Forum Replies Created
29th July 2014, 19:09 at 7:09 pm #268718
He also said medals were coming in 2009. Bernie’s statement on rule changes are worthless, wake me up when the FIA says so.11th July 2014, 21:13 at 9:13 pm #266395
Can they ever be positive or are they always negative?
Oh boy, just what I like. An opportunity to risk death at the hands of an angry mob. :D
I personally do not mind gimmicks in motorsport, mostly because they are needed. Just in case you forgot, no major motorsport series on this planet has budgets that have less than seven digits. Once that is the case, you cannot afford to ignore the casual viewers and their interest (or lack thereof) in motorsport anymore.
All major sports on this planet (and beyond, not like swoop racing is somehow legit) have gimmicks: basketball (three-point shots, thousands of time limits), soccer (three points for a win, the back-pass rule, penalty shootouts) etc. etc. It’s the reality of life that if you sign huge TV deals, you have to provide an entertaining product.
Motorsport just happens to require more of these gimmicks, since motorsport is by itself a rather sophisticated endeavour and is not easily accessable. This is bad for business, because with the internet and the likes, you need to hook people and you need to do it fast. The time for slowly building passion is unfortunately gone, replaced by a need for a quick rush.
Now, with that said, I do agree with the opinion, that some gimmicks are not very good. Rules that make the competition unfair are unfortunate: DRS (until they change the rule to make it like Push-To-Pass, which has the same effect but is fair in that everyone has equal opportunity in using it) or success ballast are the obvious examples for that. As long as a gimmick gives everyone the same opportunity (or the same disadvantage), I really do not mind them at all and just accept that they are inevitable in modern ages unless we accept a major overhaul in racing world wide (because something tells me F1 as we know it is more likely to die than shrink to a size where we could reject gimmicks).
Come to think of it, this paragraph is kind of missing the point of this thread. Alas…19th May 2014, 21:14 at 9:14 pm #260725
@Garns – well, I probably would not. :D
My point is mainly that there will always be a certain amount of the population that will be excluded from motorsport and many other things in life because inherent factors preventing it. I mean, a 5’7” guy will be extremely unlikely to ever play as a professional basketball center.
Even though I don’t really buy into the story of Hülkenberg merely not having a top drive because of his size (me being a cynic that notices team’s focus on positive PR and Hülkenberg’s popularity with F1 fandom and drawing conclusions), I see where you are coming from.
In the end, there indeed needs to be a solution that helps the drivers staying healthy whilst not giving teams screwing up a bailout or merely providing a superficial solution – since there is no reason to assume the drivers won’t be told to still lose weight even with the higher minimum weight to allow more flexible ballast placement. unfortunately I cannot think of anything good.15th May 2014, 19:08 at 7:08 pm #260503
Because that means that tall drivers are for some reason discriminated against in F1 more than any other racing series, whereas being short for some reason is rewarded.
As someone who will literally never have a shot at F1 because I am 6’7” I have little sympathy for the Sutils of this world. The only thing I would agree on as far as this issue is concerned is that they can’t have stuff like drivers being dehydrated during the race, that’s something that should be changed. That, however, doesn’t need something like the minimum weight being raised (and not that that would do something, since the bigger guys still would need to be extremely thin in order to be competitive) which would give Sauber and other teams with overweight cars a bail-out but merely a rule saying something like each car must carry, I dunno, 3 or 4 litres of liquid for the driver.27th March 2014, 15:20 at 3:20 pm #254102
1. What country are you in? (and state, if applicable)
2. Which channels broadcast F1 near you?
RTL: normal resolution, available in HD as part of HD+, a collection of HD private channels
Sky Deutschland: available in HD by default
Sport1: normal resolution, available in HD as part of HD+, acollection of HD private channels
3. Do they show all the races live or only a limited number?
Sky Deutschland: Yes
Sport1: Only Highlights
4. Do they also show qualifying live?
Sky Deutschland: Yes
Sport1: Only Highlights
5. Do they also show practice sessions live?
RTL: No, highlights of FP3 on tape delay
Sky Deutschland: Yes
Sport1: Mostly, with some practice sessions for the fly-away races missing
6. If they are a subscription channel, what does a full year’s subscription cost (excluding limited time offers)?
The cheapest Sky Deutschland package involving F1 runs at €562.80 per annum. The abovementioned HD+ package (which is not needed to watch the channels, only to get their HD counterparts) runs at €50 a year, although the initial costs of pursuing a HD+ module or HD+ receiver are reasonably high (can’t name exact figures at the moment)
7. Please supply any other relevant information such as alternative viewing options
Nothing that I know of.14th December 2013, 14:01 at 2:01 pm #247149
You guys are forgetting one thing: team radio is not the only form of communication. I mean, if we assume that team radio was removed or limited, that wouldn’t help much. The big teams would simply use the money they’d save from that technology to hire some students looking for drug money to hold up shields or LCD screens with “Vettel, target time next 5 laps: 22.4″.
Admittedly, that would be bloody hilarious, but it’s not what the anti-team radio population imagines by that rule.30th November 2013, 15:46 at 3:46 pm #246555
I can’t remember whether I took part in the last ones, but here’s what I would pick:
1) Michael Schumacher
2) Sebastian Vettel
3) Fernando Alonso
4) Lewis Hamilton
5) Rubens Barrichello
6) Kimi Räikkönen
7) Ralf Schumacher
8) David Coulthard
9) Juan Pablo Montoya
10) Nick Heidfeld30th October 2013, 11:43 at 11:43 am #244420
Looks like it could be but we don’t know who’s put the clock on here and whether it’s been done accurately.
It hasn’t, at least not be the time measuring standards used for the FOM graphics. They always measure time from the point a car stands to the point it starts moving again, whereas this video looks at sheer working time. When done “properly”, I have a time of around 2.4 seconds. Still very much impressive, but no record.27th July 2013, 19:12 at 7:12 pm #239471
The question is: do they have another choice? Everyone likes to see the most talented F1 drivers get F1 seats, at least that is what I assume.
Everyone would like to see a F1 field full of deserving veterans alike. Everyone would like to see, for example, Robert Wickens and Rubens Barrichello on the grid. Sadly, what fans like is only worth so much. Sure it might help with merchandising sales and higher advertisment money but those effects are neglible and, in some cases, not even measureable. Any team that has a significant need for cash cannot afford to wait and pray for those effects and just has to look for drivers who can provide an immediate cash injection.5th July 2012, 20:46 at 8:46 pm #205151
Well, I agree in parts. A point for the fastest lap is silly since it would lead to what you have said and … to be honest, a FLAP is not an achievement with so many factors playing a role in a race.
Now, points for pole are a different story because what is a pole worth in F1 really? Especially since the advent of DRS, nothing really. However, being brilliant over one lap is a skill in itself and should be a significant achievement which during the nature of F1 races, namely them being long, is spoiled. Therefore, I think at least one point should be awarded for pole position. Should it really ever come down to the situation that one points makes a champion, then we’d still see honest competition especially due to low-fuel qualifying so it wouldn’t hurt the inherent competitive nature of the sport.3rd July 2012, 16:46 at 4:46 pm #204942
The video-makers don’t deserve respect. They’re violating copyrighted material.
… uuuuuh, the EVIL of violating copyrights.
Things I’d do as FOM:
* Put up a large poster at the HQ, reminding everyone working there to never listen to fans. They are ungrateful, don’t know what they want and therefore should never be taken into consideration expect for how to squeeze money out of them.
* That leads to the second point: F1.tv – have all races in our archives accessible on a website for a
bloody expensivereasonable fee.
* Try to keep tracks capable of hosting available on short notice to react to short-term changes in F1 popularity, i.e. a country without a race suddenly gets a race winner (see Venezuela or Mexico (yeah, yeah, I know Perez technically didn’t win anything yet), maybe supporting tracks in those regions with small injections of money.
* More teams: it would be a necessity to see 14 or even 15 teams in F1, since new teams open up new markets by themselves or by the drivers they hire. Competitiveness is secondary which wouldn’t make it too expensive to support them.
* TV deals: generally, I’d go for the German solution – one Pay TV channel which has everything and one or two free channels who have major parts of the weekend. Should that prove impossible – as it seems to be the case in the UK if I understood it correctly – obviously the party paying more cash will get the license.
* Scout the minor series for interesting characters and see whether it is possible to help them to a cockpit. Interesting characters are what could help F1 significantly. And no, Kimi Räikkönen doesn’t count: an utter lack of any character is not a character.
That should be it, at least I can’t think of anything else.14th May 2012, 13:08 at 1:08 pm #201628
Hyundai F1 was being talked about for a 2008 F1 entry and it did not even came close to materialise, so this time around it won’t be different. If we have Hyundai F1 on the grid within the next five years, I will publicly shave my head.29th April 2012, 13:36 at 1:36 pm #200506
Will Audi dominate the race, will BMW win on comeback or is Mercedes pulling out an ultimate trump card?
It’s the trump card…
Well, now that was actually a lot more exciting than a number of races last year. These new cars do their job and we had ourselves a neat event. We had the duel between Gary Paffett and Jamie Green in the early parts, Christian Vietoris vs. Mike Rockenfeller in the latter part and obviously Ralf Schumacher’s balls to the walls approach to this race.28th April 2012, 17:48 at 5:48 pm #200497
Mercedes was only 2 tenths off though… It’s BMW that is a second off.
Well, because Werner completely blew his lap. Q4 is not really what I was looking at when I talked about the balance of performance, especially given the fact that nobody really did an absolutely faultless lap. Q3 is way more significant, and there we had only two Mercedes there compared to the four Audis and BMWs each. Also Q1 saw three Mercedes out and only two Audis and even only one BMW.26th April 2012, 16:56 at 4:56 pm #183224
To be honest, I can see an upset happening this season especially with every driver having new cars. If everything turns out right, we might see an unexpected champion, for example Miguel Molina.