Argentine GP from 2007? - Too many races?

[Ingsy]

Full story here: http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=34440
Apparently saying that Argentina wants to host a GP again from 2007.

With Fuji possibly hosting another race, Mexico, Russia, India and South Africa also interested we could see a season with up to 24 races in. Do you think this is too many?

If some existing races were to go to make room for others, which would you prefer to see disappear?

[Bononi]

A season with 24 races ???

That won't happen.

[WapFlap]

Imola, Hungary and Hockenheim. All those tracks are not good enough for F1 anymore, due to the fact that they are too small (hungary) or the fact that they are not providing good races anymore ( Imola since the chicanes etc. and Hockenheim since its not Hockenheim anymore)

[Kicking-back]

Ron Dennis said before a recent teams meeting that most teams don't want more than 18 races, because of the impact it has on the lives of their employees


Hockenheim always provides good racing, incidentally, although I could easily do without Hungary and Imola

[shiny side up!]

There are consant stories about Spa losing its race (tragic), and it seems Imola has been on the list for a while, too. I would disagree with Hockenheim... I will admit that I don't like the nature of the new track compared to its classic layout, but it has provided good races in the past couple of years, has a good attendance and good TV ratings, and has a lot of support from BMW and Mercedes.

I wouldn't mind seeing Hungary off the calendar, it is such a boring track... but I would hate it for the Hungarian fans.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by shiny side up!

I wouldn't mind seeing Hungary off the calendar, it is such a boring track... but I would hate it for the Hungarian fans.

The Hungarians don't have far to travel in order to see an F1 race of much better quality.

By the way,your avatar is scary.

[safc_fan89]

Originally Posted by Ingsy

Full story here: http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=34440
Apparently saying that Argentina wants to host a GP again from 2007.

With Fuji possibly hosting another race, Mexico, Russia, India and South Africa also interested we could see a season with up to 24 races in. Do you think this is too many?

If some existing races were to go to make room for others, which would you prefer to see disappear?

There will never be 24 races in a season.

I'd get rid of San Marino, Nurburgring, Hungary, Magny-Course (surely there's a better track somewhere in France, ie. Paul Ricard or Le Mans), and swap Indy for Watkins Glen or Laguna Seca.

[Rob29]

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

There will never be 24 races in a season.

.

Don't see why not.NASCAR do about 38 meetings from Mid feb-Mid Nov.In 1972 most F1 teams did 20 meetings. In the 60s some managed even more with 8 in Aus/NZ.
Less testing-more racing-if teams are paid per race I think most will opt for more races?

[nickyf1]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

By the way,your avatar is scary.

its hypnotic!
careful with that someone might get a seziure!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

There will never be 24 races in a season.

hmmm....famous last words. I seem to be doing a lot of hmmming today.

[Russ-Turner]

One of Flav's suggestions last year was scrap testing as we know it and keep the three day G.P. weekend by using the Friday for testing, Saturday for practice and qualifying and Sunday as race day. Sounds good to me.

[BootsOntheSide]

24 full weekends away from families is quite a big deal for teams today - so many of their staff have young families. Workign during the week lcoally (as in testing) is much less of a big deal from that perspective. Teams need every mechanic working together in a well-drilled and motivated team today, they can't chop adn change as they did in the old days. And quite frequently back-to-back races mean spending 2 full weeks away from families, whcih must be torture. NASCAR isn't a good comparison because the races are all within one country, usually a short flight away if that.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Russ-Turner

One of Flav's suggestions last year was scrap testing as we know it and keep the three day G.P. weekend by using the Friday for testing, Saturday for practice and qualifying and Sunday as race day. Sounds good to me.

Does to me too.
But you can't let common sense stand in the way of millions of dollars of sponsorship money.

[davyboy]

NASCAR manage to do a lot more races, often involving greater distances than the F1 circus and let's face it... selling sponsorship for 24 races is a lot easier and lucrative than 16, isn't it ? Here's how to do it practically.

Scrap testing.
Make the GP a 3 day event, with Friday confined to testing only.
Alternate fly-away races with European races so that you have a race every 2 weeks, but only a fly-away or European race every 4 weekends.
With the exception of the drivers, each equipe has two teams - one for flyaways, one for European races.
The only heavy travellers will be the team principles and the drivers... who, let's face it get paid enough to bring their families with them if they so desire.

So common' guys, nominate me for Max's job next time round !

[safc_fan89]

Originally Posted by Rob29

Don't see why not.NASCAR do about 38 meetings from Mid feb-Mid Nov.In 1972 most F1 teams did 20 meetings. In the 60s some managed even more with 8 in Aus/NZ.
Less testing-more racing-if teams are paid per race I think most will opt for more races?

Money is no substitute to missing out on family life. Or shouldn't be, anyway.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

Money is no substitute to missing out on family life. Or shouldn't be, anyway.

agreed. as much as i want them to race every weekend it just cant happen. the race team and the ones back at the factory work hectic scheduals. if they dont get some down time mistakes will be made and no one wants that.

really the only solution for more than 20 races has to be a longer mid season break that has to be enforced.

[davyboy]

Chilli I'm not so sure. I think the budgets these teams have make it more than possible. Think about it. Minardi's budget for the year would make you a front runner in any other series. If they add more races to the season, its better for us fans... and the teams rake in a lot more money. With more cost-cutting too, they can absolutely afford to run multiple teams and cars a la NASCAR and still allow their team members a family life. Airline crews have far more rigorous arrangements and there are a lot more of them, getting paid a lot less, in comparison to F1 teams.

[safc_fan89]

Team bosses are already complaining about the length of an F1 season. I can't see them being too thrilled about having 5 FURTHER race weekends to cram in. I wouldn't mind of course, but it's not practical.

[chillibowl]

i thinks its too diffficult to compare the number of races between nascar and f1. a large part of nascar's appeal comes from the grassroots atmosphere a majority of teams employ. they are family run/or relativley small business affairs. you bring your family and whole team with you (and thats is mainly because the distances travelled are much smaller) f1 is just too different.

for me im just worried that more races will result in a lower quality product.

[safc_fan89]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i thinks its too diffficult to compare the number of races between nascar and f1. a large part of nascar's appeal comes from the grassroots atmosphere a majority of teams employ. they are family run/or relativley small business affairs. you bring your family and whole team with you (and thats is mainly because the distances travelled are much smaller) f1 is just too different.

for me im just worried that more races will result in a lower quality product.

Well I don't think that 2005's poor races are down to the longer season, but I see your point.

The main point is, is there actually any reason to have a season woth 20+ rounds? 16 was enough for me in the past, 19 is more than enough. In any case, the new tracks would be just as bland and tedious as the current ones. 20 should be the maximum. There has to be a limit. F1 is not NASCAR.

[Nintendo]

my eyes, my beautiful eyes.

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally Posted by davyboy

NASCAR manage to do a lot more races, often involving greater distances than the F1 circus and let's face it... selling sponsorship for 24 races is a lot easier and lucrative than 16, isn't it ? Here's how to do it practically.

Scrap testing.
Make the GP a 3 day event, with Friday confined to testing only.
Alternate fly-away races with European races so that you have a race every 2 weeks, but only a fly-away or European race every 4 weekends.
With the exception of the drivers, each equipe has two teams - one for flyaways, one for European races.
The only heavy travellers will be the team principles and the drivers... who, let's face it get paid enough to bring their families with them if they so desire.

So common' guys, nominate me for Max's job next time round !

This is pretty illogical. 24 races would cost more than 16 (or 19), epsecially as so many new rounds would be fly-away events, and would sponsors pay any extra for under-supported events.

NASCAR doesn't involve advanced team-developed technology or a huge variety of races, so the technical challenge is minor by comparison. Also, with 24 races and regular 2-week breaks, surely that means only a 6-week winter break for teams to perfect their new cars?

Having two seperate pitcrews isn't really practical either - teams can't function without guys like Ross Brawn there, and hiring enough quality staff and gelling them into two tightly knit teams would be a huge task. Also, put yourself in the shoes of a mechanic, watching a race on TV knowing that you should be involved in it, especially if your stand-in makes a mistake?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

This is pretty illogical. 24 races would cost more than 16 (or 19), epsecially as so many new rounds would be fly-away events, and would sponsors pay any extra for under-supported events.

Not illogical at all. Sponsorship money is a function of TV air-time... that's why a 3x4 sticker on a Minardi is so much less than the same thing on a Renault. Also, more TV-airtime=more opportunity for TV-company ads=higher TV revenue=more money for the teams. The differential revenue over cost would be quite pronouced.

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

NASCAR doesn't involve advanced team-developed technology or a huge variety of races, so the technical challenge is minor by comparison. Also, with 24 races and regular 2-week breaks, surely that means only a 6-week winter break for teams to perfect their new cars?

If there was a 6 month winter break, teams would spend it in development... if there was a 2 week winter break, teams would spend it doing less development. There's no reason to have such a monster step change from one year to the next unless there are regulation changes one year to the next. If regulations were introduced on a rolling basis instead of one year to the next, then teams could work in a constant development [and testing] mode over the course of the year without big bang steps one year to the next. Even if that's not possible, many teams still manage to launch brand new cars in the middle of a season, so a shorter winter break would not be a problem.

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Having two seperate pitcrews isn't really practical either - teams can't function without guys like Ross Brawn there, and hiring enough quality staff and gelling them into two tightly knit teams would be a huge task. Also, put yourself in the shoes of a mechanic, watching a race on TV knowing that you should be involved in it, especially if your stand-in makes a mistake?

All teams have fully independent test teams that function perfectly well without their strategists. Those test teams are perfectly competent to run a car at a race I would think. What's more Ross [and his peers] have not been to every single race... and those that they were absent from, their teams were still successful at. Another thing, if their involvement really were essential, they could do it remotely. Right now, they spend most of their race looking at TVs on the pit-wall... they could do that from the comfort of their beds... like we do.

I think its important to think radical and improve the entertainment value.

[Kicking-back]

More races is a bad thing for another reason - you should always leave the viewer wanting more, rather than give them F1 fatigue

[davyboy]

There's no sign of viewer fatigue in NASCAR, in fact quite the contrary, and they've a lot more than 20 races a year. There's certainly the demand for more F1, no question.