Commercialization of F1

LOL!!!!

That's hilarious. Thanks for sharing. Published in 1964 so Clark is complaining about a time where there was no sponsorship, no advertisements, no TV coverage. A time where F1 drivers sometimes trailored their cars to the racetrack themselves. A time before there even was a James Hunt, Gerhard Berger or Eddie Irvine. Amazing.

Makes you wonder what loonytunes organization F1 must have been in the fifties.

 

The difference is, in the glory days (for us), teams had sponsors, and teams hired drivers on merit.
Nowadays, for the most part, teams hire drivers based on sponsor's wishes OR what money that driver can bring (with them) to the team.

If events were never on TV, you'd see teams die, entire series die, and then, they would reinvent themselves. nascar would be nowhere today without TV.

 

Too much of a generalization. Sponsorship money plays a role, but talent is first.

 

I think people today have such fond memories of yester-year because the sport has become a little homogenous. Look back at the grids, year after year, and look at how varied the cars were. They were true works of art. And the sport also allowed you in much more than it does today. Drivers were people you actually saw, walking around, hanging out. Nowadays it's a miracle if a TV camera spies one of them darting out the back of their garage, into a helicopter. I guess it's the price we pay these days for a successful (commercially) series. Take a look at any sport, most of which experienced the same issues during the same time period, and the fans have all been pushed back to some degree. Nature of the beast. But I really wish there was a way to bring back the creative element of car design. It cracks me up when you hear people this time of year commenting about "Have you seen the new Ferrari F1 car? It's GORGOUS!!" Seriously, as has been stated too often, you could take every F1 car from the last 5 years, spray paint them all purple, and very few of us would be able to make heads or tails of which car is which.

 

Agreed to all points (as usual).

I remember 1980 with the Williams, Ligier, Renault, Ferrari, Arrows and Brabham: Each car looked very different from the other. Not surprisingly in today's computer games (e.g. Grand Prix 3 or 4) there is one standard shape for all cars and different liveries applied to them for the individual teams. Art imitating life.

 

I respectfully disagree, Andreas. Money plays a larger deal than you think today, if you have 4 drivers test your car, 3 of them are equally fast, one guy is always 2/10 slower than them, but he is bringing 'money' and the other 3 are not, I bet you he gets the seat.

And a PS: it's not just racing, it's ALL sports: they have turned into a business, not a sport, and not just the athletes, it's the journalists as well. I've worked every sport there is ober the last 27 years, the F1 journalists I have met have been the snootiest of all by far, not all of them, but most of them.

 

I guess it all depends on the situation. All things being equal (equal speed etc) the guy with the moneybag wins, no question.

Your example is true for backmarker teams with too small budgets where the car is so hopeless it doesn't matter if the driver is off by another half second. But I don't think it is true for the top teams where money knows no limits.

The bigger question is the grey zone of the midfield. You might be right there as well. Some say that's why e.g. Heidfeld's career never took off: Lack of personal sponsors.

 

or anyone that has driven a Williams in the last 10 years.

 

I too - for a number of years now - have found F1 and motor racing in general - lacking.

A gear head child of the seventies I watched Indy car and Nascar - non restrictor plate Nascar - big, bad and loud.

Lived to hear any F1 news - because Formula 1 was IT - the best - the best drivers, the best cars - unrestricted

I remember when Swede Savage died during the Indy in 1973 - not from hearsay but because I was watching live on TV - IT WAS THE 500! - I was 11.

I know I didn't understand what death meant but since my father was far away fighting a war I knew it meant you werent coming back if it happened.

Yet they choose to do it anyway.

Jackie Stewart sitting in a car full of Petrol for 20 minutes drifting in and out of life, Nicki Lauda nearly burning to death yet coming back for more, Keke Rosberg crashing all the time yet still winning.

And Aryton - charging through the field in a second rate car made whole because the rain allowed his brilliance to shine.

Remember the Miller lite comercials with all the baseball and football players covorting and paling around. They tried to do it with racing drivers but couldn't ever get the playfulness they desired so it was shelved.

Think hitting an infield wall at considerably more than running speed has something to do with that?

No question Dale Ernharts death was an incredible tragedy (GRHS) but he was in an incredibly safe car and he choose not to opt for the Hanns and a full face - both of which he felt restricted his view - yet he told his son - insisted - he use both.

My point here is racing is a big money specator sport and death is not allowed anymore. Period.

But this premise is wrong because it can never be garenteed and only serves to dilute the sport.

Sennas crash is telling - the best driver ever, car ever, track ever, safety ever, yet it didnt matter. So now they change Tamborello until the next one happens

The bottom line is going at speed is inherently dangerous - when you take the risk of that out you might as well be on the expressway - which has its own statistics.

nothing is safe -

 

Getting back to Jim Clark's comments:

Essentially its the same today. I dont blame the teams, or the drivers... when you are the best you are the best... you deserve the money and adulation... my beef is with the way the paying audience has been treated.

THIS IS WHERE NASCAR HAS IT TOTALLY RIGHT... you can go to a Nascar race and get in the paddock... if you want to and see the drivers, actually talk to them...not that every fan wants to do that, but you can get very close to the cars, Drivers, etc.... in F-1 you dont ever get that close... that is the shame... Ok so I know they dont want thousands of folks in the paddock etc... but those people are the ones who keep the sport going...
F-1 in Detroit used to be a real party, it was fun, you could see the teams, cars etc... now a days its so clinical that's why it does not feel like a sport anymore... and looks like a hollywood production... cause it is... that is the shame... racing is all about winning, but fans want to know how the winner won! and see them doing it.

I've been extreemly fortunate to have had an F-1 credential in the late 80's and early 90's ... and some of my most favorite moments were just sitting next to the track fairly close up, watching free practice, walking the circuit having the freedom to roam where you like... today You have to have a grand stand seat ... and then cant see anything... a regular racing fan would never see a driver any closer than 25 - 50 ft! unless they came over to give a couple of autographs...that is what commercilization has done... its reduced it to fit TV and the attention span of TV advertizers!

 

You guys both nailed it.

Unfortunately we all want something that will NEVER happen again: racing the way we saw it as we were growing up.
But it's not just racing: I want NHL hockey to get rid of helmets and advertising on the boards AND the ice, same with the NBA, and I don't want these stupid 'TV Timeouts' in football.

I have a real problem when I pick up the sports page, and all I see is domination by 'contract talks/dollars', arrests, drug allegations, trades, firings, and seemingly everything BUT the actual SPORT.


Tom - If you were cruising the DGP with a pass, I wonder if we met ? I have a posting somewhere on here detailing some of my experiences.....

 

You do all realise don't you that it won't be long before we are all looking back with nostalgia at the 2005 season?
"Hey, I can remember the year that Alonso won his first championship. That was back in the days when the cars had rubber tyres and actually burned fuel! The cars carried the same sponsorship livery for the whole race and stuff like fast food, alchohol, and even these things called cigarettes were advertised! The drivers were real characters and if you were lucky you would get to see them running to their helicopters before or after the race. At the end of the race they would spray themselves and each other with champagne! Of course this was before old man Massa slipped on some and strained his ankle and got that $62 Billion pay-out in compensation. The track surface was just plain black tarmac - not the mass of moving adverts it is now. And whatever happened to that German driver - think he was called Dietrich?"

 

Audi's Diesel trucks at Le Mans are the beginning of the end. Before long we'll see some hybrid crap run around on battery power.

 

'and actually burned fuel! '.

You should have been around the Brabham-BMW Turbo circa 1982-83-84..... it ran on top-secret german rocket fuel.

'We'll always look at the past more fondly than at the present'.
Of course - it comes with the not knowing how good we had it when we were young.

We all want life to be simpler, like it seemed to be years ago, and it never will, we (I) have to get over it and plod on.

'Dietrich' - I think he's in Malibu, still running.....

 

Hehe. I remember visiting the Geneva auto show and BMW had a F1 on display: It was mounted vertically going up the wall. Those cars had the shape of rockets and you're right, they burnt fuel that made the eyes of the following drivers turn red and watery. Not to mention the 6 foot long flame on every downshift.

 

There was a story about it also in F1 magazine, or one of those rags, about a month ago.

They said a few of the folks back at the shop tried putting some of this fuel in their road cars, and they got about 100 yards before the fuel lines and all carb/injector parts all melted off the car. One guy got a few drops on his wristwatch and it ate thru the band....

Those were the days.......

 

LOL

Hey, you need some tricks if you want to produce 1,200+ hp out of 1.5 liter engine with 80ies technology.

 

I do remember hearing or reading somewhere that the BMW engine used in 82-83, if you take the turbo off it had 90 HP.

 

You are incorrect about NASCAR and it's TV deal. The TV deal did not make NASCAR as NASCAR was already made, it just wasn't on YOUR radar screen. All the TV deal did was change the demographics (probably a good thing) and the geography (IMO, a bad thing). NASCAR, sadly, has run from it's southern roots and in the process is turning it's back on argueably the most loyal sports fans in the world to get new fans. I hope, for NASCAR's sake that these new fans are as loyal as the old ones.

Also, someone brought up the drivers (nascar, that is) availability and it is very true. I have lived in Charlotte my entire life and see many drivers at night in restaurants, etc. I am always impressed with their patience in dealing with interruptions at dinner by someone wanting an autograph. ALL other sports could take a lesson from NASCAR in how to deal with their customers.

In closing, there are no "good old days", only short memories. The quote from Jim Clark was perfect, except now we have to say "No, I meant the 1950's, not the 60's". Let's hope the Yankees win a couple of world series in a row so we can hear the George S. ruining baseball crap again. Wait, wasn't it the Yankees that signed Babe Ruth from the Red Sox? in 1927? for $125,000 per year? How much is that is 2006 dollars? Was that Steinbrenner's dad that did it???

Jimmy