New/Old F1 guy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Gixxer46
There’s a lot more talent needed to make a bike go fast vs a car.

Not sure about that. F1 drivers will pull 3-4 G in a corner and 5-6 G under braking. You're pressed into the straps so hard that a human being literally doesn't have the upper body strength to breathe, you're going so fast that events are constantly happening faster than the absolute physical minimum processing times of a human nervous system, and you have to nail your braking points and racing lines every time... Not a lot of human pursuits are that difficult.

F1 is pretty difficult for sure, but 4 wheels always some extra leeway when the driver miscalculates a bit, compared to bikes. I can't think of any driver that has made the switch to 2 wheels at the pro level and done well? Schumacher tried but injured himself, but also was a bit old to make the switch.
IMO you've got so much more to do on a bike than in a car(independent brakes, body positioning), and going over the limit for a moment can have much bigger consequences, that the lower speeds don't make it easier at all.
Probably with bit of sim work, a couple weeks of neck exercises and a slightly easier car setup, most motogp guys would be within a few percent of the average f1 driver, in 2 days of testing. Going the other way though, unless the F1 guy has 100's of hours on a sport bike already, and some amateur racing, getting within a few percent probably is going to take a long time.
 
I think Nascar has seen its heyday and it will never see the glory days of the late 1990's again. If you think back, most race tracks, with the exception of Daytona, up until the 1980's only sat maybe 30-40,000 fans. They stopped racing at those small tracks and increased the seating to well over 100,000 seats at many of these cookie cutter palaces that were opened to replace the old mainstay tracks. American's, a fickle lot came in droves and now have left in droves for newer, shinier forms of entertainment. The base demographic of fans, mostly down South, has been aging out without replacement generations. The mad rush of fans of the 1990's will never be back. Nascar needs to come to terms of having only 30,000 fans at a race. They will also have to come to terms of being abandoned by sponsors and having no income from television contracts. They will need to go back to a 1960's model of maybe 50 races a year, lower the prize money and actual cost of fielding a car if they hope to survive. Nascar in it's present form is dead but keeps staggering around like a brain dead zombie.

I'm a newer fan to F1. I like the technology but the racing for the most part is pretty dull with maybe a few minutes of excitement week to week. I am rooting for the Haas team and it is gratifying to see their steady progress. I kind of agree with previous posters that they need to chuck the rulebook and let these teams innovate within looser guidelines. Creating the cookie cutter cars that are around today didn't bode well for Nascar which wasn't about high-tech to begin with. Open the rulebook and see one team after another become dominant and fall by the wayside as another team comes up with a better mousetrap.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
and you think that making them faster and more dangerous to the driver (Cannon at the corner, and the best driver survives), while titillating you in your Zimmer frame will drag the crowds back ? How many more people would watch if they abandoned crash helmets ?


As per usual, you're just spouting more idiotic nonsense. NASCAR has seen a total of only 28 driver fatalities in it's 70 year history that started in 1948. The most recent of which occurred in February 2001 when Dale Earnhardt was killed during the Daytona 500, over 17 years ago. In Formula 1, there have only been 2 drivers killed in the last 24 years. (Senna and Bianchi).
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Racing cars has ZERO value in the current economy except for advertising products like soda, beer, and washing aids now that tobacco and booze has been banned. And if cars are plastered in decals for Tide, or Mountain Dew, they are serving their purpose.


Still more nonsense. Advertisers and corporate sponsors are pulling out of NASCAR, because of decreasing attendance and a failing TV viewership. And those that remain are drastically cutting their funding. People have to see those stickers and decals. They're not if they are not watching. And NASCAR has lost 50% of it's television viewership since 2005.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Formula 1 isn't much better, if not worse. It has lost a full 1/3rd of it's audience since 2008. Over 200,000,000 (read 200 MILLION). When they actually sounded like race cars. And performed at the same levels they do now, a full decade later. That's not "improvement", but rather a good cure for insomnia.

I think we're looking at a different phenomenon altogether here. Now, I understand that F1 reporters and Liberty Media and so forth are required, as part of their jobs, to report on, worry about, and mull over audience numbers, and try to improve them, particularly as far as Liberty goes. You already hinted at the problem yourself. NASCAR has it, too. It's easy to look at these things in a vacuum, or, not much better, in the world of motorsports as a whole, and come up with some flawed conclusions.

MotoGP is exciting, but couldn't get a good North American TV deal to save its soul. Formula 1 used to be exciting? Watch some of the races from years ago, without cherry picking. Go watch a season, if you can find it, on YouTube, and see the same complaints by the same personalities following the same strategies. Tire saving, fuel saving, difficulties in passing, aero messed up by the car ahead - none of these are new. I criticise NASCAR for not using "stock cars." Is that really the problem? Look at GT3. The 'Ring is in perpetual danger of going broke, despite great racing and good pricing. WEC is really not available on North American TV, much less GT3, and has had many participants bolt. FE is garnering a lot of interest, but I don't see anyone beating the door down for a TV deal, or big title sponsors.

So, perhaps all of motorsport is in trouble. Okay. Let's widen our view a little. Hockey viewership is down. Football (and soccer for those who prefer that sport) has declining viewership. Baseball isn't setting the world on fire, either, with its audiences. Maybe we're sick of overplayed hockey players who can't score, people taking knees, soccer players taking dives and playing 0-0 ties, and baseball which desperately needs a "shot clock." So, perhaps it's televised sport that's in trouble.

Maybe we can widen our focus a bit more. Sitcoms don't get the audiences they used to. The same applies to network news, reality shows, documentaries, TV movies, the list goes on. The real problem is that TV viewership per show is dropping, thanks to having a plethora of channels, and TV viewership across the board is dropping, thanks to having many, many alternatives.

I'm a hockey fan, but haven't watched a complete game in at least two years. Why? The days of having three channels here and the only thing worth watching or doing on a Saturday night in a Saskatchewan winter being Hockey Night in Canada are long gone. Sure, I'm busier, but these days, I have many alternatives. I can play games. I can go on BITOG. I can watch one of the other hundreds of channels. I can watch things on YouTube, not to mention one of the other myriad choices there are for the world's couch potatoes.

Everyone in a each segment of television is worried about their audience size. Diversifying to streaming will help, but there still are limitations when so many alternatives are always available. There are things that sports can do to improve the live, in person experience. For F1, you can eliminate DRS, redo every track on the planet, eliminate the halo, dress the halo with Christmas lights, revamp the tire system, get rid of aero, do whatever you want, and it's not going to change the fact that TV is on the decline. Putting "stock cars" back in NASCAR would please me, may help sell a few more tickets, but I'm not sure what it would do to improve TV audiences. Similarly, reincarnating and reuniting Caroll O'Connor and Sherman Hemsley and the cast of M*A*S*H and the cast of Seinfeld isn't going to return us to the heydey of TV sitcom audiences.

Liberty, TV executives, and so forth aren't paid to tolerate lower television audiences. However, that's the reality, the present, and the future. I watch a fair bit of WEC and GT3 racing on YouTube. None of that improves their TV numbers. I know some young people who are very interested in F1 and would watch it on a streaming service, and they are being rolled out slowly around the world, as TV deals permit. Now, if a young person has no cable or satellite subscription, much less a set of rabbit ears, and only watch streaming services, nothing that any of these TV people can do will get said young person to contribute to better TV numbers. I don't know a single person under 30 here that has a cable or satellite subscription. That's your TV audience problem in a nutshell. Nielsen ratings measure viewers through a medium - network television - that is not only dying, but cannabalising itself through dilution.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
For F1, ..., redo every track on the planet, ...


Touch Spa and I'm coming for you!

I think the other thing that is killing motorsport is it is no longer "relatable". I grew up working on and aspiring to drive cars. The I got my license and continued to drive cars and modify/improve them. The cars I drove were actually in no small way related to the cars my "heroes" were racing a the time. Now, I admit F1 was never really something most people could relate to, but the excitement transferred from the classes of racing they *could* relate to, and the skills required to drive a car.

The generations coming up now are either not learning to drive at all, or learning enough to know how to vaguely direct a four wheeled appliance around suburban streets while mostly managing not to kill people. Driving is a nuisance which is best dealt with by keeping occupied doing something else until it's over. There's no relatable skill in actually controlling a vehicle, contributing to (or improving) how it performs/handles or concentrating on becoming a better driver.

With that at the fore, why would they watch cars going around a circuit on telly. There is nothing in there that remotely relates to anything they ever do (except when Hamilton throws his toys out of the pram).

From the perspective of something that gets international coverage, WSBK is about as good as it gets in the average Joe being able to afford something vaguely related to the bikes they see on the track.
 
Their hope lies on keeping young people playing the games, all the driving games, not just F1 games, and giving them streaming options available on the device at hand. When the F1 streaming continues to roll out, they absolutely must make an app for it on the current generation gaming boxes.

It may not be relatable to what they do or need to do (as you said, appliance driving), but the "cool factor" with gaming means something. Additionally, all the F1 teams (except Ferrari) now have established e-racing teams. E-racing, too, has been shown as a real path to real racing, and that's only going to grow.

Of course, the kid who plays a Gran Turismo game or an F1 game or something similar isn't necessarily going to go out and buy a TV subscription to watch F1. He may certainly use the YouTube app on his console to watch the racing that's available there, or subscribe to a pay service if made available on his console. I watch all kinds of racing on my PS3, simply because I can watch it in 1080p on a big screen, akin to it being broadcast television, rather than on a small device or computer monitor.

But, if F1 and WEC and their ilk don't have apps on such devices, they're missing out on those potential viewers. It's nice to see Liberty getting F1 streaming going and how they've indicated it would expand as TV deals expire. Make sure things are available on a sufficient number of platforms, though. Get new viewers through alternative ways, but don't alienate your core. Some of these TV deals currently in place are just so restrictive, it doesn't make things easy. Teams are so limited as to what they can show on their YouTube channels. They're not even allowed to show race footage. As it stands, the only way for me to legally watch a race streaming in Canada is for me to log on to TSN (The Sports Network, our F1 broadcaster) and use my satellite TV subscription credentials, which verifies me as a legitimate subscriber, thus allowing me to watch on an alternative platform. That's somewhat helpful for me as a current subscriber, but doesn't do any good for someone unwilling to subscribe to a complete TV package.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Let's widen our view a little. Hockey viewership is down. Football (and soccer for those who prefer that sport) has declining viewership. Baseball isn't setting the world on fire, either, with its audiences.


You can't compare auto racing, especially Formula 1 and NASCAR, to stadium ball games like MLB, NFL, and NBA. It's an entirely different demographic. And they don't make drastic rule changes every 15 minutes, like F1 and NASCAR does. That has done nothing to improve viewership. And just about everything to wreck it.

Also, it depends what teams are playing in baseball games. Which causes a tremendous amount of up and down viewership. Teams don't dominate for consecutive years, like in F1. For example, when the Chicago Cubs won the World Series in 2016 for the first time in 108 years, they drew a 30% higher viewership, than Game 7 of the 2017 World Series between the Houston Astros and the Los Angeles Dodgers, that was played just 12 months later. These people just didn't wake up one morning hating Major League Baseball. People get just as bored watching one team dominate in MLB, just the same as they do watching Vettel and Hamilton play parade leader.

The difference is in MLB and the NFL the teams don't dominate as long, or as often. But when they do, people are less likely to tune in. How many World Driving Championships have been won by just Vettel and Hamilton? From 2010 to 2017 ALL of them, with the exception of Rosberg in 2016... In another Mercedes. Between that, and boring off song race cars, they have lost 200 million viewers. Most of which they're never going to get back.

Now, if you really want to toss a wrench into all of this, compare the boring Vettel / Hamilton years to the Schumacher Ferrari era. When he dominated with 5 consecutive World Driving Championships from 2000 to 2004. The viewership was never higher. Screaming V-10's were certainly one of the reasons why. Those cars were just plain more exciting to watch and listen to. Regardless of who was driving them. A V-12 or V-10 Minardi running dead last was more exciting to watch, than Hamilton leading the bore fest in his battery powered, V-6 Hybrid. Complete with it's flapping rear wing if anyone gets close to him.... Which very few do.

And remember, with F1 were talking a world wide audience. The United States has never really had a big Formula 1 fan base. So they're managing to lose viewers across the globe. Now if you want to compare American viewers who watch NASCAR and MLB, ask yourself who has changed the rules more, along with how the game is played?

About the only major rule change that I can think of with MLB, was the lowering of the pitchers mound 5" in 1969. Compare NASCAR today to 1969 and you wouldn't be able to recognize it. So yes, I'll give you the demographic change in the fan base. And I'm not saying if Formula 1 went back to V-10's and V-12's, and NASCAR went back to factory built 200+ MPH, 426 HEMI "Stock Cars", all would be well. The fact is once you lose an audience, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to get it back. Most venues never do. But F1 and NASCAR are far more responsible for their own demise, than any stadium team sport ever has been, or will be.
 
I don't know if F1 viewership is really down that much. Only 1 out of 5 guys I know that follow F1 actually watch it on live TV, the rest of us stream it from a 3rd party for most races. Probably Liberty tracks that as well if they are smart so they can see their true audience.
I think Liberty will adapt to the new reality that many people won't pay to watch, and even streaming it live isn't that important if there isn't viewer controllable viewing options, like choosing any 3 car cameras plus the main feed.
I think first though they do need to setup the team financial structure so the teams are a little closer in car performance, and get Newey to work for F1 and draw up a set of car design rules that allows for closer high speed racing.
There needs to be a bit more entertainment value and then the fans will stay, or perhaps even grow.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
You can't compare auto racing, especially Formula 1 and NASCAR, to stadium ball games like MLB, NFL, and NBA. It's an entirely different demographic. And they don't make drastic rule changes every 15 minutes, like F1 and NASCAR does. That has done nothing to improve viewership. And just about everything to wreck it.

No matter what you do, all you're going to do is damage limitation to TV audience numbers. They won't grow. I stand by my point about TV audience shifts. I'm a big hockey fan. I haven't, however, watched a complete hockey game on TV for at least a couple years. I'm fairly busy, and that explains part of it. However, the days in Saskatchewan where a Saturday night's entertainment was one of two TV channels when it's blisteringly cold out are gone. I have dozens upon dozens of other channels, video games, BITOG, and so forth. People underestimate how much of the TV audience, particularly back in the day, was as big as it was because of fewer alternatives. People plop themselves on the couch, turn on the TV. That's been the trope for years. Fewer channels to compete with each other and no internet, much less streaming, made it easy on TV. Ironically, you go back to the early 1980s here, I couldn't watch Formula 1, no matter how badly I wanted it. The TV executives deemed that my F1 experience was to watch ABC's Wide World of Sports with Sir Jackie doing a few minutes of highlights.

And yes, while the demographics between stadium games and racing might be different, that doesn't change the fact that TV viewership is going down the toilet across the board, irrespective of what's on TV. Super Bowl does fairly well, because it's an event. Look at sitcoms, as I mentioned. The "great" numbers that Roseanne was bringing in, before everything went off the rails, were a joke compared to what good sitcoms brought in during the 1980s. TV, to get viewers now, has to have something very important, one off. Things like Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, and World Cup can attract decent audiences. However, NFL regular season, NHL regular season, and MLS, for instance, are in more trouble.

Indylan: I should hope that Liberty Media is appropriately tracking what's going on with streaming, but we know how TV and the media as a whole operate, by paying undue attention to Nielsen ratings, and how obsolete they are.
 
Could it be that people resent having to pay so much money to watch people who make 1 million per half hour show. I know times change, but my income has not gone up near as fast as the cost of tickets to see any sporting event.
We pay players millions to play a game we enjoyed as kids and they act, many times, like misbehaving children and disrespect the game and the fans.
YMMV

Smoky
 
Originally Posted By: Smoky14
Could it be that people resent having to pay so much money to watch people who make 1 million per half hour show. I know times change, but my income has not gone up near as fast as the cost of tickets to see any sporting event.
We pay players millions to play a game we enjoyed as kids and they act, many times, like misbehaving children and disrespect the game and the fans. YMMV Smoky


I don't think ticket cost, or petty financial jealousy factors into it much, if at all. Television and movie stars, along with top paid athletes have always been very highly paid when compared to the, "common folk". Besides, it was no different in the 60's, back when Dean Martin signed with NBC for $65 MILLION dollars to do his 1 hour variety show. $65 MILLION is a ton of money now. It was an ungodly amount in the 60's. No one hated him for it. He was one of the most loved and respected entertainers in American history.

A lot of people don't like Roseanne because they say she is crude, and supported Trump. But she was crude 20 years ago on the same show, and they loved her for it. It was all political. So because of that, the network was just itching for a way to get rid of both her and her show. Even if it meant committing financial suicide to do it. Number 1 hit television shows don't grow on trees. Especially 20 year old remakes with the same people playing the same characters.

Top athletes have always earned big money as well. Inflation makes it seem minuscule today. But when they were getting paid it back then, it had much the same buying power that Tom Brady's salary has today. It's all relative.

And as far as how they act. People's tolerance for foolish, stupid behavior seems to be far greater today, than it was 45 or 50 years ago. Back then if a Joe Namath or a Terry Bradshaw took a knee during the National Anthem, they would have been kicked out of the stadium, after being booed off the field. Today people not only tolerate it, but so does the NFL. Times change.... And not necessarily for the better.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...lat/fpart/1/q/1

Originally Posted By: billt460
No "Safer Barrier". Rocks on one side, a cliff on the other. If he misses, he's dead. And no shifter paddles. His hand goes to the stick for every gear change. This is Alain Castellana, and he was 57 years old when this video was shot.




What does that have to do with NASCAR or F1 viewership? Let me guess..... Nothing.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
A lot of people don't like Roseanne because they say she is crude, and supported Trump. But she was crude 20 years ago on the same show, and they loved her for it.

Staying out of the politics, it's not the content that's the problem. It's the competition for eyeballs. Just look at historical Nielsen ratings. The top rated shows right now are drawing less than half of what Seinfeld did when it was in its final years, let alone Roseanne's original series, and Cosby. Formula 1, football, soccer, hockey, TV news, baseball, NASCAR, and sitcoms have not lost viewers in isolation. Television has lost viewers across the board. None of these segments is seeing increasing viewership. Network TV's peak has long, long past.

Another example - look at CNN. I seldom turn it on any longer. It's not because of the content. I don't turn on our news networks very much, either. Again, it's not the content. I can check the news immediately on the web from CNN or our competitors instantly, without waiting for a commercial to clear or listen to the entire news cycle.

This is the problem, and it seems Liberty understands this. They want streaming and to get people in the gates. Improving content is certainly important. But, I don't care what you do, TV audiences are dropping. You want to improve Formula 1 (or football or sitcom or baseball) TV ratings? Simple. Get rid of all networks but two and have F1 (or football or sitcoms or baseball) on one of them, and throttle the internet to dial up speeds. Then, you'll have ratings through the roof. However, that's not going to happen, so all these entertainment segments have to compete for eyeballs.

The competition is no longer over TV time slots - air time. Because of streaming and so many channels, the air time and time slots are essentially unlimited. The competition is for the viewer, now more than it ever was. The days of relying on giant TV deals the way Bernie did them are over.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Another example - look at CNN. I seldom turn it on any longer. It's not because of the content.


It's "content" is exactly why no one is watching CNN any longer. NASCAR and F1 are no different.

https://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/why-cnn-failing-36334/

"Collapse of the liberal media has affected television, radio, newspapers and magazines. Ratings have nosedived and revenue streams are evaporating. One entity hit hard by the liberal media decline is CNN.... CNN’s decline has come from self-inflicted wounds."

Just like F1 and NASCAR. Like it or not, content is everything in viewership. If people no longer like what they're watching, they won't. It really is just that simple.
 
Look at TV ratings in general, forget the politics. TV viewership is down across the board. Nothing gets big TV ratings any longer. Check the Wikipedia article on the ratings. Nothing gets high viewership any longer except Super Bowl.

I don't care how good CNN is or isn't. I don't watch it, and won't watch it. Network TV is on a decline, and I told you the only way they can ever change that.

It's pretty sad to bring politics in it, since that's just an excuse. No, it's not competition from other sources. It's not that people don't want to spend $50 to $100 a month on channels they never watch. It's not that they can't get the information from elsewhere more quickly. It's not even the content. Like I said, I don't know a single person under 30 with a satellite or cable subscription. If the network executives and media pundits don't see the writing on the wall and are trying to find something else to blame, their deliberately blind or just stupid. They're walking a few paces behind newspapers down the path to obsolescence.

Improving content is like improving the buggy wheel while the motor vehicle is being developed. Too little, too late. Our youth are used to watching what they want, when they want it. They're not interested in waiting for events, not to mention paying for the privilege to wait for those events, and having their schedule dictated to them by network TV.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
It's pretty sad to bring politics in it, since that's just an excuse. No, it's not competition from other sources.


No, it's not an "excuse". It's a reason. And a very good one. If it were not, this would not be true. It is. The fact it involves politics, does not make it any less factual. You're the one who brought CNN into this to support your narrative.

https://www.onenewsnow.com/media/2018/05/24/cnn-primetime-viewers-fall-35-fox-news-up-9

Originally Posted By: Garak
Television has lost viewers across the board.

Even if that's true, show me one other sports, or television entertainment venue that has lost 200,000,000 of it's viewers in just 10 years. I'll save you the trouble, there isn't one. And there is nothing political about F1, except within it's own rules and teams.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460

Even if that's true, show me one other sports, or television entertainment venue that has lost 200,000,000 of it's viewers in just 10 years. I'll save you the trouble, there isn't one. And there is nothing political about F1, except within it's own rules and teams.


Soooo...

you would have the rules changed go back to stick shift, and certain death on each side of the track ?

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...his#Post4764064

To get viewership back ?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Soooo... you would have the rules changed go back to stick shift, and certain death on each side of the track ?

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...his#Post4764064

To get viewership back ?


You are constantly, and falsly trying to establish some type of foolish narrative between increased danger equating to greater excitement in racing. That, like everything else you've been preaching here, is complete nonsense. No one wants to see anyone get hurt. And it is totally idiotic to insinuate that. Some venues of racing are more dangerous than others. Do you honestly believe people who watch Hill Climb and Rally Racing are more bloodthirsty than those who watch F1 or Indy Car? That's idiotic.

Indy Car racing has never been safer, or FASTER. Today's Indy Cars are far safer going around Indianapolis at 225 MPH, than they were in the 50's when they were travling under 145 MPH. As it was pointed out to you before, the last person to die during the Indy 500 was Swede Savage back in 1973, 45 years ago. And his cause of death was not from race injuries, (which he would have recovered from), but rather from Hepatitis from a bad blood transfusion. So stop constantly overplaying your whole blood thirsty danger = excitement nonsense. You're making yourself look foolish.

The lack of excitement, along with the sheer boredom from today's NASCAR and Formula 1 racing, comes from poor race management, coupled with silly rules, and boring, unexciting race cars. And if they don't change the downward sprial, it won't be long before it ceases to exist as we have come to know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
New BMW X3 M40, INSANE power delivery (2024)
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
9K
Jimmy_Russells
Nick1994
I bought a Mazzone Sand Rail
Replies
10
Views
3K
Kira
slo town
My experience 30 floors up during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
2
Replies
20
Views
900
wpod
slo town
Lifetime friends and the crazy stories that go along with it
Replies
13
Views
2K
ripcord
G
  • Locked
F1 - 2018 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
Replies
10
Views
2K
Garak
Back
Top