211 replies to this topic

[Bleu]

Start at ten past is Americanizing. As an avid hockey fan, I have learned that most games start eight minutes after the mentioned time.

[loki]

Bleu, on 29 Jan 2019 - 20:19, said:

Start at ten past is Americanizing. As an avid hockey fan, I have learned that most games start eight minutes after the mentioned time.

 Got it.  Anything you don't like is "Americanizing" the sport.

[Bleu]

loki, on 29 Jan 2019 - 20:24, said:

 Got it.  Anything you don't like is "Americanizing" the sport.

 

I don't really mind the start time, but mentioned it as an example which fits Americanizing.

[NixxxoN]

KnucklesAgain, on 29 Jan 2019 - 19:06, said:

Skiing (at least alpine, but in part also nordic) is kind of in-between. The manufacturers (skis, boots, bindings and the very important binding plates) supply several competitors, but to different degrees, and if your equipment is not close to perfect (and adjusted to any given track and the day's weather and snow conditions) you have no chance to win. Someone who is at the lower end of top 20 or 30 will receive a bunch of skis, but top guy Marcel Hirscher has 250 different pairs (differing in stiffness and many other things) to choose from, and gets custom-made pairs made to his specifications.
 
In bob sleigh and luge there is much less money in it and the gear is at least in part built and/or assembled by the team itself), but you can also only win if you have the equipment (edit: and access can be restricted, e.g. BMW building the bobs for the German team)
 
Edit: And even in football - the boots are not really the tools. Facilities, sports medicine research, etc., are - from the perspective of the clubs, even the player market is a tool. While not really restricted to a few, they are only available to those with the dough

No clue about skiing, but if its the same impossible to copy hi-tech then yes.

JHSingo, on 29 Jan 2019 - 20:11, said:

So, do you consider football a sport? Since that is also a sport that is dominated by the teams that have the most money. I know nothing about the EPL, except that a team like Manchester City will beat Huddersfield Town 9 times out of 10 at worst. This isn't an "equal playing field" either.

You are talking as if the teams were the sportsmen... no, they are the players, and If you are a good enough player, you'll sign for a top team.

Edited by NixxxoN, 29 January 2019 - 20:39.

[Sterzo]

NixxxoN, on 29 Jan 2019 - 18:33, said:

Using this logic everything in life that involves some sort of competition or contest is a sport, including studying and working.

 

Spec series motorsports are sports.... As long as you don't have access to equal equipment and there are massive differences in equipment performance, you can't call it sport because drivers (or sportsmen) are not in an equal playing field.

We're using the English word sport, the definition of which in the Oxford English Dictionary starts with: "A game or competition..."  Motor sport started as competition between cars, to show which were the best. Nothing to do with drivers; it was all about the cars, and in the earliest competitions they were driven by their creators.

 

By all means like what you like, and not what you don't like, but please don't tell us racing between different cars is not a sport.

 

As for those who use the tired old mantra, "It's not a sport but a business," the answer is that it's possible to base a business on sport. It's sad that it's become so commercialised, but to suggest it's not a sport is ludicrous.

[NixxxoN]

Sterzo, on 29 Jan 2019 - 22:19, said:

We're using the English word sport, the definition of which in the Oxford English Dictionary starts with: "A game or competition..."  Motor sport started as competition between cars, to show which were the best. Nothing to do with drivers; it was all about the cars, and in the earliest competitions they were driven by their creators.
 
By all means like what you like, and not what you don't like, but please don't tell us racing between different cars is not a sport.
 
As for those who use the tired old mantra, "It's not a sport but a business," the answer is that it's possible to base a business on sport. It's sad that it's become so commercialised, but to suggest it's not a sport is ludicrous.

I use the international definition of sport and I maintain that its not

Edited by NixxxoN, 29 January 2019 - 22:26.

[pdac]

DeKnyff, on 29 Jan 2019 - 09:37, said:

But as any other business, it will only survive if it is customer-oriented.

 

With my market research hat on, I have been processing the data for an ongoing survey for a well know holiday camp company. Initially they were trying to maximise customers now, however, they are satisfied that they have done that and their focus now is moving the customer profile to a higher wealth band - i.e. they are trying to replace a proportion of existing customers for ones who can spend more cash with them.

 

The are still very customer-oriented - they just want to change the affluence profile of their typical customer.

[pdac]

PayasYouRace, on 29 Jan 2019 - 14:39, said:

No. The correct answer is many other vehicle based sports. America's Cup and similar yachting races for example, are partly down to how well you build your equipment.

 

F1, Grand Prix racing, is a sport and part of that sport is designing and building the best Grand Prix car. That it is also a business and all those other things doesn't make it not a sport.

 

No, that's the entire sport. The racing is the way it is determined who has designed and built the best car (unless, of course, you consider training up the best pit crew is part of it too)

[pdac]

thegforcemaybewithyou, on 29 Jan 2019 - 18:41, said:

I think the original meaning of sport described activities you did in your spare time. If we go by that then every professional sport shouldn't be regarded as sport.

 

I'd agree with that. I've never thought that any sport should be professional.

[JHSingo]

NixxxoN, on 29 Jan 2019 - 20:38, said:

You are talking as if the teams were the sportsmen... no, they are the players, and If you are a good enough player, you'll sign for a top team.

 

And if you're a good player but don't end up on a good team, you've not got much of a chance of winning anything, have you? Much like anyone driving for a team outside the big three of Merc, Ferrari and Red Bull haven't had a cat in hell's chance of winning in recent years in F1.

 

So if F1 isn't a sport because it isn't a level playing field, surely football isn't either for the exact same reasons?

[Beri]

loki, on 29 Jan 2019 - 20:24, said:

Got it. Anything you don't like is "Americanizing" the sport.

Making a show out of it in a fashion only Muricans can do. I hate it how they have done that with F1. That is Muricanizing the sport.
Mario kart sounds when the lights go on, like no one sees the lights coming on.
Cringe worthy driver presentation at Austin, try and imitate the Indy 500 doesn't mean it works in F1.
Toe curling added graphics to the television feed. Because the less you can actually see the cars because of graphics the better, right?
Starting the race at ten past. Because in all those years of live broadcasting F1, television companies have had so much troubles with their advertisers when the race started at the whole hour.
Coming to think of it, one race at 15.10, then two at 14.10, followed up by a race at 15.10 again, before a time slot of 13.10 is being used. All in timezones close to Europe's mainland. Ridiculous.
Abandoning grid girls. Nothing more to add. Shove that PC crap up that Murican lard ass of Carey and give me back my Formula One!

[loki]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 05:24, said:

 Shove that PC crap up that Murican lard ass of Carey and give me back my Formula One!

 

If you dislike it so much why do you still watch?  You're like the myriad of others here that complain and complain yet refuse to exercise some personal responsibility and stop watching if you think it's so bad.  Your complaints are graphics and race times and one failed attempt at being cheeky in the intros at the USGP?  Really?  To me it seems more something with which to express your anti US bias rather than any sort of constructive criticism of the way the sport is operated.  Look at the bright side.  You'll have more time on the weekend to spend with family.

[Beri]

loki, on 30 Jan 2019 - 06:10, said:

If you dislike it so much why do you still watch? You're like the myriad of others here that complain and complain yet refuse to exercise some personal responsibility and stop watching if you think it's so bad. Your complaints are graphics and race times and one failed attempt at being cheeky in the intros at the USGP? Really? To me it seems more something with which to express your anti US bias rather than any sort of constructive criticism of the way the sport is operated. Look at the bright side. You'll have more time on the weekend to spend with family.

To your information, I did quit watching F1 for the majority of the races after more than 25 years. In all those years I only missed a hand full of races live. This year I've missed about 10 to 12 races. So I am taking notice and I am so deeply disturbed that I might even stop watching more races than just 10 or 12.

Edit: And no, I am no anti-Murican. I love the country, I love the people and I love Indycar. But Formula One should keep to its own lane and not copy other sports or try to be something it is not. That is what is bothering me.

Edited by Beri, 30 January 2019 - 06:32.

[PayasYouRace]

pdac, on 29 Jan 2019 - 23:05, said:

No, that's the entire sport. The racing is the way it is determined who has designed and built the best car (unless, of course, you consider training up the best pit crew is part of it too)

 

You'e forgetting the most visible part. Driving it in a series of races.

 

But yes, servicing the car is also part of the sport. If those things weren't then the points would be given out at the end of testing in March.

[sgtkate]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 05:24, said:

Making a show out of it in a fashion only Muricans can do. I hate it how they have done that with F1. That is Muricanizing the sport.
Mario kart sounds when the lights go on, like no one sees the lights coming on.
Cringe worthy driver presentation at Austin, try and imitate the Indy 500 doesn't mean it works in F1.
Toe curling added graphics to the television feed. Because the less you can actually see the cars because of graphics the better, right?
Starting the race at ten past. Because in all those years of live broadcasting F1, television companies have had so much troubles with their advertisers when the race started at the whole hour.
Coming to think of it, one race at 15.10, then two at 14.10, followed up by a race at 15.10 again, before a time slot of 13.10 is being used. All in timezones close to Europe's mainland. Ridiculous.
Abandoning grid girls. Nothing more to add. Shove that PC crap up that Murican lard ass of Carey and give me back my Formula One!

 

 

 

To which version of F1 would you like to return to? Because you must be quite young not to remember that grid girls first started in the late 1980s, therefore F1 has had more years without them than with them. 

The lights? I've watched every race since Liberty took over and can't say I'd even noticed it...suspect you are just finding some more random arguments to chuck in to make it sound like you aren't just really really cross that they've taken away an opportunity for you to lech at young ladies in tight suits. 

 

Only thing I totally share your annoyance with is the graphics, but the 'overtake! Go Perez' only seemed to last a few races. Can't recall seeing it recently.

[Beri]

sgtkate, on 30 Jan 2019 - 09:35, said:

To which version of F1 would you like to return to? Because you must be quite young not to remember that grid girls first started in the late 1980s, therefore F1 has had more years without them than with them.
The lights? I've watched every race since Liberty took over and can't say I'd even noticed it...suspect you are just finding some more random arguments to chuck in to make it sound like you aren't just really really cross that they've taken away an opportunity for you to lech at young ladies in tight suits.

It is not about ladies in tight pants, it is about the involvement in social discussions that F1 should stay away from. Why even contemplate on fixing something that isn't broken? There are bigger fish to fry. Still we are waiting on any result for the 2021 rules. Still there is this budget cap that hasn't been installed yet. Still there are teams that have difficult times finding sponsors. Still there are more and more broadcasts leaving free to air channels to be behind decoders. There is so much work to do for Liberty, but yet grid girls seem somewhat the important thing to get rid of. Same goes for the old logo and replace it with a logo that stirred controversy.
F1 doesn't need all that sideline crap that isn't as nearly as important as fixing what is broken. Liberty seems to have it's priorities set wrong and that is what bothers me the most.

sgtkate, on 30 Jan 2019 - 09:35, said:

Only thing I totally share your annoyance with is the graphics, but the 'overtake! Go Perez' only seemed to last a few races. Can't recall seeing it recently.

The Heineken star popping up everywhere. Artificial logos on grass. It is still there.

[tomjol]

RA2, on 28 Jan 2019 - 17:53, said:

Why should we have a race in Britain an Germany?

One wants to get rid of gasoline cars soon and the other planted trees on a circuit.

When the Motorsport fans do not have the support of the people elected govt it reflects the real direction of the majority.

 
Because nearly all the teams are based here, for a start? 

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 09:48, said:

It is not about ladies in tight pants, it is about the involvement in social discussions that F1 should stay away from. Why even contemplate on fixing something that isn't broken? There are bigger fish to fry. Still we are waiting on any result for the 2021 rules. Still there is this budget cap that hasn't been installed yet. Still there are teams that have difficult times finding sponsors. Still there are more and more broadcasts leaving free to air channels to be behind decoders. There is so much work to do for Liberty, but yet grid girls seem somewhat the important thing to get rid of. Same goes for the old logo and replace it with a logo that stirred controversy.
F1 doesn't need all that sideline crap that isn't as nearly as important as fixing what is broken. Liberty seems to have it's priorities set wrong and that is what bothers me the most.

The Heineken star popping up everywhere. Artificial logos on grass. It is still there.

 
That is not possible with the kind of example you have, I'm afraid. F1 doesn't exist outside society.

Edited by tomjol, 30 January 2019 - 09:58.

[Beri]

When has F1 ever involved itself in social discussions before?

[tomjol]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 10:19, said:

When has F1 ever involved itself in social discussions before?

When society has changed to such a degree that if F1 doesn't follow suit it'll be seen as (even more) archaic (than it already is) at a time when they're trying to attract younger fans?

[Beri]

Thats not what I asked. I asked when did F1 ever bothered tself before with social discussions?

The answer you give should not apply to any institution that one looks up to like F1. The institution should be wise enough to stay away from any ramblings like politics or social discussions. The attractiveness of sports shouldnt be increased by simply going down the popular road.

[PayasYouRace]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 10:19, said:

When has F1 ever involved itself in social discussions before?

Does it matter if it never has before or not?

[F1matt]

Just because something is social media friendly it doesn't make it attractive, the product has to be entertaining and understandable to achieve that. The premier league is a massive success  but it has nothing to do with social media!

 

 

 

Just to add to that, Liberty would destroy Premier League in a couple of years, they would have a couple of American halfwits who smiled a lot but wouldn't have a clue what they are doing, alienate all the current fans and change it to appeal to the non existent American fans. 

Edited by F1matt, 30 January 2019 - 10:55.

[Beri]

PayasYouRace, on 30 Jan 2019 - 10:44, said:

Does it matter if it never has before or not?

Well, it would make it easier for me to understand why they are now. Because, even with a legitimate reason what Tomjol described, I atill unpleased with the fact F1/Liberty is lowering itself by getting into these sorts of discussions.

F1matt, on 30 Jan 2019 - 10:53, said:

Just because something is social media friendly it doesn't make it attractive, the product has to be entertaining and understandable to achieve that. The premier league is a massive success  but it has nothing to do with social media!

Thats a good example of an institution that doesnt need to get involved with tantrums like making the sport more female friendly or to embrace feminism.

[tomjol]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 10:37, said:

Thats not what I asked. I asked when did F1 ever bothered tself before with social discussions?

The answer you give should not apply to any institution that one looks up to like F1. The institution should be wise enough to stay away from any ramblings like politics or social discussions. The attractiveness of sports shouldnt be increased by simply going down the popular road.

No it isn't what you asked, but frankly I'm not sure what the point of your question was. The only other example I can think of is the ecological situation and therefore hybrid powertrains, but that's much more complicated (manufacturer involvement etc).

 

You're getting it backwards, they aren't making themselves more attractive by changing, they're avoiding becoming less attractive. It just so happens that their target market for growth would take particular exception to them not changing.

 

I understand that you personally don't like this societal change, but that's not how stuff works 

Edited by tomjol, 30 January 2019 - 11:27.

[sgtkate]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 09:48, said:

It is not about ladies in tight pants, it is about the involvement in social discussions that F1 should stay away from. Why even contemplate on fixing something that isn't broken? There are bigger fish to fry. Still we are waiting on any result for the 2021 rules. Still there is this budget cap that hasn't been installed yet. Still there are teams that have difficult times finding sponsors. Still there are more and more broadcasts leaving free to air channels to be behind decoders. There is so much work to do for Liberty, but yet grid girls seem somewhat the important thing to get rid of. Same goes for the old logo and replace it with a logo that stirred controversy.
F1 doesn't need all that sideline crap that isn't as nearly as important as fixing what is broken. Liberty seems to have it's priorities set wrong and that is what bothers me the most.

The Heineken star popping up everywhere. Artificial logos on grass. It is still there.

My post was a little tongue in cheek and I have to say I agree with most of your points. Rather then really fixing some of the major broken things Liberty are just tinkering at the edges, too scared to make the changes most people think are needed.

 

On the advertising front, the logos don't bother me so much. They'd often have been painted on there anyway so it's of little different. The thing I hated was those stupid 'Go Driver #4!' that popped up for a few races...urgh.

[sgtkate]

F1matt, on 30 Jan 2019 - 10:53, said:

Just because something is social media friendly it doesn't make it attractive, the product has to be entertaining and understandable to achieve that. The premier league is a massive success  but it has nothing to do with social media!

 

 

 

Just to add to that, Liberty would destroy Premier League in a couple of years, they would have a couple of American halfwits who smiled a lot but wouldn't have a clue what they are doing, alienate all the current fans and change it to appeal to the non existent American fans. 

I presume that Liberty saw the US market as a massive untapped one, ripe for growth. Maybe they were right, maybe they aren't. But don't dismiss them so quickly. The USGP had the 4th highest attendance record in 2018 so to suggest American fans are non-existent clearly isn't true.

[BuddyHolly]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 05:24, said:

Making a show out of it in a fashion only Muricans can do. I hate it how they have done that with F1. That is Muricanizing the sport.
Mario kart sounds when the lights go on, like no one sees the lights coming on.
Cringe worthy driver presentation at Austin, try and imitate the Indy 500 doesn't mean it works in F1.
Toe curling added graphics to the television feed. Because the less you can actually see the cars because of graphics the better, right?
Starting the race at ten past. Because in all those years of live broadcasting F1, television companies have had so much troubles with their advertisers when the race started at the whole hour.
Coming to think of it, one race at 15.10, then two at 14.10, followed up by a race at 15.10 again, before a time slot of 13.10 is being used. All in timezones close to Europe's mainland. Ridiculous.
Abandoning grid girls. Nothing more to add. Shove that PC crap up that Murican lard ass of Carey and give me back my Formula One!

I agree with like 95% of this, some good points and yes they are doing their best to dumb it down and 'Americanize' it. 

[Beri]

tomjol, on 30 Jan 2019 - 11:26, said:

No it isn't what you asked, but frankly I'm not sure what the point of your question was. The only other example I can think of is the ecological situation and therefore hybrid powertrains, but that's much more complicated (manufacturer involvement etc).

Going green was not the result of (direct) public pressure or a social discussion. It was the result of the automotive industry changing. F1 had to follow. That is totally different.

tomjol, on 30 Jan 2019 - 11:26, said:

You're getting it backwards, they aren't making themselves more attractive by changing, they're avoiding becoming less attractive. It just so happens that their target market for growth would take particular exception to them not changing.

Okay, thank you. Now I have eczema all over thanks to those bullcrap cringeworthy marketing slangs.

tomjol, on 30 Jan 2019 - 11:26, said:

I understand that you personally don't like this societal change, but that's not how stuff works

How stuff works. Well Formula One worked until Carey & CO went banana's with it. Appealing to a younger crowd. For what? Like F1 with its billions in revenue needed the extra cash. Preserve and improve would be the magical words. Not copy and paste without knowing what you are doing.

sgtkate, on 30 Jan 2019 - 11:35, said:

My post was a little tongue in cheek and I have to say I agree with most of your points. Rather then really fixing some of the major broken things Liberty are just tinkering at the edges, too scared to make the changes most people think are needed.

On the advertising front, the logos don't bother me so much. They'd often have been painted on there anyway so it's of little different. The thing I hated was those stupid 'Go Driver #4!' that popped up for a few races...urgh.

I was too worked up to notice the tongue in cheek. But indeed, Liberty needs to get the 2021 rulings done. Or at least a budget cap to retain its trustworthiness. And even more so; to save Formula One from its demize.

BuddyHolly, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:00, said:

I agree with like 95% of this, some good points and yes they are doing their best to dumb it down and 'Americanize' it.

Happy to see Im not the only one on this.

[tomjol]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:17, said:

Going green was not the result of (direct) public pressure or a social discussion. It was the result of the automotive industry changing. F1 had to follow. That is totally different.

OK, fine, clearly you have an answer you're looking for, pray tell what the heck it is?
 

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:17, said:

Okay, thank you. Now I have eczema all over thanks to those bullcrap cringeworthy marketing slangs.

F1 is a business. Get used to it. Throwing a tantrum like a child won't help.
 

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:17, said:

How stuff works. Well Formula One worked until Carey & CO went banana's with it. Appealing to a younger crowd. For what? Like F1 with its billions in revenue needed the extra cash. Preserve and improve would be the magical words. Not copy and paste without knowing what you are doing.

Except it didn't, pretty much everyone on this board has been moaning about the decline of F1 in all manner of different ways for the last decade or more. The teams didn't get any more of a share of those billions in the CVC days.

 

Appealing to a younger crowd...so that it...keeps going, and doesn't die?

 

You're like the Brexit lot, you want unicorns without having to deal with that difficult thing called "reality". Like them, the world is leaving you behind.

Edited by tomjol, 30 January 2019 - 12:23.

[Beri]

tomjol, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:23, said:

F1 is a business. Get used to it. Throwing a tantrum like a child won't help.

Throwing insults because I have a different opinion wont help in this discussion either. I am stating my mind, I am not throwing a tantrum like a child.
 

tomjol, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:23, said:

Except it didn't, pretty much everyone on this board has been moaning about the decline of F1 in all manner of different ways for the last decade or more. The teams didn't get any more of a share of those billions in the CVC days.

To me, the only thing that really was in need of changing, was limiting the amount of money spend in F1. That was and still is what is wrong in F1.

tomjol, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:23, said:

Appealing to a younger crowd...so that it...keeps going, and doesn't die?

Yes, because the sport didnt survive those 60 somewhat years without appealing to the younger crowds, now did it?

tomjol, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:23, said:

You're like the Brexit lot, you want unicorns without having to deal with that difficult thing called "reality". Like them, the world is leaving you behind.

As said, insults wont help.

[Nathan]

sgtkate, on 30 Jan 2019 - 11:35, said:

Rather then really fixing some of the major broken things Liberty are just tinkering at the edges, too scared to make the changes most people think are needed.

 

 

To be fair, not many of those things Liberty can do over night due to various contracts and realities.

[Beri]

Nathan, on 30 Jan 2019 - 13:17, said:

To be fair, not many of those things Liberty can do over night due to various contracts and realities.

That may be true. But focus yourself on the problem ahead. Not on trivial stuff that no one wanted to be changed to begin with.

[sgtkate]

Nathan, on 30 Jan 2019 - 13:17, said:

To be fair, not many of those things Liberty can do over night due to various contracts and realities.

I know, but how liberating would it be for Liberty to come out and offer their vision of F1 over the next decade. Do they want budget caps? Or a more standarized series? Or more events in emerging markets? Or to focus on their core? Or to open up TV viewing again? Or reduce the cost of attending a GP live? We hear nothing about the long term strategy, and instead as Beri says, we have tweaking of inconsequential things to offer a veneer of proof that Liberty are doing something, hand-wringing perhaps?

[NixxxoN]

JHSingo, on 30 Jan 2019 - 00:06, said:

And if you're a good player but don't end up on a good team, you've not got much of a chance of winning anything, have you? Much like anyone driving for a team outside the big three of Merc, Ferrari and Red Bull haven't had a cat in hell's chance of winning in recent years in F1.

So if F1 isn't a sport because it isn't a level playing field, surely football isn't either for the exact same reasons?

Football teams and players dont win because they have a superior tool to do so, they do because they are the best, just as a team with Alonso and Hamilton would beat a team with Ide and Deletraz all in the same car

[JHSingo]

NixxxoN, on 30 Jan 2019 - 13:47, said:

Football teams and players dont win because they have a superior tool to do so, they do because they are the best, just as a team with Alonso and Hamilton would beat a team with Ide and Deletraz all in the same car

 

There was a story out just a couple of days ago about Real Madrid being the richest team in football. And surprise, surprise, from what I understand, they've had a great deal of recent success. Wealth means better training facilities, the ability to pay obscene amount of money to certain players, the manager, and other important members of staff, which means they're able to keep their position as a winning team. It's just like how Mercedes, with their enormous budget, are able to employ far more people and have a great deal more resources available to them than, say, Sauber or Williams.

 

Hell, the reason such a fuss was made about Leicester City a few years ago was because it was so rare.

 

North American sports like the NFL or NHL are set up to be much more about parity, with the salary cap, entry draft which favours poor performing teams over the successful ones, etc. As a result they are far more unpredictable than F1 or football over here. I'd love to see the same happen with F1, but I'm not quite sure how (or even if) it can be achieved. And I'm sure even if it did result in the sport being much more unpredictable again, some on here would still criticise Liberty as having "Americanised" the sport...

Edited by JHSingo, 30 January 2019 - 14:08.

[sgtkate]

JHSingo, on 30 Jan 2019 - 14:03, said:

There was a story out just a couple of days ago about Real Madrid being the richest team in football. And surprise, surprise, from what I understand, they've had a great deal of recent success. Wealth means better training facilities, the ability to pay obscene amount of money to certain players, the manager, and other important members of staff, which means they're able to keep their position as a winning team. It's just like how Mercedes, with their enormous budget, are able to employ far more people and have a great deal more resources available to them than, say, Sauber or Williams.

 

Hell, the reason such a fuss was made about Leicester City a few years ago was because it was so rare.

 

North American sports like the NFL or NHL are set up to be much more about parity, with the salary cap, entry draft which favours poor performing teams over the successful ones, etc. As a result they are far more unpredictable than F1 or football over here. I'd love to see the same happen with F1, but I'm not quite sure how (or even if) it can be achieved. And I'm sure even if it did result in the sport being much more unpredictable again, some on here would still criticise Liberty as having "Americanised" the sport...

 

Exactly this. And if people try to argue that it's their success that brought the wealth, may I present to you Manchester City.

[tomjol]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:34, said:

Throwing insults because I have a different opinion wont help in this discussion either. I am stating my mind, I am not throwing a tantrum like a child.

Discuss like an adult and I shall respond appropriately.

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:34, said:

To me, the only thing that really was in need of changing, was limiting the amount of money spend in F1. That was and still is what is wrong in F1.

I agree that that needs to change, but it’s just one of many items on a list.

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:34, said:

Yes, because the sport didnt survive those 60 somewhat years without appealing to the younger crowds, now did it?

Again, the world changes, it doesn’t stay the same. If F1 stays the same it’ll get left behind. You might want that, I might even want that, but the sport’s actual stakeholders unsurprisingly don’t.

[NixxxoN]

JHSingo, on 30 Jan 2019 - 14:03, said:

There was a story out just a couple of days ago about Real Madrid being the richest team in football. And surprise, surprise, from what I understand, they've had a great deal of recent success. Wealth means better training facilities, the ability to pay obscene amount of money to certain players, the manager, and other important members of staff, which means they're able to keep their position as a winning team. It's just like how Mercedes, with their enormous budget, are able to employ far more people and have a great deal more resources available to them than, say, Sauber or Williams.

Hell, the reason such a fuss was made about Leicester City a few years ago was because it was so rare.

North American sports like the NFL or NHL are set up to be much more about parity, with the salary cap, entry draft which favours poor performing teams over the successful ones, etc. As a result they are far more unpredictable than F1 or football over here. I'd love to see the same happen with F1, but I'm not quite sure how (or even if) it can be achieved. And I'm sure even if it did result in the sport being much more unpredictable again, some on here would still criticise Liberty as having "Americanised" the sport...

Youre yet again missing the point. No matter how much money they have, they still need to perform the best to win matches and win trophies you know? And players are in a level playing field. They all have two legs, and they only tool is maybe the boots whuch make pretty much no difference.
Yes there is inequality in teams, but not in players.
In F1 there is inequality everywhere.

Edited by NixxxoN, 30 January 2019 - 14:56.

[sgtkate]

NixxxoN, on 30 Jan 2019 - 14:55, said:

Youre yet again missing the point. No matter how much money they have, they still need to perform the best to win matches and win trophies you know? And players are in a level playing field. They all have two legs, and they only tool is maybe the boots whuch make pretty much no difference.
Yes there is inequality in teams, but not in players.
In F1 there is inequality everywhere.

But the same argument holds exactly the same within F1.

 

The team's are unequal just like football teams, but the drivers of those teams are like the players and are on an equal playing field. 

If you put all the best players in the world in the same team with the budget and skills of Accrington Stanley then they'd not win anything.

 

Even if you went to something like running so has inherent inequality. Some runners have nutritionists, coaches and physios and private planes.Some are lucky to own trainers. Some have inherent running traits such as stamina due to DNA. There is absoutely no sport where everyone is on an equal playing field at any level and in most cases it's cash that drives the biggest wedge between the haves and the have nots.

[Ivanhoe]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 13:31, said:

That may be true. But focus yourself on the problem ahead. Not on trivial stuff that no one wanted to be changed to begin with.

It’s perfectly possible to do both. It’s not like quick ‘wins’ like getting rid of the grid girls, adding sound to the start lights and showing some graphics during the race leads to excess useage of Liberty capacity. I’m sure they’re also working on the mid- and long term bigger issues.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 30 January 2019 - 15:42.

[Sterzo]

NixxxoN, on 30 Jan 2019 - 14:55, said:

In F1 there is inequality everywhere.

When did you lose interest in GP racing because the cars weren't equal? 1906, by any chance?

[cpbell]

Risil, on 29 Jan 2019 - 08:43, said:

Bloody hell. This is beginning to remind of the discussions they have on the other forum about the difference between the world driver's championship, F1 and the F1 World Championship for Drivers. Thank you for the primer!

As you're an administrator, I won't comment on the reference to TNF , but there does seem to be a minority of RC posters for whom the racing is a distant second in their interest to the business and financisl side of things.  It's handy as it gives those of us who find such things dull in the extreme, but I'd rather not be told that "F1 isn't a sport" as though my interest over all these years in the sporting side of it has somehow been a mistake?

[cpbell]

Sterzo, on 29 Jan 2019 - 22:19, said:

We're using the English word sport, the definition of which in the Oxford English Dictionary starts with: "A game or competition..."  Motor sport started as competition between cars, to show which were the best. Nothing to do with drivers; it was all about the cars, and in the earliest competitions they were driven by their creators.

 

By all means like what you like, and not what you don't like, but please don't tell us racing between different cars is not a sport.

 

As for those who use the tired old mantra, "It's not a sport but a business," the answer is that it's possible to base a business on sport. It's sad that it's become so commercialised, but to suggest it's not a sport is ludicrous.

Careful, you'll have the usual suspects having a go at TNF again...   Indeed, as you pointed out, motorsport in the pioneering years was a contest between manufacturers, with most of the drivers being either wealthy amateurs who competed due to the ancient human love of speed and competition, or test drivers/mechanics who did it to earn above and beyond their salaries.

[JHSingo]

NixxxoN, on 30 Jan 2019 - 14:55, said:

Youre yet again missing the point. No matter how much money they have, they still need to perform the best to win matches and win trophies you know? And players are in a level playing field. They all have two legs, and they only tool is maybe the boots whuch make pretty much no difference.
Yes there is inequality in teams, but not in players.
In F1 there is inequality everywhere.

 

Well, that's the exact same in F1, isn't it? Lewis Hamilton still has to do the job on the day, notwithstanding any performance advantage his car may have.

 

How exactly is there inequality in drivers compared to football players? "Inequality everywhere"? Where, exactly?

[cpbell]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 10:19, said:

When has F1 ever involved itself in social discussions before?

Following Roger Williamson's crash in 1973 (in a GP that was broasdcast live) there was a greater momentum towards safety as it was realised that the viewers were perhaps not happy at the prospect of seeing drivers die in fires on TV.  Prior to this, the assumption was that those who paid to attend races were more accepting of that risk.  If that wasn't F1 responding to social pressure, I don't know what was.

[loki]

sgtkate, on 30 Jan 2019 - 11:35, said:

My post was a little tongue in cheek and I have to say I agree with most of your points. Rather then really fixing some of the major broken things Liberty are just tinkering at the edges, too scared to make the changes most people think are needed.

 

Until the current agreement expires there isn't much that can change except what happens off the track and with regards to promotion and TV coverage.  Your comment also assumes that the personnel implementing the decisions for more change deep in the sport are the same people involved in implementing new graphics, etc.  FOM went from about a dozen full time to over 300 full time in staffing.  Big companies can work on multiple things a one time. The people working on graphics or sponsorship aren't the same people working for a new payment and governance structure.  

 

One significant difference, perhaps the most significant is how Liberty works compared to how Ecclestone worked.  Ecclestone was impulsive even mercurial much of the time. He floated his ideas in the open compared to Liberty largely working behind closed doors.  The business isn't operated on how soon the fans should know something.  It's a much more measured approach.  Considering the terms can't be changed for another two seasons, 2019 and 2020, they aren't in a hurry to announce something just because the fans want to see/hear something.  According to reports there are budget cuts coming.  There is going to be another revenue distribution schedule.  The details are being worked on and aren't something that need to be announced to fans two seasons out.  In terms of what hampers the ability for the cars to race closely FOM have nothing to do with that.  That's a technical reg.  While FOM can lobby and suggest ultimately they're still at the mercy of the FIA when it comes to those matters.

[Nathan]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 13:31, said:

That may be true. But focus yourself on the problem ahead. Not on trivial stuff that no one wanted to be changed to begin with.

 

And then be accused of doing nothing!  Why twiddle thumbs until 2020? I'm not 100% sure what all these trivial things are, but Liberty has certainly done a very good job online with their social media, and if I remember correctly that was a top 3 bitching point back in the CVC/Bernie days.  The eSports is also a great initiative for attaining more young fans, another past bitching point.  Technical rules now seem to be made by a person that cares and knows what he is talking about.  Undoubtably Liberty have also improved the 'at-the-race-track' experience for most and have done a good job cross promoting with other popular things - mostly linked to young people (EDM DJs as an example)

 

I think people that don't see value in those things represent the 'old guard' when it comes to fans, and news flash to those - things aren't really that much less exciting today than yester years - nostalgia removed of course.

Edited by Nathan, 30 January 2019 - 20:49.

[NixxxoN]

sgtkate, on 30 Jan 2019 - 15:12, said:

But the same argument holds exactly the same within F1.
 
The team's are unequal just like football teams, but the drivers of those teams are like the players and are on an equal playing field. 
If you put all the best players in the world in the same team with the budget and skills of Accrington Stanley then they'd not win anything.
 
Even if you went to something like running so has inherent inequality. Some runners have nutritionists, coaches and physios and private planes.Some are lucky to own trainers. Some have inherent running traits such as stamina due to DNA. There is absoutely no sport where everyone is on an equal playing field at any level and in most cases it's cash that drives the biggest wedge between the haves and the have nots.

 
Even with all that, you can still win... in F1 you cant. Because of the car.
You cant compare all that you said to the car inequality, which is so big that the others have no chance.
 

Sterzo, on 30 Jan 2019 - 15:47, said:

When did you lose interest in GP racing because the cars weren't equal? 1906, by any chance?

 
Not considering it a sport =/= not having interest in it
 

JHSingo, on 30 Jan 2019 - 17:38, said:

Well, that's the exact same in F1, isn't it? Lewis Hamilton still has to do the job on the day, notwithstanding any performance advantage his car may have.
 
How exactly is there inequality in drivers compared to football players? "Inequality everywhere"? Where, exactly?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The car, dude, the car.

[sgtkate]

NixxxoN, on 30 Jan 2019 - 21:27, said:

 
Even with all that, you can still win... in F1 you cant. Because of the car.
You cant compare all that you said to the car inequality, which is so big that the others have no chance.
 

Of course you can. It would be extremely hard I agree, but no harder than someone not from Saharan Africa to win a long distance running event. It does happen but rarely.

[Myrvold]

Beri, on 30 Jan 2019 - 12:17, said:

Going green was not the result of (direct) public pressure or a social discussion. It was the result of the automotive industry changing. F1 had to follow. That is totally different.

Why? Can't F1 survive with privateer teams, private engine builders etc.? They did before.