Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

F1 2016

Yes a good rescue by Mercedes. Certainly getting Rosberg onto mediums was the right strategy. Ferrari gave the win away with a too-aggressive tyre choice - perhaps they assumed Rosberg would stick with softs so they used supersofts.

The results look as if nothing's changed, but it was a more better race especially down the field.

Happy for Haas and J Palmer Esq too.
 
Looks like we will have racing throughout the field with some good battles, Toro rosso will be interesting to watch, that looks like a real battle
 
Looks like we will have racing throughout the field with some good battles, Toro rosso will be interesting to watch, that looks like a real battle
There's definitely a great driver feud brewing now at TR.

That always adds an edge.
 
Come on Ted get your notebook out I want to go to bed, I've only managed 4 hours sleep so far this weekend and have to be up at midday for lunch with friends :facepalm:

I need a better race weekend strategy a bit like Ferrari lol
 
He was lucky to walk away. That was a serious crash, and proves how very safe the cars are now. I can't remember the last time I saw such a bad crash.
 
Also C4 coverage is OK, I like Webber and DC but that welsh bloke I am not sure about at all. Will be interesting to see how they handle a full race.
 
watching highlights from the c4 website is fustrating as fuck..

random clickable ad's during the expected ad breaks

*oo are you not paying attention to our shitty marketing well if you not activitivy selecting adverts it go on longer*




*shakes fist at sky*

:mad:
 
Can someone give me a brief summary of what's happened with TV coverage this year - are Channel 4 and Sky doing the swapping about thing the same as the BBC did the last few years?
 
Yeah BBC wanted out early so hived off the 10-race arrangement they had with Sky to C4
And the production company supplying Channel 4 is run by David Coulthard (and Jake Humphrey), which accounts for the same-face-different-place puzzle.
 
There is the driver of the day thingy now , apparently you need to go to the official F1 site to vote, this weekend it was Romain Grosjean, to be honest I'd rather have known how many people voted, but they don't say. Channel 4 coverage seems to have got 1 million less viewers than when it was on the BBC, I have a feeling that the millions of people around the world who seem not to show up on the viewing figures nowadays are all watching for free on the interweb, I get the impression from an above post that Mark Webber was on the channel 4 coverage as a presenter, luck bloke may have been paid twice for the job as he was also on Channel 10's coverage in Australian TV.
 
The adverts didn't bother me really, I always treat them as an opportunity to get another coffee or something without missing any of the action.
 
The adverts didn't bother me really, I always treat them as an opportunity to get another coffee or something without missing any of the action.
I loathe them. I don't watch any broadcast TV now, it's all iPlayer, torrents or Netflix. I'd forgotten just how awful they are. I'm literally at the point of giving up on F1 because of them.
 
I loathe them. I don't watch any broadcast TV now, it's all iPlayer, torrents or Netflix. I'd forgotten just how awful they are. I'm literally at the point of giving up on F1 because of them.
You should see TV in Spain, there it is the other way round, i.e. they have 15 minutes of program followed by 25 minutes of ads!
 
You should try the ads on c4 website

they are 3.40 minutes long and they have like an advert dead man switch you need to click the next ad or else the 3.40 minutes of ad time increases
you cannot even just bugger off and then come back


most annoying

:mad:
 
The Strategy Group strikes again
Who was responsible for the debacle that was qualifying? Well in my view it was the Strategy Group, the new qualifying system came directly from them. Surely it is now time to get rid of this bullshit "democracy" in F1 and for the parties involved to concentrate on their individual jobs. That is the teams concentrate on going racing, the FIA should concentrate on enforcing the rules (set by the FOM), licensing and arbitration, FOM should concentrate on making the rules and the show and the circuit promoters should concentrate on promoting the race in there country. The F1 Commission and the World Motor Sport Council should have nothing to do with F1 as both are pointless and just rubber-stamping organizations with no real power, influence or reason for being.


At its most basic Formula 1 is a business, its business just happens to be motor racing which is classed as a sport, what other billion dollar business is run like a democracy? I hope that the European Competition Directorate does get involved and puts an end to this bullshit once and for all (I'd rather it was done from with-in the sport but if it takes an outsider than all well and good). One only needs to look at what democracy has done to healthcare and education in so call democracy's around the world, some here today gone tomorrow politician becomes minister for health or education and decided to make a name for themselves but adding targets, changing targets, reorganizing funding, changing policy etc while at the sharp end thing go to shit. Get a fucking grip Bernie and sort this bullshit out before you kill the sport and your goose. (sorry about that, I don't like posting politics in the F1 forum, but I believe it needs to be said :mad: )

EDit, the drivers (through the GPDA) have taken the unusual step of writing a letter calling for it to "restructure its governance" BBC link here.

Driver of the day results

Not only was the new qualifying under scrutiny but so is Driver of the day. According to some computer savvy people Rio Haryanto with 22,000 votes won, but the people who run the poll say that bots were used to vote for him. Apparently the rolling results return behind the scenes and can be viewed in the chrome browser if you look at "web inspector".

This is a view of the votes cast during the vote using web inspector (interesting that Kvyet has more votes than the drivers that raced).
CeAfjPLWAAAmVyu.jpg


This is what the result was if you looked behind the screen and included all the votes:
CeA8KTqW0AEEAxe.jpg
 
I trust absolutely no popular phone or online voting contest.

It's way too easy to fix the results.

So many examples, but the best is in yesterday's news about the "Boaty McBoatface" ship being named by the public.
 
If it ignites the public interest in the same way that the end of free to air cricket did then the sport has a bright future :thumbs:
 
It will just mean that more people watch it for free on the interweb. What surprises me is that FOM don't have a pay-to-view services over the the 'net, I can't believe that when they sell the TV rights that excludes them from such a service. Maybe the TV companies have an exclusion clause in their contracts. There must be some reason for it as CVC must see the profit in such a service. The sites I use have had a massive increase in viewers over the last few years.

For those who don't want to watch Sky, there are many sites that have live TV streaming from different countries, you could watch it on them.
 
i would not mind paying for full GP coverage but paying for the rest just annoy's me

stealing from the internet it is


fuck you Murdoch

:hmm:
 
Interesting Telegraph piece:

F1 drivers launch attack on Bernie Ecclestone while Sky all but end live terrestrial coverage

The headline is:

F1 drivers launch attack on Bernie Ecclestone while Sky all but end live terrestrial coverage

You have to love a misleading headline.

The drivers have indeed written about the muddle in making sporting and technical decisions and how they are counter productive. Moreover, Sky has stolen bought exclusive live GP coverage. But the headline juxtaposes the two, inviting you to read it as the drivers criticising the Sky deal. Could Sky be owned by an entity or corporation that also owns a rival newspaper to the Telegraph?

Juxtaposition is one of the tricks speech writers and "opinion formers" (politicians, liars, religious zealots, etc.) use to apply blame or steal unwarranted praise. For instance: Porridge sales falling; home ownership on the increase. The headline invites you to associate porridge with home ownership without actually saying one causes the other. It only implies there's a link. It's not a lie; more a misdirection.

Angry F1 drivers... Sky TV...

Juxtaposition is a card in the questionable cause deck, part of the correlation does not imply causation family of fallacies. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc as they say absolutely nowhere.

Yes, I wrote a book about it.

:D
 
Back
Top Bottom