While the location is spectacular the racing will be anything but, do we really need one more F1 procession.

I'm not sure what your point is. Ask yourself whether other sports have developed in presentation over the same period that you are quoting with F1 and then ask yourself if F1 was likely to follow suit. Also, ask yourself when Ecclestone got control of the TV rights (and how).

My point is that Ecclestone did not make the sport what it is today, the teams did. They are the ones who build the cars, pilot them and come back year after year if they can. Whilst Dennis and Williams/Head have made £millions, I can't see any argument as to whether they were worth it or not. If we take McLaren, it has been there or thereabouts since the start of MP4 apart from a couple of years. Williams have had a b ad run over recent years but was, for some years, one of the top three most successful GP teams.

Ask yourself what Ecclestone has done which makes him so great? I accept that the TV presentation is better than ever before but I follow another sport where the facilitator is not a big name, and has changed over time, and guess what? TV presentation is better than ever before. That is the evolution.

Many curcuits are priced out of GP: that is Ecclestone. The FIA gets no income from the TV rights: that is Ecclestone. The teams, who are struggling for money, get a low percentage from the TV rights given that they are the main subject: that's Ecclestone. We have GPs in places that have no interest and no history: that's . . .

I'm not sure if you were suggesting that I wanted things to stay the same. I started watching GP at the start of the 3-litre season, when a lot of cars weren't running 3-litres. I've enjoyed changes. Things get stale. But I don't like the idea of circuits where the most exciting thing is the lights on the hotels.

There is no argument that Ecclestone is a very clever man. There is no doubt also, as you pointed out, that he is a businessman and out to wring as much money from the sport as he can. He got his hands on the TV rights for a few £million and they have turned out to be worth £bn. As I say, the man is very clever. Genius is, I think, a step too far.

I'd rather see Spa, Suzuka, Monza et al stay on the calendar than new races such as a London GP.

BUT I'd rather a London streets GP than something round the streets of Doha or Jakarta, who may be ready to pay the going rate for such a race.

.
[/quote]

Millions of people watching F1 on Sky? Have you seen their viewing figures
[/quote]

No, haven't got a clue - what are they?

I think it is the circuits that organise the marketing, ticketing and the race.

Ecclestone is a facilitator. He puts things in motion, decides where the races are going to be. This is an admin job, one that should, in my opinion, be part of the FIA's remit. Indeed, it is I suppose. It, or rather he, just abandoned it to Ecclestone.

Ecclestone does the job fairly well. I have my criticisms of him but overall he performs his task adequately. To suggest by organising such things, as some do, he has made F1 into what it is today is rather wide of the mark.

The men that made the sport professional were the likes of Williams/Head and Dennis by upping their levels each, or at least most, seasons. There was Chapman's corporate branding. There were the safety improvements but most of this was not down to Ecclestone. He organised the flights abroad and took his cuts. It was only when he got his hands on the TV rights that he took control and in this he did not professionalise the sport, nor make it any better that I can see. He just promoted it and sold off bits.

We now have the situation where F1 is unlikely to be free to air in this country soon. It's happened in Italy for next season as Murdoch has bought them if what I'm told is correct.

This will, in all probability, harm F1 but will, at least in the short term, produce more revenue for Ecclestone.

My argument is just that Ecclestone has not, as some say, made F1 what it is today. I think F1 is its technical side, not circuits in silly places where no one cares.

You can't criticse the teams for Mosley's preferrential treatment of Ferrari. They are there to provide cars and drivers for the races, not to fight political and financial battles. I think that the Ecclestone/Mosley years have damaged motor sport, probably irreperably. I also see F1 going the same way as WRC, WSC, BTCC and such.

I would also like to see a European race at Brands. Can't see this London GP happening. Can't see Bernie paying for it either.
I also think this is handy timing, in respect to the German banker bribes case. If Bernie does get charged, at a later date, I wonder if the 'proceeds of crime' punishment would apply and if they would take any money away from Bernie or the holding company (can't see that happening either)?

On a serious note, what is the congestion charge for a Formula 1 car ?

This is the same old guff from this thread:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

What happened? Didn't like the answers so carried on this thread instead?

Each race series has its succesful teams, IndyCar has Penske, Chip Ganassi, Newman Haas (until 2011) for example. F1 is huge, it eclipses all other motorsport on a global scale, only NASCAR comes close. WRC/top flight rallying is a mess, Indycar is dying on its arse, WEC is just the latest of many incarnations of endurance racing, drag racing is positively a minority interest sport, BTCC is nothing like it was in the 1990's. Even if there is no F1 race on, magazines like Autosport put F1 on the cover because it sells, F1 is the only motorsport that gets any decent coverage in our newspapers, even MotoGP which is the next most popular in Fleet Street is lucky to get more than half a page and even that series has a half empty grid and the battle for fifth place being the biggest talking point. So yes Bernie has done a bloody lot to give F1 the exposure it receives.

In 1980 the last year before Bernie secured any decent TV rights there were 8 European rounds, this year there are 8 European rounds.

I'm only watching this season's races on the BBC. I dumped Sky Sports after Christmas as I'm moving (although first move collapsed). I've got a couple of mates who are F1 fans and have Sky Sports but one is on a contract in Italy - a regular feature of his life - and the other in the middle of a break-up with his girlfriend - a regular feature, etc. The Italian job's (see what I did there?) not back until late August.

I thought I would be devestated by not seeing the races live but in fact I've found it quite easy to deal with. I've managed to avoid finding out the results of those not shown live of the BBC and it's been easier than normal to work my social life around F1 this year. So for me it's not too bad. That said, when we move (August hopefully) Sky sport and movies will come back.

All in all it's been quite a surprise. One a month or so is not bad. I'm retired now so one a month is not all that unusual for me.

I follow a rugby team, videoing all matches, so most Saturdays are used up in season.

So 14 would be just about right for me. Selfish I know.

Also, there was something of the 'big event' about every race when there were races in the low teens.

As for the new circuits: I don't mind new ones but I do mind if they are uninteresting. The Tilke ones are not all drab but it does seem that way.

Valencia is dreadful of course. Circuits should be designed with overtaking in mind so doing away with the need (if need is the word) for DRS and floppy tyres.

I don't really mind new locations but they should be in places where there's a history of the sport, or at least an interest. By promoting F1 as so cool that a nation state needs it to show they've arrived, Ecclestone has made it a must have, and a lucrative one at that. But it is bought as an add on, a sort of medal to show they have arrived.

No French GP!

We are, I feel, in danger of turning F1 into something new, something corporate, something that has no connection with the past. Further, we are hocking its popularity to those without any reason to continue to be fans. If, for instance, an Indian sports car, with Indian drivers, does well at Le Mans and then move on to WEC, are the fans likely to stay with F1 or move their allegience?

I'm an F1 nerd, or at least I was. I'm becoming a little dissatisfied with the route it is taking: DRS and those tyres.

As you say, discussion is the thing. We all have different points of view and experiences.

I don't have Sky at all, never have and I have no problem avoiding the result until the highlights come on. I swore I would never have Sky, i love movies but prefer to see them at the cinema. I do have BTVision as I work for BT. Hopefully with BT launching out own sports channel now we have Premier league rights Sky & BT will hammer out a deal for our channel to be on skysports and more skysports & F1 channel on BTVision.
I prefer the longer season, 20 races is probably enough though. It's a shame about the French GP, there was talk of the race returning and being held at Paul Ricard, a track apparently own by Bernie no less!
If the races were limited to venues/countries with a history of Motorsport then I can see an argument for a shorter season based on tradition. I've not looked at it like that, and it would free up more of my weekends lol. I do like F1 going to new places too... Fans who would never have had the chance to see the spectacle in their own back yard.
It's that spectacle that makes me hope that a London GP happens. I'd like London to be seen as a more happening and vibrant city with things going on. But saying that, I'd like to see events, big events in general, being staged in cities all over the country. Things to be interested in, proud of and make the whole country cool.
Bernie does squeeze a lot of money out of prospective new venues wanting to hold a GP and yes he does make them feel like he is the messiah and they are lucky to get the race. All part of the plan and keeps them on their toes I guess.

Ahem, have we forgotten Donington already?