planetf1.com

Many people are of the opinion that F1 is doomed. What would be your top 3 things wrong with Formula 1 right now?

Lojik wrote:Many people are of the opinion that F1 is doomed. What would be your top 3 things wrong with Formula 1 right now?

I think you missed out a very important one.

Not on Free to air TV. Irrespective of cost, it needs people to actively seek out watching it

Picking only 3 was pretty tough.

I don't think F1 is doomed. It's just changing significantly, and one's viewpoint stems from whether this change is embraced or rejected.

F1 as per its original concept was doomed initially the moment the focus shifted from racing to entertainment, and secondly (but quite closely after) when it was decided that it should become a manufacturers' showpiece. Dinosaurs like me who prefer racing to anything else are just having difficulty adjusting!

So now it's all about the show and how to control it for maximum viewing entertainment (and corresponding brand exposure). So when you look at all the apparently questionable decisions that have taken place in the not too distant past from that perspective, it all makes a lot more sense. So, in turn, when deciding what three things need changing you need to decide whether you are speaking from an old fashioned sporting viewpoint, or a more modern entertainment one. The former is more wishful thinking, the latter more practical for today's climate. If they happen to cross over that's just fortunate.

So from the list above from a sporting perspective, in no particular order:

• - Bernie (I love what he's contributed to the sport but he's far too focused on entertainment now and has lost sight of what made it popular in the first place)
  - Restrictions to engine development (and indeed any excessive and ill thought out restrictions)
  - inequitable distribution of money between the teams

From an entertainment perspective:

• - Restrictions to engine development
  - requirement for unanimous agreement between teams on rule changes (everyone is just acting out of self interest, not the interest of F1)
  - Domination of Mercedes Team & Engine (although this is closely linked to the first one)

Only one of the above crosses over, so from my perspective should be the main priority

jimmyj wrote:Picking only 3 was pretty tough.

The option "Bernie Ecclestone" is actually sort of a summary of many of the other issues.

Zoue wrote:I don't think F1 is doomed. It's just changing significantly, and one's viewpoint stems from whether this change is embraced or rejected.

F1 as per its original concept was doomed initially the moment the focus shifted from racing to entertainment, and secondly (but quite closely after) when it was decided that it should become a manufacturers' showpiece. Dinosaurs like me who prefer racing to anything else are just having difficulty adjusting!

So now it's all about the show and how to control it for maximum viewing entertainment (and corresponding brand exposure). So when you look at all the apparently questionable decisions that have taken place in the not too distant past from that perspective, it all makes a lot more sense. So, in turn, when deciding what three things need changing you need to decide whether you are speaking from an old fashioned sporting viewpoint, or a more modern entertainment one. The former is more wishful thinking, the latter more practical for today's climate. If they happen to cross over that's just fortunate.

So from the list above from a sporting perspective, in no particular order:

• - Bernie (I love what he's contributed to the sport but he's far too focused on entertainment now and has lost sight of what made it popular in the first place)
  - Restrictions to engine development (and indeed any excessive and ill thought out restrictions)
  - inequitable distribution of money between the teams

From an entertainment perspective:

• - Restrictions to engine development
  - requirement for unanimous agreement between teams on rule changes (everyone is just acting out of self interest, not the interest of F1)
  - Domination of Mercedes Team & Engine (although this is closely linked to the first one)

Only one of the above crosses over, so from my perspective should be the main priority

Abandoning restrictions to engine development without addressing the money distribution would just accelerate F1's decline.

Of course, moderate steps towards engine equalization like a limited increase of tokens or the liberalization of its use also in-season (as already happened) are possible and probably will take place until the engines are roughly equal in terms of competitiveness.

I could tick a few things. Mainly races in places that are totally unsuitable which has removed so much of the tradition that long term F1 fans like.

Crazy entry prices for even the most useless of views.

Car regulations that mean F1 cars have to have artificial ways to pass. Other formulas manage to race well on the vast majority of circuits without the need for a silly systems like DRS.

The PR each year gets worse and worse with a huge amount of none F1 fans getting all the VIP treatment and us long term fans having to sit in the mud despite paying huge amounts.

SKY coverage in the UK. This means lots of people are unable to watch all the races and therefore lose interest.

I could go on.....

After reading so many options and not being able to select just 3, the question should have been What is right with F1?

#Having energy efficient PUs
#Still keeping Monaco, Spa, Suzuka, Sao Paulo
#Still able to view past results through Wikipedia
#Having Planet-f1 to talk about Formula 1

And so on...

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Zoue wrote:I don't think F1 is doomed. It's just changing significantly, and one's viewpoint stems from whether this change is embraced or rejected.

F1 as per its original concept was doomed initially the moment the focus shifted from racing to entertainment, and secondly (but quite closely after) when it was decided that it should become a manufacturers' showpiece. Dinosaurs like me who prefer racing to anything else are just having difficulty adjusting!

So now it's all about the show and how to control it for maximum viewing entertainment (and corresponding brand exposure). So when you look at all the apparently questionable decisions that have taken place in the not too distant past from that perspective, it all makes a lot more sense. So, in turn, when deciding what three things need changing you need to decide whether you are speaking from an old fashioned sporting viewpoint, or a more modern entertainment one. The former is more wishful thinking, the latter more practical for today's climate. If they happen to cross over that's just fortunate.

So from the list above from a sporting perspective, in no particular order:

• - Bernie (I love what he's contributed to the sport but he's far too focused on entertainment now and has lost sight of what made it popular in the first place)
  - Restrictions to engine development (and indeed any excessive and ill thought out restrictions)
  - inequitable distribution of money between the teams

From an entertainment perspective:

• - Restrictions to engine development
  - requirement for unanimous agreement between teams on rule changes (everyone is just acting out of self interest, not the interest of F1)
  - Domination of Mercedes Team & Engine (although this is closely linked to the first one)

Only one of the above crosses over, so from my perspective should be the main priority

Abandoning restrictions to engine development without addressing the money distribution would just accelerate F1's decline.

Of course, moderate steps towards engine equalization like a limited increase of tokens or the liberalization of its use also in-season (as already happened) are possible and probably will take place until the engines are roughly equal in terms of competitiveness.

Not if it's done sensibly. Everything above is presented in bullet form; if anything were to be put into practice then it should of course be managed properly.

For instance, I proposed last year that engine costs to customer teams should be capped. That way, any excessive development costs would be borne by the manufacturer, who would be better able to afford it. Funnily enough, a few weeks after I said it Mosely also made an almost identical suggestion, so it wasn't that radical. It's a far better solution IMO than allowing such heavily restricted development as we have currently, which has done the sport no favours whatsoever.

I had voted for all these options if I could:

-Restrictions to engine development
-High cost for race attendance (Ticket prices etc.)
-High costs to circuits owners for hosting races
-Bernie Ecclestone
-Too many races in countries without traditional F1 fanbases
-High cost of viewing F1 generally e.g. pay per view TV, Official F1 website charges etc.
-Domination of Mercedes Team & Engine

The way I see it the source of all of these problems is the fact that the sport's commercial rights are owned by a venture capitalist group with zero interest in racing and whose sole aim is to make as much money as possible for themselves. They have no interest in ensuring F1's long-term stability, and everything they do is geared towards siphoning off as much of the sport's revenue as possible for as long as they can get away with it, after which they will simply sell up, take their vast profits and run away laughing at how they've managed to screw so many people out of their money.

You missed out - Costs to high for teams to be viable.

The only one I ticked was the one about Merc dominance. I don't have much of a problem with all the other things you listed.

My picks were distribution of funds, Bernie & cost of viewing.

To my totally untrained mind the current business model of F1 seems to indicate the biggins of the sport want it to collapse, which I'm sure they don't.

Taking races from traditional, motor racing countries to other countries with little or no history in the sport, jacking up ticket prices to the point where a lot of fans struggle to find the funds to go to a race & then, removing the sport further from the masses by moving telecasts from FTA to PTV.

It doesn't make sense to me but then again that's probably why I do what I do for a living & I'm not the CEO of a large multi-national cooperation.

On top of all of that, the inequatable distribution of prize money is only ensuring that those want to race because they love motor racing ( thinking the Eddie Jordan's, Peter Saubers, Giancarlo Minardi's of the world), are swept aside in favour of big spending, self interested corperate or manufacturer teams who see F1 solely as a "marketing exercise" (Any manufacturer team except Ferrari & Red Bull here) & hence once they achieve their " marketing objectives" or want to " pursue other challenges" will simply pack up & leave.

I remember years ago where the Thursday before a race they had to have pre-qualifying because there were too many entrants to fit on the grid. Now it is getting close to the point where a team could score points just by finishing the race. That has to be an indicator that there is something fundamentally wrong with the sport.

Bernie has done a lot of good for the sport but I now feel it is heading in a direction that could cause a lot of damage here.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

jimmyj wrote:Picking only 3 was pretty tough.

The option "Bernie Ecclestone" is actually sort of a summary of many of the other issues.

Indeed, picking Bernie actually covers about 4 things

Where is the option for all of the above?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

jimmyj wrote:Picking only 3 was pretty tough.

The option "Bernie Ecclestone" is actually sort of a summary of many of the other issues.

Exactly. He's the reason F1 visits dictatorships rather than say, France; he's the reason F1's popularity seems strangulated when it should be expanding, he's the reason teams are dropping off the grid and others are persistently in danger of doing so, he's the reason the 'F1 experience' is so distant from the fans. The man only knows the old way of doing things (in more ways than one).

I'm less worried the sport's short-term issues like engine development - if Renault gets their fairy cakes together and assuming Honda eventually will, then the performance gap will close. It'll take the span of the season and perhaps more, but it's not a sustainability issue like all the issues flowing through Bernie.

Hoping for magnanimity from the money men that ultimately run the sport will never happen. The FIA and the teams as a collective are the only current entities that can shake up the way revenues are distributed. Unfortunately that's not going to happen anytime soon. At least I believe Bernie will expire before something cataclysmic happens and destroys the sport as we know it so at least we've got that going for us.

Cycling had done it correctly. They have embraced new races in places like China, Dubai, Qatar etc, but the main tours and one day classics remain unadulterated, like today's Milan San Remo.

I think F1 is heading for a big bust period, where we shall see ticket sales, teams, viewers etc all drop and someone, probably the person who sits in the big CVC chair after Bernie goes, will have to try and rebuild the sport.

I'd like smaller teams to be able to break even or make a little money and survive longer.

Ticket prices for F1 are through the roof. I've stopped buying F1 merchandise as you just look like a billboard. Compare to american football or even football tops which are much nicer to wear as they aren't utterly riddled with advertisers logos. I get advertisers want money, but I'm never paying £40 for the privilege again.


Free to air TV... I'm unsure about this. Bernie should, at least, be trying to get a highlights package shown on a free to air TV station in each country. I've said this a lot recently, but I'd be interested in F1 doing the equivalent of what many North American sports do - set up an online subscription service. Charge £100/season or £10/month type price and let me have access to high quality streams of all sessions, test sessions, press conferences then start putting on classic highlights and old season reviews etc. I do think the future isn't in FtA TV, but rather than paying £30/month for Sky Sports to watch F1, I can pay £10/month and only get access to the bits I want (F1) without having to subsidise the premier league.

mac_d wrote:I think F1 is heading for a big bust period, where we shall see ticket sales, teams, viewers etc all drop and someone, probably the person who sits in the big CVC chair after Bernie goes, will have to try and rebuild the sport.

I'd like smaller teams to be able to break even or make a little money and survive longer.

Ticket prices for F1 are through the roof. I've stopped buying F1 merchandise as you just look like a billboard. Compare to american football or even football tops which are much nicer to wear as they aren't utterly riddled with advertisers logos. I get advertisers want money, but I'm never paying £40 for the privilege again.


Free to air TV... I'm unsure about this. Bernie should, at least, be trying to get a highlights package shown on a free to air TV station in each country. I've said this a lot recently, but I'd be interested in F1 doing the equivalent of what many North American sports do - set up an online subscription service. Charge £100/season or £10/month type price and let me have access to high quality streams of all sessions, test sessions, press conferences then start putting on classic highlights and old season reviews etc. I do think the future isn't in FtA TV, but rather than paying £30/month for Sky Sports to watch F1, I can pay £10/month and only get access to the bits I want (F1) without having to subsidise the premier league.

I think free to air is essential if F1 is to expand.
No matter what the cost, it is something that people have to opt into.

You have to actively want to watch F1 to watch F1.
If it is on mainstream TV, some may watch it just because its on, then become hardcore fans.

There often used to be "chats in the pub" about F1 which had been watched, but I dont seem the hear them now.
Most would pay for the football and watch teams they have never heard of or have interest in just because it is on the channel they have. probably many of these would have watched F1, as used to happen.

Two of the pubs I use regularly now never show F1 and they used to.

Bernie Ecclestone is the main problem, his greed is a huge issue.

X Immensely high costs for participating in F1
X Constant rule changes
X Way to complicated rules that should be as simple as a cube, or a carbon pencil

Lt. Drebin wrote:X Immensely high costs for participating in F1
X Constant rule changes
X Way to complicated rules that should be as simple as a cube, or a carbon pencil

Yeah I realised I had missed a real biggie with the cost of actually running a team not long after I posted the poll.

I'd actually like to express an entirely 'out there' opinion.

Bernie NEVER really had any intention of improving F1 as a 'sport' itself. Anything F1 has gained during his presence is a side-effect of the push to make it a more profitable 'business'. It all seemed OK, even good in the transitional phase between 'sport' & 'business', but the last decade or so has just reinforced my opinion stated above. Anyone in a position as influential as his, if he cared two bits about the sporting side, would never let it get into the mess it's in now. Greed is good, until it isn't.

chetan_rao wrote:I'd actually like to express an entirely 'out there' opinion.

Bernie NEVER really had any intention of improving F1 as a 'sport' itself. Anything F1 has gained during his presence is a side-effect of the push to make it a more profitable 'business'. It all seemed OK, even good in the transitional phase between 'sport' & 'business', but the last decade or so has just reinforced my opinion stated above. Anyone in a position as influential as his, if he cared two bits about the sporting side, would never let it get into the mess it's in now. Greed is good, until it isn't.

To out there for me

Just on the medical side.
Giving up room in his trucks to take medical supplies to tracks that were poorly equipped.
Carte blanche and full backing given to Sid Watkins. Anyone who has read his books knows that BE played a major role within all this.
Great Ormond Street Balls, and his own money to help pay for the new Heart and Lung Centre at GOSH.
Funding and bringing in Mercedes, Ferrari and McLaren to the Motorsport in Medicine initiative which in effect turns the critical surgery to intensive care transfer time into slick pitstops that has attracted world wide interest from the medical profession.

Using his money and influence to get the right driver in the right car. Schumacher and Hamilton as examples. Bailing out struggling teams. Jordan?

And I don't buy into every team that struggles is down to Bernie. Particularly when the owner saying it is rushing from the luxurious motor home to his private jet. Nor the promotor who thinks he can throw a couple of support races together with a F1 race and claim he is selling a 3 or 4 day 'event'.

chetan_rao wrote:I'd actually like to express an entirely 'out there' opinion.

Bernie NEVER really had any intention of improving F1 as a 'sport' itself. Anything F1 has gained during his presence is a side-effect of the push to make it a more profitable 'business'. It all seemed OK, even good in the transitional phase between 'sport' & 'business', but the last decade or so has just reinforced my opinion stated above. Anyone in a position as influential as his, if he cared two bits about the sporting side, would never let it get into the mess it's in now. Greed is good, until it isn't.

I wouldn't say your opinion is particularly implausible but rather another take on the fact that Bernie is still stuck in the last century. The gains in F1 that Bernie presided over were in a time where the sport was relatively awash in money in no small part due to tobacco sponsorship and before sponsors were jittery about a fragile world economy.

He's got control over F1's commercial rights, and frankly, I think he's been lazy in making money for the sport. It's not hard to negotiate TV deals, it's not hard to negotiate with petroleum-rich dictatorships looking to obscure their poverty and oppression, it's not hard to negotiate take-it-or-leave-it deals with every circuit, it's not hard to bribe the biggest teams into complacency with the status quo. Money's always been the bottom line with Bernie but now the money is scarcer yet Bernie hasn't adopted ways to deal with this fact. He's got more control over the sport's commercial rights than ever yet forecloses potential revenue sources by sticking to the old ways. Whatever credit he deserves for building the sport, his sloth, greed and corruption ensure he won't be missed by many when shuffles away for good.

I think people are way too hard on Bernie. He's been around for a very long time and lifted the sport to its greatest heights. He was also strongly opposed to the transition to the current formula, which is ultimately the source of all the biggest problems right now - if anything I'd say Bernie hasn't had enough influence in recent years while he's had his eye off the ball with court cases and, well, getting old. And while he wasn't looking the manufacturers and the FIA have created an almighty mess out of the sport he built.

shoot999 wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:I'd actually like to express an entirely 'out there' opinion.

Bernie NEVER really had any intention of improving F1 as a 'sport' itself. Anything F1 has gained during his presence is a side-effect of the push to make it a more profitable 'business'. It all seemed OK, even good in the transitional phase between 'sport' & 'business', but the last decade or so has just reinforced my opinion stated above. Anyone in a position as influential as his, if he cared two bits about the sporting side, would never let it get into the mess it's in now. Greed is good, until it isn't.

To out there for me

Just on the medical side.
Giving up room in his trucks to take medical supplies to tracks that were poorly equipped.
Carte blanche and full backing given to Sid Watkins. Anyone who has read his books knows that BE played a major role within all this.
Great Ormond Street Balls, and his own money to help pay for the new Heart and Lung Centre at GOSH.
Funding and bringing in Mercedes, Ferrari and McLaren to the Motorsport in Medicine initiative which in effect turns the critical surgery to intensive care transfer time into slick pitstops that has attracted world wide interest from the medical profession.

Using his money and influence to get the right driver in the right car. Schumacher and Hamilton as examples. Bailing out struggling teams. Jordan?

And I don't buy into every team that struggles is down to Bernie. Particularly when the owner saying it is rushing from the luxurious motor home to his private jet. Nor the promotor who thinks he can throw a couple of support races together with a F1 race and claim he is selling a 3 or 4 day 'event'.

I don't question 'what' he's done (it's undeniably obvious), I rather question 'why' he did those things. I'm not too inclined to believe he did it for the 'sport' out of the goodness of his heart, is all.

All improvements F1 has seen in the past 2 decades (and all points you mention) have been instrumental in making it a lucrative business that Bernie could sell to the highest bidder, as he has ruthlessly done. F1 has a lot to thank him for (irrespective of his intentions), but the negatives are fast outweighing the positives.

I could easily tick all the boxes in the list (every option has genuine merit) but would also add one:
Tyres, specifically stupid one that disintegrate if you look at them.

The tyre issue is a great example of changing rules for entertainment value but in fact helped destroy the 'show'.
I would like a debate about refuelling also. To me removing this also removed a genuine tactical option that could throw up some interesting scenarios. I know there is a safety issue but surely this could be overcome?

The top-heavy revenue sharing mechanism that perpetuates the advantage of the big-budget teams and leaves most of the grid on the brink of bankruptcy is the main problem. That should be a choice here.

Lojik wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:X Immensely high costs for participating in F1
X Constant rule changes
X Way to complicated rules that should be as simple as a cube, or a carbon pencil

Yeah I realised I had missed a real biggie with the cost of actually running a team not long after I posted the poll.

No problem mate, F1 is in such a mess and so full of problems that is quite easy to forget some of them.

So, in summary, we are almost all frustrated. We should start a thread "what would your dream F1 look like".

Other - The "fans"

No matter what version of the sport is presented to you, y'all just can't be happy and enjoy it

mikeyg123 wrote:You missed out - Costs to high for teams to be viable.

The only one I ticked was the one about Merc dominance. I don't have much of a problem with all the other things you listed.

Yeah I.was thinking the same with the high costs. It's pretty clear, teams can't run if their costs are higher than their income, and probably the engines alone would cost more than the prize money of some teams. It's simply unsustainable.

only three? I would pick all of these

The cost of the power plants is killing the smaller teams, and they are so complex that it's hard to get them to work at all, and developing them is even more expensive, hence the restrictions. To be fair to Ecclestone, didn't he oppose them?

Hard to only pick 3 but the biggy for me this weekend is the first time in my life and I have been around a bit that I will not have the opportunity to watch the race live due to the greed of the sport selling TV rights to the highest bidder rather than what is best for the sport. F1 is an advertising billboard which in the past required maximum exposure for sponsors, now they are taking the short term money and running with no regard for fans.

Also getting rid of all the traditional circuits, France, Germany, San Marino, Spa (how long will it survive), Silverstone looked shaky for a while, is really going to come back and bite them hard. I can see a European F1 starting up using the traditional circuits just like it was in the past, it will be part of the rebuilding phase when the current F1 goes bust.

No way I could narrow it down to 3... in fact, I couldn't even name 3 that I don't think are a problem, and at that, the list is still not complete.

There are many things wrong with F1, starting with Bernie and his "business principle"... and from that point many of the other items on the list have flowed. Do I feel that F1 is doomed? No, not yet. Do I think that it is at risk... most definitely in the form we have known it. Do I enjoy as much as I used to... not even close.

As some official recently said, F1 needs to open itself up to a younger, even much younger fan demographics, as short of going backwards they are losing the strength of the fanbase who remember it as it once was. A lot of the older fans are either moving on to other series, or have grown bored and sought other interests. Unfortunately, as with many racing disciplines, racing is losing a lot of its support... finding itself competing computer activities and all that involves. Lastly, even those with good jobs have a tough time justifying the cost of F1, be it attending races or buying promotional items. I can attend a NASCAR race for much less that half of what it cost to go to an F1 race, and attend an ALMS race for at least 2/3 less... or even more than that. Clothing and caps for F1 vs other racing series are a lot higher as well...30-40% more in my experience.

F1 needs to look at a lot of things to grow... cost to teams and fans being but one aspect. It needs to build the fan base by offering great racing, hi-tech, and actually acting like they even care about the fans.

I did not vote on the poll, simply because too many of the choice are of equal importance, so to select three was to ignore most of the rest.

I am not sure about the free to air argument,many sports popularity has been unaffected by being on pay TV like the Premier league.
For me the biggest issue is attracting enough sustainable teams.

Like many others have said, choosing only three options is difficult. But if I had to choose three I'd pick the money-related issues:
- Inequitable distribution of money to teams
- High cost for race attendance (Ticket prices etc.)
- High costs to circuits owners for hosting races

Solve these and the sport will once again become a thriving mainstream sport. Of course you could sum up all of the above with the Bernie-option but I feel that wouldn't highlight the issue. Bernie's been robbing F1 for decades and now it's time to give back to the sport so that there will be a legacy to pass on when he eventually does.

I chose:
- Restrictions to engine development: I don't like how performances advantages can be locked during multiple years because regulations don't allow for enough changes to be done. I don't remember any period in F1 where this was ever the case. "Domination of Mercedes team & engine" results from this, so I chose for the cause rather than the effect.
- Inequitable distribution of money to teams: there should be a fair key for distributing the money to the teams. They should get more than they do and the smaller ones should get far more. Ferrari shouldn't get money just for being Ferrari.
- High costs to circuits owners for hosting races
This one is actually linked to the high cost for race attendance. Circuit owners have to pay through the nose and they want their event to be viable, so they have no other choice than to impose high ticket prices.

Location of races doesn't really bother me as long as the tracks are OK. In fact, quality of modern/recent tracks might be a candidate for this list.
As for the cost of viewing, here in Belgium it's still free. So my only cost for watching all of F1 is by choice: I'm buying the app and that will cost me 7 monthly passes of €2.99 each.
Lastly, qualify of racing and look of cars is just fine. The sound isn't but I can live with that.

This one isn't really correct: Requirement for unanimous agreement between teams on rule changes 5% 5%
Not all rule changes require unanimous agreement. I think it is only a requirement for rule changes for the current year and for the following year but only after a certain date.