How to fix F1?

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Lol. I just looked at my post and realized my TL;DR is longer than the initial part.

That's somehow perfectly in character .

For me the slightly perplexing thing about F1 is that what fans want (better racing) and the broad technical way to achieve that (less reliance on aero) have been pretty clear for a while. It's never been obvious to me why this is hard to implement.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

That's somehow perfectly in character .

Yes. Which is why my signature is...

To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."



I tend to think. I will write just a few words. Multiple paragraphs later...

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So I used to follow the series decades ago (pre split) so I understanding it enough to understand what you say above. I don't want to take away their accomplishments at all as they have truly struggled at times over the past few decades, but IMHO, above what you list above was obvious moves and "relatively" easy to implement, even if it was a slow progression to where they are today. I think IndyCar has a few extra things going for it that F1 does not. With the biggest being

1. It does doesn't have a "strong" history of being a constructor lead series. Yes, in the old days there were more examples of this (such as Penske building their own chassis as one example). But a side effect (good for the series) of the CART/IndyCar split was that IndyCar (which broadly won out in the end) was started as mostly a spec series out of necessity and now is pretty much nearly totally a spec series. The split forced the move to a more spec solution. Which has been good for Indycar.

2. It has remained "team" and not "manufacture" centric.

Those two items has allowed the series to focus on making the sport about producing a good product on race weekends (i.e. good racing) and not technology demonstration/competition. The series has struggled in the past few decades and because they are not focused on chasing manufactures (as F1 does), they instead focus on treating eyeballs (fans) as the customers. Which means they listen to fans. I will also say, the IndyCar fans are also not hobbled like F1 fans are by having multiple split personalities (is it about the racing or the technology? is it about small teams or big manufactures? Etc.) So I suspect it's easier for those IndyCar fans who have stuck with the series, to have a more unified voice. Older IndyCar fans (like me) who still like technology and the uniqueness of what each team brings, may have moved elsewhere (such as as F1). Or if they have returned to IndyCar (like I might eventually) just understand that IndyCar is not F1 and accept it as it is.

TL;DR version.

Indycar is not trying to serve multiple masters (racing vs tech) or (teams vs manufactures). This simplifies things for both fan (who don't advocate for conflicting things) and Indycar (who don't have to try to serve multiple masters). This makes it easier for Indycar to understand that the fans are very importance for them, so they are kept high in the priority list. All of the above makes it easier to make changes that support the fans. And broadly the fans just want something entertaining to watch.

F1 tries to be too many different things to too many groups and frankly fans are maybe #4 behind the following...
* Liberty (F1 is primarily to them about extracting money, they are not racing enthusiasts. There is also a big of "don't rock the boat too much" with what they do.)
* The manufactures (Who have their own personal goals such as technology demonstration. Not loosing manufactures also means a health does of "not to many changes too fast")
* The teams (Who for many... especially the large well funded ones... have an unspoken primary objective is to just keep the party rolling and to not change things up too much. Even the current cost caps is about turning the volume knob down from 11 to maybe 8, but everyone at the party is still drinking the same booze, and doing the same drugs as before. Just a bit less of it because if the "poor" can't afford to stay at the party, the fun goes away when you are the last person left in the hotel room at 4PM)

Lastly F1 fans are a chaotic mob who can't agree on what they want. So listening to them is like reading tea leaves and in the end, anything you do is going to make some happy, and some hopping mad.

Richard

Edit: Another comment on why IndyCar is listening to fans. They somewhat hit rock bottom in recent times. So it was also maybe easier for them to make changes. F1 has not yet hit rock bottom. And they are trying really hard to both not hit rock bottom, but also to "maintain". See my comment about keeping the hotel room party above going. F1 needs the cops to kick the hotel door in, send a few to jail, some spend a few months in rehab, etc. Then maybe it might be able to do what Indycar has already done. Until then, the best we can hope for is small incremental changes in (hopefully) the right direction. Granted... the recent cost cap rules is BIG. But again, that is about keeping the party going when they know they are about to have some in the party exit the hotel room.

You say these were obvious moves and "relatively" easy to implement and as IndyCar had somewhat hit rock bottom, it was therefore easier to make these changes, yet they were doing everything but the obvious. To say it was a slow progression is putting it mildly. It took 10 years post unification, with a lot of faffing around in between using gimmicks and sticking plaster, rather than initially tackling the issues head on, during which time the series was practically on its knees, before they finally started to implement those changes.

Instead of going back to traditional tracks like Portland and Road America, it was one makeshift street course after another, or a race in the swamps of Louisiana. It was a crash on such a street course at Houston, that ended Dario Franchitti's career. Why they thought the Boston Consulting Group were the right people to sort things our beggars belief? Their solution was more gimmicks.

It was a similar story with the car. Before replacing the ageing Dallara IR05, they gave it a new lease of life with an engine upgrade from 3.0L, to 3.5L. They finally got round to replacing it when the Iconic Committee was setup in 2010, to look into a replacement car. They decided on the Dallara bid, resulting in the ugly DW12, which was met with howls of derision and was not what the fans had been asking for. Someone then in their wisdom, decided to do a half about face and let the engine manufacturers Chevrolet and Honda produce their own aero-kits, so there was some visual difference between the two. The cars looked like they had bits of scaffolding hanging off them, with bits of aero-kit falling off during races. It wasn't until 2018, 10 years after unification that the current aero-kit came into use, with the cars now resembling something like they used to.

At the end of the day IndyCar had to listen to what the fans were saying.

While we are at it, let's not forget that all important part of the equation, TV coverage. Apart from the 500 and Long Beach, which were broadcast by ABC, the rest of IndyCar was was broadcast behind a pay wall. TV audiences had dwindled and it wasn't attracting TV advertising and sponsors. All that has changed since IndyCar did the deal with NBC, with more races now being shown free to air. F1 is doing the exact opposite and as result TV audiences are down and as people now have to pay, it will be harder to attract the casual viewer.

I agree with you, F1 is more about constructors than teams, especially as so many of the teams are now owned by road car manufacturers. However, that wasn't always the case. When I started following F1 in the early '70s, the vast majority of teams were Privateers or Garagistas. The only two road car manufacturers, though with niche markets, were Ferrari and Lotus.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Lastly F1 fans are a chaotic mob who can't agree on what they want. So listening to them is like reading tea leaves and in the end, anything you do is going to make some happy, and some hopping mad.

are we though? i suppose you can say this about any fan group for any product which enjoys mass appeal but that doesnt necessarily make it true. in fact it may even be a bit of a red herring?

Liberty to their credit has put in place a framework that addresses a lot of the concerns most of us shared prior to their arrival...escalating costs, too much aero dependence, reduced accessibility on tv/internet, movement away from traditional venues, expensive PUs, unequal distribution of prize money.

no doubt there is a ways to go, but now that they have at least begun addressing these issues that once united most of us in our complaints/moaning we may now just simply be at a loss about what to complain/moan about next?

so please, give us some time to figure it out ok!

but seriously, as fans in the modern world i think the things that bother us are fairly well known and generally agreed upon by the majority.

bjohnsonsmith's insight into Indy and their approaches to fan service highlight this for me...and not just for race fans but also fans for all the world's various sports leagues.

imo, fans dont want to see money win titles and dominate championships, sustainability matters, we need access to view, we want history and traditional teams/venues to remain, we want the sport to continue into the future...imo there are far more common elements to our 'rants' then not.

its a big list and we may argue about the order in which it should be addressed but i dont think its chaotic.

anyways, now that most of my concerns have been addressed by liberty, i've shifted my goal posts so my new populist moaning will be all about the size of the cars and why they need to be the size of small houses?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

You say these were obvious moves and "relatively" easy to implement and as IndyCar had somewhat hit rock bottom, it was therefore easier to make these changes, yet they were doing everything but the obvious. To say it was a slow progression is putting it mildly. It took 10 years post unification, with a lot of faffing around in between using gimmicks and sticking plaster, rather than initially tackling the issues head on, during which time the series was practically on its knees, before they finally started to implement those changes.

I would say that the history you speak about starts before and includes the point in which they were hitting rock bottom. As you say.... lots of faffing around. My recollection is that when commercial TV said "no" and viewership continued to fall off a cliff if when they finally woke up. But in the end, while a decade (or more) long to "finding itself", that actually is not a long time.

I may be playing down how hard it was for IndyCar. But, mostly I am trying to illustrate that I think it may have been easier for IndyCar (even if extremely painful) just to illustrate how hard I think it is for F1 to make any real changes.

IndyCar is a super yacht that ran aground and while nearly sinking they have got it patched up and back on it's way. F1 is a mega cruise ship that continues to slowly grind across a reef. They have been considering steering away from the reef for awhile and have given the tiller a good pull recently, but mostly they want to give the illusion that all remains good as they are still trying to sell tickets for the next cruise.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I agree with you, F1 is more about constructors than teams, especially as so many of the teams are now owned by road car manufacturers. However, that wasn't always the case. When I started following F1 in the early '70s, the vast majority of teams were Privateers or Garagistas. The only two road car manufacturers, though with niche markets, were Ferrari and Lotus.

I agree. That is why when people say it can't change, they like to pretend that it has always been this way. They can shout "Don't abandon the heritage!" while conveniently ignoring that their way of doing things is actually not the true history.

To the larger question... Should F1 listen to the fans? Do we need a dictator? "yes", and "yes". But also "No" and... "it depends upon what the dictator does".

F1 fans can't decide what they want. So some will be made happy, some not. What is the old joke about advertising? Half of your money is wasted? You just don't know which half! Same with the fans. We all have our opinions and we ALL think we are right. But only hindsight will say who is right and that even assumes a single path is picked. No doubt they will try to make as many happy as possible, so there is unlikely to be any single "pure" path (no aero, more aero, open regulations, closed regulations, no manufactures, more manufactures, etc.) taken. It will be some "by committee" effort that will have a dash of multiple ideas on how to make things "better".

As to the dictator. It would be good as long as they are a successful one. While existing contracts and organizational structure somewhat impedes Liberty, broadly speaking, Liberty has power to fix this stuff. The problem is. How much do they care to rock the boat while doing it. Given Liberty is beholden to the all mighty dollar and is probably all about protecting the value of the product. Big changes are unlikely. As we have already seen. I do think the cost caps is a bold move (and a good one).

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

are we though? i suppose you can say this about any fan group for any product which enjoys mass appeal but that doesnt necessarily make it true. in fact it may even be a bit of a red herring?

Are you new to this forum. When was the last time more than 2-3 people here agreed on "specifics" and not just high level ideas? See my comment below about picking a location to go to dinner. We know we are hungry, we just can't decide on where to go to eat.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but seriously, as fans in the modern world i think the things that bother us are fairly well known and generally agreed upon by the majority.

I think F1 fans can generally agree on high level goals such as "better racing", but as to how to make that happen, I think they are all over the place (fragmented into small groups). Because of this, any change, may only truly satisfy a small subset while the rest will decry how strategy X is going to clearly fail.

I frequently see someone post something here like "It's obvious they should just make it easier for cars to follow each other closely". Of which I ask... "Exactly how do you think they should do that?" (what should the technical regulations look like) The response???

1. Most of the time... silence
2. A multitude of answers that most of the time are polar opposites of each other. (different aero, no aero, etc.)

I expect as to the multitude of answers part, I don't think the fans are alone in this as well. I think those who are at the very center of F1 (from an engineering side) also struggle with this question.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Liberty to their credit has put in place a framework that addresses a lot of the concerns most of us shared prior to their arrival...escalating costs, too much aero dependence, reduced accessibility on tv/internet, movement away from traditional venues, expensive PUs, unequal distribution of prize money.

no doubt there is a ways to go, but now that they have at least begun addressing these issues that once united most of us in our complaints/moaning we may now just simply be at a loss about what to complain/moan about next?

so please, give us some time to figure it out ok!

In my post directly above, I do give Liberty credit. I think they have made some hard decisions that were not easy. But in the end, they are also hobbled by who they are. Back to the "dictator" question. The sport needs someone who would own the entire series and then run it as they see fit. The problem is... Ecclestone broadly did that. And it generally worked... until it didn't. There needs to be a new "Ecclestone" who also does it differently than the old "Ecclestone".

Originally Posted by chillibowl

bjohnsonsmith's insight into Indy and their approaches to fan service highlight this for me...and not just for race fans but also fans for all the world's various sports leagues.

I don't want to pick on bjohnsonsmith's reply, but broadly he called out moving from street to to classic road courses and generally getting their chassis strategy situated.

I can envision the fans asked for both. And with the circuit situation, that is pretty straight forward. But with respect to the chassis? My memory is that the fans were quick to say, turn left, turn right, stop go, etc. But they were all shouting all of those directions at the same time. And that IndyCar generally had to figure out "how" to fix their chassis situation on their own. My point again here is that fans know what they want from a "goal" perspective, but they suck as telling anyhow "how" to do it. Other than to be very vocal about what they don't like! My point... while IndyCar is giving fans what they want. Did the fans really help much in that or was it just a lot of hard work and throwing stuff against the wall and IndyCar eventually figuring it out? My position is that there was a limited number of things to throw at the wall. AND IndyCar was REALLY under the gun to get it right. So Even if it took 10+ years, it was figured out. And I don't want to downplay IndyCar's hard work. I think they should be a model for those who run F1 at "doing it right".

Richard's analogy time. Motorsport fans is like your spouse who says they want to go to dinner. They say... "Just pick someplace good! But you get to pick." You suggest multiple ideas and they shoot down each. But still insist that they don't care where you eat, and it is your choice.

In the end, they don't know where they want to eat, but they do know where they don't want to eat. You just have to keep cycling through ideas until they finally say "yes". You are left wondering... why didn't you just tell me that in the first place? The answer? I think until you provided a solution that worked and met their criteria, they just didn't know what the answer was. They can't tell you what it is, but they know the right answer when they see it.

The analogy is not perfect, but you should get my point.

Richard

[Richard C]

Sorry one last bit about "listening to the fans". F1, IndyCar, etc. is a "product". There is this business concept called "Product Management". I somewhat do that in my current role. Anyone who is successful in that role will tell you... "The customer is not always right". They have great ideas, they have OK ideas and many times they have outright stupid ideas. It's up to you to figure out which is great, OK and stupid.

Richard

[Greem]

The design rules for 2022 on are the most prescriptive *and* proscriptive ever.

They have been written in such a way that the cars, which already look very similar, will be practically identical apart from tiny differences in aero surface shapes and some curved parts. Almost, but not quite, a spec design.

Addressing the "what do we want as fans?" question, I'd still quite like to see different engineering approaches to a very basic "race for 200 miles or 2 hours, whichever is longest, with a limitation of X litres of fuel per event" where X is say 10% less than the average being consumed now. That way, aero which creates downforce is reduced because it also creates drag, which consumes more fuel per mile.

It's a simpleton's approach to racing but it would give us cars with different characteristics which, in ideal conditions, would all end up crossing the line at the same time - which then requires the drivers to separate them.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would say that the history you speak about starts before and includes the point in which they were hitting rock bottom. As you say.... lots of faffing around. My recollection is that when commercial TV said "no" and viewership continued to fall off a cliff if when they finally woke up. But in the end, while a decade (or more) long to "finding itself", that actually is not a long time.

I may be playing down how hard it was for IndyCar. But, mostly I am trying to illustrate that I think it may have been easier for IndyCar (even if extremely painful) just to illustrate how hard I think it is for F1 to make any real changes.

IndyCar is a super yacht that ran aground and while nearly sinking they have got it patched up and back on it's way. F1 is a mega cruise ship that continues to slowly grind across a reef. They have been considering steering away from the reef for awhile and have given the tiller a good pull recently, but mostly they want to give the illusion that all remains good as they are still trying to sell tickets for the next cruise.


I agree. That is why when people say it can't change, they like to pretend that it has always been this way. They can shout "Don't abandon the heritage!" while conveniently ignoring that their way of doing things is actually not the true history.

To the larger question... Should F1 listen to the fans? Do we need a dictator? "yes", and "yes". But also "No" and... "it depends upon what the dictator does".

F1 fans can't decide what they want. So some will be made happy, some not. What is the old joke about advertising? Half of your money is wasted? You just don't know which half! Same with the fans. We all have our opinions and we ALL think we are right. But only hindsight will say who is right and that even assumes a single path is picked. No doubt they will try to make as many happy as possible, so there is unlikely to be any single "pure" path (no aero, more aero, open regulations, closed regulations, no manufactures, more manufactures, etc.) taken. It will be some "by committee" effort that will have a dash of multiple ideas on how to make things "better".

As to the dictator. It would be good as long as they are a successful one. While existing contracts and organizational structure somewhat impedes Liberty, broadly speaking, Liberty has power to fix this stuff. The problem is. How much do they care to rock the boat while doing it. Given Liberty is beholden to the all mighty dollar and is probably all about protecting the value of the product. Big changes are unlikely. As we have already seen. I do think the cost caps is a bold move (and a good one).

Richard

I'm talking from the time of series unification. Indeed, prior to unification AOWR, Champ Car and IndyCar, were already in bad shape. So when the chance came, with series unification to sort out the various issues and really move forward, they faffed around with gimmicks. 10 years seems a long time to me and very nearly went under.

Going back to something you said in your previous post, #2074, I don't think F1 fans are a chaotic mob who can't agree on what they want. I think Anyopenroad's comment is spot on: ''what fans want (better racing) and the broad technical way to achieve that (less reliance on aero) have been pretty clear for a while''. When I first joined TenTenths, pretty much every thread would gravitate to how F1 could be improved, with aero being the key to improve it.

Yes, F1 does need to listen to the fans but I don't think they need a dictator. F1 had one of those and very controversial he was too. They need someone who understands the sport and hopefully with Domenicalli running the show that can happen, though I am wary of his previous Ferrari connections. Having said that the cost caps is a bold move and it has always been a sticking point as far as Ferrari is concerned, so maybe that Ferrari connection is paying off.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Going back to something you said in your previous post, #2074, I don't think F1 fans are a chaotic mob who can't agree on what they want. I think Anyopenroad's comment is spot on: ''what fans want (better racing) and the broad technical way to achieve that (less reliance on aero) have been pretty clear for a while''. When I first joined TenTenths, pretty much every thread would gravitate to how F1 could be improved, with aero being the key to improve it.

I think that is a fair comment. As I have tried to clarify. I think the fans generally agree on what they want from a destination/goal perspective (better racing as you say). While there are a number of ideas, they can't agree on how to get there (what are the technical and other regulations that would cause the desired outcome).

It's easy to say "we need to do a better job at servicing our customers". What you actually do, how you define success and how you measure progress is the hard parts.

Richard

[wnut]

We're also forgetting the role of the FIA in Liberty's reform problems.
For instance they forced the hybrid formula into being at the behest of the manufacturers.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by wnut

We're also forgetting the role of the FIA in Liberty's reform problems.
For instance they forced the hybrid formula into being at the behest of the manufacturers.

Yeah and as of next year we will back to the same number of manufacturers we had just prior to the hybrid era, so they've failed in that regard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

We're also forgetting the role of the FIA in Liberty's reform problems.
For instance they forced the hybrid formula into being at the behest of the manufacturers.

I may be wrong - I often am - but I cannot recall the manufacturers wanting to go hybrid; I always thought that this was a decision that was "forced" on the FIA by their wanting to appear as though they were doing something for the planet. I think that most of the engine providers, apart from, perhaps Renault, were quite happy with their V10s, etc. Renault would have preferred something based on a production unit that came from their car range for their F1 customers.

In the end, a sort of compromise was the current V6s.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Richard's analogy time. Motorsport fans is like your spouse who says they want to go to dinner. They say... "Just pick someplace good! But you get to pick." You suggest multiple ideas and they shoot down each. But still insist that they don't care where you eat, and it is your choice.

In the end, they don't know where they want to eat, but they do know where they don't want to eat. You just have to keep cycling through ideas until they finally say "yes". You are left wondering... why didn't you just tell me that in the first place? The answer? I think until you provided a solution that worked and met their criteria, they just didn't know what the answer was. They can't tell you what it is, but they know the right answer when they see it.

The analogy is not perfect, but you should get my point.

Richard

its a great analogy but im gonna say from my experience this just highlights exactly why it is important to always listen and thus be able to anticipate their needs...particularly when the blood sugar level is dropping and rationality has gone out the window.

no doubt you will have to provide options. the game is the game!

so know your audience, collect data, keep a list of acceptable choices on hand, always give them credit for your ideas, and never never ever suggest the place with the attractive servers!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so know your audience, collect data, keep a list of acceptable choices on hand, always give them credit for your ideas, and never never ever suggest the place with the attractive servers!

Haha. Well knowing that while the game is called "I will let you pick where we eat tonight" The game really is "I want you to already know where I want to eat tonight".

But you are right. You need to know your audience. And know what will satisfy them them.

Richard

[BTCC frog]

One thing I would like to change is to take Formula 1 off social media, and encourage the teams to do the same. Social media brings out the worst in people, and attracts the worst fans. Formula 1 would be better off without these fans, so should remove itself from social media.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

One thing I would like to change is to take Formula 1 off social media, and encourage the teams to do the same. Social media brings out the worst in people, and attracts the worst fans. Formula 1 would be better off without these fans, so should remove itself from social media.

How would that work? You understand that this forum would fall under "social media". Are we no longer able to discuss F1?

Short of existing in a fully managed environment where free speech is gone, the toxicity of people who hide behind their keyboards is a fact of life. You have to live with the bad to allow for the good.

I would think that F1, F1 Teams and the various F1 personality just have to try to behave in a positive way and not get sucked down into the muck in the sewer.

Richard

[Greem]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

One thing I would like to change is to take Formula 1 off social media, and encourage the teams to do the same. Social media brings out the worst in people, and attracts the worst fans. Formula 1 would be better off without these fans, so should remove itself from social media.

I can say, hand on heart, that you're right on the "brings out the worst in some people, and attracts some of the worst fans" angle but in general your point does not stand up very well.

I've spoken to a lot of people at a number of British Grand Prix over the last 10 years and hoo boy, if it wasn't for social media they simply would not be there. In 2014 I spoke to a group of blokes from Brixton who'd been snared by the bling/rap/fashion angle that Hamilton brought along. They were definitely "new fans", who prior to that wouldn't have been seen dead paying hundreds of pounds for F1 tickets. They stood behind me for a good bit of the weekend...

...and when the GP2 (as it was at the time) cars came out I almost had to pick all of their jaws off the floor, repeatedly, and that was just practice!

When the F1 cars came out I swear they were squirming in ways that would have only have been right in a nightclub private room

Print media (with all the crap/abuse/bias it contains) is practically dead, free-to-air coverage is all but dead. Social media is the last bastion of free coverage, biased or not.

[BTCC frog]

Okay, maybe my comment wasn’t very well thought through. Clearly I don’t think this forum should be banned, otherwise I wouldn’t use it. My objection is to the likes of Twitter where some people are anonymous and others are not, which is where I the problems lie, but clearly that too is impractical. It seems I underestimated the number of real fans that come from social media, as all I’ve seen is the toxic ones. I have no idea how to get rid of the toxic fans, but I feel the events surrounding the British GP mean that something needs to be done, but maybe that is impossible.

[S griffin]

I don’t think social media is the problem. You should deal with the problem of the vile people rather than just walking away from it. Imo F1 has benefitted from social media, something that Bernie was never keen to exploit to his benefit. Their YouTube channel is quite good

[BTCC frog]

Yes, my comment was stupid. Sorry. Clearly getting rid of social media is not the right solution, changing it is. The reason tentenths is good is because there are no toxic characters, which I guess is because it doesn't have a huge number of users, so the moderators can easily ban anyone who ruins it. Larger sites cannot do that, as there are so many more people and they make multiple accounts. The question is about how sites like Twitter can ban toxic people permanently, but that is not about Formula 1 so no need to discuss further. Sorry for the ill-judged comment.

[chillibowl]

Just avoid the comment sections on the socials. As a platform for teams, drivers, journos, and some very talented and knowledgeable fans to put out their own content it is imo amazing.

Take the good and dont get drawn into the bad.

[coppice]

Greem - love your example . I was at Silverstone once in the V10 era and it was clear that dad and lad next to me had never been to a circuit before , but had seen it on TV , Which , as we know , doesn't even hint at the speed noise and spectacle. You could see them looking at each other open mouthed as a car came out of the pits (it was a tyre test ) and screamed around the track to where we were at Bridge . As you know , the cars would burst into view at huge speed and with the exhaust pointing at the crowd.

Poor souls , they were frozen to the spot and didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Bit like me - but it's tears of joy...

Almost as good as the time I saw the youngster standing next to a T70 when it was started up in a pit garage ...

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Just avoid the comment sections on the socials. As a platform for teams, drivers, journos, and some very talented and knowledgeable fans to put out their own content it is imo amazing.

Take the good and dont get drawn into the bad.

You are completely correct. I really enjoy looking at all the weird statistics and facts that fans share, and it is the comment sections that is the problem. I will often look at some fascinating statistics from a site like reddit and then scroll down to see what other people think, and that's when I get annoyed with all the rubbish that appears and wrongly come to the conclusion that the whole thing should go, when really I just need to remember not to look at the comments.

[S griffin]

Some comments on social media sites can be quite fun to read and there can be some nice healthy debate amongst it. But then there are a few that let it down