97 replies to this topic

[David Lawson]

I don't think there is a thread about Sky televising F1 on the forum but please delete this if there is.

I have watched some of the programmes that they have shown since the launch on Friday.

Of interest to this forum there have been interviews with Jackie Stewart and Emerson Fittipaldi, Fittipaldi's was particularly good but sadly too brief although he touched on his working relationship with Colin Chapman on car set up, the differences in organisation between Lotus and McLaren, the reason behind him leaving Lotus and driving standards during his time in grand prix racing. Sky have also been showing grand prix season reviews from the 1980s. Future interviews in the series include Jack Brabham.

Obviously they have also had reports from the pre season testing but I won't elaborate about this on TNF

David

[Vitesse2]

They've certainly picked up the baton and run with it and overall they seem to be dedicating a lot of effort and money to F1. I too have been enjoying the season reviews and Legends: overall the launch has been very impressive and even at this early stage it appears they are going to take F1 coverage to a new and much higher level. Having a dedicated channel helps, but my initial impression is that they are making a conscious effort to appeal to the dedicated and reasonably knowledgable fan rather than the increasingly dumbed-down Top Gear-ish "lads in the pitlane" stuff the BBC pumped out last year.

Sky have of course done some motor sport before and it seems only fair to mention that - for those of you without Sky - there will be a repeat of a programme in the Gary Newbon-hosted series "Time of Our Lives" tonight at 9pm on Pick TV (Sky 3 as was), which is available on Freeview (and possibly Freesat?). This features a conversation between Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell and Murray Walker on F1 in the 90s. Afterwards Pick TV will also show the 2012 F1 Preview which first aired on Friday night: it's 2 hours long and includes appearances by all the principal Sky presenters and commentators except David Croft - is he already in Oz? Watch out for Ted Kravitz's segment with a virtual Red Bull car.

[kayemod]

Of interest to this forum there have been interviews with Jackie Stewart and Emerson Fittipaldi, Fittipaldi's was particularly good but sadly too brief although he touched on his working relationship with Colin Chapman on car set up, the differences in organisation between Lotus and McLaren, the reason behind him leaving Lotus and driving standards during his time in grand prix racing. Sky have also been showing grand prix season reviews from the 1980s. Future interviews in the series include Jack Brabham.

Sounds really interesting, I'd love to have seen it, as I'm sure would most on TNF, but as I doubt if more than a tiny percentage have Sky or are likely to get it, it's likely to be permanently denied us. Commendable though this kind of coverage is, I'm surprised that Sky feel it's what most of their viewers want. You only have to look at Racing Comments to see that most current F1 fans have no knowledge of anything that happened pre-Schumacher, and don't seem to be too interested in finding out. That isn't meant as criticism of today's bunch, but it was a totally different sport 'in olden times' to what they see today. I've tried talking to under 40s about what things were like in the DFV era and before, and their eyes glaze over. Like I say, this isn't really meant as criticism of younger fans, but it seems to me that in general, you have to be quite ancient these days to have any appreciation of history in general, and surely us oldies aren't Sky's target audience?

[Allan Lupton]

I presume all this Sky stuff has to be paid for, although they do seem to have a couple of channels on Freeview. Just for information, if you pay to look at one of those channels do you at least escape the advertising that bedevils their Freeview? If not why not, can someone tell me?

[Sharman]

Sounds really interesting, I'd love to have seen it, as I'm sure would most on TNF, but as I doubt if more than a tiny percentage have Sky or are likely to get it, it's likely to be permanently denied us. Commendable though this kind of coverage is, I'm surprised that Sky feel it's what most of their viewers want. You only have to look at Racing Comments to see that most current F1 fans have no knowledge of anything that happened pre-Schumacher, and don't seem to be too interested in finding out. That isn't meant as criticism of today's bunch, but it was a totally different sport 'in olden times' to what they see today. I've tried talking to under 40s about what things were like in the DFV era and before, and their eyes glaze over. Like I say, this isn't really meant as criticism of younger fans, but it seems to me that in general, you have to be quite ancient these days to have any appreciation of history in general, and surely us oldies aren't Sky's target audience?

I have to say I don't understand the attitude of people uninterested in what went before. When my senses were stimulated by the sound of racing engines in the early 1950s, I became suffused by the whole ethos of Motor Racing past, present and future. I read everything I could lay my hands on, books, magazines; a bit of film on a cinema newsreel was a delightful treat. I have to say that my two sons are not quite as keen as I was but still have a healthy respect for the past in their respective fields of interest, as I have mentioned in the past, one races Scooters, (38bhp from a Vespa) and t'other has a Westfield and a Classic Renault 5 TS race car, and two of my gransons are as keen as mustard.

[nicanary]

Sounds really interesting, I'd love to have seen it, as I'm sure would most on TNF, but as I doubt if more than a tiny percentage have Sky or are likely to get it, it's likely to be permanently denied us. Commendable though this kind of coverage is, I'm surprised that Sky feel it's what most of their viewers want. You only have to look at Racing Comments to see that most current F1 fans have no knowledge of anything that happened pre-Schumacher, and don't seem to be too interested in finding out. That isn't meant as criticism of today's bunch, but it was a totally different sport 'in olden times' to what they see today. I've tried talking to under 40s about what things were like in the DFV era and before, and their eyes glaze over. Like I say, this isn't really meant as criticism of younger fans, but it seems to me that in general, you have to be quite ancient these days to have any appreciation of history in general, and surely us oldies aren't Sky's target audience?

I totally agree with all of the above, but I think you'll find that quite a few oldies have access to Sky.

The lack of knowledge and interest of the younger generation in the history of the sport is a real frustration , and I think is the direct result of the manner in which BCE has marketed the sport in order to increase revenues. It's all about "the next thing", forget yesterday. On a different web forum the question was raised about a successor to Bernie, i.e. who would run the sport in future? My suggestion that it be returned to the authorities (the FIA) was met with bafflement and confusion. THe younger generation have never known anything other than the "circus" of today.

The concept of F1 being all about promotion and organised entertainment appeared to be paramount in their eyes. My analogy was tennis tournaments being always for the same 16 players, with no new faces. It all fell on stony ground.

It's terribly sad. I remember the era when DSJ started missing races which he felt were unworthy of the title "Grand Prix" - God knows what he'd make of today. Having said that, I bet if he was forced to go, you'd find him poking around in the paddock with his notebook, feigning disinterest - he loved the technology and the noise, if not the modern methods.

I'd like Sky to try to put on some coverage of much earlier periods , to put the thing into perspective for these "newbies". The 80s are like yesterday to me.

[Vitesse2]

I presume all this Sky stuff has to be paid for, although they do seem to have a couple of channels on Freeview. Just for information, if you pay to look at one of those channels do you at least escape the advertising that bedevils their Freeview? If not why not, can someone tell me?

I assume you're referring to the Sky Sports 1 & 2 Freeview channels for which you pay a subscription?

No - you still get the adverts, but for sports where they provide their own coverage the adverts never interrupt the action. Their coverage of F1 guarantees no adverts during the races themselves (unlike what ITV did), although there will be adverts during practice and qualifying.

[Vitesse2]

I totally agree with all of the above, but I think you'll find that quite a few oldies have access to Sky.

There are about 25 million TV licences in force and the overall potential audience for Sky F1 - using the combined Sky and Virgin subscriber figures - is about 15 million households. There is also a "monthly ticket" option on SkyGo, which is delivered via t'Internet and does not require a standard Sky sub.

[David McKinney]

I think your combining Sky and Virgin to get such a high figure is a bit unfair - I'm a Virgin man myself, but would have to pay for anything on Sky apart from the one or two Freeview channels

What's the number for Sky people who will be able to view F1 coverage without paying extra?

[rallen]

My problem is that I am under 40 and have no interest in modern f1 just the historical stuff! life isn't easy and you do tend to get shot by both sides...

Anyway I think this is a brilliant development - I had a quick flick through and noticed the glory of digital season reviews from the 1980's. I also suspect that because they have so much air to fill, the majority of the time will be spent naturally showing f1 history and documentary's which can only be a good thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they - like ESPN Classic tend to do - show full races from bygone era's I know for a fact they have some full races from the early 1960's and 1970's

[Vitesse2]

I think your combining Sky and Virgin to get such a high figure is a bit unfair - I'm a Virgin man myself, but would have to pay for anything on Sky apart from the one or two Freeview channels

What's the number for Sky people who will be able to view F1 coverage without paying extra?

I did choose my words carefully, David ;)

The most up-to-date figure I can find for Sky HD subscribers is from last April, at 3.7 million. At a guess that's probably somewhere well over 4 million by now - or more than 40% of their subscriber base. All HD subscribers receive the channel automatically, as do all Sky Sports subscribers: obviously there will be some overlap between the two but I think it's safe to assume that at least 5 million Sky subscribers have access to it.

[kayemod]

I totally agree with all of the above, but I think you'll find that quite a few oldies have access to Sky.

Regarding my earlier coment about not a lot of TNFs having Sky, possibly a lot of them are like me, the cost itself is immaterial, living as I do on one of the highest points in my area I get perfect TV reception on all Freeview channels from an aerial within my roof space, and it's quite enough for both of us. I'm connected to Virgin cable, but haven't bothered with the TV element, although the added cost over phone and broadband would be pretty small. I have zero interest in any sport other than motor racing, dislike most recent films, and I don't bother to watch most of what's on already, I spend quite enough time watching what I have already, and don't want to tempt myself into spending any more hours in front of the screen. With F1 in its current form, knowing the result before I sit down doesn't matter at all to me, I watch for the racing, what little there is in most of today's races, and seeing an hour of competently edited highlights hours after the race will suit me very well, I just don't need the option to have hour after hour of live coverage, no matter how well it's done. Many of my friends have Sky, and some of them admit that they make very little use of most of the extra channels they get once the novelty wears off.

[David McKinney]

I pay something like £5.00 or £5.50 per month for the TV component of my phone/broadband/TV package on cable. It was around £25, until I realised the only channel I was likely to view, that wouldn't be available with the base package, was Motors TV - didn't consider it worth £20pm just for that. I still get more than enough choice (including all the Freeview channels of course)

[David Lawson]

I already have Sky Sports via Virgin Media so I get Sky F1 included, I enjoy the test and county cricket, tennis and football coverage as well so I am happy with it from the value for money aspect.

I watched most of the red button practice sessions last year on the Beeb even though they used the radio commentary it was very atmospheric and a good build up to the race so I am pleased that Sky are showing it all this season with much greater resources and features. I suspect I will be very selective with the lifestyle coverage that they are bound to include to appeal to the modern audience but that is after all what the channel or on/off switch is for.

I am to be found at VSCC and small club race meetings throughout the season and even with a love for all historic cars I still love the current grand prix scene so let's hope they do the sport justice.

David

[Derwent Motorsport]

I don't have Sky for two reasons: a) I can't justify the cost for the few things i would like to watch and b) I would not give any money to the Murdock family on principal!

[Allan Lupton]

I assume you're referring to the Sky Sports 1 & 2 Freeview channels for which you pay a subscription?

No - you still get the adverts, but for sports where they provide their own coverage the adverts never interrupt the action. Their coverage of F1 guarantees no adverts during the races themselves (unlike what ITV did), although there will be adverts during practice and qualifying.

I don't understand but if there are Sky channels on Freeview no subscription is required. I know there's a News channel (which I sometimes look at) and I think there's a Freeview Sky Sport channel but having no interest in games I've never wanted to look at it. If that's where they broadcast Effone I will give it a try of course, but I wouldn't pay to watch it (not even in real life, never mind on TV).

[David McKinney]

Your assumptions are correct, Allan, up to the point where you think you could get Sky F1 free. Unless you're a Sky subscriber, you have to pay

Which is why I'll watch the races the BBC does, but not bother with the rest. I don't care enough about modern F1 to pay for it

[kayemod]

Which is why I'll watch the races the BBC does, but not bother with the rest. I don't care enough about modern F1 to pay for it

Spoken like a true TNFer David, I'll probably see you again at Goodwood in a few month's time.

[Gary C]

Sky Sports package? £22 a month. Whats that, £270 a year?? Blimey

[kayemod]

Sky Sports package? £22 a month. Whats that, £270 a year?? Blimey

Not quite, you'd get £6.00 change from that. Bargain.

[Vitesse2]

Someone has uploaded the first two Legends interviews to YouTube. Probably won't be there for long ...

- (Legends - Fittipaldi)
- (Legends - Stewart)

[Vitesse2]

Sky Sports package? £22 a month. Whats that, £270 a year?? Blimey

You don't actually need the Sky Sports sub, just the basic one plus HD.

[David McKinney]

Sky Sports package? £22 a month. Whats that, £270 a year?? Blimey

I promise you that when you're living on a pension, £22 is quite a lot to find every month. Especially for something you don't want

[ryan86]

For the past 8 years I've only ever really seen about half the races live since I work 3 in every 5 Sunday's, so I've not bought Sky, at least for this year. I still enjoy the competition aspect of motor racing, but I also love knowledge and whilst there's only so much books and videos can tell you, I've never thought it hurt to take an interest.

Saying that, all my best races will be in the past 18 years, but that's not because I'm not interested in pre-mid 1994 racing, but because each race is an event and I think you need to experience that event. After that it's almost just a result.

[Allan Lupton]

Your assumptions are correct, Allan, up to the point where you think you could get Sky F1 free. Unless you're a Sky subscriber, you have to pay

Which is why I'll watch the races the BBC does, but not bother with the rest. I don't care enough about modern F1 to pay for it

I found two Sky "Sports" (in fact not sports but games) on my TV's tuner but they are "encrypted" so, if that's where Effone appears, like you I'll have the time off to do something interesting. What's the betting that any race held on a real racing track won't be on BBC?
I did just find, as was said above somewhere, that "Pick TV" must be a Sky job as the preview is being broadcast there as I trype this.

[LittleChris]

Here you go Allan,

BBC's live TV Grands Prix

15 April: China
13 May: Spain
27 May: Monaco
24 June: Europe
8 July: Britain
2 September: Belgium
23 September: Singapore
14 October: Korea
4 November: Abu Dhabi
25 November: Brazil

New Spa, new Silverstone and new Interlagos are pretty much the only real circuits. Never been convinced by Monaco...... Disappointed that Monza will be highlights only, but 3 out of 4 ain't too bad

[Allan Lupton]

Thanks Chris - I actually prefer Monaco to many of those you list as real circuits because I remember the days when many circuits posed challenges to designer as well as driver and one size didn't fit all. The change for the worse in Tilkedromes and their imitators (such as new Spa and new Silverstone) is having vast run-off areas from which people can recover and win after a major driving error - Monaco is still unforgiving so, as it always has, it takes a real racer to just finish a fast race there, never mind winning it.

PS where in Europe is "24 June: Europe" to be?

[LittleChris]

Europe - Valencia

Whilst I'd probably categorise new Silverstone as a bit of a Tilkedrome ( with the exception of Copse and Maggotts, I'm not sure I'd do the same to Spa except for the silly chicane before the start / finish straight. I only refer to it as new Spa because it doesn't feature Burnenville , Masta and Stavelot.

[LittleChris]

Here you go Allan,
New Spa, new Silverstone and new Interlagos are pretty much the only real circuits. Never been convinced by Monaco...... Disappointed that Monza will be highlights only, but 3 out of 4 ain't too bad

Just realised Suzuka won't be live but haven't bothered getting up early enough to watch races there since the mid 80's.

Anyway, to me that's 3 real tracks live on BBC out of 5 so far. The new track at Austin looks quite promising, nice and flowing for the first half ( once past the turn 1 hairpin, the next section is a little reminiscent of the first few corners at Riverside ) so may qualify as a "real" circuit - we'll see ;)

Edited by LittleChris, 11 March 2012 - 23:54.

[kayemod]

Just realised Suzuka won't be live but haven't bothered getting up early enough to watch races there since the mid 80's.

The new track at Austin looks quite promising, nice and flowing for the first half ( once past the turn 1 hairpin, the next section is a little reminiscent of the first few corners at Riverside ) so may qualify as a "real" circuit - we'll see ;)

True, but will it be finished in time for the race? They seem to run into one crisis after another, and haven't some of them now started suing each other? At one time, any new track had to hold a major race before being granted an F1 event, to make sure everything worked properly, and having seen some of the problems that new tracks have experienced when F1 turns up, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do that again. But of course, as long as the money is there upfront, not much else seems to matter now.

[Stephen W]

Sky have of course done some motor sport before and it seems only fair to mention that - for those of you without Sky - there will be a repeat of a programme in the Gary Newbon-hosted series "Time of Our Lives" tonight at 9pm on Pick TV (Sky 3 as was), which is available on Freeview (and possibly Freesat?). This features a conversation between Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell and Murray Walker on F1 in the 90s.

The "Time of our Lives" programme was from 2010 - I think that it has been on before as some segments were familiar.

I promise you that when you're living on a pension, £22 is quite a lot to find every month. Especially for something you don't want

Just one of the resons I don't have SKY - the main one being I don't want to support anything to do with Rupert Murdoch!

BBC's live TV Grands Prix

15 April: China
13 May: Spain
27 May: Monaco
24 June: Europe
8 July: Britain
2 September: Belgium
23 September: Singapore
14 October: Korea
4 November: Abu Dhabi
25 November: Brazil

Disappointed that Monza will be highlights only, but 3 out of 4 ain't too bad

I assume all the rest will be shown on BBC as highlights? If so that is fine by me as I prefer the highlights format as it edits out all the dross!

[Allan Lupton]

Europe - Valencia

Whilst I'd probably categorise new Silverstone as a bit of a Tilkedrome ( with the exception of Copse and Maggotts, I'm not sure I'd do the same to Spa except for the silly chicane before the start / finish straight. I only refer to it as new Spa because it doesn't feature Burnenville , Masta and Stavelot.

Spa lost more than Burnenville , Masta and Stavelot. Moving the start to be before La Source so that huge run-offs for that corner were necessary was one thing and Eau Rouge isn't anything like what it was. Had the start not been moved the silly chicane you refer to wouldn't have been necessary of course.
Channel-chopping into that Pick TV programme last night they were showing some testing at a Tilkedrome I didn't recognise (well I wouldn't, would I) which the commentator eventually referred to as Silverstone. I can't get too excited about that change, as its progress from dead airfield to industrial estate had already changed it beyond easy recognition.

[Mark 13]

Every sport i follow has at some stage moved some or all its coverage to Sky.

IMO Sky make an excellent job at covering sport and make it worth the subscription.

Reading some of the posts on here leaves me speechless. I appreciate the fact that we are in difficult times but the subscription is quite good value and millions of people in this country have access to Sky Sports and having Sky is more the norm than the exception. It is just a matter of perception. We are talking about a multi-billion sport and we all spend considerable sums to go and watch it live (Goodwood Revival, FOS, Silverstone Classic, HSCC, Masters, Superprix, LM etc). Why cry the poor tale and act like a load of grumpy old men, moaning about the good old days?

[Allan Lupton]

Every sport i follow has at some stage moved some or all its coverage to Sky.

Please can you add golf, snooker, football (all types) and tennis to the list of what you follow!
The schedulers of the BBC in particular and other free to view channels to a great extent seem to assume we are more interested in those games than in anything/everything else.
Let those who want it pay for it.

[rallen]

I was told by a friend that they showed the whole of the 1969 British Grand Prix. Did anyone watch it?

[kayemod]

I was told by a friend that they showed the whole of the 1969 British Grand Prix. Did anyone watch it?

Yes, I did for one, that almost race long Rindt/Stewart battle was a classic, one of the greatest races I'd seen, though I have absolutely no recollection at all of what was going on down the field.

[rallen]

Makes you wonder what Chanel 4 would have done with the F1 coverage, they did an amazing job with the Cricket.

Having said that - despite the fees/Murdoch - Sky generally have a good record with televising sports, even football has improved since they sacked the awful offensive Andy Grey and Richard Keyes!

[David McKinney]

Reading some of the posts on here leaves me speechless. I appreciate the fact that we are in difficult times but the subscription is quite good value and millions of people in this country have access to Sky Sports and having Sky is more the norm than the exception. It is just a matter of perception. We are talking about a multi-billion sport and we all spend considerable sums to go and watch it live (Goodwood Revival, FOS, Silverstone Classic, HSCC, Masters, Superprix, LM etc). Why cry the poor tale and act like a load of grumpy old men, moaning about the good old days?

Figures have been produced in this thread which show that having Sky is not "more the norm than the exception"

I am not interested in paying to watch televised sport - and £15 per GP is simply not worth it. I'd rather spend my money on a few live historic meetings each year

[Nigel Beresford]

I was told by a friend that they showed the whole of the 1969 British Grand Prix. Did anyone watch it?

Yes, I watched it live from on top of the pits!

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 12 March 2012 - 13:09.

[Allan Lupton]

I was told by a friend that they showed the whole of the 1969 British Grand Prix. Did anyone watch it?

Yes, from the Stow grandstand!

[Vitesse2]

I was told by a friend that they showed the whole of the 1969 British Grand Prix. Did anyone watch it?

It was actually only part of it - and on ESPN Classic, not Sky Sports. It will no doubt come round again.

[Mark 13]

Figures have been produced in this thread which show that having Sky is not "more the norm than the exception"

I am not interested in paying to watch televised sport - and £15 per GP is simply not worth it. I'd rather spend my money on a few live historic meetings each year

David
I know a lot of people through business and sport (predominantly Athletics, Rugby and Motorsport) and they are of mixed age, sporting preference etc. very few of them are without Sky and the rest have some form of free view giving them limited access or simply never watch television. people just spend money on what they choose and will justify that spending. Why else would some of those on low income/benefits smoke and drink? many on here just cannot get their heads around paying for TV, through a subscription.
It does make for an interesting debate.

Edited by Mark 13, 12 March 2012 - 14:20.

[Vitesse2]

Figures have been produced in this thread which show that having Sky is not "more the norm than the exception"

I am not interested in paying to watch televised sport - and £15 per GP is simply not worth it. I'd rather spend my money on a few live historic meetings each year

I quite see your point, David. I too would think twice (or more) in that situation, but as a cricket fan I bit the bullet long ago: I rationalise it against the cost and effort of attending three or four days' Test cricket which, from where I live, involves either getting up at stupid o'clock and travelling at peak times and/or an overnight stay. Same applies to historic race meetings

So as far as I'm concerned, F1 on Sky is essentially free. Plus I get to see a hell of a lot of cricket. And motor sport.;)

Edited by Vitesse2, 12 March 2012 - 15:11.

[Derwent Motorsport]

If you only want to watch the GPs then the cost is dreadfil. I could not justify it. I am happy to watch the BBC evening version, also I am very often acxtually at some form of motorsport on a sunday anyway. I also just want to watch the reace not all the other stullf they put on (BBC included) before and after. I have other things in my life!
Also I would not give the Murdoch crooks a single penny of my money.

[David McKinney]

I also just want to watch the race not all the other stullf they put on (BBC included) before and after

I got into the habit of tuning in to BBC five or ten minutes before the start of the race - and tuning out as soon as the results were confirmed.

[D.M.N.]

I wonder if forum members in this particular forum would purchase the channel if it was say £10 a month, but archive only from the '60s to '90s with interviews and classic races, I imagine some here would jump at that.

[David Beard]

I wonder if forum members in this particular forum would purchase the channel if it was say £10 a month, but archive only from the '60s to '90s with interviews and classic races, I imagine some here would jump at that.

Just the F1 channel, no balls, is all I want. Ancient and modern are of equal interest to me. A fiver would be OK.

[arttidesco]

many on here just cannot get their heads around paying for TV, through a subscription.

Count me on that side of the fence

[kayemod]

David
...many on here just cannot get their heads around paying for TV, through a subscription.

That idea would appeal to our Government as a new tax. If they introduced it they'd need a catchy name though, how about 'TV licence' ?

[ryan86]

Just the F1 channel, no balls, is all I want. Ancient and modern are of equal interest to me. A fiver would be OK.

I came quite close to deciding to sign up for this year, but decided to see how much I missed it before parting with my cash.

Regarding replays of races past, yes, they would be of interest and probably would make me more likely to sign up too a points, but at the same time replays can never bring the initial drama.

If I was to look at potentially one of the biggest sporting stories of the past few years, I've got a DVD of the 2009 Open Championship on my bookcase. I was there on the Friday and I sat Sunday thinking "He can't do it" and then it changing to "He's going to do it". Of course he didn't do it and that DVD essentially becomes a lot of golf shots one after another because you know no matter how many times you watch it and replay it, at the end Tom Watson is still going to miss that 5ft putt.

So repeating races would interest me, but I'm also mindful of the fact that a lot of races weren't particularly exciting on first viewing and the exciting ones you know the ending.

Interviews would interest me more, but if I was to be critical (though I enjoyed and was impressed by the season preview last night), I think the 22 slot they're giving to each "Legend" is too short.