Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

F1 Racing (magazine) and F1 media in general...(merged)


  • Please log in to reply
1079 replies to this topic

#451 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,258 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 19 May 2009 - 14:13

If it's a FOTA run series, it will be FOTA approved press credentials.

Advertisement

#452 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,633 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 19 May 2009 - 14:29

Renckens article talks about the teams buying A1GP and specifically mentions that they would be buying into an FIA approved series. I'm not sure I understand why this is an important issue and your comment suggests maybe it isn't. Clearly the North American series do fine without Max & Co.

So what would be the benefit of having the FIA approval?

#453 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2009 - 14:45

In all this talk about Bernie and Max, there seems to a be a running assumption that what they're doing/they've done is bad for F1.

Lots of people have had reactions ranging from unsurprised to appalled about the news of Ferrari's special veto, but in my experience, nearly every F1 journalist thinks the budget cap is a good idea and that the big teams are merely protecting vested interests in resisting it. Certainly, I agree when Max says they shouldn't back down to Ferrari as to do so would effectively mean Ferrari were running the sport (although this is a hard position to square with the previous expedient measure of giving them special privileges).

Don't assume that the lack of criticism comes from fear. In many cases, it's because people think that the attempt to cap expenditure and level the playing field is good for the sport - assuming, of course, that we don't lose teams because of it. It's a view that a number of FOTA people would also express in private.

Edited by bradleyl, 19 May 2009 - 14:47.


#454 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 19 May 2009 - 14:46

Renckens article talks about the teams buying A1GP and specifically mentions that they would be buying into an FIA approved series. I'm not sure I understand why this is an important issue and your comment suggests maybe it isn't. Clearly the North American series do fine without Max & Co.

So what would be the benefit of having the FIA approval?


The series would need FIA sanction, not 'approval' - simply to ensure that minimum safety standards are met and that drivers are properly licenced. US series are indirectly sanctioned by franchise: the FIA has empowered its member bodies in the US to administer motorsport in the US on its behalf. Thus Scott Speed could compete in F1 and dan Wheldon could go racing in IRL without threat of losing his lecence which is what happens if you compete in pirate series. Also why you could have a grand prix in Indy and an IRL race in Oz or Japan

ACCUS' Nick Craw is, for example, a vice president of the FIA and effectively Mosley's Number 2 on the motorsport side. It is slightly more complicated than that, but that's it in a nutshell.

#455 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,633 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 19 May 2009 - 15:48

Thank you.

#456 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 19 May 2009 - 15:53

[quote name='bradleyl' date='May 19 2009, 15:45' post='3647959']
In all this talk about Bernie and Max, there seems to a be a running assumption that what they're doing/they've done is bad for F1.

Nope - the running perception is that the way they've gone about is bad for F1, and that can hardly be denied. As always, perceptions are real until disproven...

By the same token, there is a perceived fear element of fear in media centres, as any journalist you care to ask can tell you.

Edited by Felix, 19 May 2009 - 15:53.


#457 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2009 - 16:11

Fear, I'm not sure about. A certain level of trepidation at times, yes.

I'm not sure that the way they've gone about this has been bad, though, to be honest. Is is realistic to expect consensual agreement from all the teams? Or is it better to promote a clear vision with which a good number of the teams agree, and then to cajole the rest into a compromise with a drip feed of concessions?

I don't think that putting everybody round a table to chat would have produced anything other than half measures that would have the side effect of entrenching the competitive advantage of the teams that would hold sway in that meeting. Better to be bold and lead from the front, even if not everybody agrees yet.

I think Ferrari are doing as much damage to F1 right now as the FIA. The governing body seem to be making reasonable proposals. What's unreasonable is the refusal of some parties to work towards a compromise, in my view. Ferrari can hardly claim not to have had the rub of the green in recent years, given the concession granted in their deal, yet here they are stamping their feet. But anyway, this is a debate for a different thread, I think!

Edited by bradleyl, 19 May 2009 - 16:13.


#458 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 19 May 2009 - 16:32

In all this talk about Bernie and Max, there seems to a be a running assumption that what they're doing/they've done is bad for F1.

Lots of people have had reactions ranging from unsurprised to appalled about the news of Ferrari's special veto, but in my experience, nearly every F1 journalist thinks the budget cap is a good idea and that the big teams are merely protecting vested interests in resisting it. Certainly, I agree when Max says they shouldn't back down to Ferrari as to do so would effectively mean Ferrari were running the sport (although this is a hard position to square with the previous expedient measure of giving them special privileges).

Don't assume that the lack of criticism comes from fear. In many cases, it's because people think that the attempt to cap expenditure and level the playing field is good for the sport - assuming, of course, that we don't lose teams because of it. It's a view that a number of FOTA people would also express in private.

Thanks bradleyl, I´ve been wondering about the same thing but I´m afraid that posters on many F1 forums have been spoon fed that Bernie and Max are evil and hell bound to run F1 into the ground.

A majority of the mainstream (UK) press have helped to create this image in posters´ minds and anything those two do nowadays is immediately shot down, it´s like some on the forums can´t think for themselves.

I´m glad that at least some in the press still think for themselves and can see that a cap on expenditure and a level playing field is good for the sport.


#459 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,633 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 19 May 2009 - 16:38

I´m glad that at least some in the press still think for themselves and can see that a cap on expenditure and a level playing field is good for the sport.

They might think it, but Bradley has said that they won't report it. I understand where he's coming from and respect that, but it does mean his view is generally unreported unless anyone can point me to an item somewhere (anywhere) which isn't up in arms and ultimately blaming the FIA.

Advertisement

#460 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 19 May 2009 - 16:47

Bradley, I was somewhat struck -- puzzled might be a better word -- by your stance that, to paraphrase it, the magazine really is not the place to cover the backroom goings-on or the "political" aspects of the formula one scene. That leads me to the supposition that the magazine is shaped around the notion that it is really birdcage liner or recycling material rather than an attempt to provide a record for those down the road. Shouldn't the role of a monthly publication such as yours be the place where context and actual analysis -- not the pathetically overused and abused term that more sports commentators use -- should take place? The hyperactive nature of the internet might be useful for basic information, but it seems that few -- at least based upon those utilizing this forum -- seem to have any depth of knowlege or even anything beyond a surface level of familiarity with the many factors that have led to the current situation. Of course, I might be misreading what your intent was, but it seems clear that F1 Racing does not seem to regard itself as potential source for those from the future delving into things and trying to sort out just what all the bother was about. Of course, I am not an editor and don't have to meet the payroll! I rarely read F1 Racing, one reason is its not being readily available here in the Pearl of the Gulf where I am currently residing.

I forgot who it was that mentioned that they got banned by Chris Balfe at Pitpass for some trifling reason, but I can top that by a mile -- after asked to become a columnist for Pitpass, I submitted a column that Chris took exception to, after being told that I had the freedom to write as I wished, and then not only got fired -- I may have quit just before I got canned but I was gone either way so it didn't matter, I was also banned from everything, to include the rather pathetic forum they have! I rarely look at the site, usually only to see whatever Dr. Lawrence has cobbled together, otherwise....

#461 Blythy

Blythy
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 May 2009 - 17:23

Bradley, I was somewhat struck -- puzzled might be a better word -- by your stance that, to paraphrase it, the magazine really is not the place to cover the backroom goings-on or the "political" aspects of the formula one scene. That leads me to the supposition that the magazine is shaped around the notion that it is really birdcage liner or recycling material rather than an attempt to provide a record for those down the road. Shouldn't the role of a monthly publication such as yours be the place where context and actual analysis -- not the pathetically overused and abused term that more sports commentators use -- should take place? The hyperactive nature of the internet might be useful for basic information, but it seems that few -- at least based upon those utilizing this forum -- seem to have any depth of knowlege or even anything beyond a surface level of familiarity with the many factors that have led to the current situation. Of course, I might be misreading what your intent was, but it seems clear that F1 Racing does not seem to regard itself as potential source for those from the future delving into things and trying to sort out just what all the bother was about. Of course, I am not an editor and don't have to meet the payroll! I rarely read F1 Racing, one reason is its not being readily available here in the Pearl of the Gulf where I am currently residing.


I think autosport is the "magazine of record" as far as british and international motorsport is concerned. They do the analysis of what is currently going on, and appropriately for a weekly magazine, most of what is said is usually out of date by the time I get round to reading it (my subs has to be forwarded to uni)

F1 racing is more likely to speculate on future, reflect on past, speak to people and air their opinions and educate the reader on F1. It's more concerned with long term.

autosport.com is pretty much a news aggregator for press conferences, and increasingly reposting post race BBC interviews (either that, or now they're just being honest now and referencing their sources) I remember last season that they would give every team a post race story, now there's few post race stories. autosport.com is for finding out what has happened within the last 24 hours, and what will happen in a very short time.

#462 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 19 May 2009 - 19:19

F1 racing is more likely to speculate on future, reflect on past, speak to people and air their opinions and educate the reader on F1. It's more concerned with long term.


Sorry, but I have not seen much evidence of that in the issues I have read. Actually, thinking about it, that would be a fair notion as to what you should expect from such a magazine. Not sure how realistic that is in the commercial world, but it would be interesting to see how something like that would be accepted by whatever the audience is that the magazine is truly to reach.

Although Autosport may have once upon a time been a source to be retained as a record, not sure that is the case to the same extent it once was, which is largely the result of a truly muddled notion of what the magazine is supposed to be.



#463 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 May 2009 - 20:02

Fear, I'm not sure about. A certain level of trepidation at times, yes.

I'm not sure that the way they've gone about this has been bad, though, to be honest. Is is realistic to expect consensual agreement from all the teams? Or is it better to promote a clear vision with which a good number of the teams agree, and then to cajole the rest into a compromise with a drip feed of concessions?

I don't think that putting everybody round a table to chat would have produced anything other than half measures that would have the side effect of entrenching the competitive advantage of the teams that would hold sway in that meeting. Better to be bold and lead from the front, even if not everybody agrees yet.

I think Ferrari are doing as much damage to F1 right now as the FIA. The governing body seem to be making reasonable proposals. What's unreasonable is the refusal of some parties to work towards a compromise, in my view. Ferrari can hardly claim not to have had the rub of the green in recent years, given the concession granted in their deal, yet here they are stamping their feet. But anyway, this is a debate for a different thread, I think!


Anyone can go and type the words 'Bernie' 'FIA' and 'money' in the search box on the main autosport site and find out, after reading a handful of articles, that the vision of the governance is utterly inconsistent...

Slowly work your way back up to about a year ago, and after about 20mins of reading direct quotes and analysis in the articles you'll probably feel like visiting Facepalm.org..  ;)

#464 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2009 - 20:16

Guys, and Donald specifically, I didn't say that 'the magazine really is not the place to cover the backroom goings-on or the "political" aspects of the formula one scene". Not at all. (Incidentally Donald, by your own admission you haven't read the mag recently - I'd be interested on your thoughts when you next get the chance).

I simply said that this current political squabble is both fast evolving and ultimately will be sorted out with a compromise that sees everybody carrying on as usual, either under a budget cap or on a glide path down towards one. I don't think the tit-for-tat politicking is for F1 Racing, precisely because we try and take a longer view.

Our "view" was stated in exactly the kind of analysis piece we do produce in our May issue. It was on the budget cap, how we think it will be implemented, whether it's a good idea etc... We got caught out by the late use of the WMSC to tweak the figure of the cap to £40 million (after deadline and before publication) but most of the points in there still stand.

We've equally covered the impact of the credit crunch earlier this year, and will continue these 'think pieces' as they work well - and it's just the kind of content you're talking about. I totally agree that it's part of our remit, along with the exclusive interviews and feature content with excellent photography that we're perhaps better known for.

slowinfastout, yes, you can indeed do that. I don't think the teams come out of it with any more credit, though, given their institutional resistance to change and the way they've only been forced down the road towards cost saving (and ultimately helping themselves) by exactly this kind of cajoling. Perhaps I'm mistaken but that's my long view on the whole thing.

Edited by bradleyl, 19 May 2009 - 20:17.


#465 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2009 - 20:18

Just to pick up another point, though, we're not trying to be a magazine of record, no. I'm not sure print will have that function in the future, in any case. Personally, I use the archive on autosport.com and then make my mind up from the facts but, again, perhaps I'm the exception in that respect.

Edited by bradleyl, 19 May 2009 - 21:24.


#466 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,031 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 May 2009 - 00:35

I forgot who it was that mentioned that they got banned by Chris Balfe at Pitpass for some trifling reason, but I can top that by a mile -- after asked to become a columnist for Pitpass, I submitted a column that Chris took exception to, after being told that I had the freedom to write as I wished, and then not only got fired -- I may have quit just before I got canned but I was gone either way so it didn't matter, I was also banned from everything, to include the rather pathetic forum they have! I rarely look at the site, usually only to see whatever Dr. Lawrence has cobbled together, otherwise....


I'd love to see the article that caused that. :lol: :lol:

Without looking at it I can only assume in his paranoia he thought you were deliberately trying to harm his site but I bet after reading it I would only be puzzled as it why it offended so greatly.

And I thought the guy who created the Sid Watkins petition had some issues....

#467 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 20 May 2009 - 00:50

Although Autosport may have once upon a time been a source to be retained as a record, not sure that is the case to the same extent it once was, which is largely the result of a truly muddled notion of what the magazine is supposed to be.


Im really not sure magazines can be considered as souces of record anymore. I think the internets do a much better job of that wouldnt you say? Takes up much less room too. I still have 30+ years of autosport which im looking to offload to someone!




#468 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 20 May 2009 - 00:57

Fear, I'm not sure about. A certain level of trepidation at times, yes.

I'm not sure that the way they've gone about this has been bad, though, to be honest. Is is realistic to expect consensual agreement from all the teams? Or is it better to promote a clear vision with which a good number of the teams agree, and then to cajole the rest into a compromise with a drip feed of concessions?

Problem is, can you really say that Max is providing a clear vision?


anyway, wrong thread!



#469 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 20 May 2009 - 05:56

Yes, Mat, I think you can. He's been banging on about costs for the last five years but only now are people starting to listen...

#470 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 20 May 2009 - 08:47

Thank you very much, Bradley, for taking the time to reply. I am one of those whose rationale for keeping magazines is that they help provide either research or other help for whatever I am working on either at the moment or will be in the future. One of those little peculiarities that goes with being a historian, I guess. I don't read your magazine with any regularity, but bascially due to it not being very available here where I am in SWA at the moment. I do flip through it when I see it back in the States and I do purchase a copy whenever I see one in the airport whenever I travel -- simply because you take the time to pop in here and answer questions and take comments. I do have a rather big stack of F1 Racing issues from its launch back whenever that was. Alas, although I have probably looked through the stack several times looking for anything that might be helpful with something I was writing, it was only something unrelated to my searches that got my attention -- of course! I may have even incorporated it into an old RVM column. I would not sell the notion of being a 'magazine of record' short, however. By the way, I have to return to the States for some meetings next month and when I do, I promise to pick up a copy.



#471 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 20 May 2009 - 09:28

I
Pitpass dont appear to have Paddock media access - never seen a Pitpass-labelled rep ask a question in an Official press conference


Interesting comment, that; not 'defending' Pitpass by any means, and nor do I condemn it for I do occasionally visit, but it is only this year (09) that websites - those without a print connection - hav been considered for accreditation, as stated here on the FIA website in the accreditation section:

6. ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND WEBSITES

The FIA will be conducting a pilot programme for the accreditation of a limited number of web sites during the 2009 season. Subject to a successful outcome, web sites fulfilling the required criteria will be eligible to apply for accreditation in the 2010 season.


I think this a sign of how far behind the times that outfit is.

As for F1Racing, bought the latest issue on the basis of reading this thread, and what an improvement; I must be honest and state that Motor Sport is still my preferred 'monthly' but congratulate Bradley and the team on the improvements - I will be buying it again.






#472 rdebourbon

rdebourbon
  • Member

  • 1,353 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 May 2009 - 09:41

Interesting comment, that; not 'defending' Pitpass by any means, and nor do I condemn it for I do occasionally visit, but it is only this year (09) that websites - those without a print connection - hav been considered for accreditation, as stated here on the FIA website in the accreditation section:

6. ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND WEBSITES

The FIA will be conducting a pilot programme for the accreditation of a limited number of web sites during the 2009 season. Subject to a successful outcome, web sites fulfilling the required criteria will be eligible to apply for accreditation in the 2010 season.


I think this a sign of how far behind the times that outfit is.

As for F1Racing, bought the latest issue on the basis of reading this thread, and what an improvement; I must be honest and state that Motor Sport is still my preferred 'monthly' but congratulate Bradley and the team on the improvements - I will be buying it again.

Interesting.. sorry to be a pain, but where did you get that info from?


#473 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 20 May 2009 - 09:42

Interesting.. sorry to be a pain, but where did you get that info from?


FIA.com - select media and accreditation - the whole routine is there.

#474 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,258 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 May 2009 - 09:46

I actually kind of like the FIA's stance on websites. Otherwise it's every idiot with a blog wandering the paddock.

#475 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 20 May 2009 - 09:53

I actually kind of like the FIA's stance on websites. Otherwise it's every idiot with a blog wandering the paddock.


Well, no, they can still vet the applications, Ross.

#476 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,258 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:04

But where do you draw the line? Otherwise it's just going to be another accusation of politics and favourtism.

As I recall, AtlasF1 was one of the few or one of the first websites that didn't have a print or other media tie-up, to have an FIA pass and I think an F1 license.

#477 LuckyStrike1

LuckyStrike1
  • Member

  • 5,573 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:10

But where do you draw the line? Otherwise it's just going to be another accusation of politics and favourtism.

As I recall, AtlasF1 was one of the few or one of the first websites that didn't have a print or other media tie-up, to have an FIA pass and I think an F1 license.


I think you can quite easily set up criteria that will not see "idiot users blogs" with media passes in the F1-paddocks around the world. First of all, FIA has the final say who to grant access that passes those criteria and seconlyd I think setting up criteria that says sites publishing news and features like a printed publication with circulation/unique visitors, position in their respective country etc. would be quite easy to formalize.

#478 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:57

But where do you draw the line?


Where it's drawn for print publications - they have criteria to meet for them, too.

#479 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,715 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 20 May 2009 - 18:27

Somebody has to pay for the flights, hire car, hotel and meals for everybody roaming the paddock, so unless you happen to be a pretty rich blogger who isn't/doesn't need to be in full-time employment you're not going to have the money to cover those expenses anyway, so obtaining accreditation based on the quality of your blogging is academic.

FIA probably aren't in the business of handing out accreditation to people who can only make it to one GP a year.

Advertisement

#480 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 30 May 2009 - 19:57

This month's magazine dropped through the letterbox today. Haven't really had the chance to read it at length, but looks like another good issue.

Also, just an observation I've made whilst flicking through is that Bradley must produce 75% of the content each month? Someone must be a busy!

#481 smartie_f1

smartie_f1
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 31 May 2009 - 10:47

Oh, and now that I'm rambling :p I'd love to learn more about the logistics of running an F1 team - managing design and development lead times, shipping and packaging prior to the race, unpacking and preparing for the race, various responsibilities over a weekend, plans and schedules for Free Practice sessions, and then a timeline of what happens *after* the race.. Back to back races must be especially difficult to manage, and for me would be very interesting and probably jaw dropping to understand when you begin to quantify timelines, responsibilites and challenges involved.


This sort of feature would have me entranced. As well as all the technical information on the cars and going racing, one of the biggest draws to the F1 circus for me is the sheer logistics of the thing. We all know that F1 doesn't stop when the chequered flag drops and the champagne sprays, but I bet very few of us actually know or understand what happens in between. ITV (yes i know) did a really good feature one weekend, packing up a team (redbull?) from Germany and travelling to Hungary and setting up with them. It was fairly superficial so something that explored that more in depth would be fantastic - a week in the life of sort of thing.


The purpose of a magazine like F1 Racing should be to provide bespoke content that isn't anywhere else, hence the emphasis on interviews. It's exclusive content. Telling us who does what in F1 isn't exclusive, because it's all out there waiting to be find already, thus it's a waste of space putting it in a magazine. In my opinion!


One of the things that annoys me most is that a lot of websites seem to 'acquire' content from F1R as soon as it comes out. As i tend to have easier and quicker access to the internet and i have the stories sent to my reader, I tend to read them. I then get disappointed when i settle in with F1R and find that I've already seen half the content. It's not F1R's fault that every one steals their content - its a dubious honour i guess, but its frustrating.


i respect that pov :up: but i disagree ! i think f1 racing should not only be exclusive content, but also provide a guide in areas where we have almost an overload of information in the public domain, sorting the wheat from the chaff if you see what i mean.


I think that's an excellent idea. Too many terms are bandied around on the internet and TV now, which we're all supposed to know about. The explanations usually don't go far enough in telling us what its all about. Technical features from the mag could do that - and also be a future reference point.


#482 Felix

Felix
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 June 2009 - 18:57

QUOTE (Turbo4 @ May 19 2009, 07:17)
Just read that thread Zippel.... the tone of Chris Balfe's responses say it all. Your friend didn't deserve that.

I wonder ... for a guy that was so concerned that pics were being right clicked off his site... has he never watched a pirated movie? Same diff, except he'd not be the one losing out.

There's 3 Google ads on his front page, and i'm sure given the amount of clicks to Pitpass' main page (not to mention sub-pages) they get per month, Chris Balfe wouldn't be doing too badly at all. As I have some experience in this, i'm thinking $US5k per month bare minimum.

To quote Balfe's spiel in his sponsorship section:

Meanwhile, Pitpass is ranked 5th in Formula Money's 2008 list of the most popular Formula One news websites, the other four leaders each being part of a major broadcasting, publishing or internet group..



Anybody notice how Balfe has redacted Dieter Rencken's name in the posting of today's FIA Press Conference - so much for his supposed editorial ethics.




#483 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 26 June 2009 - 11:22

Wow, this must be a first. For the third consecutive month in a row, F1 Racing features... Jenson Button/Brawn on the front cover! :p

#484 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 June 2009 - 12:25

Wow, this must be a first. For the third consecutive month in a row, F1 Racing features... Jenson Button/Brawn on the front cover! :p

It's understandable (and makes a change not to see the usual suspects on the cover :) ). What I find really strange is the content of Mark Hughes' column in this week's Autosport - very very odd. It's just a series of quotes from different people involved in the FIA-FOTA dispute. No explanation to speak of, just a series of quotes. It was actually more bite size and informative than a long narrative. Now that makes a change. Whatever gave the idea to do this should happen more often :up:

#485 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 26 June 2009 - 17:29

It's understandable (and makes a change not to see the usual suspects on the cover :) ). What I find really strange is the content of Mark Hughes' column in this week's Autosport - very very odd. It's just a series of quotes from different people involved in the FIA-FOTA dispute. No explanation to speak of, just a series of quotes. It was actually more bite size and informative than a long narrative. Now that makes a change. Whatever gave the idea to do this should happen more often :up:


I completely ignored it in my first flick through. Along with the main feature about the future of F1 as it was horribly out of date by the time it hit my door mat, such is the disadvantage of the printed press unfortunately.

#486 pitflaps

pitflaps
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 17:47

Peter Windsor. Peter Windsor. Peter bloody Windsor.

Thank God he's at the end of the mag so at least I don't get sick all over the pages prior to reading it.

How does he have a job in journalism? What is all this third person re-imagining of the driver's routine in the morning or how he takes a corner: "...Seb feels the revs climb a little then brakes, downshifts, moves the steering...and loses the rear...Jenson, head down and scarcely believing his luck..." is he? IS HE? Really, that's funny, how did you know that? In the car with him were you? Did you have an electronic empathy hat on telling you his exact thoughts and emotions at the time? REALLY?

And his cliched clunky simile-fuelled melodramatic mellifulous waffling repetition: it's never e.g. a Mclaren it's, "the MP4/24", the Ferrari is "the F60" and the Red Bull the "RB6". Why is that, unless you can't write and think that somehow makes it more dramatic rather than actually being descriptive instead?

He can't find a way of saying something isn't up to snuff he has to say (from the latest issue I've just wiped down), "Mark Webber, by contrast was nowhere - not in the 10 point sense of somewhere at any rate" or try, "it wasn't good though. Not Red Bull good, or Sebastian Vettel good". What?

And. The short sentences. He uses. To emphasise. This point. About how (enter superlative here) it all was. In the most. Melodramatic self-aggrandising way.

If the F1 team keeps him busy enough he can't write at least that will be something though though I can't help thinking his PR releases will all be e.g.

"Danica combed her hair in the team trailer and thought of turn 4 which she'd been carrying too much speed into that weekend and knew something had to be done. Zipping up her flameproof Sparco suit and opening the door into the stark sunshine she remembered something her father had told her when she first started racing as a little girl...." etc.

I hope he falls over in the pitlane and somebody runs over his hands. Then finishes them off with a torque wrench.

#487 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 20:22

Peter Windsor. Peter Windsor. Peter bloody Windsor.

Thank God he's at the end of the mag so at least I don't get sick all over the pages prior to reading it.

How does he have a job in journalism? What is all this third person re-imagining of the driver's routine in the morning or how he takes a corner: "...Seb feels the revs climb a little then brakes, downshifts, moves the steering...and loses the rear...Jenson, head down and scarcely believing his luck..." is he? IS HE? Really, that's funny, how did you know that? In the car with him were you? Did you have an electronic empathy hat on telling you his exact thoughts and emotions at the time? REALLY?

And his cliched clunky simile-fuelled melodramatic mellifulous waffling repetition: it's never e.g. a Mclaren it's, "the MP4/24", the Ferrari is "the F60" and the Red Bull the "RB6". Why is that, unless you can't write and think that somehow makes it more dramatic rather than actually being descriptive instead?

He can't find a way of saying something isn't up to snuff he has to say (from the latest issue I've just wiped down), "Mark Webber, by contrast was nowhere - not in the 10 point sense of somewhere at any rate" or try, "it wasn't good though. Not Red Bull good, or Sebastian Vettel good". What?

And. The short sentences. He uses. To emphasise. This point. About how (enter superlative here) it all was. In the most. Melodramatic self-aggrandising way.

If the F1 team keeps him busy enough he can't write at least that will be something though though I can't help thinking his PR releases will all be e.g.

"Danica combed her hair in the team trailer and thought of turn 4 which she'd been carrying too much speed into that weekend and knew something had to be done. Zipping up her flameproof Sparco suit and opening the door into the stark sunshine she remembered something her father had told her when she first started racing as a little girl...." etc.

I hope he falls over in the pitlane and somebody runs over his hands. Then finishes them off with a torque wrench.

Thankfully we won't have to read this since the chances of his team getting to the grid next year are nil.

#488 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,258 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 June 2009 - 20:25

I think we'll see USF1, but we won't see Danica.

#489 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 June 2009 - 20:31

Peter Windsor. Peter Windsor. Peter bloody Windsor.


I hope he falls over in the pitlane and somebody runs over his hands. Then finishes them off with a torque wrench.


Very funny! I just wish you'd say what you really think!


#490 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 June 2009 - 20:33

Thankfully we won't have to read this since the chances of his team getting to the grid next year are nil.

Surely that means there's even more chance that we'll have to suffer it - nothing else to do...


#491 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 20:33

I think we'll see USF1, but we won't see Danica.

I'd be surprised if the powers that be agree with you that USF1 will be on the grid next year. I have to say that locating an F1 team in the US is a mad idea and having a journalist running it is even more crazy

#492 Blythy

Blythy
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 27 June 2009 - 21:02

Thankfully we won't have to read this since the chances of his team getting to the grid next year are nil.


Nah, I reckon they'll get in. Whether they'll get far is another matter. Look at the problems toyota had by starting in germany away from the F1 talent pool of britain. Plus, they'll have difficulties getting to european test tracks (nevermind the budget implications). And the european season will be hard on any staff based in the US.

I know they have a site in spain or somewhere planned, but it'll be pretty difficult to manage 2 sites.

I'd be surprised if the powers that be agree with you that USF1 will be on the grid next year. I have to say that locating an F1 team in the US is a mad idea and having a journalist running it is even more crazy


He did work for williams for a while as team manager.

Edited by Blythy, 27 June 2009 - 21:04.


#493 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,201 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 July 2009 - 18:35

http://timesonline.t...ormula-one.html

Ed Gorman attacks Max Mosley:

You have probably all noticed that there is something of a gap in the Formula One schedule and, after Max Mosley's latest manoeuvrings, a lot of people have taken a breather. By the way, on the subject of Mosley, be ready for a spin-line in the next few weeks which will concentrate on the apparent attack on the authority of that minor motoring organisation, the FIA.

When Mosley is in trouble, he always resorts to this: "The FIA is under attack, I must defend it. There is no-one who can do this as well as me. The members - (who are all wearing full gas-masks and hardhats and are sleeping in their garden sheds) - are imploring me to stay. I could not possibly let them down." On and on it goes...

Of course we should never be taken in by this sort of nonsense peddled by Mosley and his spin-doctor (Anthony) Richard Woods. Mosley is only interested in Mosley. Ambitious, addicted to power and hopelessly vain, he cannot see that his useful time, his constructive time, as the head of the FIA is over. And so he must stay and there is still no-one in the FIA who is man enough, strong enough, even brave enough to take him on and get rid of him.

The point of the Mosley/Woods tactic is to make Mosley look strong. "Here is the great defender, fighting for our rights while evil-doers all around us - the dreaded car manufacturers - try to bring us down." What this ploy attempts to obscure, however, is the inconvenient truth that Mosley completely misjudged his attempt to force a budget cap (voluntarily) down the throat of Formula One, that he precipitated the biggest crisis in the sport's history, that that crisis has done enormous commercial harm to Formula One and that, in the end, he has agreed to so many derogations and exceptions to his scheme, that the whole thing has been watered down to the point of being almost meaningless.

I should also add that Mosley's people were very keen to agree with the view, a few weeks ago, that this was Max's "big play" - this was going to be his big career achievement, reforming Formula One's addiction to spending. He would stand or fall on this one. Well, he has certainly not won the day, so we have to assume that, by the estimates of his own staff, his credibility is now seriously in question. Normally in public life when people get it this wrong they have to consider their future.

I forgot one other point: the shenanigans of last week when Mosley threw his toys out of his pram because he didn't like his press coverage made Formula One a laughing stock. That's all very well, you might think, if it was the work of a mere driver or team principal but, no, this was the head of the sport's governing body making everyone, including himself, look silly....

Which brings me to the point of this post...

The other day, quite a few days ago in fact, on the evening of the Turkish Grand Prix, myself and two colleagues from Fleet Street (who will remain anonymous) played a little game where we listed, in order of importance and without consulting each other first, the top-10 most influential people in Formula One. Of course this was well before the breakaway was announced and the dramas of Paris and it is also very much a British journalist's view, but the lists (saved from dinner at a restaurant round the corner from our Istanbul hotel) still make quite interesting reading.

Have a look through them and tell us what you think. Are we miles out? Have we consistently missed some key people? Is the wrong person at or near the top each time? Have I, for example, under-estimated the importance of Luca di Montezemolo? Why is Lewis in the list(I would argue that he gets worldwide publicity for anything he says that's remotely controversial) and is Max really not as important as Bernard Charles? What about Woods, why is he on all three lists? Looking through it, I see I have still got Ron in there...interesting....

Let's have your views...

The top-10 most important/influential people in Formula One

My list
1. Bernie Ecclestone
2. Donald Mackenzie
3. Max Mosley
4. Richard Woods
5. Tony Purnell
6. Lewis Hamilton
7. Luca di Montezemolo
8. Ron Dennis
9. Fernando Alonso
10. John Howett

Colleague One
1. Bernie Ecclestone
2. Max Mosley
3. Donald Mackenzie
4. Alan Donnelly
5. Richard Woods
6. Luca di Montezemolo
7. Flavio Briatore
8. Dr Dieter Zetsche
9. Lewis Hamilton
10. Head of BBC Sport

Colleague Two
1. Bernie Ecclestone
2. Max Mosley
3. Donald Mackenzie
4. Luca di Montezemolo
5. Richard Woods
6. Alan Donnelly
7. Anthony Hamilton
8. Lewis Hamilton
9. Flavio Briatore
10. Jenson Button

Errr...that's it....



#494 vicksplum

vicksplum
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 July 2009 - 21:05

Just popping in to say well done to Bradley for the last two weeks articles in Autosport. Fantastic writing and I totally agree!

Autosport makes for brilliant reading this week (even if for some bizarre reason I got two copies in the post on Thursday...)

#495 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 06 July 2009 - 08:51

Just popping in to say well done to Bradley for the last two weeks articles in Autosport. Fantastic writing and I totally agree!

Autosport makes for brilliant reading this week (even if for some bizarre reason I got two copies in the post on Thursday...)


Trying to arrest their dwindling circulation?

Edited by kar, 06 July 2009 - 08:51.


#496 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 07 July 2009 - 03:53

I actually kind of like the FIA's stance on websites. Otherwise it's every idiot with a blog wandering the paddock.

God forbid just anyone gets access to the paddock....the horror :eek:


:rolleyes:

#497 Chezrome

Chezrome
  • Member

  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 July 2009 - 06:51

I'd be surprised if the powers that be agree with you that USF1 will be on the grid next year. I have to say that locating an F1 team in the US is a mad idea and having a journalist running it is even more crazy


I understand that people here don't like Peter Windsor. But for god's sake. He WAS teammanager at Williams F1 when they still won championships. Keke Rosberg once was very angry that Frank Williams let Peter Windsor go. 'The best teammanager Williams ever had... and he let him go.'

Windsor, in other words, is not a journalist turned teammanager. He returns to his earlier profession.

#498 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,258 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 July 2009 - 07:04

God forbid just anyone gets access to the paddock....the horror :eek:


:rolleyes:


I think it's a team area, not a VIP or press hangout.

#499 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 22 September 2009 - 15:46

These past couple months have really rammed home how futile it is having a monthly F1 magazine in F1 Racing's current format. There was the Ferrari fightback cover one, which by the time I saw it on the newsstands was hopelessly out of date.

Then there is the Webber issue, and Webber as we now know, is similarly hopelessly out of contention.

I bought this magazine a lot about three years ago, but although the new direction has improved the copy a bit, the fundamental problem remains. It's not weighty enough to appeal to the hardcore, and it's not up to the minute enough to appeal to the casual folk. With more races crammed in to the calendar it's impossible for a monthly magazine to stay even remotely current.

Motorsport magazine, and I've said this before, seems to have decided to simply focus on the hardcore market and the singular vision of purpose makes it a tighter, more cohesive publication than anything F1 Racing could hope for at the moment. Yeah the magazines have slight differences in theme but undeniably motorsport seems to understand its customers better. And that's because they've decided who their customers are specifically. Not taken a shotgun approach.

It will be interesting to see the ABC numbers for F1 Racing, actually, compared to Motorsport since the changeover in Editorial teams at both publications.

Edited by kar, 22 September 2009 - 15:48.


Advertisement

#500 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,633 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 22 September 2009 - 15:57

It's an age thing. Nostalgia catches up with everybody eventually.