There was no time to discuss the Concorde Agreement in Bahrain, as everyone had other more pressing matters on their minds, but I am hearing that Bernie Ecclestone is planning to try to negotiate an increase in the number of races on the calendar in the next agreement.
At the moment there are a number of restrictions placed on the Commercial Rights Holder (CRH) when it comes to the events. He cannot, for example, reduce the winter break unless they are more races (ie earning opportunities) for the teams. Thus he can have up to 20 races, but must still allow for a 12 week break. He must also allow for a three week break in August.
At the moment the maximum number of races allowed is 20, but the CRH must include six events from a list of 12 countries. The list of these protected entities is believed to include Abu Dhabi/Bahrain, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Singapore, Spain and the United Kingdom.
In addition team consent is required if there are more than 17 races and at least half the races must be held in Europe and the United States.
From what I am hearing the plan is to increase the basic number of races to 20 and allow for another possible four. This will mean higher travel costs for the teams but more paydays. The costs can be reduced somewhat with the intelligent twinning of race meetings. This year there are a series of back-to-back races so that transportation costs are minimised.
Teams have been opposed to having more than 20 races because they believe it will require two separate race teams in order to relieve the pressure on their staff. NASCAR uses such a system because it has 36 championship races and five non-championship events. The scale of the travel in NASCAR is, however, far less than is necessary in F1 and most teams have their own planes in order to ease the hassle involved. While this may be possible for the biggest teams, it will mean that the smaller teams will be more stretched as they will have to do the whole calendar without staff alternation.
There is little doubt that F1 could probably find 24 promoters willing to pay the fees involved and that would mean additional fee revenues of $160 million or more. With new technology available the need for a travelling TV circus will probably reduce, but an increase in the number of races would result in fewer media organisations being able to justify the travel. The number of publications that have a representative at each race seems to be reducing in recent years.
The increase in the number of races would also mean an increase in the cost of TV rights, and thus bigger profits for the CRH.
20 is plenty.
‘at least half the races must be held in Europe and the United States.’
How come only 9 out of the 20 races this year are in Europe or the US then?
I don’t know.
It’s probably “Europe or North America”, so Canada would make it 10.
No, I think FOm can have more than 50 percent if there is consent from the teams.
And here’s me thinking that 20 races was already far too many!
24 rounds, hey why not make it an even 30, year round racing appeals, there’s the wet season GP in Cameroon which could have enclosed cockpits and windscreen wipers, the Norway GP in December, spiked tyres, and of course the Great British Grand Prix Festival, with back to back events Friday Saturday and Sunday, grid based on World Championship order, at erm Anglesy, the Mull of Kintyre (Road course) and Silverstone, and of course the Swiss GP where due to the emissions law all the cars are towed around by Toyota Prius.
with the way things are happening (pirellies) what you say doesnt seem impossible
The little restaurant on Boat Quay where I watch all the races would be happy if there were more races I suppose, as I’d be there even more often. As would the bars nearby where I celebrate whenever my current favourite gets a podium.
But seriously, even more races? I think 20 races is actually enough. NASCAR may have a lot more but they at least are travelling inside a single country. F1 is worldwide!
Twining races looks like the best idea. I don’t like the alternating the Grand Prix idea (France & Belgium) (but i can acept circuit rotation) and for the Islamic nations that have a Friday-Saturday weekend have the race on the Saturday (Bahrain/Abu Dabi) just a week after another round to shorten the days spent overseas.
Why the required three week break in August ?
Because most people in F1 still have families…
Didn’t realize it was anything so simple and humane ! Thanks for the reply.
The publicly offered reasoning is/was cost-cutting, that the factories have to be totally shutdown for a week or so. Of course, the actual financial benefit is minimal, but the human one is worth protecting. Most football(not handegg) leagues do something similar over Christmas.
‘handegg’…
Love it
It’d be fair wouldn’t it, to bring up the ‘excitement, travel, danger and glamour’ of F1, thereby reminding all those wanting breaks just what they signed up for?
eliminate the month-long holiday in august and you can have a couple of more races
Yes, and by doing so you would probably eliminate a lot of F1 marriages… The deal was agreed because teams were struggling to keep staff. I am 100 percent behind the break. It is tough enough already to do a full season of F1, having more races will make it tougher.
Joe, do most of the “working stiffs” stay away from home for multiple weeks if the races are on consecutive weekends and far away from the home base, for example the Australia and Malaysia races ? As most of the team members are based in Europe, did the team members get to go home between Malaysia and China and then China and Bahrain ? Thanks.
Yes
Oh I see…..Families. This seems entirely unreasonable to people sitting on sofas who want to be entertained by others, every weekend of the year !!!
More races is a good thing! I know the teams may not be happy but as a fan, I’d love to see 20 races.
I’d settle for ten good ones. Didn’t Enzo Ferrari once say, “you can die just as easily from indigestion as starvation.” Was Bernie’s idea about “Grand Slam” races just a diversionary tactic?
You die quicker from indigestion
Whilst I completely understand the CRH wanting more races, ie more revenue, I would urge caution against this. If the CRH want more races to generate more Money And then for that money to cascade down to the teams then that sounds all well n good, however as mentioned in previous replies the teams who already have the money and can afford to go to a 2 race team outfit will Jan my view weaken the sport. As the pinnacle of Motorsport f1 should be just that. 1 team endeavouring to be the absolute best, not 2 teams trying to get it right and win, the smaller teams will lose out and then the grid gets smaller.
What the Concorde agreement should be doing is saying that every team has a budget of say $60,000,000 per car and you may enter up to 3 cars, apart from Monaco lets have a grid of 30 and the associated sponsorship n drivers will generate more interest hence more money. Oh n while we’re at it there should be at least 1 step between tyres at every race, ie s/soft n med or soft n hard and bring back re-fuelling. What say you Joe?
Coincident convenience no doubt, the distraction from matters Concorde. . .
I pass my tin foil hat.
I think there is a danger here of having too much of a good thing. Fans might start to become selective about which races they watch if there is a Grand Prix nearly every Sunday.
Less is more in my book, Bernie should be careful about overdoing it like football and cricket have done in the last few years.
20races is plenty, like the F1 community I have a family n they like the off season, as far as a future Concorde agreement is concerned, I don’t want anymore races but cap the budget at say $60,000,000 per car all inland let the teams run up to 3 cars then stick 30 on the grid and youl’ll have increased sponsorship, more drivers so more fans so more money s’om pre revenue for Mr E, oh and while we’re at it make sure that tyres have at least a step between them ie s/soft to med or soft to hard at every race n bring back re-fuelling. What do you reckonJoe?
I find it annoying that all the above by Joe is speculation based upon secret rules. There is something intrinscally underhanded in any sport or organisation where part of the very basic administration is concealed from the public.
What happened to Bernie providing all the transport? I thought he formed a company for that, I seem to remember he cut the teams original transport bills by 20 or 30% when he took it over. (If you say he sold it on for an enormous profit I will believe you)
There are Formula One related companies that deal with transportation of freight. You would have to ask the teams about whether they are cheap or not. Similarly many hotels are block booked by Formula One related entities. These are not as cheap as alternatives.
So it seems like the teams are going to be doing a cost v. benefit weighing of extra races. With 36 races/year, NASCAR seldom seems short on sponsors – with that much exposure. The question is, do F1 sponsors feel the same? If so, then more team revenue. If that team revenue sufficiently exceeds the cost of travel, perhaps it could expand to 21, 22, 23, or 24.
To me it appears as merely an option to extend to UP to 24 races, at the consent of the teams, not necessarily that many races. Doing up to 12 races in Europe/US sounds good to me, as a fan who lives in the US and can watch them live at reasonable hours. Sponsors would also like that. The question is, does having too many races actually dilute the calendar, because as you said Joe media outlets might not be as interested in the cost of sending their personnel out for that many races, but at this point theyre already doing 20. Back to back geographically proximate races sounds brilliant. Its up to the CRH to make that happen, though.
However, if the calendar is diluted, does that mean viewership across the entire year fall, therefore evening out the number of fans exposed to the series per year. (sorry, “its more than just numbers,” I know.)
Random viewing figures for easy maths sake. Lets say now 10m watch 20 races. Thats 200m viewers for sponsors on thecars. Lets say 2015 has 24 races (Russia, New York, Paul Ricard, etc), but since there are so many races anyway, viewership declines per race meeting, resulting in 8.5m viewership for 24 races. thats significantly more expense to the teams for 204m viewership.
There’d have to be quite a bit of tripling of races, actually, but you could fit 24 events into a mid-March to late-November calendar. The problem is that the tripled races would not be San Marino-Monaco-Paul Ricard or anything so logical, they would be Vladivostok-Luanda-Caracas or some similarly preposterous trek between easily-exploited outcroppings of petrodollars.
And of course if that reduces the number of bona fide journalists, I’m sure that FOM will be able to restrain their grief. So much _easier_ to have all F1 news releases go out through official channels, or perhaps, to keep up appearances, a few tame bloggers who can be easily dazzled by a paddock pass and a 90-second conversation with their favourite driver.
If it could be done without moral hazard, some kind of travel subsidy or cost ceiling or something of the sort would be a good idea, to protect the F1 press corps. Journalists eat breakfast provided by teams and work in facilities provided by promoters without any suggestion that their independence has been compromised — perhaps the air and hotel costs they need to pay to cover the races should be similarly supported.
I believe that many sporting events provide all manner of things for the media to ensure that they report on the action. including accommodation, transportation etc etc
Trade magazines, telecoms is quite something else, is where to work if you fancy living on hospitality.
They and certain IT segments lay it on thick. Just look up their trade fair locations.
Speak SSS7 or know why UDP sucks, young, have slightly too expensive looking suit, you’re set. I highly recommend it to anyone in need of a job. Sufficiently dull sport (as it were) it is or was hard to get people attracted to sales. Or anyone paying attention to the product.
Deep deep market mainly selling the same old same old. Definitely be young, ideally single, they hire pretty nice girls-next-door to hand out brochures and distract you on an industrial scale.
I think some publications (there are so many, my head spins) print magazines and send them out just to get their comped expenses. Which is how you learn, register a company for a few quid, get on their mailing lists, bulk buy kleenex as you’ll weep for the trees stuffed through your letterbox.
Yes, dull things to learn, muck where money and all that. You can jazz it all up with talking “unified communications” and even if that’s the least sexy thing in reality, the dollar numbers compensate. Think four figures per desk, multi year “rollouts” . . . reason why Microsoft bought Skype for a cool 8BLN wasn’t necessarily to get Skype, but so much as how much they can imagine to push underneath that to make it work. Not much different in so called SME sector. Oops, ranting, but if you work with phones out of necessity, well let’s say I continually see things I know would be desirable, doozy to sell as a feature, but impeccably hard to get done in reality. That’s the bait – almost never seen anything cool (i.e. useful) delivered.
Well, anyhow, telecoms is only starting to do what they said they’d do 20 years ago, might suit some young gun reading this, and have to say now the supplier game is almost anyone who can hire a ODM in China, well you’d not get bored or run out of leads. Reason you see telcos sponsoring F1 is because the value of pitching “hey, we’re controlling everything anyhow, so go with us, we’ll just fix it” (as all the big boys almost do anyway, nibbled at the edges or not) just sounds like bliss to your CxO type, after any contact with the technical reality. I call that the “overload close”, or “painkiller close” others have different phrases but it’s old as the hills technique. Not endorsing the style, please note.
ISTR they had three races on consecutive weekends in North America some time back in the eighties. One team boss commented that when the unmarried mechanics start complaining it’s probably too much.
ás far as now 20 seems to be a good number. starting the season earlier in the year seems out of question cause they already begin launching after the new year starts. they are way too close to christmas already so streching the end also seems a bad idea.
every team needs to be able to comfortably manage the changes. its still the same race for car no. 1 and car no. 24.
To be picky, NASCAR teams send the same people to every race but, like you imply, the trips are short, usually leaving home on Thursday afternoon and back on Saturday or Sunday night.
If the season gets longer, then who is going to build the new cars in the closed season?
To be even pickier, NASCAR does not send the same people to every race. They have two teams which alternate race trips. They instituted this some years ago without drama or publicity, as NASCAR culture has this rather bizarre idea that their job is to serve their fans.
As for the drivers, they say the travel requirements for them are not unduly taxing, as their work is less taxing than is the work of their supporting team.
That must be why NASCAR gets no love over here. I mean, cynical Europeans and all, nahh, don’t believe anyone does anything for us because they care!
After all the recent woes, good to get back to a regular theme here: what we need to learn from the American series.
Thing is it’s not just a “what” it’s the whole attitude, and I start to think defining the “what” is cramping any chance to loosen up enough to have a different attitude. Boy, am I hacked how poorly we showed lately.
Something I used to argue big time with my late partner was he would say I too often had a negative reason to do certain business. As in, he could never abide that it’s a good idea to go in simply because someone was making a muck of it and therefore “anyone could do better”. (youthful belief in own intelligence and the attractions of imaginary slam dunks!) He believed such situations were a quicksand of depressed minds and aim to fail culture and plain unattractive to sell on. I came to truly believe that, once I had enough experience.
Allowing my young self a chance, you can indeed turn a penny in disaster businesses, but it’s far harder and affects you in demoralizing ways. To fix F1, everyone needs on the upbeat, and not the ostrich head rubbish and JT’s faux sourires. Frankly I’m relieved the last weekend everyone got by, and whatever opinions we had or hold, everyone learned something. But F1 only just got by.
Yes, as a fan, it would be very nice to imagine the sport cared, instead of always caring over the sport. I wrote before that there are elements of an abusive relationship. Certainly it is dysfunctional, and has issues diplomatic, but I think they stem from ignoring the common touch. Racing and its dangers are all about flesh and blood, time to remember that and make contact with reality.
I wish to second Trevor’s comments about NASCAR logistics. Joe stated:
“…two separate race teams in order to relieve the pressure on their staff. NASCAR uses such a system…” This is not correct. The same crew is used every time.
In NASCAR, at the Cup level, multiple cars are prepared in advance for multiple race weekends. All racecar transport is done over land by truck. Sometimes, after the race (particularily if there has been a postponement due to rain), it is impossible for the transporter at the track to return to Charlotte, pick up the fresh cars, and reach the next event in time.
There is a NASCAR protocol whereby the transporters are permitted into the track and parked on a specific day and time ahead of the event. They can’t just show up anytime during practice. Miss that deadline, miss the event.
To make it to the tracks on time, the larger teams (most teams) use multiple transporters and multiple drivers per rig. They often meet halfway between Charlotte and the next race and swap trailers – one hauler to the track, the other back to base. That is the only duplication that happens in a very tight, very busy schedule.
Thanks, Wisemaker. Sort of detail I love – all seems very sensible and very efficient. In a way it seems the orthogonal alternative to the centralized system in F1 – instead of monolithic, divers and cooperative.
I can now for a tangible and practical reason imagine some NASCAR guys looking at F1 and thinking it’s a bawling kindergarten or just plain reckoning our teams have a slight issue with that booze up in the brewery. Thinking it would be a great paper to write, if I were in college, to compare the cultures through logistics. all best – j.
You’re welcome. I doubt that many racers in NASCAR look down on F1. Many drivers and crew chiefs are actually quite keen followers and admirers. Remember that most of the F1 races are on TV prior to the NASCAR races on a Sunday. I am no longer surprised to hear them mention the F1 race in an interview.
I agree that comparing and contrasting NASCAR to F1 is a very interesting exercise. They are both big businesses shaped by the same forces. There are more similarities than differences, I think. Thanks, and all the best.
Lets forgo greater profits [!!] Lets not have more races
Lets cancel new asian venues, India eg
Lets hang on to the established circuits that fans are passionate about
Spa especially
It’s called counting your blessings
It’s called keeping the golden goose alive and well
It’s called wisdom
… but what do I know, I’m just hoping against hope
i agree spa is too good to let go. but the asian races are not bad at all. who doesn’t want THE singapore night race to happen? japan also being old enough. and the circuit of the indian gp is much appriciated as far as all the new ones are concerned.
i guess its the fan following that should be considered here
Personally I’ve found the Singapore races so far to be just as dull as the street race in Valencia – so I’m at least one person who doesn’t want the Singapore street race to happen. But, quite rightly, no-one really cares what I think.
As a dedicated fan with wife and young kids just watching 19 races last year was a strain! I’d be selective with 24, at least until the kids get older! Perhaps we could justify twin races on geographic reasons but would a Spa / Nurburgring or Bahrain / Abu Dhabidouble header get enough fans at the venue? The only possible good thing would be limiting each team member / driver to 18 events and allowing young driver and staff development at the remaining 6 with a Junior & Senior championship. Obviously at least 1 senior driver at each event and both (where fit) at marque events?
Trying to keep it light hearted here… there’s an obvious solution. 10 races on ovals in the USA lol, although the American fans might be a bit confused by the cars being different shapes to each other.
We’d run clockwise, too. That’ll show ‘em how sophisticated we are
There is a rumour that another struggle about the future CA could even menace the return of turbo formula: At the moment the new engines give a distinct advantage to the engine manufacturing teams. They can spend unlimited development money. Unless that loop hole gets fixed pretty soon the majority of non manufacturer it is feared the teams could gang up with Bernie – who is against the turbos for his own reasons – and could vote another delay in the F1 commission. The new engines are intrinsically linked with a budget cap or some other form of cost control.
Do you think this could happen?
This is being done to increase revenue for FOM. However, I think it would be possible to do with one team, if they are smart about how they co-locate the races and cut the weekend down to two days. Having practice Saturday morning, and saturday early afternoon, with qualifying late Saturday afternoon, or even Sunday morning.
However, I think this could be another Bernie bargaining chip to get something else out of the teams. Maybe he’ll cut it down to max of 21 if the teams sign for cost restrictions in Concorde or something? He’s very good at negotiation by distraction, so I wait with interest to see if this is his real intent, or if he really wants something completely different but slightly less popular pushed through instead.
I think 24 races is too many. That is nearly half the weekends in the year.
Worst of all they are all on Sundays. What fan has 24 Sundays when they can watch F1? It will mean that I’ll end up watching highlights only of more races mid week.
As an F1 fan I would prefer 16 races in great locations that I can plan to watch live rather than a 24 race season where I will be forced to miss a considerable number of races.
Perhaps when I’m retired I can watch 24 races.
This is precisely my point – very well put. Too many races ends up diluting interest and taxing fans. When its an F1 weekend – my entire life is absorbed into it. I am able to get some work done on the weekends off!
Agreed, for more i love F1, more than 20 races are too many. Even 20 races are already a stretch. Especially if that means having more races in the middle of Sundays. We fans, have families too!
And as we say in Spain “good things, if brief, twice as good”.
Joe Cowan, I am retired, nevertheless I agree that 24 races are too many.
Joe Saward, is there any possibility that the F.I.A. could regain more control of the calendar with a view to having the races that folks want rather than having the whole calendar determined by money?
Naive? No
Dreaming? Almost certainly.
Martin
If the agreement allows for 24 races there will be 24 races. Isn’t Bernie wealthy enough?
I wonder how the fan base of F1 has fared during the past 12 months?
Most can’t afford to go to races anyway, especially (and even) in England, let alone overseas.
The controversy over Bahrain, the stupidity of the BBC FTA arrangement with Sky and their really awful coverage, and now we have more on/off disputes over races and circuits.
Take a step back and disengage yourselves for a minute or two. Think about what is happening to this so-called sport and wonder if it is really all worth it?
It was a great spectacle and sport, but now there are too many ‘behind the scenes’ influences for me to take it seriously any more.
This dedicated fan is having – ahem – some “issues”. I wasn’t exactly insulted by anyone over being a F1 fan, but pals of mine did comment unpleasantly over the last race as in “how can you?”.
We may know it is far more nuanced than that, but between the complete PR fail and i think residual dislike of the Bernie – New Labour spectacle, did nobody ever pause to think F1 would get hammered?
However it muddled through, and I appreciated JS, DT and others bringing some balance to the editorial, it’s going to be really hard to live the last race down. We’re picked out as fans of money and arrogance at the best of times. I always fail to argue back that applies to soccer fans and their stars also, but because I don’t get anywhere with that, what is our failing?
I am absolutely certain the damage was avoidable, not by cancelling the race, but by being aware ahead of time how the media works. Case in point: some people disliked Joe’s stance on the Channel Four lads – I have no sympathy either. But once you get some guns going for media martyrdom (I dursn’t imagine their fantasies of Pulitzers or whatever it was going through their minds to flip the finger up to the system at their real risk. . ) then you are going to get a sway of opinion, falsely lead or not. I want to be like the proverbial teen movie jock, knuckling the geek on the head “Helooooo? Anyone home?”. Echoing my other comment above, why do I feel it is us fans who are burdened with repairing the damage, like a child strung between warring parents?
Dear all
This talk of extra races would have nothing to do with talking up f1′s value on the share market, would it???
Cheers
MarkR
Golden eggs and gooses come to mind. I love every race (well, almost) but I think it would spoil the special feeling of a GP weekend if there too many.
As for twinning close events, we had 3 weeks between Malaysia and China, then rushed off to Bahrain the next weekend. How did that work ?
I can certainly appreciate why Joe would dread the thought of more races, as it would mean more time living on planes and in airports. (For a few years, I flew over 100K miles per year, so I can not only sympathize but also empathize.)
What I do not understand is how many self-described F1 fans whose race travel involves little more than reaching for the TV’s remote seem to think more races is too many. Goof grief, people, how can a few more be too many? Are you happy to see a season end? Are you glad to see a winter with no races? Are you thrilled when the competition is reaching a peak of intensity and then they just freakin *stop* for a whole summer month? Are you not the least bit wary as the lap counter in Brazil approaches the limit? Such a perspective is simply beyond my ability to grok. To paraphrase Parnelli Jones, if you think racing involves too much racing, perhaps you shouldn’t watch so much.
As for the need of the team members to have adequate time at home with their families, I certainly subscribe to that as a legit requirement. However, the NASCAR practice of have two traveling teams which alternate race trips accomplishes that far better than does the current F1 system while also providing fans with more races, so this would seem to be an argument in favor of more races and not an argument for the status quo.
I second jmsuter’s comments above. If one has families or an active social life, there are only so many weekends (especially in summer) where one can justify staying indoors to watch an event that occurs with such regularity.
The upside to this is that one can pick and choose which races to watch – in fact I haven’t watched a live race for over a year now. I much prefer to avoid the result and watch the highlights later. Otherwise I just get saturated by the sport and end up getting bored of it. I watched the full race of the Chinese GP and it was just too much, even though it was a good race…
I think bringing back the human scale of F1, allowing real breaks and family time, is central to getting the sport a new positive attitude. I have no doubt that all the discordance and incoherence can simply be solved by letting the people involved have more time together or at home socially. About when Joe started reporting, yes, then I can agree that there was need of more professionalism, everywhere. But F1 got that down pat too well. I keep thinking, that across the Bernie timeline, starting from when he got things under his wing, well we’re on a perfect mid life crisis trajectory. Surely this argument is one everyone from race director to pit crew to PR secretary can understand benefits them and ultimately all the way up. Earn less, consume less, maybe. Go on a diet for a bit. I’d go so far as to say work to rule wouldn’t hurt to make a point. Not like EU directives on working hours are heeded, to put it not subtly at all. Don’t get me wrong, I hate laziness or the way law has created ethereal unions without a cause the playthings of whiners at tribunals, but working in a back breaking business myself, I do rebel against myself, and it always has positive effects. Maybe this last race will have a effect on the team peoples in a better way, that whether they saw a burning tire or not, they sure got reminded of the value of their families, and equally their travelling families. I can only hope, and say my piece.
As all I do is watch the races on ‘Speed’, (recorded to avoid the averts), the more races the better. Retirement does have some advantages.
I’ve been following NASCAR for a long time, and I’m not aware of any teams using “two separate race teams”. Having races almost every week is probably far easier here considering that they’re all in the same country (even though it is quite a large one…)
Your last paragraph, Joe, made me think not only would the TV rights go up, increasing profit, but what about the increase in overhead? Surely there must be an economy of scale where at some point, it would cost more to add races. This is why the teams feel they are already there. Their overhead would almost double with the necessity of having two teams for each car. You’re correct about NASCAR. Their travel distance is nothing like F-1. There are no flyaway races for one thing.
That brings to mind, adding more races must surely mean more flyaways (It doesn’t looke like Bernie is interested in expanding in Europe. The teams could save considerably by toning down their motor homes. They are almost irrelevant now, what with the ratio of races in Europe vs flyaways.
Yes, the overheads would go up but the increase would be lessened by races being sensibly twinned. Another key point is that the tons of TV freight may disappear in the longer term was fibre optic networks make it possible to produce TV shows from a base in the UK.
I’d love to have 24 races. They could be more efficient. It’s stupid to go to the Persian Gulf twice in a season when you can just go back to back. I’m not sure you need two distinct traveling teams to cover it. You’d need to theoretically increase the number of traveling employees by 20% if 20 races is the maximum number of races a normal employee can reasonably handle. Doesn’t help you Joe, but cry me a river. Many people would give their right arm to follow the F1 circus.
Joe,
I’d like to challenge your thinking on the necessity for two shifts, or separate race teams. With the exception of drivers and other non replaceable staff, it seems to me that you can work a rota. For example moving from 20 to 24 races is an increase of 20 percent. If you increase your team headcount by twenty percent and give staff 4 races off per year, then no one is working longer (except the aforementioned non subs).
Given savings from economies of scale (no pro rata increase in factory, wind tunnel, simulator etc. costs) it makes F1 more profitable, reducing pressure on teams & their financing.
I have found F1 to be more enjoyable and the championships more interesting as the number of races have increased, so don’t really understand the negativity (except where it’s part of a negotiation strategy to make Bernie share out the loot).
Seriously, are you people mad!? MORE RACES!!!
unless you’re an jaded mechanic or an overworked sports journalist, I’m not sure why any F1 fan would complain.
What I am concerned about here, is will the extra four races increase the value of F1? I think not, since we will then have a very compact calendar, jam-packed with drivers not being able to drive to their ability. Also the three new teams and Mercedes have not signed yet, Mercedes because are probably looking for the same deal as Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren got (seats on the board). The three new teams basicaly has two options: Sign or die. They have no negitiation power at all, and since they are already cash-strapped as it is, adding further travel cost to them, will certianly mean they will go belly-up. At least two of them. So for HRT and Marussia it could look like this: Sign up to 20 races, follow suit or withdraw. Or: Sign up to 24 races, strugglle even more, be certain not to survive past 2013…
Hi Jakob, I wish I kept links to just the handful of posts which are themes I am always pitching, because your words, “drivers not being able to drive to their ability” – forgive me if I misinterpret inadvertently – made me think that more variety is the better challenge. I’m referencing my often posted wish that a good stretch of the calendar be offered up openly to any circuits, ideally classical ones we miss, but any promoter who can offer a prize and meet the safety. I would prefer variety in rotation rather than variety created by lengthening the season. I also believe that by opening the calendar to selected competing circuits would create opportunities for different drivers to shine. We have always talked about a “Spa specialist” or a “Monaco specialist” for certain drivers. Make it a better selection, and there’s just more chance for a new driver (or an old one) to find where they excel. I recently started to blame the closeness of the pack, not on the oft argued great competition between teams, but on the Tilke induced similarity of tracks making for driving style homogeneity. Just as our human race, we hominids survive through miscegenation, so we need a better mix of track DNA in F1. I’d even go so far as to draw a last minute lottery for a bit of mid season, so that teams cannot not dial in too much simulation, putting them on their toes. All this may sound random, but it’s time to do some “multi – arm – bandit” input testing of what can grow the sport, not merely stretch everyone past their limits in aid of gouging every last penny and breath of effort. Extending the calendar is little better (and certainly no more inventive) than forcing employees to work overtime on no extra pay. Sure, some numbers go up, but you quickly get diminishing returns. Separately, it is also a way for local municipalities to find out more readily how they can benefit from a GP, and if they can cope, without requiring immense commitments which might be political career breakers (and which hence politicise too much of F1, even in the traditional homes). The more towns or cities you can take a GP to, the more you get true enthusiasts. Nothing beats having a local race, for creating fans. all best, – j
> your words, “drivers not being able to drive to their ability”… made
> me think that more variety is the better challenge… I would prefer
> variety in rotation… We have always talked about a “Spa specialist”
> or a “Monaco specialist” for certain drivers… I recently started to
> blame the closeness of the pack, not on the oft argued great
> competition between teams, but on the Tilke induced similarity of
> tracks making for driving style homogeneity.
Don’t know if you’ve seen the episode of Peter Windsor’s online “The Flying Lap” series which was devoted to an interview with Mario Andretti. It was interesting in several respects, but perhaps most noteworthy for Mario telling Peter something Peter did not seem to enjoy hearing.
Mario made it clear that F1 had always been the pinnacle of his ambition, with the roots of that ambition being a childhood visit to a road race prior to his family moving to America from an Italian refugee camp where his family lived for several years. Peter then asked him which aspect of his career success was most satisfying to him. To Peter’s surprise, Mario said it was his success during the heyday of CART. Why? Because the challenges were so varied that it required the greatest envelope of skill. Not just road courses and street courses, but also the additional two challenges of ovals and speedways. In his view, that raised both the range of competence required above any form of other racing experience he had had. (Peter seemed a bit nonplussed by the answer, but rather than pursue it he very quickly moved on to other topics.)
Thanks, RShack, I shall take a look at that interview, right away!
That sounds exactly what I was thinking. Now it is all simulators and nearly 24/7 professionalism, teams of geek analysts and coaches, but though I never looked back at the records much, there were always some who forever DNPQ but who got on the grid for certain races. There has to be a way to open the gates to more varied talent. I think the tracks and the drivers and the engineering have all been on a Lorentz Attractor, because the side effect to professionalize the sport has been to put fewer and fewer minds on the case, and reduced their independence. I deeply desire a shakeup of the scene.
From my side of the business world, I am starting to feel that advertisers / sponsors do not feel they get any edge or angle from F1. The growing opinion (slowly, not new) is that once Red Bull touch anything, that firm co-opts all the desirable edge and angst and all out competition. There are far too many “safe pairs of hands” around this racing formula. That means there’s little for a new sponsor to gain. The big boys, Voda is my favorite bugaboo, take so much airtime and print, that anyone might be surprised there is anyone else paying for the cars to run. On one side, I keep always refining in my head how you can make a sponsorship work, present situation. On the other, I believe we will be going backwards, 3s a lap, unless we shake this up.
Actually, this float does nothing but seal the existing control. Once it’s done, I think we can forget anyone with money might come in and be able to buy to fix anything. If ever I stumble on the proverbial briefcase of barrow bonds, I’m going to take a shot, mind you . .
I do like Peter Windsor’s thing. But maybe it is because I live off my voice, deals would not happen otherwise, I just think he has unrefined presentation. Last time I checked his video, i couldn’t help but scribble notes on delivery, production, intonation. He could get that over a lot better. He’s good, but the programme simply does not carry. As in, I want to be carried into the subject, not have to lean forward to listen. I wish I had the time to get to meet some of these guys, might not be my job, but grew up my pop teaching me how he set out radio plays, and putting a fantasy play of my toys, characters he devised, onto a tape, literally every day. I’d like to give some of that back, pass it on. Bit of concentrated effort, and Sky and the BBC can go stuff themselves, if I could get everyone I rate onto the radio. Would be real commitment, though. So, I continue to dream. Or, rather stick to my knitting, see if i can make enough to afford a crack at other things.
anyhow, off to check that out. All my best, – j
I am glad to hear Peter Windsor advocating, or at least suggesting positively, non championship races.
(at about 1 minute and 8 seconds, nearly the end of the tape)
I like to think I have been very consistent to argue for that. I am naturally Johnny Come Lately, but I think these things are obvious, not my revelation. Still, any echo of what I believe to be a good thing, warms my heart. Maybe I should write up my argument more thoroughly, send it in. I don’t think it’s so obscure an argument it should be a throwaway at the end of a special interest interview. Would be very nice to think that my advocacy has found a little recognition amongst my betters.
That – just finishing now – was an excellent tape, but hard to listen to, for my ears. Needs better production. Peter needs a voice coach. His breathing constricts him. And a proper sound engineer. You have to see how much improvement can be made, not look to complain. Anyhow, a productive and pleasant hour, and great to see one of my childhood heroes speaking direct.
20 races is the right amount, with the season starting in early march and finishing 1st week of november. Any longer and even the hard core F1 fan base would be skipping races to watch.
Joe, can you explain why F1 journalists always talk of the commercial rights holder? CRH is actually Ecclestone/CVC and the relative cascade of companies, but for all of us it’s always been Mr E.
I never came across this definition while reading all sorts of English language newspapers and magazines.
CRH is Formula One group, which is owned by CVC Capital Partners and run by B Ecclestone.
Stig180
MORE RACES, MORE MONEY, NO MORALS, TYPICAL MODERN F1.
GREED, GREED, GREED.
SHAME ITS NOT A SPORT ANYMORE, ITS A DISCRACE
(Great site, best out there)
How about a 4-day event at some venues when 2 races could be accommodated in the same weekend. Personally I would rather see 2 races at Spa, Silverstone or Monaco than travel all the way to Korea. I hesitate to compare it with DTM or BTCC but it could spice up the show, give double the TV time but reduce costs of logistics. Now reversing the grid for the second race would also be interesting….
I feel for all those guys who are full on for 9 months, including journalists. I work in a global role and while it’s ok when your young, free and single, when wives and kids come along its a different ball game. I applaud the teams for maintaining a firm line on this. Some may think it’s all glamour but if it’s anything like my job it’s all planes, hotels and taxi’s. I’ve visited many countries and never had the chance to go much beyond terminal, taxi and hotel check ins! I suspect being a mechanic is pretty full on!
We’re already there 4 days, just about. Why not run twice? One under the rules, one without any rules? One or more of my past comments suggested we open up entries as well, if they can pass scrutiny. More people, more fun. More viewing, more advertisers come in. More variety, more excitement, get more of our friends to watch. More action at a track, easier to argue to take the family there. Not just a build up to something too complicated for who we want to entice to follow. I just want us to let rip, now and then, because it is a good thing, this F1.