Motorsport Off Topic Thread

Has there ever been an F1 era where fastest race laps were anywhere near qualifying pace? F1 has never, ever, been a flat out sprint to the finish. This mentality of if now somehow being 'broken' because drivers have to manage something has become the new bandwagon to jump on for people with selective memories.

No era, nope. In fact only three races immediately spring to mind where there's been obvious true ball-to-the-wall driving for numerous laps.

One of them was obviously Fangio's famous drive to catch the Ferrari's of Collins & Hawthorn at the Nurburgring in 1957 after a planned pitstop didn't work out as well as intended. The others being Mansell's drive through gritted teeth to catch Piquet at Silverstone in 1987 and then Schumacher's qualifying laps at Spa to gain a pitstop's advantage over the McLarens at the Hungaroring (which is probably the best 30 minutes of driving I'll ever witness in my lifetime... even when you take into account his off - it was mesmerising stuff, and I was far from a Schumacher fan).

There'll be others throughout time and opinion will vary, but those were the most defining drives for me, where you could see how hard the drivers were pushing lap after lap (obviously Fangio's race was a bit before my time, so I'll trust the words of those who did witness it).
 
Yeah there have been moments where drivers have gone flat out, but its never been consistently the way to win. F1 races have always been long, so managing things to make sure you get to the end has always been a part if it.

Who was it that said that you want to win the race by driving as slowly as possible?
 
Not sure what your point is. I'm a right-winger in favour of free market economics, however even I can see from a long way off that FOM are greedy. Ticket prices are extortionate because the circuits have to pay FOM a fortune to "organise" a race. The only way to recoup the money is extortionate ticket prices as all the media rights reverted to FOM and are increasingly auctioned off to pay TV providers.

The prize pools can't be well structured or of sufficient quantity if the bottom half of the grid can't make the books balance.

But if people are queueing up to host races at the high prices, and TV channels are prepared to pay high fees, what are FOM supposed to do? There is no sentimentality or morality in business, FOM will go to those willing to pay.

If they didn't and instead stuck with the free to air broadcasters and let all the tracks host the races for small fees, there would be less money to go around too. Surely the best way to get more money for the teams is to allow FOM to make as much money as possible. FOM being greedy is a benefit to the teams!
 
Yeah there have been moments where drivers have gone flat out, but its never been consistently the way to win. F1 races have always been long, so managing things to make sure you get to the end has always been a part if it.

Who was it that said that you want to win the race by driving as slowly as possible?

Fangio.
 
Ticket prices are a silly argument really. If tomorrow Bernie started paying tracks to host F1 rather than other way around, do people really think the tracks who were say charging £200 for a weekend ticket(I have no idea what the average price of a ticket is tbh), would suddenly turn around and ask for £50.... the real world says no. They'd charge £200 and pocket all the profits. Though there would be less money in the F1 pockets and team money would go down across the board. In the same way tracks wouldn't charge less, Bernie wouldn't take less profits.

A big engine change to boring engines is stupid. Sound isn't an issue, people get used to things and most people don't like change, but 10 years of extremely efficient turbos where rather than huge sound we get huge efficiency and people will be used to that, again that is just how life goes.

I'm not against increasing power but people need to accept cars won't get massively faster every year for ever, or even ever again. They got up to what were dangerous speeds in F1... then they backed off a little and will stay there because that is what is safe. We could have cars with 1500bhp that can go 100mph more down a straight using huge fuel and with ground effect... but crashes would become lethal again regardless of safety measures.

Outright speed isn't likely to happen again, though I think bringing race pace closer to qualifying pace is something that should happen. One issue is the allowed amount of energy dumped from the battery vs stored. Current rules mean qualifying will have a huge advantage on the race. 100kg fuel make, tires and the 4MJ out but only 2MJ in per lap rules for the kers means currently race pace can't come close to qualifying pace.

That is where rule tweaks should happen, have 120kg(average) fuel per race, maybe up fuel flow rate to 110-120kg/h, though not strictly necessary. if you up fuel flow and fuel amount by roughly the same amount then you get the same situation as now, can push hard but not all the time. So probably up total fuel a bit more than fuel flow rate, let them push a bit harder but for a much higher portion of the race. Then we'd need tires that could last a lot longer at higher speeds.

The fuel also needs to be adjusted per track. It's ridiculous to have 100kg limit when different tracks have different usage. One track effectively needs 90kg and another might want 110kg so we have good racing at one track and everyone crawling to save fuel at another. It's SO easy to make that more even by changing the actual fuel amount per track by 5-10% either way that it's insane not to do that.
 
But if people are queueing up to host races at the high prices, and TV channels are prepared to pay high fees, what are FOM supposed to do? There is no sentimentality or morality in business, FOM will go to those willing to pay.

If they didn't and instead stuck with the free to air broadcasters and let all the tracks host the races for small fees, there would be less money to go around too. Surely the best way to get more money for the teams is to allow FOM to make as much money as possible. FOM being greedy is a benefit to the teams!

Business or Sport? Once business takes over the sport suffers. I'm sure the numbers look lovely on the Excel spreadsheet. Meanwhile the sport ends up at souless Tilke tracks in the middle of nowhere in places like Bahrain, Korea, India (need I go on) and the much touted next .... Azerbaijan. No doubt funded by government keen to get noticed for something other than human rights abuses or excruciating poverty. By all means call me old fashioned and sentimental, however I'd prefer we had a European race at a proper track.

I'm getting to the point where I'm not willing to pay. If my current lack of interest in F1 continues then Sky will bite the dust.

Now, where's Donington ... there's some BTCC on, it's a very reasonable price for cracking all-access racing and there 8 hours of coverage on FTA terrestrial TV. I hear the circuit might even have filled some of the scars on the landscape Bernie left all over the place during his last political spat with the BRDC. ;)
 
Ticket prices are a silly argument really. If tomorrow Bernie started paying tracks to host F1 rather than other way around, do people really think the tracks who were say charging £200 for a weekend ticket(I have no idea what the average price of a ticket is tbh), would suddenly turn around and ask for £50.... the real world says no. They'd charge £200 and pocket all the profits. Though there would be less money in the F1 pockets and team money would go down across the board. In the same way tracks wouldn't charge less, Bernie wouldn't take less profits.

It's not a silly argument at all. It's lost the sport the German GP this year because they can't cover the costs of the FOM fees with tickets.

I went to the French GP in '03. Cost me less to fly from Scotland to France, kip on my mates couch and get a ticket with a grandstand seat, than to get a general entrance ticket to Silverstone for the same year. Someone was picking up the tab with FOM so the circuit could sell sensibly priced tickets.

As for the rest of your wall of text, I ain't got the inclination to read it.
 
To be fair though all sport is business, BTCC is a niche national motorsport series and is priced accordingly, if it all of sudden became a massive sport in the UK don't believe for a second they wouldn't sell the rights to Sky and make tickets £100 on raceday themselves.

It's supply and demand, sports charge however much they think they can get away with. If people didn't pay the prices they wouldn't charge them.
 
It's not a silly argument at all. It's lost the sport the German GP this year because they can't cover the costs of the FOM fees with tickets.

I went to the French GP in '03. Cost me less to fly from Scotland to France, kip on my mates couch and get a ticket with a grandstand seat, than to get a general entrance ticket to Silverstone for the same year. Someone was picking up the tab with FOM so the circuit could sell sensibly priced tickets.

As for the rest of your wall of text, I ain't got the inclination to read it.

Good for you, you didn't want to read what I said but also couldn't understand something basic and ignored what I said.

The ticket prices did NOT lose F1 the German GP this year. The fee Bernie wanted did, and the GP's bad management AND that wasn't the argument I made.

If people would be willing to pay £200 a ticket, then the track won't charge less than £200 a ticket. You're entirely not understanding the issue.

If people are buying £200 tickets and they are selling enough to make £10mil, but Bernie wants £5mil to go there and the rest of the costs for staff, policing, other works will cost 5mil then they find little incentive to put the race on. If you remove the £5mil F1 fee they stand to make a £5mil profit and they want to throw the race.... where do ticket prices drop? If Bernie removed his fee then they already know they can make a £5mil profit, they will NOT drop prices, they will just make more profit.

Dropping the F1 fee, lowering it, removing it entirely, actively paying the track instead... none of that effects the ticket pricing. Number of people vs price they will pay vs max income is what dictates ticket price and is ENTIRELY independent of anything else. The track will decide price on the basis of for instance, they think 30k people will come at £200, 50k people will come at £100, 10k people will come at £300... £200 becomes the most profitable price. Every race could stuff a million people around the track if they charge £5... it's just not feasible. No event is looking for the maximum number of people to watch, they are looking for the maximum income, nothing more or less. As is Bernie with TV, he couldn't care less of a billion or a million people watch, if a million people brings in more money it's better for the sport.

Ticket prices for EVERY sport are expensive. It costs me £5 to get to Arsenal but £60 for a ticket. There is one German GP, there are thousands of flights, buses, trains, cars to get to Germany. Comparing travel prices to ticket prices for events is completely pointless, one isn't related to another.
 
Last edited:
Multi venue races? That sounds like one of Bernie's hairbrained schemes!

I was referring to two different races and got my edit wrong. :D

I thought of another one earlier - Hakkinen catching Schumacher at Spa in 1999 was it?



It was attributed to Fangio, but there's no record of him saying it. Stirling Moss did.
 
I went to the French GP in '03. Cost me less to fly from Scotland to France, kip on my mates couch and get a ticket with a grandstand seat, than to get a general entrance ticket to Silverstone for the same year. Someone was picking up the tab with FOM so the circuit could sell sensibly priced tickets.

Indeed. A colleague is going to Spa this year the tickets, travel and accomodation is costing about the same as the tickets alone for Silverstone.

To be fair though all sport is business, BTCC is a niche national motorsport series and is priced accordingly, if it all of sudden became a massive sport in the UK don't believe for a second they wouldn't sell the rights to Sky and make tickets £100 on raceday themselves.

£100 would still be a bargain compared to F1.

How about the WEC 6 hours of Silverstone last weekend? Tickets cost a tenth of those for the F1 and with far better access to the pits/paddock and four times as much racing. Not exactly a "niche national motorsport" is it? Ok so it's not as "big" as F1 but F1's prices are totally disproportionate and circuits are unable to lower them because of the ludicrous fees they have to pay Bernie.
 
It seems very odd to me that a circuit has to meet certain certain standards to be able to race F1 cars, presumably met by the track owners, who then have to pay Bernie (F1) for the privilege of having the "circus" use the track facilities for a racing weekend.

Shouldn't F1 be paying the circuits to have somewhere to race?

Then maybe F1 gets a percentage of the ticket sale revenue?
 
It seems very odd to me that a circuit has to meet certain certain standards to be able to race F1 cars, presumably met by the track owners, who then have to pay Bernie (F1) for the privilege of having the "circus" use the track facilities for a racing weekend.

Shouldn't F1 be paying the circuits to have somewhere to race?

Then maybe F1 gets a percentage of the ticket sale revenue?

Nascar circuits get a percentage of TV revenue and keep the trackside sponsorship. It also has very few pay drivers, but that isn't surprising. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom