[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Peter Mallett]

Interestingly Amazon is in talks to take over Premier League Football in the UK. As a diverse company they could feasibly offer coverage for the Same price as prime . Might make more sense than Sky having the monopoly on F1.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by loon

Liberty are just like CVC but with a smiley face

Except CVC were in it for the short term and were trying to sell F1. Are you suggesting that Liberty have those priorities too?

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by loon

Liberty are just like CVC but with a smiley face

Smiley faces with a lot more facial hair perhaps?

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Interestingly Amazon is in talks to take over Premier League Football in the UK. As a diverse company they could feasibly offer coverage for the Same price as prime . Might make more sense than Sky having the monopoly on F1.

That seems to be their MO for most of their coverage, I don't believe they charged extra above Prime for the Thursday night NFL games this season. Course they were TERRIBLE games for the most part.

[Sodemo]

If that’s the case and it means Sky loose the footie, then I think that may ruin Sky in the UK. Football is a massive pull for Sky, a lot of the people I know who have it, do so simply because of the Premier League.

[S griffin]

But now BT Sport are rivaling them, for less dosh

[Chaynes321]

SKY will never lose the footie

[Peter Mallett]

Sorry it seems I took this off topic. But interestingly the current negotiations are thought to be serious and if successful may reduce funding to the Premier League. Follow that pattern and the give away momey to the F1 teams could be subject to rduction. And perhaps Liberty may want that...

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Sorry it seems I took this off topic. But interestingly the current negotiations are thought to be serious and if successful may reduce funding to the Premier League. Follow that pattern and the give away momey to the F1 teams could be subject to rduction. And perhaps Liberty may want that...

As the old saying is told, what goes round, comes round. CVC , now Liberty, gets top dollar for the broadcasting rights from SKY, who in turn, certainly in the UK, charge a hefty premium to Liberty (Virgin Media) to show F1 on their cable feed.

Result; Liberty is the loser because they are having to buy back what already belonged to them!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As the old saying is told, what goes round, comes round. CVC , now Liberty, gets top dollar for the broadcasting rights from SKY, who in turn, certainly in the UK, charge a hefty premium to Liberty (Virgin Media) to show F1 on their cable feed.

Result; Liberty is the loser because they are having to buy back what already belonged to them!

Why would Liberty be charged a hefty fee by Sky, that makes no sense. Surely Liberty charge a hefty fee to Sky, who in turn pass that on to the customer in the form of a subscription? Originally, Bernie setup F1's TV rights, so that broadcasters would have to pay FOCA to show GPs, not FOCA pay the broadcasters.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why would Liberty be charged a hefty fee by Sky, that makes no sense. Surely Liberty charge a hefty fee to Sky, who in turn pass that on to the customer in the form of a subscription? Originally, Bernie setup F1's TV rights, so that broadcasters would have to pay FOCA to show GPs, not FOCA pay the broadcasters.

Yes, that's the way that it used to work. However, as Liberty owns Virgin Media and VM has to pay a fee to SKY , because SKY have the broadcasting rights, to include SKYs' F1 channel on the cable feed. But, until the end of this year, VM also has the Channel 4 output but that doesn't cover all the races, etc. live.

[F1Guy]

Interview between Sky F1's Martin Brundle and F1 Managing Director of Motorsports Ross Brawn, as they discuss what the future holds for the sport.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/124...-on-f1s-future

All sounds very promising. But with Ferrari not wanting to play along, will FOM change their minds to appease Ferrari? Brawn is not on Marchionne's Christmas card list.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Interview between Sky F1's Martin Brundle and F1 Managing Director of Motorsports Ross Brawn, as they discuss what the future holds for the sport.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/124...-on-f1s-future

All sounds very promising. But with Ferrari not wanting to play along, will FOM change their minds to appease Ferrari? Brawn is not on Marchionne's Christmas card list.

Ross Brawn is giving off mixed signals.
First he says that the engines must be capable of being manufactured by a 3 rd party supplier.
[SIZE=3]Then he says that “normally aspirated engines were a step too far”….”The manufacturers have invested heavily in a lot of technology and we respect that and want to protect that investment.”[/SIZE]
The reason the manufacturers have a three way oligopoly in the supply and manufacture of the current power units is precisely because they have sunk a huge investment into the dead end hybrid formula, and nobody outside of F1 is going to invest huge sums of money in catching up on a dead end technology, so the manufacturers will continue gouging back their investment and racing budget out of the rest of the field by charging their customers $85 million dollars a year for an engine supply contract and a million pounds for an extra engine. Not only does the price of these engines preclude the customer teams from being competitive due to the financial strain of purchasing them, they are uncompetitive with the works spec engines.
So long as F1 persists with V6 hybrid turbo’s, the manufacturers will dominate and control the formula.

The other thing that concerns me is Brawn’s attitude to the ability of the cars to race one another, he is all tied up and obsessed with strategy, he should be obsessing over making on track racing happen.

P.S. The sooner Ferrari loses its $100 million dollar bonus and heritage payment the better, this can only benefit the future of F1.

[S griffin]

I hope they call Ferrari's bluff. After all they already let Ferrari block opposition to the 3 engine per season rule

[Sodemo]

I personally think they have gone too far anyhow with these engine restrictions. It should be 1-2 engines per weekend. I dont like the fact that they dont have a T car any more either. One thing is for certain, no one is going to be running these things as historics in 10 years time. They wont have the engines and there will be very few who can repair / rebuild them.

[Adam43]

Based on some viewpoints why would we want to see these cars in historics. They’re not liked. No one watches and F1 is dying so no need to keep this for historics.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I personally think they have gone too far anyhow with these engine restrictions. It should be 1-2 engines per weekend. I dont like the fact that they dont have a T car any more either. One thing is for certain, no one is going to be running these things as historics in 10 years time. They wont have the engines and there will be very few who can repair / rebuild them.

I am sure that these clowns would be quite happy to ruin historic racing with a couple of cars run by their parent organization.

https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mer...service-parts/

If one of the current Mercedes cars ever makes it into private hands and on to a historic grid, they will rebuild it for $10 million plus inflation.
I would love to put a behind this post, but I suspect it is more accurate and literal than I would like it to be.

[S griffin]

Limiting the number of engines per season may be good on paper, but as we saw last season it can just lead to too many grid penalties, meaning qualifying becomes pointless

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Limiting the number of engines per season may be good on paper, but as we saw last season it can just lead to too many grid penalties, meaning qualifying becomes pointless

Yep, and they will still blow up 100+ engines at the factory over the course of the year chasing performance and reliability. I just think its a false economy.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Yep, and they will still blow up 100+ engines at the factory over the course of the year chasing performance and reliability. I just think its a false economy.

Spot on.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Yep, and they will still blow up 100+ engines at the factory over the course of the year chasing performance and reliability. I just think its a false economy.

If a customer is paying $85 million dollars for the supply of six power units over a season, I think we can quite safely say there are a number of false economies going on.

[bjohnsonsmith]

F1 is looking at possible changes to the way the grid lines up for a grand prix.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/133859

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

F1 is looking at possible changes to the way the grid lines up for a grand prix.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/133859

I have found a secret video of some of the simulator testing F1 have been performing. In this example they are considering Motocross style starts! First corner should be interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVt-xdsc-zU



Richard

[S griffin]

Gee that was horrible to watch at times

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I have found a secret video of some of the simulator testing F1 have been performing. In this example they are considering Motocross style starts! First corner should be interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVt-xdsc-zU



Richard

Awesome and at Pocono.