Originally Posted by FOM Fan:
“I have a question for everyone (just off my own back, nothing official or anything, I just want to guage people's opinions here).
Now that we've had rumours of what the proposed new owners of the sport would like to do to improve its appeal, would you be happy for F1 to go in a more 'entertainment' focus, instead of a pure 'sporting' focus. i.e: 25 events per season, gimmicks like reverse grids, multiple races per event, etc. etc?”
Personally I think there's other things to worry about before gimmicks. No, I'm not keen on more races, nor am I keen on reverse grids, or multiple short races per weekend. I wouldn't say don't make changes but the key elements of a race weekend need to be preserved surely, or what it morphs into becomes F1 in name only. F1 = open wheel racing and the stamina of having a car and driver last 1.5 - 2 hrs at (what should be) full pelt.
They need to sort out the tyre-saving, fuel-saving, engine-saving etc. Neither drivers or cars are being pushed to the limits as they used to be. Cars don't expire as they used to, all that unpredictability has gone. You know that the leader will finish the race (and you also know that if it's a Mercedes he's probably holding something back too. There's no edge-of-seat stuff now, wondering if (say) Mansell will complete the last ten laps and win without his engine blowing up. I don't blame Mercedes, they've done a good job but all of the changes in the name of cost-saving have done little to enhance the spectacle or the unpredictability, it's just made reliability so much better. Restricting it to x-number of engines a season may 'save costs' on the face of it but at the same time the big teams have expanded to way over 1000 people back at their bases. Where are the savings now?
I don't have the answer but one of F1's problems is that they've continually tried to 'fix' things by adding in additional regulations which has just made everything far more complicated and expensive. Some of it needs scaling back somehow. But firstly, they need to sort of the payments to teams. There's more than enough money in the sport to not have the teams at the back of the grid in a constant struggle for survival and unable to develop their cars whilst the likes of Merc, Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull throw shedloads of cash at R&D. The sport needs *all* of the teams and the closer the field is, the better, surely?
It's clear that Liberty want more races per year, they mention it numerous times in the presentation. I'm not sure how the teams might feel about that - they've previously indicated that 20 or so is more than enough. I'd tend to agree, sometimes less is more as has already been said. However, it may depend on *where* the races are. Some of the existing tracks (irrespective of how much they pay in hosting fees) don't provide an entertaining race and for that reason alone, should have their place on the calendar questioned. More races doesn't excite me, better races does but then if the inexorable slide towards more paid TV coverage and less (or zero) FTA coverage continues, as it seemingly will, it all becomes a bit academic for many fans anyway.
Librty might be able to increase various revenue streams from hosting fees, ticket sales, TV contracts, sponsorship, monetizing social media etc but it doesn't necessarily "develop the sport for benefit of all stakeholders (fans, teams, partners, shareholders)" [their words] if large numbers of existing fans drift away because FTA coverage diminishes or disappears, or an excessive number of races makes following the season something of a chore. There's a lot that needs to be fixed rather than just adding more races to generate more income.