planetf1.com

I really can't think of an appropriate name for this so it is fine for it to be renamed if needed.


I don't know where to begin with the list of problems with F1 since Liberty Media have taken over. But I don't know if it is them to blame for all of these issues.

Lets start with the number of celebrities that come to the races every weekend. Probably around 75% of them don't seem to have much knowledge or interest on the sport. And annoyingly, Sky either have to, or choose to interview them and I feel it is an absolute waste of time. I really hate it when these celebs do something that would usually be done by someone who knows what they are doing. Like Canada one year, I don't think it was their fault for waving it a lap early, but i bet it is related to the fact that they don't just let the professionals do it that there was some distraction and an error was made. Whoever it was couldn't wave it properly either.

This most recent weekend, the person handing the trophies out either completely lacked knowledge, or had not been given enough information on what to do, both of which are incredibly poor. Are they really attempting to make the coverage better? The number of things that are not done right because of all these different people involved is unbelievable... He tried to give Bottas's trophy to Hamilton, the Trophy for Mercedes to Hamilton, then got the last two correct - Hamilton than Verstappen. This was just so awkward to watch. Having to see Hamilton and some others on the podium direct this person. Really is so annoying to see. Just have someone who knows what they are doing.....

The worst thing about having celebrities on the coverage is how much they get shown. I don't keep up with who these famous people are, but at one grand prix during a qualifying session when cars were on track, they flicked for around 10 seconds to the Mercedes garage to this woman who was sat down on a chair on her phone. Looked like she had no interest in what was happening whatsoever. What a total waste of coverage. The decision of what and when they show things on screen is shockingly poor sometimes.

That isn't even everything that annoys me about the celebrities, but I think I've said enough.



The other huge problem is the graphics. The screen is such a cluttered mess at the moment. I think everything is as much as 25% oversized anyway. Maybe they do this so you can watch the same coverage on mobile devices. But the font size is just huge. I only watch it on my 24 inch computer monitor. On a large TV, the size of all this text must look ridiculous. I think the coverage should only have the basics shown. Such as the positions. The other stuff should be given as an option in an app or something. I hate it having 2 - 3 different information boards appear all over the screen. At times up to a third of the screen is covered by these things. It drives me mad at times. Especially as the more recent ones such as tyre wear are frustratingly inaccurate - as Pirelli themselves have said. Although not quite in the same way as me!

I preferred the drivers leader board about 4 years ago when it was a very discrete bar at the bottom showing 5 drivers at a time. It even had more space to show their split times without taking up much room. I can see the disadvantage being you can't see them all at once, but it was very neatly placed. The new one is so huge that the cars end up driving behind it. Most will have got used to this i feel, but i am struggling to tolerate it sometimes. There is just this wall of messy graphics that stops me enjoying the races. And half of them are very inaccurate anyway.

I never remember the level of mistakes beign made with the graphics years ago. Is it really the case that because they are more "advanced" that more can go wrong? The number of drivers that you see fly up and down the leader board faster than reality is just stupid. This is nothing to do with sky, but this is another thing that might put me off paying for F1 next year. The graphics ruin the coverage for me. There is too much useless, unreliable and inaccurate information there.




I have moaned enough, but would be interested in seeing other's views on the state of all this stuff. And I think it is since Liberty Media have been in F1. But weather it is down to them, I don't know. I just get the feeling improvements are being attempted, but badly failing.

All I'm genuinely bothered about it Crofty's commentary. I did just rewatch China 2015 and probably do just about prefer the graphics, but generally the experience felt quite dead compared to what I've seen in the last season or two. I'm not sure the viewing experience is any worse today.

The 'Tyre Graphic' which has gone as quickly as it went, and was clearly 100% BS... that's about the only thing that has genuinely annoyed me.

Flash2k11 wrote:The 'Tyre Graphic' which has gone as quickly as it went, and was clearly 100% BS... that's about the only thing that has genuinely annoyed me.

It's gone?

I just don't know how MOTO GP can get it so right, and has done for many years, yet F1 continues to get it so wrong. The data we see about MOTO GP bikes is simply fantastic and the cameras are far superior to F1. Plus, take in to account that bikes have significantly less options for extra equipment to be fitted.

F1 should admit defeat and go crawling over to DORNA and pay them huge sums to sort it out.

Honestly I'd like to see both Crofty and Brundle replaced for different reasons. Croft for his incompetence and lack of focus and Brundle for the fact that his views fail to evolve with current events. The broadcast is in need of fresh blood.

My problem is not so much Liberty as Sky. Although its Libertys job to sort it. I just want to watch a F1 weekend thats informed and presented by some adults. Not a bunch of middle aged men who generally have little interest in the sport and behave like a bunch of ignorant nationalistic fat bellied slobs who have been let out by their wives to have a weekend with the 'boys' abroad.
Apart from a few last minute blinders from mainly Ham the fastest lap point turned out to be a waste of time. Might as well give a point to the fat boy at the back whose got a sick note from his mum.
I'd like a button so I can turn off the 'graphics for dummies'.
I'd like each interviewer to be reminded that the questions they ask should be shorter than the answer they are given. I dont need Ted to wax lyrically for a couple of minutes about how Hams first WDC is so much like the last, only for Ham to say, 'No its not'.
No matter how many stupid little games the presenting team play with a pair of drivers pre race and pretend they are all mates together, the fact is the drivers are only there because they are contractually obliged to be, they are not your mates.
Stop opening up the paddock to include all the D list celebrities. Ham now needs a permanent bodyguard and Vettel has to escorted and protected by 3 Ferrari staff. Amongst the racing fraternity a VIP is know as a Very Ignorant Person for good reason.
Liberty to explain why we cant have grid girls in national costume because its sexist, yet when we go to America we have the spectacle of young girls in short skirts leaping up and down and doing the splits on hot tarmac because its 'tradition'.
But thanks for the extra free content on social media, and turning a blind eye to a lot of fan uploaded content.
And if you want to stop the Mercedes dominance and improve the product at the same time appoint Wolff once Carey goes.

The frickin tyre life stats graphic which is a load of sugar. At one point it's 80% life remaining, 2 laps later the tyres are at 20% get rid of it god.damn it's so clearly meaningless.

Also second the motion about the build up just being a lot of crap watching middle aged men mess about just happy to get out the house..never ever watch the build up anymore, teds note book and driver interviews are all that's worth watching. Also Anthony Davidson is a massive credit to the team, he's great - REMOVE crofty, ADD Davidson

The tyre graphic was a nice idea but clearly isn't giving us anything remotely useful whatever algorithm it's using. Besides I'd be surprised if teams willing made that kind of information public if it was accurate.

Music - used to it but don't like it.

Celebrities - no thanks. For us fans of the sport, the drivers ARE our celebrities.

Graphics - not fussed.

One thing I've noticed (I watch Sky) is the clear desire to increase the number of meaningless stats presented to us. Seems a very american sports type thing. I love stats if they're interesting or relevant but many of the ones the commentators are clearly being told to trot out are neither.

Oh yes good point; change the theme tune.

Didn't like it from the start, and like it less now. Hackneyed and half-arsed.

DOLOMITE wrote:One thing I've noticed (I watch Sky) is the clear desire to increase the number of meaningless stats presented to us. Seems a very american sports type thing. I love stats if they're interesting or relevant but many of the ones the commentators are clearly being told to trot out are neither.

I feel like that's just Crofty. He's always got some annoyingly irrelevant stat floating around in his bonnet, but the others don't seem to do it so much.

Honestly, a lot of what's wrong with the Sky coverage comes down to Crofty…

Who might be the best replacement for Crofty?


***

Anyway - back on topic...

The official F1 Youtube channel has vastly improved since Liberty Media took the reins. The features are better and more frequent, and the addition of the race analysis features by Jolyon Palmer are truly excellent.

Invade wrote:Who might be the best replacement for Crofty?


***

Anyway - back on topic...

The official F1 Youtube channel has vastly improved since Liberty Media took the reins. The features are better and more frequent, and the addition of the race analysis features by Jolyon Palmer are truly excellent.

To add to that, the F1 website is much better too.
As is social media stuff like Instagram.
The old site was very filtered/sanitised.
The new one has opinion articles etc and don’t hide away from some of the heated exchanges (for example on team radio.)
Last race team radio: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... mehlb.html

Coverage issues for me are more around who they show on track. There have been some immense battles in the midfield, yet sometimes they just show the leaders lapping in clear air.
Not really coverage related, but the narrower smaller cars were better as they had more room on track to overtake. 1.8 meters to 2 meters isn’t much, but that is 40cm (1 ft 4 inches) wider with 2 cars side by side trying to navigate a corner...

I really hate the driver interviews before the podium. Generally boring and it takes the chaotic excitement out of the podium itself. I much preferred it when drivers were interviewed on the podium itself. We got some genuinely great and memorable moments that got the sport news coverage in places it usually wouldn't. Patrick Stewart doing a shoey for example.

From the US race thread:

Covalent wrote: Off topic but the other day I just thought of how much I appreciate the social media presence F1 has these days, F1.com produces some really awesome video compilations of the races and other events that we almost take for granted already, but were unheard of just a few years back.
So Liberty isn't all bad.

sandman1347 wrote:Honestly I'd like to see both Crofty and Brundle replaced for different reasons. Croft for his incompetence and lack of focus and Brundle for the fact that his views fail to evolve with current events. The broadcast is in need of fresh blood.

Being or acting incompetent is Croft's job to say things and asks questions that relates to casual and new viewers. No matter who they replace him with you are going to get the same feeling. I remember being very excited when James Allen was coming in with Brundle when Murray Walker retired but he just seemed to have suffered amnesia.

Having said that my favorite pair was David Coulthard and Ben Edwards although not perfect. They gave the best level of excitement, balanced views, and technical insights.

It was a huge change for me listening to sky team, almost felt depressing. They create almost zero excitement, very somber. I don't think Crofty is that bad anymore . On the other hand i may have gotten used to them.

mikeyg123 wrote:I really hate the driver interviews before the podium. Generally boring and it takes the chaotic excitement out of the podium itself. I much preferred it when drivers were interviewed on the podium itself. We got some genuinely great and memorable moments that got the sport news coverage in places it usually wouldn't. Patrick Stewart doing a shoey for example.

I'd go back further than that and say I preferred formal press conferences for interviews. However I can understand the fan spectacle of interviewing them on the podium, despite the fact we'll just get fake PR responses by the drivers. But I agree with you, an interview after hopping out of the car is annoying, and would rather have them interviewed after podium celebrations.

With relation to the thread in general and of Sky coverage, I've pretty much stopped watching pre and post race coverage. This is mainly because I don't have the time anymore, but also because after six years or so of Sky coverage, I've gotten sick of the exact same fairy cakes of Johnny Herbert doing something stupid and boring driver interviews asking the same questions. They should tailor their coverage to more serious F1 fans, and serious F1 fans generally don't care for random chatty nonsense and would rather some more technical coverage and hopefully learn something new.

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I really hate the driver interviews before the podium. Generally boring and it takes the chaotic excitement out of the podium itself. I much preferred it when drivers were interviewed on the podium itself. We got some genuinely great and memorable moments that got the sport news coverage in places it usually wouldn't. Patrick Stewart doing a shoey for example.

I'd go back further than that and say I preferred formal press conferences for interviews. However I can understand the fan spectacle of interviewing them on the podium, despite the fact we'll just get fake PR responses by the drivers. But I agree with you, an interview after hopping out of the car is annoying, and would rather have them interviewed after podium celebrations.

With relation to the thread in general and of Sky coverage, I've pretty much stopped watching pre and post race coverage. This is mainly because I don't have the time anymore, but also because after six years or so of Sky coverage, I've gotten sick of the exact same fairy cakes of Johnny Herbert doing something stupid and boring driver interviews asking the same questions. They should tailor their coverage to more serious F1 fans, and serious F1 fans generally don't care for random chatty nonsense and would rather some more technical coverage and hopefully learn something new.

Yeah I'd too go back to the formal press conference, but for the fans attending the race maybe a quick podium interview as well.

I agree with everything Hog, except for the graphics which I feel the opposite. The more information the better and its not like they are ever over the action. The action isn’t ever at the edges and framed accordingly. The tyre data is useless though and needs to go.

Covalent wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I really hate the driver interviews before the podium. Generally boring and it takes the chaotic excitement out of the podium itself. I much preferred it when drivers were interviewed on the podium itself. We got some genuinely great and memorable moments that got the sport news coverage in places it usually wouldn't. Patrick Stewart doing a shoey for example.

I'd go back further than that and say I preferred formal press conferences for interviews. However I can understand the fan spectacle of interviewing them on the podium, despite the fact we'll just get fake PR responses by the drivers. But I agree with you, an interview after hopping out of the car is annoying, and would rather have them interviewed after podium celebrations.

With relation to the thread in general and of Sky coverage, I've pretty much stopped watching pre and post race coverage. This is mainly because I don't have the time anymore, but also because after six years or so of Sky coverage, I've gotten sick of the exact same fairy cakes of Johnny Herbert doing something stupid and boring driver interviews asking the same questions. They should tailor their coverage to more serious F1 fans, and serious F1 fans generally don't care for random chatty nonsense and would rather some more technical coverage and hopefully learn something new.

Yeah I'd too go back to the formal press conference, but for the fans attending the race maybe a quick podium interview as well.

Yes,

I think you can do both. A fun podium interview which can be a bit of a laugh for the fans and a more serious press conference afterwards.

mikeyg123 wrote:I really hate the driver interviews before the podium. Generally boring and it takes the chaotic excitement out of the podium itself. I much preferred it when drivers were interviewed on the podium itself. We got some genuinely great and memorable moments that got the sport news coverage in places it usually wouldn't. Patrick Stewart doing a shoey for example.

That is something I had forgotten too and is another big issue. It feels too rushed and chaotic. The drivers are not going to be in the best mood for talking to the media instantly when they get out their car. And if something very unfortunate happened near the end of the race (such as Leclerc from 1st to 3rd) Many drivers will not be able to control what they say. Leclerc did really well. Others will not. The media should not talk to them until they have had to recover in the cool down room. It was so much better as you say when they were interviewed on the podium.

I don't know if this counts and I'm probably alone with this opinion, but I can't stand the cameras that are run over by the cars, presumably to give some sense of speed or how close they are. All they do for me is make me want to close my eyes until they switch to a different camera again.

The most singular thing annoys the hell out of me, and seems to have been done for no (obvious) particular reason is the '10 minutes past the hour' start times. Why? Just WHY!!!!!

10 minute past the hour is to allow longer and better coverage for many regions where F1 is crammed into a schedule.

Most TV shows are scheduled on the hour or half past the hour. In many regions F1 show would start at say 1pm and the race would start at 1pm. The coverage would literally start with the cars on the warm up lap. Zero build up and straight into the race. The extra 10 minutes is to allow these regions to do a 10 minute pre show.

Johnson wrote:10 minute past the hour is to allow longer and better coverage for many regions where F1 is crammed into a schedule.

Most TV shows are scheduled on the hour or half past the hour. In many regions F1 show would start at say 1pm and the race would start at 1pm. The coverage would literally start with the cars on the warm up lap. Zero build up and straight into the race. The extra 10 minutes is to allow these regions to do a 10 minute pre show.

Oh yeah, I forgot they have to allocate all that extra time to interview loads of celebrities!!

But why 10 past! Isnt 15 past is more logical? (It plays havoc with my OCD!)

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I really hate the driver interviews before the podium. Generally boring and it takes the chaotic excitement out of the podium itself. I much preferred it when drivers were interviewed on the podium itself. We got some genuinely great and memorable moments that got the sport news coverage in places it usually wouldn't. Patrick Stewart doing a shoey for example.

That is something I had forgotten too and is another big issue. It feels too rushed and chaotic. The drivers are not going to be in the best mood for talking to the media instantly when they get out their car. And if something very unfortunate happened near the end of the race (such as Leclerc from 1st to 3rd) Many drivers will not be able to control what they say. Leclerc did really well. Others will not. The media should not talk to them until they have had to recover in the cool down room. It was so much better as you say when they were interviewed on the podium.

I think that's precisely the reason why we do them.

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I really hate the driver interviews before the podium. Generally boring and it takes the chaotic excitement out of the podium itself. I much preferred it when drivers were interviewed on the podium itself. We got some genuinely great and memorable moments that got the sport news coverage in places it usually wouldn't. Patrick Stewart doing a shoey for example.

That is something I had forgotten too and is another big issue. It feels too rushed and chaotic. The drivers are not going to be in the best mood for talking to the media instantly when they get out their car. And if something very unfortunate happened near the end of the race (such as Leclerc from 1st to 3rd) Many drivers will not be able to control what they say. Leclerc did really well. Others will not. The media should not talk to them until they have had to recover in the cool down room. It was so much better as you say when they were interviewed on the podium.

I think that's precisely the reason why we do them.

Oh well, the media should never have to apologise for swearing then!

We've been lucky not to have drivers like Verstappen in Leclerc's situation in Bahrain.

Would be interesting to see what happens when they interview a driver that was leading on the last lap then got bumped into and lost 2 potions. This sort of thing could have happened in Austria 2016 had Rosberg not lost all 3 positions. I don't know what his reactions will have been if he was interviewed right out the car.

I think that reading all these annoyances is more annoying than the current F1 show (is annoying). I like F1 about the same as I did in 2015, or 2002, or 1995, or 1989, or 1979, or 1966...

Gimmicks come and go. The show is here for the long haul. Carry on...

From our coverage here in the US I always liked Bob Varsha. He left the joke cracking to David Hobbs and occasionally to Steve Matchett, the two color commentators. Bob just pretty much announced the race and facilitated the discussion with the commentators and the pit reporter(s).

Please give me an announcer who knows enough about Formula 1 not to trip over his own stupidity, but also doesn't have to be the center of attention. Let the commentators be the Grand Old Men of the Sport.

Exediron wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:One thing I've noticed (I watch Sky) is the clear desire to increase the number of meaningless stats presented to us. Seems a very american sports type thing. I love stats if they're interesting or relevant but many of the ones the commentators are clearly being told to trot out are neither.

I feel like that's just Crofty. He's always got some annoyingly irrelevant stat floating around in his bonnet, but the others don't seem to do it so much.

Honestly, a lot of what's wrong with the Sky coverage comes down to Crofty…

LMAO Crofty is like the Larry Merchant of F1.

Merchant would always offer some literary reference from books written by famous authors that had nothing to do with anything and would take the long way to nowhere to ties it into his assessments and analytic opinions.

sandman1347 wrote:Honestly I'd like to see both Crofty and Brundle replaced for different reasons. Croft for his incompetence and lack of focus and Brundle for the fact that his views fail to evolve with current events. The broadcast is in need of fresh blood.

IDK if anyone else here got to watch GP2 races when Will Buxton was calling the races but OMG he was sensational!
I couldn't stand Buxton initially and getting used to his bouncing and hand gestures was difficult but once I heard him calling the GP2 races all that disappeared in an instant! He was as my friends across the pond say… BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!

He knew all the stats off the top of his head, he made every call correctly, he guessed right on team strategies and scenarios, and he offered just the right level of excitement without over exaggerating and no shouting!… He was fantastic. I think he and Brundle might work well together because Brundle's insight on certain things is excellent, but Buxton would keep things on track (no pun intended) and keep the audience engaged and interested throughout the entire broadcast.

i don't watch the pre race fluff. much of the time i find myself hearing the announcers, but not really listening (if that makes sense) the tire graphic is laughable, but oh well.

i watch the sky coverage in the states. steve machete would be a welcome return for me, doubt he is interested in traveling all the time though

i've said it before and still believe it, even though i don't like the sky team, it beats no f1, on television, in the states. which is what we had for decades

Lots of complaints about Crofty on Sky... think yourselves lucky that the UK coverage doesn't have the godawful Jonathan Legard any more. At that time I opted for Crofty's BBC radio commentary instead, it was far better than Legard's inane babbling.

j man wrote:Lots of complaints about Crofty on Sky... think yourselves lucky that the UK coverage doesn't have the godawful Jonathan Legard any more. At that time I opted for Crofty's BBC radio commentary instead, it was far better than Legard's inane babbling.

It frightens me to think who could be described as inane babbling when compared to Crofty!

I actually thought legard was okay, he has a lot of passion in his voice and was quite funny to laugh at his commentary, especially "PROBLEMS, HES GOT PROBLEMS"

It's a little hard for me to judge because we got the NBCSN broadcast in the US before and now get the Sky-through-ESPN, but I'm not at all sure most of the problems laid forth began under Liberty. They haven't done as much as I'd like to change some things to be sure, but there were definitely annoying and irrelevant shots of clueless celebrities before they took over - at least on the NBCSN coverage - and I understand that Crofty has been a big problem for some time. The graphics have been a mixed bag. I actually mostly like the theme music; it works well enough, and it's better than nothing or a random-seeming and not-very-relevant existing piece of music. I very much appreciate the commercial-free broadcast of qualifying and the race.

I don't like the new predictive graphics. I want the information to make guesses about how the strategy will play out, but I don't want a graphic telling me how it's likely to play out. That comes across as slightly insulting, and mostly annoying. I also don't like the "fight for X position" graphic where they highlight several drivers and eliminate the more useful information of the gaps temporarily; again, we can tell who's fighting, and I at least want the information that we can't get otherwise from watching. I don't particularly care where the drivers get interviewed after the race, although I did slightly prefer the podium interview.

I am annoyed that the F1 streaming still doesn't have a good option for the TV, and I don't understand why they seem to be prioritizing more silly things for smart phones over that. Could be a rights thing, though.

I do think that the website and the YouTube channel have improved. I don't use social media much (and only at all because it's useful for my job), so I can't much comment on that, but I get the impression it's a positive improvement. If they do indeed succeed in equalizing the payments going foreward that will be a very big improvement.

I'm wary of some things that Liberty have been doing or are trying to do (a second U.S. race in Miami, yet more emphasis on "the show" instead of the sport, some occasional rather clumsy things like the driver announcement at CotA two years ago), but so far the trend seems overall more good than bad, and that includes the coverage.

I didn't see the trophy mix-up at the US GP because I was there in person and making my way out of my seat at the time, but it sounds like a mess-up. I'm not sure if it would be Liberty's fault, though; do they arrange that, or is it up to the track? It seems it could be either.

Really, the worst thing about the coverage to me is pretty consistently Crofty. I do not believe that "clueless fool who babbles about irrelevant things constantly" is a necessary niche to be filled for the commentary team, and even if one assumes that it is, he's worse than usual. I would rather not have any commentary unless there is something to, well, commentate on - silence is fine otherwise.

I'm also not a fan of some of the speculative graphics like 6% chance of overtake. What rubbish. Give us gaps, laptimes, pitstops and tyre compounds, we can do the rest.

FormulaFun wrote:I actually thought legard was okay, he has a lot of passion in his voice and was quite funny to laugh at his commentary, especially "PROBLEMS, HES GOT PROBLEMS"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iEt9SmVLeY

I am not at all familiar with this. But even what are apparently annoying bits, he is IMO nowhere near as bad as Crofty.

DOLOMITE wrote:I'm also not a fan of some of the speculative graphics like 6% chance of overtake. What rubbish. Give us gaps, laptimes, pitstops and tyre compounds, we can do the rest.

Yea. Are you sure it is 6%? it might be 6.99%. Even if it jumped up in 10% steps, it would be terribly inaccurate. It will be at soemthing like 70% often, then when the driver catches up and hits the dirty air, the percentage goes down. That happened too much. There is no point it showing a percentage if it keeps changing. This graphic should be removed totally.

Randine wrote:

Invade wrote:Who might be the best replacement for Crofty?


***

Anyway - back on topic...

The official F1 Youtube channel has vastly improved since Liberty Media took the reins. The features are better and more frequent, and the addition of the race analysis features by Jolyon Palmer are truly excellent.

To add to that, the F1 website is much better too.
As is social media stuff like Instagram.
The old site was very filtered/sanitised.
The new one has opinion articles etc and don’t hide away from some of the heated exchanges (for example on team radio.)
Last race team radio: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... mehlb.html

Coverage issues for me are more around who they show on track. There have been some immense battles in the midfield, yet sometimes they just show the leaders lapping in clear air.
Not really coverage related, but the narrower smaller cars were better as they had more room on track to overtake. 1.8 meters to 2 meters isn’t much, but that is 40cm (1 ft 4 inches) wider with 2 cars side by side trying to navigate a corner...

Last things first, yes I can only agree that the narrower cars were the better option for a F1 that lays more importance on overtaking - regardless of whether I think that's where the emphasis needs to be. The wider cars were "needed" to increase downforce, which was needed to score new lap records every race. I've yet to come across a headline that makes much of one of those lap records, while the drivers are now saying themselves that all that downforce makes F1 too simple. And they are right.

I can't really complain about the website, as the only thing lacking for me is the gaps during live timing. Invade is right in mentioning Jolyon Palmer. Although I was sad when he left F1 as a driver, I really enjoy his insights and impartiality.

For most of the time I've been following F1 on the telly, it has been on RTBF, with a commentator who doesn't overdo the excitement show, is rather good in inviting guests into his cabin - Stoffel Vandoorne being one of his more insightful ones - and the best thing is that its commercial breaks aren't planned, but timed to coincide with SC periods and/or other lower interest phases. But also, it is paid for by our taxes, so nearly free to view.

All in all, I think F1 have done fairly well, and they seem to be getting the idea that it's not all showbusiness. So some of the graphics may be toned down a bit, or taken away (overtake expectations).