Theres plenty to enjoy in P1. Lemans is the motorsport event that i most look forward too.
If you really want to get into it, you have to be listening to Radio Lemans, who also delve into F1. They supply the live comms for Motors TV and do a weekly podcast, the latest covered Caterham in depth.
WEC can be found on Eurosport too, theres a race on this week.
I agree that Le Mans is a must see. I've loved the event ever since my first, and only, visit in 1968, although I confess my main memory is of being cold and drenched. (It was held in September that year). Eurosports coverage the last few years has been excellent. I tend to not really notice endurance racing apart from Le Mans though. I'm probably not alone in not realising how extensive the series is. Now, however, I find my interest in F1 waning - for numerous reasons - and WEC is seeming more attractive. I've followed young Button for fifteen years. May as well continue to do so. I still think the series could benefit from more proactive promotion on a major FTA TV channel ITV4 are part way there with BTC.
In my post above, I said that my interest in F1 is waning. This whole pathetic saga is just one of the reasons why.
This is F1, FFS.
She has come out today and said that it doesn't look like she will be driving as she will not be able to get a Super Licence which IMO is the right choice as she doesn't have the experience of any cars that are close to the power of F1.
If she had done GP2 or Formula Renault 3.5 then I would say yes give her a run out.
She has come out today and said that it doesn't look like she will be driving as she will not be able to get a Super Licence which IMO is the right choice as she doesn't have the experience of any cars that are close to the power of F1.
Wait... she doesn't have a super-licence?
Did she think it was like going karting in Benidorm or something?
Just show up, pay your £25 and get a couple of hours on track.
*EDIT*
Update on CaterhamWatch...
I see they're up to 80% now and the deadline has been extended by 9 days, probably because it seems likely they'll reach their target.
Kinda bizarre situation really; a bunch of people raising £2.3m so the team can show up, race and the owners can pocket a couple of million quid from the sporting fund.
Thing is, this £2.3m isn't actually part of the corporate assets.
It's cash that's being donated by people on the basis that it'll cover the cost of them attending the last race without having an impact on corporate assets that might, instead, be used to pay off creditors.
Still kind of a dodgy situation, mind you.
After all, even if the £2.3m allows them to go racing, they're still taking things which are corporate assets, which could be sold in order to pay creditors, and risking them while racing.
I mean, if they use the £2.3m to go racing and there's a fire in their garage which writes off both cars and all their equipment, that's probably several million quid of corporate assets down the drain.
I guess the receiver's position is, basically, as follows:-
They can't touch the £2.3m because that's not a corporate asset.
They'll audit the hardware they take to Abu Dhabi so that it can be disposed of later to pay creditors.
They'll weigh the risk of loss of assets against the potential for accruing more assets as a result of finishing the season and being awarded cash from the sporting fund.
Assuming this does all go ahead, I guess the receiver will be taking the view that, overall, there's a chance that they'll smash up a couple of wings, maybe damage a gearbox or damage a car but that risk is acceptable compared to the potential for gaining more capital as a result of the payment from the sporting fund.
I think the situation at Caterham was rather different to the situation at Marussia, evident form the way the administrators have handled each company. I believe Marussia had large unresolved debts which forced the quick closure of the company as the expected increased income form completing the season and gaining the extra prize money did not cover the liabilities the firm had and the situation would have only got worse by continuing to operate. Marussia was a significantly larger operation than Caterham with much greater day-to-day operating costs. Marussia's only hope was to get new owners who could cover the debt and finance their operations going forward.
Caterham, because of the restructuring that has gone on throughout the season (they had already had a visit form the bailiffs, remember), have less liabilities and lower day-to-day costs but lacked the cash-flow to continue operating anyway. Hence why the relatively small amount of £2.3m was needed to allow them to attend the final race. I think the sudden jump in the pledges yesterday was due to a deal they have struck with a replacement driver to take Errikson's seat. Caterham can complete the season but the administrator then has to decide if the company can be viable for next season and I suspect without significant injection of funds the answer will be no.
Surely Cateram's problems and the end of the Marussia team must put pressure to renogotiate the sharing out the F1 cash? It's completely stupid that teams which do well as a result of being very well-funded by their corporate sponsors get nearly all the extra money too.
If it's not dramatically changed over the winter, how can the whole thing survive? It needs addressing in the next few weeks to give smaller (poorer) teams and their potential sponsors some hope that it's worth continuing.
Surely Cateram's problems and the end of the Marussia team must put pressure to renogotiate the sharing out the F1 cash? It's completely stupid that teams which do well as a result of being very well-funded by their corporate sponsors get nearly all the extra money too.
If it's not dramatically changed over the winter, how can the whole thing survive? It needs addressing in the next few weeks to give smaller (poorer) teams and their potential sponsors some hope that it's worth continuing.
To be fair, there's nothing really wrong with the idea of the winners getting more prize money than the people who don't win.
If you enter yourself in a race which offers a prize of £1,000 for first place, when you cross the line 59th out of 100 people, you don't expect to be given £10 to pay your bus fare home.
You expect that the winner gets the £1,000 and you expect that if you don't win you won't have money for the bus fare home.
If F1, the teams all know what they're entitled to from the sporting fund and they know that they also get prize money depending on how well they do.
It's certainly true that they could reduce the money from the prize fund and use it to give the teams more cash but there's nothing particularly unfair or underhanded about the current system.
Except for the extra $90m that Ferrari currently gets, of course.
To be fair, there's nothing really wrong with the idea of the winners getting more prize money than the people who don't win.
I'm in total agreement with you on this, but here's a thought. If we view F1 not only as a sport, but also as entertainment, which is it most obviously is nowadays, it is logical that the top of the bill gets the biggest appearance fee, but should we expect the performers at the foot of the bill to pay for their appearance?
Just an ex-musician's take on the subject.
To be fair, there's nothing really wrong with the idea of the winners getting more prize money than the people who don't win.
If you enter yourself in a race which offers a prize of £1,000 for first place, when you cross the line 59th out of 100 people, you don't expect to be given £10 to pay your bus fare home.
You expect that the winner gets the £1,000 and you expect that if you don't win you won't have money for the bus fare home.
If F1, the teams all know what they're entitled to from the sporting fund and they know that they also get prize money depending on how well they do.
It's certainly true that they could reduce the money from the prize fund and use it to give the teams more cash but there's nothing particularly unfair or underhanded about the current system.
Except for the extra $90m that Ferrari currently gets, of course.
I strongly object to the extent of the disparity. Someone linked to a graphic on here recently showing the share-out and the relative pittance the likes of Caterham and Marussia get is decidedly mean and limiting. Maybe it's meant to be to keep them down.
A running a race is not a useful comparison as the costs are in a completely different league. F1 is very expensive and more F1 funding for smaller teams would make a fairer more varied competition even if the prize element were reduced to allow it.
An alternative would be to limit team spending so less well funded teams could compete, which I believe they're considering but well-resourced teams want to keep their unfair advantage.
I'm in total agreement with you on this, but here's a thought. If we view F1 not only as a sport, but also as entertainment, which is it most obviously is nowadays, it is logical that the top of the bill gets the biggest appearance fee, but should we expect the performers at the foot of the bill to pay for their appearance?
Just an ex-musician's take on the subject.
Agree. There has got to be a way to spread the money around better. If not, why would the smaller teams go through the hassle of trying to stay afloat.
Mclaren have said they will wait until after the 1st December until they announce there driver line-up. To me this kind of sounds like a case of waiting to see if they will have to run a third car.
Mclaren have said they will wait until after the 1st December until they announce there driver line-up. To me this kind of sounds like a case of waiting to see if they will have to run a third car.
Possibly. Their declared reason that they don't want to distract from getting the best result in the final race is either untrue or disrespectful to both existing drivers - as if they wouldn't try their best if they knew they weren't being retained.
I can think of two reasons for the delay.
Firstly it may be that Dennis knows he wants to pick Magnussen and is hoping the final race bears out that decision so he doesn't look quite so foolish. It was interesting in the last race that they pitted Magnussen first - you could see on the tracker how that allowed Kevin to close up on Jenson a little (Jenson drew the lead out again though). It will be interesting to see if they try to advantage Magnussen at Jenson's expense in the last race.
Secondly, it might just be a financial strategy. The longer they leave it the less opportunities the drivers have left open to them and the more Dennis can call the shots on contracts.
But they are clearly not worried about Jenson getting fed up and jumping ship - I suspect that means they don't care if he does.
I found this link posted on another forum. Ron Dennis speaking about Magnusson's future (article dated 22.11.14)
key para translated (using an online translator so a bit clunky):
In an interview with TV3 Sport explains the CEO and shareholder of McLaren Group : "I have a strong desire that Denmark finally wakes up and realizes what a rare opportunity now offers . The country has the opportunity to help someone who may be a national sports legend loose . "
The 67 - year-old from Woking stressed : "I really hope that some Danish multinationals follow a traditional approach and recognize that life does not only revolves around money . It is also important to support his country and those people who represent it outwards towards . If offers such an opportunity , they should take this . I have contributed my part , now it 's your turn . "
Kevin Magnussen is supported by the Danish fashion entrepreneur Anders Holch Povlsen for years. The Dane is the owner of the best-selling group , Zalando Partnership and owner of brands Vero Moda , Jack & Jones , Only and Selected . He is regarded as the second richest man in the country and campaigned on Magnussen cars in the junior formulas with the brand Jack & Jones . Now he is represented at McLaren with the bestselling Store Asos.com on the MP4-29 . But apparently not enough of this commitment to secure Magnussen a cockpit for 2015 .
Does that mean McLaren need the sponsorship money or that Dennis feels he has given the Dane a start but that Kevin will need to continue elsewhere with sponsorship?
Comments
I agree that Le Mans is a must see. I've loved the event ever since my first, and only, visit in 1968, although I confess my main memory is of being cold and drenched. (It was held in September that year). Eurosports coverage the last few years has been excellent. I tend to not really notice endurance racing apart from Le Mans though. I'm probably not alone in not realising how extensive the series is. Now, however, I find my interest in F1 waning - for numerous reasons - and WEC is seeming more attractive. I've followed young Button for fifteen years. May as well continue to do so. I still think the series could benefit from more proactive promotion on a major FTA TV channel ITV4 are part way there with BTC.
In my post above, I said that my interest in F1 is waning. This whole pathetic saga is just one of the reasons why.
This is F1, FFS.
She has come out today and said that it doesn't look like she will be driving as she will not be able to get a Super Licence which IMO is the right choice as she doesn't have the experience of any cars that are close to the power of F1.
If she had done GP2 or Formula Renault 3.5 then I would say yes give her a run out.
Wait... she doesn't have a super-licence?
Did she think it was like going karting in Benidorm or something?
Just show up, pay your £25 and get a couple of hours on track.
*EDIT*
Update on CaterhamWatch...
I see they're up to 80% now and the deadline has been extended by 9 days, probably because it seems likely they'll reach their target.
Kinda bizarre situation really; a bunch of people raising £2.3m so the team can show up, race and the owners can pocket a couple of million quid from the sporting fund.
Surely the creditors are due any money first?!
You me both. It's is something of a farce made comprehensively worse by the crap playstation era now letting kids drive over experience.
Thing is, this £2.3m isn't actually part of the corporate assets.
It's cash that's being donated by people on the basis that it'll cover the cost of them attending the last race without having an impact on corporate assets that might, instead, be used to pay off creditors.
Still kind of a dodgy situation, mind you.
After all, even if the £2.3m allows them to go racing, they're still taking things which are corporate assets, which could be sold in order to pay creditors, and risking them while racing.
I mean, if they use the £2.3m to go racing and there's a fire in their garage which writes off both cars and all their equipment, that's probably several million quid of corporate assets down the drain.
I guess the receiver's position is, basically, as follows:-
They can't touch the £2.3m because that's not a corporate asset.
They'll audit the hardware they take to Abu Dhabi so that it can be disposed of later to pay creditors.
They'll weigh the risk of loss of assets against the potential for accruing more assets as a result of finishing the season and being awarded cash from the sporting fund.
Assuming this does all go ahead, I guess the receiver will be taking the view that, overall, there's a chance that they'll smash up a couple of wings, maybe damage a gearbox or damage a car but that risk is acceptable compared to the potential for gaining more capital as a result of the payment from the sporting fund.
Caterham, because of the restructuring that has gone on throughout the season (they had already had a visit form the bailiffs, remember), have less liabilities and lower day-to-day costs but lacked the cash-flow to continue operating anyway. Hence why the relatively small amount of £2.3m was needed to allow them to attend the final race. I think the sudden jump in the pledges yesterday was due to a deal they have struck with a replacement driver to take Errikson's seat. Caterham can complete the season but the administrator then has to decide if the company can be viable for next season and I suspect without significant injection of funds the answer will be no.
If it's not dramatically changed over the winter, how can the whole thing survive? It needs addressing in the next few weeks to give smaller (poorer) teams and their potential sponsors some hope that it's worth continuing.
To be fair, there's nothing really wrong with the idea of the winners getting more prize money than the people who don't win.
If you enter yourself in a race which offers a prize of £1,000 for first place, when you cross the line 59th out of 100 people, you don't expect to be given £10 to pay your bus fare home.
You expect that the winner gets the £1,000 and you expect that if you don't win you won't have money for the bus fare home.
If F1, the teams all know what they're entitled to from the sporting fund and they know that they also get prize money depending on how well they do.
It's certainly true that they could reduce the money from the prize fund and use it to give the teams more cash but there's nothing particularly unfair or underhanded about the current system.
Except for the extra $90m that Ferrari currently gets, of course.
Whatever the case, good luck to them. At least some of the team get a pay day out of it.
I'm in total agreement with you on this, but here's a thought. If we view F1 not only as a sport, but also as entertainment, which is it most obviously is nowadays, it is logical that the top of the bill gets the biggest appearance fee, but should we expect the performers at the foot of the bill to pay for their appearance?
Just an ex-musician's take on the subject.
A running a race is not a useful comparison as the costs are in a completely different league. F1 is very expensive and more F1 funding for smaller teams would make a fairer more varied competition even if the prize element were reduced to allow it.
An alternative would be to limit team spending so less well funded teams could compete, which I believe they're considering but well-resourced teams want to keep their unfair advantage.
Agree. There has got to be a way to spread the money around better. If not, why would the smaller teams go through the hassle of trying to stay afloat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30107277
Possibly. Their declared reason that they don't want to distract from getting the best result in the final race is either untrue or disrespectful to both existing drivers - as if they wouldn't try their best if they knew they weren't being retained.
I can think of two reasons for the delay.
Firstly it may be that Dennis knows he wants to pick Magnussen and is hoping the final race bears out that decision so he doesn't look quite so foolish. It was interesting in the last race that they pitted Magnussen first - you could see on the tracker how that allowed Kevin to close up on Jenson a little (Jenson drew the lead out again though). It will be interesting to see if they try to advantage Magnussen at Jenson's expense in the last race.
Secondly, it might just be a financial strategy. The longer they leave it the less opportunities the drivers have left open to them and the more Dennis can call the shots on contracts.
But they are clearly not worried about Jenson getting fed up and jumping ship - I suspect that means they don't care if he does.
Just broke on the BEEB.
Breathing unaided is good. Let's hope he comes round soon.
But may the far superior racer prevail this weekend !
Go, Lewis !
key para translated (using an online translator so a bit clunky):
Does that mean McLaren need the sponsorship money or that Dennis feels he has given the Dane a start but that Kevin will need to continue elsewhere with sponsorship?
The German robot always wins.
It is the way of the world.
You read it here first.