Motorsport Off Topic Thread

That was obviously the long term plan with the BBCs shared deal, so hardly surprising.

And why would F1 care about UK audiences? Were a developed market and account for only about 1% of the F1 TV audience. Pay TV can provide far more income from a much smaller audience too, and people are always saying they want the teams to have more money. While global TV numbers may be dropping, the FOM prize pool (formed quite heavily from TV revenue) is larger than its ever been.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
That was obviously the long term plan with the BBCs shared deal, so hardly surprising.
Click to expand...

Sure. The speed at which the plan appears to be gathering pace is a slight surprise though - if the plan was always to drop the live broadcasts this soon, then they probably shouldn't have made the contract with Bernie quite so long since he'll give them quite a lot of pain in breaking it :p
 
Oh, and a statistic that may surprise a few people on here who subscribe to the view that the Red Bull cars utterly dominated F1 in the years that Vettel was winning:

F1 Fanatic said:
Comment of the day

Another surprising statistic about Vettel’s season:

Vettel has also scored more podiums this year than in 2010 and 2012 respectively.
@yobo01
Click to expand...

;)
 
JRS said:
Some noise being made that the Beeb will have to drop live F1 entirely to save money. Hopefully it's true, because their coverage for a while now has been fairly terrible.

It's a shame that the British fanbase for F1 doesn't matter at all to TPTB, otherwise live F1 going entirely behind a paywall in this country might actually be something that would shock them into sorting the sport out.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised really, if they still do a highlights show that would be ok, means I won't have to sit and watch a boring full race.

F1 needs an injection of new life.
 
The BBC coverage is fine if you've missed the race, forgot to record it and want to catch up on the whole thing via iPlayer.

Given the choice between Sky and BBC there's no question. Then again I watch grid walk, race, podium and turn it off so.... :p
 
Yeah for the Sky races I've resorted to just listening to them on the radio, then if it's a good race I'll watch it in full later, or if it's a bad race I'll just watch the highlights.

JRS, to be fair to the BBC, Sky's coverage has also been dire in the last 12 months or so. The number of good features on both channels in that time can be counted on one hand and the pundits are absolutely shocking on both sides, from the dirge of all of Sky's pundits to, well, Eddie Jordan.
 
this_is_gav said:
JRS, to be fair to the BBC, Sky's coverage has also been dire in the last 12 months or so. The number of good features on both channels in that time can be counted on one hand and the pundits are absolutely shocking on both sides, from the dirge of all of Sky's pundits to, well, Eddie Jordan.
Click to expand...

Thing is, I expected the Sky coverage to be dire when they first got the contract. The BBC coverage had been better, now it isn't. And that's annoying. I don't think the option is there any more on Freeview, but when you could get the R5L commentary over the BBC TV feed on red button it was a bit better.

As it stands, UK viewers are given the choice between Lewisterical (honestly, the bias is getting ridiculous) but vaguely* competent coverage on Sky or less biased but spectacularly useless coverage on the BBC. Not good :o



* - well....maybe not even that competent. But at least the commentary box pairing is better.
 
JRS said:
Sure. The speed at which the plan appears to be gathering pace is a slight surprise though - if the plan was always to drop the live broadcasts this soon, then they probably shouldn't have made the contract with Bernie quite so long since he'll give them quite a lot of pain in breaking it :p
Click to expand...

The BBC broke the contract they had to get into this one. So long as someone pays Bernie something, he will let them do whatever.

In terms of coverage, Sky do have some decent features and decent relationships (Brundle drove this years Mercedes in the pouring rain, so Sky are clearly regarded quite highly within the paddock. Only 4 people have driven that car, Hamilton, Rosberg, Werhlien and Brundle), but ultimately the wrapper on both channels is pants.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
The BBC broke the contract they had to get into this one.
Click to expand...

Kinda my point there. He let them off the hook once, might not the second time around. And to be honest, he shouldn't - and should sue if they refuse to pay off the contract. After all, enough people think he genuinely is The Almighty Satanic Evil™ so he might as well actually act like it :p
 
teknokid said:
I can't think many of the teams will be happy with a reduced UK audience, considering 90% of the teams are UK based..
Click to expand...

I honestly can't see them caring as long as the sponsors are happy with the return. Why do you think they don't scream murder when Bernie keeps creating races in 'wherethehellarewethisweekistan'? Sponsor pressure to move into new markets rather than keeping races in already mature markets.
 
teknokid said:
I can't think many of the teams will be happy with a reduced UK audience, considering 90% of the teams are UK based..
Click to expand...

They won't give a monkies. China had a blip in viewer figures that accounted for more people than the entire UK audience.

Teams are based here because the skills are here, not because the UK audience is of any importance to them at all.
 
Skeeter said:
They won't give a monkies. China had a blip in viewer figures that accounted for more people than the entire UK audience.

Teams are based here because the skills are here, not because the UK audience is of any importance to them at all.
Click to expand...

Without a decent audience for f1, there'll be a lot less youngsters that get inspired to study engineering - making the pool of talent for f1 teams even smaller..
 
BBC dropping live just about kills it for me.
Huge fan of F1 but I am not going to buy Sky purely for F1, which I used to do. Its just too expensive for 4 hours every 2 weeks.
Annoying as it is now, watching some races on BBC non live was not the end of the world, as it was generally the less appealing races. However seeing it all in highlights for the whole season is just not the same :(
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
BBC dropping live just about kills it for me.
Huge fan of F1 but I am not going to buy Sky purely for F1, which I used to do. Its just too expensive for 4 hours every 2 weeks.
Annoying as it is now, watching some races on BBC non live was not the end of the world, as it was generally the less appealing races. However seeing it all in highlights for the whole season is just not the same :(
Click to expand...

Now tv? That's what I use for my sport, it's not the cheapest but at least I can pick and choose when I'm going to pay for it. Then again I do watch a lot of sport so I can justify it to myself more easily than if I only watched F1.
 
Shock...

F1 Commission votes against budget engine idea

The Formula 1 Commission has voted not to pursue the idea of an alternative budget engine at this stage, according to governing body the FIA.

The cost of a customer supply, believed to be in the region of 20million euros, has been a cause of concern since the new 1.6-litre V6 engines were introduced at the start of 2014.

Since Ferrari vetoed plans last month to cut the cost of customer engine deals from around 20million euros to 12million euros, the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone proposed a cheaper alternative, with performance equivalence to ensure a level playing field.

Earlier this month, the FIA asked for expressions of interest to supply a budget engine and it has emerged there are four "credible" proposals, two of which are believed to be AER and Ilmor.

AER engine 'fits' FIA requirements

However, following a meeting of the Strategy Group in Paris on Tuesday, followed by an F1 Commission meeting, the idea has now been put on the backburner.

Instead, the manufacturers - working with the FIA - will produce a proposal by January 15 2016 that provides solutions to concerns over the power unit, which will focus on:

- Guarantee of the supply of Power Units to teams
- The need to lower the cost of Power Units to customer teams
- Simplification of the technical specification of the power units
- Improved noise

The FIA added that the decision to not pursue the budget engine may be reassessed after the manufacturers have presented their proposal to the Strategy Group.

Within the proposal, there will be a rule that stipulates a minimum number of teams a manufacturer must supply, ensuring all teams have access to an engine.

It is hoped these developments will be ready for the 2017 season at the earliest and certainly in time for 2018.

The first meeting between the FIA and the manufacturers with regards engines will take place at this weekend's Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.
Click to expand...

http://beta.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121957/f1-votes-against-budget-engine-idea

So no 2017 budget engine then. And its now up to the manufacturers to come up with an idea they all agree on as an alternative... which we all know isn't going to happen.

$20m V6's for the foreseeable future it is then. Interesting that the FIA are proposing that if a team supplies F1 engines they must supply a minimum number of customers. That sounds like a familiar suggestions, where have I heard that before...?
 
How is it a shock ?????

It was never ever going to be passed by the commission.

Ferrari are on the commission, they vetoed the reduction in price for customer engines, so why on earth would they then agree on a cheaper alternative ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom