According to F1Racing.net the Canadian GP was the third most watched TV event of 2005, after the Super Bowl and the Champions League final.
A formula one grand prix attracted the third-highest global television audience in 2005. Beaten only by the American Super Bowl and the UEFA Champions League (football) final, June’s Canadian grand prix at Montreal drew 51 million viewers.
93 million tuned in to the Super Bowl, and 73 million switched on to the Liverpool-AC Milan match, media buying and planning firm Initiative said in a report.
“I would wager that in Europe people would be a little bit surprised that the Super Bowl is number one because it draws its audience from only one market,” Initiative analyst Kevin Alavy told Reuters.
By more than a multiple of two, however, the grand prix outpaced the World Athletics’ 100 metre final, the NBA final, baseball World Series and the Tour de France.
Meanwhile, the 2006 football World Cup is expected to beat even the ‘Super Bowl’ in next year’s television data.
December 30th, 2005
A number of news sources are reporting that the organisers of the Hockenheim grand prix are facing a cash crisis. The revenue side is down owing to weak ticket sales in 2005 and a slow start to sales in 2006. The liability side is obviously inflated owing to the recent major redevelopment.
I’ve always wondered how F1 circuit organisers who are not backed by their host country manage to make any money. First, they have to pay Bernie a large wad of cash for the err honour of hosting the event. They only get 3 days of F1. They get none of the circuit advertising money. They get maybe 100,000 attending the event, but an average Premier league football team will get that every 2 or 3 weeks.
Forum discussion here
December 27th, 2005
The FIA have introduced a rake of shit regulations for F1 for 2008 and 2009. F1 will be completely dumbed down and the manufacturers will leave as Max wanted them to. And set up their own series.
The following is a summary of the main changes (my comments in bold):
- New technologies which give a team an advantage for one season but which are then adopted by all teams for subsequent seasons at significant expense will be banned after the end of the first season (Article 2.5).
Reason: To reduce costs. This allows a team which discovers a new technology to benefit from it, but prevents Formula One as a whole then spending money on the same technology only to leave all the teams in exactly the same (relative) positions as before.
And the remove the point of team developing things. And how will they tell if the teams are going to have an advantage with it for more than one year anyway? Stupid.
- The rear wing is split in two.
Reason: Research indicates that this will produce a wake in which the car behind will perform much better, thus facilitating overtaking.
Yeah, research done on the back of a napkin after a long liquid lunch.
- Changes to the bodywork regulations to reduce downforce while maintaining drag levels so as to avoid an increase in cornering speeds over 2006 levels (Article 3).
Reason: Safety
Fair enough, but will they arse it up like they’ve done every previous time?
- Changes to the bodywork regulations at the front of the car to make the car behave better in traffic (Article 3).
Reason: To facilitate overtaking.
By raising the front wing again. I don’t consider myself hopeful.
- Limitations on possible “interesting” areas of aerodynamic research (Article 3).
Reason: To reduce costs.
And reduce interest.
- The minimum weight is reduced from 605 to 550kg (Article 4).
Reason: To eliminate the cost of purchasing 55kg of very expensive high density ballast for each car and transporting it all over the world. Cars will also be safer without this extra weight.
A good idea.
- Engine to be subject to a rev limit of 19,000 rpm, with a possible increase to 20,000 rpm in consultation with the competing teams (Article 5.1.3).
Reason: To reduce costs and to redirect engine research towards road-relevant technologies.
Rev-limits are not good. Takes all the interest out of engine development for the average viewer, who only understands two things: RPM and BHP.
- A standard electronic control unit for engine and gearbox to be used at all times in Formula One (Article 8.2).
Reason: To reduce costs, eliminate driver aids such as traction control and allow the FIA to check engine use and testing mileage.
And why not go the whole hog and have spec engines too!?
- Gear ratios to have a minimum thickness of 12mm (Article 9.3.3).
Reason: To reduce costs by making gearboxes more robust.
Meh
- Tyre pressures may be adjusted by the driver while the car is moving (Article 12.5).
Reason: Safety, particularly during safety car periods.
A second good idea. Better than their usual average.
- Maximum wheel diameter increased to 640mm front and 710mm rear, with maximum widths of 365mm front and 460mm rear (Article 12.4) with slick tyres.
Reason: To increase “mechanical” grip to compensate for reduced aerodynamic downforce to facilitate overtaking.
Make that three!
- Only permitted materials may be used to construct the car (Article 15.1).
Reason: To reduce costs.
And reduce innovation.
- At least 5.75% (m/m) of fuel must be from biological sources (Article 19.4.5).
Reason: To keep ahead of developments in fuel for road cars.
A big meh
- 2009:
From 2009 each team may make only two changes of bodywork after the start of the season (Article 3.15).
Reason: To reduce costs.
And interest. Part of the fun is seeing what teams bring to every race. Now teams will know they only have two chances to catch up. What’s the point?
It is intended to allow systems for energy storage and recovery (hybrid systems) from 2009, provided this can be done without causing budgetary difficulties for any of the competing teams.
In addition to the proposed 2008 Technical Regulations it is intended to make changes to the Formula One Sporting Regulations for 2008. These will be submitted to the World Motor Sport Council on March 22, 2006 and will include:
- arrangements for a single tyre supplier in 2008;
Seems to be the best way to control costs, still not keen on it though
- three - Event engines;
- four - Event transmissions;
- weight penalties for early replacement of engine or gearbox;
No! F1 is not an endurance event. And weight penalties are the worst idea possible. The sport is completely dead as far as I’m concerned if these are introduced.
- testing restrictions;
About time.
- a limit of two cars per team at an Event;
Bad idea, what happens if one of the drivers crashes in practice? Will the fans be denied seeing their hero? And what about the sponsors you want to see a car when they get a tour of the pits on race morning if the two race cars are in Parc Ferme?
- the date for the opening and closing of entries for 2008.
It is not intended to renew the Concorde Agreement provisions which prevent teams selling components or complete chassis to other competitors. It is proposed to allow an entirely free market in this area.
About time.
If these regulations are introduced I won’t be watching anymore. Welfare racing is of no interest to me. And these rules are just a step short of making F1 a spec series.
And I’m almost certain the GPMA will set up their own series now.
Forum thread here.
Link to the news on the FIA site.
Excellent article on grandprix.com. Recommended reading.
December 21st, 2005
Yes, with much fanfare and without any mention of the fiasco that was 2005, tickets for the US Grand Prix have gone on sale. From the motorsport.com link
All fans can order tickets online at www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com, by calling the IMS ticket office at (317) 492-6700 or (800) 822-INDY outside the Indianapolis area, or at the ticket office at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Parking and camping information also can be obtained through the ticket office.
Scott Speed of course will be making his F1 home soil debut which should make it more interesting for US fans, particularly if no-one else decides to race.
December 20th, 2005
