94 replies to this topic

[Gilles4Ever]

I cannot explain my happiness that Autosprt is now covering MotoGP and Mr moody's preview is a brilliant start.

Thanks to all who made it possible!

[vtpachyderm]

Same here.

A huge thanks to all involved.

[Chubby_Deuce]

Thirded

[fifi]

fourth'd

[jcbc3]

fifth'ed


GO ROSSI!!!

[silver fan]

Been hoping for this for some time. All we need now is some coverage from Japan of the D1 Drift series and this lil wood duck will be as happy as.

[VoLGio]

I hope that this coverage of Moto GP won't give less space to the motorsport info.

This week, for example, we (only motorsport fans) are missing some pages on the Weekly Journal.

I'm happy that autosport will cover Moto GP because I use to watch it but please, mantein the same level on the four wheeled series.

[QdfV]

At least in this issue MotoGP seems to take space previously held by autosport subjects. Since I am not so interested in in-depth topics on MotoGP, personally I don't like it.

[MortenF1]

Great news! A scoop to get Moody.

[Always_Ferrari]

Just been to the Autosport.com home page and I see that they are going to be featuring MotoGP news, results and so on!

All I can say is ......... bloody fantastic!!! F1 & MotoGP are my two favorite motorsports and while Autosport.com is simply the best for F1 coverage, I always thought that the official MotoGP web-site was really hard work and not user friendly.

If Autosport.com can bring the same level of fantastic coverage to MotoGP as it does to F1, I'll be a very happy man!

[mikedeering]

Excellent - I am all for this.

[kar]

Yeah, glad to have extra content, but as long as it's extra content.

F1 stuff, the reason I subscribed has been pretty thin on the ground the last few journals and with news now free, I'm not sure I can any longer see a reason to renew my subscription when it comes up in March if this trend continues.

I know you can't make everyone happy. But it seems crazy that in adding extra content, it seems to come at the expense of that which used to keep others happy

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by VoLGio
I hope that this coverage of Moto GP won't give less space to the motorsport info.

This week, for example, we (only motorsport fans) are missing some pages on the Weekly Journal.

I'm happy that autosport will cover Moto GP because I use to watch it but please, mantein the same level on the four wheeled series.

Erhhh, correct me if I'm wrong but MotoGP IS motorsport?

As for the 'dearth' of F1 stuff, it might be connected with the fact that there is precious little to report at the moment. As a northern European I must also say, that I have absolute no interest in Australian V8. As some antiodeans might think that DTM news are irrelevant to them. So whatever 4-wheel'ed contents is moved around, shrunk or expanded you won't get a complaint from me. Unless it's the F1 content of course ;)

[Witt]

Brilliant! I've been waiting for autosport to latch onto bike racing for years! Great stuff!

[Chubby_Deuce]

It's probably pretty tough to write a full journal every week when there's no racing to report on. Lighten up guys.

It looks like they've taken on extra staff to cover MotoGP, so I'm not worried. If anything, this just made it a lot easier for me to justify renewing.

[babbel]

As bira always says (and probably will later on ;) ) everything added is an extra. It's not a replacement for other things it's simple more information for the same price. If you don't like MotoGP then there will still be the "old" things to read.

Ofcourse this issue was more MotoGP minded because it was the launch of the MotoGP part.

[Tomecek]

Oh no you gave up on your image! From Rallye Lisbon - Dakar you report about cars and not trucks, yet you cover MotoGP

But seriously, I very much understand that and I am actually glad to have it on one place so good luck indeed

[wiligates]

Great news .What took you so long !

[HP]

Thanks a lot for this add-on!

[Bumper]

Way to go

[scdecade]

Originally posted by babbel
As bira always says (and probably will later on ;) ) everything added is an extra. It's not a replacement for other things it's simple more information for the same price. If you don't like MotoGP then there will still be the "old" things to read.

Ofcourse this issue was more MotoGP minded because it was the launch of the MotoGP part.

There's only 1 Formula 1 article in the entire issue. Where are the 4 or 5 articles that used to constitute the "old" things? The season starts in less than 4 weeks and the claim has been made that there's nothing to write about?!? That's preposterous. The print magazine doesn't seem to have the same problems. Maybe you should launch some kind of investigation to determine where this weeks "old" F1 articles went. I suggest you do this immediately and make whatever changes are necessary. Pronto, chop chop. Thanks. As someone who had their old AtlasF1 subscription rolled over to the new, more tabloid-like autosport.com service, I find the absence of F1 related content basically amounts to a bait-and-switch.

Do I enjoy MotoGP too? Yes. But there seems little chance that autsport.com will offer a service that is even remotely comparable to motogp.com. They cover MotoGP better than autosport.com covers F1. That's a problem. And it's free. And it's available in multiple languages. And it has video.

[F1Johnny]

SWEEEEEET

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by scdecade



Do I enjoy MotoGP too? Yes. But there seems little chance that autsport.com will offer a service that is even remotely comparable to motogp.com. They cover MotoGP better than autosport.com covers F1. That's a problem. And it's free. And it's available in multiple languages. And it has video.

You must go to a different MotoGP.com than I do.

[Jedi_F1]

I don't follow MotoGP,
not intrested in it but I'm happy for the folks who liked it that you can now read news about it on Autosport.com.
Even if the're already so many other websites where you could find stuff about it. :

I hope that the magazine will stay the same.

[scdecade]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


You must go to a different MotoGP.com than I do.

You go to the that doesn't have more photos, more videos, more content, more news, more languages (I'm a language freak), and isn't free? Does autosport.com have live timing and scoring? No. Does autosport.com have live video feeds? No. The only thing motogp.com doesn't have that autosport.com does is journal articles. Oh wait...

[bira]

Thank you all for your comments. I am reading this with interest, but at the moment I have nothing to add to what others have already said

My one demand, though, is that you leave personal attacks/digs/insults out of this debate. scdecade, you can argue this topic as passionately as you want, but stick to the topic and don't post about the posters.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You realise MotoGP is the actual commercial rights holder, so its fairly easy for them to give away live video. If you wanted to compare motogp.com to f1.com that'd be one thing, but you might as well compare autosport.com to Carnival Cruise line while you're at it. And sadly, we can't offer you an ocean view either.

[Mark Bennett]

Personally I'm not the slightest interested in Bikes.

The post had not come by the time I left home, so I'm not sure if this announcement means that the print edition has Moto GP in it as well (?) If so, I can't see that I'll keep my subscription much longer. There's already too little coverage of stuff like Grand Am, ALMS, Japan GT/F3000, even UK national series, and too much "lifestyle" F1 stuff (what Jenson had for brekkie type stuff) or pointless "Top 10" features...
If print space is given over to Moto GP too, then there just will not be space for anything other than the "top" F1/WRC/MotoGP stuff.

[Hellenic tifosi]

Brilliant news!

As a MotoGP fan, I always thought how nice it would be if there would be the "Moto" equivalent of autosport.com.

Keep up the good work bira!

[scdecade]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
You realise MotoGP is the actual commercial rights holder, so its fairly easy for them to give away live video. If you wanted to compare motogp.com to f1.com that'd be one thing, but you might as well compare autosport.com to Carnival Cruise line while you're at it. And sadly, we can't offer you an ocean view either.

So why exactly do you expect someone who couldn't care less about who holds the commercial rights to accept (pay for) an inferior product? That would be like buying a cabin with an ocean view on a cruise line and being given a bunk in the boiler room and then the cruise line explaining "well, our web site is better than autosport.com." q.e.d.

So OK rather than framing apologies let's paint some historical perspective here. We're talking about the 2007 journal prior to the season preview issue. Here are what we received in past years:

2006: Issue 4, Jan 25th
Point to Prove
Interview with Rory Byrne
Dodgy Business
The Weekly Grapevine
[doesn't include Scarb's always excellent tech analyses because it doesn't compare to 2007]

2005: Issue 9, Mar 2nd
Australian GP Preview
Australian GP Facts & Stats
Interview with Jordan
Interview with Horner
Badoer & Gene Interview
The Boys Next Door
When the Flag Drops...
Reflections on a New Season
SuperStats Winter Testing
The Weekly Grapevine

2004: Issue 9, Mar. 3rd
2004 Australian GP Preview
Australia Facts & Stats
The Mega Man
SuperStats: Winter Testing
The Paint Job - Part II
The F1 Trivia Quiz
Rear View Mirror
The Weekly Grapevine

I could continue but this certainly paints a trend. FYI -- only counted article related to (then) current FORMULA ONE.

year: # of F1 related articles
2004: 8
2005: 10
2006: 4
2007: 1

Does this mean we have 0 articles to look forward to next year? Why aren't you ready to accept that you've bait-and-switched your loyal F1 subscribers and do something about it? We all know what happened to AF1 between '05 and '06, right?

[bira]

:yawn:

Interesting how you selected an off-season issue and compared it to a GP preview issue. Let's talk again after the Australian GP. Or, actually, let's not.

I guess I prefer reading newspapers for my political news rather than getting the amazing free live coverage of the Parliament discussions...

[kar]

I think regardless of which issue you compare the current one with, a single contemporary F1 related article in a journal is definitely not what I would expect. Clearly I think it is reasonable that you would not publish a journal with a single f1 article unless you had other content 'to fill' with. I think what a lot of people are worried about, but I wont speak for them, what I am worried about is if motogp is going to fill journal issues at the expense of original and insightful f1 content. On the basis of this week's journal that seems the case.

But that said, it is only fair to judge this on the basis of several journal issues. I know my renewal comes up march sometime, and I think the quality and, sadly of late, quantity of F1 coverage will be determinant in my decision to renew. Because with the loss of news as a 'subscriber only' feature, my perceived value of the subscription has gone steadily downwards.

I don't claim to speak for anyone else, but I cannot imagine I'm alone in feeling this way.

[scdecade]

Originally posted by bira
:yawn:

Interesting how you selected an off-season issue and compared it to a GP preview issue. Let's talk again after the Australian GP. Or, actually, let's not.

I guess I prefer reading newspapers for my political news rather than getting the amazing free live coverage of the Parliament discussions...

Intersting how you're still deluding yourself. As was explained in plain, simple words I compared the issues prior to the season preview issues. "We're talking about the 2007 journal prior to the season preview issue. Here are what we received in past years:" Apples to apples. In the past we used to get the particular Grand Prix preview before the season preview. You should know that but you don't. Why?

Believe me this extended explaination of the bait-and-switch that's been foisted on me is extremely boring and unpleasurable. Thanks for nothing. I look forward to not speaking with you again as well.

[babbel]

Originally posted by scdecade


2006: Issue 4, Jan 25th
Point to Prove
Interview with Rory Byrne
Dodgy Business
The Weekly Grapevine
[doesn't include Scarb's always excellent tech analyses because it doesn't compare to 2007]

2006:

Issue 10, Mar 8th
The Bahrain GP Preview
Interview with Jarno Trulli
2006 Technical Preview (II)
Bahrain Preview: Facts & Stats
SuperStats: winter testing
The F1 Trivia Quiz
From the Pulpit
The Observer
The Weekly Grapevine
=
9

I bet that didn't fit your numbers eh

[bira]

As has already been pointed out, given that we have launched our MotoGP coverage today, we felt it only right to devote extra coverage and space for it. Does it come at the expense of F1 coverage? Yes and no.

Yes, in that without the MotoGP, we'd have had two-three other articles. But the reality is that this year is actually a very difficult one: look back at how our journal normally runs, you'll see it's primarily dependent on the events it is tied to.

So we got GP Preview issues and GP Reviews issues during the season; season preview and review issues; and during the off-season, in January and February, we traditionally followed the launches with tech analysis and interviews.

This year, all the launches pretty much took place in the span of like a week. And with far less testing this year than in previous years, the opportunities for interviews or, hell, just getting material for analysis is far stricter than before.

At the same time, I can honestly say, as an F1 fan and as an editor, that I find Scarbs' MotoGP tech analysis this week (which is in no small part about F1 too, in fact) and Toby's MotoGP analysis far more entertaining, informative and rewarding - to both read and edit - than some kind of forcibly manufactured article that is done simply to rack up the numbers.

I constantly say this: the decision whether you need a subscription or want a subscription is a personal one. I cancelled a couple of months ago a subscription to a website I was a member of for nearly seven years, simply because I realised I lost interest and haven't actually used it more than twice in six months. Fine. I didn't think they are rubbish, I just thought they no longer offer me something I want to pay for. What's the big drama about it?

[bira]

Originally posted by scdecade


Intersting how you're still deluding yourself. As was explained in plain, simple words I compared the issues prior to the season preview issues. "We're talking about the 2007 journal prior to the season preview issue. Here are what we received in past years:" Apples to apples. In the past we used to get the particular Grand Prix preview before the season preview. You should know that but you don't. Why?

Believe me this extended explaination of the bait-and-switch that's been foisted on me is extremely boring and unpleasurable. Thanks for nothing. I look forward to not speaking with you again as well.

I don't understand how you can talk about the journal "prior to the season preview issue" and then compare it to the journal AFTER the season preview?

I'm deluded, fine. I just don't get why you are so vehement about it. You don't like the service, don't use it. I don't honestly get the big deal you make.

[kar]

I constantly say this: the decision whether you need a subscription or want a subscription is a personal one. I cancelled a couple of months ago a subscription to a website I was a member of for nearly seven years, simply because I realised I lost interest and haven't actually used it more than twice in six months. Fine. I didn't think they are rubbish, I just thought they no longer offer me something I want to pay for. What's the big drama about it?

I think this is wholly fair and reasonable. I guess one of the things I _personally_ feel troubled by is that there was a service here even eighteen months ago that if available in the same format, quality and quantity still existed I would be happy to continue paying for.

It is that the _apparent_ quality (forcibly written content that sometimes comes across as forcibly written, i.e. see Damien Smith's piece this week) and quantity (content amount is the same arguably, but the F1 component % seems less) decline, as well as the apparent loss of value through the opening of the news as free-for-everyone that no longer sees paying for a subscription 'worth it' anymore.

It's sad, because I want to consume more F1 info than I did when I first subscribed. My concern is that there is less emphasis being placed on it. Whether or not this is fair, I concede is up for debate. But it is my concern and one that affects my purchasing decision.

[bira]

isn't value subjective, though? We expected a big loss of subscribers when we made the news free, but discovered that we actually have more new subscribers joining - because the overall traffic to the website grew, and because people were actually relieved to get an ads-free option.

I always maintained that from our perspective, the news alone is not reason enough to subscribe. I haven't paid for a newspaper, much less a website, strictly for news in years. As good as I believe our news service is, it was far easier to find free alternatives to it than it was for a gallery with over 60,000 high-res images, than it was for FORIX, for the full laptimes, and for something like 450 or more journal articles (and that number hasn't changed.)

We used to have on Atlas F1 stuff like Elsewhere in Racing, Countdown to the Next GP, and On the Road appearing on a weekly basis. That made up the numbers in the weekly journal, but in reality you get today a hundred times more equivalent stats and content than you did in the countdown or Elsewhere in Racing (and On the Road wasn't about motorsport anyway). That's just an example.

The only actual thing that changed in the journal from last year or the year before that is that Dieter Rencken and his weekly column are no longer on autosport.com. That is actually the only difference. But at the same time, two years ago we didn't have Ask Nigel (well, on Atlas F1 anyway).

We have a few things coming in the next few weeks. Some are directly relevant to the subscription and some are bigger than that. Some people will see these things as added value and some will see it as a dilution of content. The best example I can give is that we're about to start running the features and columns from Autosport on the website, along with (not instead of) our own weekly journal. This will be available to our subs only, and that content will appear a few days after the mag is out (so as not to hurt its store sales, obviously). Now some people - I think such as JForce, who is from NZ and has no wish or way of subscribing to Autosport - will find this as a great added value. He will be able to read Mark Hughes' column, Nigel Roebuck's, interviews, etc. Others, (like Dudley) will say this is outrageous, as we're running material from elsewhere and not something that was produced originally and exclusively *just* for the .com subscribers...

There are a few other things that will no doubt be received with mixed emotions. For the most part - and this thread shows it too - we make changes that are for the benefit of the majority of our core audience. Our addition of MotoGP coverage wasn't aimed at luring new readers (although inevitably that too will be a benefit), but rather improving the service we give to our existing ones. The reality is that the biggest audience we serve are F1 fans. And there are more F1 fans who also follow MotoGP than there are F1 fans who also follow WRC. That's something we learned in the last couple of years. So for us, the MotoGP coverage has to be of value first and foremost to those among the die-hard F1 fans (if you understand what I mean).

That said, how we approach this is a classic example of value being subjective. I reckon our MotoGP coverage will very quickly become a force to be reckoned with because of Toby Moody, because of his columns and features, because of another person who is going to join us for our bikes coverage, because of a driver column we're about to add, etc. All of these, along with the high-res images and the stats, are available only for subscribers. So our news service, just like in F1, will aspire to be the fastest and most reliable. But again, as I said, news alone is simply not enough - certainly it's not reason enough to subscribe. It's the bread and butter and milk and water and all your 5-a-day. But it's not the reason why you go to a restaurant...

I'm very proud of the fact that despite there being every logical reason for subscribers to cancel or not renew their subscription, in fact in the past six months we lost a fraction of the existing subscribers, but gained more in new ones. It means we must be offering *something* that is considered valuable to *someone*.

And by the way, for the record? I can't honestly say this week's issue would have been a great one without MotoGP being around. As I already said, this year is a strange one, and we're struggling to actually come up with quality journal content - and not for lack of people or ideas. More for lack of opportunities. Formula One is an "organised crime" - you only get to meet the Godfathers on the family occasions

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by bira
...
My one demand, though, is that you leave personal attacks/digs/insults out of this debate. scdecade, you can argue this topic as passionately as you want, but stick to the topic and don't post about the posters.

Originally posted by bira
.... Others, (like Dudley) will say this is outrageous, as we're running material from elsewhere and not something that was produced originally and exclusively *just* for the .com subscribers...
.......

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,


I agree with you on the topic Bira (as stated above), but isn't that double standards?

[kar]

Thanks for taking the time to respond in such a detailed way. I think you have singlehandedly kept _me_ (at least) with this:

We have a few things coming in the next few weeks. Some are directly relevant to the subscription and some are bigger than that. Some people will see these things as added value and some will see it as a dilution of content. The best example I can give is that we're about to start running the features and columns from Autosport on the website, along with (not instead of) our own weekly journal. This will be available to our subs only, and that content will appear a few days after the mag is out (so as not to hurt its store sales, obviously). Now some people - I think such as JForce, who is from NZ and has no wish or way of subscribing to Autosport - will find this as a great added value. He will be able to read Mark Hughes' column, Nigel Roebuck's, interviews, etc. Others, (like Dudley) will say this is outrageous, as we're running material from elsewhere and not something that was produced originally and exclusively *just* for the .com subscribers...

I rip on the print mag a fair bit, I think with some justification. But I do stop regularly at the train station to read Nigel's and Mark's columns. I don't buy the mag very often because I don't think it's often worth it, but having that available online is a significant addition of value to me personally.

I totally see the logic in what you say about the news, and indeed when it was first announced I made the same arguments I have made here, while also conceding to the pragmatism involved in making the decision. I felt though that some extra value was necessary to compensate those (like me) who saw the news as a significant part of the subscription (like _i_ did). Seems that that has in some way been taken in to consideration then, and that's all I ask.

Cheers again.

[bira]

Originally posted by jcbc3








Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,


I agree with you on the topic Bira (as stated above), but isn't that double standards?

Why is that a personal insult? I was referring specifically to what Dudley said about us running articles from the magazine.

[scdecade]

Originally posted by bira
As has already been pointed out, given that we have launched our MotoGP coverage today, we felt it only right to devote extra coverage and space for it. Does it come at the expense of F1 coverage? Yes and no.

Yes, in that without the MotoGP, we'd have had two-three other articles. But the reality is that this year is actually a very difficult one: look back at how our journal normally runs, you'll see it's primarily dependent on the events it is tied to.

So we got GP Preview issues and GP Reviews issues during the season; season preview and review issues; and during the off-season, in January and February, we traditionally followed the launches with tech analysis and interviews.

This year, all the launches pretty much took place in the span of like a week. And with far less testing this year than in previous years, the opportunities for interviews or, hell, just getting material for analysis is far stricter than before.

At the same time, I can honestly say, as an F1 fan and as an editor, that I find Scarbs' MotoGP tech analysis this week (which is in no small part about F1 too, in fact) and Toby's MotoGP analysis far more entertaining, informative and rewarding - to both read and edit - than some kind of forcibly manufactured article that is done simply to rack up the numbers.

I constantly say this: the decision whether you need a subscription or want a subscription is a personal one. I cancelled a couple of months ago a subscription to a website I was a member of for nearly seven years, simply because I realised I lost interest and haven't actually used it more than twice in six months. Fine. I didn't think they are rubbish, I just thought they no longer offer me something I want to pay for. What's the big drama about it?

I agree so unless something happens to change my mind I'm going let my subscription lapse in May.

I really get a lot of value from the pictuure gallery but for a little more money I can subscribe to F1-live. They've already got dozens of pictures up from Bahrain whereas autosport currently has none. Plus they've got pit babes! I love lookin at pictures of hot chicks in spandex.

It's a shame really. My tagline says 'member since 2002' but I let my subscription lapse by mistake. I've been a member since shortly after AF1 went up and converted immediately to the paid subscription model. I've also evangelized about AF1 to many, many people.

Cya.

[jhodges]

This is like, the best thing ever. bira!

[F1Johnny]

I don't get this resistance on the first day of the introduction of Moto GP coverage. Give it some time. The site is Autosport and Moto GP is just that.

I find it amazing that people that love motorsports/F1 would not like Moto GP. Just my opinion.

[D82]

Two words: Thank You!

[Dudley]

Originally posted by bira


Why is that a personal insult? I was referring specifically to what Dudley said about us running articles from the magazine.

No. That was an attack. You're putting words in my mouth about a service I haven't commented on.

There was absolutely no reason for a "Such as Dudley" there. Actually I was one of the big supporters of the "Scanned magazine" service there USED to be, so having part of that making a return would not be something I would complain about.

It's inaccurate anyway. I objected to the wholesale reprint of old content from NON-AUTOSPORT haymarket magazines, during the off season which I believed (and still do) was nothing more than in house advertising which I proved to my personal satisfaction DID repace journal content when we had this debate in 2005. My reaction was that it was one of a stream of things that made me not resubscribe for 2006 (as you suggested someone do). I don't believe I've commented on anything sitewise in any detail since and the fact you'd drag up a reasonable debate from 2 years ago entirely at random certainly does seem pretty personal. (and presumably related to the spoiler discussion recently)

I was actually going to defend the Moto-GP coverage here but apparently there's no point since (!uote) "people like Dudley", seemingly said in the same tone as other people would say "people like THEM" whilst pointing at a homosexual couple, would only complain.

[bira]

Originally posted by Dudley


No. That was an attack. You're putting words in my mouth about a service I haven't commented on.

There was absolutely no reason for a "Such as Dudley" there. Actually I was one of the big supporters of the "Scanned magazine" service there USED to be, so having part of that making a return would not be something I would complain about.

It's inaccurate anyway. I objected to the wholesale reprint of old content from NON-AUTOSPORT haymarket magazines, during the off season which I believed (and still do) was nothing more than in house advertising which I proved to my personal satisfaction DID repace journal content when we had this debate in 2005. My reaction was that it was one of a stream of things that made me not resubscribe for 2006 (as you suggested someone do). I don't believe I've commented on anything sitewise in any detail since and the fact you'd drag up a reasonable debate from 2 years ago entirely at random certainly does seem pretty personal. (and presumably related to the spoiler discussion recently)

I was actually going to defend the Moto-GP coverage here but apparently there's no point since (!uote) "people like Dudley", seemingly said in the same tone as other people would say "people like THEM" whilst pointing at a homosexual couple, would only complain.

Sorry, I did not mean to attack you nor to drag up a debate from two years ago. I've never, ever had a problem with you on any level at all - including your criticism. I picked JForce as one example, because I remembered him posting about it, and you as the other example, because I remembered you posting about it. And, I actually had in mind your post about this from a couple of months ago (I think?) where you explained that you stopped subscribing because we ran articles from the magazine instead of newly created articles for online subscriptions (or something like that). If it's a major bone of contention I could look the post up, but it was quite recent, I assure you.

I say this again, I mentioned you and JForce because of counter points each of you raised on what I was posting about (republishing magazine articles).

[Dudley]

Well let's forget that bit then.

For what it's worth I see a major difference between using Autosport articles from the last week and claiming months old articles from other magazines, seemingly largely used as adverts FOR said magazines, as content.

[Jedi_F1]

Originally posted by F1Johnny
I find it amazing that people that love motorsports/F1 would not like Moto GP. Just my opinion. [/B]

MotoGP or any other kind of Motorracing isn't just my thing I like to watch.
In full respect of the fans about it...
There are many reasons why I more than once a day (sometimes a hour) click on Autosport.com, but MotoGP news/pictures/results will never be a reason.
But it's nice for the fans who follows that too.

[bira]

I can only recommend using My Autosport. It allows you to "build" your own website, essentially, using only the content you want - including content from outside autosport.com. If all you're in to is F1, for example, you can create a page that has boxes from autosport.com's F1 news, F1 gallery, F1 standings, etc, and add to that boxes with RSS feeds from other F1 sites you frequently visit.