Is it possible to have too many races?

[Slyboogy]

I've read that Bernie is trying to increase the number of races by quite some margin for the next Concorde agreement:

At the moment there are a number of restrictions placed on the Commercial Rights Holder (CRH) when it comes to the events. He cannot, for example, reduce the winter break unless they are more races (ie earning opportunities) for the teams. Thus he can have up to 20 races, but must still allow for a 12 week break. He must also allow for a three week break in August.

At the moment the maximum number of races allowed is 20, but the CRH must include six events from a list of 12 countries. The list of these protected entities is believed to include Abu Dhabi/Bahrain, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Singapore, Spain and the United Kingdom.

In addition team consent is required if there are more than 17 races and at least half the races must be held in Europe and the United States.

From what I am hearing the plan is to increase the basic number of races to 20 and allow for another possible four. This will mean higher travel costs for the teams but more paydays. The costs can be reduced somewhat with the intelligent twinning of race meetings. This year there are a series of back-to-back races so that transportation costs are minimised.

Teams have been opposed to having more than 20 races because they believe it will require two separate race teams in order to relieve the pressure on their staff. NASCAR uses such a system because it has 36 championship races and five non-championship events. The scale of the travel in NASCAR is, however, far less than is necessary in F1 and most teams have their own planes in order to ease the hassle involved. While this may be possible for the biggest teams, it will mean that the smaller teams will be more stretched as they will have to do the whole calendar without staff alternation.

Can't say I'm surprised, several new tracks coming into the calendar, no spaces left unless you drop races, the more the races the more money the commercial rights holder receives as the money for hosting for a grand prix will increase.

I wonder if the teams will agree though.

(also, I didn't really know where to put this article, if there is a similar thread where this post can fit in, then feel free to move it.)

 

[jez101]

I'd be all for more races, especially if it meant the end of these three week breaks!

I'm sure the teams would agree if the money was right. With Bernie able to charge $40m+ for new races, I'm sure he can find the incentive

 

[RasputinLives]

I think if they are going to increase the number of races then they need to order the Grand Prixs in more of a direct route around the world to save costs rather than going from one side to the other.

I've always liked the idea of splitting the season into 3 sections. So you'd have the Asian/Australisia section. The European Section and The America's section.

So basically start in Australia and work anti-clockwise round the world arriving in Europe (first race in Hungary) for the summer with GB as the European closer - then up to Canada for an early fall race through the U.S and Mexico and then ending the season in Brazil.

Surely by transporting the cars round like that it'd save costs? Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Slyboogy]

I think 20 races is enough, it's starting to get out of hand.

Too many races, the sport will lose its appeal.

With the races limited, it makes it unique and makes you excited for the upcoming race, now if they keep adding to the calendar it's just going to turn into football, with many only tuning in for the main races, such as Monaco, Spa etc.

 

[Kewee]

Starting the season in Australia then taking in two Asian races and Bahrain as they head back to Europe makes sense. The return to Asia has to happen later in the year to avoid the monsoon season in India. The race that I've always wondered about is Canada. I've never understood why that race is not included in the American leg to avoid a second hop across the Atlantic. Maybe that's weather related, I'm not sure. I always thought the teams were consulted regarding the calendar, though I could be wrong.

 

[downforce]

I think 20 races is enough, it's starting to get out of hand.

Too many races, the sport will lose its appeal.

With the races limited, it makes it unique and makes you excited for the upcoming race, now if they keep adding to the calendar it's just going to turn into football, with many only tuning in for the main races, such as Monaco, Spa etc.

this

 

[downforce]

not too mention the team staff would probably burn out and it would raise costs for the teams

 

[jez101]

I don't really care about how many races it adds up to, but I don't like these long breaks. Malaysia to China was painful as the season sort of started and then stopped for 3 weeks. Then we get another two races and another 3 week break...

Two weeks is fine and we don't have another back to back until Germany / Hungary on 22nd & 29th July.

Then a five week break .

After that it all goes a bit mad with 9 races in 12 weeks

Either spread them out a bit better (I understand the counter argument), or put a couple more races in there. Just give me a race! Otherwise I get argumentative, don't I, Slyboogy

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Is it possible to have too many races?

Yes, and I think there are too many already, for all the reasons stated in other people's posts above. To which I'd add that for fans like myself with families or partners, it becomes more of a strain to fit into family life.
Personally I was happy with 16 races, but 18 was just about ok.

 

[Vortex]

Yes it is, too much of a good thing can become a bad thing. 20 is enough. I don’t know why we keep getting these 3 week breaks and a 5 week?!, its not like we don’t have enough races to fill a season is it. 20 races two weeks apart is a 40 week season.

Too many races just dilutes the appeal.

 

[landogeorgelewis1]

A race weekend every 2 weeks would be fine with me, so long as we have just a three week summer break and a 3 month winter break. As I do feel sorry for the guys and girls who are away from home for long periods of time.

I also agree that Canada really needs to move too a slot where the American GP is, as at this moment in time it doesn't make sense to have it where they've got it at this present moment in time.

 

[canis]

Some of the top teams already rotate some of the staff for the fly away races, not key personel but things like marketing, HR/OH/H&S support will not be the same at each of the races. This is to stop people not wanting to get involved so deeply as if they have to attend every race they will be away from home for the majority of the year.

If you increase the race numbers then key personel (Mechanics etc) will need o be rotated otherwise they will burn out. You will find that the garage staff will be exhausted by the end of a season with the current work load, even with the 3 week break in between, and to increase the strain they go through will start to cause them to break and make stupid mistakes when they are most needed. Yes, more races means more money for the teams, but the cost of running what would be in effect 2 race teams will be immense compared to the small increase in income.

Once again a case of Bernie wants to increase his income for FOM but has no thought of the people the decision really affects.

 

[Galahad]

I think BE might be struggling to extract more from the broadcast rights and needs more races to maintain the growth in income that has occurred in the past 10 years.

For me, 20 is about the limit. I might be a bit biased in wanting the load to be eased slightly, though!

Montreal is too cold to host a race for quite a large part of the year. It could be moved, yes, but not to the start or end of the season.

 

[Speshal]

I'm split on this one. On one hand having worked away from home for long periods I know it can be a pain in the arse but on the other you could easily slip in a couple of races in the silly gaps we have at the moment.

I totally agree with RasputinLives that they should follow a better route around the globe.

How about:

Oz - Malaysia - China - Korea - India - Bahrain - Turkey - (Russia) - European races - Canada - USA - Brazil

 

[KekeTheKing]

The logistics involved with the modern Formula One circus simply do not allow for a massively beefed up schedule. Moving these mountains of equipment to the far flung regions of the world is a monumental task.

If it were still a more a Euro-centric series then I'm sure these teams could handle 23+ Grand Prix. And I'm just as sure that I would watch.

 

[landogeorgelewis1]

Come on lets get real here this is coming from the same burk that moved the Malaysian GP from a sensible time slot to a daft one. What BE wants he normally gets!

 

[RasputinLives]

The only problem with having Canada a bit late on is the weather! You'd need it to be early fall at the latest unless we're planning on ice tyres!

I understand why the staff have to come home but surely it would be cheaper and easier just to transport the equiptment from one Grand Prix site to another. I know the teams won't like this because it would stop development but they could always be given time to work on the cars in the country the GP is in. Surely all the teams could buy in and share transport costs at that point.

That way if they talked about the F1 circus rolling into town it really would be rolling into town.

Speshal (someone tell me how to do tagging please!):

I'd go:

Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Korea, China, India, Abu Dhabi, Russia, Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Monaco, Italy, Spain, France, Great Britain, Canada, U.S East Coast, U.S West Coast, Mexico, Brazil.

Thats 22 and I think a good cal.

 

[gdeacon7]

The more races there are, the more the excitement is diluted. But I can see the economic benefits to having more races. I know that I'll watch every race they put on. But as a way of keeping the number of races down and keeping some circuits alive, I think more races should be paired up to alternate. For example, the Australian Grand Prix runs at a loss and the Victorian Government has been threatening to pull the plug for several years now. More people will turn up per event if they held it every two years rather than every year. It could alternate with, say, Turkey. That way, the calendar stays interesting (in the sense that F1 doesn't visit the same circuits every year), some venues struggling for crowds would get a bit of a boost, the sport can be global without abandoning Europe and the teams and drivers won't implode from the manic race schedule.

 

[sportsman]

Twenty is plently.Even at twenty races I still have to miss three or four during the seaon as family commitents mean that there more important things on Sunday afternoon.
As has been pointed out to many races and you dilute the appeal.

 

[Galahad]

The other point, I suppose, is that the more you have the more F1 crowds out other forms of motorsport, international and local, and both TV viewing figures and circuit attendance would suffer as a result, I've no doubt.