Agree with that AG, cricket would be a better comparison I think. Between Sky taking cricket off free-to-air in 2005, until the recent revival through the T20 format, cricket really took a hammering. TV audiences quartered, and grassroots participation dropped. Granted 2005 was a peak in terms of the England cricket team's performances, but TV figures were higher when England did poorly before than after the change.
Hamilton is winning at the moment and like him or loathe him I think it's fair to say that the majority of the UK viewing public wants to see him win. So in theory F1 should be in a good place for viewers at least at the moment. This won't last for ever, and although closer racing will excite core fans, the fringe fans will have less interest if the local lad isn't winning. The majority of people who I know and are my age own houses now, but I think only one has Sky. We pretty much all have Netflix as it is deemed to be "acceptably priced" for something you could just as easily download. Sky on the other hand is not, I can only think of a couple of things that I've watched that has been on TV lately. Just as Sky sort of replaced terrestrial TV by having so much choice, the internet is replacing sky. I'm a hypocrite of sorts, I have sky broadband, but because its well priced and reliable. This is what is comes down to in the end, people will pay for something if it's worth it, otherwise they'll simply find other means. Sky sports is worth it if you are a huge football fan, but if you're only after F1 it is not. I know this, F1 knows this, Sky surely knows this. Which is why none of this makes sense to me. The argument is Sky got this deal to stop BT getting it, but for what? Now sky have a huge loss making program to fund until 2024 leaving BT with even more money to outbid Sky for things people will actually pay to watch. Madness!
I can't wait to here what this "new, new" format proposed is. There's rumours it involves averaging lap times.
that idea actually has some merit if it's your 2 fastest laps, it would mean most cars would be on track at least twice per session. Was it a fan suggestion? Something has to change soon, the only reticence I can perceive is that Todt and Bernie think if they go back to 2015 then 1 team will veto any attempt to change it again. the 'obvious' solution is to give them an extra set of tyres each session to burn, 'use 'em or lose 'em.'
Average times could be good. For example at Barhain lap time about 90 sec+. So out lap + hot lap + in lap = 4.5min. So in 15min there isn't really time to get 3 hot runs in unless they do more than 1 hot laps per run. Mix that in with trying to find track space and mistakes. I can see it very easily causing cars to be out of position. Do I like it NO..... I liked the 'old' 2015 quali format. It built tension and drivers did make mistakes on occasions. The problem is not quali it's lack of close racing on track. Reduce aero increase mechanical.
What you need is a qualy tyre that is consistent and low deg. Close the pit lane so they have to keep putting laps in. And then have a top 5 shootout with no knockout
They should bring a dartboard and just have a round of nearest the bull to decide the starting order. The only problem with nearest the bull is that Bernie will always be on pole.
I am a little confused!!!! I was under the impression that Formula One Management was responsible for promotion, tv images, track contracts etc, FIA are responsible for regulations. The way I understood it was that the 'commercial' aspect of the sport was leased by Bernie and Co in 2000 ($360million - $60mil upfront then $3mil a year) by the FIA. I thought some of the reason for this was the EU thought regulation and commercial aspects were a conflict of interest for FIA. Then in 2013 the Strategy Group were created by Bernie. Consisting of 18 votes (Bernie & Co:6, FIA:6, Teams:6). I understood this group to be responsible for the discussion and planning of future Formula One rules. So firstly the inability for Bernie and FIA to get rules they want is purely Bernies&Co's doing. Secondly now the FIA and FOM have a conflict of interest that the EU previously had issues with? So fundamentally Bernie & Co gave the Teams (well some of them) a say in the rules and now he doesn't like it as they wont do what he wants. His response is to give them 2 choices, one he wants and a very bad one that there is no way they would accept! So they have to choose the one he wants. The sooner the EU look at FI complaint the better. Mind you Bernie will probably be able to buy the decision just as he did with the alleged 'bribery case'. Oh what a mess............... Sorry for the long post. Please please correct me if I have something wrong, I am happy to learn.
Sounds about right and as you say there is a huge conflict of interests with differing agendas. In relation to the team votes, my understanding is it is purely that a vote. So Bernie & Co can announce and design any ideas, but the team has little or no input into this process which effectively makes the vote a token gesture, or pointless.
That's why we ended up with the same qualifying format in Bahrain. The teams were allowed to vote on whether to keep the same format, or to alter it with a 2015 style Q3. The teams voted for the unchanged format, hoping to force Todt to suggest a second vote on the 2015 or 2016 format, but that never materialised.
The issue is what is proposed on their behalf to vote on. No point voting on the strength of your tea if you want coffee.
So here we go, tea or coffee? The teams are Unaminous on returning to the original format, but we know that this option is not being put to a vote and an alternative unwanted option is on the table.
I would like to think that a big showdown is imminent and things may come to ahead re the governance of the sport in general. But I have thought this before and it always comes to nothing.
I think the teams should continue to block any changes, but I would imagine at some point a decision can be made without them?
IF, and I use the word IF, the teams were that bothered they could all refuse to run on Saturday in protest and line up on Sunday based on the results from the last grand prix. There has to be a desire for change that shows some passion and unity otherwise nothing will happen. Why not go back to the old, old format? 22 cars on track for 60mins vying for some space and a chance to put in a hot lap or two. Only rule is every driver has to have to put in a banker in the first 15mins subject to weather conditions.