Formula 1 2020 - General Discussion Thread (See MOD warning on first post)

mickdw

skipper_G wrote: »

He was definitely from The Sun, but I didn't catch his name. Pure tabloid journo at work

Ben hunt id say.
I heard the question and to be honest, it wasnt anything that Wolff couldnt have easily batted away.

Chong

Just checking in as a returning re - invigorated old time fan of F1 from watching with Drive to Survive with my wife, who seemingly absolutely loves this. I see on the F1 site that its on Eir Sport? is that true or incorrect?

PopePalpatine

Nope, IIRC Eir lost the rights a couple of weeks before the 2019 season started. I only switched to Eir a few months before then just because of the F1 rights. :mad:

Chong

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Nope, IIRC Eir lost the rights a couple of weeks before the 2019 season started. I only switched to Eir a few months before then just because of the F1 rights. :mad:

F Sake, looks like its the Channel 4 highlights package for us then.

eljono

skipper_G wrote: »

He was definitely from The Sun, but I didn't catch his name. Pure tabloid journo at work

mickdw wrote: »

Ben hunt id say.
I heard the question and to be honest, it wasnt anything that Wolff couldnt have easily batted away.

Yeah, Toto handled it excellently I thought . The "journo" appeared quite smug that Mercedes had done badly, his whole attitude stunk. Generally I find the majority of people in F1 come across as decent, smart, nice people. This guy stood out for being such a prick 😄

flazio

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Nope, IIRC Eir lost the rights a couple of weeks before the 2019 season started. I only switched to Eir a few months before then just because of the F1 rights. :mad:

It wasn't a couple of weeks before the 2019 season. It was known around the same time we knew that Channel 4 was losing all its live races, so back in 2017 actually.
I'd hold off on buying the Now TV passes for a while yet. The race is turning up live on Sky One on my TV guide.

flazio

eljono wrote: »

Yeah, Toto handled it excellently I thought . The "journo" appeared quite smug that Mercedes had done badly, his whole attitude stunk. Generally I find the majority of people in F1 come across as decent, smart, nice people. This guy stood out for being such a prick 😄

In reply to the attack Mercedes-Benz brought out this tweet.
https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1234087657648664577?s=19

Personally I cannot think of a single positive thing that the tabloid media bring to society.

AMKC

flazio wrote: »

It wasn't a couple of weeks before the 2019 season. It was known around the same time we knew that Channel 4 was losing all its live races, so back in 2017 actually.
I'd hold off on buying the Now TV passes for a while yet. The race is turning up live on Sky One on my TV guide.

Nice one. Mine too. No live Qualifying do. Will watch that on C4 so.

GarIT

F1i.com says all of Alfa Tauri and some Ferrari staff have left for Melbourne, some Ferrari staff are on lockdown but may be allowed to travel under the undefferable work needs rule.

Luimneach2018

I started watching F1 in 1994.

I kind of liked it, and If I was at home on a Sunday I'd throw it on.

The controversial ending to the 1994 season got me a bit more hooked and I kept a keen eye throughout 1995 to see how this Schumacher v Hill rivalry played out.

At the end of 1995 I got up early to watch the Australian Grand Prix live. I would continue to do so for many years for this and the Japanese Grand Prix.

The Schumacher Hill rivalry came to an end in 1996 as Schumacher's Ferrari was a shi*box reliability wise but I was in awe of this young Canadian who would have won his debut race had his Williams not sprung an oil leak. I was 11 years old then, became a Villeneuve fan and was saddened by his wheel flying off as Suzuka but happy for Hill all the same.

1997, Jacques eventually won the title - in hindsight, given the car he had he should have won it with a few races to spare - but needless to say I wasn't best pleased with this Schumacher fellow for trying to take him out.

That changed soon. I was a bit despondent after the 1998 Australian Grand Prix when it appeared the McLaren's were so much faster than everyone else that they would fight each other for the title and lap the rest of the field in every race in the process. Schumacher took the fight to them in an inferior (but not terrible) car and he became my hero.

From the start of the 1998 season until sometime in the middle of the 2003 season I didn't miss a single live qualification session or race. (Reason that run came to an end was I started going out with my first serious girlfriend!!)

I finished secondary school in 2002.

In school, I always had plenty of mates to speak to about F1. At work for my first few jobs there were always people to talk to about F1.

Now; nobody I know at work has any real interest in F1. The only people I talk to about F1 are people I'm still in touch with that I talked about F1 with 20 years ago!

Free to air wasn't so bad. I know for a fact I wouldn't be into F1 now was it not for free to air when I was a kid. Kids nowadays can only get into F1 if their parents have bought a Sky subscription.

Look, I can afford to pay it, and I do, but it is not good value for money, they are overcharging Irish F1 fans, especially given how Sky won't allow subscribers to pay for the F1 on its own like they do in the UK. But the only reason I'm paying for it is due to my interest being made possible back in the day by free to air tv.

It's too expensive on Sky, and if someone wants to childishly imply that I'm not a "real fan" for criticising the exorbitant cost; well let's just say I'd have some vulgar terms with which I would describe such a person.

recyclebin

Sky ride Irish viewers for everything. The Irish rights for most sports costs them a pittance yet they charge us more than in the UK for every package and give us less channels (None of the ITVs, Channels 5s etc). I watch F1 and soccer via other means as a result.

murphyebass

Mod edit. Either be nice or dont post at all

murphyebass

Not sure what you mean mod, it was a nice story about how the poster became a fan. I was just acknowledging that.

Outside of that I’ve consistently said I believe the current offering from sky is decent value for money.

Those pine’ing for ye old free to air days of the past need to move on. Things change. F1 is no longer free to watch like a lot of other things I’m life.

If you want to watch the sport you love pay for it, support it and enjoy it.

El_Duderino 09

AMKC wrote: »

Nice one. Mine too. No live Qualifying do. Will watch that on C4 so.

The quali is always live on the BBC radio app (changes name to BBC sounds). And there's the F1 live timing app too. Between them both, you can follow the quali very well.

The TV can be a distraction when you're trying to follow quali. Seeing a car sweep through turns for a couple of seconds a shot, isn't actually much good in quali. Radio and live timing app area actually much better for quali. But the race is better with the TV.

El_Duderino 09

murphyebass wrote: »

If you want to watch the sport you love pay for it, support it and enjoy it.

Or don't pay for it, spend the money on other things in your life and lose touch with the sport. That's what loads of people are doing. And more importantly, new fans aren't starting by forking out hundreds of euro, so they never get into it.

The age profile of the average f1 fan much have gotten older since moving behind a pay wall.

Wanderer78

murphyebass wrote:

If you want to watch the sport you love pay for it, support it and enjoy it.

Many of us have explained why we don't, subscription tv is doing a lot of damage to sports in general, hence the rise in alternatives to view, monopolisation of viewing rights is dangerous and simply unethical, I expect the rise in alternatives to continue. People move to alternatives due to the passion they have for sports, so its got little or nothing to do about being cheap etc

pjohnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Or don't pay for it, spend the money on other things in your life and lose touch with the sport. That's what loads of people are doing. And more importantly, new fans aren't starting by forking out hundreds of euro, so they never get into it.

The age profile of the average f1 fan much have gotten older since moving behind a pay wall.

Once again Nope. Opposite actually age profile getting younger.

https://www.sportcal.com/Insight/Features/126889

pyramuid man

flazio wrote: »

In reply to the attack Mercedes-Benz brought out this tweet.
https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1234087657648664577?s=19

Personally I cannot think of a single positive thing that the tabloid media bring to society.

I watched the same episode last night and knew as soon as the question was asked that it was the Sun reporter. Not because I knew who he was or what he looked like but more because of the question.

El_Duderino 09

pjohnson wrote: »

Once again Nope. Opposite actually age profile getting younger.

https://www.sportcal.com/Insight/Features/126889

It very cleverly declares that the average f1 fan age is decreasing, but it doesn't actually report on the average f1 fab age. it says the majority (60%) of new fans are under 35, but that doesn't tell us anything about the over all number of new fans or whether the average age is going up or down.

Isn't it interesting that they measured so many things except the average f1 fan age? Instead they just declare the average age to be falling. I think you've been duped.

pjohnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It very cleverly declares that the average f1 fan age is decreasing, but it doesn't actually report on the average f1 fab age. it says the majority (60%) of new fans are under 35, but that doesn't tell us anything about the over all number of new fans or whether the average age is going up or down.

Isn't it interesting that they measured so many things except the average f1 fan age? Instead they just declare the average age to be falling. I think you've been duped.

"46% of F1 fans are now under 35"

Why am I not suprised you ignored this part. I should know better.


F1 is restricted by the Sky deal but has done brilliantly on other social platforms + Drive to Survive on Netflix. Some will undoubtedly still keep on about a non existant decline. (Again similar to what is going on with TV in general especially among this "younger" group)

pjohnson

Anyway back to the 2020 season Sergio Sette Camara has left McLaren and returned to the Red Bull stable and is now sharing the reserve and test roles at both Red Bull and AlphaTauri (with Sebastien Buemi of course)

El_Duderino 09

pjohnson wrote: »

"46% of F1 fans are now under 35"

Why am I not suprised you ignored this part. I should know better.


F1 is restricted by the Sky deal but has done brilliantly on other social platforms + Drive to Survive on Netflix. Some will undoubtedly still keep on about a non existant decline. (Again similar to what is going on with TV in general especially among this "younger" group)

And is there anything to compare that 46% figure to? What tells you the average age is falling or not rising?

Vegeta

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And is there anything to conspire that 46% figure to? What tells you the average age is falling or not rising?

The report in the article states this:

While over 70% of fans have been following the sport for more than 10 years, the average age of respondents fell below 36 for the first time since the studies began over a decade ago

It's on page 11

El_Duderino 09

Vegeta wrote: »

The report in the article states this:


It's on page 11

Fair enough. Depends on how you get your data, mind. Landline questionnaires would get a very different answer to links on f1 videos on instagam

AMKC

Oil dropped to its lowest price since the 1st Gulf War today. It was below 30 dollars a barrel. Its around 30 dollars 70 cent now and hopefully with not go above 40 dollars ever again. Great news for F1 and all of us happy to see that.

Wanderer78

AMKC wrote:

Oil dropped to its lowest price since the 1st Gulf War today. It was below 30 dollars a barrel. Its around 30 dollars 70 cent now and hopefully with not go above 40 dollars ever again. Great news for F1 and all of us happy to see that.

Yup, volatile markets are always a good thing!

Vegeta

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair enough. Depends on how you get your data, mind. Landline questionnaires would get a very different answer to links on f1 videos on instagam

Definitely, they have the source in there and it was an online survey at www.f1survey.motorsport.com

Whether or not online surveys capture a true sample of the population should be a genuine concern. However it could represent the target demographic so they might be ok with that.

Luimneach2018

Bare statistics can be used to "prove" anything. Sometimes it helps to dig a little deeper, not just take everything at face value.

From that same survey - on the 36th page; "Impacts of Pay TV on Formula 1 Viewing"

The Impact of Pay TV – balancing the
viewer volume and value equation

With less than a quarter of F1’s most avid
fans attending a GP each year, Formula 1 is
a heavily ‘media-reliant’ sport.

In 2017, the fan feedback shows a marked
improvement in overall F1 satisfaction
and brand appeal, along with a clear
recognition that F1 has re-established itself
as the pinnacle of motorsport and the
sporting arena for the world’s best drivers.

Furthermore, F1 fans have displayed
a clear preference for accessing F1
news, information and coverage via
a combination of live television and
dedicated motorsport digital platforms.

They are prepared to invest signifcant time
in following their favourite sport through
watching the full Grand Prix plus pre-race
and post-race analysis live on TV.

And yet, despite all these clear and positive
indications of F1’s health and appeal, the
overall number of fans accessing the
sport on TV has declined by nearly 25%
since 2010.

This seemingly inconsistent picture has
at its root one single contributing factor
– the growth of Pay TV, and its increased
prevalence in core F1 markets.

Since 2010, we have recorded a marked
decline in F1 TV viewing, and in 2015 we
set out to explore this phenomenon in
more detail. The 2015 Study established
that over 50% of fans were either missing
entire races or only viewing highlights
when live races were limited to Pay TV
platforms. The impact on viewing habits as
a result of the changes to broadcast output
was most keenly felt in Europe.

In 2017, the downward pressure on live
race viewing due to Pay TV continues.
Globally, 40% of fans watched less F1 due
to the impact of Pay TV, with the impact in
Europe once again being the most acute.

Mirroring the results in 2015, the number
of fans adversely affected by F1’s move to
Pay TV is split equally between those who
miss entire races and those restricted to
watching highlights when available on freeto-air channels.

In 2017, 48% of F1 fans surveyed indicated
no change in their overall F1 viewing
habits, up from 38% in 2015, with 12%
of fans now watching more F1 coverage
thanks to the increased quantity of
programming and the ability to view F1
output on demand through their Pay TV
providers (See Chart 7.5).

Vegeta

Luimneach2018 wrote: »

Bare statistics can be used to "prove" anything. Sometimes it helps to dig a little deeper, not just take everything at face value.

From that same survey - on the 36th page; "Impacts of Pay TV on Formula 1 Viewing"

So if we combine both pieces of information, a decrease in average age and less people watching on TV, then you could hypothesise that it is the higher age bracket who are not willing to pay to watch F1

Luimneach2018

Vegeta wrote: »

So if we combine both pieces of information, a decrease in average age and less people watching on TV, then you could hypothesise that it is the higher age bracket who are not willing to pay to watch F1

What percentage of the people surveyed were from a nation where people have access to free to air tv?

What is the age demographic of those who who are in a paywall tv market?

What is the age demographic of those in the free to air tv market?

Within all the above sub groups what is the proportion of those willing to pay to those who aren't?

If your hypothesis stands up to the above then I will accept it. However, the survey doesn't go into that detail.

Like I said, statistics can be used to "prove" anything. With respect, your hypothesis is agenda based (most are, not going to pretend my argument isn't) and can't be proven with the linked survey. (In the interest of fairness however, the absence of sufficient detail in the survey also means your hypothesis can't be disproved) So in conclusion; inconclusive!