Sky F1 2012
- Thread starter teabagyokel
- Start date
Where's Lazenby gone? Is it to do with Grace Kelly?
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
He did FP1 and 2 I think, Georgie looks gorgeous as ever 
but Jacques seems awkward...
but Jacques seems awkward...
You missed it.
I must say that I am very dissapointed with Sky's cheap imitation of Jake Humphreys. He doesn't have a clue about anything and just seems a waste of space. He always looks uncomfortable and out of his depth. Even Georgie Thompson seems to have a lot more to contribute to the show.
I must say that I am very dissapointed with Sky's cheap imitation of Jake Humphreys. He doesn't have a clue about anything and just seems a waste of space. He always looks uncomfortable and out of his depth. Even Georgie Thompson seems to have a lot more to contribute to the show.
Bus Stop Chicane
Points Scorer
A combination of staying in student accommodation with no telly and not having Sky has seen me only catch Nico Rosberg's first win this season. What I would like to know from people who got Sky F1 is has it really been worth it? Does it cost much more? Do you watch the races that the BBC show live on the BBC or do you watch every one on Sky? Out of principle I'll never at any point get it because, as someone who was against the Sky/BBC deal, I would feel like a hypocrite to get it. I love F1, but not that much.
I suspect you'll get a wide range of responses here. Personally I don't see much difference in the quality of the F1 offerings from BBC to Sky, hence I don't particularly feel the cost of Sky (£22 per month) is good value. The other series that Sky cover, and other sports, mitigate that quite a bit though. The dual-broadcasted events I have watched on the Beeb since that is currently my only HD option.
I just stick to Sky now and welcome the additional race coverage for the other series.
Personally I couldn't stand Humphreys, Coulthard and Jordan so was grateful for the opportunity to watch another presenting team.
Having said that, I'm not that impressed with the alternative at the moment and feel there is room for improvement - certainly the woman in the studio could quite easily be dropped.
Ultimately though it's the commentary which counts and I'm more than happy with Brundle and Croft.
I found Coulthard far too biased towards Red Bull.
I don't pay any extra to receive the Sky F1 HD channel so there was no additional outlay for me.
Personally I couldn't stand Humphreys, Coulthard and Jordan so was grateful for the opportunity to watch another presenting team.
Having said that, I'm not that impressed with the alternative at the moment and feel there is room for improvement - certainly the woman in the studio could quite easily be dropped.
Ultimately though it's the commentary which counts and I'm more than happy with Brundle and Croft.
I found Coulthard far too biased towards Red Bull.
I don't pay any extra to receive the Sky F1 HD channel so there was no additional outlay for me.
Sky. Humphrey is a cock.
gethinceri
Even worse than Lazenby?
For me, after seeing both broadcasters' coverage, I think that the BBC team are doing a very good job with what their idiotic directors have left for them.
Coulthard has definitely toned down his bias this year, and he has definitely developed as an F1 broadcaster (and does a good gridwalk, too (although not as good as Brundle - yet!).
Ben Edwards is excellent (as those who watched BTCC last year will testify), and they make a good pairing, they don't interrupt each other and there are no awkward pauses (and no Legard-style excitement - although he was excellent on 5live).
Gary Anderson has very useful insights, has great technical know-how and simplifies the explanation for the casual viewer - all with a pen and a bit of paper! Also, he is rapidly improving his broadcastability (is that a word?).
Lee Mckenzie is good, but not brilliant (the BBC should hire Tom Clarkson - interviewer for Canada while Lee is presenting).
As for Eddie Jordan, well, he can be a bit annoying and embarrassing, but he does inject some needed humour, isn't afraid to ask big, controversial questions and he has that gravitas in the paddock to grab the big interviews.
For Jake, he is an accomplished broadcaster who the f1 personnel seem to like to be interviewed by. He has developed excellent chemistry with DC and EJ.
As for Sky, whilst their coverage and channel is good, there can be big improvements. Although I haven't experienced any of Sky's red button features or their constantly mentioned 5.1 surround sound, but many people I've asked say the red button stuff is brilliant. As for HD, nothing new there.
So to their lineup. Ted Kravitz is still brilliant, great insight and a good broadcaster, easily able to explain technical stuff - nothing more to be said.
Brundle is still good, still F1 royalty, although I don't think his partnership with Croft (who seems a bit too shouty) isn't as good as Edwards/Coulthard.
Pinkham is, to be frank, a clueless idiot, who asks the same questions all the time.
Georgie Thompson has good presenting skills, but has as much knowledge about F1 as my pet rabbit. She stands there uselessly at the 'skypad' - which is completely underused. Although she is good at presenting FP3.
Davidson must be going to the bank laughing, seeing as he seems to be invisible on Sky F1.
Herbert is competent. Damon Hill has improved vastly from Australia. I think Sky need to get a designer, or a former team owner, to have more variety in their punditry.
So... Simon Lazenby. Tries too hard to be as good as Jake, but failing miserably. No charisma, little knowledge, and he asks stupid questions. He should be removed next year, even before GraceKellygate.
Their F1 channel needs to have classic races on it!!!
BBC provide far more analysis than Sky, albeit with some inane waffle, followed by the light-hearted forum (which is great TV) Sky's post-race coverage has more waffle in it than a fat American's breakfast.
Sky tv rights>BBC tv rights
BBC coverage>Sky coverage
Kravitz>Anderson
BE+DC>other DC+MB (just)
Mckenzie>Pinkham
Jake>Lazenby (by far)
BBC pundits>Sky Pundits
So what I do is watch BBC's races live, as their coverage is superior, and try and get Sky's coverage for the non live weekends one way or another, as I have to see the race live! If Sky improve during the close season, then it is well worth however much it costs per month. At the moment, in my opinion, the cost isn't worth it. Note to Sky, quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality! However, the red button features on Sky seem to be brilliant (from what others have told me). Th question is, would you spend the race watching the pit-lane or team radio channel? Because, aside from the obvious rights deal, these seem to be the only benefits of Sky F1, as their coverage (ie analysis, F1 team) certainly aren't worth the money.
PS Sorry for the long essay!
Even worse than Lazenby?
For me, after seeing both broadcasters' coverage, I think that the BBC team are doing a very good job with what their idiotic directors have left for them.
Coulthard has definitely toned down his bias this year, and he has definitely developed as an F1 broadcaster (and does a good gridwalk, too (although not as good as Brundle - yet!).
Ben Edwards is excellent (as those who watched BTCC last year will testify), and they make a good pairing, they don't interrupt each other and there are no awkward pauses (and no Legard-style excitement - although he was excellent on 5live).
Gary Anderson has very useful insights, has great technical know-how and simplifies the explanation for the casual viewer - all with a pen and a bit of paper! Also, he is rapidly improving his broadcastability (is that a word?).
Lee Mckenzie is good, but not brilliant (the BBC should hire Tom Clarkson - interviewer for Canada while Lee is presenting).
As for Eddie Jordan, well, he can be a bit annoying and embarrassing, but he does inject some needed humour, isn't afraid to ask big, controversial questions and he has that gravitas in the paddock to grab the big interviews.
For Jake, he is an accomplished broadcaster who the f1 personnel seem to like to be interviewed by. He has developed excellent chemistry with DC and EJ.
As for Sky, whilst their coverage and channel is good, there can be big improvements. Although I haven't experienced any of Sky's red button features or their constantly mentioned 5.1 surround sound, but many people I've asked say the red button stuff is brilliant. As for HD, nothing new there.
So to their lineup. Ted Kravitz is still brilliant, great insight and a good broadcaster, easily able to explain technical stuff - nothing more to be said.
Brundle is still good, still F1 royalty, although I don't think his partnership with Croft (who seems a bit too shouty) isn't as good as Edwards/Coulthard.
Pinkham is, to be frank, a clueless idiot, who asks the same questions all the time.
Georgie Thompson has good presenting skills, but has as much knowledge about F1 as my pet rabbit. She stands there uselessly at the 'skypad' - which is completely underused. Although she is good at presenting FP3.
Davidson must be going to the bank laughing, seeing as he seems to be invisible on Sky F1.
Herbert is competent. Damon Hill has improved vastly from Australia. I think Sky need to get a designer, or a former team owner, to have more variety in their punditry.
So... Simon Lazenby. Tries too hard to be as good as Jake, but failing miserably. No charisma, little knowledge, and he asks stupid questions. He should be removed next year, even before GraceKellygate.
Their F1 channel needs to have classic races on it!!!
BBC provide far more analysis than Sky, albeit with some inane waffle, followed by the light-hearted forum (which is great TV) Sky's post-race coverage has more waffle in it than a fat American's breakfast.
Sky tv rights>BBC tv rights
BBC coverage>Sky coverage
Kravitz>Anderson
BE+DC>other DC+MB (just)
Mckenzie>Pinkham
Jake>Lazenby (by far)
BBC pundits>Sky Pundits
So what I do is watch BBC's races live, as their coverage is superior, and try and get Sky's coverage for the non live weekends one way or another, as I have to see the race live! If Sky improve during the close season, then it is well worth however much it costs per month. At the moment, in my opinion, the cost isn't worth it. Note to Sky, quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality! However, the red button features on Sky seem to be brilliant (from what others have told me). Th question is, would you spend the race watching the pit-lane or team radio channel? Because, aside from the obvious rights deal, these seem to be the only benefits of Sky F1, as their coverage (ie analysis, F1 team) certainly aren't worth the money.
PS Sorry for the long essay!
Before you get a chance to edit I just have to point out that quantity DOES equal quantity.
I still prefer Sky, and Humphrey is still a cock.
I have the race on the telly and laptop and iPad for other feeds. Sky's the limit.
I still prefer Sky, and Humphrey is still a cock.
I have the race on the telly and laptop and iPad for other feeds. Sky's the limit.
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
Red button is amazing on Sky
Is Sky good value? I'll tell you when I get back from watching the rugby from Johannesburg on SS2.
landogeorgelewis1
Champion Elect
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
I think Ben and DC and Martin and the other DC's commentary are equal, I just prefer BBC on it
I get my Sky thru Sky Go on my laptop, just comparing that with the BBC - Sky is 33 seconds behind as they are both showing the same FOM feed - That's almost 1/3rd of a lap round here.
As I like to be in the chat during the race it seems that everyone else can see things before me, so I'll watch it when it's on the Beeb and put up with a lag when it's not.
As I like to be in the chat during the race it seems that everyone else can see things before me, so I'll watch it when it's on the Beeb and put up with a lag when it's not.
Sky overload with pre-race coverage and after, it's bollocks. The analysis and previews is what I used to watch, used to get me hyped up for races, ever since F1 left itv, it hasnt felt the same.
Compare that with BBC, who just have two idiots ( EJ, Jake) having a love in with each other, while their pre-race coverage tries to win comedy awards. DC is the only likeable link for BBC.
Come to the commentators, Croft just gets annoying by the race, not a fan of Edwards either who is quite similar.
Sky wins for me due to having full coverage, and 2-3 insightful pundits, and one idiot (Simon lazenby)
Compare that with BBC, who just have two idiots ( EJ, Jake) having a love in with each other, while their pre-race coverage tries to win comedy awards. DC is the only likeable link for BBC.
Come to the commentators, Croft just gets annoying by the race, not a fan of Edwards either who is quite similar.
Sky wins for me due to having full coverage, and 2-3 insightful pundits, and one idiot (Simon lazenby)
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article