Brakes to help overtaking
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
TheDeuce said:
There are plenty of other forms of motorsport for average Joe. I have to agree, F1 has become increasingly technical, at the cost of on track action. But the inescapable fact is that the grandstands are filling up and 350 million people are watching at home.
I enjoy the technical side of the sport very much, and the off-track drama and development stories. And although rare, there is still action on track to enjoy, just not every race.
Are spectator numbers going up or down?I enjoy the technical side of the sport very much, and the off-track drama and development stories. And although rare, there is still action on track to enjoy, just not every race.
Do we have honest and believable figures from circuit owners and TV companies?
25 years ago Bernie was bandying around total figures that were way higher than 350 million.
Is F1 popular because of the great racing, the amount of media coverage it has or the celebrity status of the drivers. To me it's a mixture of 2 and 3 with 1 having very little to do with it. We all know there is much more exciting racing to watch out there but it doesn't get the media attention so the average joe doesn't even know it exists.
Eric Mc said:
I honestly can't see how they can be measured over so many countries.
It's F1 own media report that released those figures two years ago so I expect they know how to measure it. It's a critical factor in the advertising and marketing of any global business.They're actually reporting a rise in viewing now but there's some controversy in the way they are counting digital views plus a big chunk of that was in China where F1 has gone back to a free to view platform.
Viewing figures are a complex business as cumulative figures are often quoted which, IMO, are not what the average person would think of as viewing figures as they count people watching over an extended period not just on the day of the broadcast.
I think we can be pretty sure that in established markets, certainly those that have moved to pay per view, there has been a fall in viewing. I haven't watched an F1 race in 2 years and many of my motorsport friends are the same so I expect the fall in casual viewers must be pretty big if people actually interested in car racing have stopped watching.
Eric Mc said:
I honestly can't see how they can be measured over so many countries.
A lot will be guesstimated by the individual networks around the world. F1 is licensed to each network that shows it, I imagine the viewership for each is reported as accurately as possible - otherwise they wouldn't be able to gauge the value of the F1 content they're paying for, or negotiate costs."350m" is a nice round number, it probably is inaccurate by several million of course..
The 350 figure came from Martin Brundle's latest rant about the state of the sport. I'd say he's not given to throwing numbers around unless he has some faith in them personally. I think it's as accurate a figure as we can ever expect to get.
Kraken said:
It's F1 own media report that released those figures two years ago so I expect they know how to measure it. It's a critical factor in the advertising and marketing of any global business.
They're actually reporting a rise in viewing now but there's some controversy in the way they are counting digital views plus a big chunk of that was in China where F1 has gone back to a free to view platform.
Viewing figures are a complex business as cumulative figures are often quoted which, IMO, are not what the average person would think of as viewing figures as they count people watching over an extended period not just on the day of the broadcast.
I think we can be pretty sure that in established markets, certainly those that have moved to pay per view, there has been a fall in viewing. I haven't watched an F1 race in 2 years and many of my motorsport friends are the same so I expect the fall in casual viewers must be pretty big if people actually interested in car racing have stopped watching.
It's true, there are factors such as China, and of course the ever increasing paywalls. It's the same with any global show - the headline figure is probably not entirely accurate, but as it's calculated the same way overall, then it is possible to spot and upward or downward trend. It appears to be a slight upward movement at present. Which would tally with the upward movement of attendance figures.They're actually reporting a rise in viewing now but there's some controversy in the way they are counting digital views plus a big chunk of that was in China where F1 has gone back to a free to view platform.
Viewing figures are a complex business as cumulative figures are often quoted which, IMO, are not what the average person would think of as viewing figures as they count people watching over an extended period not just on the day of the broadcast.
I think we can be pretty sure that in established markets, certainly those that have moved to pay per view, there has been a fall in viewing. I haven't watched an F1 race in 2 years and many of my motorsport friends are the same so I expect the fall in casual viewers must be pretty big if people actually interested in car racing have stopped watching.
To be fair, the fact the number hasn't sharply decreased over the past few years is pretty impressive, given the increase of paywalls.
Eric Mc said:
The next question - is it growing or declining. Brundle seemed awfully pessimistic - and you can't get more inside F1 than him.
Brundle quoted Liberty's figures, and at that time, within the last year I think, their press release stated it was growing.Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 16th May 12:12
TheDeuce said:
Brundle quoted Liberty's figures, and at that time, within the last year I think, their press release stated it was growing.
Would they say anything else?Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 16th May 12:12
For over a decade F1 has sought new markets - so their claims for growth has been by trying to add in "new terretories" as older markets turned away due to being treated so poorly (the old "abuse of loyalty" trick - so beloved of modern business). I've always thought that this type of policy was short sighted.
Eric Mc said:
TheDeuce said:
Brundle quoted Liberty's figures, and at that time, within the last year I think, their press release stated it was growing.
Would they say anything else?Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 16th May 12:12
For over a decade F1 has sought new markets - so their claims for growth has been by trying to add in "new terretories" as older markets turned away due to being treated so poorly (the old "abuse of loyalty" trick - so beloved of modern business). I've always thought that this type of policy was short sighted.
I don't think they would outright lie about the figures in today's world. The upset would be huge and would represent a breaking of the agreements they have with various networks around the world that pay for the rights to broadcast it. Those figures are what they sell, so while a cynic would imagine it might be tempting to 'enhance' the figures, I think in reality it would be just too risky.
TheDeuce said:
The point about new territories is fair enough. And in fairness to Liberty, new viewers/territories are valid. The sport obviously is judged as popular/interesting enough to justify those new territories taking it on.
I don't think they would outright lie about the figures in today's world. The upset would be huge and would represent a breaking of the agreements they have with various networks around the world that pay for the rights to broadcast it. Those figures are what they sell, so while a cynic would imagine it might be tempting to 'enhance' the figures, I think in reality it would be just too risky.
Didn't stop Bernie.I don't think they would outright lie about the figures in today's world. The upset would be huge and would represent a breaking of the agreements they have with various networks around the world that pay for the rights to broadcast it. Those figures are what they sell, so while a cynic would imagine it might be tempting to 'enhance' the figures, I think in reality it would be just too risky.
TheDeuce said:
Eric Mc said:
Didn't stop Bernie.
Back in the day, different times, different attitudes to what is acceptable. Not sure there was ever an outright lie, or just the fact he presented the numbers in a very disingenuous manner.I'm wondering how long they will stick with it.
Eric Mc said:
I honestly can't see how they can be measured over so many countries.
I can tell you that. And the means may explain something else.Satellite and Cable providers know exactly who is watching what, when, in what room in the house, for how long and whether live or on catch up. This information is fed back to the operators via the phone line. Some providers such as Sky lease feed to other operators in different regions. For example, the Sky F1 feed is also available on BeIN across most of the Middle East. They gather viewer data in the same way and are and required to pass that data back to the originating company who in turn pass it back to F1.
For terrestrial broadcasters, they gather data in the traditional way via smart black box behaviour recorders and market research which provide surprisingly accurate figures. Part of the broadcast rights agreement is to provide F1 with the data that pertains to F1.
In the days of Bernie, F1 used some creative interpretation of 'viewing' figures. If the 6 o'clock news ran a piece on F1, that would count towards total viewing figures but that's very different to someone watching an entire race...who would have been counted as 2 viewers if the same person had also seen the news. In fairness to Bernie, this sort of manipulation wasn't and still isn't uncommon in the advertising industry. It's not lying as such, more 'embellished' - if ten people see one advert, the 'reach' is said to be 10. If those 10 people then see the ad a total of 10 times, the impact figure is said to be 100. Which is the more attractive to potential advertisers?
In any case, marketing is less about mass-market these days. There's a greater premium to be had in targeting a more precisely defined audience with a specific offer than hoping to hit your market amongst others. Think back to the 90s. How many people watching F1 then smoked? 25%? maybe. That's 75% of Rothman's et-al budgets technically wasted. This was less of an issue then as the sponsorship budget were proportional less - Rothaman's deal with Williams was around £8m IIRC. Digital broadcasters today are able to pinpoint exactly who's watching and what their demographics are. So using the 90s example, it would be possible to display advertising only to those who smoked. This is why today, absolute viewing numbers are not as important as 'who' is viewing.
The flip side is that, for people like you Eric who I know to be in the anti-Murdoch camp are denied access to something that they are interested in and it also restricts younger viewers from gaining an interest in the sport. This is why Formula E is gathering a fair level of support because they are going for mass-market.
Eric Mc said:
Mass market is important - so denying access to something is hardly condusive to growth.
For what it's worth, Liberty have criticised the Sky deal themselves - it was signed just before they took over.I think they would rather people paid them directly via the F1tv app/service. They would probably welcome C4 showing a few more races live and in full too, as a way for people to get into the sport for free, and hopefully then move on to paying for F1tv to see the whole season. As it is, they can't do any of those things due to the Sky deal. Which runs for another 5 years
It's indeed a shame, as there is no real way of getting new generations in to the sport in the UK. I know C4 still have an F1 show, but it's heavily compromised by the Sky agreement. It's not ideal. It must be as frustrating for Liberty as it is for the rest of us...
F1tv is far cheaper than Sky. It's the equivalent of about £50 a year to watch each race live, and on demand, including the archive of previous races. It's a pretty reasonable price imo. We just can't use the service to watch live in the UK, not for at least 5 more seasons.
Anyway, back to the question at hand...
cb1965 said:
If they all have to brake at the 100m board instead of the 50m board it won't make any difference.
Longer braking distances will always increase overtaking opportunities. If one car is 5m behind another and the braking distance is 50m then it needs a 10% gain over the other car to draw level on the brakes. If the braking distance is 100m then it only needs to gain 5%. thegreenhell said:
Longer braking distances will always increase overtaking opportunities. If one car is 5m behind another and the braking distance is 50m then it needs a 10% gain over the other car to draw level on the brakes. If the braking distance is 100m then it only needs to gain 5%.
I would have thought that a longer braking distance (as would be forced with weaker brakes), there is less opportunity to get ahead past another car, as both drivers are less likely to brake badly. Currently, slamming on the anchors at the last possible moment is an art some drivers are better at than others.Longer braking distances would also greatly reduce the likelihood of locking up the wheels - which itself is often a factor in who wins the corner under braking.
Eric Mc said:
Mass market is important - so denying access to something is hardly condusive to growth.
It really isn't as important as it once was.If you sell a consumer product, then the chances are it targets a very specific group of people. In the past, you had to advertise to many not in your target group in order to reach those that were. Today, it is possible to narrow the focus down far more precisely which means you either have more money to spend on advertising or able to spend less but achieve the same outcomes than before.
At the moment, F1 is dependant upon commercial sponsorship and those companies that put money into the sport, be they manufacturers or brand sponsors, apply the same logic; choosing to do so because over the past 15 years or so, those that follow F1 with greatest regularity are those that exist with a demographic group that includes definitions along the lines of "affluent, above average income, aspirational, socially mobile" and similar. This is why brands like TAG, Rolex and Mercedes dominate and not Timex, ASDA or Kia. Those sort of brands do appear in NASACR because that appeals to a demographic group lower down the socio-economic scale.
I'm not for one moment suggesting this all good for F1. There are significant risks associated with creating an elite sport that relies heavily on market appeal. Without access to it, it will be difficult for new fans and followers to become fans and followers in the first place.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff