really imagine that F1 drivers would “find out minutes before their race which car they would be driving”?

  10. @keithcollantine Are there many visitors in f1fanatic.co.uk from Malta ??
    Are there any ??

    1. Yep….I’m Maltese :)

  11. I would certainly subscribe to the theory that F1 has much to learn from RoC. The event at the weekend was far from perfect: it was splendidly expensive and a bit on a limb being hosted in the South London Olympic stadium. And yet it was, for me, a marvelous fan experience. On Friday it was great to see the vane of form in Andy Priaulx that made him completely unbeatable in WTCC, and on Saturday it was a privilege to see Seb turn on his German equivalent of sisu and produce a performance comparable to that we saw in the darkest days of Red Bull domination. He is the unquestionable master in the science of motor-racing: he has a sixth sense for the optimal tyre temperature window, and somehow manages to balance the tyre on the optimal knife edge.

    I no longer feel three-hours of running and, if you are lucky, a GP2 qualifying session is sufficient for Friday entertainment. RoC proves that there is a phenomenal capacity for entertainment in motorsport, and yet F1 continues to ensure that fans are as isolated for their heroes as possible. An open paddock on Friday, or paddock and garage tours at the very least, would at least symbolize that F1 is not wedded to an elitist, corporate culture. The WEC offers an open paddock, as does F1 during preseason testing, so I think it is far from impractical.

    1. I agree that F1 should learn how to use their assets to make visiting the event more of a, well an EVENT for the fans, by opening up more to the people who visit.

      I would love to have teams in the paddock explain what the cars are doing etc!

      1. @bascb The thing Bernie doesn’t realize is, most people in motorsport like showing off their sport to a public that shares their passion. At the British WEC weekend it is actually difficult to avoid David Richards showing you around the AMR GTE garage! You only have to wonder near the tyre racks, and before long those familiar smooth tones are introducing you to Darren Turner and Pedro Lamy!

        An F1 press officer once told me he’d welcome paddock and garage tours, rather than the team’s hospitality managers spending the entire weekend monitoring the beverage requirements of five very lucky and rich guests. Very few people participate in the F1 circus without being a fan themselves, and I am sure most would welcome the chance to speak to similarly passionate fans.

        And isn’t a dollop of passion and enthusiasm just what the paddock needs? I guess Bernie is just afraid that the corporate guests might offended by seeing a British fan dressed up as a smurf, or by a non-Louis Vuitton handbag…

        1. yeah, its Bernie and his preoccupation with “keeping it exclusive”

    2. I no longer feel three-hours of running and, if you are lucky, a GP2 qualifying session is sufficient for Friday entertainment.

      I am unsure about Friday, but my trip to the Belgian Grand Prix last year showed me that there is a hell of a lot more going on than I ever realised. All the support races were great to watch all weekend.

      Although, to be honest, I had just as much fun at the BTCC event I went to recently, except for the actual F1 sessions at Spa.

      1. @drmouse The support race package is often the key, in my admittedly extensive experience, to enjoying the weekend, since it often puts on the best racing. When I go to Canada and Singapore, I miss it greatly. Not that it is easy to follow trackside: GP2 doesn’t provide a timing app and those Mecachrome V8s completely overpower the PA system. The GP2 and GP3 coverage has been, without question, the biggest advantage of live F1 moving to Sky.

        1. @william-brierty Yeah, I can’t believe that the BBC used to pay for GP2/GP3, but never bothered to even show it..

          1. @fastiesty Criminal indeed, especially when the soon-to-be defunct Red Button Service spent most of the year waiting for Wimbledon to come around again…

  12. I’m beginning to think I’m becoming a broken record on the subject of unpredictability in motor racing. While I like the Hulk and his comments and views have some merrits, the bottom line is, that F1 is a sport, and as a sport, everyone plays by the same rules, and in F1 they have to build a car, whack an engine in it and throw on a set of Pirelli’s. Some teams are going to have more resources than others, and that is going to translate in a better outcome for them, such as Mercedes and Ferrari, however, there are other teams that run a fraction of the budget that the top 4 teams have, such as Williams and Force India, and while these guys aren’t at a point of challenging for championships, given the right circumstances they show potential and fight for a potential spot on the podium. This is just one attraction that F1 has over other sports.

    On Nico’s point, reducing the amount of running isn’t a great solution, it just means that cars get less air time for the sponsors, and it becomes a little harder to justify expensive title sponsorship packages. On the flip side, the idea that has been floated about having drivers do a go-kart or “race in a reasonably priced car” may actually provide sponsorship benefits and also give fans something to cheer for, when their drivers can potentially show they can mix it up the front in an “equal” car, such as Alonso and Button who’s highlights of late are social media meme’s and some corny podium photoshoot.

    1. having drivers do a go-kart or “race in a reasonably priced car”

      I love this idea. I would even go so far as to say that grid order should be decided by running in spec cars. Well, maybe not, but it would certainly be interesting!

  13. Did anyone ask the 5 spectators at RoC what they thought F1 could learn?

    Sorry, buy F1 can learn nothing from it racing wise. It’s a fun event, nothing more. It’s like getting F1 to learn from those fake races Minardi used to organise with their 5 2-seaters (the fake races Mansell managed to have an airborne accident in. How can you not live Nigel Mansell?!).

    In terms of access for fans, or trackside entertainment at GPs maybe (like Alonso threshing the 50year old Ferrari at Silverstone). But for the racing? Keep the two way, way apart. This is a sport. Not WWF.

  14. I live how some websites are presenting the current developments in F1: http://gas2.org/2015/11/23/the-end-is-near-for-formula-1-hybrids/

    1. >:| That’s just the sort of article that grinds my gears.

  15. While I am a massive fan of F1, I am also a keen follower of NASCAR. I watch most of the races on TV. I really like the current format of championship of NASCAR especially where the last race is a real shoot out. Just like the soccer world cup but then you have to perform consistently in the earlier races to get there.

    I felt Kyle Busch winning was like Pakistan winning the 1992 cricket world cup coming from behind to take the cup. Interestingly Kyle Busch’s racing suit was very similar in color scheme to Pakistan’s 1992 WC Jersey.

    It was nice to see Lewis and Mario Andretti there for the finale although it is an irony that F1 season is not yet complete. BTW I felt the media was making too much out of Jeff Gordon’s younger son ignoring Lewis’s gesture for a hand shake.

    1. I really like the current format of championship of NASCAR especially where the last race is a real shoot out.

      Your one of thoe only people that do then given how nascar has been losing fans since they introduced that absurd non-championship system.

      Nascar is no longer a championship & the eventual winner can no longer be considered a real champion.
      a champion should be crowned after a full season where they score more points than anyone else over that season. splitting it into segments via this chase system is artificial, contrived, gimmickey & in no way should it be considered a proper championship.

      i used to be a fan of nascar but i will never watch another race until they go back to been a proper championship with a proper championship season with there champions been determined by scoring the most points over a full season!

      1. @LyndaGreen Most major sport events in the world Soccer, Cricket, Tennis et all use the championship technique. There is a Quarter Final, Semi Final and Final. NASCAR is pretty much like that. I don’t see anything wrong with it.
        Also the people who eventually complete in the final championship are folks who has been consistent through the year or like a special case of Kyle Busch missing some races and coming back and winning a lot of races to make up for the missed races. In short underdogs also get a chance unlike like in F1 this year.

        In F1 Lewis won the championship by around 3/4th of the season. The rest of the season became less interesting.

  16. Oh, I took a long time to get it. Todt and Ecclestone knew no manufacturer would allow the 14 million price tag so they found an excuse to practically earn some more money to the cash strapped FOM by effectively selling engines.

  17. I’m getting tired of seeing this word ‘unpredictable’ in F1. What is with this obsession of wanting ‘unpredictability’? whatever that actually means. Everything has a degree of predictability, especially where sport in concerned. You will always get the best finishing in the top places, you’ve got thousands of people in teams trying everything to maximise a result.

    Why don’t people call for football to be ‘unpredictable’, in the ‘open’ tournaments like the Carling Cup or whatever its called this week, 9 times out of 10, the bigger teams will beat the smaller teams, they have more money, more resource, better trained staff and better players. Why don’t people cry when Phil Taylor and Michael van Gerwen reach the finals of most darts tournaments? In the UK Open, very occsionally a relatively unknown player will come along and cause a little upset but usually get knocked out by the quarters anyway, because the cream usually rises to the top. The best, most resourced, more equipped teams and drivers in F1 will find themselves at the front, usually on similar strategies, because whatever the rules are that week, their models will point them all to a similar result.

    The only way any race is going to be unpredictable is by not having a race at all, get all the drivers names in a hat, shake it up, and just pick.

  18. I’ll tell you this. I’ve been watching F1 races for 30 years and have attended quite a few. But if next year is as predictable as the last two with no sign of it getting less so it will be my last.

  19. Well watching RoC was a bit disappointing due to no kart race. I realized while I was watching nations cup that I do not watch motorsports for numbers/timed intervals but for wheel to wheel action and overtakes or attempts. In response to making F1 more unpredictable, the smart thing to do, as another comment mentioned, would be to have cars that are similar in laptime with different strengths and weakness’s (like what verstappen was saying). It is in my dream that we can have any 2 cars battling for position, with multiple overtakes and reovertakes, at least once a race. i remember last year it was a bit more frequent with ham-ros in bahrain and some race where perez and button duked it out for half a lap. but I’m just day dreaming, while I’m at it maybe we can get a F1 video archive of every race online available to buy and a HD stream of live races with options to choose your own camera angles and fair money distribution between teams and a kart race at the end of each GP, if said GP has a kart track.
    Boy, I’m delusional.

  20. Oh for gods sake, if we want unpredictable, scrap qually, and run a lottery.

Comments are closed.