Maybe more back to back races, but the calendar itself shouldn't change.
This pre-season literally flyed, was the fastest i ever felt, we are already coming to the tests.
Posted 02 February 2020 - 09:57
Maybe more back to back races, but the calendar itself shouldn't change.
This pre-season literally flyed, was the fastest i ever felt, we are already coming to the tests.
Advertisement
Posted 02 February 2020 - 10:38
Deal with it I suppose. If you get involved in a job that already involves a tonne of travel, you probably shouldn't be completely shocked that it increases as the sport/business grows.
And the stats period you mentioned would have been 10 to 20 years old wouldn't they? not 0-10.
Look, I'm not saying they shouldn't put a case forward for more staff/better rosters, better money. But if you think a good strategy is to complain against growth and increase in number of races, good luck with that.
Again, the number of events has grown the most when the business hasn't and grown the least when the business has grown the most. It's been more of a political wrangle than some law of economics.
20 years ago, a stat would have been increase of about 1 race in the last 20 years.
Again, I was arguing only about expectations for the number of events. You seem to be assuming my opinions on the whole topic based on that. Don't bother. Sorry for being boring.
Posted 02 February 2020 - 12:25
More races will create staler championship fights. Short-term it might make more money for Liberty, but long-term it very well could be a negative. I mean, what's the point of extra races if they reduce the overall competitiveness of the series? Can you imagine a 25 race season with a dominant car? Christ, what a drag that would be.
Posted 02 February 2020 - 13:01
Not everyone has the luxury of finding a new employer.
But an F1 engineer or mechanic probably certainly would. If McLaren will hire you to spin spanners, I imagine one of the local Ford dealers would too.
Posted 02 February 2020 - 13:43
I'm not sure what sort of jobs all you guys have, but I'm amazed that some seem to think that you can start a job at a company and that, even though the market around that company changes, that it's an outrage if that company even ASKS you if you would be willing to adjust your working conditions.
Let's look at the situation properly please. If the FIA decided that there should be a 25-race calendar this would mean:
But, it would NOT mean:
The teams would have a problem in that they would have to cover the extra workload somehow. That IN NO WAY means that they would have to tell or even ask individuals to cover that extra workload. They could employ more people to do that. They could also ASK individuals if they would be willing to take on a greater workload (for additional reward). All options are available.
But, if a team were to decided that their current workforce would just have to work more and travel more, those individuals would most likely be able to point to their employment contracts and say "you might want that, but you can't do that". Employers do not have any legal right to insist on this sort of thing. What they could do is make people's roles redundant and offer them to opportunity to take a different role or take redundancy.
Of course, it's possible that managers might try to muscle people into doing things they would prefer not to and, of course, some individuals will think that their careers might suffer if they do not yield to this pressure. But all that means is that individuals have to think about what is important to them and what they are prepared to put up with - even though they have the legal right to refuse to be trodden on.
At the end of the day F1 teams employ an awful lot of people who have the skills and qualifications that would allow them to walk into new jobs elsewhere. These might not be their ideal jobs. These might not be jobs that pay as much. These might not be jobs that are as satisfying. But they do have choices.
And, finally, if teams turned out to be unsympathetic to the needs of their staff and all of those individuals were to up and leave, what would happen? Teams would need to recruit new staff. Maybe they'd try to recruit new staff on less favourable terms and succeed. Or maybe they'd have to pay a lot more. Or maybe even with offering attractive salaries, they might find that the quality of staff were not there or that the staff turn-over was massive.
Posted 03 February 2020 - 03:29
Posted 10 February 2020 - 09:48
I'm not sure what sort of jobs all you guys have, but I'm amazed that some seem to think that you can start a job at a company and that, even though the market around that company changes, that it's an outrage if that company even ASKS you if you would be willing to adjust your working conditions.
I'm,the technical lead for the core technology group of a major video game developer & publisher. I manage a team split across Europe and the U.S.I think it's fair to say that I'm talking from a fair bit of experience spread over the last 21 years. In fact, I'd wager that I have significantly more first hand knowledge of working under testing conditions for long periods of time, than most of the people who are defending Tod's comments - from working as a junior programmer doing 18 hour days, 7 days a week for months on end, all the the way up to a lead programmer where I had to balance asking my staff to go the extra mile to making sure they weren't being asked too much to the detriment of their health.
There was a project manager who I had to deal with who had the same attitude as yourself - his view was that we all knew how the industry was when we got into it, so we had no right to complain whilst we were at the office until late at might and he swanned off home at 5:30. The one time he did stay late with was to show face for our publisher, where he stalked around the studio angrily shouting "what the **** are you all doing?". He was was pretty clueless about managing a team of any size under stressful conditions.
Asking staff to adapt to changing conditions and requirements is one thing - demanding that they sacrifice their personal lives and relationships, not to mention their well being for those changes, is quite another, especially when a lot is already being asked from them.
Edited by Huffer, 10 February 2020 - 10:12.
Posted 10 February 2020 - 10:13
I'm,the technical lead for the core technology group of a major video game developer & publisher. I manage a team split across Europe and the U.S.I think it's fair to say that I'm talking from a fair bit of experience spread over the last 21 years. In fact, I'd wager that I have significantly more first hand knowledge of working under testing conditions for long periods of time, than most of the people who are defending Tod's comments - from working as a junior programmer all the the way up to a lead programmer, doing 18 hour days, 7 days a week for months on end.
Asking staff to adapt to changing conditions and requirements is one thing - demanding that they sacrifice their personal lives and relationships, not to mention their well being for those changes, is quite another, especially when a lot is already being asked from them.
Which is exactly what I keep saying. I do not believe that any company or team will demand anything extra from their staff. Teams, as organisations,will have to adjust they way they run their operations to figure out how they can cover the extra demands and that will almost certainly increasing the number of staff and individual departments and work groups. As for the groups that attend each race, those may well have to rotate staff in order to cover the extra hours.
Posted 10 February 2020 - 10:19
Hmm a little bit arrogant and presumptuous of you to wager you have more experience than others without knowing their story.I'm,the technical lead for the core technology group of a major video game developer & publisher. I manage a team split across Europe and the U.S.I think it's fair to say that I'm talking from a fair bit of experience spread over the last 21 years. In fact, I'd wager that I have significantly more first hand knowledge of working under testing conditions for long periods of time, than most of the people who are defending Tod's comments - from working as a junior programmer doing 18 hour days, 7 days a week for months on end, all the the way up to a lead programmer where I had to balance asking my staff to go the extra mile to making sure they weren't being asked too much to the detriment of their health.
There was a project manager who I had to deal with who had the same attitude as yourself - his view was that we all knew how the industry was when we got into it, so we had no right to complain whilst we were at the office until late at might and he swanned off home at 5:30. The one time he did stay late with was to show face for our publisher, where he stalked around the studio angrily shouting "what the **** are you all doing?". He was was pretty clueless about managing a team of any size under stressful conditions.
Asking staff to adapt to changing conditions and requirements is one thing - demanding that they sacrifice their personal lives and relationships, not to mention their well being for those changes, is quite another, especially when a lot is already being asked from them.
Edited by goldenboy, 10 February 2020 - 10:20.
Advertisement
Posted 10 February 2020 - 10:24
Sorry I'm not addicted to Formula 1 even though I love it.
Grew up watching Schumacher fighting JV and Mika. 20 races is already a bit too much.
Same. I just feel that too many races causes over-saturation, there is less "looking forward to" each individual race, which all feel a little less special at best and a bit of a chore at worst.