2015 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

[Vasconia]

Spanish TV
2014
'Fórmula 1' "GP de Australia" (Inicio de temporada): 1.438.000
2015
'Fórmula 1' "GP de Australia": 343.000

It doesnt surprise me. This is the real amount of true F1 fans if Alonso doesnt race. But yes, the situation is worrying, and Germany´s example is the worst, with a WC winning team and two contentenders(at least Rosberg but also Vettel) is difficult to understand those numbers and Germany´s GP situation.

Anyway, I think that people miss real battles where drivers used to push to the limit. All the fans say that the period 2000-2004 was pretty boring due to Shumi and Ferrari´s dominance but audiences were much bettter. Why? I think that those battles between Schumi and Hakkinen/Kimi/Montoya,etc.. didnt show a lot of overtakes but they were true and intense. This is what fans miss.

[djos]

Yeah, you only need tyres engineered to produce a certain amount of stops when you don't have refuelling. Bring back refuelling and you can have better tyres.

True enuf.

One option would be to bring back ultra soft 5 lap qually tires and then make the top ten start the race on their last set from Q3.

[SiLo]

What was great about refuelling was not knowing when someone was going to pit. I hated it when they published the amount of fuel each car was running, I didn't want to know that!

Also, the cars would be a lot smaller and more nimble, these things are just long and less agile.

[Phil]

The drops on tv ratings are more than alarming, though:
German RTL
Australia GP
2014: 3,12 Millions.
2015: 1,72 M.

Sky Germany
2014: 0,26 M
2015: 0,18 M

Spanish TV
2014
'Fórmula 1' "GP de Australia" (Inicio de temporada): 1.438.000
2015
'Fórmula 1' "GP de Australia": 343.000

I suggest they bring back free broadcast. While RTL is free, and I'm guessing Spanish TV, I think the british have always made up a huge number of F1 fans. It's a frickin shame the BBC couldn't even be there to broadcast the first race of a F1 season live in their half-assed attempt to show half of the races if even that. Disgusting.



/rant

[WaikeCU]

The drops on tv ratings are more than alarming, though:
German RTL
Australia GP
2014: 3,12 Millions.
2015: 1,72 M.

Sky Germany
2014: 0,26 M
2015: 0,18 M

Spanish TV
2014
'Fórmula 1' "GP de Australia" (Inicio de temporada): 1.438.000
2015
'Fórmula 1' "GP de Australia": 343.000

I suggest they bring back free broadcast. While RTL is free, and I'm guessing Spanish TV, I think the british have always made up a huge number of F1 fans. It's a frickin shame the BBC couldn't even be there to broadcast the first race of a F1 season live in their half-assed attempt to show half of the races if even that. Disgusting.



/rant

Doesn't help financially either for the BBC when they are now cutting Top Gear as well. Last Sunday they've lost 4 million viewers that evening when Top Gear was supposed to be programmed.

[FW17]

Refueling can solve some of the tyre issues

The 2 second pit stops are a spectacle but I still prefer the 10 second once with a few splash and dash. There was so much going on then when we were trying to work out the next pit stop based stationary time in comparison to the competition..........................

Man F1 was really something else back then

They should atleast have it where shipping them is not an cost as is probably the case for 10 of the 20 GP's

[motobaleno]

it's really interesting to read all these explanations for the drops in tv ratings.
maybe the things are much simpler: you guys writing on these forums are not statistically representative of the average people watching tv...
simply this people won't look at a race knowing before that a mercedes will win.
Please don't answer to this observation recaling red bull era ora ferrari's one: things are completely diferent now.

[f1316]

What was great about refuelling was not knowing when someone was going to pit. I hated it when they published the amount of fuel each car was running, I didn't want to know that!

Also, the cars would be a lot smaller and more nimble, these things are just long and less agile.

Yes exactly, and during the first stint it was always 'well, x is fast, but is y carrying more fuel?' So kept the interest up.

Plus people could use strategy to compensate for an ultimately slower car. Perhaps in this year's championship Ferrari would go ultra light to get in front of Mercedes on the grid , knowing that their race pace is better and with a lighter car they could potentially pull a gap.

Just added another variable which always helps intrigue.

[Tim.Wright]

Refueling can solve some of the tyre issues

The 2 second pit stops are a spectacle but I still prefer the 10 second once with a few splash and dash. There was so much going on then when we were trying to work out the next pit stop based stationary time in comparison to the competition..........................

Man F1 was really something else back then

They should atleast have it where shipping them is not an cost as is probably the case for 10 of the 20 GP's

I've never understood the calls to bring back refuelling. It took all the racing off the track and put it in the pits. Team's avoided on track battles because it was always lower risk to gain track position using strategy. It was very common (and frustrating) to see driver's simply "holding station" until the pitstop window where they would be short filled to overtake and try to strech out a gap. This was one of the reasons that there was very little on track overtaking in this time.

That and the fact that mechanics were being injured at a rate significantly higher than the drivers meant that overall it was a pretty pointless exercise.

[Vasconia]

What was great about refuelling was not knowing when someone was going to pit. I hated it when they published the amount of fuel each car was running, I didn't want to know that!

Also, the cars would be a lot smaller and more nimble, these things are just long and less agile.

Yes exactly, and during the first stint it was always 'well, x is fast, but is y carrying more fuel?' So kept the interest up.

Plus people could use strategy to compensate for an ultimately slower car. Perhaps in this year's championship Ferrari would go ultra light to get in front of Mercedes on the grid , knowing that their race pace is better and with a lighter car they could potentially pull a gap.

Just added another variable which always helps intrigue.

THIS, even in the most dominant seasons it was interesting that at least in some races we usually see the best car starting the race in 3/4 position and attacking the poleman in order to win the race. At least it was more interesting than this season.

[iotar__]

What was great about refuelling was not knowing when someone was going to pit. I hated it when they published the amount of fuel each car was running, I didn't want to know that!
Also, the cars would be a lot smaller and more nimble, these things are just long and less agile.

You didn't but teams knew when the others were going to pit so strategy was very limited (some rare exceptions, 3 vs 2 stops but mostly boring), qualifying was bad with all "fuel corrected" poles, lighter cars in front, heavier but faster waiting patiently for the first stop, then there was this after the pitstop abomination when slower cars were overtaking heavy ones, long pitstops with fuel mistakes = overall nothing great about it.

No, heavy, difficult to handle, harder on tyres, especially early in the race cars and are good, it's a chance for overtaking, drivers need to adjust, standard low fuel Q is better to watch and gives more equal opportunities (ask Kovalainen) but you need to follow it with something more starting with tyres.

F1 racing may be in essence boring but interesting if competitive and nothing is done to achieve it, competitiveness is dangerous for teams that run the sport. They killed Lotus with FRIC ban and engines, they get more money for nothing, they get loopholes, give Honda less tokens, run two teams and now they shout "make it equal"? FIA can't even apply the most obvious, unquestionable unsafe release penalty equally .

Edit: on topic example about refuelling, Williams pitted Massa because they didn't know when Vettel pits. From the other side Ferrari can pit Vettel earlier or wait for Williams.

[Phil]

I've never understood the calls to bring back refuelling. It took all the racing off the track and put it in the pits. Team's avoided on track battles because it was always lower risk to gain track position using strategy. It was very common (and frustrating) to see driver's simply "holding station" until the pitstop window where they would be short filled to overtake and try to strech out a gap. This was one of the reasons that there was very little on track overtaking in this time.

It's arguable to what is better though. In order to get a faster car into traffic (and thus create the overtakes we as spectators want to see) required that teams have to use two different tyres - and it even went as far that F1 demanded tyres that are best described as "lottery-tyres" at a point. The overtakes we so desperately value at the moment are made up of quicker cars vs. slower ones, or equal cars on fresher tyres vs older ones. This isn't more authentic, than the refueling era where at least cars were driven closer to the limit and for a large part relied on overtaking in the pits through strategy. That too is a legitimate form of racing that many, me included, enjoyed watching.

Also, there were overtakes during the refueling eras too, especially when a mid-field team did a "one stop" opposed to perhaps a faster team going multiple stops. The strategy for the one-stopper was always to retain track position, while for the multiple-stoppers it was crucial to not be held up by traffic. Essentially, the two tyre compound we have now days is to achieve the same, although in a more artificial manner.

[FW17]

I've never understood the calls to bring back refuelling. It took all the racing off the track and put it in the pits. Team's avoided on track battles because it was always lower risk to gain track position using strategy. It was very common (and frustrating) to see driver's simply "holding station" until the pitstop window where they would be short filled to overtake and try to strech out a gap. This was one of the reasons that there was very little on track overtaking in this time.

That and the fact that mechanics were being injured at a rate significantly higher than the drivers meant that overall it was a pretty pointless exercise.

You are trying to say that F1 is just straight forward racing between drivers when it is not.

This simplification is just not attractive. Racing was interesting even if it meant that changes happened in the pit stops and what happened on race track was pure.

Pit stops are still dangerous, we still see mechanics run over by cars rather than fuel hoses. Safety argument does not have a place here.

[SectorOne]

From an efficiency standpoint it makes no sense logging around fuel you won´t use for the next 50 laps.
What Tim said is absolutely correct, however it´s worth pointing out there was no DRS back then which would change the approach to making the pass in the pits or on track.

[foxmulder_ms]

In quali, Raikkonen was 5 tenths slower than both Mercedes in S3. The rest ? From 8 to one second slower.

Ferrari was fast in S1, then slower than Mercedes AND Williams in S2, but only mercedes was faster than Ferrari in S3.

For me, Ferrari have more downforce than Williams, but Williams is faster as soon as there is a power sector.

Only Rosberg. Kimi was 0,3s slower than Lewis and 0,5s from Rosberg

Mercedes has lower top speed than Ferrari, despite better PU, so, it's no surprise they will have quite more downforce.

For me the race was utterly boring, but nothing that surprised me as I didn't expect any different. There was a time F1 had no overtakings and very few battles, but, at the very least, you had drivers punching one fastest lap of the race after another. It was a speed contest. Now, there are no real battles, as well(the DRS/tyre kind of pass is nothing to me), and they give me the impression of pretty much everybody just being on cruise mode to the finish line.

What racing should be is a subjective thing and for me it involves real genuine battles and the seek of the limit(for most of the race, if not during all of it).

It's pretty sad that, albeit the 2004 race was pretty boring, the fastest lap was 1.24.1 while in 2015 they were cruising, in a equally battle-less race, for a best of 1.31

I'll never like this current regulation where the tyres are fragile and can't be pushed all the time, as well as the use of any sort of overtaking aid device.

I would suggest people to stop complaining, after each race, that F1 is boring, though. I realise that there are quite a few people that share the same views as I do and there is no point in repeating it every F1 weekend. Don't expect the current "show" to present what it's not intended to.

I watch it for the engineering side more than ever, nowadays. It's just not good to spoil the fun of those who are enjoying the races.

The drops on tv ratings are more than alarming, though:
German RTL
Australia GP
2014: 3,12 Millions.
2015: 1,72 M.

Sky Germany
2014: 0,26 M
2015: 0,18 M

Spanish TV
2014
'Fórmula 1' "GP de Australia" (Inicio de temporada): 1.438.000
2015
'Fórmula 1' "GP de Australia": 343.000

I think the drop regarding TV numbers can be explained mostly with the greed of Bernie et al. It is simply too expensive to watch F1 nowadays. I had to pay more than 100$ monthly to watch F1. I am a fan (enough to check this forum almost daily) and still will not pay that. F1 becoming more of a business to business deal and losing its touch with people. So no surprise about TV numbers. If they follow this "milk the populous until the last drop" policy, they will end up an airshow like thing.