The Official 2017 Canadian Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
Crafty_ said:
We must be watching a different channel 4 because Sky are miles ahead. there is an awful lot of bias against sky because people dislike Murdoch.
I'd love to know how they are "dumbing down" compared to channel 4, given the wealth of experience on the team and the features they do.
Sky is the best coverage of the sport we've ever had.
Are you also factoring in the extra £500 or so per year for Sky?I'd love to know how they are "dumbing down" compared to channel 4, given the wealth of experience on the team and the features they do.
Sky is the best coverage of the sport we've ever had.
Nothing to do with Murdoch, but that £500 saving allows me to like the C4 coverage a lot more.
swisstoni said:
I noticed that the race status bar down the left side of the screen has replaced the silly ticker along the bottom of the screen with all of 3 letters to give the driver name.
Now the standings of the whole field are visible at all times with instant position updates with full driver name and team colour visible most of the time.
New owners are doing their bit to make F1 more accessible - good stuff.
Yes, BUT.Now the standings of the whole field are visible at all times with instant position updates with full driver name and team colour visible most of the time.
New owners are doing their bit to make F1 more accessible - good stuff.
Why isn't either the interval or 'gap to leader' not always shown?
I do not see the point of the graphic that only shows race position and not gaps, it's pointless.
The other graphic I miss is the one from qualifying in Melbourne, the one where they broke the circuit into more than just 3 sectors and showed green, grey and purple blocks. It was a great way of seeing live comparisons between cars. Granted is was complicated for those not very numerate or very knowledgeable about F1.
oyster said:
swisstoni said:
I noticed that the race status bar down the left side of the screen has replaced the silly ticker along the bottom of the screen with all of 3 letters to give the driver name.
Now the standings of the whole field are visible at all times with instant position updates with full driver name and team colour visible most of the time.
New owners are doing their bit to make F1 more accessible - good stuff.
Yes, BUT.Now the standings of the whole field are visible at all times with instant position updates with full driver name and team colour visible most of the time.
New owners are doing their bit to make F1 more accessible - good stuff.
Why isn't either the interval or 'gap to leader' not always shown?
I do not see the point of the graphic that only shows race position and not gaps, it's pointless.
The other graphic I miss is the one from qualifying in Melbourne, the one where they broke the circuit into more than just 3 sectors and showed green, grey and purple blocks. It was a great way of seeing live comparisons between cars. Granted is was complicated for those not very numerate or very knowledgeable about F1.
And they do show the car gaps - it alternates with the full driver name.
swisstoni said:
oyster said:
swisstoni said:
I noticed that the race status bar down the left side of the screen has replaced the silly ticker along the bottom of the screen with all of 3 letters to give the driver name.
Now the standings of the whole field are visible at all times with instant position updates with full driver name and team colour visible most of the time.
New owners are doing their bit to make F1 more accessible - good stuff.
Yes, BUT.Now the standings of the whole field are visible at all times with instant position updates with full driver name and team colour visible most of the time.
New owners are doing their bit to make F1 more accessible - good stuff.
Why isn't either the interval or 'gap to leader' not always shown?
I do not see the point of the graphic that only shows race position and not gaps, it's pointless.
The other graphic I miss is the one from qualifying in Melbourne, the one where they broke the circuit into more than just 3 sectors and showed green, grey and purple blocks. It was a great way of seeing live comparisons between cars. Granted is was complicated for those not very numerate or very knowledgeable about F1.
And they do show the car gaps - it alternates with the full driver name.
Whatever your choice is, however, be thankful you don't have to put up with the coverage we get here in the US. Truly s
te!If you want the full live timing (free) with gaps, tyres, pit stops, speeds et c etc. together with a graphic of the circuit showing the position of each car then you should go to f1.feed.net/live
I've posted the link a few times before, just ignore the morons who mostly populate the chat side-panel with puerile nonsense!
I've posted the link a few times before, just ignore the morons who mostly populate the chat side-panel with puerile nonsense!
London424 said:
NRS said:
Fire99 said:
Ocon seems a pretty handy driver.. Perez did what Perez did. Personally, my biggest criticism is with the team. They appear to have been to soft on the subject and it cost the team valuable points.
They said their worry was Ocon not passing if he was let through, and if that was the case then Perez letting him past/ Ocon letting Perez past would have taken up more time total, so they didn't push for it. You could question Ocon being so far behind - he certianly wasn't right behind Perez, so Perez would have lost time slowing to let him past for sure. A bit like the infamous Hamilton/ Rosberg one where Hamilton didn't let Rosberg past.Why have your drivers on tyre strategies that offset and then not let him have a go? Not quite as bad as a 3 stopper getting held up by a 2 stopper but not far off!
oyster said:
Yes, BUT.
Why isn't either the interval or 'gap to leader' not always shown?
I do not see the point of the graphic that only shows race position and not gaps, it's pointless.
The other graphic I miss is the one from qualifying in Melbourne, the one where they broke the circuit into more than just 3 sectors and showed green, grey and purple blocks. It was a great way of seeing live comparisons between cars. Granted is was complicated for those not very numerate or very knowledgeable about F1.
Do what me and my friends do: go to https://f1.tfeed.net/ on a laptop. Makes it much more fun.Why isn't either the interval or 'gap to leader' not always shown?
I do not see the point of the graphic that only shows race position and not gaps, it's pointless.
The other graphic I miss is the one from qualifying in Melbourne, the one where they broke the circuit into more than just 3 sectors and showed green, grey and purple blocks. It was a great way of seeing live comparisons between cars. Granted is was complicated for those not very numerate or very knowledgeable about F1.
ClockworkCupcake said:
I think part of the issue is that the majority of people get into a comfort zone, and then something outside of it will feel slightly alien.
So, for me who is regular Sky viewer, the Sky coverage is my warm fuzzy blanket of familiarity, and if I watch the C4 coverage then it immediately feels different and unfamiliar, which is by definition going to make me notice the differences more than for someone for whom C4 is their fuzzy comfort zone. If that makes any sense.
And, likewise, a C4 regular is going to notice the negatives of the Sky coverage more than I will, for the same reasons.
I am sure that the C4 team do just as good a job as the Sky team.
As others have said, aren't we lucky to have the choice?
Both ripped off the BBC in one way or other though Whisper/Ch4 is basically the old Beeb production crew.So, for me who is regular Sky viewer, the Sky coverage is my warm fuzzy blanket of familiarity, and if I watch the C4 coverage then it immediately feels different and unfamiliar, which is by definition going to make me notice the differences more than for someone for whom C4 is their fuzzy comfort zone. If that makes any sense.
And, likewise, a C4 regular is going to notice the negatives of the Sky coverage more than I will, for the same reasons.
I am sure that the C4 team do just as good a job as the Sky team.
As others have said, aren't we lucky to have the choice?
Sky tends to dress up in suits in other sports, even Steve Rider dressed smartly on ITV; Lazenby is rather annoying and a rip off of Jake Humphreys and Herbert stole the troll-with-microphone role off EJ.
The joke when Sky first turned up was they had enough crew & equipment to run an F1 team. It's been toned down but still feels over-produced when essentially F1 coverage is relied upon FOM. For instance Skypad I find gimmicky and adds nothing extra to analysis.
Liberty Media really need to get F1 on terrestrial TV.
The money lost will be gained back by attracting many more fans who are not prepared to pay for Sky F1.
Personally I started watching F1 due to it being on in the house. I am sure many more would be the same if they got the chance.
The money lost will be gained back by attracting many more fans who are not prepared to pay for Sky F1.
Personally I started watching F1 due to it being on in the house. I am sure many more would be the same if they got the chance.
The race yesterday for the first two places was terrible. Thankfully the coverage was more down the field.
Lewis was in a totally different class. Seeing him giving the thumbs up to Stroll when lapping him looked like a normal Sunday drive.
Bottas again is just not on Lewis Hamilton's pace. Very disappointing.
Vettel did well to get back on track and finish 4th but as mentioned on here Force India really shot themselves in the foot. For a team to tell their driver to let another past and for it not to be adhered too is unbelievable.
I am sure Ocon would have given Ricciardo a good challenge if this move had taken place.
Red Bull were lucky that Force India were not prepared to really give it to Perez.
Kimi yet again has no luck at all.
Lewis was in a totally different class. Seeing him giving the thumbs up to Stroll when lapping him looked like a normal Sunday drive.
Bottas again is just not on Lewis Hamilton's pace. Very disappointing.
Vettel did well to get back on track and finish 4th but as mentioned on here Force India really shot themselves in the foot. For a team to tell their driver to let another past and for it not to be adhered too is unbelievable.
I am sure Ocon would have given Ricciardo a good challenge if this move had taken place.
Red Bull were lucky that Force India were not prepared to really give it to Perez.
Kimi yet again has no luck at all.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-mercedes-shi...
Back at Merc HQ they worked 10 days straight on the simulator (24-7) to sort out their problem from Monaco and develop a fix for Canada. Determination!
Back at Merc HQ they worked 10 days straight on the simulator (24-7) to sort out their problem from Monaco and develop a fix for Canada. Determination!
HustleRussell said:
It's all down to opinion really but Sky is a sea of grey, I know Brundle and Damon are about as clued up as they come but Damon is and always has been pretty boring and Brundle just seems jaded these days. Herbert is a gobste and Crofty is a shouty gobste.
I find that Coulthard is succinct on commentary and while Edwards gets carried away a bit he's more likely to say something relevant / important than Crofty. Webber is awesome- not afraid to speak his mind and the way he plays off Coulthard is great. I don't dislike EJ as much as some but he only appears at one in four events or something. Steve Jones is doing a fine job sticking it all together. Lee Mackenzie is about the best for driver interviews. There seem to be no fewer adverts on the expensive Sky channel either so to be honest there is not a single thing I prefer about Sky except for the sheer amount of content and I'm quite happy to buy a day pass to watch the qualifying / race live if I want to.
I think the "sea of grey" sums it up. On the grid walk Brundle seems as popular as a fart in a lift. But SKY have an audience only 20% of C4 very small effort. The "show" has done itself much harm since 2014, but since the switch from BBC it has haemorrhaged TV viewers.te and Crofty is a shouty gobste. I find that Coulthard is succinct on commentary and while Edwards gets carried away a bit he's more likely to say something relevant / important than Crofty. Webber is awesome- not afraid to speak his mind and the way he plays off Coulthard is great. I don't dislike EJ as much as some but he only appears at one in four events or something. Steve Jones is doing a fine job sticking it all together. Lee Mackenzie is about the best for driver interviews. There seem to be no fewer adverts on the expensive Sky channel either so to be honest there is not a single thing I prefer about Sky except for the sheer amount of content and I'm quite happy to buy a day pass to watch the qualifying / race live if I want to.
I think it could be the unseen people that make the difference. The SKY production seems haphazard. Verstappen's move at the start was, perhaps, the high point of the race yesterday and worthy of significant analysis, but I do not recall anything other than it being mentioned, in passing, because of the consequence on Vettel's race.
C4 seems to have a clear structure on how they are going to link, interviews from the pen and comment from the team. Lee McKenzie can summarise the race in a few words, whereas Ted's notebook seems like a lot of padding, for a few facts.
My worry is that Liberty will head down the SKY route for their premium service. A myriad of has beens, lots of data, but no comprehensible structure.
But the thing I like most about C4's production is the presenters. They seem like they are having fun and want to entertain the viewer. When a race lasts 90mins and the coverage 4+ hours, entertainment has to be paramount. Every member of the team work like pros.
Damon, Johnny and Lazenby, just do not cut it, by a very long way.
I listened to BBC Radio 5.
With regard to the radio to Alonso asking him to avoid short-changing third to fourth and Alonso replying 'When am I doing that'?
John Watson thought that Alonso was changing up earlier exiting a corner so the torque was less likely to spin the rears. Hopefully I've not misquoted him there. Sounded like a good explanation to me.
With regard to the radio to Alonso asking him to avoid short-changing third to fourth and Alonso replying 'When am I doing that'?
John Watson thought that Alonso was changing up earlier exiting a corner so the torque was less likely to spin the rears. Hopefully I've not misquoted him there. Sounded like a good explanation to me.
Otispunkmeyer said:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-mercedes-shi...
Back at Merc HQ they worked 10 days straight on the simulator (24-7) to sort out their problem from Monaco and develop a fix for Canada. Determination!
Yet Honda can't get their upgrade done in time.Back at Merc HQ they worked 10 days straight on the simulator (24-7) to sort out their problem from Monaco and develop a fix for Canada. Determination!
Mr_Thyroid said:
London424 said:
NRS said:
Fire99 said:
Ocon seems a pretty handy driver.. Perez did what Perez did. Personally, my biggest criticism is with the team. They appear to have been to soft on the subject and it cost the team valuable points.
They said their worry was Ocon not passing if he was let through, and if that was the case then Perez letting him past/ Ocon letting Perez past would have taken up more time total, so they didn't push for it. You could question Ocon being so far behind - he certianly wasn't right behind Perez, so Perez would have lost time slowing to let him past for sure. A bit like the infamous Hamilton/ Rosberg one where Hamilton didn't let Rosberg past.Why have your drivers on tyre strategies that offset and then not let him have a go? Not quite as bad as a 3 stopper getting held up by a 2 stopper but not far off!
Complete bulls
t from force India the excuse was laughable 3 seconds to switch them what crack are they on, think they knew they had egg on their faces so had to come out with something.Once he cruised up to Perez he was constantly in the DRS window.
Ocon showed his class by not throwing it up the inside when he had the chance.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Liberty Media really need to get F1 on terrestrial TV.
The money lost will be gained back by attracting many more fans who are not prepared to pay for Sky F1.
Personally I started watching F1 due to it being on in the house. I am sure many more would be the same if they got the chance.
Firstly, Liberty won't be taking a myopic view of the UK market for F1, which incidentally already has a sizeable terrestrial component to it (all the races are covered at least in highlights, with half the races broadcast live). FOM quite rightly take a worldwide view of coverage, of which the UK isn't a large market. Why look at a saturated old-world market (where the F1 fans will pay for PPV) when there's the USA and China to go into - both far bigger and with less market penetration.The money lost will be gained back by attracting many more fans who are not prepared to pay for Sky F1.
Personally I started watching F1 due to it being on in the house. I am sure many more would be the same if they got the chance.
In terms of the money lost versus gained back - you're just wrong on the costs versus benefits of this to FOM.
FOM make about half their revenue through TV deals and the PPV ones are far more lucrative than the free-to-air ad supported ones - that's why they are on PPV in the first place. Approximately the other half comes from track fees with a small remainder made from the F1 paddock, merch and so on. This is in their published accounts (which only became public last year because of Liberty buying FOM).
In addition, in the UK from 2019-2024, Sky have already bought the rights for £35m/year. They can't be sold again without Sky acquiescing - it's an exclusive deal, except for the British race, the free-to-air broadcaster for that still hasn't been announced.
Unless you know of an advertiser who is willing to pay around £2m per race for a few minutes of ad time in the breaks, your maths are just way off base. Channel 4 will be lucky to make a third of that even if they co-brand the program (Kayak), and have 5-minute ad breaks every few minutes (which they do).
In the UK the lack of a free broadcast is making the fanbase smaller, but economically there's nothing that can be done about this without breaking FOMs own mission, which is to make money to return to its investors. That's a fiduciary responsibility, not something you can change on a whim.
- Edited to correct a typo.
Edited by CraigyMc on Monday 12th June 18:17
rdjohn said:
I think the "sea of grey" sums it up. On the grid walk Brundle seems as popular as a fart in a lift. But SKY have an audience only 20% of C4 very small effort. The "show" has done itself much harm since 2014, but since the switch from BBC it has haemorrhaged TV viewers.
I think it could be the unseen people that make the difference. The SKY production seems haphazard. Verstappen's move at the start was, perhaps, the high point of the race yesterday and worthy of significant analysis, but I do not recall anything other than it being mentioned, in passing, because of the consequence on Vettel's race.
C4 seems to have a clear structure on how they are going to link, interviews from the pen and comment from the team. Lee McKenzie can summarise the race in a few words, whereas Ted's notebook seems like a lot of padding, for a few facts.
My worry is that Liberty will head down the SKY route for their premium service. A myriad of has beens, lots of data, but no comprehensible structure.
But the thing I like most about C4's production is the presenters. They seem like they are having fun and want to entertain the viewer. When a race lasts 90mins and the coverage 4+ hours, entertainment has to be paramount. Every member of the team work like pros.
Damon, Johnny and Lazenby, just do not cut it, by a very long way.
Don't like coulthard, so monotone and he's about as insightful as a brick. Brundel is far superior. Croft is just a bit of noise though.I think it could be the unseen people that make the difference. The SKY production seems haphazard. Verstappen's move at the start was, perhaps, the high point of the race yesterday and worthy of significant analysis, but I do not recall anything other than it being mentioned, in passing, because of the consequence on Vettel's race.
C4 seems to have a clear structure on how they are going to link, interviews from the pen and comment from the team. Lee McKenzie can summarise the race in a few words, whereas Ted's notebook seems like a lot of padding, for a few facts.
My worry is that Liberty will head down the SKY route for their premium service. A myriad of has beens, lots of data, but no comprehensible structure.
But the thing I like most about C4's production is the presenters. They seem like they are having fun and want to entertain the viewer. When a race lasts 90mins and the coverage 4+ hours, entertainment has to be paramount. Every member of the team work like pros.
Damon, Johnny and Lazenby, just do not cut it, by a very long way.
I also like that sky covers everything.
rdjohn said:
I think SKY is amateurish compared to C4. A lot of it is down to production standards. SKY always has to try and dumb it down.
Sky F1 coverage is really poor. The presenters spend most of the time chatting and laughing amongst themselves.
Often all they talk about is food.
C4 is much better as they take F1 and the program more seriously.
entropy said:
The joke when Sky first turned up was they had enough crew & equipment to run an F1 team. It's been toned down but still feels over-produced when essentially F1 coverage is relied upon FOM. For instance Skypad I find gimmicky and adds nothing extra to analysis.
Completely disagree, if you listen to what Paul Di Resta or Davidson are saying they pick up all sorts of thing from onboards that they show.ELUSIVEJIM said:
Liberty Media really need to get F1 on terrestrial TV.
The money lost will be gained back by attracting many more fans who are not prepared to pay for Sky F1.
Personally I started watching F1 due to it being on in the house. I am sure many more would be the same if they got the chance.
Not going to happen. LM want every penny out of F1 and more besides. They've talked about some sort of access for FTA TV, but it will be the bare minimum - highlights mid-week or something.The money lost will be gained back by attracting many more fans who are not prepared to pay for Sky F1.
Personally I started watching F1 due to it being on in the house. I am sure many more would be the same if they got the chance.
If anything I can see them restricting what Sky/whoever get, so that they can sell a premium streaming product.
rdjohn said:
I think it could be the unseen people that make the difference. The SKY production seems haphazard. Verstappen's move at the start was, perhaps, the high point of the race yesterday and worthy of significant analysis, but I do not recall anything other than it being mentioned, in passing, because of the consequence on Vettel's race.
Other than the instant comments from Brundle when it happened and the subsequent replays you mean ? it was featured plenty.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff