Another F1 team bites the dust

But is it hugely popular?
As it's so desperately boring from a sporting perspective I would suggest not.

nothing so exciting as talking about tyre degradation imo

Bring back Minardi!
They managed 20 years on a shoestring budget.

My idea of sporting purgatory is watching anything to do with motor racing.

This year the engines have to be more environmentally friendly. Never mind the tyres lasting for less than a few laps and the whole F1 circus being shunted round the globe by jet every few weeks.
A less "green" activity, masquerading as a sport, would be hard to imagine.

To succeed in Formula One you need to put together the whole package to give you the opportunity to score points. As mentioned earlier, tyre degradation is of vital importance as is aerodynamics, fuel consumption, race tactics, qualifying tactics and every other tactic and detail that you care to name, along with many others that might seem unimportant. In F1, nothing is 'unimportant'.

I've seen silly statements on here in the past like "Why don't they just let them race flat-out?". The answer is quite simple...it is NOT a one lap race. It is a race over about 180 miles. They go round and round because they ain't got a track that's long enough! Same rules apply though, first to cross the finish line is the winner. Except, of course, in exceptional circumstances where an infringement of the rules requires a penalty.
It would be refreshing if football could adopt the same attitude. How many games are won or lost on situations that should really allow/disallow a goal for one reason or another?

Slippy motorsport is a magnet for crumpet. Last time I went to Donnington for the touring cars I sat behind Liz Hurley if I hadn't had my lad with me I would have left some deposits on the back of her fur coat

Any chance the whole turgid overblown lot of them will go bust and we can get some proper sport back on the telly and not a bunch of overgrown schoolboys telling us all how exciting it is?

I've not watched it for years. It's a tired format.

The "sport is dull...the drivers are dull and Ecclestone is so far up his own arse its back on top of his shoulders.

Ecclestone is so far up his own arse its back on top of his shoulders.

The man is a marketing genius to persuade people that the dreary procession is exciting and glamorous.

The man is a marketing genius to persuade people that the dreary procession is exciting and glamorous.

The German court has exposed his working practises. Marketing genius? Maybe, but one with deep pockets and uses them to get what he wants.

marketing genius is euphemism for corrupt coont

The man is a marketing genius to persuade people that the dreary procession is exciting and glamorous.

The German court has exposed his working practises. Marketing genius? Maybe, but one with deep pockets and uses them to get what he wants.

Aye even in court.

F1 makes Royal Ascot look like a paupers point to point meeting, if your not a multi multi millionaire please do not try to join our club

F1 is a sport that is designed for televised coverage on an international basis. It does this very successfully. It is not meant to be viewed only by those who can attend the race personally. That would give a totally unsustainable fan base.
I think that many of you are losing track of the fact that it is the fastest car to cover 180 miles that wins the race. This is why you nurse your fuel consumption. It is why you look after your tyres etc, etc, etc.
There would be no point in driving flat-out from the start because you would simply run off the road or run out of fuel. You might get the 'fastest lap' accolade...but that is very unlikely. In short, you would win f*** all. Much the same as athletics or horse racing, really.

I think if one or two of you would actually open your closed 'it's boring' mind, and maybe try to comprehend what is going on, and think about why some teams win while others don't, you might see it in a different light. Somehow, I don't think that is going to happen!

You could, of course, watch a sport that you find more appealing. We Formula One fans promise not to whinge at you!

First Caterham, now Marussia... amazing seens, given the sport's huge popularity

The problem is in the way the money is divided up. Each team gets about $40 million and the rest is split dependent on results. There’s a huge disparity between what the champions get and the team in last place – something like $80 million dollars more for the winners.

Along side this, there’s a bonus for the three top constructors, with Red Bull getting about another $80 million (on top of the $120 million prize money) with the bottom team getting in total about $50 million.

In theory, I suppose, the teams could change this but they cannot unite because Ferrari are a treated as a special case and get another $90 million for being Ferrari, and of course they are not going to agree to anything that would lessen their chances of winning.

So the little teams have to grin and bear it, with the ever increasing numbers of races (it used to be about 16, now it’s about 20) and the big disparity in revenue they’ll never get on terms.

A few years back, Brawn ‘lucked in’ with the double diffuser that few of the other teams saw as a loophole in the regulations. Button won the first five races, I think. But the other teams soon caught up with diffusers of their own and the Brawn wasn’t developed from mid season because they had no money and hence Button never won another race in it, just hanging on to win the championship.

But that’s an isolated case, most of the time the poor teams are several seconds a lap slower and unlike McLaren, they can’t spend their way out of it because they just don’t have the money.

The alternative is instead of setting up a team and building a car, you could buy them from one of the front runners ready made. That way you get a competitive car but this would surely wipe out the mid-field constructors (like Force India and Sauber, who would slip back in points and prize money). In the end you’d have a few teams supplying all the cars.

it is NOT a one lap race. 
It is a race over about 180 miles. They go round and round because they ain't got a track that's long enough!

Close the M25 for two hours.

Start at Junction 1.

Two laps = 205 miles.

Sorted.

Only Tennis is more boring to watch.

Lord snooty of naydam has spoken

My mind was closed when the BBC gave up a huge chunk of it's sporting budget to pander to the petrolheads.

It's dull and it's shoved down our throats to the exclusion of virtually every other sport bar football.

the small teams are completely pointless, there is no pp=point in them being there, they get zero coverage unless there is a crash and are as uncompetitive as you can get in a sport, Marussia and Caterham will miss the next grand prix but they wont be missed at all. There is never more than to teams or two drivers fighting it out for the title, the constructors championships is given a fair bit of time but no fan could care less about which manufacturer wins that, I think it's a good idea as been recently suggested, to have less teams and each of the remaining teams have three cars instead of two, it'll make the gap between the back and the front closer for a start, some tracks are boring too, every track should be designed to have ample overtaking opportunities, places like Valencia and Monaco make it tedious as whoever is pole wins, race over before it's begun. Racing is meant to be thrilling, but F1 is far to often a procession, which makes the sport a joke.

The sport has gradually weeded out those fans who loved it because it was exciting, competitive and dangerous.

As someone suggested on here many years allow a   few cows and chickens   the freedom to wander at will on the track..that would liven things up a bit or failing that make them all race going backwards.

^ago*

If you could just think about the races as a race over the FULL distance, it would be obvious why they are not constantly passing and re-passing. THAT leads to contact. It leads to excessive tyre and brake wear. It leads to increased fuel consumption. In short, you LOSE the race!
The driver who doesn't overstress his car in the early stages and conserves his fuel and tyres will always beat the heavy-handed, club-footed driver.

Maybe you would all prefer just a one-lap race? But, of course, you've got that...it's called qualifying!! Why not just watch THAT? And moan a bit less?

It just doesn't sound a lot of fun though, does it?

it's obvious the only way to entice people to watch races is to make it more exciting, overtaking manoeuvres is exciting, sitting there thinking about the race over a full distance doesn't do it for most which is why most have switched off, rules need to change one way or the other to make it more competitive

That eggandspoon character in charge always comes across as a bit dodgy.

Christ if only we could!

Get it all done and dusted quickly.

Unfortunately, the BBC's budget will still have been $punked up the wall though.

It's the same with any racing, Jack. The objective is to to lead at the winning post/flag/tape/gun/bell or whatever is used to define the winner. That's it.
Of course, the rules could be modified to award 'positional points' for each lap and for fastest lap. This might then mean that the driver/car in third place actually accrues most points and so, wins the race. But this would imply send the moaners off on a different tangent. They would still moan.

Having more and varied sports to watch would be great. They could stop all 'reality' shows, auction programmes, home improvements, panel games and 'soaps' for me and fill those hours with multifarious sport programmes...but they won't. And, actually, I'm glad that they won't because other people derive enjoyment from them. So, I will accept the status quo and when it changes in the future, as it will surely do, then I will try to adjust my interests to include the new subjects.

I am not really that anti F1.  Each to his own, etc.

But, a, probably unfair, analogy would be with NH racing.

If they tried to make it similar to F1 they could make the all the horses carry the same top weigh, have bigger jockeys, smaller fences, limit the diet of the horses, narrow the course to 3m wide, race over 10 miles, bring them in for resaddling and a drink every 4 miles, have a staggered start where the best horses are let out first…..etc.

The man is a marketing genius to persuade people that the dreary procession is exciting and glamorous.

only to those who want to buy rubbish imo but as they say
Where there's muck there's brass.

maybe no tyre changes, fuel filling stops,and a draw for where you start
may give a little more excitement that you may sometimes have to compete
rather than be given a head start

Yes, Jack. That is about as unfair an analogy as it would be possible to make.

"Qualifying" is either to squeeze a bit more money out of nerdy characters who actually pay to watch or about making absolutely sure the race is dull by giving the fastest driver a start.
I read a book many years ago which said the prize money was actually awarded according to the positions at quarter, half, three quarters and of course the end of the race. This was because so many of the cars broke down before the finish.
How long ago was this the case?

I prefer the American version of the sport where the lead driver brings his dog along and sets traps for the other drivers.

Maybe unfair, but, pretty true.

Making it safer, slower, less exciting, less overtaking and over-long - with 'reverse handicapping' to give an advantage to the already faster competitors.

What is the point of starting in the back two on the grid?

When was that time one of these two cars won a race?

A Nissan Micra has more chance against my car in a lap of the M25 in the rush hour.

Hmmm. I think the point is to make sure that you DON'T start in the last two on the grid.
It's probably not so long since the sinner came from the back row. Certainly, there are plenty of points scorers start from that area.
I often wonder just how much 'more' overtaking there was in the races that you all keep harping back to. In any case those, more dangerous, days are hopefully in the past. I also doubt very much that the racing is slower than it used to be despite severe restrictions this year on fuel limitations, engine size and permissible engine revs.
The rules are changed in order to challenge the teams to progress. They must constantly invent, innovate, adapt and improve. Otherwise they lose.
That is how it should be.

Oct 28, 2014 -- 3:02PM, Crisp77 wrote:

I prefer the American version of the sport where the lead driver brings his dog along and sets traps for the other drivers.

That's Mario Kart isn't it...???

I hear that the organisers of the Rio Olympics were so impressed by the F1 race at Monaco this year that they are making some small alterations to the 100m mens final purely to make it more exciting. The race will be run using one lane only and the competitors will start in order determined by their times in the qualifying heats ie fastest qualifier in front and slowest at the back. Competitors will not be allowed to move out of the lane.
Bookmakers have said that they will pay out after the qualifying heats.

Hmmm. I would anticipate some skullduggery. They are probably best to just stick with the usual athletics format where the heat winners go through to the final along with the fastest two qualifiers. Lane allocation is decided upon the qualifying heats, with the 'best' lanes going to the fastest runners.


Hang on! Isn't that exactly what Formula One does as well? Best qualifiers get the prime positions...as in every other event in the world!!

Hmmm, naders swimming strongly against the tide here.Each to his own of course but hard to get away from the truth of the matter...Grand prix for grand prixs

3 car teams will spice it up

Three car teams would be very expensive and with what benefit?
Naydam isn't really swimming against the tide. Formula One is highly regarded all over the developed world. A gathering of chitchat Luddites is just the equivalent of localised eddy.

Anyway, you guys will be glad to know...It's the U.S. Grand Prix this weekend!

naydam, you strike me as plane spotter or maybe a bird watcher

^^^^And YOU strike ME as somebody who makes the most bizarre associations that I have ever known!

Although, on reflection, I AM interested in aircraft in general from the point of view of engineering and technological achievement. This probably stems from past work experiences.
Also, I have been known to sit outside a pub on a nice, sunny day and just enjoy a nice beer whilst casting an appreciative eye at some of the passers-by. But I wouldn't say that I was 'twitching', that just sounds like lecherous behaviour.

I'm with naydam, I have an engineering background so stuff like this has always interested me. Motorsports also isn't just about F1 there is something to interest loads of people right down to clubman events. If you take the price of a meeting and how long it usually lasts it is also good value for money compared to many sports, also many of the technological advances you take for granted in your road car have directly come about because of F1 research. There are plenty of sports I don't like but I would not dismiss them out of hand because I have never been to them, tv coverage I'm sure doesn't do justice to loads of sports.