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

#51 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 19 May 2008 - 09:20

I'll give it a read at the news stand in June then - I just seriously couldn't stomach the sometimes ridiculous. use. of. English.

Anymore.

As much as anything, I hope that's changed.

Just one last point though, I wonder if one of the reasons print journalism has become much less engaging is just an artefact of drivers/teams/officials having their comments so quickly dissected on the internet that they are far less likely to talk about anything of any real substance for fear of it being disseminated so quickly that have no ability to see the context.

The Internet doesn't need much depth, it makes up for it with sheer quantity and speed.

Print needs grist, and it's seldom being given up by the people we're interested in.

Advertisement

#52 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 May 2008 - 09:29

Originally posted by bradleyl
All I’d say is check out the June issue and see what you think.


Hi Bradley,
I'm still a subscriber so I'll take a look at the June issue. Thanks again for taking time to respond.

#53 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 4,992 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 19 May 2008 - 09:32

Thanks for the answers bradley. I may still not agree, but very much appreciate the effort. :up:

#54 KAus

KAus
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 19 May 2008 - 10:40

Originally posted by Eau Red
Magazines in general have been hurt by the internet. We pick up a copy of F1 Racing having already watched the race on TV, followed the live timing on the F1 website, read Craig's technical analysis, the race analysis, the weekly grapevine, Ed Gormon's MaxBlog, and browsed a hundred photos of the latest hole in the Ferrari's nose. So the magazine needs to offer something different.

I've seen other magazines adapt successfully to this "new era," and others try things that didn't work out. I think Velo News (a US cycling magazine.) provides a good model. They've shortened their coverage of race details & focused on more in-depth analyses of a specific aspect of a race or a team or a rider. They've expanded their technical coverage. And they've increased their number of historical articles. It's enough that I've kept subscribing, even though I have access to every cycling website out there, & I pick up my issue of Velo News already knowing the results of every recent race. Time Magazine, between the changes they've made to their website & their magazine content, has also done a good job at adapting recently, after nearly going out of business due to their failure to change with the times.

So I'd suggest to F1 Racing that their focus might shift more towards historical articles (interviews with ex-drivers, ex-team owners, reviews of classic races) or technical articles (not engineering-school level, but maybe something like, what's the deal with this J-damper thing, or what is it about Lewis' driving that makes him kill his front tires in Turkey every year). A magazine can also do a better job at presenting graphics & photos than the internet can. I think magazines in general need to focus on what they can offer that's different or better than what we can already get on the internet.

As for the Max scandal, I understand the point that the magazine couldn't keep up with breaking news, at least at first; but it's such a huge story in the world of F1 that it really needs to be dealt with by any serious publication.


If F1 magazine turned into what you described above, I would actually go back to buying it again. The Bishop/Windsor dribble plus the rubbish articles drove me away years ago so I really do hope you guys can turn it into something worth reading Bradley. I will have a look through the next few issues on the news stand and see if it really is changing.

Thanks for coming in here and discussing the magazine too :up:

#55 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 19 May 2008 - 11:42

I would think that some of us just call a spade a spade and don't suffer fools gladly. That usually brings out the worse in me.  ;)

A monthly F1 magazine is and has always been a great idea in that it has the platform to elevate above the weekly "whirlwindy" circus that is F1. I have still got 6 months left in my subscription and I hope when the time comes I will happily renew.

#56 F1Fanatic.co.uk

F1Fanatic.co.uk
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 19 May 2008 - 12:09

The horoscope thing in a recent issue was a real turn-off for me. At this rate I'm not going to renew, I keep casually buying Motorsport magazine and I can't afford to get both.

#57 howardt

howardt
  • Member

  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 19 May 2008 - 12:23

Well, I'm not a subscriber, but I am a fan of bradleyl's direct approach to customer feedback. (I also enjoyed the contribution of his former guise as BPL). Thanks.

I'm also looking forward to the post-3rd June issue when there is at least some kind of milestone event in the saga, and the magazine has an opportunity for insight into & analysis of a historical situation rather than a rolling news story. :D

#58 Maldwyn

Maldwyn
  • Member

  • 1,486 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 19 May 2008 - 12:59

Reading all of this it's fun to think how times have changed since Grand Prix International magazine first appeared almost 30yrs ago. As far as I knew GPI was the first magazine devoted exclusively to F1 and IIRC it appeared on news stands a week or so after each race. It was a simple magazine - paddock news, quali & race report, great photography, and interview/feature or two. That was it.

Seeing some of the complaints here about F1R I dread to think what some would have made of the 'thin' GPI, and yet it is fondly remembered long after its demise. The media has moved on enormously, and rapidly since GPI and I don't recall Eric Bhat facing the GPI readership as we see the Features Editor of F1R do here :)

Anyway...I have enjoyed F1R since the first issue with just one persistent criticism...I'd like to see more articles/features offering some 'perspective' on F1 then and now. The sport has a rich history which should be enjoyed by new and old fans alike.

#59 Just

Just
  • Member

  • 673 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 19 May 2008 - 13:07

Originally posted by bradleyl
I hope that responds to a fair number of the posts here; any more questions, fire them in!
Cheers

What's the deal with Peter Windsor's commentary, specifically his comments on each driver's style? I mean, really, does anyone actually believe him?

Advertisement

#60 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 19 May 2008 - 13:12

Originally posted by Just

What's the deal with Peter Windsor's commentary, specifically his comments on each driver's style? I mean, really, does anyone actually believe him?


Heh.

As for ways of tackling the Mosley scandal, why not avoid the contemporary issue, and rather look back at his time in F1, from the beginning, to the current end. There's very little in depth material like that, and the online offerings can't really compete in that respect.

#61 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2008 - 13:35

Just, yes people do read, like, believe Peter's analysis. I always did when I was a fan, and I know he's well respected by engineers in the paddock. Driving analysis is a very, very tricky thing to do (especially when you haven't got reams of telemetry in front of you), and he does a brilliant job with it.

As for kar's suggestion, that's one possibility; but personally I'd rather read an interview with Nico or Jenson, than a retrospective of Max Mosley's career...

#62 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,910 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 19 May 2008 - 13:59

Hell just ask Ernesto Viso. No one would have put him in the same group as Rosberg and Hamilton until PW came a long.

#63 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 19 May 2008 - 14:24

Originally posted by bradleyl
Just, yes people do read, like, believe Peter's analysis. I always did when I was a fan, and I know he's well respected by engineers in the paddock. Driving analysis is a very, very tricky thing to do (especially when you haven't got reams of telemetry in front of you), and he does a brilliant job with it.


Definitely, Heikki having improved his second phase turn in as per Peter's suggestion is now consistently quicker in qually than the Peter's (former?) goldenboy Lewis :)

#64 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2008 - 14:30

It's easy to mock - but very difficult to try and make what's going on out there comprehensible. Kudos to Peter for doing so. Decoding F1 is one of the greatest challenges any of us have and he has a bloody good stab at it.

#65 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,910 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:01

But that's the thing, he actually confuses me, and I can make a case that I know as much about it as he does. I literally read one of his driving articles (which seems to be a subsection of any of his articles these days) and just don't get his thought process. He'd be a rubbish driver coach because I think he understands what he's talking about but his explanations are gibberish.

#66 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:01

Originally posted by bradleyl
It's easy to mock - but very difficult to try and make what's going on out there comprehensible. Kudos to Peter for doing so. Decoding F1 is one of the greatest challenges any of us have and he has a bloody good stab at it.


I know I was being glib, and you're correct, it would be very difficult to try and make what is going out there comprehensible. I think Peter leaves himself open to criticism because of his overuse of jargon - it makes him appear as if he's talking bullshit, particularly when he clearly takes particular liking to certain drivers over others.

That too is very normal, but I think it was in January or something he was commenting about Kimi being a fantastically 'manipulative' driver, (he uses these words without explaining what they specially mean in the context he's using them, so it tends to just come across as if he's throwing it in there to make himself look smart) and Lewis was like Kimi * a factor of 2. He doesn't actually objectify how he came to that observation, he just states it as if it is definitive fact.

Then you have his comments on Five Live again to the effect Lewis is amazing and outdrove Kimi on days like in China where Hamilton roasted his tyres and beached it in the sand in the process. When you get such clearly overt displays of affection for one driver over another, it's hard then to take them seriously when they offer 'insight' into their different styles.

It's why I always go back to that 'second phase turn in' comment, because it encapulates is in a nutshell all that comes across wrong with Windsor's drivers insight.

He may well really 'get it', I've never met the man so I can't tell. But the way he comes across on TV, on the radio and especially in print, is of someone that throws in lots of jargon to give themselves an air of authoritativeness on a subject than their explanations do not actually justify.

I'd just like to see him tone down the jargon, explain the objective differences in plain english and without taking his favourite driver, asserting that that way must be the best and describing everyone else in terms of how they do and do not copy his favourite driver of the day's style.

#67 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:03

I hope this month's piece on Kubica does exactly that... it's understandable for all, I think. As I've said earlier, that typifies the 'accessibility' we're trying to achieve - understood as the opposite to 'impenetrable'. And not syonymous with 'dumbing down'.

Cheers

#68 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,910 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:20

But even that was fairly clumsy, even though it was better than most. I got to the end and thought "Oh, so you're saying that group of drivers takes a later apex, but a straighter one". So uhm, just say that!

#69 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:25

I think that's the difference between stating what they're doing, and trying to explain how they're doing it... yours does the former, Peter's the latter. And more to the point, he's explaining the advantage of one over the other - trying to say why it's better, not just that it is.

#70 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:25

Oh, man.... I used to be the translator for the now defunct Swedish edition of F1 Racing and Windsors terminology had me going absolutely nuts. As kar said, nowhere does he try to explain the meaning of his words.

Motormedia

#71 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:31

Originally posted by Motormedia
Oh, man.... I used to be the translator for the now defunct Swedish edition of F1 Racing and Windsors terminology had me going absolutely nuts. As kar said, nowhere does he try to explain the meaning of his words.

Motormedia


Is your name Bjorn Wirdheim? Wasn't he the Swedish translator for F1 Racing for a time?
If so, that mistake you made on the finish line to give away victory in the 2003 F3000 race at Monaco remains highly entertaining, even five years later...

#72 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:32

Originally posted by bradleyl
I think that's the difference between stating what they're doing, and trying to explain how they're doing it... yours does the former, Peter's the latter. And more to the point, he's explaining the advantage of one over the other - trying to say why it's better, not just that it is.


Has F1 Racing ever thought of running a writing competition? ie: If you think this is easy, have a go. Publish the best, and worst. Would be an entertaining read.

#73 zywiec

zywiec
  • New Member

  • 5 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:51

I appreciate Mr. Lord's participation in this forum. As someone who works in the sporting media I often wish our senior editorial staff were making such attempts at direct involvement.

I look forward to change in editorial direction F1 Racing as others have mentioned earlier in the thread. Its nice to know I am not alone in my impressions of the quality of the publication, especially in recent issues. I would prefer to see more in depth articles. As an enthusiast I tend to lean towards the "geekier" aspects of motor sport, F1 in particular, and rely on various sources to go beyond race results and general wire service blurbs. I subscribe to Autosport (print and online) for F1 news as well as the coverage of series that one cannot follow on TV in the States.
I also subscribe to Motor Sport and enjoy its more historical focus as well as great pieces on current series. An article from a few months back on the ALMS and Grand Am series stands out in particular.

I pick up F1 Racing mainly for an entertaining read. I actually look forward to reading the Day I Met... on the back as well as the other human interest pieces. I would be interested in more coverage of the important people involved in F1 teams who are less visible than the drivers, principals etc... For instance, the recent article on the Renault exhaust fabricators could have gone on for another few pages.

Best of luck, I'll be looking out for the current issue on the stands.

#74 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 19 May 2008 - 15:55

Originally posted by potmotr


Is your name Bjorn Wirdheim? Wasn't he the Swedish translator for F1 Racing for a time?
If so, that mistake you made on the finish line to give away victory in the 2003 F3000 race at Monaco remains highly entertaining, even five years later...


No, I'm not Bjorn. Made an interview with him once though for a website, or rather took the photos while my colleague made the talking. Nice and intelligent chap, a bit shy but personable up close.

Motormedia

#75 Jackman

Jackman
  • Member

  • 12,568 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 19 May 2008 - 16:03

Originally posted by potmotr
Is your name Bjorn Wirdheim? Wasn't he the Swedish translator for F1 Racing for a time?
If so, that mistake you made on the finish line to give away victory in the 2003 F3000 race at Monaco remains highly entertaining, even five years later...

I think Bjorn used to write a column for them, and I know he did some other work for them as he used to have a card with their logo on it, but I don't think he did translations.

#76 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 19 May 2008 - 16:15

Going back to Windsor. I have no doubt he is an intelligent man who has given a great deal of thought on how the styles of different drivers vary. But why invent the wheel again? Isn't there a nomenclature for this already? We have the traction circle which is a great pedagogic tool which would be excellent to describe the differences between the drivers.

Motormedia

#77 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 May 2008 - 16:50

Originally posted by bradleyl
As I've said earlier, that typifies the 'accessibility' we're trying to achieve - understood as the opposite to 'impenetrable'. And not syonymous with 'dumbing down'.

Cheers


Great aims indeed Bradley. But having just picked up the June issue I think your guys should be getting the small things right first, like detail. On the letters page you feature a captioned picture of 'Brandon Hartley'. I thought it might have been a typo, but in the body of the letters there is another reference to Brandon. Any relation to Brendon Hartley? I think a specialist sports audience is especially unforgiving of this sort of thing, especially getting the name of a driver who has tested for a Formula One team this year wrong twice.

http://www.brendonha...nz/homepage.htm

#78 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,707 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 19 May 2008 - 16:58

I also want to chip in about Peter Windsor.

Reading the Frank Williams Q&A in this months issue I felt a little embarrassed for myself, I will admit.

The reason being, I always thought of Peter Windsor as being a bit of a blagger, maybe a bit of a bullshitter, maybe somebody who never got as far in the world of F1 as they would have liked to do. I always knew he was with Frank when he had his accident, but I never took that as excusing him for any opinions I had of him. I do however hold Frank Williams in the highest respect and is definitely a guy who you should always listen and pay attention to when he speaks. In the Q&A Frank names Peter Windsor as one of the true friends he has made in F1. I don't know if this is the right word to use, but I felt humbled by what Frank said and I seriously now consider that the opinion I held of Peter Windsor was wrong. If a guy like Frank considers him a friend then he must be a solid and sound person and not the guy I thought he was. For that I would even apologise to him.

Not wanting to kiss his arse too much though I will say I do still have criticism of a lot of his writing in F1 Racing. The biggest problem for me is that, coupled with the comments above about his writing style, he just seems to be writing the same article again and again and again but with a different drivers name. His articles seriously have blended into one. There are only so many times you can read articles like Peter's without becoming immensely bored. I lost interest long ago. It would work if maybe once a season he did a decent article analysing various drivers, maybe the main players, but reading the same stuff time after time is tiresome.

I'm sure that given a different brief Peter would be rejuvenated and pull out some classy features.

Bradley - also a bit of an apology to you too mate. You are absolutely right that it's easy to say what you want on a forum and not consider it so well before you say it, so I hope I didn't offend you if I used words like "shit" etc !!!!

I for one know we'd have a much better time and a much better discussion over a few jars!

Thanks again for your responses.

#79 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 19 May 2008 - 17:05

For whatever it's worth, a friend of mine bumped into Peter Windsor and chatted with him for a while. He found him a very pleasant and friendly person. I know of several people who enjoys sticking their necks out in media and at times they can come off as quite obnoxious, as I'm sure many perceive myself, but on an eye to eye basis they are as friendly and humble as anybody. Having said that, Windsor's articles are at times cryptical, to say the least.

Motormedia

Advertisement

#80 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 May 2008 - 17:11

I met Peter Windsor when I was working at the Australian Grand Prix a few years back. He's a really top guy IMO. He didn't have to help out with what we were doing, but did. A good guy.

#81 bradleyl

bradleyl
  • Member

  • 188 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 19 May 2008 - 17:42

Granted potmotr, that's a simple mistake. I'll pass it along to those concerned. We're equally unforgiving of mistakes and want to get it right every time. Thank you for helping us do that.

#82 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,150 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 May 2008 - 20:10

I have stopped buying F1 Racing long ago. I just didn't like their arrogant attitude and lack of respect to some people. Sometimes their journalists acted as if they were the stars.

I also didn't like that if somebody didn't play their game they revenged him and gave him a hard time in their articles. The drivers who played their game were the good guys, the drivers who didn't were the bad guys. They did that to Irvine quite a lot, for example, simply because Eddie and Bishop admittedly didn't get along. (And no, I was never an Irvine fan.)

I have heard about Mat Bishop's conflict with Ralf Schumacher last year and that's another example of what I don't like in these journalists. Yes, Bishop had his points and I'm not saying Ralf was right. But Bishop should have behaved like a professional journalist, not like an angry teenager. And he even looked proud of himself. Even as a critical journalist you have to respect the people you make your living from. F1 Racing has become increasingly arrogant and self-righteous over the years and I didn't like that.

OK, I haven't read them for a while, so maybe it's all different now, post-Bishop, but it's too late. With the Internet giving me my daily F1 updates, I can do without them. Maybe it also has to do with the fact I have grown and I'm not a teenager any more like when I was buying and enjoying their magazines...

#83 pottiella

pottiella
  • Member

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 19 May 2008 - 21:27

Originally posted by bradleyl
As for a widely-accepted dissatisfaction, I think it’s true (and hopefully not insulting) to say that a message board of this kind brings out the worst in people; criticism is easier when it’s not done face to face.


Can't argue with that! In fact, I almost wondered at first why you were bothering...but surprisingly the thread has largely been constructive and civil.


Originally posted by bradleyl
Once again, I’d say ‘pick up the magazine, see what you think’. The Monaco issue (June) is another step on the road for the new editorial team, and it’s bigger and better again than the previous issue. In terms of problems being magnified for a monthly magazine, I disagree; it’s a fantastic opportunity to provide coverage that other outlets cannot. But a monthly magazine is not a news website, or a newspaper…


I do pick up the magazine and stand there for awhile in the hope I might want to buy it and take home to read properly, but I'm still hoping!

In all seriousness though, I was actually agreeing with you that the magazine was changing and seemingly for the better - but still a far sight from worthy of my fiver! I also agree that a monthly magazine isn't there for news updates; and in fact I have never bought a monthly magazine to tell me what happened 3 weeks ago! I love the features and analysis, and that's why I used to pick up F1 Racing.

Perhaps I approach the analytical sections by near-celebrity names like Peter Windsor (whom I used to have a lot of respect for as a journalist, but I've thought him as going downhill a little over the past year or so) and our favourite Matt Bishop (even the likes of Mark Hughes who, as incredibly intellegent as he is, can take the piss sometimes with a foundationless yet overelaborate analysis) - all with a hint of cynicism and point-blank distrust now because they have shown to let themselves down (perhaps in the name of writing something popular). I'm not questioning their integrity, but I do know better to realise it isn't always without considering what will sell. Again, cynical perhaps, and only my own opinion, but not without good reason.

I've perhaps made a mountain out of a molehill, as I don't feel as strongly about it as others seem to; especially as I do recognise that it is progressively improving with this reasonable reshuffle. I'll look forward to it...especially without that ghastly 'top 100' poll next time!

Besides, for what it's worth Bradley, you and I have spoken enough (I'm sure you'll realise...) for you to know I've always been a bit too much of a purist anyway!

#84 Ayrton-No.1

Ayrton-No.1
  • Member

  • 98 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 20 May 2008 - 11:22

As someone who is also a long time subscriber to F1 Racing I have to totally agree with Imperial that the quality of the issues since Bishop's departure deteriorated badly.
It actually all started with Bishop's announcement that he leaves F1R for a new career. I am not sure if it was couple of issues before this announcement or prior, but the size (format) of the magazine has decreased, the mag became thinner (as thin as it had never been before!), the price went up again (without a single word from the staff explaining why, like they always did before), the position of Editor changed from issue to issue (I think it was Tim Scott who was the initial successor of Bishop?), then the Feb&Mar issues didn't even have an editor, until they finally found one in Mr.Seeberg.
So after I realised somthing is going on and after I read the March issue, which, sorry Mr. Lord, was of catastrophic quality, I said to myself that something serious is going on at F1Racing and it is going to go bankrupt :|
as we can see, it wasn't as dramatic as I had seen it, but still, F1Racing needs to step up it's game if they want me to renew my subscribtion. :cool:

#85 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 20 May 2008 - 11:31

Originally posted by Ayrton-No.1
As someone who is also a long time subscriber to F1 Racing I have to totally agree with Imperial that the quality of the issues since Bishop's departure deteriorated badly.
It actually all started with Bishop's announcement that he leaves F1R for a new career. I am not sure if it was couple of issues before this announcement or prior, but the size (format) of the magazine has decreased, the mag became thinner (as thin as it had never been before!), the price went up again (without a single word from the staff explaining why, like they always did before), the position of Editor changed from issue to issue (I think it was Tim Scott who was the initial successor of Bishop?), then the Feb&Mar issues didn't even have an editor, until they finally found one in Mr.Seeberg.
So after I realised somthing is going on and after I read the March issue, which, sorry Mr. Lord, was of catastrophic quality, I said to myself that something serious is going on at F1Racing and it is going to go bankrupt :|
as we can see, it wasn't as dramatic as I had seen it, but still, F1Racing needs to step up it's game if they want me to renew my subscribtion. :cool:


This should prove an interesting read...

#86 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 15,883 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 20 May 2008 - 13:07

Notwithstanding the other comments of the magazine, I still think there is an important question to be answered regarding the Mosley affair. There are plenty of F1 related, rather than orgy related, articles to be written about the subject.

A description of the FISA-FOCA war with Max and Bernies ascent to power.
Changes to the sport that have taken place under Max's leadership, maybe even letting us know how much (or how little) was to do with Max's own drive.
The current constitution of the FIA, how it has changed, and how it interlinks with the teams and FOM.
How changes in the FIA are made. How do new senate members get appointed, who gets to vote on 3 June, what powers they have and what outcomes there might be.
Controversies Max has been involved with, like Indy 05-gate, 'sharpest tool in the box'-gate, 'certified halfwit'-gate etc.

All these to do with the governance of the sport, all solidly related to F1, and none of which involve patching up wounded buttocks.

It seems to me that silence is simply not the right answer in this case when there is so much that could be written on the subject without delving into the areas mentioned by the Editor.

#87 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 20 May 2008 - 14:11

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Notwithstanding the other comments of the magazine, I still think there is an important question to be answered regarding the Mosley affair. There are plenty of F1 related, rather than orgy related, articles to be written about the subject.

A description of the FISA-FOCA war with Max and Bernies ascent to power.
Changes to the sport that have taken place under Max's leadership, maybe even letting us know how much (or how little) was to do with Max's own drive.
The current constitution of the FIA, how it has changed, and how it interlinks with the teams and FOM.
How changes in the FIA are made. How do new senate members get appointed, who gets to vote on 3 June, what powers they have and what outcomes there might be.
Controversies Max has been involved with, like Indy 05-gate, 'sharpest tool in the box'-gate, 'certified halfwit'-gate etc.

All these to do with the governance of the sport, all solidly related to F1, and none of which involve patching up wounded buttocks.

It seems to me that silence is simply not the right answer in this case when there is so much that could be written on the subject without delving into the areas mentioned by the Editor.


The topic of the FIASCO War seems to be avoided whenever possible. Indeed, very little has been written on it and even less addressing the issues leading up to the war and the aftermath. It is usually glossed over or even avoided if at all possible. It is conveniently written off as "politics" which allows any examination of the issues to be avoided. The FIASCO War created "F1" as it is currently known, for better or worse. While it was not necessarily covered all that well at the time for obvious reasons, there were several good efforts to sort things out. This was in part due to a variety of reasons, one being that the "motoring press" generally considering that covering such things was, as mentioned, "political" and, therefore, of no interest to the "fans."

It was a war that came about after years of unrest and a "peace" that took years to implement -- scores being settled as late as 1984.

To understand the "Max & Bernie Show," you need to be able to understand the FIASCO War since that is what propelled them into power, changing things dramatically in the years after the war.

#88 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 20 May 2008 - 14:17

Originally posted by dank


This should prove an interesting read...


Dank, proceed with caution my friend. That piece was written by Tom Rubython, perhaps the poorest journalist ever to stalk the Formula One pitlane (before his pass was revoked).
He has lost numerous lawsuits against members of the Formula One fraternity and his publications have gone under more times than a scuba instructor.
More details here...

Here is one judgement against him...
http://www.carter-ru...llJudgment.html

#89 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 May 2008 - 14:22

Originally posted by potmotr


Dank, proceed with caution my friend. That piece was written by Tom Rubython, perhaps the poorest journalist ever to stalk the Formula One pitlane (before his pass was revoked).
He has lost numerous lawsuits against members of the Formula One fraternity and his publications have gone under more times than a scuba instructor.
More details here...

Here is one judgement against him...
http://www.carter-ru...llJudgment.html


Indeed, by far the funniest law suit was Willi Weber, after Rubython accused Weber of being involved in an international Drugs and Prostitution ring. :lol:

#90 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 15,883 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 20 May 2008 - 14:32

The strange thing is that two months ago, Max could have successfully litigated against anyone who had the temerity to suggest he was a Nazi-obsessed whore beating tea drinker.

Sorry, that's not to suggest Wli is a pimped-up drug baron, but...

#91 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,910 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 May 2008 - 14:50

Rubython blows hot and cold. He can be bang on but also completely wide. He wins some lawsuits, he loses others.

#92 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 20 May 2008 - 14:53

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Rubython blows hot and cold. He can be bang on but also completely wide. He wins some lawsuits, he loses others.


Really? I thought he'd lost all of them. Who did he win against? And is it true he had his press card revoked, then took FOCA/FIA to court to get it back?

#93 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 May 2008 - 15:06

Originally posted by Eau Red

So I'd suggest to F1 Racing that their focus might shift more towards historical articles (interviews with ex-drivers, ex-team owners, reviews of classic races) or technical articles (not engineering-school level, but maybe something like, what's the deal with this J-damper thing, or what is it about Lewis' driving that makes him kill his front tires in Turkey every year). A magazine can also do a better job at presenting graphics & photos than the internet can.


I agree.

There's a lot of "fluff" in F1 Racing that is obtainable elsewhere. There's also an amazing lack of what I'd expect in it: (real) technical analyis, interviews with people involved.

I'm an F1 fan. I'd think a magazine that has the resources to actually be "inside" F1 could come up with more exclusive stuff - no matter how mundane it may *seem* to be.

It appears the curse of mainstream media today: no actual "reporting", lots of rehash. I'm not going to bother with reading track descriptions I already know about online; what about pictures *of the surface itself*? Descriptions of driving a track by local drivers? Interviews with *anyone* associated with a team? On and on... I'll stop.

#94 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 20 May 2008 - 15:11

Originally posted by potmotr


Dank, proceed with caution my friend. That piece was written by Tom Rubython, perhaps the poorest journalist ever to stalk the Formula One pitlane (before his pass was revoked).
He has lost numerous lawsuits against members of the Formula One fraternity and his publications have gone under more times than a scuba instructor.
More details here...

Here is one judgement against him...
http://www.carter-ru...llJudgment.html


wasn't Bishop the one who was denied access to the FIA Gala last year for improper journalism by making up stories about Renault?

#95 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 20 May 2008 - 15:16

Originally posted by dank


This should prove an interesting read...


It is a good read. This article shed some light a couple of months ago and was the only source that published Matt Bishop was denied access to the FIA Gala because of how he had manipulated the media and the public to protect MClaren before the hearing. This event of course was swept away under the carpet by most british publications.

#96 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 15,883 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 20 May 2008 - 15:22

Who actually did publish it? Other than that site, I mean.

#97 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 May 2008 - 15:24

Originally posted by bradleyl
Hi Eau Red. Ironically, the historical angle is one that has been criticized by others on this Forum – Keke Rosberg is, for some, irrelevant to modern F1.



There's a difference: there could be an article about Keke Rosberg, but an *interview* is different.

I doubt any F1 fan would *not* want to read an interview with any F1 driver. The relevance to "today" I think doesn't matter to the "average F1 fan".

[I]Many of the points you make are similar to those above. In terms of self-important journalism, I hope you’ll find none of that in the current magazine.[/b]

Pseudo-related to the above: I found Matt Bishop alienating, due to his blase/jaded attitude; on the other hand, Peter Windsor has every reason to be blase and jaded, but comes across as still enthusiastic and having fun being around F1.


a message board of this kind brings out the worst in people; criticism is easier when it’s not done face to face.

That's true, but I'd think you'd find an outlet of unbiased criticism by your readers to be a good resource.

Id say ‘pick up the magazine, see what you think’. The Monaco issue (June)

.. and, I'd also point out that, as an American reader, your magazine costs about 3x to buy or subscribe to as most magazines on the news stands here. There's a lot of good things about _F1 Racing_ that I like - the photography, the interviews, the (usually just 2 pages) of technical analysis of the cars, Windsor's writing; but it's hyper expensive to buy. The margin of "does this enthrall me enough to purchase?" is pretty slim, and based on what a lot of people write here I'm not alone.

Also note - I won't see the Monaco issue here in the states until probably long after the race...

#98 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 20 May 2008 - 15:29

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Who actually did publish it? Other than that site, I mean.


that is a sports magazine and it was referenced in the times

#99 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 20 May 2008 - 15:37

(piling on)

I liked to say that the bottom line - in the age of the internet - is "what can you give us we can't get online?".

1) excellent photography we can hold in our hands (the entire magazine should look like the first 4 pages);
2) first-hand interviews with insiders: drivers, mechanics, managers - *anyone* in F1
3) analysis by "people who should know".
4) First hand expansion on news - *not* retread of what we'll probably already read online. Yeah, that's difficult.

I think that's about it. I hate to say it, but one needs to look at what's happening in the record industry, or in general goods retail (WalMart), and note that times are a-changing: you've got to get lean. Unique content rules.

Advertisement

#100 Sergino

Sergino
  • Member

  • 655 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 21 May 2008 - 07:34

Originally posted by bradleyl
As such, any reporting on the matter would involve either rehashing facts that have been reported elsewhere (Autosport, autosport.com, both part of the same stable) or adding in a lot of personal opinion. That's no longer the style of our magazine...


It's a shame because that was the reason why F1 Racing's style was so unique. I mean I always liked those articles when an authentic person told his opinon in a special style on a given case/driver/team. (of course not in a ridiculous manner like Bishop on Ralf Schumacher, or WIndsor on Michael's driving style...but in most cases I think it was interesting to read those opinion who has a slighter more opportunity to have a look on the background than the readers). And I always thought that in journalism there are a lot more, than always asking people and publishing their response, what they want to appear on the pages like here in Hungary...No personal view, verdict, opinion, representing something, stand up for something just being boring, inattackable, go for the selling figures...Formerly F1 Racing meant for me a higher standard of journalism and was outstanding for its "tell what I think" attitude, like the good old days of F1...