168 replies to this topic

[baddog]

Same joke 2 weeks in a row bruce?

[bira]

pfft baddog, that IS the joke...

[baddog]

Heh okay it was 7am.

[Jodum5]

http://www.autosport...icle.php/id/635

The anecdote with Bernie was classic

I love this series, keep it up

[marcus123]

is it me, or is this weeks issue very light on F1.

[jair]

I am heavily dissapointed with the last journal.

I was expecting a lot more on the Montoya issue - interviews, comments, some review on his moments in F1, etc...instead we've got one two page article and thats it.

So far atlas/autosport has never dissapointed me when big things happen in F1 - the wide tyres of Michelin, Indy 2005, BAR affair, Buttongate - great articles on these subjects, but not now. Who knows...maybe the surprise leaving out of nowhere of one of the top 6 drivers is not worth some extra effort.

[JForce]

I can't fault the quality this season I don't think, it's been great.

However each issue feels like it has a tiny bit less F1, and a little more Champ Car. It's just an impression, and may not be based on actual "amounts".

[LuckyStrike1]

Originally posted by jair
I am heavily dissapointed with the last journal.

I was expecting a lot more on the Montoya issue - interviews, comments, some review on his moments in F1, etc...instead we've got one two page article and thats it.

So far atlas/autosport has never dissapointed me when big things happen in F1 - the wide tyres of Michelin, Indy 2005, BAR affair, Buttongate - great articles on these subjects, but not now. Who knows...maybe the surprise leaving out of nowhere of one of the top 6 drivers is not worth some extra effort.

I actually have to second that. Because I did expect a lot more but maybe this story wasn't as big as I might have thought it was.

Or it's an effect of summer and vacations, or the simple fact that there for some reason haven't slipped out much information from the respective camps about what happened so all media has to do is to speculate.

But I'm a bit surprised. In teh paperissue there was columns by Nigel Roebuck and Mark Hughes with their thoughts about the move and why and how and so on. A short top story that seemed more based on speculating on what really happened. And then some more speculation from Adam Cooper in this on-line issue.

Maybe there is more to come when time has passed?

[Jodum5]

It doesnt look like anyone is talking.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by baddog
Same joke 2 weeks in a row bruce?

There you are baddog - changed it this week - just for you!!!!
;)

[baddog]

Originally posted by Bruce


There you are baddog - changed it this week - just for you!!!!
;)

God, Im his muse now.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by baddog


God, Im his muse now.

er.... no. Cartoonists don't have muses. Just deadlines....

[baddog]

Originally posted by Bruce


er.... no. Cartoonists don't have muses. Just deadlines....

HAH I Know that feeling.. "So what ideas have you got?" "Ive got the idea that this has to be delivered tomorrow morning"

[scheivlak]

for the latest issue, especially Adam Cooper's articles!
And even Paul Tracy's column was a good read....

[marcus123]

I was a little dissapointed with various aspects of this weeks issue, there was an article titled TV coverage, and a question to Nigel Roebuck.
The article didn't tackle the question that I and I think lots of others comment on quite often, which is 'why is the actual coverage of the race so atrocious'. The pictures are generally crap, the directors dont seem to have a clue, they hardly show any in car coverage, they miss the few passes that occur, concentrate on the local driver/team, focus on every single pit stop and stop giving us time differences after the first pit stops. Now certain directors are able to give us good coverage so we know it is possible.
There's got to be a reason why the F1 coverage is so poor compared to all major sports, even Cricket has much better coverage, and have been waiting for a decent article to try and explain this, and I think that this was a large part of the question asked to NR, however he only answered the bit about the paddocks access, which i think most people probably already had a fair idea of anyway.

Any chance of someone addressing this one day.

I thought the article on A1 was very good though

[kar]

Originally posted by marcus123
I was a little dissapointed with various aspects of this weeks issue, there was an article titled TV coverage, and a question to Nigel Roebuck.
The article didn't tackle the question that I and I think lots of others comment on quite often, which is 'why is the actual coverage of the race so atrocious'. The pictures are generally crap, the directors dont seem to have a clue, they hardly show any in car coverage, they miss the few passes that occur, concentrate on the local driver/team, focus on every single pit stop and stop giving us time differences after the first pit stops. Now certain directors are able to give us good coverage so we know it is possible.
There's got to be a reason why the F1 coverage is so poor compared to all major sports, even Cricket has much better coverage, and have been waiting for a decent article to try and explain this, and I think that this was a large part of the question asked to NR, however he only answered the bit about the paddocks access, which i think most people probably already had a fair idea of anyway.

Any chance of someone addressing this one day.

I thought the article on A1 was very good though

I agree. I can't believe the mere fact that F1 has its adverts in widescreen, but the race in mere square-vision or the way adverts intrude on the action. Think in Turkey I saw Alonso pass Michael in pits through F1.com's live timing applet. By the time the coverage returned I saw the blue car ahead of Michael and it took Allen and co a few minutes before they bothered to cover the fact that yes, Alonso had overtaken Michael and why.

And that is another key thing to consider, watching F1 with a wireless laptop and F1.com's live timing is far, far, far more engaging than just watching the broadcast alone. I had just moved house and didn't have my home network setup correctly for the Hungarian GP and it was following the race on the radio. Your sense of the 'race' isn't the same.

I think it's good sometimes when Nigel goes off on a bit of a tangent to talk about things that really interest him. But on this particular question he really answered only part of it, that was more specifically about paddock access and driver attitudes to the media. Not the fact that the pinnacle of motorsport technology is broadcasted as if it were fred flinstone raring about in his pedal powered prehistoric car.

[kar]

Unsurprisingly I loved Richard Barnes' article this week

But all up, very well done journal. I was reading through this weeks print copy of the mag and not terribly impressed. Adam Cooper's piece I think is only really topped by Martin Brundles. Other than that it has been the best piece of writing summing up Michael's retirement I have read.

Good stuff.

Looking forward to a return of Dodgy Business and the Weekly Grapevine though!

[marcus123]

What happened to Dieter Renkens article on the FIA 'survey results'.

[jcbc3]

Matt Bishop (take 5) :

..It was supplied a few weeks ago by Norberto Fontana, who took nine long years to get off his chest what had been bugging him all that time: namely, that shortly before the 1997 European Grand Prix (the season's finale that year), Ferrari team principal Jean Todt had ordered him (Fontana) and his Sauber-Ferrari teammate (Johnny Herbert) to impede Schumacher's championship rival, Jacques Villeneuve, if and when they were lapped by him (Villeneuve) that afternoon....

I have a problem or two with this story, that Matt or some of you other guys might help me with (since it's posted on Atlas) :


1)
How would Todt be able to 'order' someone on another team to do something? Are we to believe that Todt slipped into the Sauber Motorhome sometime he knew Peter Sauber was out and told the drivers? Hardly likely. Consequently...

2)
Peter Sauber, who after all was Ferraris business partner and Todts contact, must have been in on the order to slow Villeneuve down. This leads me to the conclusion that Bishop is defaming Peter Sauber in his piece. I don't think anyone have ever suggested that Sauber isn't a perfectly honest gentleman. And I know that he has always maintained that Sauber cars were NEVER asked to do something to impede Ferrari's competitors.

3)
And Fontana implicates Johnny Herbert too in his story. I assume that Bishop has Herberts phone number somewhere. Did he call Johnny to ask if he could confirm or deny Fontana's story. If he did and Johnny said 'yes, we were told to impede JV', why doesn't he tell us? If he did and Johnny said 'no comments', why didn't he tell us? If he did and Johnny said 'no, such an order was never given', why don't he tell us. And finally, if Bishop didn't attempt to get confirmation of a story that by his own words were "a few weeks" old isn't it sloppy journalism?