2015 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

[f1316]

That graph is showing UK viewers, so I'd say it is closely linked to the fortunes of British drivers.

The peak in 95/96 coincides with Hill at his peak, then Coulthard kept the flame alive, then the decline in viewers during the Schumacher years.

The increase in 2007 co-incides with Hamilton bursting onto the scene, then Button's WDC in 2008, then the dream team of Hamilton & Button at Mclaren.

The viewers decline after 2010 due to the switch from free to air to subscription, which is also compounded by Vettel dominating and the UK drivers at Mclaren struggling.

Add in another factor, that the ITV coverage was absolutely diabolical, including ad breaks during the race and on one famous occasion missing the end of the race for a commercial break!

And the point is that uk and us audiences are fine, no problem there, viewership on the rise.

But other important markets are shrinking, which is a worry.

What I've never seen is combined audience figures. I presume overall they must be declining because everyone involved seems concerned about ratings (sponsors included) but is it the case? And if so, how much? Is a U.S. consumer worth more to a sponsor than one in, say, India because of average retail spend?

[iotar__]

I think that puts a logical spin to Bernie's taking RB's side in the equalization debate. He probably has seen this numerous times and knows that close competition is what produces good viewership numbers, which in turn provides more money to him.
How would you create that close competitiveness?

No IMO it doesn't, with unequal and arbitrary money distribution, no cost control and a few teams affecting technical and in reality all kind of rules and therefore affecting competition (ask Honda ) F1 is designed by Ecclestone for dominance. Usual examples of lack of equalisation attempts: blown diffusors, especially in 2012, wings 2010-... and so on.

Merc doesn't deserve successes completely, they were given it on a silver plate with change of engines that killed their competition but Red Bull people are 100% hypocrites. They should have been crying for equalisation from day 1 of 2014 tests. Instead they bet on catching up and benefiting from new rules (like focus of engine suppliers on single teams), only when it spectacularly failed they started caring about competitiveness in F1 or rather their own. That's Red Bull's logic. Funny how after writing it I read Fernley saying something similar: http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/380 ... for-Horner

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Merc doesn't deserve successes completely, they were given it on a silver plate with change of engines that killed their competition but Red Bull people are 100% hypocrites.

Was someone in Mercedes holding a crystal ball, that CLEARLY SHOWED that THEY WILL BE 100% SUCCESSFUL with change of engines? The decision to change the engines was made when Mercs were clearly struggling to put together a decent car and no one, including themselves would have bet on a GUARANTEED SUCCESS with engine formula change. They were probably confident, but not CERTAIN. The engine formula change WAS NOT ENFORCED, but rather a decision made and accepted by a variety of stake holders. Which means, all the manufactures had the same time and opportunity to CARVE OUT THEIR OWN SUCCESS OR FAILURE. If other manufacturers failed spectacularly, you cannot take away the credit from Mercs for doing first class job. Engine formula has changed even in the past, but none did as spectacular job as Merc has done now, they deserve ALL THE CREDIT and they ALONE deserve their success. Look at Honda, despite having a full year of experience of laying their hands on the class of the field PU, they are shamefully struggling.

Red Bull are hypocrites. +1 here.

[mrluke]

I don't think that's manageable with just 4 compounds for all tracks and conditions across a season, but if it remained as S/S, S, M and H then 3 compounds should be taken to each weekend with Pirelli deciding on the final 2 compounds after FP1 and 2. It's too difficult naming compounds weeks in advance, not knowing how the weather or new generations of cars will affect tyre performance.

Its a nice idea but practically its very difficult to do.

20 cars, doing 3 stops each, best allow for an extra stop per car incase of punctures etc so thats 80 tyres allow another 3 sets for qualifying.. 7 x 20 = 140 tyres.

Then try what 3 different compounds? ~420 hand made tyres with 2/3rds going on the scrap heap unused after each weekend.

[SectorOne]

Monaco T1 getting repaved,
(proper thread don´t exist yet so this is close enough)

[Kiril Varbanov]

AUS race edit is live. I must say it's a lot better than previous years:

[Manoah2u]

i must say i genuinly liked seeing Arnie on stage, much better than the standard boring interviews of [ i'm sorry to vent but extremely irritating ] eddie jordan, david coulthard, and former F1 drivers. It made the podium interviews look more 'personal' instead of just some standard yabba-yabba repeat of what we all saw during the race.

Think it would improve viewer ratings and the show if Bernie managed to snag some celebs doing the interviews [offcourse they should have enough iq to be able to count pass their fingertips]. Jean-luc p....eh.... ...Patrick Stewart, or Ian Mcallen , Dicaprio, Jackblack would make an awesome interview, Will Smith, Beyonce - oh dear, imagine the scene if Nicole would have to do the interview

Anyway, i'd say there's a good route to go there.

[Just_a_fan]

Then try what 3 different compounds? ~420 hand made tyres with 2/3rds going on the scrap heap unused after each weekend.

Which is exactly why the "use both compounds during the race" rule was brought in.

I get the feeling that some of the people proposing rules changes aren't up to speed on the history of F1's rules over the last 20 years.

[Just_a_fan]

Think it would improve viewer ratings and the show if Bernie managed to snag some celebs doing the interviews [offcourse they should have enough iq to be able to count pass their fingertips]. Jean-luc p....eh.... ...Patrick Stewart, or Ian Mcallen , Dicaprio, Jackblack would make an awesome interview, Will Smith, Beyonce - oh dear, imagine the scene if Nicole would have to do the interview

Anyway, i'd say there's a good route to go there.

I detest the podium interviews. Pointless and adds nothing to the event.

[SiLo]

Think it would improve viewer ratings and the show if Bernie managed to snag some celebs doing the interviews [offcourse they should have enough iq to be able to count pass their fingertips]. Jean-luc p....eh.... ...Patrick Stewart, or Ian Mcallen , Dicaprio, Jackblack would make an awesome interview, Will Smith, Beyonce - oh dear, imagine the scene if Nicole would have to do the interview

Anyway, i'd say there's a good route to go there.

I detest the podium interviews. Pointless and adds nothing to the event.

Agreed. We have interviews afterwards, just let the drivers enjoy the moment of being on the podium!

[djos]

I don't think that's manageable with just 4 compounds for all tracks and conditions across a season, but if it remained as S/S, S, M and H then 3 compounds should be taken to each weekend with Pirelli deciding on the final 2 compounds after FP1 and 2. It's too difficult naming compounds weeks in advance, not knowing how the weather or new generations of cars will affect tyre performance.

Its a nice idea but practically its very difficult to do.

20 cars, doing 3 stops each, best allow for an extra stop per car incase of punctures etc so thats 80 tyres allow another 3 sets for qualifying.. 7 x 20 = 140 tyres.

Then try what 3 different compounds? ~420 hand made tyres with 2/3rds going on the scrap heap unused after each weekend.

NASCAR race something like 38 times a year with 30+ cars and Goodyear manage to bring different compounds to almost race.

Just saying.

[Moose]

There's also a huge issue in deciding after you see the cars pace and deg levels. This allows Pirelli to choose champions based on which end of the spectrum they support.

If RedBull has great tire deg, and Ferrari has huge problems, which do they go for? By choosing hard they disadvantage RedBull by giving them tires that are harder than necessary and hence not as performant. By choosing soft they disadvantage Ferrari by causing them to have to make extra stops.

Certainly no decision about what is effectively the rules for the weekend should be taken after seeing how the teams work within that ruleset.

[Artur Craft]

One problem with that argument - the ratings weren't higher in 2004. They were much much lower, and rapidly dropping, the more Schumacher dominated.

https://f1broadcasting.files.wordpress. ... .png?w=604

For reference, Australia (which was on at 5am in the country these stats are from) recorded 3.5 million viewers. That was slightly down on 2014, but still much higher than the Schumacher era.

That's just the typical patriotic fanboyism.

92- Mansell dominating(even more than Ferrari in 2004)= +5million viewers
93- No British figthing for WDC= 3,9m
94-95- Hill fighting for the WDC but no dominance= 4-4,5m
96- Hill dominates with a far superior car= 5,3m

The English people prefered Hill walking away easily with WDC in 96 than fighting for it with a German guy in 94-95

2007- Hamilton appears already in a top car and fights for WDC= increase in the audience
2009- Button dominates with Brawn = first time over 4m since 2000

Andres125sx graph for Italy is less "fanboy". Ferrari keeps strong in 2007-2008, but rating drop because, maybe, there is no titanic fight anymore(SchumacherXAlonso)

It's alarming for F1 that Italy is far from 8 million viewers since 2006.

In pretty much all the big TV markets for F1, there has been serious decline in viewership such as in Germany, Brazil, Italy, Spain(and Alonso is still around). USA number of viewers is tiny, anyway, and the British will be fine untill Hamilton have success

[andartop]

Sorry guys, but I think drawing any conclusion from these graphs is unsafe at best.
Association is not causation. Too many variables need to be considered, not just one that suits our opinion.
There is no information to act as control. We would need similar graphs from different sports and for watching TV in general.
For all I know, the decline could be because less people watch TV these days in general, or could be linked to the introduction of new tracks in countries with no history or much other engagement in motorsport, or because people don't like the way the looks of the cars are evolving, or because tobacco ads have been banned, or because Bernie just won't pack his bags!

[SunsAnvil]

I am not sure about viewing figures (in any case I now live in Germany so do not count in the UK any longer) however in the pre-and throughout the Schumacher era I watched F1 avidly. Now I do watch as many races and qualifying sessions as possible but I am usually doing something else at the same time and, if not, have often fallen asleep. It could be my age but there is no "spark" to F1 any longer. And adding titanium strips is not what I mean!