An extra HD red button channel and additional other channels which will be used during the British GP, I guess the onboard feed will make a return to Freeview
Not sure how much extra we will see that particular weekend.Glastonbury is on the same weekend and it is also the middle weekend for Wimbledon. I think there is no tennis on the Sunday if the weather behaves, but Glastonbury should be in HD if not being covered on BBC2 leaving the SD RB for Pit Lane.
After that, I do hope they keep both RB channels running, since we can then have On-Board on the SD channel (since the cameras are only SD anyway) and the Pit-lane channel in HD.
In case you didn't realise, numbers and data are an integral part of F1, and if a presenter struggles to get their head around even the rudiments of this then they should not be fronting such a show. I do agree however that she would be be more suited to a chitty chatty type of show, nothing to intellectually demanding though, say, Loose Women.
As for potential, how long do you need? Is the 15 odd years she presented superbikes/motogp not long enough for you to see this is as good as she's ever going to get?
I didn't watch her when she did the bikes and you have to admit the more illustrious world of F1 is going to be seen as a step up for her since it commands more viewing figures, so no wonder it's a big adjustment.
I think you lost all credibility with the Loose Women comment so there's no point continuing this further, but all I'm saying is the tired old point that even Jake wasn't the smooth professional he became in his first season, so Suzi has a while to go yet.
For anyone who wants to listen, our old friend Georgie Thompson is on TalkSport's Hawksbee and Jacob's show between 1pm and 4pm tomorrow. I wonder if she'll say anything remotely interesting... I think it is her first post-Sky F1 talkshow interview.
I think you lost all credibility with the Loose Women comment so there's no point continuing this further, but all I'm saying is the tired old point that even Jake wasn't the smooth professional he became in his first season, so Suzi has a while to go yet.
If you think the vain, wooden, 'speaks like a toddler learning to talk' Humphrey ever became a smooth professional then at least we agree on one thing - it would be a waste of my time and yours to continue this further.
Here's an interesting video giving a behind the scenes look at how coverage of the Porsche IMSA GT3 Cup Challenge series is produced http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQGlFObRDdg
I read that Gary Anderson will not be on the BBC TV coverage when McNish can't do his radio duties. I'm sure it's been answered pages back but any idea how often this will be?
Really miss him when he's not there. Makes Kravitz sound like he has the technical knowledge of a woman who doesn't know a dipstick from her elbow.
I read that Gary Anderson will not be on the BBC TV coverage when McNish can't do his radio duties. I'm sure it's been answered pages back but any idea how often this will be?
Really miss him when he's not there. Makes Kravitz sound like he has the technical knowledge of a woman who doesn't know a dipstick from her elbow.
Very often. I think McNish only attends 5 or so races.
I read that Gary Anderson will not be on the BBC TV coverage when McNish can't do his radio duties. I'm sure it's been answered pages back but any idea how often this will be?
Really miss him when he's not there. Makes Kravitz sound like he has the technical knowledge of a woman who doesn't know a dipstick from her elbow.
Gary pops in to the TV commentary and also does 5live commentary. He gives his view on strategy a few times per race. I like him in the box rather than the pit-lane. Am not sure on Tom Clarkson in the pit-lane, suppose needs time to build up his contacts.
Gary pops in to the TV commentary and also does 5live commentary. He gives his view on strategy a few times per race. I like him in the box rather than the pit-lane. Am not sure on Tom Clarkson in the pit-lane, suppose needs time to build up his contacts.
I was expecting Tom Clarkson to start at a pretty high level, he's been a F1 print journalist for years although whether he was paddock based I don't know.
F1 Digital+ long gone, much missed but never forgotten and as Matt says paved the way.
Nice link....thanks...
It's defo useful to see as many of us who comment on here have no idea what is meant by 'F1 - The Verdict' as we have no experience of a programme nearly a decade ago!!! It's nice to see some footage to it all. I know the usual thread creator disagrees with me on this but I do think it's time 'Verdict' was dropped from the thread title, it's pretty obvious this will always be the place to find the F1 coverage thread. I think because so much time has passed since F1 digital + existed the phrase 'The Verdict' means such a different thing to newer viewers. In my opinion it borderline invites hostility into the thread as 'verdicts' tend to be highly subjective and unavoidable debate dynamite to others!! We want a discussion in here, not endless verdicts and passionate defenses against them.
F1 Digital closed over a decade ago, I'm annoyed I'll never see it in its true state, but I feel we should move on from a product that is meaningless to a large portion of this threads contributers. It's akin to radio Luxemburg, the product has long gone, it would be wrong to give opinions in the name of it as such x
It's always been the verdict, we give our verdicts and plenty of us long term posters discussed it some time ago now. Personally, it should stay - it's who we are.
No reason to change it. Why change what isn't broken? As mentioned by the previous poster, we give our verdict on the various aspects of F1 broadcasting coverage (or other motorsport broadcasting coverage if there's no F1 around) and discuss them.
It's always been the verdict, we give our verdicts and plenty of us long term posters discussed it some time ago now. Personally, it should stay - it's who we are.
Not quite....it's how some of you are.
I was told the reason it's called 'The Verdict' was because it's a direct reference to the digital + days.....those days are over. It wasn't due to literally wanting a 'verdict' for everything.
Let me put this another way, should the same band always headline glastonbury each year or should times move forward?
I don't see why it would be a loss to have verdict removed from the title next time and simply call the thread 'F1 Coverage 2013'...it's a lot less antogonistic imo, as this thread constantly turns into BBC vs Sky and so on. I don't understand why it's such a big stretch, you're stating the thread is "because that's who we are"...well that's not really fair on posters who have no idea about the digital plus days and is borderline akin to having an inherent 'clique'.
This thread could on the whole do with being a lot less devisive and I feel it's very confrontational nature puts people off who otherwise would join in. As much as like reading regular posters replies, it does get predictable seeing the only the same faces and the same themes in their comments.
So you're comparing Glastonbury to an internet forum? Sorry but there's absolutely no reason in my view to change the title. It is a verdict. It's a verdict on F1 and general motorsport broadcasting coverage. This has been discussed before, and nobody came up with a reason even close to being good enough to change the title. I don't see this time being any different.
So you're comparing Glastonbury to an internet forum? Sorry but there's absolutely no reason in my view to change the title. It is a verdict. It's a verdict on F1 and general motorsport broadcasting coverage. This has been discussed before, and nobody came up with a reason even close to being good enough to change the title. I don't see this time being any different.
Forgvie me but what a way to miss a point....
I making the point you can't keep forever having things the same as they were before. just because that's how you liked it back then, it's dismissive of newer people. For example my old boy would only ever have AC/DC headlining Glastonbury, anything else is rubbish new stuff to him and therefore shouldn't be allowed......see the anallergy now?
And likewise nobody's ever come up with anything much better than 'it's the way it's always been'.
It's no biggie in the grand scheme of things, but something I find interesting noticing the reluctance and the reasoning behind it.
Er......no it isn't. It's basic enough to everyone to understand what the thread is, and what it's about. By all means, carry on trying to give a good reason to change the title, but don't expect it to change unless there is a good enough reason, which is extremely unlikely. The reason people say "it's the way it's always been" is because it is the way it's always been, and the reason it's never changed is because there's never been a good reason to change it.
Er......no it isn't. It's basic enough to everyone to understand what the thread is, and what it's about. By all means, carry on trying to give a good reason to change the title, but don't expect it to change unless there is a good enough reason, which is extremely unlikely. The reason people say "it's the way it's always been" is because it is the way it's always been, and the reason it's never changed is because there's never been a good reason to change it.
Do you feel the phrase 'F1 - Coverage' wouldn't be descriptive enough for people? Why does the word 'verdict' actually need to be in it? People are clever enough to deduce the meaning with or without it.
At times this place reads like a clique and is very divisive, I would like to see some of the hostility taken out of it and stop turning every weekend into a BBC vs Sky repeat argument. It's hardly like this place attracts lot of new posters is it?
Writing this all down and explaining is making it sound a bigger issue then it is, it's not. But if we want some of the hosility taken out of then thread and make it more pleasing to read and engage with; then I feel taking out 'verdict' from the title is a step in the right direction. I lurked for years reading in here and always shied away from engaging as I thought I'd basically be entering fight club depending on the subject.
If you're going that far, why have coverage? It's the broadcasting forum, it's also superfluous. Plus, also discuss over series, so let's drop F1 too. Could just call it 'Motorsport' or something.
Comments
Not sure how much extra we will see that particular weekend.Glastonbury is on the same weekend and it is also the middle weekend for Wimbledon. I think there is no tennis on the Sunday if the weather behaves, but Glastonbury should be in HD if not being covered on BBC2 leaving the SD RB for Pit Lane.
After that, I do hope they keep both RB channels running, since we can then have On-Board on the SD channel (since the cameras are only SD anyway) and the Pit-lane channel in HD.
That's the beauty of these forums, we can all sound off with our opinion,
Some people hate Suzi, some hate Jake, some hate Lazenby.
I've watched both the Beeb's and Sky's coverage this weekend, i think they were both great.
F1 fans are blessed at the moment.
I'll take a boring Texas race over what we had before: at least everyone comes home safely.
I didn't watch her when she did the bikes and you have to admit the more illustrious world of F1 is going to be seen as a step up for her since it commands more viewing figures, so no wonder it's a big adjustment.
I think you lost all credibility with the Loose Women comment so there's no point continuing this further, but all I'm saying is the tired old point that even Jake wasn't the smooth professional he became in his first season, so Suzi has a while to go yet.
2 years i say, cant do it by then, never going to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQGlFObRDdg
Really miss him when he's not there. Makes Kravitz sound like he has the technical knowledge of a woman who doesn't know a dipstick from her elbow.
Very often. I think McNish only attends 5 or so races.
not really.
Gary pops in to the TV commentary and also does 5live commentary. He gives his view on strategy a few times per race. I like him in the box rather than the pit-lane. Am not sure on Tom Clarkson in the pit-lane, suppose needs time to build up his contacts.
I was expecting Tom Clarkson to start at a pretty high level, he's been a F1 print journalist for years although whether he was paddock based I don't know.
A channel on Sky called F1 Digital+ in 2002
Go on YT and you'll find a lot of stuff from the channel.
But I think these two will give you an idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Tczb3LcXI
About 25scs in is the relevant bit.
This video shows just why they go it right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztYrScwXDMM
................................
F1 Digital+ long gone, much missed but never forgotten and as Matt says paved the way.
Nice link....thanks...
It's defo useful to see as many of us who comment on here have no idea what is meant by 'F1 - The Verdict' as we have no experience of a programme nearly a decade ago!!! It's nice to see some footage to it all. I know the usual thread creator disagrees with me on this but I do think it's time 'Verdict' was dropped from the thread title, it's pretty obvious this will always be the place to find the F1 coverage thread. I think because so much time has passed since F1 digital + existed the phrase 'The Verdict' means such a different thing to newer viewers. In my opinion it borderline invites hostility into the thread as 'verdicts' tend to be highly subjective and unavoidable debate dynamite to others!! We want a discussion in here, not endless verdicts and passionate defenses against them.
F1 Digital closed over a decade ago, I'm annoyed I'll never see it in its true state, but I feel we should move on from a product that is meaningless to a large portion of this threads contributers. It's akin to radio Luxemburg, the product has long gone, it would be wrong to give opinions in the name of it as such
Not quite....it's how some of you are.
I was told the reason it's called 'The Verdict' was because it's a direct reference to the digital + days.....those days are over. It wasn't due to literally wanting a 'verdict' for everything.
Let me put this another way, should the same band always headline glastonbury each year or should times move forward?
I don't see why it would be a loss to have verdict removed from the title next time and simply call the thread 'F1 Coverage 2013'...it's a lot less antogonistic imo, as this thread constantly turns into BBC vs Sky and so on. I don't understand why it's such a big stretch, you're stating the thread is "because that's who we are"...well that's not really fair on posters who have no idea about the digital plus days and is borderline akin to having an inherent 'clique'.
This thread could on the whole do with being a lot less devisive and I feel it's very confrontational nature puts people off who otherwise would join in. As much as like reading regular posters replies, it does get predictable seeing the only the same faces and the same themes in their comments.
Forgvie me but what a way to miss a point....
I making the point you can't keep forever having things the same as they were before. just because that's how you liked it back then, it's dismissive of newer people. For example my old boy would only ever have AC/DC headlining Glastonbury, anything else is rubbish new stuff to him and therefore shouldn't be allowed......see the anallergy now?
And likewise nobody's ever come up with anything much better than 'it's the way it's always been'.
It's no biggie in the grand scheme of things, but something I find interesting noticing the reluctance and the reasoning behind it.
Er......no it isn't. It's basic enough to everyone to understand what the thread is, and what it's about. By all means, carry on trying to give a good reason to change the title, but don't expect it to change unless there is a good enough reason, which is extremely unlikely. The reason people say "it's the way it's always been" is because it is the way it's always been, and the reason it's never changed is because there's never been a good reason to change it.
Do you feel the phrase 'F1 - Coverage' wouldn't be descriptive enough for people? Why does the word 'verdict' actually need to be in it? People are clever enough to deduce the meaning with or without it.
At times this place reads like a clique and is very divisive, I would like to see some of the hostility taken out of it and stop turning every weekend into a BBC vs Sky repeat argument. It's hardly like this place attracts lot of new posters is it?
Writing this all down and explaining is making it sound a bigger issue then it is, it's not. But if we want some of the hosility taken out of then thread and make it more pleasing to read and engage with; then I feel taking out 'verdict' from the title is a step in the right direction. I lurked for years reading in here and always shied away from engaging as I thought I'd basically be entering fight club depending on the subject.
I'll leave it there.