Has F1 reached a new low?
Discussion
fat80b said:
longblackcoat said:
make it a free-to-air proposition to ensure it doesn’t become forgotten, and I’d say it’d be fine.
This, (I watch on Sky and this even annoys me). The world is littered with sports that had TV coverage at their peak and then lost it and became forgotten. (or did they have their peak because they had prime time TV coverage).
Boxing, Wrestling, how many people watch these now - a few hundred K out of a country of 70 Million?
I would even count Cricket - yes there is an avid following but the majority never watch a test match now as it is exclusively on Sky. 1 hour of highlights doesn't cut it. How many people sit and watch a few hours of a test match - how many did when it was on the BBC or even on C4?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/12/...
I fear F1 is making the same mistakes as these and other sports. If you lose your free to air mass market, you lose the casual watcher and more importantly lose the people talking about your sport on a Monday morning.
One aspect of Sport is about the people gathering round the coffee machine on a Monday morning saying "did you see x?"
If the only people watching are the hardcore supporters on pay per stream then this won't happen and the sport will wither - The evidence for this is already there - It is no surprise that cars are struggling to get decent advertising.
Bob
longblackcoat said:
I think you'd find it hard to argue that Lewis isn't a household name. And Jenson, though perhaps not quite as well-known outside motorsport circles, would be recognisable to a very large proportion of the population.
When Moss had his accident, the country almost went into mourning. He was front page news on most papers of the time. It was the subject of conversations in pubs. The headlines on the paper seller's stalls included the latest update on his condition. I read that if there was no update, that was put on the posters.It was almost at Diana level. It wasn't just a case of recognition. Beyond the top two or three drivers, most are virtually anonymous outside their own country. It was different.
I'm trying to think of a sportsman or woman who could create the same sort response in the public nowadays despite the cult of celebrity.
Motor sport was important in those days. When the D-Type Jags returned from their victory at Le Man my father took me to just outside the ferry port to watch them drive back. He was aware of a little-known bridge we could stand on. It was packed. The cars returned on trailers and some MP complained in parliament about the shabby treatment in parliament.
Ask most people today which make of car won what was one of the most exciting Le Mans of recent years and they wouldn't know.
Eric Mc said:
Could it be an age demographic thing. Maybe fast cars and do or die exploits on racing circuits are not what turn young lads (and lasses - of course) on anymore.
Back in the 1950s test pilots were more famous than footballers. In the 1960s, British racing drivers were household names - making regular appearances on TV outside of their motorsport involvement. Times change and what constitutes "our heroes" change.
I have a funny feeling it's an age thing - exacerbated by the sports owners being very, very unwilling to properly embrace new media.
I think "do or die" has become the elephant in the room - its going to be difficult to get my point across without looking like a tBack in the 1950s test pilots were more famous than footballers. In the 1960s, British racing drivers were household names - making regular appearances on TV outside of their motorsport involvement. Times change and what constitutes "our heroes" change.
I have a funny feeling it's an age thing - exacerbated by the sports owners being very, very unwilling to properly embrace new media.
t, but here goes ....There is just no perceived danger any more - and being honest that adds a lot of excitement for the viewer. No of course I don't WANT to see anyone get hurt, but when watching I want to think "I don't have the balls for that".
Look at the explosion in attendance and viewers for the Isle of Man TT - I have never ridden a motorbike in my life, but I am glued to it. Watch an onboard lap from a chunky bloke who has just finished a fag and swigging on a pint and you just think "god almighty!!". Watch a modern f1 car splutter round a track, driven by a squeaky clean boy band lookalike, watch it spin off onto an acre of tarmac, and I think "I could do that". In reality I know I couldn't, but honestly it looks too safe and too easy.
Even when things do get a bit argy bargy between drivers, they just get penalties now - adding to the too safe and easy perception.
There needs to be risk and danger - even if that's perceived rather than real. It needs MORE glamour and excess, not less - it needs blinging up, spicing up and hyping up its terminology for the younger viewer. Joe Saward did a piece a while ago about terminology and he's right - we should have "Fast and slow" tyres and "speedwings" and "hyperdrives" not options, primes, drs and ers/kers/pu's.
Its just too sanitised, too clean, too safe.
Eric Mc said:
Derek is correct. Most people here seem to not understand how F1 has been over the decades regarding on-track racing, technical aspects of the cars or dominance of certain teams at certain times. We've had all these situations at various times going back not only to the start of the World Championship in 1950, but to the dawn of Grand Prix racing in 1906.
What would people today say of the dominance of Mercedes and Auto Union in the late 1930s, or Alfa Romeo a few years earlier?
The main concern today is how the whole edifice is being run, how money is allocated, how circuit owners are sidelined in the decision making and how genuine enthusiasts and followers are being shafted.
If it continues like this, in a couple of years there may be no F1.
Pretty much agree. F1 had its problems over the years. What would people today say of the dominance of Mercedes and Auto Union in the late 1930s, or Alfa Romeo a few years earlier?
The main concern today is how the whole edifice is being run, how money is allocated, how circuit owners are sidelined in the decision making and how genuine enthusiasts and followers are being shafted.
If it continues like this, in a couple of years there may be no F1.
There was an era when the majority of the grid was powered by Cosworth DFVs. If similar occured today F1 would be laughable.
The World Championship used to offer poor prize money, promoters of non-championship races usually offered better money till Bernie became 'ringmaster'.
The rock solid grounds effect cars were disliked. Fuel saving in the turbo era.
Active suspensions, semi-auto transmission, ABS, TC; then in the early 2000s you had auto upshifts and pit-car telemetry which Niki Lauda claimed even a monkey could drive - though he managed to spin an F1 Jag.
FISA-FOCA war, drivers going on strike.
Internet, social media has meant that whatever problems there are its magnified whereas before you had to write letters and read the letters page of publications like Autosport.
Watching F1 is generally boring. As Steve McQueen once "everything else is waiting". Waiting for a moment of magic to happen no matter its duration.
longblackcoat said:
Eric Mc said:
Could it be an age demographic thing. Maybe fast cars and do or die exploits on racing circuits are not what turn young lads (and lasses - of course) on anymore.
Back in the 1950s test pilots were more famous than footballers. In the 1960s, British racing drivers were household names - making regular appearances on TV outside of their motorsport involvement. Times change and what constitutes "our heroes" change.
I have a funny feeling it's an age thing - exacerbated by the sports owners being very, very unwilling to properly embrace new media.
I think you'd find it hard to argue that Lewis isn't a household name. And Jenson, though perhaps not quite as well-known outside motorsport circles, would be recognisable to a very large proportion of the population.Back in the 1950s test pilots were more famous than footballers. In the 1960s, British racing drivers were household names - making regular appearances on TV outside of their motorsport involvement. Times change and what constitutes "our heroes" change.
I have a funny feeling it's an age thing - exacerbated by the sports owners being very, very unwilling to properly embrace new media.
F1 has, in my opinion, been st for years. Real F1 died in the 60s. First they stopped looking like real cars thanks to the proliferation of wings and adverts. Then, as h8tax hinted, a certain Scotsman got a bee in his bonnet about safety, and ended up sanitising the entire business. The danger, or at the very least the perceived danger, was at the heart of F1 and now it's gone. True, nobody wants to see deaths or injuries, but drivers these days can get away with crazy manoeuvres that in years past they wouldn't have dared attempt.
Ask yourself this: Would those chaps in Spitfires and Hurricanes in 1940 have been such heroes, if the people they were shooting at hadn't been able to shoot back?
t for years. Real F1 died in the 60s. First they stopped looking like real cars thanks to the proliferation of wings and adverts. Then, as h8tax hinted, a certain Scotsman got a bee in his bonnet about safety, and ended up sanitising the entire business. The danger, or at the very least the perceived danger, was at the heart of F1 and now it's gone. True, nobody wants to see deaths or injuries, but drivers these days can get away with crazy manoeuvres that in years past they wouldn't have dared attempt.Ask yourself this: Would those chaps in Spitfires and Hurricanes in 1940 have been such heroes, if the people they were shooting at hadn't been able to shoot back?
Evangelion said:
F1 has, in my opinion, been st for years. Real F1 died in the 60s. First they stopped looking like real cars thanks to the proliferation of wings and adverts. Then, as h8tax hinted, a certain Scotsman got a bee in his bonnet about safety, and ended up sanitising the entire business. The danger, or at the very least the perceived danger, was at the heart of F1 and now it's gone. True, nobody wants to see deaths or injuries, but drivers these days can get away with crazy manoeuvres that in years past they wouldn't have dared attempt.
Ask yourself this: Would those chaps in Spitfires and Hurricanes in 1940 have been such heroes, if the people they were shooting at hadn't been able to shoot back?
Just for balance, I completely disagree with that. I don't think it's thrilling at all to watch a sport because it has a real risk of death or serious injury, I get just as much of a buzz from seeing some wheel to wheel F1 cars than I do from seeing John McGuinness do a lap of the IOMTT on a superbike. Very different risk factors, both very enjoyable to watch. t for years. Real F1 died in the 60s. First they stopped looking like real cars thanks to the proliferation of wings and adverts. Then, as h8tax hinted, a certain Scotsman got a bee in his bonnet about safety, and ended up sanitising the entire business. The danger, or at the very least the perceived danger, was at the heart of F1 and now it's gone. True, nobody wants to see deaths or injuries, but drivers these days can get away with crazy manoeuvres that in years past they wouldn't have dared attempt.Ask yourself this: Would those chaps in Spitfires and Hurricanes in 1940 have been such heroes, if the people they were shooting at hadn't been able to shoot back?
For me what makes it unenjoyable is the almost certainty that Hamilton is going to win every weekend. Mercedes can't be blamed for this and in fact I applaud them for doing such a brilliant job but it has made it much less interesting for me. I know there are good battles further down but to be honest I just can't get very excited about that. I don't know what can be done about it and so I try not to complain too much and just enjoy what's there, but at the same time it's a bit sad.
I know it's almost always been like this, that one team has had the edge, but I look back to 2012, 2010, and the last half of 2009 and remember a lot more uncertainty about who would win each weekend. Maybe that's wrong and it's rose tinted glasses that I'm looking through, but Hamilton has won 20 out of the last 34 GPs. Did Vettel even have two years of that kind of dominance? (I haven't actually checked, and I know he had some dominant years, but I don't think he had such a dominant two years on the trot?)
I think it ultimately boils down to the fact that F1 is simply just a boring format. Long races and far too many variables to create a level playing field.
You look at the bikes, MotoGP / IOM TT and that format has barely changed since their individual inceptions, yet it's continued to wow its fans. The exception being the freak that was Mick Doohan who was just unbeatable.
F1 has tried and tried to tweak itself to make it more exciting, but its just not that kind of sport.
You look at the bikes, MotoGP / IOM TT and that format has barely changed since their individual inceptions, yet it's continued to wow its fans. The exception being the freak that was Mick Doohan who was just unbeatable.
F1 has tried and tried to tweak itself to make it more exciting, but its just not that kind of sport.
5150 said:
You look at the bikes, MotoGP / IOM TT and that format has barely changed since their individual inceptions, yet it's continued to wow its fans. The exception being the freak that was Mick Doohan who was just unbeatable.
I'm not so sure, myself and a few others I know really went off watching MotoGP in the last few years of 800cc, it was incredibly boring with very few overtakes. The 1000cc bikes have made a massive difference to the racing I think.Eric Mc said:
What type of viewing figures does Moto GP get and are they rising or falling?
Viewing figures for BTCC, MotoGP and F1 last weekend can be found in these 2 blogshttps://f1broadcasting.wordpress.com/category/moto...
https://f1broadcasting.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/ha...
2.79m for F1 on BBC1 and 497k on SKY, 349k average for last BTCC race on ITV4, 175k for MotoGP on BT Sport.
I suspect if you pulled F1 off BBC1 BBC2 or ITV 1 it wouldnt be long until it was down in the viewing figures of BTCC or MotoGP. Anyone know what the BTCC viewing figures were in the 1980's and 90s in the days of Vauxhall, Ford Volvo etc?
The noise, the racing or alledged lack of them etc is I believe a red herring in determining what is wrong woth F1.
My view is that it can all be laid at the door of Bernie. Yes F1 wouldnt be where it is now if it wasnt for Bernie but now people thing he is profiting too much himself, they don't like the races in Russia, Korea, India, Turkey etc, they dont like him facing blackmail charges, they dont like Silverstone being under threat every 10 minutes, they don't like Caterham, Marussia Manor etc not having a share of the riches in F1, they don't like the attitude of Red Bull etc.
We can complain about fuel saving etc but surely they have always operated fuel saving we just havent known about it. Why do we know about it now? Because pit to car radio tells us. Who broadcasts that information? Oh its Bernie, and whilst on the subject of broadcasting the switch to Sky didn't help as many fans just decided they didnt want to pay to watch every race, and could survive on highlights. They have now found they dont even need highlights!
Chrisgr31 said:
Eric Mc said:
What type of viewing figures does Moto GP get and are they rising or falling?
Viewing figures for BTCC, MotoGP and F1 last weekend can be found in these 2 blogshttps://f1broadcasting.wordpress.com/category/moto...
https://f1broadcasting.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/ha...
2.79m for F1 on BBC1 and 497k on SKY, 349k average for last BTCC race on ITV4, 175k for MotoGP on BT Sport.
I suspect if you pulled F1 off BBC1 BBC2 or ITV 1 it wouldnt be long until it was down in the viewing figures of BTCC or MotoGP. Anyone know what the BTCC viewing figures were in the 1980's and 90s in the days of Vauxhall, Ford Volvo etc?
The noise, the racing or alledged lack of them etc is I believe a red herring in determining what is wrong woth F1.
My view is that it can all be laid at the door of Bernie. Yes F1 wouldnt be where it is now if it wasnt for Bernie but now people thing he is profiting too much himself, they don't like the races in Russia, Korea, India, Turkey etc, they dont like him facing blackmail charges, they dont like Silverstone being under threat every 10 minutes, they don't like Caterham, Marussia Manor etc not having a share of the riches in F1, they don't like the attitude of Red Bull etc.
We can complain about fuel saving etc but surely they have always operated fuel saving we just havent known about it. Why do we know about it now? Because pit to car radio tells us. Who broadcasts that information? Oh its Bernie, and whilst on the subject of broadcasting the switch to Sky didn't help as many fans just decided they didnt want to pay to watch every race, and could survive on highlights. They have now found they dont even need highlights!
Had it been on BBC, I would have watched it, no matter what time it was on. On BT, it simply does not exist in my world. The arguments put forward by Fat80b earlier are perhaps the most relevant to any sport.
PPV is the death-nell for mass audience viewing of any sport. BernieCo believe F1 "sells" exclusivity.
The current model is just light years away from when team owners built and raced modest cars funded by tobacco sponsorship because there was a mass audience.
PPV is the death-nell for mass audience viewing of any sport. BernieCo believe F1 "sells" exclusivity.
The current model is just light years away from when team owners built and raced modest cars funded by tobacco sponsorship because there was a mass audience.
Eric Mc said:
I have a funny feeling it's an age thing - exacerbated by the sports owners being very, very unwilling to properly embrace new media.
Nonsense, last race weekend they were talking asked Toto Wolff about engaging young viewers and he said they have a big screen in the pit garage showing their facebook feed. You can't get more engaged than that...Premiership rugby is on BT Sport. One of the reasons given for taking BY's shilling was that the extra money would enable rugby to obtain grass roots support.
Every 6N there's a surge in youth membership. With this RWC we have had lots of interest from parents and children.
No one sees premiership rugby anymore so the continual exposure has gone.
Short-sightedness rules.
With football mainly highlights with one or two live matches, rugby union missed a massive opportunity to put itself out there. Give it away free to BBC or ITV and people would being to watch regularly and then join clubs and take part.
Sky is the death-knell of any sport if it is on there exclusively or mainly.
Every 6N there's a surge in youth membership. With this RWC we have had lots of interest from parents and children.
No one sees premiership rugby anymore so the continual exposure has gone.
Short-sightedness rules.
With football mainly highlights with one or two live matches, rugby union missed a massive opportunity to put itself out there. Give it away free to BBC or ITV and people would being to watch regularly and then join clubs and take part.
Sky is the death-knell of any sport if it is on there exclusively or mainly.
maffski said:
Eric Mc said:
I have a funny feeling it's an age thing - exacerbated by the sports owners being very, very unwilling to properly embrace new media.
Nonsense, last race weekend they were talking asked Toto Wolff about engaging young viewers and he said they have a big screen in the pit garage showing their facebook feed. You can't get more engaged than that...Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff