2023 Season

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

I think when looking at the issue of Human Rights I think we should look at who is the organiser and who is the beneficiary

In Europe and US, I believe majority of GPs are organised by private organisations using mainly private funds. The state or local council only contributes little to it. However in more recent GPs, the state is active in organising these events(SA, Qatar, Russia, Abu Dhabi) and they use these events to promote their countries. In this case I believe the situation becomes political and should be fair to be questioned on matters such as Human Rights

Agreed. And aside from human rights there's democracy, civil rights etc. To me it seems a lot better to have some standards instead of none, and not reduce the question to the sort of what-about-ism that trivialises just about everything.

The (worst) issue is for me when an incredibly non-democratic state uses state funds to host a Grand Prix. It's sports-washing meant to elevate the country in the eyes of the world while using money coming of the back of people who get little benefit from their state. I think it's tragic that many sports (F1, football among them) have such low standards in this regard.

I think Freedom House's world ranknings are a worthwile look for many people. A quick read of any of the country profile towards the bottom hosting F1 should be chilling to most people.

https://freedomhouse.org/country/aze...dom-world/2022

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I see you have again decided to ignore the context and intent behind a post to try and score points from me.

No, not scoring points. Although I will confess to frustration at your posts. Let’s review where all this starts shall we? (Rhetorical question).

I was mainly referring back to the point I made that they were not all equal races. And my little joke previously “Petit Prix”.

And making the point back to your original post about it. I agree with you it is “not entirely comparable”. Not at all really. So in conclusion that there may have been 24 races of some such in 1950 that is not particular relevant to judging if there are too many races at the moment. Then there is everything else.

As for me trying to score points. No. I hope your incorrect thought there is not an excuse to ignore the underlying problem here.

Still I apologise for my part in this.

[BTCC frog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF_uOgyBK1c
24 races is too many in my opinion. It will dilute the value of each one, and make a Grand Prix feel less special because there are so many of them. Particularly considering there are going to be more and more sprint races to come as well. And that is just from the perspective of a fan; the real issue is the fact that it will be so difficult on those working in Formula 1. In 2018 the teams said they never wanted another triple header and F1 said they wouldn't have any more. But it just seems like we are heading towards a situation a bit like the video linked

[midgetman]

The major difference was attendance wasn't compulsory like with today's World Championship.

A lot of those "non-championship" races back into the 50s featured at most one or two "stars" backed up by a rag-tag entry of locals in old single seater machinery that lapped many, many seconds per lap slower than the front of the field. Even as recently as the 70s Silverstone's International Trophy was padded out with F5000 cars which outnumbered the F1s. It was hardly a major sporting event, the first big race I attended was the '77 IT and it wasn't rivetting.

A very different scene compared with 24 top-line races and not comparable IMO.

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

In Europe and US, I believe majority of GPs are organised by private organisations using mainly private funds.

When Honda and Red Bull both host a Grand Prix, why are Mercedes and Alpine too cheap to host one? Supposedly Honda's Japanese Grand Prix even has some of the most reasonable ticket prices of the calendar. I'm unsure of the ticket prices for the Austrian Grand Prix.

You'd think Mercedes and Alpine would use their cost cap savings to host domestic Grands Prix respectively...

[GTRMagic]

Mitsubishi was the naming rights partner of the first Adelaide F1 Grand Prix back in 1985…

Adelaide Alive..

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

When Honda and Red Bull both host a Grand Prix, why are Mercedes and Alpine too cheap to host one? Supposedly Honda's Japanese Grand Prix even has some of the most reasonable ticket prices of the calendar. I'm unsure of the ticket prices for the Austrian Grand Prix.

You'd think Mercedes and Alpine would use their cost cap savings to host domestic Grands Prix respectively...

It needs to be borne in mind that the Suzuka circuit is owned by Honda so that may have a bearing on the naming of the race.

I can't remember whether Toyota's name was included in the race title a few years ago when the race was held at Fuji, as they happen (or used) to own that.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

When Honda and Red Bull both host a Grand Prix, why are Mercedes and Alpine too cheap to host one?

Which circuits do Mercedes or Alpine own to enable them to host a GP?

[S griffin]

Mercedes do have the Mercedes grandstands at both Hockenheim and the Nurburgring, but don't own either AFAIK.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Mercedes do have the Mercedes grandstands at both Hockenheim and the Nurburgring, but don't own either AFAIK.

It's called sponsorship and advertising.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Mercedes do have the Mercedes grandstands at both Hockenheim and the Nurburgring, but don't own either AFAIK.

IIRC,

The Nürburgring is owned by a Russian billionaire (not sure if sanctions have affected this).
Hockenheim-Ring GmbH is a company in its own right.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

It's called sponsorship and advertising.

I don't think S griffin suggested anything different?

He just said they have stands there, but didn't say anything about ownership.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It needs to be borne in mind that the Suzuka circuit is owned by Honda so that may have a bearing on the naming of the race.

I can't remember whether Toyota's name was included in the race title a few years ago when the race was held at Fuji, as they happen (or used) to own that.

A couple of things I should have mentioned in my other post. One is that, of course, Red Bull host the GP at their own circuit, so that's a good enough reason to be the host.

Secondly, Suzuka may have the lowest prices (I don't know as I have never paid to be there for the GPs) but it needs to be remembered that the circuit doesn't need to rely on big ticket events to bolster it's balance sheet. The circuit is actually only a part of the complex that consists of a motoring theme park, with restaurants, hotels and many other features, all of which attract visitors year round. Also, the Japanese spectators are, on the whole, far more passionate about all forms of auto events, not just F1, than nearly any other nationality.

On my last visit there, when we left some hours after the end of the GP, there were still thousands of spectators sat around the circuit watching re-runs with replays of incidents/action of the race on the huge screens dotted around the track. And there were plenty of people enjoying the theme park as well. We didn't stop any longer as we still had an 8 hour drive back to Tokyo to get on with.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Which circuits do Mercedes or Alpine own to enable them to host a GP?

Exactly! Too cheap to even own a circuit let alone host their domestic Grand Prix.

One notes that Red Bull and Honda both invested in B-teams, Toro Rosso and Super Aguri respectively, while again Mercedes or Alpine didn't do that and then just complain about the others having B-teams instead of simply making their own B-team (Manor or Caterham were available for purchase for example).

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Exactly! Too cheap to even own a circuit let alone host their domestic Grand Prix.

Maybe Mercedes invested their money in 7x WDCs and 8x WCCs in a row instead?

Although on a serious note - the structure of the companies behind Mercedes and Alpine's F1 entries is very different to Red Bull and Honda respectively. They operate in very different ways, and it would be disingenuous to call them 'cheap'. They just have different corporate aspirations.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Exactly! Too cheap to even own a circuit let alone host their domestic Grand Prix.

So every team should own their own circuit, why, when they aren't allowed to use it for testing as needed. Even when there was unlimited testing Ferrari was the only team who had their own track, it being multi purpose both for race car testing and road car development.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Casper

So every team should own their own circuit, why, when they aren't allowed to use it for testing as needed. Even when there was unlimited testing Ferrari was the only team who had their own track, it being multi purpose both for race car testing and road car development.

Puts pedant hat on and whispers the word Lotus (again used by both race and road car divisions... And the main straight was somewhere for Colin and Graham etc to land their planes

http://www.lotuscars.com.tr/racing/h...dex-31332.html

[dsg]

Originally Posted by PhilipR

is 24 too many?

No. Most people work 48 to 52 weeks a year for far less money. Plus I like watching F1, so the more the better.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by dsg

No. Most people work 48 to 52 weeks a year for far less money. Plus I like watching F1, so the more the better.

The team personnel do work 48 weeks a year, it’s not just the race weekends, but at the factory between events as well.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

The team personnel do work 48 weeks a year, it’s not just the race weekends, but at the factory between events as well.

Then there is no issue with a few more races. Fi teams can rotate staff on the road and it is an opportunity for more people to get jobs in F1. God forbid they have to reduce a bit of F1 waste and employ more people.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by dsg

Then there is no issue with a few more races. Fi teams can rotate staff on the road and it is an opportunity for more people to get jobs in F1. God forbid they have to reduce a bit of F1 waste and employ more people.

Problem is, though, that they can't employ more staff as they are restricted by the budget cap. Many years ago it would have been easier to do because most, if not all teams, ran two sets of circuit personnel, one for testing and the other for race weekends. That no longer happens.

[S griffin]

As well as that, the F1 personal have families. I don't agree with 'if you can't cope, get out', plenty of them do understand the sacrifices, but I feel F1 is really pushing them too far with the silly amount of races we have now

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Problem is, though, that they can't employ more staff as they are restricted by the budget cap.

As I said, reduce a bit of waste and use the savings to employ more staff.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by dsg

As I said, reduce a bit of waste and use the savings to employ more staff.

What do you perceive as waste that can be cut ?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

What do you perceive as waste that can be cut ?

Beat me to it!