ITV F1 coverage rant !!!!
Discussion
Frik said:
In your opinion. Bikes are interesting to watch because they're bloody hard to ride fast!
[Panto mode on]
Oh no they're not,[/PMO] they're bloody easy to ride fast. Just have a look at my license if you don't think so
The reason he says bike racing is more exciting is that there is more overtaking in 1 lap of MotoGP or WSBK than in an entire F1 race. That's a fact, not an opinion.
BTW I watch both.
Sorry, I can't be bothered with all the quoting & snipping so wade through........
Seriously, have you even watched an F1 race?
Yup, & I tell it like it is!
And? You want interesting racing but none of them to crash?
The reason that only half of 'em finish is not 'cos they crash, it's 'cos they break. I believe it was Colin Chapman that said the best racecar design is one that falls apart as soon as it crosses the finish line. I always figured he meant at the end of the last lap, not halfway through a procession...sorry...race.
This is simply a question of economics in one of only 2 formulas I can think of where you have to design your own car. The benefits far outway the drawbacks when it is considered what F1 contributes to the engineering world at large.
Examples? I know there are probably loads but I'd still like some definate ones
Motor racing is expensive. Nuff said.
Quite true & no easy answer to that. S'just unfortunate that being the fastest driver won't guarantee you a ride. Guess that analogy works for all walks of life though eh? Actually, being the fastest driver on the day won't guarantee you a win either if your name isn't Schumacher. I mean yeah, it's a team sport & the manufacturer wants to win but come on, fans want the best driver to win the championship, not the driver who's team ordered the other guy to slow down so he could pick up an extra point here & there.
Rivalries?
Same place as all the deaths in the sport I should think.
I reckon it's more like there's nobody really evenly matched enough to be rivals?
In your opinion. Bikes are interesting to watch because they're bloody hard to ride fast! WRC is interesting cause the skills of the driver are much easier to observe. BTCC is interesting because the drivers aren't as good as F1 drivers and there isn't really enough space for them all on the track at the same time A bit like Premiership versus nationwide football...
Exactly....but also being closed-wheel/less dependant on aerodynamics means that they're not afraid to get near each other through the corners. Also, as has been mentioned on this site somewhere before, any race decided by pitstop strategy is ridiculous.
Seriously, have you even watched an F1 race?
Yup, & I tell it like it is!
And? You want interesting racing but none of them to crash?
The reason that only half of 'em finish is not 'cos they crash, it's 'cos they break. I believe it was Colin Chapman that said the best racecar design is one that falls apart as soon as it crosses the finish line. I always figured he meant at the end of the last lap, not halfway through a procession...sorry...race.
This is simply a question of economics in one of only 2 formulas I can think of where you have to design your own car. The benefits far outway the drawbacks when it is considered what F1 contributes to the engineering world at large.
Examples? I know there are probably loads but I'd still like some definate ones
Motor racing is expensive. Nuff said.
Quite true & no easy answer to that. S'just unfortunate that being the fastest driver won't guarantee you a ride. Guess that analogy works for all walks of life though eh? Actually, being the fastest driver on the day won't guarantee you a win either if your name isn't Schumacher. I mean yeah, it's a team sport & the manufacturer wants to win but come on, fans want the best driver to win the championship, not the driver who's team ordered the other guy to slow down so he could pick up an extra point here & there.
Rivalries?
Same place as all the deaths in the sport I should think.
I reckon it's more like there's nobody really evenly matched enough to be rivals?
In your opinion. Bikes are interesting to watch because they're bloody hard to ride fast! WRC is interesting cause the skills of the driver are much easier to observe. BTCC is interesting because the drivers aren't as good as F1 drivers and there isn't really enough space for them all on the track at the same time A bit like Premiership versus nationwide football...
Exactly....but also being closed-wheel/less dependant on aerodynamics means that they're not afraid to get near each other through the corners. Also, as has been mentioned on this site somewhere before, any race decided by pitstop strategy is ridiculous.
centurion07 said:
Sorry but F1 races are boring as hell, so why anyone would want to sit through QUALIFYING is a mystery to me.
Well i watch it to see the form of the team against the others and it gives a good indication of how you would expect the team to perform in race trim. Also its a time trial hence similar to that of WRC (Racing against the clock)
centurion07 said:
Seriously, why does ANYONE want to watch 22 (or thereabouts) cars go round & round a circuit without the merest hint of overtaking? Sure, the speeds involved are pretty exciting but because of the car's aerodynamics no-one can get close enough to overtake anywhere other than a straight.
I watch it because it is the top form of motor racing, previously giving the motor industry many driver aids ABS, Traction Control, Active Suspension etc. Also with reference to BTCC, BTCC are limited to x amount BHP F1 is dependent on Engine size and Airflow restrictions and hence differing engines and Air intakes develop different Performace Characteristics
centurion07 said:
As for the number of cars, it might be in the twenties at the start, but by the end of the race it'll be about half the number that started.
So are you saying that in the other racing you watch BTCC Superbike WRC that there are no crashes or breakdowns. I think not. F1 is a team sport and hence Pit crew, Engineering Crew, Team Managment, Driver have to perform consistantly to get results.
centurion07 said:
The result is pretty much a foregone conclusion in as much as the costs involved are so astronomical that only the top 2 or 3 teams are really in the running for any kind of success. The only time someone else wins is when the top teams have all retired.
So really because only a handful of people won a GP in 2003, remember it came down to the last race decider WSB didnt Hodgson had that wrapped up in holland a few rounds before the end of the season. But there was only a handful of winners in BTCC, WSB and WRC. Its only because F1 in so high profile now you notice the fact that its the same person over and over again. Out of 2 races for WRC this year there has only been one winner S Loeb, I bet you will start saying that predictable now.
Oh also there were only 5 different winners last season in WSB Hodgson won 13 races and 9 out of the first 10 rounds. Only really excused because there is overtaking
F1 last year had 8 different winners our of a field of 22. So over 33% of the field won a race. compare that to the others.
centurion07 said:
It doesn't get much better with the drivers themselves, again, because of the costs involved. Just because you're the fastest thing on four wheels, if you ain't got the sponsership money behind you, you're going nowhere fast (Perry McCarthy?!). As for personalities geez.......where are all the rivalries from years gone by?
There has got to be something where the manufactures and engineers can push the boundaries of physics. If you aint got the money tough luck. The rivalries still exist today but they are not jumped upon by the media as they were in the past.
centurion07 said:
Sorry, but F1 is just nowhere near as exciting to watch as most other forms of motorsport e.g. WSB, MotoGP, WRC, BTCC etc etc.
They are exciting but only in the own ways but they still have that predictability around them, There are only 2 or 3 teams that can consistantly go for the championship in each racing class. every racing series has its ups and downs. But F1 last year was one of the best since Prost Senna erra.
Anyone got and videos of Senna Taking out prost to take the championship. Not to sure which year. it happened many time though when they were both at mclaren
centurion07 said:
If you can give me one good counter-argument to any of the above, let's hear it.
Done it above. But the same goes for the premiership only 2 or 3 teams have the resources to go for the title.
Frik said:Thing is I can see why Frik asked that question. Last season was one of the best in F1 for some time, yet the opinions you present clearly suggest that you didn't take any interest in F1 last year and are therefore not in a postition to comment. Like you I can't be bothered to wade through all the crap but you are clearly wrong on a few counts as pointed out by several posts. Your suggestion that beacuse (in your view) there is no overtaking, F1 is boring is somewhat contradicted by your comment that ralying is more interesting, yet that has no overtaking at all (correct me if I'm wrong). Rich...
Seriously, have you even watched an F1 race? centurion07 said:
Yup, & I tell it like it is!
The great thing about F1 is that the teams will explore every angle available to them to gain even a minute advantage over their rivals. Because of the amount of money involved, they are able to explore areas without monetry restriction which of course industry at large is unable to do.
The only other place innonvation is placed so highly is in the Defense industry. The only difference is F1 teams do, on the whole, try to minimise the number of people they kill...
The only other place innonvation is placed so highly is in the Defense industry. The only difference is F1 teams do, on the whole, try to minimise the number of people they kill...
great footage - but interesting that Jackie Stewart comments that it was hard to overtake at the Old Nure.berg ring.
It was a time when drivers were really heroes - I think half of those on that grid ended up in accidents that either ended their careers or worse their lifes.
FourWheelDrift said:
If anyone has broadband there is superb coverage here of the 1973 German Grand Prix at the Nurburgring. It was shown as part of the US GP coverage of 2003 and is presented by David Hobbs & Sir Jackie Stewart.
Quality of the original footage is superb, it could have been run last week.
202mb AVI
right Click, save target as here
Old PAL Video footage is as good today as it ever was. The BBC's recording of the 1968 FA Cup Final (the first they covered in colour) looks like it was shot yesterday, as does the TV footage of the 1970 Monaco GP (even though I've only seen about 15 seconds worth of it).
It's amn awful pity that more of this old recorded material is not seen more often.
It's amn awful pity that more of this old recorded material is not seen more often.
centurion07 said:
I'm not deliberately trying to wind anyone up, just like to hear why you think F1 should be given better coverage. Below are the reasons why I think it needs a SERIOUS overhaul.
F1 is what it is because of evolution. Pretty much all top-line sport has different dynamics to 10 years ago (let alone 20 or more!).
No one seems to bother too much that Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea are really the only serious teams in the Premiership - plenty still watch. They will even pay the best part of £50 to see a mid week game without much complaint - even if the game itself is as dull as ditchwater.
More TV Coverage in F1 is needed to braoden its appeal by being able to explain more of the subtleties.
The only thing I think that is bad about F1 at the moment is the issue of drivers gettintg seats because of money. This I think has serious ramifications for the long term:
It stiffles true talent
It devalues the lower formulae
..and reduces the best bit a bout F1 - it being the absolute pinnacle of the motoring industry!
steviebee said:I can see your point here - but don't all of the drivers only get their seats because of money.
The only thing I think that is bad about F1 at the moment is the issue of drivers gettintg seats because of money. This I think has serious ramifications for the long term:
DC is most probably still at McLaren as he is good with the sponsors - BAR now have a Japanese driver to go with their Japanese engine and Williams have a poor imitation of the World Champion on their books which again goes down well with the sponsors.
At the end of the day the drivers are the highest profile members of the team - so all of them are there to please the sponsors to some extent.
Problem is that I don't see how you can generate motorsport at any level without it being about money - in F1 it is everything.
At the end of the day, it is very clear when a driver pays an F1 team for a drive, but we all know that all of the drivers on the F1 grid will have been self funded or funded by a sponsor (read mate of Dad's) for pretty much all of their careers pre F1.
You have to be rich to play this game
daydreamer said:
The only thing I think that is bad about F1 at the moment is the issue of drivers gettintg seats because of money. This I think has serious ramifications for the long term:
I can see your point here - but don't all of the drivers only get their seats because of money.
DC is most probably still at McLaren as he is good with the sponsors - BAR now have a Japanese driver to go with their Japanese engine and Williams have a poor imitation of the World Champion on their books which again goes down well with the sponsors.
At the end of the day the drivers are the highest profile members of the team - so all of them are there to please the sponsors to some extent.
Problem is that I don't see how you can generate motorsport at any level without it being about money - in F1 it is everything.
At the end of the day, it is very clear when a driver pays an F1 team for a drive, but we all know that all of the drivers on the F1 grid will have been self funded or funded by a sponsor (read mate of Dad's) for pretty much all of their careers pre F1.
You have to be rich to play this game
The top 6 to 8 drivers dont really carry sponsors as such they are based on there talent and the way they have dealt with sponsors previously.
Regards DC He has his job a Mclaren as mclaren want a stable base and do not want to change the drivers every year. Plus he has a good rep for the publicity boys from the sponsors. But the driver for the rest of the field have sponsors tagged with them and is a major choice for most of the teams.
I think you'll find that there has almost never been more than three drivers/teams fighting for the F1 championship at any given time. In all four wheel racing you'd rarely get more than two/three genuine contenders for whatever championship.
F1 is a tough sport, so its only fitting that it should be tough to get there. I wouldn't go too far with the Perry McCarthy story. It is an enjoyable read, but there is a storyline which became familier: "So I got to this track, never seen it before, never driven the car, but on my second flying lap I put it on the front row. Just thought I could go a tad quicker, but was so unlucky I put it in the wall and wound up 14th. Then crashed in the race in a typical mid-grid first corner melee."
Perry McCarthy was never going to set the world alight.
I thought the 'system' worked just fine, there.
Rallying's great, F1 is different, I watch them both. Both sets of drivers are genuine peers.
Bikes. I've enjoyed Brit superbikes, but world GP/Moto/whatever? Well, the name/formula change showed it wasn't great. Total domination by Mick Doohan followed by Rossi. Hardly competitive.
And are bikes fast anyway? Not if you compare their lap times to F1 they're not, but then nothing is anywhere near as fast on a circuit as F1 cars, which is partly why I find them fascinating.
Its got many faults, and there's been times I hated it, but it still is the best.
F1 is a tough sport, so its only fitting that it should be tough to get there. I wouldn't go too far with the Perry McCarthy story. It is an enjoyable read, but there is a storyline which became familier: "So I got to this track, never seen it before, never driven the car, but on my second flying lap I put it on the front row. Just thought I could go a tad quicker, but was so unlucky I put it in the wall and wound up 14th. Then crashed in the race in a typical mid-grid first corner melee."
Perry McCarthy was never going to set the world alight.
I thought the 'system' worked just fine, there.
Rallying's great, F1 is different, I watch them both. Both sets of drivers are genuine peers.
Bikes. I've enjoyed Brit superbikes, but world GP/Moto/whatever? Well, the name/formula change showed it wasn't great. Total domination by Mick Doohan followed by Rossi. Hardly competitive.
And are bikes fast anyway? Not if you compare their lap times to F1 they're not, but then nothing is anywhere near as fast on a circuit as F1 cars, which is partly why I find them fascinating.
Its got many faults, and there's been times I hated it, but it still is the best.
eric mc said:
Old PAL Video footage is as good today as it ever was. The BBC's recording of the 1968 FA Cup Final (the first they covered in colour) looks like it was shot yesterday, as does the TV footage of the 1970 Monaco GP (even though I've only seen about 15 seconds worth of it).
It's amn awful pity that more of this old recorded material is not seen more often.
I've got quite a library of old racing footage.
b/w - Black & white
c - Colour
1938 French GP at Reims (b/w)
1939 German GP at Nurburgring (b/w)
1951 British GP Silverstone (c)
1956 Italian GP (b/w)
1958 European GP (Spa) (c)
Lap of Brand Hatch (c)- on board with Jim Clark - 1964
1967 British Grand Prix (c)
1967 German GP (c)
1967 Dutch GP (c)
1967 United States GP (c)
1970 Season review (c)
1971 Season review (c)
1972 Season review (c)
1973 Season review (c)
1973 German GP as above (c)
1974 Season review (c)
1975 Season review (c)
1976 Italian GP (c)
1977 German GP (c)
1979 Italian GP (c)
1982 San Marino GP (c)
Four Wheel Drift - interesting selection, but I'd bet most of what you've got there is nothing to do with TV, which is specifically what I was talking about.
Obviously, the pre-war stuff would be from newsreels and documentaries made at the time. The 1970 to 1979 season reviews are no doubt the Marlboro funded documentaries which were filmed completely independent of the TV coverage. What I would love to see are video recordings of the original TV broadcasts - with their attached Murray Walker,Raymond Baxter or Charles Gardener commentaries. In fact, whilst we are on the subject, what exists in the Radio Archives of the BBC regarding motor sport commentaries?
Obviously, the pre-war stuff would be from newsreels and documentaries made at the time. The 1970 to 1979 season reviews are no doubt the Marlboro funded documentaries which were filmed completely independent of the TV coverage. What I would love to see are video recordings of the original TV broadcasts - with their attached Murray Walker,Raymond Baxter or Charles Gardener commentaries. In fact, whilst we are on the subject, what exists in the Radio Archives of the BBC regarding motor sport commentaries?
ITV Will be showing the Australian GP at the following times:
Qualifying
Live Sat 02:30 - 04:50
Repeat Sat 1330 - 1530
Race
Live Sun 02:00 - 05:10
Repeat Sun 13:30 - 16:00
Race highlights
Mon 00:10 - 01:10
All times are BST
All races are shown live and if they are on in the middle of the night, repeated around lunchtime the same day.
Whilst the BBC did a very good job, prior to ITV taking over they did not take a full crew of Presenters and Pitlane Reporters to all of the races on the calandar. ITV introduced Pit Lane Reporters too.
This season will see a change in the show with more live reaction, coverage and interviews from the Paddock rather than the studio. An exciting season of coverage is promised.
Qualifying
Live Sat 02:30 - 04:50
Repeat Sat 1330 - 1530
Race
Live Sun 02:00 - 05:10
Repeat Sun 13:30 - 16:00
Race highlights
Mon 00:10 - 01:10
All times are BST
All races are shown live and if they are on in the middle of the night, repeated around lunchtime the same day.
Whilst the BBC did a very good job, prior to ITV taking over they did not take a full crew of Presenters and Pitlane Reporters to all of the races on the calandar. ITV introduced Pit Lane Reporters too.
This season will see a change in the show with more live reaction, coverage and interviews from the Paddock rather than the studio. An exciting season of coverage is promised.
eric mc said:
I often wonder where a lot of this old footage is. Some of it has obviously been wiped or was never recorded in the first place - but some must survive.
Not so long ago, there was a series of season reviews on Motors TV (originally in French) from the seventies. Seeing those cars cornering sideways and doing some "proper" racing was fantastic. I expect they'll be repeated again soon. (most stuff is).
but maybe they're available elsewhere?
I doubt we'll be missing much with the Friday session due to the new engine rules. It'll mainly be the third drivers out putting the miles in to get a good set up. And there's no qualifying element either.
But if you really want to watch it get a satellite dish and tune into the German channels who invariably will cover all of the sessions. Also good for switching to during the adverts during the live race. The commentators are a bit odd though, they sound like they're commenting on a snooker match - definitely lacking the Murray Walker factor!
But if you really want to watch it get a satellite dish and tune into the German channels who invariably will cover all of the sessions. Also good for switching to during the adverts during the live race. The commentators are a bit odd though, they sound like they're commenting on a snooker match - definitely lacking the Murray Walker factor!
daydreamer said:
The only thing I think that is bad about F1 at the moment is the issue of drivers gettintg seats because of money. This I think has serious ramifications for the long term:
I can see your point here - but don't all of the drivers only get their seats because of money. (
I think the issue compunded by what appears to be the vague nature in which super licences are issued.
If the FIA were to stipulate that to progress to the next formula up, a driver must have competed in a certain number of races in an approved lower formula first with say, 70% finishes in the top 6 and a top 3 finish in the championship, then the talent pool available to F1 teams is restricted on talent.
Money will still play a part as to achieve this criteria, drivers still need to find top seats which costs. But at least it stops ultra rich kids with no talent finding themeselves in places they have no right to be in.
- StreakyGassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff