Sprint Races OR something MUCH more Entertaining ?

[Andres125sx]

It´s not a matter of attracting young people, but attracting new fans. Obviously young people are the main target as once they get hooked, they will be fans for many decades. That´s what is saving current F1 IMO, all those fans who got hooked in the 70-90´s are still watching, but we get older and older and without a new fanbase the sport is done. But again, we got hooked because we could watch F1 in TV or attend some GPs because it was affordable. Now young people can´t as prices are now prohibitive, so basically there are no new fans (or almost) for maybe 2-3 decades (since F1 is PPV), and that puts F1 in a critical situation.

A good point about the age of fans. Let's not forget that it was Bernie that prevented much of the move to online presence etc. His attitude was, and he actually said it publicly, that the young don't spend enough money and therefore aren't of interest. He was looking to attract sponsors that make high-end luxury goods e.g. Rolex, not stuff made for the masses. He wanted F1 to be an exclusive, luxury sport. And, for someone who was otherwise so very good at doing deals, he forgot the future. He forgot that today's kids are tomorrows buyers of luxury goods. Get them in the sport today and they'll be an audience for adverts for years to come.

But no, Bernie did deals that made money yesterday, not tomorrow. And the result is that tomorrow is looking quite bleak for F1 so far as attracting the future generation is concerned.

Exactly!

I have absolutely no proof of course, but I assume young fans are introduced to the sport by their parents or older siblings, = older fans, who do spend the money to 'take the kids to Silverstone' or where ever.

If there is no big event to look back on, many are going to look at the option of a grand for a family day out, or a small increase and very much cheaper when you are there for a week away.

Kids dont spend money, but most pubs have play areas and sell coke.

Agree with this too. Problem is not 100% of fan´s sons will continue watching, so as you said, the fanbase is on a decreasing spiral


Liberty has been trying to solve this, but they need a more radical change to compensate Bernie´s politics wich did put F1 in this situation

[Just_a_fan]

Liberty has been trying to solve this, but they need a more radical change to compensate Bernie´s politics wich did put F1 in this situation

The solutions appear to be to add gimmicks to the sport. What they should be doing is making F1 as easy and cheap as possible to view for as many people as possible. Sky's exclusive rights deal goes through to 2024. So for 2025, Liberty should scrap it and either provide F1 through their own service, or look to get it on a free-to-view provider. The problem is that Sky will always out bid the free-to-air providers - something that the money men can't ignore. What is needed is foresight and leadership at the top to realise that it's a false economy to take Sky's money (£1billion, so a lot at face value) because it so massively restricts audience growth. A look at the UK market from earlier this year summarised:

In summary, there are 10 different options, across four different players this year:

– £1,160.00 a year – Virgin Media (HD)*
– £1,076.00 a year – Virgin Media (SD)*
– £925.86 a year – BT TV (HD)**
– £865.86 a year – BT TV (SD)**
– £644.00 a year – Sky (All – UHD)
– £632.00 a year – Sky (F1 – UHD)
– £536.00 a year – Sky (All – HD)
– £524.00 a year – Sky (F1 – HD)
– £266.97 – Now (6 months Sports Membership + Boost) – offer (expires April 11th)
– £229.54 – Now (Day Pass x 23)

* includes BT Sport as mandatory
** includes BT Broadband as mandatory

In comparison, F1 TV Pro for fans in America costs $79.99 per year, which translates to £58.00 across the whole year, significantly cheaper than any option above.

https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/2021 ... 1-in-2021/

Surely F1 is more likely to attract new viewers if they can get access to it for £58 instead of £229++.

I understand the viewing figures in Germany showed an even bigger decline than in the UK - several million stopped watching F1 as the Sky deal kicked in there. Add that up over lots of countries, and you soon get viewer number decline that exceed the 17 million needed to buy F1's streamed output to cover the loss of Sky's £1 billion.

Sadly, F1 will almost certainly take Sky's money again after 2024 and that will probably be the final nail in the coffin lid for attracting the fans of the future.

[El Scorchio]

Liberty has been trying to solve this, but they need a more radical change to compensate Bernie´s politics wich did put F1 in this situation

The solutions appear to be to add gimmicks to the sport. What they should be doing is making F1 as easy and cheap as possible to view for as many people as possible. Sky's exclusive rights deal goes through to 2024. So for 2025, Liberty should scrap it and either provide F1 through their own service, or look to get it on a free-to-view provider. The problem is that Sky will always out bid the free-to-air providers - something that the money men can't ignore. What is needed is foresight and leadership at the top to realise that it's a false economy to take Sky's money (£1billion, so a lot at face value) because it so massively restricts audience growth. A look at the UK market from earlier this year summarised:

In summary, there are 10 different options, across four different players this year:

– £1,160.00 a year – Virgin Media (HD)*
– £1,076.00 a year – Virgin Media (SD)*
– £925.86 a year – BT TV (HD)**
– £865.86 a year – BT TV (SD)**
– £644.00 a year – Sky (All – UHD)
– £632.00 a year – Sky (F1 – UHD)
– £536.00 a year – Sky (All – HD)
– £524.00 a year – Sky (F1 – HD)
– £266.97 – Now (6 months Sports Membership + Boost) – offer (expires April 11th)
– £229.54 – Now (Day Pass x 23)

* includes BT Sport as mandatory
** includes BT Broadband as mandatory

In comparison, F1 TV Pro for fans in America costs $79.99 per year, which translates to £58.00 across the whole year, significantly cheaper than any option above.

https://motorsportbroadcasting.com/2021 ... 1-in-2021/

Surely F1 is more likely to attract new viewers if they can get access to it for £58 instead of £229++.

I understand the viewing figures in Germany showed an even bigger decline than in the UK - several million stopped watching F1 as the Sky deal kicked in there. Add that up over lots of countries, and you soon get viewer number decline that exceed the 17 million needed to buy F1's streamed output to cover the loss of Sky's £1 billion.

Sadly, F1 will almost certainly take Sky's money again after 2024 and that will probably be the final nail in the coffin lid for attracting the fans of the future.

They definitely will as long as sky see it as worthwhile for their business model. It’s automatic risk free money in the bank for FOM with no effort on their part.

Look at how WWE operated in the US. They took all their PPV events exclusive to their subs service which is a good idea in principle but carries a lot more financial risk with drop off and customer churn. They’ve just taken an absolute bucketload from NBC to have it all hosted on Peacock, so they eliminate all risk and get all the money guaranteed no matter how much people actually watch their product, and everything else becomes NBC’s problem.

Take the guaranteed affiliate money where you can. The F1TV app is a good idea in countries where that money would be a pittance or less in comparison and they can make more from keeping the rights and distributing themselves.

To add: I don't really see anyone outbidding Sky when the rights come up again, given the multiple big territories they cover, but I wonder if Netflix are setting themselves up for a bid at full global rights, what with DTS and Schumacher.

But to your point, it is all a bit short termist operating like that and merely pushing the problem down the road for later.

[Just_a_fan]

But to your point, it is all a bit short termist operating like that and merely pushing the problem down the road for later.

Exactly. It's easy money and it's obvious why it's appealing to F1. But it's not great for the future - and yet F1 keeps coming up with gimmicks to try to encourage people to come and watch the sport. "We've got this great gimmick for you!", "Great, I'll come and have a look", "That'll be several hundred please", "Erm, thanks but no thanks".

[JordanMugen]

Yes FIA/Teams TOO FRIGHTEN TO HAVE, reverse grid races, OR front 10 in rear, OR random races with random grids OR even intentionally artificial RAIN/wet races, etc - winning teams ALWAYS want to keep it the same !!

Agreed.

The sprint race should be reverse top 10, the same as in F2. But qualifying (in the original order) also sets the grid for the Grand Prix (feature race) proper. Extend the length of the reverse grid sprint to at least 155km and perhaps award points in the 1990's order of 10-6-4-3-2-1.

Otherwise what's the point of the Sprint Race? It's just an extended Grand Prix. Nothing against having a two-part Grand Prix (2x305km could be quite interesting), but it ain't no action packed Sprint Race!

Doing things like reversing is totally rubbish. If you did the best work to build a car etc. you don't deserve to be punished.

The F2 driver who has worked hard to claim pole, has to start from 10th place in the Sprint. Why should it be any different for the F1 driver who has won pole!?

Reverse grids for sprint races (if you even want sprint races) could only work if points were awarded for qualifying.

Perhaps.

I think it was fine as it was, with the exception of huge cars.

Nailed it! I wonder why it isn’t that obvious to the FIA. I would go for a maximum plan area for the cars (max & min length and width) and stipulate maximum overhangs front and rear.
A maximum length of 4.5 metres sounds about right. It would ‘force’ a more upright driving position (which would be a good safety move by the FIA).

This was already considered and rejected by the teams. The teams were only willing to concede a maximum wheelbase of 3600mm IIRC and no less, FIA wanted 3400mm. 2m width is fine -- it should be 2.15m!

[Unf]

Doing things like reversing is totally rubbish. If you did the best work to build a car etc. you don't deserve to be punished.

The F2 driver who has worked hard to claim pole, has to start from 10th place in the Sprint. Why should it be any different for the F1 driver who has won pole!?

Still the same - it's rubbish. It shouldn't be like that.
Or.. maybe, just maybe - as F2 is a F1's background it is nice for F1 teams to see how particular driver can handle with it.

[Stu]

Reverse grids work very well in BTCC, mostly because the random nature of how many places are reversed.
To always have the top-10 reversed would require points allocation to be very carefully considered to avoid ‘gaming’; should two fifth places be worth the same as a 10th and 1st place finish?
Or do you award points such that the pole-sitter who then sits in at tenth through the sprint, but disappears in the feature race gets the greater reward?

[hUirEYExbN]

Randomise the grid positions for the sprint race. Sprint race result is the qualifying position for the main race. Give points in the main race that account for gaps between places and ditch the blue flags entirely. Also give points to everyone who finishes.

If the sport needs gimmicks, lets really give it gimmicks.

[adrianjordan]

Sprint should be independent of the main Grand Prix and that includes Qualifying.

Have Qualifying for the main race on Friday. Saturday is Sprint Day and doesn't tie in with the results of Quali and doesn't affect the GP at all. Sunday is the main event.

[JordanMugen]

Reverse grids work very well in BTCC, mostly because the random nature of how many places are reversed.
To always have the top-10 reversed would require points allocation to be very carefully considered to avoid ‘gaming’; should two fifth places be worth the same as a 10th and 1st place finish?

So midgrid teams would deliberately slow or set no laps in order to be as slow as possible in Q3 to obtain sprint pole, leading to a farce? That's a good point!

Perhaps it would be need to be a reverse top 6.

[Manoah2u]

all this nonsense over what, really?

People who work harder should be rewarded, not punished. This is why Mercedes, Ferrari, etc. are so strong and stay strong, they work HARD.
And because long, long ago they worked hard, they picked the fruits from their work, and now have a big budget. But that big budget is still used to work hard.
This brings in results.

It's not just about being talented, it's also about the effort. All F1 drivers - including Mazepin - are talented enough. Yes, some have far more talent than others.
But even then, it's not just about money. It's about willing and working hard.

And now supposed fans with the attention span of a goldfish just because they cannot be entertained want the sport changed? again, if that is the case,
the sport is not for you, leave.

punishing people who work hard is the most rediculous thing there is, and that's exactly what stuff like reverse grids are.

It means you can just sit back lazy and do nothing, as it means the big guys will start at the back and you at the front.
It rewards lazy, careless, uninvested selfism - the opposite of SPORT.

And the most rediculous thing of it all, is that in the end it makes no difference but that it annoys and irritates drivers and causes unneccesary crashes and contact.

no backmarker team can drive faster because they start at the front of the grid, they're still slow af. the same drivers now at the front will pass them, they cant go faster and cant defend any better, their cars are still the same. in 10 to 15 laps, they are passed and you're back to square one.
All you do is make it an unneccesary blockade for the people who actually work hard.

I mean just look at it, Hamilton or Verstappen start at the back or the pits, and they still finish on the podium or even win.
Verstappen finished P2 in Russia.

Reverse grids are not going to make a change, they only make the sport unfair, unneccesary complicated and confusing, more expensive, and it doesn't suddenly bring opportunity for slower teams. and the funniest of all, the midfield drivers stay in the midfield, suddenly nobody wants to get pole but everybody wants to be in the midfield so it saves them 10 cars to pass.

i mean how on earth are people even taking this serious?

[SiLo]

Quite simply, we don't need sprint races, we need cheaper ways to view.

[Just_a_fan]

Quite simply, we don't need sprint races, we need cheaper ways to view.

Exactly so. Make it easier for people to watch and they will watch. Lock it up behind paywalls and no amount of gimmicks will encourage people to watch.

[SiLo]

Quite simply, we don't need sprint races, we need cheaper ways to view.

Exactly so. Make it easier for people to watch and they will watch. Lock it up behind paywalls and no amount of gimmicks will encourage people to watch.

It will actually just turn off the long term viewers, ironically.

[Manoah2u]

Quite simply, we don't need sprint races, we need cheaper ways to view.

Netflix, HBO Max, etc. great opportunities for viewing - both live and after, and you can even select language, so you can watch it in SkySports coverage, Italian coverage, German, Dutch, etc.