PDA

View Full Version : FOTA Press Conference



ArrowsFA1
4th March 2009, 09:06
We'll find out more tomorrow but Dieter Rencken makes some interesting points about the implications of the meeting on Autosport:

when last did F1 bosses collectively throw themselves to the wolves, and totally voluntarily at that?[/*:m:1o40u36a]
Montezemolo...is likely to push for a greater say in the structure of the calendar, and overriding authority on rule changes.[/*:m:1o40u36a]
a source has suggested that FOTA will insist upon representation on the board of the company directly responsible for Formula One Management's operations.[/*:m:1o40u36a]
Demands for a greater say on the World Motor Sport Council...cannot be excluded.[/*:m:1o40u36a]
FOTA could vote with its feet and start its own series from 2013[/*:m:1o40u36a]
A proposal containing a wholesale revamp of the sporting regulations, including changes to the points' structure, qualifying and race formats and weekend timetables can be expected.[/*:m:1o40u36a]
Such demands and concepts are likely to bring FOTA into direct conflict with FIA and FOM[/*:m:1o40u36a]
it can be no coincidence that on Friday last Mosley announced yet another round of cost cuts...No driven wedge that statement from Mosley, but a razor-sharp, tempered cleaver...[/*:m:1o40u36a]
The most fascinating aspect will be the reaction of the sport's governing body and the commercial rights' holder to FOTA's proposals and demands.[/*:m:1o40u36a]It's been almost thirty years since the FISA/FOCA 'war' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA-FOCA_war) but it seems history is repeating itself to some extent. This is all about the future control and direction of F1.

Interesting times :dozey:

Knock-on
4th March 2009, 10:51
We'll find out more tomorrow but Dieter Rencken makes some interesting points about the implications of the meeting on Autosport:

when last did F1 bosses collectively throw themselves to the wolves, and totally voluntarily at that?[/*:m:mn8852g4]
Montezemolo...is likely to push for a greater say in the structure of the calendar, and overriding authority on rule changes.[/*:m:mn8852g4]
a source has suggested that FOTA will insist upon representation on the board of the company directly responsible for Formula One Management's operations.[/*:m:mn8852g4]
Demands for a greater say on the World Motor Sport Council...cannot be excluded.[/*:m:mn8852g4]
FOTA could vote with its feet and start its own series from 2013[/*:m:mn8852g4]
A proposal containing a wholesale revamp of the sporting regulations, including changes to the points' structure, qualifying and race formats and weekend timetables can be expected.[/*:m:mn8852g4]
Such demands and concepts are likely to bring FOTA into direct conflict with FIA and FOM[/*:m:mn8852g4]
it can be no coincidence that on Friday last Mosley announced yet another round of cost cuts...No driven wedge that statement from Mosley, but a razor-sharp, tempered cleaver...[/*:m:mn8852g4]
The most fascinating aspect will be the reaction of the sport's governing body and the commercial rights' holder to FOTA's proposals and demands.[/*:m:mn8852g4]It's been almost thirty years since the FISA/FOCA 'war' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA-FOCA_war) but it seems history is repeating itself to some extent. This is all about the future control and direction of F1.

Interesting times :dozey:

I've been saying it for over a year now. Bloody war is coming and it finally looks like the teams have the right ethos and purpose to mount an effective campaign. It looks like this is the real deal this time and if Bernie and Max try to railroad it, they will become collatoral damage.

Unstoppable force meets irresistable object time methinks.

Ranger
4th March 2009, 12:26
We'll find out more tomorrow but Dieter Rencken makes some interesting points about the implications of the meeting on Autosport:

when last did F1 bosses collectively throw themselves to the wolves, and totally voluntarily at that?[/*:m:1s069amj]
Montezemolo...is likely to push for a greater say in the structure of the calendar, and overriding authority on rule changes.[/*:m:1s069amj]
a source has suggested that FOTA will insist upon representation on the board of the company directly responsible for Formula One Management's operations.[/*:m:1s069amj]
Demands for a greater say on the World Motor Sport Council...cannot be excluded.[/*:m:1s069amj]
FOTA could vote with its feet and start its own series from 2013[/*:m:1s069amj]
A proposal containing a wholesale revamp of the sporting regulations, including changes to the points' structure, qualifying and race formats and weekend timetables can be expected.[/*:m:1s069amj]
Such demands and concepts are likely to bring FOTA into direct conflict with FIA and FOM[/*:m:1s069amj]
it can be no coincidence that on Friday last Mosley announced yet another round of cost cuts...No driven wedge that statement from Mosley, but a razor-sharp, tempered cleaver...[/*:m:1s069amj]
The most fascinating aspect will be the reaction of the sport's governing body and the commercial rights' holder to FOTA's proposals and demands.[/*:m:1s069amj]It's been almost thirty years since the FISA/FOCA 'war' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA-FOCA_war) but it seems history is repeating itself to some extent. This is all about the future control and direction of F1.

Interesting times :dozey:

I think that may be why Honda refused Bernie's buyout offer.

Bernie owning a team means no unanimity in FOTA, resulting in its own collapse.

Andrewmcm
4th March 2009, 12:31
I hope they've learnt from their US counterparts with the original "White Paper" and the eventual CART/IRL split.... We all know how well that turned out.

Ranger
4th March 2009, 12:32
I hope they've learnt from their US counterparts with the original "White Paper" and the eventual CART/IRL split.... We all know how well that turned out.
Yep.

ioan
4th March 2009, 12:54
I hope they've learnt from their US counterparts with the original "White Paper" and the eventual CART/IRL split.... We all know how well that turned out.

Just because someone in NA motor racing behaves like a tool it doesn't mean that everyone involved in motor racing is a tool.

Tazio
4th March 2009, 13:17
Just because someone in NA motor racing behaves like a tool it doesn't mean that everyone involved in motor racing is a tool.
Well let's compare F1 to NA open wheel
Bernie= tool
Tony = tool

ioan
4th March 2009, 13:19
Well let's compare F1 to NA open wheel
Bernie= tool
Tony = tool

Try comparing the team principals! :rolleyes:

Tazio
4th March 2009, 13:33
Try comparing the team principals! :rolleyes:
That’s not what we were discussing. My comment is in regard to Andrewmcm's
If F1 splits from Bernie like in Indy car the guy who ends up running the show could be a complete disaster. So there is no use comparing principals, because if my memory serves me correctly there were some very good principals that got thrown under the bus when the split happened!
There are no assurances that it won't happen again

ArrowsFA1
4th March 2009, 13:53
I hope they've learnt from their US counterparts with the original "White Paper" and the eventual CART/IRL split.... We all know how well that turned out.
True.

I guess it could be argued that the FISA/FOCA split resulted in boom time for F1, with a lot of money coming into the sport. Like any other business though F1 is suffering at the moment and the question is whether the current structure of the sport is fit for purpose.

wedge
4th March 2009, 13:57
Try comparing the team principals! :rolleyes:

Chip Ganassi = tool

Ron Dennis = tool

though, I'm referring more to their personality traits than their day to day operations/business acumen.

Giuseppe F1
4th March 2009, 20:31
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73551


Whats your first feeling when you see this photo?:

http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1236180987.jpg

Giuseppe F1
4th March 2009, 20:35
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73551

FOTA set to reveal plans for F1 revamp

By Jonathan Noble
Wednesday, March 4th 2009, 15:35 GMT

FOTAPlans to revise the qualifying format, adjustments to the points structure, mandatory tyre changes and more availability of team data for fans are believed to be some of the proposals due to unveiled by the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) in Geneva on Thursday.

The teams' body is holding its first official press conference since its formation last year. The event has been billed as a chance for the sport's competitors to outline their vision for a better F1, and will be graced by each team principal.

The original FOTA invitation said: "These plans are the result of a series of meetings held over the past few weeks and months, all of them with a common goal: to make Formula One commercially sustainable, environmentally friendly and compellingly attractive for spectators, TV viewers and internet consumers alike for years to come."

The final touches to the top secret proposals were put together on Wednesday when senior management from FOTA's teams met in Geneva to discuss the findings of a global market research survey conducted with fans.

Although FOTA has kept quiet about the plans for the press conference, autosport.com understands that it will take the shape of a main address from chairman Luca di Montezemolo before presentations from Ross Brawn on technical aspects, Martin Whitmarsh on sporting matters and Flavio Briatore on commercial points.

The three men are expected to unveil ideas that FOTA has come up and would like to see implemented in F1.

Sources suggest they will outline plans for some immediate changes to benefit fans - which will include the distribution of refueling and tyre data before the race, plus more widespread access to radio transmissions. They could also outline ideas to revamp the points system for 2009 – although it is not thought they will accept Bernie Ecclestone's suggestion for a medal system.

Longer term it is understood that FOTA is looking at more testing restrictions, a revised qualifying format and the introduction of mandatory pit stops even though refueling will be banned.

It is understood that FOTA will also announce plans to look into future track designs to help overtaking, plus implement further cost cutting measures for 2010 including the standardisation of KERS, limitations on materials that can be used and bodywork homologation.

Di Montezemolo said earlier this year that he felt F1's future would be best served if the sport's stakeholders worked together.

"I think the fundamental thing for F1 is to have a stable governance that doesn't create fights and constant changes every year, and that looks to the future with a strong unity of goals," he said.

"This is a sport with great potential that must however increase and maintain its characteristics, by putting together who goes to the circuits, the technological innovations offered by TV, starting from high-definition and everything else that innovates the show, like Internet and whatnot.

"We need to work all together on this: no one has a monopoly in F1. We need respect of the roles, but also a push towards the future."

Giuseppe F1
4th March 2009, 20:36
In reference to the last section which I bolded.....


" HERE, HERE!!!"

:)

ioan
4th March 2009, 21:22
We've got other threads on this subject, one older and one started today.

PS: Thursday is tomorrow and 4th March is today, Wednesday.

wmcot
5th March 2009, 06:35
PS: Thursday is tomorrow and 4th March is today, Wednesday.

I understand that FOTA wants to change that, too! ;)

Big Ben
5th March 2009, 09:04
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73551


Whats your first feeling when you see this photo?:

http://www.autosport.com/images/upload/1236180987.jpg

serious people working hard to find solutions for a better future for the humankind?

ioan
5th March 2009, 09:11
I understand that FOTA wants to change that, too! ;)

:up: :rotflmao:

Good one! :up:

ioan
5th March 2009, 09:19
Chip Ganassi = tool

Ron Dennis = tool

though, I'm referring more to their personality traits than their day to day operations/business acumen.

Now that you finished with the "tools" in F1 try the same for: Williams, Montezemolo, Briatore, Howett, Mateschitz and Mallya. ;)

V12
5th March 2009, 11:27
Can't say I'm too impressed with some of these suggestions, however provisional or speculative they may be at this stage.

Mandatory pitstops even though refuelling is banned? Well then what is the point of banning refuelling? The opportunity for some drivers to trade-off taking it a bit easier and trying to last on one set of tyres would be taken away from us.

A standard KERS system? Well then what was the point of introducing it in the first place (at great cost, apparently)? If it's standardised then it stops being a worthwhile element of the car and is just an environmental gimmick and a glorified push-to-pass button.

Bodywork homologation? So basically, combined with this wonderful engine freeze, if somebody turns up in Australia with a dominant car then there's not a lot any of the other teams can do to catch up!

Revised qualifying format? Well this could go either way, but I'd hope they'd make it a bit more simple and straight forward like pre-2003 rather than come up with another complex convoluted system.

On the plus side, refuelling/tyre data and radio transmissions - good. Same with looking into improving internet coverage. I also trust these guys far more than Max and/or Bernie to shape the sport's future, but I really hope they think out any changes carefully rather than any more knee jerk reactions that have ruined the sport from 2003 onwards. I mean where is the fans survey that Ron Dennis hinted at when talking about this at ASI?

ArrowsFA1
5th March 2009, 13:02
The Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) has called for an immediate change to the world championship's points system.
Under proposals announced by FOTA at its press conference in Geneva today, the points for a race win would rise from 10 to 12, with nine points for second and seven for third.
Positions four to eight would continue to score in the current 5-4-3-2-1 manner.

The other immediate change to the sporting regulations that FOTA is proposing is to make each car's starting fuel load public before the race to make the grands prix easier to understand.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73562


The Formula One Teams' Association on Thursday unveiled further plans to keep reducing the costs of competing in grand prix racing, including restrictions on how many development upgrades each team can introduce per season.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73563

wedge
5th March 2009, 13:22
Who is retarded - me or FOTA?

Why would anyone want to know fuel loads if refuelling is banned?

This is why pit stops shouldn't be mandatory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7924981.stm

ioan
5th March 2009, 14:34
Who is retarded - me or FOTA?

Easy pick! It's not you. :)

Andrewmcm
5th March 2009, 15:17
Not sure I like the shorter race distance idea much.....

Garry Walker
5th March 2009, 18:25
This rewarding winners more to avoid people settling for positions is nonsense. Every driver will go for a win given the opportunity, as shown by Hamilton vs Kimi last year (something which angered a certain poster here), the problem is that if you have two equal packages, then there is no way you go for that win.

I do not agree with all parts standardised either, this is not gp2.


With refuelling set to be banned from 2010, FOTA said it is aiming to "enhance the spectacle and entertainment by recording the performance of each pit crew member, identified by a number on the back.
How out of touch are these people? Who on earth would care about that?

TV coverage ideas are pretty good though, especially cornering lines.

Shorter races is such an idea that the person who thought that up needs a noose around his neck.

I also do not agree with publishing the fuel loads before the race, it was always a mystery and something to speculate over before and something to discuss.

truefan72
5th March 2009, 19:53
Not sure I like the shorter race distance idea much.....

me neither, that is the lamest of all suggestions.
followed closely by the refuiling ban.

I don't think I'll be into F1 in 2010.

It would be barely recognizable as a prestige racing series.

it would become another homgenic, sanitized, boring, and contrived series, with littel to no innovation, ugly cars, short races, no pitstops, slower cars, and gimmicky antics. another sad chapter in the slow death of F1. It seems that this racing series is cannibalizing itself and crumbling from within.

Tazio
5th March 2009, 20:11
How out of touch are these people? Who on earth would care about that?

pit crew member, identified by a number on the back.


This is by far the stupidest idea I've heard in along time! :confused:




I also do not agree with publishing the fuel loads before the race, it was always a mystery and something to speculate over before and something to discuss.Also in complete agreement! This has been suggested before, and I have consistantly been opposed to it for the same reasons you've stated!

Tazio
5th March 2009, 20:25
Now that you finished with the "tools" in F1 try the same for: Williams, Montezemolo, Briatore, Howett, Mateschitz and Mallya. ;)
If they are in agreement with the above proposal's "tool" is too mild of a derogative ;)

ioan
5th March 2009, 21:08
If they are in agreement with the above proposal's "tool" is too mild of a derogative ;)

Sad but true!

Tazio
5th March 2009, 21:10
With refuelling set to be banned from 2010, FOTA said it is aiming to "enhance the spectacle and entertainment by recording the performance of each pit crew member, identified by a number on the back.

And what is it going to say right below the number that they are going to make sure we see? Advertisement!
This group has it's own selfish interests in mind!
These decisions need to be made by an independant party, which excludes Bernie.
Max is the closest thing we have to that.
However since Max has proven that he is not above taking bribes from Bernie, that makes him a liability as well!
Of late he seems to be the only person keeping F1 from turning into a "Freak Show"!
When his term expires he should be replaced with a commisioner that has no financial stake or connection
what-so-ever in any product being adverised during F1, including manufacturer makes! JMHO

ioan
5th March 2009, 21:13
These guys are clearly out of touch with reality.
Why don't they conduct a serious survey on the motorsport forums?!

Who the heck can follow 20 people that are moving around the car during a pit stop?!
The only things I watch is the refueling hose and the timer. The rest is of no interest to me.

Also what was that about with giving 1 point for the shortest pit stop?!
Why not also for the sexiest grid girl, the most colorful livery and best jokes they manage to say on the radio during the race?!

I'm beginning to hope that they lose al their sponsors due to the financial crisis and we get rid of these "managers".

AndyRAC
5th March 2009, 23:34
Is it April Fool's Day?

Some 'interesting' ideas - can't say I agree with many of them, but, eh I'm just a fan, I don't count.

Only good thing, it seems as though Bernie isn't involved - or is he??

BDunnell
6th March 2009, 00:37
These guys are clearly out of touch with reality.
Why don't they conduct a serious survey on the motorsport forums?!

Who the heck can follow 20 people that are moving around the car during a pit stop?!
The only things I watch is the refueling hose and the timer. The rest is of no interest to me.

Also what was that about with giving 1 point for the shortest pit stop?!
Why not also for the sexiest grid girl, the most colorful livery and best jokes they manage to say on the radio during the race?!

I'm beginning to hope that they lose al their sponsors due to the financial crisis and we get rid of these "managers".

I agree with you. If this is the best set of proposals the teams can come up with, then we are in rather dire straits.

I can understand why they might want shorter races, even though I don't agree with the idea; I'm in favour of banning refuelling because I see it as unnecessary; and the points system change strikes me as sensible. However, this nonsense about pit stops simply has to be rejected, and, more significantly the suggestion of making fuel loads public to make races 'easier to follow' is an idea without a point. How does helping the viewer know what's likely to happen in terms of how each driver's race will pan out strategically add any interest whatsoever?

Tazio
6th March 2009, 01:44
I agree with you. If this is the best set of proposals the teams can come up with, then we are in rather dire straits.

How does helping the viewer know what's likely to happen in terms of how each driver's race will pan out strategically add any interest whatsoever?
That's easy!! They want to dumb down F1 so even the least informed, most casual, and partly retarded fan can fully grasp the experience.

If I was shown this list of proposed changes, and didn't know where they came from, I would think they were hatched in Bernies greedy, senile mind!

Now is the time to hear from JYS, and others who have an understanding of the tradition of the sport.
Yes there are certain financial realities that have to be addressed.
However dunbing it down will drive away the informed F1 Fan.
It sounds like they don't care! I've heard other people say that they will stop watching F1 if it contonues to get homogenized.
I never thought I'd be one of them, but if all of this comes to pass I'm Freakin' "Gone Johnson"

Easy Drifter
6th March 2009, 02:31
I have followed F1 since 1952. Pretty hard in those days and to even get results I usually had to wait for a magazine report a month or so later.
I have been to many F1 races and even was involved in the organizing of some.
Today if there is a club race on at Mosport I go to that and hopefully record the F1 race.
A few years ago I would watch and forget going to a clubbie. I also will not get up in the middle of the night to watch a race anymore. It won't take much more for me to just not bother.
As far as shortening the races I hate the idea and would like to see them go back to longer races. Heck unless it rains most races are over in just about an hour and thirty to forty minutes now.
Of course we do not want to interfere with TV and the 2 hour frame. Yeah right!

ArrowsFA1
6th March 2009, 08:54
Technical
2009:
* More than 100% increase in mileage per engine (eight engines per driver per season)
* Reduction in wind tunnel and CFD (computational fluid dynamics) usage
* Engine available at 8 million per team per season
2010:
* Engine available at 5 million per team per season
* Gearbox available at 1.5 million per team per season
* Standardised KERS (put out to tender, with a target price of 1-2 million per team per season)
* Target a further 50% reduction of the 2009 aerodynamic development spend
* Specified number of chassis, bodywork and aerodynamic development iterations (homologations) during the season
* Prohibition of a wide range of exotic, metallic and composite materials
* Standardised telemetry and radio systems
Sporting
2009:
* Testing reduction (50%)
* New points-scoring system (12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1), to give greater differentiation/reward to grand prix winners
* Race starting fuel loads, tyre specifications and refuelling data to be made public
2010:
* Commitment to recommend new qualifying format
* Radical new points-scoring opportunities (eg, one constructors' championship point to be awarded for the fastest race pit stop)
* Further testing reductions (four four-day single-car pre-season tests plus one single-car pre-season shakedown)
* Reduction of grand prix duration (250km or a maximum of one hour 40 minutes) pending the approval of the commercial rights holder
Commercial
2009:
* Increased data provision for media
* Explore means by which the presentation of Formula One action can be more informatively and dynamically presented, common to other sports such as tennis and cricket, to dramatically improve engagement with the public
* Nominated senior team spokesman available for TV during grand prix
* Commitment to enhance consumer experience via team and FOTA websites
* Mandatory driver autograph sessions during grand prix weekends
2010:
* Commitment to enhance consumer experience via TV coverage
Key Demographics Of Global Audience Survey
* 17 countries surveyed
* First ever poll of Formula One devotees alongside non-Formula One devotees (ie, marginal and/or low interest fans)
* Responses were weighted according to the size of viewing market in each country (to avoid small markets skewing the results)
* Results were segmented by interest level in Formula One, demographic profiles (age and gender), country and region
* Total audience is comprised of:
- Regular fans (25% by volume, predominantly male, cross section of ages)
- Moderate fans (44% by volume, female and male, cross section of ages)
- Infrequent fans (31% by volume, unlikely to watch grands prix, predominantly female,
cross section of ages)
Key Findings Of Global Audience Survey
1. F1 isn't broken, so beware 'over-fixing' it
The current race format is not viewed as fundamentally broken (across all levels of Formula One interest) and therefore doesn't require radical alteration. There is a strong desire for Formula One to remain meritocratic, while consumer interest is driven most by appreciation of driver skill, overtaking and technology.
Implication: there is no evidence to suggest that grand prix formats need 'tricking up' via, for example, handicapping, sprint races, reversed grids or one-on-one pursuit races. Formula One audiences appreciate the traditional gladiatorial, high-tech nature of the sport and would not respond favourably to a perceived 'dumbing down' of the current format.
2. F1 needs to be more consumer-friendly
An individual's view or understanding of Formula One is framed almost entirely by their local broadcaster. Unlike most global sports, the vast majority of 'consumption' of Formula One is via race-day TV coverage, supplemented in part by traditional, non-specialist newspaper coverage.
Formula One fans are also mature consumers of new media channels (eg, on-line, mobile) and other touch points (eg, gaming, merchandise). The global nature of Formula One, although an attractive characteristic in itself, impedes the uniformity of race schedules, and often results in consumption of a race being limited to locally broadcast TV highlights programmes. Only devotees (25% of the total potential viewing audience) are likely to watch a race live if it occurs outside peak viewing times.
Implication: significant opportunities exist to build audience via other channels such as internet and mobile.
3. Major changes to qualifying format are not urgent
When asked to consider alternative qualifying formats, all fan types expressed a modest preference for a meritocratically determined starting grid. There was some degree of interest in allowing luck to play a part in shaping the starting order, but the general sentiment was that the fastest driver should always start from pole.
Implication: there may be justification for minor modifications to the current qualifying format, following further trials; however, a major change to the format will not result in a significant increase in audience.
4. Revisions to the points-scoring system
As with qualifying, all audiences want a meritocratic points-scoring system. This means that they want winning grands prix to count for more than it does currently. There is an indication that all audiences would like to see a greater points reward for winning grands prix.
Implication: a minor adjustment to the existing points system is justified
5. Evolution of pit stops and refuelling
All audiences view pit stops as integral to their enjoyment of grand prix coverage; however, they rank the most important and compelling aspect of pit stops as tyre changing rather than refuelling. Race strategies were not highly ranked as a determinant of interest in Formula One.
Implication: audiences are unlikely to diminish if refuelling is discontinued. Tyre changing is an important driver of audience interest (in pit stops) and should not be further automated.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73566

AndyRAC
6th March 2009, 09:07
Is there something going on - it seems to me that the people in charge of world Motorsport at the current time seem intent on ruining it - with 'crazy' ideas to reform the relevant sports. We've had these F1 ideas, WRC & MotoGP stuggling for entries and coming up with various solutions. It just leaves me scratching my head, wondering, "Where did they get that idea from?"
Isn't the history and tradition of the sport important?
How long before all races are run for an hour - and on an indoor track, with a dice rolled before the race to see whether the sprinklers are turned on?

ioan
6th March 2009, 11:37
Key Demographics Of Global Audience Survey
* 17 countries surveyed
* First ever poll of Formula One devotees alongside non-Formula One devotees (ie, marginal and/or low interest fans)
* Responses were weighted according to the size of viewing market in each country (to avoid small markets skewing the results)
* Results were segmented by interest level in Formula One, demographic profiles (age and gender), country and region
* Total audience is comprised of:
- Regular fans (25% by volume, predominantly male, cross section of ages)
- Moderate fans (44% by volume, female and male, cross section of ages)
- Infrequent fans (31% by volume, unlikely to watch grands prix, predominantly female,
cross section of ages)
Key Findings Of Global Audience Survey
1. F1 isn't broken, so beware 'over-fixing' it
The current race format is not viewed as fundamentally broken (across all levels of Formula One interest) and therefore doesn't require radical alteration. There is a strong desire for Formula One to remain meritocratic, while consumer interest is driven most by appreciation of driver skill, overtaking and technology.
Implication: there is no evidence to suggest that grand prix formats need 'tricking up' via, for example, handicapping, sprint races, reversed grids or one-on-one pursuit races. Formula One audiences appreciate the traditional gladiatorial, high-tech nature of the sport and would not respond favourably to a perceived 'dumbing down' of the current format.
2. F1 needs to be more consumer-friendly
An individual's view or understanding of Formula One is framed almost entirely by their local broadcaster. Unlike most global sports, the vast majority of 'consumption' of Formula One is via race-day TV coverage, supplemented in part by traditional, non-specialist newspaper coverage.
Formula One fans are also mature consumers of new media channels (eg, on-line, mobile) and other touch points (eg, gaming, merchandise). The global nature of Formula One, although an attractive characteristic in itself, impedes the uniformity of race schedules, and often results in consumption of a race being limited to locally broadcast TV highlights programmes. Only devotees (25% of the total potential viewing audience) are likely to watch a race live if it occurs outside peak viewing times.
Implication: significant opportunities exist to build audience via other channels such as internet and mobile.
3. Major changes to qualifying format are not urgent
When asked to consider alternative qualifying formats, all fan types expressed a modest preference for a meritocratically determined starting grid. There was some degree of interest in allowing luck to play a part in shaping the starting order, but the general sentiment was that the fastest driver should always start from pole.
Implication: there may be justification for minor modifications to the current qualifying format, following further trials; however, a major change to the format will not result in a significant increase in audience.
4. Revisions to the points-scoring system
As with qualifying, all audiences want a meritocratic points-scoring system. This means that they want winning grands prix to count for more than it does currently. There is an indication that all audiences would like to see a greater points reward for winning grands prix.
Implication: a minor adjustment to the existing points system is justified
5. Evolution of pit stops and refuelling
All audiences view pit stops as integral to their enjoyment of grand prix coverage; however, they rank the most important and compelling aspect of pit stops as tyre changing rather than refuelling. Race strategies were not highly ranked as a determinant of interest in Formula One.
Implication: audiences are unlikely to diminish if refuelling is discontinued. Tyre changing is an important driver of audience interest (in pit stops) and should not be further automated.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73566

As we can see, it's all about audience! :\
Even worse is that it's about audience for moderate (44%) and infrequent fans (31%).
I don't know what is their definition of moderate but I would say it's those who watch a few races per season and maybe read the sport column in their local newspaper.
Than there are 31% people who watch anything they have on tely when it's turned on, from online shopping to Desperate Housewives (or whatever this poor attempts to acting are called).

So in the end we get the sport shaped to improve the viewing pleasure of those who would never pay to watch it, who would never go to a race and who never ever tried to learn more about the sport out of interest.

Tell you what, like any other business will not survive difficult times with the support of uninterested people. One would guess that top managers would know that. :down:

I am evil Homer
6th March 2009, 12:04
You know what's worse...things designed by committee and "focus groups" always end up being a fudge at best and at worst a total disaster. This FOTA discussion merely highlights that - half baked ideas for the 'audience'.

Make racing exciting and relevant and the audience comes to you. F1 seems to be doing a fantastic job of alienating long-time fans with all this talk of "the show". I;m bored of it.

Garry Walker
6th March 2009, 12:10
These guys are clearly out of touch with reality.
Why don't they conduct a serious survey on the motorsport forums?!

Who the heck can follow 20 people that are moving around the car during a pit stop?!
The only things I watch is the refueling hose and the timer. The rest is of no interest to me.

Also what was that about with giving 1 point for the shortest pit stop?!
Why not also for the sexiest grid girl, the most colorful livery and best jokes they manage to say on the radio during the race?!

Jesus christ. I missed the giving points for fastest pit stops when I initially read it. Is this really some comedy they are attempting? What the hell?
Are you really telling me that supposedly successful and intelligent people came up with this?


and, more significantly the suggestion of making fuel loads public to make races 'easier to follow' is an idea without a point. How does helping the viewer know what's likely to happen in terms of how each driver's race will pan out strategically add any interest whatsoever?

Except they do not care about the Garry Walkers, Ioans and BDunnells who follow F1 with rigour and wake up at 5 am to follow a practise session, because we only make up a little amount of the total fans. They care about the moderate fan who, if I told him that the drivers name is Jenson Alonso, would believe me. Those are the fans who make up the biggest numbers and who they care about and of course, they want to cater to the needs of those people, not to needs of those like us, because they trust that we will bring in the dough for them anyway.
There is a reason why my passion for F1 is growing less and less these days and it has everything to do with the crazyness of the people in charge of the sport.

ioan
6th March 2009, 12:19
You know what's worse...things designed by committee and "focus groups" always end up being a fudge at best and at worst a total disaster. This FOTA discussion merely highlights that - half baked ideas for the 'audience'.


Agree. Those proposals are resembling what I read in Dilbert while I'm sitting in that place where we go alone!

Knock-on
6th March 2009, 12:21
Economics

70% of F1 viewers represent over 2/3 of the availiable audience purchasing power. Sponsors will be keen to tie in with this group and making F1 more attractive to them means they are more likely to watch it more.

The "real" fans will watch it regardless.

However, some of the sillier proposals will probably never make it to reality. A bit like Max and Bernie coming out with outlandish proposals in order to water them down to get what they really want.

AndyRAC
6th March 2009, 12:37
Jesus christ. I missed the giving points for fastest pit stops when I initially read it. Is this really some comedy they are attempting? What the hell?
Are you really telling me that supposedly successful and intelligent people came up with this?



Except they do not care about the Garry Walkers, Ioans and BDunnells who follow F1 with rigour and wake up at 5 am to follow a practise session, because we only make up a little amount of the total fans. They care about the moderate fan who, if I told him that the drivers name is Jenson Alonso, would believe me. Those are the fans who make up the biggest numbers and who they care about and of course, they want to cater to the needs of those people, not to needs of those like us, because they trust that we will bring in the dough for them anyway.
There is a reason why my passion for F1 is growing less and less these days and it has everything to do with the crazyness of the people in charge of the sport.

Fully agree, and once you start on the slippery slope of trying to make a sport popular to moderate fans, you are in trouble - and it just alienates the proper, committed fans. It's happened with World Rallying - trying to make it easy to follow, 'modern' for casual fans, has just ruined it.
If they're too stupid to understand the intricacies of the sport - then tough!!

ArrowsFA1
6th March 2009, 12:59
70% of F1 viewers represent over 2/3 of the availiable audience purchasing power. Sponsors will be keen to tie in with this group and making F1 more attractive to them means they are more likely to watch it more.

The "real" fans will watch it regardless.
A good point worth making :up:

There is a vast 'casual' audience out there, and tapping into that, and engaging those people more, will increase the level on interest and see F1 grow even further.

I agree there is a danger that efforts to do that may alienate some 'real' fans, and that's where FOTA, the FIA and CVC will need to be very careful.

ioan
6th March 2009, 14:11
Fully agree, and once you start on the slippery slope of trying to make a sport popular to moderate fans, you are in trouble - and it just alienates the proper, committed fans. It's happened with World Rallying - trying to make it easy to follow, 'modern' for casual fans, has just ruined it.
If they're too stupid to understand the intricacies of the sport - then tough!!

If they lose the real fans than the series will falter at the first bigger hurdle when the casual fans will become fans of something newer with even more "show" for them.

ArrowsFA1
6th March 2009, 14:50
Improving TV coverage and on-screen data is also a goal for the teams' body, who unveiled several new ideas to spice up racing broadcasts.
"Historically Formula One has been a collection of secret societies and we haven't been able to work together sufficiently to share information," said McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh on Thursday.
"It's quite interesting how interested fans are in the technology, in the tactics and in the strategy, and that's without us feeding it.
"I think there were some examples that we tried to illustrate today, where you look at other sports and how they've enhanced the show by providing more information. Like any sport if you can feed that information, fans can become more deeply involved, and interested, and intoxicated by it.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73568

wedge
6th March 2009, 15:08
A good point worth making :up:

There is a vast 'casual' audience out there, and tapping into that, and engaging those people more, will increase the level on interest and see F1 grow even further.

I agree there is a danger that efforts to do that may alienate some 'real' fans, and that's where FOTA, the FIA and CVC will need to be very careful.

Agreed

It's a business these days. Just like ITV trying to win over the casuals with Hamilton-overload because the casuals have no interest in your Ant Davidsons, Sutils, Bourdais.


If they're too stupid to understand the intricacies of the sport - then tough!!

Agreed. It's down to the media and the teams themselves open up more.

We need more Rob Smedleys and Chris Dyers - race engineers who are open to the media, the Pat Symonds and Mike Gascoynes who are open to talk about strategy mid-race.

That's one of the reasons why I enjoy watching NASCAR - crew chiefs up and down pit lane are happy to talk mid-race. F1 engineers seem to regard the public as a nuisance.

ioan
6th March 2009, 15:10
I wonder who were the idiots who dreamed up all this broadcast attractiveness improvements that are really not needed.

What people are interested when watching a F1 race is the racing process itself, not the grid girls, not the color of the font used to write the teams and drivers names etc.

This looks to me like when they added all the derivative products on the financial markets. :\

Andrewmcm
6th March 2009, 15:19
A good point worth making :up:

There is a vast 'casual' audience out there, and tapping into that, and engaging those people more, will increase the level on interest and see F1 grow even further.

I agree there is a danger that efforts to do that may alienate some 'real' fans, and that's where FOTA, the FIA and CVC will need to be very careful.

Ah I dunno - if F1 strays too far from its core values then the die-hards may turn off. Again I point to the US - judging by their TV numbers in the past few years there are about 700,000 - 1 million die-hard viewers who would watch CART/IRL regardless, and about 3.3 million more casual viewers who would tune-in to watch the Indy 500. I don't have the numbers for the pre-split days but I'm sure that they were higher than 4 million for most races.

I guess the point is that F1 needs to maintain its core spirit in order to keep the die-hards tuned in, whilst making it more accessible for the casual viewer. I'm not fussed about no refuelling, freely-available data and so on, but I am bothered by short race distances. Grand Prix races are supposed to be tests of man and machine, and a shortened race distance makes it less of a challenge to both aspects.

The question to ask yourself is how many racing series do you not watch on tv any more, and what were your reasons for doing so?

Andrewmcm
6th March 2009, 15:22
"It's quite interesting how interested fans are in the technology, in the tactics and in the strategy, and that's without us feeding it. "

Really? I must be in the minority or something, as I really couldn't give a monkey's about that stuff. I'd rather see two drivers duking it out on the track for position than marvel at how quick the mechanics are at refuelling so that their man can overtake someone in the pits...

ArrowsFA1
6th March 2009, 17:07
What people are interested when watching a F1 race is the racing process itself, not the grid girls, not the color of the font used to write the teams and drivers names etc.
Where in the FOTA proposals do they make any mention of grid girls or fonts :confused:

I agree that people are interested in the racing, but not only that. IMHO F1 has been far too elitist when it comes to opening up the sport in the way that FOTA are talking about.

Are things such as gap and fuel load analysis, cornering line comparisons, a pit stop predictor, and GPS positioning of no interest to you at all? Wouldn't they add to your interest in the racing?

wedge
6th March 2009, 17:29
Are things such as gap and fuel load analysis, cornering line comparisons, a pit stop predictor, and GPS positioning of no interest to you at all? Wouldn't they add to your interest in the racing?

Not really. James Allen could easily reel out the silly statistics regarding a second fuel is equal to 50kg or whatever it is, is equal to 5 laps or whatever.

If you want cornering line analysis then you can easily read up such things from Mark Hughes in Autosport after every GP and Peter Windsor's wafflling in F1 Racing.

I'd rather have the telemetry data like brake and throttle. You're not gonna learn much from looking at cornering line traces alone.

Knock-on
6th March 2009, 17:33
I wonder who were the idiots who dreamed up all this broadcast attractiveness improvements that are really not needed.

What people are interested when watching a F1 race is the racing process itself, not the grid girls, not the color of the font used to write the teams and drivers names etc.

This looks to me like when they added all the derivative products on the financial markets. :\

Hang on a minute.

Weren't you argueing vehmently that the teams should run F1? :laugh:

So, just to get this right, you would give control over to people that you consider idiots and are incapable of handleing the financial side of the sport?

Hmmmmmm :?:

Knock-on
6th March 2009, 17:44
Where in the FOTA proposals do they make any mention of grid girls or fonts :confused:

I agree that people are interested in the racing, but not only that. IMHO F1 has been far too elitist when it comes to opening up the sport in the way that FOTA are talking about.

Are things such as gap and fuel load analysis, cornering line comparisons, a pit stop predictor, and GPS positioning of no interest to you at all? Wouldn't they add to your interest in the racing?

The elitist question is spot on.

F1 needs to open up and although some of the proposals seem a bit far fetched, some others are very worthy such as the revised points system.

I think it's long overdue to redress this and needs the cooperation of the teams.

ioan
6th March 2009, 17:51
Hang on a minute.

Weren't you argueing vehmently that the teams should run F1? :laugh:

So, just to get this right, you would give control over to people that you consider idiots and are incapable of handleing the financial side of the sport?

Hmmmmmm :?:

I think I changed my mind, this corporate buffoons are not looking better than Bernie at the moment.

ioan
6th March 2009, 17:59
Are things such as gap and fuel load analysis, cornering line comparisons, a pit stop predictor, and GPS positioning of no interest to you at all? Wouldn't they add to your interest in the racing?

And when are you supposed to get all that, hopefully not during the race.
Or maybe they think that races are so dull that we would rather watch cornering trajectories comparisons?

Pit stop predictor? What the heck is that good for? We all know that once a driver puts his foot really down and his lap times start to tumble he'll be in for a tire change within 3 laps.

One thing I would do is hire a unique race director, someone who knows how to make a good live coverage of a GP.

ioan
6th March 2009, 17:59
I'd rather have the telemetry data like brake and throttle. You're not gonna learn much from looking at cornering line traces alone.

I agree.

Tazio
6th March 2009, 18:58
this corporate buffoons are not looking better than Bernie at the moment. I tend to agree!
I also agree with what Arrows said about presenting changes that will be taken off the table later to make it look like they have compromised thus helping get other legit changes like the point system overhaul!


One thing I would do is hire a unique race director, someone who knows how to make a good live coverage of a GP.
That's too logical, and sensible....It will never happen! :laugh:

wmcot
8th March 2009, 08:12
That's easy!! They want to dumb down F1 so even the least informed, most casual, and partly retarded fan can fully grasp the experience.


Hey! It worked for NASCAR!!!

ShiftingGears
8th March 2009, 09:17
If you want cornering line analysis then you can easily read up such things from Mark Hughes in Autosport after every GP and Peter Windsor's wafflling in F1 Racing.

I'd rather see it than have someone talk about 5th phase of turn in, to be honest. Theres nothing wrong with having that information at the viewers disposal during coverage.

Tazio
8th March 2009, 10:39
I'd rather see it than have someone talk about 5th phase of turn in, to be honest. Theres nothing wrong with having that information at the viewers disposal during coverage.Unless the anouncers have to add their two cents, and explain to you what you already understand.
I can see them going on about it, to insure that viewers with a fifth grade mentality understand what they are augmenting the race with!
And how bitchin they are for providing it! (with shameless self promotion)! Let's say I'm a little cynical :)