The Day Formula One Died...

John
 
You illustrate the issue perfectly.  You are clearly someone that likes motorsport, you can watch it anywhere and endure things most people can and will not to do so.
 
It seems the newer F1 fans need something more, either a driver to love or hate, a team to love or hate, a national element. Racing is never enough.
 
hence it is immensely popular.
 
You also get the corporate crowd, I know plenty, they work in business and get invited despite having no interest whatsoever, it's a day out, free lunches etc, but they will never go again, it was about business and networking.
What I can't understand is why people pay hundreds of pounds to go with little interest, that's a lot of money, almost a thing to be seen at.  To experience "atmosphere", all the things advertising tell you are what F1 live is all about.
 
I think there is simply a split in fans, like there is in most sports, rugby, football, tennis, there are those that enjoy the pure sport of it, and far more that simply watch it out of habit, style, leisure activity reasons. A crowd at Bath is very different to a crowd at Twickenham for instance. 
 
That is what Liberty want, and that is what they so far are getting, and more importantly like FIFA, Olympics etc to take it to places it has never been or where it is relatively unknown, and then either tap into that non existent India,Korea,Turkey audience, or the massive Mexico,China,Singapore one.
 
They are not paying after all, so why not try!

Interestingly, last year I went to the Belgian GP as a corporate guest, free entrance to the VIP section (which was excellent) and free access to the grandstand. It was mostly nostalgia that made me go for the grandstand just before and during the race, and I found the experience rather strange. I tried to interest myself in the race, but thought it was rather poor entertainment, despite the TV screen showing action from all around the circuit. Most annoying, though, and most lingering in my memory is the incredibly loud and foul music a DJ on top of the pit building played during the last fifteen minutes or so before the start. They even had "animation girls" on the stands, dancing and inviting you to sing along; it was most disgraceful. I tried to follow the start preparations, but evidently the promoters didn't want me to. I'm not really sure what that was for, it was certainly most unnecessary, and unpleasant.

I think they do similar things before football games these days, so perhaps it's just state of the "art", but I thought the whole event was rather pointless. I don't have experience of other corporate events, and am not really interested, so I'm not quite part of the core target audience, but this certainly hadn't much to do with motor racing. Perhaps a football lover would say the same about being corporate guest at a league match?

Well, we can certainly agree on that stuff...

How on earth people can conclude that an interest in cars or motor sport means you just must like heavy rock rubbish too I will never understand.

And how they can think that you want to be bombarded with noise that drowns out your purpose in being there is equally unfathomable.

DC letting Hakkinen pass for the win in Australia.

 

If anything died that day it was DC's aspirations to be World Champion.

How on earth people can conclude that an interest in cars or motor sport means you just must like heavy rock rubbish too I will never understand.
 

 

 Ray, in another thread many years ago, I remember someone complaining bitterly about a similar experience at Brands Hatch in the late 1960s or early 1970s. They resented having to listen, at the end of the big meetings, to that 'Chris Barber trad jazz rubbish'!  I expect they would have preferred Led Zeppelin, or possibly The Seekers, I can't recall.  

Then of course there was the Mallory Park meeting (run by Radio 1) which ended in chaos after Bay City Rollers fans tried to get across the lake to see their heroes, while an Escort race was going on.  Leading to John Peel marvelling about watching Tony Blackburn rescuing a frogman while riding in a boat driven by a Womble.

In the past I've also made the point that we who have "Jazz Age" cars are expected to like jazz. Not only do I not like jazz, but I would not like the sorts of music which I do like to be blasted at me when I'm playing motor cars.

Then of course there was the Mallory Park meeting (run by Radio 1) which ended in chaos after Bay City Rollers fans tried to get across the lake to see their heroes, while an Escort race was going on.  Leading to John Peel marvelling about watching Tony Blackburn rescuing a frogman while riding in a boat driven by a Womble.

 I was there . For the racing , not the ...umm ...Rollers.   

Ray, in another thread many years ago, I remember someone complaining bitterly about a similar experience at Brands Hatch in the late 1960s or early 1970s. They resented having to listen, at the end of the big meetings, to that 'Chris Barber trad jazz rubbish'!    

I think that might have been the 1964 Grand Prix meeting, at a time when Chris Barber was very popular, and also well connected with racing with CB23 and his later 47. The music was mentioned at the end of the video of the meeting and was intended as a relaxation for the parting/remaining spectators. Times were different then , so quite a novelty. I would have welcomed it a couple of years later when I was queueing to get out, even from club meetings.
Roger Lund

Well, we can certainly agree on that stuff...

How on earth people can conclude that an interest in cars or motor sport means you just must like heavy rock rubbish too I will never understand.

And how they can think that you want to be bombarded with noise that drowns out your purpose in being there is equally unfathomable.

 

Oh, would it have been rock music!! Instead, it was mainstream pop rubbish, the kind you hear on the radio all day. Just terrible.

It doesn't really matter what it is...

If it's offensive to, or even slightly unliked by, anyone in the audience it's a problem to them.

And if it's loud it drowns out conversation. We can't talk about Joe Bloggs' last spin or anything!

Much as  I enjoy  music (from delta blues , via Kraftwerk , Zeppelin ,and a lot of Mali stuff to my adored Joni Mitchell) it rarely fits well with my motor sport addiction. It is a private thing, and I abhor the tendency to  soundtrack nealrly every piece of car and racing footage on youtube or on TV with tiresome and generic guitar rock .

 

Similarly . while I enjoy the Silverstone Classic hugely( bit of a shame about the circuit but the rest is great)  I cringe at the 'rocking and racing ' angle. Typically , the music is provided by cryogenically preserved relics from the  70s and 80s who now sound like bad tribute acts to their former selves . It's music aimed at people who don't like music and I loathe it ....

Sporting events seem to think that people attending the events need to be constantly entertained when there is a break in the on field activities, cricket loves to play music and have dancers in between the overs, football likes to have pre match music blasting out and at half time, rugby is the same, they even have fireworks as the payers come onto the field, F1 is obsessed with F1 rocks. The organisers cant be convinced that the sporting event alone is enough to bring the fans in? 

It's not a new phenomenon, though - from the report of the 1949 Senior TT on the Isle of Man:

 

To the accompaniment of a screeching noise from the loud speaker (alleged to be music) the riders wheel their machines silently on to their grids

!!

Mind you, the problem isn't only one at sporting events...

Fast food places, particularly McDonalds, have speakers in the ceiling to drown out private conversations. I think that's their purpose.

Lots of stores have the radio playing, it's said to soothe the customers into buying stuff. Some of it drives me out of the store because the radio station is always chosen by the most avid music follower in the joint, inevitably the youngest member of the staff.

 

It's not a new phenomenon, though - from the report of the 1949 Senior TT on the Isle of Man:

 

 

 

!!

 

George Formby ?

For Clive James it was 12 May 2002:

https://www.theguard...mulaone.comment
 

If the wheels can come off an empire, they came off Bernie Ecclestone's formula-one empire in Austria on Sunday, when Rubens Barrichello, under team orders from Ferrari, slowed down to let Michael Schumacher take the win. A zillion petrol-heads all over the world were thus given an unmistakable television signal that they might as well have been reading the business section of their local newspaper. The fix was in.

...

But if their drivers aren't racing each other, there is no reason to watch at all. For the next grand prix, the huge worldwide television audience will be down by at least one name I can vouch for. Anyone who feels like joining me can register his protest the same way I will. It can be done at the touch of a button. You can bet that the man in question will get the message. It's a boycott, Bernie: either the racers race, or I read my books instead of shouting at them.

But if their drivers aren't racing each other...

 

I still can´t understand why this particular event has caused such an upset. The motorsport history is full of examples, like 1927 British GP the Delage team ordering Divo into the pits for "tyre examination" to allow Benoist his fourth win of the season, 1930 Belgian GP Bouriat stopping before the line to wait for his team leader Chiron to pass him for victory, 1932 Monaco GP Caracciola not attacking the ailing Alfa Romeo of team leader Nuvolari, French GP Caracciola letting Borzacchini passing by for second place to be compensated by the team at the following German GP, where they took themselves a lot of time to finish off Nuvolari´s car at the pits, to make sure a win of a German driver in a German race, 1934 Eifelrennen Fagioli stopping his car on the last lap in anger about team orders favoring von Brauchitsch for the first Mercedes victory, 1936 Tripoli GP Stuck being ordered to slow down for Varzi to pass, with the subsequent humiliation for the Italian when this had been made publicly, 1947 Valentino GP Wimille being ordered to slowed down for Varzi to pass, 1951 French GP Fagioli ordered into the pits to give his car to Fangio, 1956 Italian GP Collins doing the same, 1961 French GP von Trips allowed to pass Phil Hill (before both their retirements), 1964 Mexican GP Bandini giving way to allow Surtees chase for the championship, 1978 Peterson following Andretti like a shadow, 1979 German GP Regazzoni not being allowed to challenge Jones (despite being ahead of points!), 1979 Italian GP Villeneuve ordered to stay behind Scheckter, 1991 Japan GP Senna waving Berger through, 1992 French GP Patrese giving way to Mansell on team orders, 1994 Italian GP Coulthard getting out of the way of Damon Hill, 1999 German GP Salo sacrificing his one and only chance on a GP win in favour to Irvine, and, and, and... Not to mention all the recent occasions, from "Multi 21" to "Alonso is faster than you" or "Lewis is on a different strategy"...

 

Nevertheless, despite many of these occasions have caused quite some embarassment at the time, it is always this one occasion in 2002 that I read 'nostalgists' to blame it as the death of Grand Prix racing. Not even Briatore´s 'crashgate' of Singapore 2008, which in my opinion is a hot candidate for the most unfair racing action ever. I can not recognize why Ferrari´s move at Austria 2002 was in any way so much worse than all of the examples I have given above (in fact as I have posted earlier in this thread some of the racing periods and drivers involved still receive real glorification). Is it really worse to openly admit team orders rather than to pretend the opposite by a staged inscenation? Is it really less harmful not to attack your team-mate on team orders than handing over position? I think, if motorsport is made by 'teams' such happenings are really inevitable. So the only real difference I can see would be sympathy or antipathy towards who were the drivers involved. Or would the same outcry have been caused if Pironi HAD obeyed team orders at Imola in 1982...

Edited by uechtel, 29 November 2019 - 11:00.

It was because it was a) unnecessary and b) a lie.  There had been a big thing over the previous few months with Barrichello declaring he was ready to take on Schumacher and that Ferrari would allow the drivers to race, there was no number 1, it had to be earned, Rubens would not have to move over &c &c &c.

 

And at the start of a season which Ferrari was already utterly dominating the only soupcon of hope for competition in the year was if Barrichello could indeed take the fight to Schumacher.

 

Austria was the first time he had been able to do so.  And what happened? Ferrari shat in the face of the world and offered up the most pathetic of platitudes along the lines of "well, it could cost Michael the title", when literally nobody on the planet believed that.

 

It was worse than simple team strategy - it showed an utter contempt for the intelligence of the public.

..either the racers race, or I read my books instead of shouting at them.

 

It’s reassuring, in a way, that I was not the only one to shout watching a GP.

 

I used to shout all the time when I was a teenager during a race. I distinctly recall shouting at the TV watching Vittorione Brambilla charging though the field on a Surtees (almost an oxymoron, LOL), the neighbour desperate: “L. is shouting again at the TV”  , like I needed a doctor. He was right, obviously. LOL

 

Not even Briatore´s 'crashgate' of Singapore 2008, which in my opinion is a hot candidate for the most unfair racing action ever.

I'm still taken aback by what happened that day in Singapore. And also by the relative silence from other team managers when the fix was revealed.
 
But let us look at the start of the 2002 season, five races before Austria.
Michael Schumacher 1, 3, 1, 1, 1 (44 points)
Rubens Barrichello Ret, Ret, Ret, 2, DNS (6 points)

JP Montoya 2, 2, 5, 4, 2 (23 points)
 
As uechtel argues, race viewers are long accustomed to number two drivers yielding a place when points are needed or to demonstrate something to sponsors or to put on a show for a driver's home crowd. In the Austria 2002 case, none of the normal reasons apply. 

 

To pursue Ensign's argument further, it was performed so ineptly. Viewers were shocked when they watched something they had been told would not happen. Anyone who had a bet on Rubens to win would have been disgusted with the sport. Ferrari's PR disaster gave M Schumacher four more extra points relative to Montoya.

 

Should we have been surprised? The McLaren end of race switch at Australia 1998 (Hakkinen passing slowed-down Coulthard for a win) already demonstrated that team mangers live on a different planet from the rest of us. It doesn't matter if the drivers had a pre-race agreement or if somebody had "hacked" the encrypted McLaren radio system*, the team management should have allowed Coulthard to continue in his position.

 

* "My account was hacked" is one of the saddest wails from celebrities and politicians caught out saying something offensive or stupid.

 

 

Many of us were a bit put out when Phil Hill let Mike Hawthorn catch and pass him in the 1958 Moroccan GP, but we (and of course they) understood the Rules and accepted the result.

I'm a bit surprised that one wasn't in uechtel's list, but that list does show how it went for most of the sport's history.

1991 Japan GP Senna waving Berger through

Aah, thanks to the Richard Williams book about Ayrton Senna I understand this result. After two years at McLaren with Alain Prost as team mate (1988 and 89), Senna reasserted himself as top dog. The 1991 Japanese GP was a gift to Berger, a former race winner, for acting as super-sub for two seasons. Did Senna give away a race win at any other time?

I first posted on this thread at #11. I feel the same way as in that post. F1 isn't directed at me, an oldish fart, and I don't think that the people running F1 really understand how or why people watch the sport.

 

Ecclestone knew how it worked -- but he stopped bothering to explain it when TV companies gave him money without question. BCE just took the money, relying on his eccentric act as a buffer when challenged. People getting rich via BCE never thought whether they were getting a decent share of the profits because the money was beyond their imagining.

 

All of a sudden, F1 finances changed and the big manufacturers dragged out their calculators to determine the marketing benefit. The BCE model for F1 was about how companies with tens of million pound budgets via adverts could co-exist with multi-national firms. It fell apart just when multi-national car companies spent a hundred million pounds or many times that much. It wasn't just the financial crash. Partially owing to exposure of their technically ludicrous cheat scheme for diesel engines, the VW group now decline to participate in hydrocarbon motorsport. Meanwhile their suppliers provide components in ships powered by the liquid equivalent of high sulphur coal.

---

Back to sport.

 

In the days when 9 or 8 points were accorded to a win and everyone who finished was trying hard, the rules were equitable. Fifth or sixth place after a long race deserved respect and a point. In BCE's time at the Constructors' Association, points won prizes: free transportation to far away races for a team like Surtees or Ensign. Race reliability was much lower at the time but the small teams all earned their points by finishing up high.

 

From 2003, points were awarded for eighth place. From 2010, points were awarded for tenth place. Meanwhile car reliability changed massively and the number of cars on the starting grid diminished. In 2019, a car scoring a point (tenth out of twenty) is "about average".

It was because it was a) unnecessary and b) a lie.  There had been a big thing over the previous few months with Barrichello declaring he was ready to take on Schumacher and that Ferrari would allow the drivers to race, there was no number 1, it had to be earned, Rubens would not have to move over &c &c &c.

 

And at the start of a season which Ferrari was already utterly dominating the only soupcon of hope for competition in the year was if Barrichello could indeed take the fight to Schumacher.

 

Austria was the first time he had been able to do so.  And what happened? Ferrari shat in the face of the world and offered up the most pathetic of platitudes along the lines of "well, it could cost Michael the title", when literally nobody on the planet believed that.

 

It was worse than simple team strategy - it showed an utter contempt for the intelligence of the public.

 

Ok, so at least now I understand why I wasn´t too upset at the time when watching the race. At some point around the 1990ies I had stopped taking any team announcements or driver statements in any way serious, it all meant more or less content-less phrases and PR speach to me. To me it was clear, that Schumacher would never allow giving anybody in the team a chance against him, on any occasion, in any situation, no matter what would have been said or written. So when you don´t expect anything, you can not get that much disappointed...

HOLD EVERYTHING!

 

The absolute death date of Formula 1 is no longer debatable:

 

https://www.formula1...61NmLc0rqI.html

 

Does anybody really need any more fragrances than The TNF Collection's Castrol R, Avgas, and Marvel Mystery Oil?

For me it died when they drastically changed points system in 2010

It was so odd seeing 25 points being given to the winner.

And the oddity continued with pirelli tires, hybrid engines, more and more races in a calendar...

Although maybe it died much much earlier. On May the 1st 1994

Not because that guy Senna died, but because his dearh spirraled the whole stream of knee jerk reactions that last to this day.

Edited by BiggestBuddyLazierFan, 29 November 2019 - 18:15.

Ok, so at least now I understand why I wasn´t too upset at the time when watching the race. At some point around the 1990ies I had stopped taking any team announcements or driver statements in any way serious, it all meant more or less content-less phrases and PR speach to me. To me it was clear, that Schumacher would never allow giving anybody in the team a chance against him, on any occasion, in any situation, no matter what would have been said or written. So when you don´t expect anything, you can not get that much disappointed...

I think we have to go back in time further. Nobody at Benetton raced with the same car as Schumacher it seems. Schumacher's car was a bit funny?

 

When Bernie Ecclestone changed from Brabham Team Manager to Formula One Inc. boss, he set it up so that his old mates had new jobs. Farewell Brabham garage boys, welcome suits.

 

I grew up in Lytham St Annes and family names of people I went to school with are recorded on the monument in St Annes promenade for volunteer lifeboat men. Ta, Ross Brawn, for the RNLI money.

 

But I have this problem Mr Ross Brawn. How on earth have you never explained, to any ethical person, your relationship with Briatore? 

Aah, thanks to the Richard Williams book about Ayrton Senna I understand this result. After two years at McLaren with Alain Prost as team mate (1988 and 89), Senna reasserted himself as top dog. The 1991 Japanese GP was a gift to Berger, a former race winner, for acting as super-sub for two seasons. Did Senna give away a race win at any other time?

 

What made this one even more painful is that McLaren had made appointments about who led at a certain point was to win the race in case it was to remain between the two McLaren drivers. Berger lead at the determined point. Senna got in front of Berger later on in the race and was then reminded about the appointment made before the race. (This is mentioned in the Autocourse 91/92 annual report about this race)

He then honored it eventually in the manner he did. Making it as obvious to see as possible that this victory was taken away from him by his own team.

Maybe we should call this method of handing the race to a teammate "The Brazilian" since Rubens did very much the same in 2002.

 

But I have the feeling that loosing this race in the manner it had to happen, and that after the two preveious events at Suzuka ('89 and '90, need I say more?) that it enraged his frustration nonetheless and because of that lost his temper in the interview after the race and took the limelight with all his comments about the two previous races at Suzuka.

 

Anyway, some out here spitting bile and fuming about every team order affected race by Ferrari, but at least one British F1 team have a record to defend in this kind of scandalous acts of race fixing as well.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 29 November 2019 - 19:39.

Ok, so at least now I understand why I wasn´t too upset at the time when watching the race. At some point around the 1990ies I had stopped taking any team announcements or driver statements in any way serious, it all meant more or less content-less phrases and PR speach to me.

Exactly. It starts at the beginning of each season with each team 'delighted' with their new appointments and optimistic about 'taking a step forward.' Nobody says, actually we're going to pootle round at the back, mess up all our decisions and watch while the drivers bin the things.

 

There are words, and there is racing. The words don't matter. As uechtel demonstrated so convincingly, team orders are a part of racing and always have been. Nothing and nobody died when Barrichello let Schumacher past.

Maybe today is the day F! finally, completely died for me....

 

https://www.autospor...corde-agreement

There are words, and there is racing. The words don't matter. As uechtel demonstrated so convincingly, team orders are a part of racing and always have been. Nothing and nobody died when Barrichello let Schumacher past.

 

It matters when a team says "we do not employ team orders and we will not order Barrichello to let Schumacher past".  And at the first opportunity employs team orders to order Barrichello to let Schumacher past.

 

Exaggerating overall team performance is one thing. But a blatant lie like that is quite another.

Maybe today is the day F! finally, completely died for me....

 

https://www.autospor...corde-agreement

 

I concur. What nonsense......

It's a longstanding tradition . And as the team which has been around - and stayed around - longer tnan any others, won more than anyone else, is unique in having built its own car and engine for so long , having continued to make the world's most desired  sports cars and having the most recognisable identity of any race team   (perhaps jointly with the team which calls itself Mercedes(nee Tyrrell,BAR , Honda   and Brawn ) I don't have a problem with its status .  

It matters when a team says "we do not employ team orders and we will not order Barrichello to let Schumacher past".  And at the first opportunity employs team orders to order Barrichello to let Schumacher past.

 

Exaggerating overall team performance is one thing. But a blatant lie like that is quite another.

 

Come on, it‘s rather obvious that everyone gets so worked up about that thing because Schumacher in his racing days was quite the villainous type, and disliked (for good reason) by many - with the exception of Germany’s Schumi-loving hordes, possibly not so very different from the earlier Mansell-Maniacs.

 

A blatant lie in motor sport? Never happened before 2002...

It's a longstanding tradition . And as the team which has been around... ...I don't have a problem with its status .  

I don't have a problem with Ferrari's status and position in F1 tradition. I think it is right that teams should receive a payment for longevity (and payments to smaller teams making progress). However the Ferrari rules veto was created by BCE to build up his side, dividing teams in the negotiations with Formula One Management. It was a purely political move, nothing to do with status, heritage or merit. Even if I could see any value to the veto as a controlling measure, I have to object to the cynicism in which it was granted.

It's a longstanding tradition .

That's the most feeble justification imaginable for institutionalizing an uneven playing field. This is supposed to be a contest to see who's best, not who's been around longest.

That's the most feeble justification imaginable for institutionalizing an uneven playing field. This is supposed to be a contest to see who's best, not who's been around longest.

 

It's so uneven that Mercedes have won the past 6 championships and Red Bull the 4 before that...........

My interest in the F1WC truly dipped in the aftermath of the FIASCO War and its related Tyrrell Incident in the waning days of 1984, in great part thanks to beginning to observe and consider that particular series from a very different perspective than the one I had held previously. To a lesser extent it also affected my interest in its predecessor over time, but was due to the recognition/realization that there were others out there far better at dealing with it than I was (the Formula One Register and a number of others to name but a few, more than a few of them here or were once here). Plus, once you begin to approach any study of motor sport with a critical, scholarly eye that lens certainly alters what you now see and sense. Besides, CART and IMSA were far more interesting at the time.

 

I am somewhat fascinated at the number of time the move towards hybrid engines gets mentioned as a reason that it all died. Given the usual blather & nonsense about F1 being the pinnacle of motor sport and on the leading edge of technology, one might otherwise think that would be a good reason to praise it for finally at least pretending to push the envelope.

 

Senna & Schumacher pretty much made it easy to look elsewhere as well, with the antics of the Poison Dwarf, Mr. Ecclestone, seconding that emotion.

 

F1 never so much died -- from my understanding it is still very much alive if not necessarily healthy -- as it simply became not very relevant or even interesting for the most part. Any pretense of paying attention died when Damon Hill departed, simultaneously with my many years long readership of Autosport.

 

Once I became interested in other aspects of motor sport and its history, my only linkage or even a modicum of interest has been an irrational continuation to purchase Autocourse each year. For some years now, they rarely ever get skimmed more a time of two before sitting on the bookshelf with the others and a number of the early years of Automobile Year.

 

If the F1WC vanished tomorrow, it would probably not raise an eyebrow on my part. I do try to keep an eye on Formula E, finding it a series that is certainly in many more way more attuned to the Zeitgeist.

 

I do still maintain an interest in what we might still consider as Grand Prix racing, with that interest extending far beyond just the events that were part of the "World" championship.

 

At any rate, I do keep in mind that the concept of being nostalgic -- that is, suffering from nostalgia -- was originally considered to a disorder (https://www.theatlan...isease/278648/), therefore, I remind myself that one can plumb the depths of the past without being blinded by it.

It's so uneven that Mercedes have won the past 6 championships and Red Bull the 4 before that...........

Their results (or lack of) are irrelevant. Do you really believe that in what is supposed to be a sport, it's okay to give one team, and only one team, a veto over rule changes? Please take a stab at explaining how that's fair. And if there are comparable examples in other sports, please point them out.

Although maybe it died much much earlier. On May the 1st 1994

Not because that guy Senna died, but because his dearh spirraled the whole stream of knee jerk reactions that last to this day.

Well said. I trace it back to the disgusting regulation changes from the 1998 season, which was the effects of Imola 1994 still being felt and it dictated the direction of F1.

Jacques Villeneuve was very outspoken back when those '98 regulations were announced. He said (paraphrasing) it would destroy F1 as we knew it going down that path, went against the DNA of Formula 1 and that F1 needed to stay extreme, have an element of danger etc otherwise it would end up a joke.

Has anyone since pulled JV aside and told him how right he was? I know it's unfashionable and all...

F1 is in a continual process of dying and then reinventing itself day's that I was perhaps most keenly aware of F1 dying were 2nd May 1976., 18th July 1976 and 1st August 1976, yet there I was on  24th October 1976 absolutely rivetted to a black white television at stupid o'clock in the morning. The nonsense in Japan on 21st October 1990 finally killed my sustained interest in the sport too many hooligans and no iron fist of authority IMHO ;-)

For Clive James it was 12 May 2002:

https://www.theguard...mulaone.comment
 

Hope this works.

 

 

While leafing through old Autosports, I happened to find Jim Bamber's take on that day. Clear enough, I would think.

I just hope I haven't violated any copyrights here.

different times and fast evolving times probably require changes, but those changes or evolution doesn't always mean that are for the better

 

personally I think by mid 90s it was the when the sport started sliding, the cars looked perfect, enough races in a year and most with some history behind and coverage wasn't that bad, probably the dark days of Imola created part of the reaction for a lot of the changes, but somehow it seems since then to now, the sport has shown a remarkable ability to constantly shoot themselves on the foot, time after time, go to great lengths to  try to remove historical venues for street circuits or in wall and concrete areas, middle of nowhere, of course everything is for money, but I don't think that there is another sport that works so hard to try to erase their own history ( as far as tracks), I don't want all of the old tracks staying, but some should remain, cars and track go together in a lot of cases, and the sport has lost that connection

 

back in 98 and probably a few times since then, they should have thrown the rule book away and start clean, the days of a line of new teams trying to get in, engine manufacturers and investment is long gone, the coverage in a way probably has contributed a bit, since they can cover every inch some of the mystery has gone away, and then races are for the most part not very interesting very predictable, not much competition  and the way everything is setup is not very attractive for new teams or manufacturers, is hard to justify the expense 

 

they seem way too happy to add another button to create something out of nothing and keep ignoring or at least work on a real solution, but then again all of this is a business that is sold as a sport

 

sadly I think the most interesting part of the weekend is the qualifying

Edited by ozpata, 11 December 2019 - 20:40.

personally I think by mid 90s it was the when the sport started sliding, the cars looked perfect, enough races in a year and most with some history behind and coverage wasn't that bad, probably the dark days of Imola created part of the reaction for a lot of the changes, but somehow it seems since then to now, the sport has shown a remarkable ability to constantly shoot themselves on the foot, time after time, go to great lengths to  try to remove historical venues for street circuits or in wall and concrete areas, middle of nowhere...

F1 "has to go with the money" because the business is concerned about earning every cent or dollar or penny. 

 

F1, the trading company, will go to almost any venue with a cash pot (unless other sponsors say no). Sponsors can't say No to Aboo BoreDee or Yawn! (I forget the name) because they represent the F1 created by Ecclestone when he was in control.

 

F1, meanwhile, doesn't have to go to Monza or Silverstone every year. 

 

I want F1 to be international, bigger than races in Europe and pop-ups in the colonies (irony  ), and I reckon my race series will draw more money.

F1 "has to go with the money" because the business is concerned about earning every cent or dollar or penny. 

 

F1, the trading company, will go to almost any venue with a cash pot (unless other sponsors say no). Sponsors can't say No to Aboo BoreDee or Yawn! (I forget the name) because they represent the F1 created by Ecclestone when he was in control.

 

F1, meanwhile, doesn't have to go to Monza or Silverstone every year. 

 

I want F1 to be international, bigger than races in Europe and pop-ups in the colonies (irony  ), and I reckon my race series will draw more money.

Yet, a huge % of the money comes from TV and TV doesn't care where it's from. No, it doesn't look good when there are empty stands but F1 has shown that they aren't bothered by that, and in any case they can shoot the race so that grandstands are absent. F1 doesn't have to go anywhere. Yes, more money is good (to a point) but they went to Korea and that didn't last. Malaysia fell off the list after a good run.

F1 is international because it is open to competitors (drivers and teams) from all countries. Logistics places yearly limits on that but over time things shift. Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Australia, the US, South Africa, Vietnam (coming soon) were all colonies at one time. It does not indicate a lack of internationalism to race where F1 has long raced. After all, 2 or more countries makes it international.

And as far as the racing itself is concerned it matters not where the race is held. The nature of the track matters. And no nation has a claim to inherently excellent track building skills. All that is needed to build a race track is money and permission. In F1's case lots of money and plenty of permission. Once you have enough of those two things you can recreate Eau Rouge, the Suzuka Esses, the Parabolica, the Monaco tunnel, or any other significant track section you like.

No, being international is not traveling all over the globe (although that is wonderful) international is saying that all are welcome to compete and to watch.

Edited by uffen, 15 December 2019 - 00:17.

I am not interested in the business , I have no stake in it and the monetisation of F1 has turned it into a tacky show which can be put on anywhere . Hence tin pot countries with zero racing heritage have  rulers (often unelected ) who can show off to their neighbouring states with a GP ,. That is why we get joke races in joke stakes held at joke circuits in front of an audience of up to several dozen locals - but we don't get a German GP . The country whose cars, y'know, sort of win everything ?  

For me, Formula One is no-where near dying, but if there's one thing in history I could uninvent, it would be the idea that someone could "own" a sport. Most of sport's ills derive from that rather nasty development.

For me, Formula One is no-where near dying, but if there's one thing in history I could uninvent, it would be the idea that someone could "own" a sport. Most of sport's ills derive from that rather nasty development.

Well said! The thought's abhorrent, isn't it.

Agreed...

100%