ITV adverts

VisaGTi16v · Post by **VisaGTi16v** » 25 Apr 2005, 19:55

They keep getting it wrong with the rules. The main underlying problem is the amount of aerodynamic aid allowed. The cars simply cannot follow each other closely as it mucks up the air going to their cars and thus less grip and so its always strung out, less overtakes etc. What they need is more mechanical grip, not aerodynamic but instead of this they bring out stupid rules like 1 set of grooved tyres per race and so on. All this does is make drivers take it easier so as to not risk killing their tyres etc. I also believe the new engine rules are a false economy. They say its cheaper as they must last for 2 races. Nonsense as it just means they will spend far more on develeopment and testing to ensure they get the same power but it lasts longer!

ACTIVE8 · Post by **ACTIVE8** » 25 Apr 2005, 20:08

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

There's ten times the excitement of F1 at a local Banger meet!!
Its a bit like having the olympics to a developing nation, only they sell their souls to Bernie Ecclestone[}:)]for some imaginary status or benefit-and its the same in the UK, look at the Silverstone debacle, new trunk roads and all sorts being built at taxpayers expense so Bernie can get his punters in a bit quicker, and then he says he may still drop the race!!!!
Bring back TV rally-cross, thats what I say!!!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, I wish they would bring back the rally cross on T.V. [:D] [:D]
I really enjoyed watching it, and miss it.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 25 Apr 2005, 21:24

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by VisaGTi16v

They keep getting it wrong with the rules. The main underlying problem is the amount of aerodynamic aid allowed. The cars simply cannot follow each other closely as it mucks up the air going to their cars and thus less grip and so its always strung out, less overtakes etc. What they need is more mechanical grip, not aerodynamic but instead of this they bring out stupid rules like 1 set of grooved tyres per race and so on. All this does is make drivers take it easier so as to not risk killing their tyres etc. I also believe the new engine rules are a false economy. They say its cheaper as they must last for 2 races. Nonsense as it just means they will spend far more on develeopment and testing to ensure they get the same power but it lasts longer!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I agree with pretty much all of that.
The change in tyres this season means that there is less of the "marbles" about on the track which is a good thing. What also needs doing is modifying the cars so that they can follow each other closely in the same way that the touring cars do. The race at the weekend showed that even though Michael was seconds a lap faster than Fernando, he could not pass him.
The engines having to last 2 races, yes it means you have to buy fewer engines, but the big teams have massive budgets and if you stop them from spending them in one area they'll find somewhere else to spend them without any problem. The aero rule changes caught Ferrari and Minardi out, but Ferrari have the resources to get them back to a dominant position.
Is it next season that the 2.4 litre V8s come in? Where is Minardi (or Jordan for that matter) going to find the cash to develop a new engine?

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 25 Apr 2005, 21:59

Couldn't agree more with all of the above. I gave up on F1 about 3-4 years ago, and from the sounds of things, it hasn't improved at all. Motorbike racing is far more thrilling to watch, as there are overtaking manoevers all the time, the race lead changes almost every 5 minutes, and the whole event seems much friendlier.
2cv racing is also an absolute hoot to watch, but for ultimate hilarity, it has to be lawnmover racing.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 25 Apr 2005, 22:18

I'd agree with motorbike racing being closer.
Watching the final lap of the opening race of the Moto GP, the lead changed hands several times on the one lap, and there was contact too. Gibernau and Rossi...

VisaGTi16v · Post by **VisaGTi16v** » 25 Apr 2005, 22:29

Joradn buy their engines from Toyota and Minardi likewise from Cosworth so they dont have development costs to worry about there. Red Bull Racing ie ex Jaguar have announced they are dropping Cosworth and buying Ferrari engines next year and its expected that Sauber will get Bmw engines instead of their current Ferrari ones (rebranded as Petronas).
If you look at other single seat formulas like champcars or indy racing league in america they can follow each other very closely as they have far less aerodynamic aids. Cant recall if they have flat bottoms or not. One way round effects it due to ground effect or something. They also have good old slick tyres

np · Post by np » 26 Apr 2005, 02:22

Acording to the paper today,there was a lot of backlash on the ITV website for the advert.ITV were contracted to show 5 adverts during the race.But as they were focusing on the battle towards the end,"forgot" about the final ad break,so showed when they did.
Theres to much money involved in it nowadays.
V8 engines in next year/season.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 26 Apr 2005, 12:41

Then ITV should be fined.
It's quite simple, there should be no ad breaks during the race. They stick enough of them in before and after. What next, ad breaks during the post race interview????!!!??!??!?

bxbodger · Post by **bxbodger** » 26 Apr 2005, 18:21

I don't know why everyone is getting so steamed up about the ads- F1 exists purely for Bernie Ecclestone to sell advertising space on the cars, the circuits, the TV coverage, and anywhere else he can get it- the racing is secondary to this.
The whole F1 set up is built around advertising-without it F1 would not exist-it is pure showbiz, not sport, and Eccleston is a very sharp and astute businessman-he controls it at every level and his contract with ITV will stipulate when the breaks are to be.
I would imagine he sees F1 is the motorsport equivelant of American football,only bigger and better and more international, with a superbowl every couple of weeks.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2cv racing is also an absolute hoot to watch, but for ultimate hilarity, it has to be lawnmover racing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I would add half-car racing to that list-the front half of a FWD car cut off from the back half and raced: I have'nt seen it for some time, but hopefully it still goes on somewhere.

Oscar Too · Post by **Oscar Too** » 26 Apr 2005, 21:40

Yes, Bodger has hit it. Viewers often imagine that the programme is the "product", developed and being shown for their entertainment as consumers. The reality is very different. TV and advertising execs see the viewers as the "product", gathered in around showcase events and programmes to be sold to the advertisers via the TV medium. The more product, the higher the advertising space sells for. Programmes that are successful in attracting product are copied, reworked and repeated, with out-takes and specials being shown on other channels to acquire more product. The jargon in the trade is "capturing eyeballs". Anyone interested in liberating their eyeballs can buy a handy little universal off button from www.tvbgone.com
I must get out more!!
Oscar