Well, with the first 11 races of the season over and done with we're now into the F1 summer break. For teams and drivers a force shut-down of two weeks gives time to relax and recover, with the final two weeks of break left for developing and enhancing their prospects for the rest of the season. For me, the summer break means that it's time to prepare for 2012's F1 road trip, this year to Spa.
Last year, I had the chance to go and watch the F1 in person at the Nurburgring. It was such an experience that Dad and I decided we had to go and watch a second race, again at a legendary track. Nothing really compares to watching F1 in person. You don't get the atmosphere when you watch the sport on television, and you don't really understand how amazing those cars sound until you're standing a few feet away from them.
So with 25 days until we catch the ferry there are only a few things left to sort out. We're taking our awesome blue Range Rover once again, and we're braving the elements by staying in a tent on the Spa campsite. When we went to the Nurburgring, we drove through Wednesday night and Thursday morning to arrive at the campsite at around 6 in the morning. The pitches were already pretty much gone, and we were lucky that we took the Range Rover so we could camp wherever there was space. This time around, we're leaving on Wednesday in the afternoon, so no driving through the night. Luckily, the official Spa camping has set out pitches by the look of it, so hopefully we won't have to find an unoccupied patch of forest!
The weekend will consist of a load of motorsport, with F1 as the main event. We'll also see racing from the Porsche supercup, the GP3 series and the GP2 series. Last year I wasn't much into GP2, largely because the supporting races never received much television coverage. However, this year GP2 has completely caught my attention, with some races being even more exciting than the F1! So this time around I'll be sure to catch more of those races in person.
Aside from the racing, we also get the chance to wander around the pit lane - with the pit walk at the Nurburgring being my first glimpse of my hero Vettel in person (I later managed to meet him at the Goodwood Festival of Speed). The pit walk is great, as you get to see what goes on behind the scenes of the sport, so this is something else that will be a highlight of the weekend.
So, this year's F1 trip is inching ever closer. As in 2011, I'd like to know what you think I should do while I'm in Belgium, whether it's linked to the circuit or the surrounding area. Send me a message on Twitter (@Mooevilboffin), and maybe your suggestion will appear in pictures when I return! The countdown begins...
Showing posts with label Racing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racing. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 August 2012
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Predict Unpredictability
This morning I saw an article on the Sky Sports website in which Jenson Button claimed this year's unpredictability in the 2012 F1 season is bad for the sport, and will ultimately drive fans away. This was somewhat of a surprise to me, as personally this unpredictability is making the sport more - not less - exciting for most of us fans out here.
The 2012 F1 season has thus far seen 6 different winners in the six races. Jenson Button claimed the first win in Australia back in March, followed by Fernando Alonso in Malaysia, Nico Rosberg in China, Sebastian Vettel in Bahrain, Pastor Maldonado in Spain and Mark Webber in Monaco this weekend. This is the first time that we've seen such an opening to the season in F1 history - and yet Jenson believes this is a bad thing?
Admittedly, Jenson did have a point in saying that we couldn't see who had the best car this year. But, I disagree that this is bad for the sport. In having such variability, we might get a chance at seeing whose driving skill is better at any particular race. Maldonado's win in Spain highlighted that even if you don't have a dominant car, you can still win a race. Whether this is also down to the variability of the tracks suiting different cars is another point, but all of these factors together mean that the races are not a foregone conclusion.
If we think back to 2011, when Sebastian was so dominant, I recall seeing much more complaining that Red Bull were destroying the unknown element to the championship. We all knew that Red Bull and Sebastian would win the championship. This year, there are six drivers within one race win of each other, with Button one win and a 7th place just behind. So, when you have seven drivers in contention for the world championship, surely this is better than having a one-horse race. Admittedly, I loved the 2011 season - I am somewhat biased as Vettel is my favourite driver. Plus, the racing last year arguably made up for the fact that we often knew who was going to win before the race even started. So, having the racing of 2011 plus the unpredictability would surely bring more fans to the sport, rather than driving them away?
Further in the Sky article, Martin Whitmarsh also disagreed with Button and spoke of opinion a few years ago when the racing was seen as processional. Indeed, when Schumacher was so dominant, winning seven world titles, many fans were put off, as it was clear who would win without even watching.
So, while it may be annoying for drivers to not know where they stand race by race, and while it's also annoying for statisticians and betting companies, who would like at least a partial element of predictability; unpredictability is not a bad thing for the fans. I say let the championship continue as it is, and bring the question of who wins the titles down to the very last race. How can anyone fail to be hooked on this year? If you want to know who's going to win, you have to watch the races! Thus, we should expect the unexpected, predict the unpredictable and let the races play out as they will. Who knows what we'll see in the rest of the season?
The 2012 F1 season has thus far seen 6 different winners in the six races. Jenson Button claimed the first win in Australia back in March, followed by Fernando Alonso in Malaysia, Nico Rosberg in China, Sebastian Vettel in Bahrain, Pastor Maldonado in Spain and Mark Webber in Monaco this weekend. This is the first time that we've seen such an opening to the season in F1 history - and yet Jenson believes this is a bad thing?
Admittedly, Jenson did have a point in saying that we couldn't see who had the best car this year. But, I disagree that this is bad for the sport. In having such variability, we might get a chance at seeing whose driving skill is better at any particular race. Maldonado's win in Spain highlighted that even if you don't have a dominant car, you can still win a race. Whether this is also down to the variability of the tracks suiting different cars is another point, but all of these factors together mean that the races are not a foregone conclusion.
If we think back to 2011, when Sebastian was so dominant, I recall seeing much more complaining that Red Bull were destroying the unknown element to the championship. We all knew that Red Bull and Sebastian would win the championship. This year, there are six drivers within one race win of each other, with Button one win and a 7th place just behind. So, when you have seven drivers in contention for the world championship, surely this is better than having a one-horse race. Admittedly, I loved the 2011 season - I am somewhat biased as Vettel is my favourite driver. Plus, the racing last year arguably made up for the fact that we often knew who was going to win before the race even started. So, having the racing of 2011 plus the unpredictability would surely bring more fans to the sport, rather than driving them away?
Further in the Sky article, Martin Whitmarsh also disagreed with Button and spoke of opinion a few years ago when the racing was seen as processional. Indeed, when Schumacher was so dominant, winning seven world titles, many fans were put off, as it was clear who would win without even watching.
So, while it may be annoying for drivers to not know where they stand race by race, and while it's also annoying for statisticians and betting companies, who would like at least a partial element of predictability; unpredictability is not a bad thing for the fans. I say let the championship continue as it is, and bring the question of who wins the titles down to the very last race. How can anyone fail to be hooked on this year? If you want to know who's going to win, you have to watch the races! Thus, we should expect the unexpected, predict the unpredictable and let the races play out as they will. Who knows what we'll see in the rest of the season?
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Motor Racing is Really Boring... Unless There's a Crash!
Last night I was watching the F1 practice session while my sister was over for a family gathering. It was all lovely, and then my sister said something that really gets my back up: "Let's face it, it's not that interesting unless somebody crashes". I hate this. I hate it when people watch races to see people crash. Now, it's not my sister's fault - she doesn't watch motorsport at all - but I want to outline why exactly I hate this point of view, and why people should find motorsport interesting without incidents occurring.
Every time anyone gets a ticket to go and watch a motorsport event there's a warning on the ticket saying 'Motorsport is dangerous'. On most occasions, there's little risk to a spectator but the warning is fair nonetheless. Motorsport IS dangerous - and perhaps the greatest risk is for those inside the cars or in close contact with them at least. I really don't like watching people crash in races. My first thought is always for the driver and their safety. At the last F1 race in Monaco I waited with bated breath to hear whether Perez was ok, as it was horrible watching the extraction procedures with the screens covering the car. Thankfully, Perez was alright and it's a tribute to how far F1 has come in terms of driver safety. So while we can be content in the knowledge that a driver's likely to be safe during an F1 race there's still a risk of serious injury - just look at Massa in Hungary. In other disciplines of motorsport there's a higher risk: Kubica's rally accident which left him out of the F1 season so far being an example. This is precisely why I dislike people watching races for the crashes - there's a real chance of serious injury for the drivers, and people shouldn't be willing an incident to happen.
However, I can see why people have this view. Motorsport is a balancing act. To get the fastest car, you have to have it right on its limits. Accidents happen because a driver's gone past this limit. While (hopefully) most of us spectators are watching races hoping that drivers get to the limit, but not beyond it, some people (particularly those who don't know much about the sport) cross the line and hope to see drivers going past these limits. It's here where the accidents and injuries lie. I honestly think that people who watch races for crashes don't have much knowledge of the risks involved. F1 is so safe that serious injuries rarely occur, and so people don't necessarily remember the 2/3 chance of dying during a race many years ago. Ok, it's a testament to those who campaigned to change those odds that people think F1 is perhaps safe enough to be able to "enjoy" accidents, but we shouldn't forget that there are still risks which could lead to death. This was one of the reasons why I wanted more people to see the Senna movie - people would realise that motorsport isn't all that safe and when things go wrong there are occasionally serious consequences.
So, if you're one of those people who does watch motorsport for the accidents then I hope you realise that it's not nice to wish someone would have the risk of serious injury or death. You should watch F1 and other sports for the racing - not for the crashes. It's much more fun to watch two drivers battling for position in close races than it is to watch a driver being pulled from a car and taken to hospital. It's also much more interesting watching a driver push his car to the very limit of its capabilities, rather than watching him spin off in a cloud of dust. Yes, accidents will happen, but they're not the reason why you should watch races.
Every time anyone gets a ticket to go and watch a motorsport event there's a warning on the ticket saying 'Motorsport is dangerous'. On most occasions, there's little risk to a spectator but the warning is fair nonetheless. Motorsport IS dangerous - and perhaps the greatest risk is for those inside the cars or in close contact with them at least. I really don't like watching people crash in races. My first thought is always for the driver and their safety. At the last F1 race in Monaco I waited with bated breath to hear whether Perez was ok, as it was horrible watching the extraction procedures with the screens covering the car. Thankfully, Perez was alright and it's a tribute to how far F1 has come in terms of driver safety. So while we can be content in the knowledge that a driver's likely to be safe during an F1 race there's still a risk of serious injury - just look at Massa in Hungary. In other disciplines of motorsport there's a higher risk: Kubica's rally accident which left him out of the F1 season so far being an example. This is precisely why I dislike people watching races for the crashes - there's a real chance of serious injury for the drivers, and people shouldn't be willing an incident to happen.
However, I can see why people have this view. Motorsport is a balancing act. To get the fastest car, you have to have it right on its limits. Accidents happen because a driver's gone past this limit. While (hopefully) most of us spectators are watching races hoping that drivers get to the limit, but not beyond it, some people (particularly those who don't know much about the sport) cross the line and hope to see drivers going past these limits. It's here where the accidents and injuries lie. I honestly think that people who watch races for crashes don't have much knowledge of the risks involved. F1 is so safe that serious injuries rarely occur, and so people don't necessarily remember the 2/3 chance of dying during a race many years ago. Ok, it's a testament to those who campaigned to change those odds that people think F1 is perhaps safe enough to be able to "enjoy" accidents, but we shouldn't forget that there are still risks which could lead to death. This was one of the reasons why I wanted more people to see the Senna movie - people would realise that motorsport isn't all that safe and when things go wrong there are occasionally serious consequences.
So, if you're one of those people who does watch motorsport for the accidents then I hope you realise that it's not nice to wish someone would have the risk of serious injury or death. You should watch F1 and other sports for the racing - not for the crashes. It's much more fun to watch two drivers battling for position in close races than it is to watch a driver being pulled from a car and taken to hospital. It's also much more interesting watching a driver push his car to the very limit of its capabilities, rather than watching him spin off in a cloud of dust. Yes, accidents will happen, but they're not the reason why you should watch races.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
A Breakaway Championship?
There has been a lot of speculation surrounding what will happen to F1 when the Concorde Agreement runs out in 2012. The Concorde Agreement is basically a contract between the FIA, current partners CVC and the F1 teams (represented by FOTA - the Formula One Teams Association) which states how the revenue from television showings and prize money should be divided. It also contains specific details of the terms for how the teams compete in the races. There have been a number of Concorde Agreements over the life of F1, but the details have all remained secret. Each time the Concorde Agreement comes up for renewal there is speculation of what effect the new agreement will have for the fans. From what I can gather, not a huge amount has changed for the fans for each agreement, however personally I still find it a tense time - for reasons I shall explain below.
Speculation has been further promoted this time around because of the rumours that News Corp (Rupert Murdoch's company) are interested in purchasing F1 from current owners CVC. The take over of F1 isn't in itself any cause for worry - largely because of the Concorde Agreement maintaining the status quo for fans of the sport. However, the fact that the terms of the new contract are being re-negotiated becomes a cause for concern should News Corp choose to buy the rights to the sport. It's thought that if News Corp did acquire F1 from CVC there is a chance that F1 would be shown on pay-per-view television, rather than its current free-to-air status. If News Corp acquire F1 before the terms of the Concorde Agreement are renewed then there is a likelihood that they may place a term that F1 can only be shown on the pay-per-view channels of Murdoch's company.
Despite the speculation, various F1 officials have argued that the idea of News Corp acquiring F1 is simply posturing at the moment and CVC have no interest in selling the sport. Bernie Ecclestone has been one of the most outspoken on this issue, as has Eddie Jordan, whose views can be read here. However, even though the F1 officials have been dismissing the speculation, nobody has denied that News Corp wouldn't be able to purchase the sport if they offered the right price. Without a definite 'no' from CVC, there's simply no way that a fan such as myself can understand whether the sport will be sold or not.
So, if News Corp did buy F1, would F1 be shown on pay-per-view TV only? At the moment, the BBC have the rights to show F1, but this agreement runs out itself very soon - adding to my worry that F1 could move from the accessible free-to-air television to pay-per-view. Bernie Ecclestone has branded this 'suicidal'. The teams have also spoken against this idea arguing that moving F1 from free-to-air TV would be madness - and they're right in this respect. Formula 1 teams rely on sponsorship for money and to keep the teams going generally. If F1 moved away from free-to-air TV then suddenly the audience decreases massively. I love F1, however I simply cannot afford to watch nearly 20 races on pay-per-view television. Should the audience decrease, then sponsors would lose interest in teams as they get little return on their investment - investments of millions of pounds. This reason alone is weighty enough to mean that the teams are opposed to F1 being shown on pay-per-view TV. It is likely then that teams would fight any bid by News Corp to change the Concorde Agreement's clause of showing F1 on free-to-air television.
The negotiations of the Concorde Agreement themselves appear to be somewhat fraught, with Jean Todt (president of Ferrari) arguing that there are three options for the sport prior to the negotiation of the agreement - article here. First, the teams could go for the easy life and simply renew the Concorde Agreement as it stands with CVC - the option which seems most likely for the moment. Second, they could seek out a new partner to replace CVC; the likely choice being News Corp providing that F1 stays on free-to-air TV, or a partnership between News Corp and Exor. The final option which Todt rose was to form a breakaway championship - similar to the NBA in Basketball (apparently... I'm no expert on basketball!).
Now, I doubt that F1 will form a breakaway championship - it just seems like F1 is too expensive to be run without the support of a large company like CVC. That, and this isn't the first time that teams have threatened a breakaway series. When the points system was being overhauled there were similar threats of forming a breakaway championship - this never happened and the points system which we have currently was used as an alternative to the proposed medals system. To me, it just seems like the threat of a breakaway championship is used by the teams as a negotiating tool.
Personally, as a fan I am very happy with how the sport is run at the moment. Despite the criticisms of the rules, argument that overtaking is artificial because of DRS and KERSwatch F1 on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday and I get the opportunity to save up my money and attend races in person. Hopefully the Concorde Agreement terms will be sorted in time and once again the fans will come out on top - in a choice between business and sport I so hope that sport comes out on top!
Speculation has been further promoted this time around because of the rumours that News Corp (Rupert Murdoch's company) are interested in purchasing F1 from current owners CVC. The take over of F1 isn't in itself any cause for worry - largely because of the Concorde Agreement maintaining the status quo for fans of the sport. However, the fact that the terms of the new contract are being re-negotiated becomes a cause for concern should News Corp choose to buy the rights to the sport. It's thought that if News Corp did acquire F1 from CVC there is a chance that F1 would be shown on pay-per-view television, rather than its current free-to-air status. If News Corp acquire F1 before the terms of the Concorde Agreement are renewed then there is a likelihood that they may place a term that F1 can only be shown on the pay-per-view channels of Murdoch's company.
Despite the speculation, various F1 officials have argued that the idea of News Corp acquiring F1 is simply posturing at the moment and CVC have no interest in selling the sport. Bernie Ecclestone has been one of the most outspoken on this issue, as has Eddie Jordan, whose views can be read here. However, even though the F1 officials have been dismissing the speculation, nobody has denied that News Corp wouldn't be able to purchase the sport if they offered the right price. Without a definite 'no' from CVC, there's simply no way that a fan such as myself can understand whether the sport will be sold or not.
So, if News Corp did buy F1, would F1 be shown on pay-per-view TV only? At the moment, the BBC have the rights to show F1, but this agreement runs out itself very soon - adding to my worry that F1 could move from the accessible free-to-air television to pay-per-view. Bernie Ecclestone has branded this 'suicidal'. The teams have also spoken against this idea arguing that moving F1 from free-to-air TV would be madness - and they're right in this respect. Formula 1 teams rely on sponsorship for money and to keep the teams going generally. If F1 moved away from free-to-air TV then suddenly the audience decreases massively. I love F1, however I simply cannot afford to watch nearly 20 races on pay-per-view television. Should the audience decrease, then sponsors would lose interest in teams as they get little return on their investment - investments of millions of pounds. This reason alone is weighty enough to mean that the teams are opposed to F1 being shown on pay-per-view TV. It is likely then that teams would fight any bid by News Corp to change the Concorde Agreement's clause of showing F1 on free-to-air television.
The negotiations of the Concorde Agreement themselves appear to be somewhat fraught, with Jean Todt (president of Ferrari) arguing that there are three options for the sport prior to the negotiation of the agreement - article here. First, the teams could go for the easy life and simply renew the Concorde Agreement as it stands with CVC - the option which seems most likely for the moment. Second, they could seek out a new partner to replace CVC; the likely choice being News Corp providing that F1 stays on free-to-air TV, or a partnership between News Corp and Exor. The final option which Todt rose was to form a breakaway championship - similar to the NBA in Basketball (apparently... I'm no expert on basketball!).
Now, I doubt that F1 will form a breakaway championship - it just seems like F1 is too expensive to be run without the support of a large company like CVC. That, and this isn't the first time that teams have threatened a breakaway series. When the points system was being overhauled there were similar threats of forming a breakaway championship - this never happened and the points system which we have currently was used as an alternative to the proposed medals system. To me, it just seems like the threat of a breakaway championship is used by the teams as a negotiating tool.
Personally, as a fan I am very happy with how the sport is run at the moment. Despite the criticisms of the rules, argument that overtaking is artificial because of DRS and KERSwatch F1 on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday and I get the opportunity to save up my money and attend races in person. Hopefully the Concorde Agreement terms will be sorted in time and once again the fans will come out on top - in a choice between business and sport I so hope that sport comes out on top!
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
What is it with the Media and Michael Schumacher?
Today I was browsing the BBC website and came across this article in which Schumacher states that the joy is missing from racing. This is a sad thing to hear as I would like to think that all F1 drivers (and indeed, all drivers in general) had some sort of joy from racing. Now, it could be that Schumi simply feels the joy is missing because he's not performing so well - however this doesn't necessarily mean that he is incapable of driving as the media seem to be implying.
Every time I watch a practice session, qualifying session and race at least one person comments on Schumacher's age. By the way that people were talking about him you'd have thought that he was over retirement age, claiming a bus pass and pension and had some sort of dementia. Schumi is 42 - not much older than Rubens Barrichello, yet nobody is questioning Barrichello's ability to race. Fair enough, Barrichello is in a Williams and Schumi is in a Mercedes, however why should Schumacher be considered too old to race and Barrichello not?
What I find astounding is that nobody has questioned whether the three year gap that Schumacher has taken could have impacted his performance. Consider all the training that F1 drivers do - their fitness regimes are intensive to say the least. Three years away from this must have taken its toll, and so we can't expect Schumacher to suddenly come good again. It takes time to get back up to previous standards, so even with one season in F1 back under Schumi's belt I don't think we're going to see him back to his winning ways immediately this year.
Looking at Schumacher's results this season I don't think we can be too critical either. Turkey was a poor race for Michael, however all drivers have their off days and people aren't so quick to judge when it's Vettel, Webber, Hamilton or Button falling down the standings. Look at China - Webber qualified 18th but nobody argued that he was incapable of driving! In China, Schumacher finished two places down on Rosberg - not exactly terrible considering the cars in between Rosberg and Schumacher were Alonso and Massa. In Malaysia, Schumacher beat his team mate by two places. In Australia, both Mercedes finished way down the standings - if it were a case of Schumacher being too old, why would Rosberg be finishing so close to Schumi in most races?
I do honestly think that Schumacher will get back to a good form later on in the year - one bad race doesn't mean that he is too old or not as good. It does annoy me that the media constantly drone on about Schumacher's age too... It's not as if he's not winning because he needs a nap or has forgotten what he's meant to be doing because of his age! We need to look beyond these four races this season and see what happens by the end of the year when Mercedes have their car up to par. If Schumi's still not enjoying the racing, then perhaps he'd consider his life in F1. However, this isn't something that the media can anticipate and only the man himself can take that decision. I commend Schumacher's return to F1 - as my Dad says, it's given us all hope of racing competitively...
Every time I watch a practice session, qualifying session and race at least one person comments on Schumacher's age. By the way that people were talking about him you'd have thought that he was over retirement age, claiming a bus pass and pension and had some sort of dementia. Schumi is 42 - not much older than Rubens Barrichello, yet nobody is questioning Barrichello's ability to race. Fair enough, Barrichello is in a Williams and Schumi is in a Mercedes, however why should Schumacher be considered too old to race and Barrichello not?
What I find astounding is that nobody has questioned whether the three year gap that Schumacher has taken could have impacted his performance. Consider all the training that F1 drivers do - their fitness regimes are intensive to say the least. Three years away from this must have taken its toll, and so we can't expect Schumacher to suddenly come good again. It takes time to get back up to previous standards, so even with one season in F1 back under Schumi's belt I don't think we're going to see him back to his winning ways immediately this year.
Looking at Schumacher's results this season I don't think we can be too critical either. Turkey was a poor race for Michael, however all drivers have their off days and people aren't so quick to judge when it's Vettel, Webber, Hamilton or Button falling down the standings. Look at China - Webber qualified 18th but nobody argued that he was incapable of driving! In China, Schumacher finished two places down on Rosberg - not exactly terrible considering the cars in between Rosberg and Schumacher were Alonso and Massa. In Malaysia, Schumacher beat his team mate by two places. In Australia, both Mercedes finished way down the standings - if it were a case of Schumacher being too old, why would Rosberg be finishing so close to Schumi in most races?
I do honestly think that Schumacher will get back to a good form later on in the year - one bad race doesn't mean that he is too old or not as good. It does annoy me that the media constantly drone on about Schumacher's age too... It's not as if he's not winning because he needs a nap or has forgotten what he's meant to be doing because of his age! We need to look beyond these four races this season and see what happens by the end of the year when Mercedes have their car up to par. If Schumi's still not enjoying the racing, then perhaps he'd consider his life in F1. However, this isn't something that the media can anticipate and only the man himself can take that decision. I commend Schumacher's return to F1 - as my Dad says, it's given us all hope of racing competitively...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)