115 replies to this topic

[Gravelngrass]

I'm not being contrairian but like most people, I don't watch Moto GP so I can't compare.

I know in certain places moto GP is more popular but I'd argue its less likely to catch the attention of the casual fan, its more niche.

The thing for me that sets F1 above is that it has the purity of the engineering competition, the human aspect from the drivers but also it has the bits that are 'for the show' for the casuals.

Take DRS as an example, the hardcore fan generally hates it, but to the casual fan, and to many like me who aren't hardcore but haven't missed a race in 20 years and like excitement, it's a nessasary evil.

If you gave F1 teams the option they'd all run the hardest tyre in the hope of gaining a 25s advantage and we'd just have processions.

This is your assumption. Yes it’s the role of the governing body to regulate the sport to try to create as close competition as possible. However, this rule framework should put racing before anything, because that’s the reason those cars and drivers get together on the same piece of tarmac every two weeks on average. You can be an old fan or a newbie, but racing is what you are there for. Entertainment and a good show can be achieved with true racing, as shown by Motogp. It’s just a matter of trying by coming up with the right rules and then enforcing them strictly.

“Like most people, I don’t watch Motogp”. Check https://www.google.c...s f1 or motogp. Care to revise your statement?

[PlatenGlass]

n) Unless he has used intermediate or wet-weather tyres during the race, each drivermust use at least two different specifications of dry-weather tyres during the race,at least one of which must be a mandatory dry-weather race tyre specification asdefined in Article 30.2c)ii). Unless a race is suspended and cannot be re-started,failure to comply with this requirement will result in the disqualification of therelevant driver from the race results.If the race is suspended and cannot be re-started, thirty (30) seconds will be addedto the elapsed time of any driver who was unable to use at least two (2)specifications of dry-weather tyre.

The stupid thing is that if they were able to restart they'd get a free tyre change anyway.

[Bartonz20let]

This is your assumption. Yes it’s the role of the governing body to regulate the sport to try to create as close competition as possible. However, this rule framework should put racing before anything, because that’s the reason those cars and drivers get together on the same piece of tarmac every two weeks on average. You can be an old fan or a newbie, but racing is what you are there for. Entertainment and a good show can be achieved with true racing, as shown by Motogp. It’s just a matter of trying by coming up with the right rules and then enforcing them strictly.

“Like most people, I don’t watch Motogp”. Check https://www.google.c...s f1 or motogp. Care to revise your statement?

Way to selective quote 😝 I already qualified that in my last post.

But to answer your question, F1 weren't entertaining, I wouldn't watch anymore.

I think the balance of sport and entertainment is about right.

[Alfisti]

No. If a no-stopper would need you to run at a pace that is, say 8 seconds slower than the pole time, then it is not rocket science to see that stopping for fresh tyres if they allow you to go ca 6 seconds faster is the quicker way to go. 

Regardless of what route they take, they will ALL settle on the most efficient solution and engineer their cars to optimise that solution. 

 

People always under estimate how quickly F1 converges on the best solution, having two compounds forces them to compromise. Look at last yr, Mercedes dislike of the softer option and love of the harder option at most tracks created some great racing. 

[cbo]

One compulsory pitstop with tyre change but free choice of compound?

[noikeee]

MotoGP isn't a good analogy because

 

- Overtaking is much easier on bikes

- MotoGP races are shorter, it's effectively like watching a single stint of a F1 race

- There's a huge artificial handicap logic baked into the rules (tbf F1 has just done this with the new regs too). Teams that are behind get more development tokens, so the field is super tight

 

They don't need pit strategy because of this

[Celloman]

No. If a no-stopper would need you to run at a pace that is, say 8 seconds slower than the pole time, then it is not rocket science to see that stopping for fresh tyres if they allow you to go ca 6 seconds faster is the quicker way to go. 

Then you are basically arguing for the Pirelli cheese tires from 2011-2013 to make a comeback. Those were tires you would literally have to drive close to eight seconds slower with to finish the race with no stops or one stop. The problem is, drivers hated them and they still chose to drive to a delta to make less stops than to make five stops and drive to the limit.

[Bartonz20let]

Regardless of what route they take, they will ALL settle on the most efficient solution and engineer their cars to optimise that solution.

People always under estimate how quickly F1 converges on the best solution, having two compounds forces them to compromise. Look at last yr, Mercedes dislike of the softer option and love of the harder option at most tracks created some great racing.

I was thinking earlier how dominant Merc would have been if they could have run exclusively hard tyres over recent years.

Their recent cars were fantastic on hards.

[Ben24]

I like the 2 compound rule but they really need to go back to bringing just 2 compounds of tyre a weekend rather than 3. Bringing the 3rd compound has not brought any variability into the strategies at all like it was intended to do. All it has done is allowed teams to totally avoid using a tyre that doesn't work well when they often would have had to use it at some point in the race.

[sketchy2001]

While there are some interesting ideas put forward in this thread isn't it just yet another rehash of the "Formula 1 has become a <something> formula!" trope?

 

Throughout its history, there has always been someone saying Formula 1 is "a fuel formula", "an engine formula", etc.  The reality is that, as has been stated many times in the thread, The teams spend a lot of money to hire people who can quickly optimise their cars until there remains only one major differentiator.

 

If the sport stops being tyre limited then it will quickly become limited by something else.

 

Still, makes an interesting discussion ;-)

[Beamer]

No

[Gravelngrass]

Way to selective quote 😝 I already qualified that in my last post.

But to answer your question, F1 weren't entertaining, I wouldn't watch anymore.

I think the balance of sport and entertainment is about right.

Show me why the quote is selective.

“Entertaining” is subjective. And, as said, it can be made entertaining by getting rid of a rule that curtails real racing.

[Bartonz20let]

Show me why the quote is selective.

“Entertaining” is subjective. And, as said, it can be made entertaining by getting rid of a rule that curtails real racing.

The second paragraph qualifies the point I made about moto GPs popularity, so yeah, selective quoting.

I suppose you had form, using Facebook likes as a metric to measure sucess/popularity 😅

"Entertaining" is subjective on an individual level but not where mass markets are consened. The casual fan doesn't care about racing purity or real racing (whatever that is), they want excitement which is why I pointed out the surge in popularity of 20/20.

F1 used to be so dull, it seems alien to me to want to go back to that.

Edited by Bartonz20let, 15 April 2022 - 13:25.

[Gravelngrass]

The second paragraph qualifies the point I made about moto GPs popularity, so yeah, selective quoting.

I suppose you had form, using Facebook likes as a metric to measure sucess/popularity 😅

"Entertaining" is subjective on an individual level but not where mass markets are consened. The casual fan doesn't care about racing purity or real racing (whatever that is), they want excitement which is why I pointed out the surge in popularity of 20/20.

F1 used to be so dull, it seems alien to me to want to go back to that.

Actually show me where. Put the quote here that I used selectively and then argue why.

Then: “I know in certain places moto GP is more popular but I'd argue its less likely to catch the attention of the casual fan, its more niche.”

Unless you consider Facebook, instagram and You Tube niche, this was already proven wrong with the data I provided.

In other words, Motogp, with elements people consider would make racing less entertaining, has captured more fans than F1. You do the math.

[Bartonz20let]

Actually show me where. Put the quote here that I used selectively and then argue why.

Then: “I know in certain places moto GP is more popular but I'd argue its less likely to catch the attention of the casual fan, its more niche.”

Unless you consider Facebook, instagram and You Tube niche, this was already proven wrong with the data I provided.

In other words, Motogp, with elements people consider would make racing less entertaining, has captured more fans than F1. You do the math.

I'm sorry but the global viewership of F1 and economic value of F1 is huge compared to Moto GP.

It's hard to get truly accurate statistics but you'll see moto GP with around 3-500 million global viewers per year with F1 getting 1.2-1.5 billion and F1 is largely behind a pay wall too.

I can't get exact numbers on gate receipts but as an F1 ticket can be multiple times more expensive than a moto GP ticket and moto GP only gets slightly larger ticket sales (owed to being cheaper) its not a wild take to suggest F1's total gate vale will swamp that of moto gp.

The reason social media isn't a useful metric because different organisations use it in specific ways, you need to understand the different forms of content, the different channels they use and the reason they use it.

Take your YouTube example, F1 hosts its own content off YouTube so its not a surprise not everyone is drawn to YouTube for F1 and until recently F1 have been hesitant to even get involved in social media.

Social media is never a good indication of a company, it just highlights how good a company is at using social media.

[Gravelngrass]

I'm sorry but the global viewership of F1 and economic value of F1 is huge compared to Moto GP.

It's hard to get truly accurate statistics but you'll see moto GP with around 3-500 million global viewers per year with F1 getting 1.2-1.5 billion and F1 is largely behind a pay wall too.

I can't get exact numbers on gate receipts but as an F1 ticket can be multiple times more expensive than a moto GP ticket and moto GP only gets slightly larger ticket sales (owed to being cheaper) its not a wild take to suggest F1's total gate vale will swamp that of moto gp.

The reason social media isn't a useful metric because different organisations use it in specific ways, you need to understand the different forms of content, the different channels they use and the reason they use it.

Take your YouTube example, F1 hosts its own content off YouTube so its not a surprise not everyone is drawn to YouTube for F1 and until recently F1 have been hesitant to even get involved in social media.

Social media is never a good indication of a company, it just highlights how good a company is at using social media.

You didn’t show the selective quoting.

You have absolutely no evidence to the claim F1 makes more money than Motogp.

Motogp also has its own platform outside you tube…

So, as each time you write a post, you neglect to present any arguments and/or data, I’m going to have to end this discussion here.

Point remains, F1 could be better racing and entertaining at the same time.