Do we need twenty races to prove ---- what, exactly?
Wretched Excess
sporting purpose of running more than, say, ten grands prix? After
nine races, we all know (a) who the best driver is, and (b) which the
best constructor is.
After ten, it is like "Give him another chance, give him another
chance", ad nauseam.
The National Hockey League obliges its poor benighted goons to play 82
games a season, but that's because there are so many teams and ONLY
TWO IN ANY ONE GAME; likewise Premier League soccer, with 38 games per
season.
Bernie would like 20 races, but given his purely-for-revenue purpose,
why stop there; why not 25 or 30 races? If the FIA truly wants to
reduce costs ---- complete the sentence.
Imagine being a driver or manager, for god's sake! What the hell do
Lewis and Jenson, or Frank W. and Stefano Domenical THINK is being
proved by dragging their butts around the planet again and again,
after settling the issue through, say, ten races?
Steve Thompson
> Given that the same drivers and cars contend every race, what is the
> sporting purpose of running more than, say, ten grands prix? After
> nine races, we all know (a) who the best driver is, and (b) which the
> best constructor is.
> [...]
You can't be serious.
Brian Sullivan
then quarter final, semi final and finals to determine the overall winners.
That should make Bernie lots of money.
"Wretched Excess" <braf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3e05a3a-d6c2-4978...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Wretched Excess
Five races, then. Five for sure. On the same track.
CatharticF1
97a6-efd...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
It's money, innit.
If you make a profit selling the rights for races you want more races.
That's why in every sport there are more games, races, tournaments,
longer seasons etc.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
AC
"Wretched Excess" <braf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3e05a3a-d6c2-4978...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Er, people like watching races? None of this happens with out punters. Its
about them, not the oh so poor drivers. So, from a punter POV, the more
races the merrier.
I suppose if I had some weirdo problem with people making money, I might
agree with you.
AC
AC
Why race at all? Just use the points from last season.
AC
CatharticF1
Why last season? Let's go with 2004 please :)
Frank Adam
<braf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Given that the same drivers and cars contend every race, what is the
>sporting purpose of running more than, say, ten grands prix? After
>nine races, we all know (a) who the best driver is, and (b) which the
>best constructor is.
>
Well, had you said this 2-3 years ago.. maybe. This season gone was
nothing like that though. Brawn/Jense, followed by RBR/both drivers,
followed by Ferrari/Kimi resurgance and McLaren and FI doing the
unthinkable towards the end made it one of the weirdest seasons i can
remember.
In a way McLaren and Hamilton may in fact cost Vettel the title, so i
guess that may be why Jenson is so happy with them. ;)
>Bernie would like 20 races, but given his purely-for-revenue purpose,
>why stop there; why not 25 or 30 races? If the FIA truly wants to
>reduce costs ---- complete the sentence.
>
Ahh, money and sport. Tiger gets 4+ million just to appear at a major
where his presence pretty much sets the winner before the first ball
is hit. If i was him i'd pull a hammy on day one, go home and retire,
but he sticks around to win the extra few mills in prize money.
The FIA has no real input into the commercial side. They can only
control the expenditure of the teams on "sporting" expenses, by
reducing the need for those expenses. What Bernie does is at another
table.
>Imagine being a driver or manager, for god's sake! What the hell do
>Lewis and Jenson, or Frank W. and Stefano Domenical THINK is being
>proved by dragging their butts around the planet again and again,
>after settling the issue through, say, ten races?
>
Don't forget it is exposure for them and more importantly for their
sponsors as well. Rest assured that sponsorship deals would have been
upped by the percentage of the extra races.
--
Regards, Frank
Bob Dubery
> Given that the same drivers and cars contend every race, what is the
> sporting purpose of running more than, say, ten grands prix? After
> nine races, we all know (a) who the best driver is, and (b) which the
> best constructor is.
Some recent seasons....
2009 was all over bar the shouting after 10 races. It was a lot more
interesting after 16.
In 2007 the guy who won the championship came from behind in the 2nd
half of the season. He'd have been lying 3rd or 4th in the title race
after 10.
But you're right. Except you're also wrong. EVERYBODY knows the best
driver is Hamilton. Or Fred. Or Massa. Or whoever it is you KNOW is
the best driver out there and would win every race except that his car
is crap or that other team are cheating bastards with illegal aero
devices and a launch control system. And everybody KNOWS that without
a race being run.
build
> But you're right. Except you're also wrong. EVERYBODY knows the best
> driver is Hamilton. Or Fred. Or Massa. Or whoever it is you KNOW is
> the best driver out there and would win every race except that his car
> is crap or that other team are cheating bastards with illegal aero
> devices and a launch control system. And everybody KNOWS that without
> a race being run.
You've missed the important fact that we should just hand the next
eight championships to Mark Webber as we al *know* he is the best.
beers, too many,
build
AC
"CatharticF1" <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDE765286C9Fr...@203.26.24.228...
Well, in this discussion, we could have a lottery each year, and pick what
ever season we like. It would be great to see Prost or Stewart win again.
Although, can you imagine the FIA rule book for a lottery? (Which reminds me
of the story about Senna wanting rules for coin flipping written down.)
AC
AC
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:1sd3i5hhrvkdtt9a3...@4ax.com...
Do the TV companies pay more? You never see a TV deal announced a �X per
race. Its a multi year deal. If not then these extra races may help
"struggling" TV companies get more money in, since they can sell advertising
for the extra race(s). (Obviously not relevant to the BBC, I assume.)
AC
Bob Dubery
> Do the TV companies pay more? You never see a TV deal announced a £X per
> race. Its a multi year deal. If not then these extra races may help
> "struggling" TV companies get more money in, since they can sell advertising
> for the extra race(s). (Obviously not relevant to the BBC, I assume.)
>
I think that more to the point is that the team sponsors get more
exposure.
Also because the teams are paid by FOM, and because FOM does get paid
per race, FOM takes in more money and so the teams get more money from
FOM.
Frank Adam
>>>
>> Don't forget it is exposure for them and more importantly for their
>> sponsors as well. Rest assured that sponsorship deals would have been
>> upped by the percentage of the extra races.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards, Frank
>
>Do the TV companies pay more? You never see a TV deal announced a �X per
>race. Its a multi year deal. If not then these extra races may help
>"struggling" TV companies get more money in, since they can sell advertising
>for the extra race(s). (Obviously not relevant to the BBC, I assume.)
>
Dunno. Probably, but IMO it depends on what the extra F1 telecasts are
replacing. I'm guessing that the TV stations and the advertisers both
look at the expected viewer figures when working out the costs of air
time. Based on that, i reckon if there was a clash with a live Nascar
or NFL game in the US, or the Ashes in the UK/Oz, putting F1 on would
in fact lower their income at that time, but then again replacing a
netball coverage will probably increase it, so who knows how it all
pans out.
--
Regards, Frank
Darryl Johnson
>
<snip>
>>>
>>> Why race at all? Just use the points from last season.
>>
>> Why last season? Let's go with 2004 please :)
>
> Well, in this discussion, we could have a lottery each year, and pick
> what ever season we like. It would be great to see Prost or Stewart win
> again.
>
> Although, can you imagine the FIA rule book for a lottery? (Which
> reminds me of the story about Senna wanting rules for coin flipping
> written down.)
>
> AC
Apparently, scientists have determined that it is possible to
influence a coin toss so that heads turns up more or less than the
statistical 50%. The height of the toss, the number or rotations,
which side was up at the start of the toss, and some other factors I
don't recall: all affected the results.
So, yeah, there better be rules. <grin>
--
Darryl
Bigbird
> Given that the same drivers and cars contend every race, what is the
> sporting purpose of running more than, say, ten grands prix? After
> nine races, we all know (a) who the best driver is, and (b) which the
> best constructor is.
>
Ha, ha, good try but no-one will be dumb enough to bite.
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
AC
Makes sense. I was just wondering if Bernie trots up to the TV companies
demanding more cash. Sounds like it's a bit of a freebie, that the TV
companies get to exploit or whatever.
AC
Ian Dalziel
<braf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you don't *like* motor racing, sod off and watch something else.
Races are not intended to "prove" anything.
--
Ian D
nobody
97a6-efd...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Given that the same drivers and cars contend every race, what is the
> sporting purpose of running more than, say, ten grands prix? After
> nine races, we all know (a) who the best driver is, and (b) which the
> best constructor is.
>
> After ten, it is like "Give him another chance, give him another
> chance", ad nauseam.
The purpose of the season is to provide racing exhibitions around the
world. Any manner of championship is a lesser concern.
APLer
news:qYWUm.71118$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad:
Funny, judging by the coverage I alway thought it was to sell baseball
caps.<g>