Forum Replies Created
8th August 2014, 16:55 at 4:55 pm #269701
I am not sure social media is crucial (though it would help). I can see a much bigger impact if they ease up on copyright restrictions, like if they stop hunting videos on YouTube, make more footage available etc. But even that is, IMHO, just secondary. I think the main problem is elsewhere.
When I was growing up in the 1980′s, we were technology minded. Many of us made flying models, many of us made our own weapons for play (crossbows, swords and such), quite a few boys also enjoyed putting together various electric contraptions. And of course, most classmates were heavily into cars. They knew what kind of engine one would find in this or that car, they were interested in new models of various makers, they wanted to drive them not to get somewhere, but to interact with this technology. Races were thus a natural interest and Formula 1 was the top. Our generation could relate to F1 in many ways, it wasn’t just the glamour and thrilling races (thrill being supplied most often by acccidents).
Today’s generation is into technology as well, but of different kind: They are putting together web pages, programming games for mobiles, or just spending their time in front of the screen playing games. For many of them, car is just a tool to get from point A to point B. Formula 1 has pretty much no connection to this world. While it is true that for this new generation, social media are the preferred channel of communication, first you actually have to somehow make them interested in F1 so that they have reason to join the F1 social media (if there were any). I think this is the core problem and I offer no advice how to face it.21st June 2014, 18:15 at 6:15 pm #263888
I see it just like @roald. Brown’s advantage was mainly in its double diffuser which hid its shortcomings, but once the other teams caught up, Brown faded away. This strongly suggests that Brown missed their train in the nose area.
If I were a dictator (of F1), every car with a raised nose would get 3 seconds added to its qualifying times and during each race its driver would have to stop every 20 laps and apologize to viewers for insulting their eyes with such an ugly car.5th June 2014, 0:12 at 12:12 am #262300
Used to drive across southwest (USA), going through my tape collection, and eventually the winner became clear: AC/DC’s Highway to Hell. Kept me awake, gave me amazing energy and rhythm, the only trouble was that I got caught speeding a few times because of the song. In fact, the whole record was great for driving. Now I play it while driving my family around and kids started to like it, too :-).29th May 2014, 20:05 at 8:05 pm #262011
Max Chilton – 0 WDC’s 0 Wins 0 Poles, retires mid-season in 2018 after starting in and finishing his 100th consecutive GP.6th May 2014, 21:32 at 9:32 pm #259026
Some details on the Czech Republic.
I have no idea what the original contributor meant by “not free to air”, so I’ll leave explanation to him/her.
TV Nova is a private channel that broadcasts on our default public terrestrial DTV multiplex, therefore it is free. It broadcasts all races that are not at night (I assume the list given above is correct, never cared to compile one).
The broadcast is interrupted three times for commercials, and given that most races have boring periods that can be reasonably well predicted, they usually manage to fit them in reasonably well.
The commentator is so-so. It is a guy who has been doing it for years, so he does know about the sport, but sometimes he misses interesting developments in a race and is not as funny as he thinks he is. I guess he’s reasonably OK. He has usually another guy on the line who actually worked in McLaren for some years and still has his contacts in the paddock, so he does have interesting things to say. I gather it’s this other guy who gets interesting stuff (caps, used gloves etc.) and pretty much every race there is some sort of a quizz for these prices running on their dedicated F1 web site, so I guess the Czech F1 fan does not have it really bad.
For qualifying one has to go to Nova Sport, which is a pay channel. I prefer to watch it streamed online.25th April 2014, 15:47 at 3:47 pm #258182
Just a little historical perspective:
The 10-8-…system mentioned above was the least rewarding ever for the winner, no surprise as it came at the height of Schumacher dominance, the #1 to #2 ratio was 1.25. The current system’s 1.38 ratio is comparable to the 8-6-… system from 1950-1960 with its 1.33.
The most used system 9-6-… had ratio 1.5 (1960-1990), in the next decade the 10-6-… system rewarded the most, the ratio was 1.67.
I am partial to the 9-6-.. system, but I do not mind the current ratio either.
Speaking about a dominant team, another number of interest is what share the 1-2 finish yields of the total available:
8-6-… gives 58%
9-6-… gives 60%
10-6-… gives almost 62%
10-8-… gives 46%
25-18-… gives 39%
So the current system makes a “one dominant team season” last longest before the WCC is mathematically over.20th February 2014, 6:56 at 6:56 am #249185
Obviously Senna’s death had an impact, but I think that most of the safety push came earlier, in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s. Stewart (and Watkins) feature prominently here. Track procedures changed considerably, from impact-absorbing fences to medical facilities. One prominent change in cars was moving the front axle to a position in front of driver’s feet, which helped tremendously and incidentally (and unfortunately) made the cars longer. At the end of the 1980′s people thought that F1 had became safe, and indeed, most of the things that do make it safe were in place already.
Senna’s death started phase two, with focus on making the cars sturdier.8th February 2014, 15:23 at 3:23 pm #248539
everyone is permitted to express their opinion and behave in a manner one sees fit, whether that’s in Antarctica or Western Europe.
Actually, no. The spread of this particular belief is one of the major problems for the atlantean civilisation (Western Europe, Northern America). Every country/nation/cultural circle has its views on how people should behave, and as long as these views are applied equally to all, there is nothing wrong with them. Respecting them is not a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of understanding the workings of a society. That’s something old-fashioned called “manners” and – as one good American writer wrote (special bonus for whoever can guess his name) – loss of manners is a sure sign of society in decline. Above all, you are expected to respect local custom when you go somewhere.
A working society is a matter of give-and-take, there are no rights without obligations, which is something too often forgotten. We now live in a society where “Children’s rights charter” hangs on the wall at every classroom, but many teachers are actually scared to go to work.
Re: Russia and gays in general. I live in the Central Europe and in the past decade or so I have witnessed a veritable attack by a (part of) gay community on society. I can see where this stems from, it is not easy to be a gay (especially in a post-communist country) and a more tolerant society would be nice, but a certain very vocal group chose a very strange way to go about it. This attack is not easy to counter, as they use the “human rights” umbrella very effectively. It is too strong even for the taste of a substantial part of the gay community (incidentally, one of my relatives is gay, so I get some insight here). It’s one thing to want to be respected as a human being, and it’s another thing to openly attack people’s sensibilities. To see that some things go too far, entertain a little switch: Imagine a bunch of heterosexuals, half naked, walking the main street wearing signs like “I love doing it from behind” or “My tongue is the king”. What would you think of them? Would you like your small children witnessing this? In short, a large part of society feels itself threatened, more so in Russia that has never been a very liberal country. The law discussed above is a direct consequence of that fear, a backslash. It’s a simple case of pushing too hard, sometimes is does more harm than good. I strongly suspect that the international pressure in this direction is only going to make it harder for local gays there.12th January 2014, 10:07 at 10:07 am #246963
I like it a lot.
Reminds me of another thing. In the late 80′s I got a prospectus for one of the Hungarian GP’s and there was a nice chart of all drivers’ helmets. I cherished it for many years. About a year ago I searched the internet for something similar for other seasons, but to no avail. Perhaps I was not good enough, does anyone know of such a thing?6th January 2014, 13:06 at 1:06 pm #246261
Well, let’s take the guesswork a step further. With all black livery, the grey lettering would be hard to see, so they should change to some contrasting color, say, gold? And unveil their new sponsor, the Japan Professional Photographers Society, commonly abbreviated JPS :-).14th December 2013, 17:21 at 5:21 pm #247151
I see no problem with boards. Obviously, the amount of information that could be conveyed in this way is very limited due to the fact that drivers can’t really read much at their speed, so they would be on their own to much larger extent than now. Furthermore, while now we only hear choice snippets of the conversations and part (much?) of what is transmitted to drivers is hidden from us fans, the boards would be out in the open visible to all.
I also like the idea that less info would go to the pits from cars. F1 already banned ground effect, traction control, active suspension, movable aerodynamic components, F-duct, mass balance, and many other innovations, so it would be only consistent if it also banned things like temperature sensors for tires. And here we are getting to another benefit, cars would be cheaper to make :-).13th December 2013, 13:36 at 1:36 pm #247144
I have always preferred sports were the the competitors are better off if they could use their brains, not just relying on speed, strength, reflexes etc. I am all for banning team-to-driver radios. Drivers could talk to their teams all they want, and the race director could inform drivers of things related to safety (teams could also send safety-related messages through him).
Now let’s see pros and cons:
- Since the driver-to-team link is still on, we would not be robbed of classical quotes, thus answering concerns raised by @keithcollantine. Ok, I admit that the “Oh deer” conversation would be less amusing if only one-sided connection was on, but there’s no gain without small sacrifices.
- Since the drivers would have to make strategic decisions and feel the car, there would be more opportunity for driver quality to come through.
- Since drivers are not as good as computer supported teams of analysts, mistakes would be made in strategy, making for more exciting and unpredictable races.
Re: @rjoconnell: Your argument is faulty. The things you mention (helmets, safety belts,…) improved safety and did not relieve drivers of their duties, did not help them racing. That’s why they are completely irrelevant in the present situation, when a change is proposed that would not harm safety and restore traditional drivers’ responsibility back to them.
If you are looking for some examples from the past, try traction control. This was a change that did not improve safety, but made the life of drivers easier. It was/is banned. A good precedent I’d say.27th November 2013, 18:38 at 6:38 pm #245914
Actually, no. What you say is not just a different opinion, it contradicts facts. Let’s see:
1. Your example with Messi actually supports my point, not yours. Mclaren did not just change a driver, they also changed their car. If Barcelona changed all their players for players from a village league, the drop in scoring would definitely not be attributed to Messi by football fans (OK, by knowledgeable football fans), because they know that Messi would not score pretty much anything with his new teammates even if he stayed in Barcelona. Messi needs to be fed the ball by players behind him, just like a driver has to have a decent car to get into points.
2. The points that McLaren lost did not go to Mercedes. While F1 is a zero-sum game, there happen to be more teams than just the two, therefore the “zero-game” argument is invalid for the McL-Merc pairing (I happen to work in a field close to game theory, trust me on that).
3. If McLaren scored 860 points this year, you would have big trouble finding people attributing this to Hamilton’s past bad influence. Knowledgeable fans know that such an increase in points can only happen when the _designers_ hit jackpot. I see no justification for your claim that “we would all say”.
4. Your argument “If they had a clue, they would have fixed the W03 chassis” is flawed as well, as it contradicts the way teams have been working for decades. Changing a car fundamentally mid-season is a major undertaking (for instance, a new chassis means that all crash tests would have to be done again), therefore teams wait for the winter break to make extensive changes.
There is nothing wrong supporting your favourite driver, but the arguments should not fly in the face of logic and facts, otherwise the effect is just the opposite. Hamilton’s results clearly show that he is an exceptional driver, one of the best of this generation, they do not need any embellishments.27th November 2013, 13:00 at 1:00 pm #245903
We see how technically you got those numbers, what is unclear is why you did that as this number does not really carry any information, in particular because Mercedes did not take those extra points from McLaren.
Moreover, there’s no reason for relating that number to Hamilton. After all, if Lewis stayed at McLaren, would you say that the loss of points compared to last year was due to Hamilton staying?
Now I agree that Hamilton’s move most likely did hurt McLaren and benefit Mercedes. To guess how much we have to look at teammate comparisons, not some unrelated numbers.
Here’s my favourite argument why McLaren should miss Hamilton. Lewis was often better at adjusting to a less-than-perfect car than Button, so I find it feasible that he might have made it only the second worst season ever for McLaren instead of the single worst :-).18th November 2013, 21:28 at 9:28 pm #245424
I second the notion: Why is it “fail”? I like it.
After all, it may explain some things that were going on at McLaren this season :-).