Discussion
Petrus1983 said:
Getting back to thing...
RK was 4 seconds off the pace today when the top 6 cars were separated by less than a second. Ignoring Stroll (because he’s s
t) the next slowest car was 1.7sec off the pace. So 17 drivers within 1.7 - then Williams. It’s truly awful.
You must have noticed that before now!? RK was 4 seconds off the pace today when the top 6 cars were separated by less than a second. Ignoring Stroll (because he’s s
t) the next slowest car was 1.7sec off the pace. So 17 drivers within 1.7 - then Williams. It’s truly awful. 
Yea... The cars a s
tter. Other than the obviously excellent PU, there is no F1 magic in the car. I expect any decent team of race engineers could make a car that meets the regs and can get round most tracks without a complete loss of control. All the magic, all the design and skill is in those extra 4 seconds of performance. Each extra tenth costing twice what the previous tenth cost to develop. It's a budget F1 car. Built simply in order to be 'in' F1 in order to keep the teams gargantuan bills paid.thegreenhell said:
tigerkoi said:
Is the view that with his lack of full arm movement, that Monaco would be a place that causes him most issues anyway?
He was less than a tenth off Russell, so I don't think that was an issue today.Four seconds...that’s not far until the 107% rule, I guess...
Maybe it’s as bad as The Deuce is saying: they just need to get a car on the grid for that compete money. Reminds me of that scene in Days of Thunder when Tom Cruise goes to see Rowdy before the brain surgery:
“I've got a lot of land and a lot of plans I ain't paid for. So to get my sponsor back, my car has to run good at Daytona. My car has to be in the top five, before my sponsors will pick up the tab for the year!”
tigerkoi said:
Thank you; caught up with the practice times now.
Four seconds...that’s not far until the 107% rule, I guess...
Maybe it’s as bad as The Deuce is saying: they just need to get a car on the grid for that compete money. Reminds me of that scene in Days of Thunder when Tom Cruise goes to see Rowdy before the brain surgery:
“I've got a lot of land and a lot of plans I ain't paid for. So to get my sponsor back, my car has to run good at Daytona. My car has to be in the top five, before my sponsors will pick up the tab for the year!”
I'm not even sure if what I'm saying is 'bad' from a Williams perspective. If they know they can't afford to be competitive in a season, then why bother spending any more than than the bare minimum on the car? Especially when you have a payroll of 750 people to honour.Four seconds...that’s not far until the 107% rule, I guess...
Maybe it’s as bad as The Deuce is saying: they just need to get a car on the grid for that compete money. Reminds me of that scene in Days of Thunder when Tom Cruise goes to see Rowdy before the brain surgery:
“I've got a lot of land and a lot of plans I ain't paid for. So to get my sponsor back, my car has to run good at Daytona. My car has to be in the top five, before my sponsors will pick up the tab for the year!”
It also enhances profitability - important when your company is floated on the stock market. If they had spent an extra £10m on the car, it wouldn't have been enough to make it meaningfully competitive, but it would have stretched the purse strings and wiped out profit.
I'm sure most people can understand the above, and why it makes some sense given Williams huge overheads. The problem comes in the fact they have to drag this cherade out at least until 2021. Naturally after one year running last sponsors ask questions, after two years sponsorship will become harder to achieve. After 3 years... The budget cap won't save them if they can't actually raise the money to meet the cap when other teams can. It will also surely be a problem that they still have a huge staff/facility and a tiny budget.
Other than stringing it out, it's very hard to see what their end goal is.
rallycross said:
Feels like the Williams fan boy bus has taken a wrong turn here - you could put any of the top 6 driver from this years championship and put them in the Williams and they are only ever going to be at the back of the grid.
No marketing director worth his job is going to burn up $10m plus advertising dollars on this farce - max 200,000 live viewers in the UK per race = total waste of your marketing budget.
Any marketing director will have lots of attribution models available to show him where the best value is for his $10m dollars and right now F1 is at the bottom of the league - and Williams is at the bottom of the bottom league.
No wonder they cant get a real sponsor.
https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/2019/05/20/spanish-grand-prix-sheds-viewers-year-on-year/ - Even the Spanish GP managed 4 times your claimed viewing figures...No marketing director worth his job is going to burn up $10m plus advertising dollars on this farce - max 200,000 live viewers in the UK per race = total waste of your marketing budget.
Any marketing director will have lots of attribution models available to show him where the best value is for his $10m dollars and right now F1 is at the bottom of the league - and Williams is at the bottom of the bottom league.
No wonder they cant get a real sponsor.
Just copying a chart deesee posted on another thread - it neatly illustrates where the Williams car loses speed.
As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
TheDeuce said:
Just copying a chart deesee posted on another thread - it neatly illustrates where the Williams car loses speed.
As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
I thought they were nearly matching the Mercedes straight line speed in Australia? As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
rscott said:
https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/2019/05/20/span... - Even the Spanish GP managed 4 times your claimed viewing figures...
Thanks for the link.I didn’t realise the Ch4 audience was so low now - 1.2 million.
It’s hard to find real figures but Sky F1 U.K. has around 220,000 paying subscribers to F1.
Hence them putting the show on Sky 1 this year.
https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/2019/05/20/span...
sgtBerbatov said:
TheDeuce said:
Just copying a chart deesee posted on another thread - it neatly illustrates where the Williams car loses speed.
As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
I thought they were nearly matching the Mercedes straight line speed in Australia? As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
1. They'll have a different aero package here
2. the key differentiator between Mercedes and Williams straight line speed in Monaco will be mid corner / exit speed from the corner which immediately proceeds the straight. The straights in Aus are long enough for both cars to approach their power vs. drag ultimate top speeds.
rallycross said:
rscott said:
https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/2019/05/20/span... - Even the Spanish GP managed 4 times your claimed viewing figures...
Thanks for the link.I didn’t realise the Ch4 audience was so low now - 1.2 million.
It’s hard to find real figures but Sky F1 U.K. has around 220,000 paying subscribers to F1.
Hence them putting the show on Sky 1 this year.
https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/2019/05/20/span...
The Spanish GP wasn't on Sky One, it had 800,000 viewers on Sky Sports F1.
Sky have over 12m customers in the UK, it's believed around 4m of those subscribe to Sky Sports and the vast majority of those subsribe to the full sports package.
Virgin have 4m customers, of which around 1/4 have Sky Sports (included in the total Sky figures above), so your 220,000 is utter rubbish.
sgtBerbatov said:
TheDeuce said:
Just copying a chart deesee posted on another thread - it neatly illustrates where the Williams car loses speed.
As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
I thought they were nearly matching the Mercedes straight line speed in Australia? As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
You need to look at the bottom..& there’s not a lot of difference in the rest of the races..
rscott said:
Er, what are you talking about?
Virgin have 4m customers, of which around 1/4 have Sky Sports (included in the total Sky figures above), so your 220,000 is utter rubbish.
Do some research before calling this out as rubbish there was approx 220,000 Sky F1 subscribers at the start of 2018; there are no new figures avaialble.Virgin have 4m customers, of which around 1/4 have Sky Sports (included in the total Sky figures above), so your 220,000 is utter rubbish.
HustleRussell said:
sgtBerbatov said:
TheDeuce said:
Just copying a chart deesee posted on another thread - it neatly illustrates where the Williams car loses speed.
As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
I thought they were nearly matching the Mercedes straight line speed in Australia? As you can see, they lose speed everywhere, which is in itself a little odd. There is normally a trade off between top speed and cornering speed, as illustrated by red bull and Ferrari. Then look at Williams.. managing to be appalling in corners and appalling in a straight line.
The cornering speed is expensive to get right, so it's hardly surprising they struggle. But with the Merc PU, their straight line pace is a little baffling. Could it be being held back by very crude, draggy aero perhaps? Turned down simply to increase its working life and save money? Who knows...
Anyway, it shows at a glance why they should end each race last. That car will not have any advantage at any kind of track.
1. They'll have a different aero package here
2. the key differentiator between Mercedes and Williams straight line speed in Monaco will be mid corner / exit speed from the corner which immediately proceeds the straight. The straights in Aus are long enough for both cars to approach their power vs. drag ultimate top speeds.
Your point is entirely valid, we could dig deeper into the accuracy of my initial fairly basic assessment, but it's not going to achieve anything because it's obvious that they have under performed in both areas. Normally when a team sacrifices straight/corner speed they sacrifice one in order to have a significant advantage in the other - such as red bull have done when they had the Renault engine (although now with honda they seem to have very respectable speed too). But Williams are crappest in the corners and not faster than anyone, on any track. They have truly achieved the worst of both worlds, which was my original point.
This is an aero era, and each season that becomes more and more crucial. They screwed the aero - because they don't spend nearly enough on their car, because the team is rediculously bloated.
rallycross said:
rscott said:
Er, what are you talking about?
Virgin have 4m customers, of which around 1/4 have Sky Sports (included in the total Sky figures above), so your 220,000 is utter rubbish.
Do some research before calling this out as rubbish there was approx 220,000 Sky F1 subscribers at the start of 2018; there are no new figures avaialble.Virgin have 4m customers, of which around 1/4 have Sky Sports (included in the total Sky figures above), so your 220,000 is utter rubbish.
And what's your source for the 220,000 figure?
Is 220,000 the number who have subscribed to the standalone F1 channel? On top of that there will be those with the full sports package, including F1, and other non-subscribers who watched the channel via Now TV and Virgin/BT (can't remember which has the reciprocal deal with Sky).
Edited by thegreenhell on Friday 24th May 13:51
thegreenhell said:
Is 220,000 the number who have subscribed to the standalone F1 channel? On top of that there will be those with the full sports package, including F1, and other non-subscribers who watched the channel via Now TV and Virgin/BT (can't remember which has the reciprocal deal with Sky).
Could be - if it's from 2018, it's more likely to be the number of customers who get it "free "as part of the old legacy HD pack.Edited by thegreenhell on Friday 24th May 13:51
I dont want to side track this good thread is about Williams I might start a new thread.
That figure of 220k was people who pay for Sky F1, does not include people buying weekend or month passes from Sky via My TV, the old legacy 'inclusive' F1 with Sky Sport package - those old contracts are mostly gone now. The info came from one of Joe Saward's articles.
That figure of 220k was people who pay for Sky F1, does not include people buying weekend or month passes from Sky via My TV, the old legacy 'inclusive' F1 with Sky Sport package - those old contracts are mostly gone now. The info came from one of Joe Saward's articles.
rallycross said:
I dont want to side track this good thread is about Williams I might start a new thread.
That figure of 220k was people who pay for Sky F1, does not include people buying weekend or month passes from Sky via My TV, the old legacy 'inclusive' F1 with Sky Sport package - those old contracts are mostly gone now. The info came from one of Joe Saward's articles.
The trouble is, you're both arguing a battle that cannot be won. The official UK figures include other channels such as highlights on C4 and YouTube etc. Also if shown on sky 1. It's impossible to say outright how many individuals actually watched the race.That figure of 220k was people who pay for Sky F1, does not include people buying weekend or month passes from Sky via My TV, the old legacy 'inclusive' F1 with Sky Sport package - those old contracts are mostly gone now. The info came from one of Joe Saward's articles.
All you can do, is track the trends in the overall 'viewing' figures year on year. If the overall trend is upward, then there it is likely that the number of sky F1 subscribers has increased. It's all just guesstimating though.
My opinion is that F1 popularity is overall increasing, and although the paywall of sky pissed a lot of people off, bit by bit many are probably giving up and paying. It won't ever be as widely watched as when it was 'free'. The stands at each race fill up now though, so the desire to watch is at least as strong as it ever was.
TheDeuce said:
rallycross said:
I dont want to side track this good thread is about Williams I might start a new thread.
That figure of 220k was people who pay for Sky F1, does not include people buying weekend or month passes from Sky via My TV, the old legacy 'inclusive' F1 with Sky Sport package - those old contracts are mostly gone now. The info came from one of Joe Saward's articles.
The trouble is, you're both arguing a battle that cannot be won. The official UK figures include other channels such as highlights on C4 and YouTube etc. Also if shown on sky 1. It's impossible to say outright how many individuals actually watched the race.That figure of 220k was people who pay for Sky F1, does not include people buying weekend or month passes from Sky via My TV, the old legacy 'inclusive' F1 with Sky Sport package - those old contracts are mostly gone now. The info came from one of Joe Saward's articles.
All you can do, is track the trends in the overall 'viewing' figures year on year. If the overall trend is upward, then there it is likely that the number of sky F1 subscribers has increased. It's all just guesstimating though.
My opinion is that F1 popularity is overall increasing, and although the paywall of sky pissed a lot of people off, bit by bit many are probably giving up and paying. It won't ever be as widely watched as when it was 'free'. The stands at each race fill up now though, so the desire to watch is at least as strong as it ever was.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff