The Testing Ban Makes F1 Stale

[teabagyokel]

...according to Fernando Alonso.

http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/23263.html

So apparently, Ferrari's lack of testing means they can't invent anything. Quite why McLaren and Red Bull seem to have technical innovation with a similar testing ban is a different question.

Also apparently, Alonso has a moment every day when he looks out of the window at the empty Fiorano circuit. Someone bring out the violins!

With a testing ban, in 2009, McLaren managed to go from the back of the grid to the front in little over 2 weeks. BMW did something similar later on. It seems the incessant moaning from the red camp will just continue until the deciding factor in Formula One is once again

 

[Brogan]

I'm fairly sure I said a while ago that Ferrari would suffer the most under new rules to limit testing and expenditure in that area.

Let's face it, for the last x years they have had (almost) unlimited funds, a private test track for use any time of the day and night, test drivers, drivers, simulators and teams of engineers.
Arguably they were in the best possible situation of all the teams prior to the testing ban.

It could be argued that now that Ferrari have to compete on a level playing field, their shortcomings are becoming apparent.

McLaren may not come up with the best initial design at the beginning of the season but they seem to make more improvements and in a shorter time-scale than any other team on the grid.

 

[snowy]

Whilst I can see how Ferrari suffered more than most in the first instance from the in season testing ban, it is a pretty sad indictment of there technical team if they feel they can't innovate.

I miss in season testing, being a staunch supporter of unlimited testing due to the fact that when F1 cars aren't running round circuits very fast my life is exceedingly empty and boring. But Ferrari's location with the warmer climate gave them a distinct advantage that I do not miss one jot.

 

[snowy]

McLaren may not come up with the best initial design at the beginning of the season but they seem to make more improvements and in a shorter time-scale than any other team on the grid.

This is a very recent development in their character. I would cite numerous campaigns against Williams in the early nineties and Kimi's entire career with McLaren, where they failed to improve their cars at all and lost their drivers because of it.

 

[Grizzly]

McLaren may not come up with the best initial design at the beginning of the season but they seem to make more improvements and in a shorter time-scale than any other team on the grid.

This is a very recent development in their character. I would cite numerous campaigns against Williams in the early nineties and Kimi's entire career with McLaren, where they failed to improve their cars at all and lost their drivers because of it.

But don't forget McLaren suffered hugely with Merc's reliability a few years back in the partnership. I remember almost every week willing Kimi and David on, then after about 10-15 laps, Boooom! smoke, oil, grinding noises.... I remember a comment from Brundle about how Mercedes had 200 engineers working flat out to resolve their reliability problems.

Back to Ferrari; maybe they got rid of the British design team when Brawn left?? lol!

 

[Porceliamone]

I think all the reliability problems with the McLarens were engine related (when Kimi should have won a couple of world championships with ease). Weren't Ilmor forced to remove Berylium from the 'Mercedes' engine? I heard the engine designer unfortunately died around the same time? I can't confirmt this right now as I'm at work but if anyone's up for a little research please be my guest! The car itself was ferociously fast.

 

[gribbli]

Alonso's idea of the perfect F1 season is the one where he is driving an unbeatable car against a very beatable team-mate.

If his ego taking a bit of a kicking is the sacrifice for competitive races and well matched team-mates....well that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make

 

[DOF_power]

Ferrari haven't adapted to virtual development like McLaren did.

If Ferrari and their drivers miss in the fight for the titles the TV ratings will go down as they did in 2005 vs. 2004, or in 2009 vs. 2008/2007/2006 and there will less TV revenues.

 

[KekeTheKing]

Ferrari haven't adapted to virtual development like McLaren did.

If Ferrari and their drivers miss in the fight for the titles the TV ratings will go down as they did in 2005 vs. 2004, or in 2009 vs. 2008/2007/2006 and there will less TV revenues.

Other than your first line, I'm not sure this is terribly accurate.

If 2004 was what you consider a "Title Fight", then I think that says it all. While a minority of F1 fans enjoyed the Ferrari/Schumacher domination years, that was the very epitome of "stale". With the injection of new blood battling for wins, F1's TV ratings have been on a rise since the early-mid 2000's. Sure, they may have dipped in Italy and among the lesser Ferrari fans, but other markets worldwide have seen enormous boosts in their viewing figures.

And I don't think TV ratings have any effect whatsoever on the TV revenue for that given year, as the deals are already in place well ahead of time. Advertisement revenue for certain TV outlets may fluctuate, but Bernie makes darn sure that he has a big chunk of cash guaranteed before the lights go out at the first GP.

As for Alonso's assertion that the testing ban makes for a "stale" F1, he is surely viewing the world through his Ferrari Red tinted shades. With four drivers involved in a genuine Title Fight, and an intense development battle raging, "stale" might be the last word I would use to describe the current state of Formula One. Would everyone like to see the cars on track more often, undoubtedly, but that is simply not the case, and with constant advances in windtunnel and computer design, I can't see things changing anytime soon.

 

[TK421W]

have to say, i agree with keke the king. I believe this is the second year that the testing ban has been in place, and weve had a great year and a half. This years first half is also significantly better than last years first half, and is turning out to be a classic year of F1.

One could argue that the testing ban has adversely affected Ferrari more than anyone else, but i personally see it as making things fair; Ferrari were the only team to have their own personal test track and therefor unlimited testing, how can even a respectable midfield team have any chance of competing with that?

That, combined with the Ferrari fall out with the FIA, which i believe began in earnest with the formation of Fota -v- daMMax. Since then, Todt, has not shown Ferrari any ounce of bias at all, something i was somewhat concerned about and not at the same time. reason for my indecision regarding Todts possible bias, i was worried due to his long association with them. on the other hand, i do remember Todt having a major fall out with Luca near the end of his reign and i do recall him being forced out (though obviously that wasnt the offical line).

Anything that promotes equality with regards to regulations should be welcomed in my view. Ferrari are having difficulty because they havent adapted/are too slow to adapt to the new sporting conditions.

With regards to Alonso, he did say the F10 was the best car he has ever driven, no doubt he is regretting that now and obviously feels the need to make excuses.

 

[DOF_power]

Ferrari haven't adapted to virtual development like McLaren did.

If Ferrari and their drivers miss in the fight for the titles the TV ratings will go down as they did in 2005 vs. 2004, or in 2009 vs. 2008/2007/2006 and there will less TV revenues.

Other than your first line, I'm not sure this is terribly accurate.

If 2004 was what you consider a "Title Fight", then I think that says it all. While a minority of F1 fans enjoyed the Ferrari/Schumacher domination years, that was the very epitome of "stale". With the injection of new blood battling for wins, F1's TV ratings have been on a rise since the early-mid 2000's. Sure, they may have dipped in Italy and among the lesser Ferrari fans, but other markets worldwide have seen enormous boosts in their viewing figures.

And I don't think TV ratings have any effect whatsoever on the TV revenue for that given year, as the deals are already in place well ahead of time. Advertisement revenue for certain TV outlets may fluctuate, but Bernie makes darn sure that he has a big chunk of cash guaranteed before the lights go out at the first GP.

As for Alonso's assertion that the testing ban makes for a "stale" F1, he is surely viewing the world through his Ferrari Red tinted shades. With four drivers involved in a genuine Title Fight, and an intense development battle raging, "stale" might be the last word I would use to describe the current state of Formula One. Would everyone like to see the cars on track more often, undoubtedly, but that is simply not the case, and with constant advances in windtunnel and computer design, I can't see things changing anytime soon.

2005 did have worse ratings then 2004.
Not having the most popular team and driver hurt TV audiences more so then their domination. It's just how things work.

The rating for the last race/most watched race of 2009 were absolutely horrible compared to 2008. If this trend continues the TV money for contracts will be less, make no mistake about it.

F1 is not a sport it's a business, and in the best interest of the business for Ferrari first and foremost to be competitive and in the fight till the end.

 

[DOF_power]

The most watched race in 2009 was Bahrain with an average 54 millions vs. Brazil 2008 with a 78 million average.
The biggest drops being in Italy and Spain.

Brazil 2006 tops F1 TV ratings with an average of 83 million.
That's 3 seasons of decline.

 

[teabagyokel]

@DOF_Power. I can only talk about TV ratings in my own house, and I can tell you I did not watch any of the second half of 2004. 2004 was crap.

Now, I don't give a monkey's what the glory hounds who will only watch if Ferrari are winning think. Essentially, I'd feel that the whole show would be better off without them. And I don't give a monkey's if "the business" (read: Bernie Ecclestone) makes any money. Again, if he made less money, maybe he'd leave it alone.

But quite frankly, I would like the stuff I see on the TV being entertaining, and for a Championship battle to develop. I'd rather less people enjoyed themselves rather than more suffered. And frankly, 2005 and 2009 were so much better than 2002 and 2004 it is untrue.

So DOF_Power, you can talk about the business side all you like, but when everyone watching thinks in those terms there will be no point watching.

 

[DOF_power]

@DOF_Power. I can only talk about TV ratings in my own house, and I can tell you I did not watch any of the second half of 2004. 2004 was crap.

Now, I don't give a monkey's what the glory hounds who will only watch if Ferrari are winning think. Essentially, I'd feel that the whole show would be better off without them. And I don't give a monkey's if "the business" (read: Bernie Ecclestone) makes any money. Again, if he made less money, maybe he'd leave it alone.

But quite frankly, I would like the stuff I see on the TV being entertaining, and for a Championship battle to develop. I'd rather less people enjoyed themselves rather than more suffered. And frankly, 2005 and 2009 were so much better than 2002 and 2004 it is untrue.

So DOF_Power, you can talk about the business side all you like, but when everyone watching thinks in those terms there will be no point watching.

And I'm talking about global audience figures.
Without business there is no F1. And there wouldn't have been any Grand Prix (motor racing) in 1906 either.

You are british, and Britain isn't in the top 3 neither by numbers (Brazil, China, Italy) nor by percentage of the population (Italy, Spain, Hungary).

I never said 2002/2004 were better then 2005 (2009 was almost just as horrible as 2002/2004), just that the TV ratings were better in 2004 vs. 2005 and in 2006/2007/2008 vs. 2009.

 

[Bullfrog]

I still don't see how that magically transfers to 'Ferrari winning makes more people watch', there are too many variables to even attempt to justify it.

 

[KekeTheKing]

The rating for the last race/most watched race of 2009 were absolutely horrible compared to 2008. If this trend continues the TV money for contracts will be less, make no mistake about it.

Could these two scenarios be any more different? 2008 was a battle down to the last lap involving the sport's two biggest teams. 2009 was settled, for all intents and purposes, by the midway point between relative newcomers to the F1 scene, and the final race in Abu Dhabi meant nothing towards the World Championships. There is no trend, closely fought Title Battles will always garner higher ratings.

I will grant you the point that a Championship fight involving Ferrari will certainly deliver massive viewer ratings, but that surely doesn't mean that the Powers at Be should enable Ferrari to have an advantage over the rest of the field to ensure maximum profitability for their TV rights.

To bring this back to the testing ban, Ferrari have nobody to blame but themselves, if they have lost viewers/fans due to their inability to contend in a Championship, you identified the problem in your original post.

"Ferrari haven't adapted to virtual development like McLaren did." Or Red Bull for that matter.

 

[Brogan]

Here's an earlier thread in which Mosely believes Ferrari would fail under a budget cap.

It looks like he might have been correct.

Also, in the news today, the testing rules have been tightened so that with immediate effect, all teams are banned from running any new parts on their cars during filming or promotional days.

 

[DOF_power]

The rating for the last race/most watched race of 2009 were absolutely horrible compared to 2008. If this trend continues the TV money for contracts will be less, make no mistake about it.

Could these two scenarios be any more different? 2008 was a battle down to the last lap involving the sport's two biggest teams. 2009 was settled, for all intents and purposes, by the midway point between relative newcomers to the F1 scene, and the final race in Abu Dhabi meant nothing towards the World Championships. There is no trend, closely fought Title Battles will always garner higher ratings.

I will grant you the point that a Championship fight involving Ferrari will certainly deliver massive viewer ratings, but that surely doesn't mean that the Powers at Be should enable Ferrari to have an advantage over the rest of the field to ensure maximum profitability for their TV rights.

To bring this back to the testing ban, Ferrari have nobody to blame but themselves, if they have lost viewers/fans due to their inability to contend in a Championship, you identified the problem in your original post.

"Ferrari haven't adapted to virtual development like McLaren did." Or Red Bull for that matter.

And I never stated anything that different.

Just one thing to point out, when the TV contracts come up, everyone will get less money unless a] Ferrari become competitive and take the fight to the wire or b] the rules are changed to make them competitive again (2005 vs. 2006 tire rule change).
.
If Ferrari suffers ultimately the effect will be felt by everyone, because Ferrari are different and they are special.
GP racing was not a sport intended for garagistes.

 

[Brogan]

Ferrari are different and they are special.
GP racing was not a sport intended for garagistes.

I think I can safely say I disagree 100% with both of those statements.

But you know what, it's the reasons why people like F1 that makes it so unique, so each to their own is my philosophy.

 

[teabagyokel]

Ferrari are different and they are special

I'm sorry but that will ensure the death of this sport

*Mod Comment Please think about what you are saying and how it could affect potential new members. Fat Jez*

*I apologise and will refrain in future. TBY.*