Also Sky’s coverage is more serious and less jokey, which is what I want. I’m here to watch a race, not Jake Humphrey taking the piss out of Eddie’s shirts. Also I got fed up with the pointless features showing HAM and BUT jet-skiing, and ridiculous “atmospheric” shots with them going: “the horse has tamed the bulls” and all those stupid metaphors. It’s a race not a gladiatorial battle. Also the BBC’s unnecessary feature of going round slums in India asking whether they’d heard of F1 or not, which was… urgh, it’s just not needed.
I understand why you dislike this sort of stuff; you’re not alone in thinking that the BBC spend too much time messing around and telling jokes. In theory then, Sky’s rather grown-up and serious coverage should be exactly for you.
But it’s not. Because even with all the joke cracking and “unnecessary” features in the slums of India, the BBC still manages to fit in more interviews, analysis and news than Sky. Sky’s post-race analysis is an absolute joke; for the first race they may as well not have bothered and just gone off air.
Compare this to the BBC’s post-race analysis, where drivers are never too busy to come and talk. We see slow-motion replays of significant events, often in the presence of the respective team principles or drivers, and we also get the insight from an ex-team owner and recently-retired driver. Damon Hill is obviously very knowledgeable, but Coulthard seems to be more up-to-date with the latest technical information.
The only slightly weak point of the BBC’s coverage is their commentary. Ben Edwards is not the best commentator around, and I far prefer the Brundle-Coulthard partnership. But on the other, I can’t stand Croft’s commentary, so frankly anything the BBC can put together is going to be preferable for me personally.