Negativity and Haterism trend....

[Andres125sx]

Agree

That´s the problem of capitalism. IMO it´s the best we know, but it must be regulated. When there´s no restrictions (generically speaking) it allows people in charge, big companies and big fortunes to do what they want, and crisis are not that bad for them, rich people get richer with crisis, big companies get rid of some competitors, and people in charge never pay any price but the opposite, they´re usually rewarded, so none of them have any intention for regulating anything. This is perfect for them.

IMHO, avarice is XXI century pandemic, that´s the only problem of capitalism, it promote avarice. If regulated it could be more or less perfect, but since those who should regulate it are not interested we continue with the cycle...

[turbof1]

Agree

That´s the problem of capitalism. IMO it´s the best we know, but it must be regulated. When there´s no restrictions (generically speaking) it allows people in charge, big companies and big fortunes to do what they want, and crisis are not that bad for them, rich people get richer with crisis, big companies get rid of some competitors, and people in charge never pay any price but the opposite, they´re usually rewarded, so none of them have any intention for regulating anything. This is perfect for them.

IMHO, avarice is XXI century pandemic, that´s the only problem of capitalism, it promote avarice. If regulated it could be more or less perfect, but since those who should regulate it are not interested we continue with the cycle...

As economist I can't agree more. Conservatists always pletched that deregulating markets gives economic growth, while it's regulations that keep dominant players from bullying smaller players out of the market.

Deregulation leads to moral hazards which leads to bubbles ready to burst. And that same applies for f1; while I believe the technical side is overregulated, the sporting sidd barely delivers a platform for fair competition.

[MOWOG]

Deregulation leads to moral hazards which leads to bubbles ready to burst.

You'll not be welcome at the annual Ronald Reagan appreciation dinner with attitudes like that.

It is as clear as the face on your nose that deregulation empowers breathtaking adventures in greed and acquisitiveness. It is equally clear that dominance of the marketplace by government stifles innovation and leads to a stagnant economy.

Why are human beings pre-programmed to believe that all things are either black or white, you're either with us or agin us and anyone who doesn't agree with me is my enemy?

I suggest that when the scientific community designated our species as homo sapiens, it made a colossal mistake.

[Ciro Pabón]

I believe that the sapiens part is relative to other persons before us.

Now, this could be interesting:

The European Commission (EC) is now looking into potential anti-competition breaches within formula one...

Anneliese Dodds ... said she met this week in Strasbourg with the EC's competition commissioner to "exchange ideas".

... about the inequitable distribution of power and wealth among F1's biggest teams

... also the regulatory body FIA having taken a 1.06 per cent stake in the sport's commercial rights.

The commissioner has said that she will write back formally to Anneliese...

Anneliese, Anneliese, what are you doing? Ecclestone would prefer if you dress in white


Small teams are desperate. They are citing one of the problems of Reaganomics: cornering the market. They called Mercedes, Williams, Ferrari and FOM a cartel. Big word.

... after our meeting in Brazil we clearly see the direction of Formula 1 towards customer cars / super GP2.

... 70% – 80% of the FOM income has to be allocated to the engine.

... we have no choice but to spend most of our income on the engine, and the remaining 30% is by far not enough to construct, enter and run a team over a twenty race season...

... creating what is effectively a questionable Cartel comprising, the Commercial Rights Holder, Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, McLaren and Williams...

... controlling... governance of Formula One and... distribution of FOM funds.

Pablo Ecclestone talks about his cartel with Vijay.
Vijay was overheard saying something that, I believe, rhymes with "up to our bollocks".
Ecclestone said "my smile is NOT phony

[strad]

Thanks to social media I´m in contact with school friends I lost contact with a long time ago

If this makes you happy I'm glad for you. However for myself I don't get it,, those I wished to stay in touch with I did and I have no desire to search out those I didn't.

[Andres125sx]

Thanks to social media I´m in contact with school friends I lost contact with a long time ago

If this makes you happy I'm glad for you. However for myself I don't get it,, those I wished to stay in touch with I did and I have no desire to search out those I didn't.

Nothing in this world is useful for everyone

[Manoah2u]

Thanks to social media I´m in contact with school friends I lost contact with a long time ago

If this makes you happy I'm glad for you. However for myself I don't get it,, those I wished to stay in touch with I did and I have no desire to search out those I didn't.

Nothing in this world is useful for everyone

I got in contact with school 'friends' of a long time ago through social media.
Then it faded into the background just the same it did a long while ago.
Before, they were in the memory of my mind. Now, they're in the memory banks of the social media's 'friendlist'.
Did anything change? Did my life suddenly improve? Did I get a better social position? Did women suddenly flock towards me? did my boss suddenly offer me salaries in multiples? Nah, nothing changed. It only tends to make life more annoying.

I could care less about social media just the same like strad.

And i don't think it genuinly makes a difference for F1 in general for social media to be paired to F1.
Heck, scratch that - If view ratings and F1 popularity is still 'spiraling down', then there's all the proof social media doesn't work - just like Bernie says.

Why? because all of the social media pages of Mclaren, Mercedes, RedBull, etc. If social media really did have any benefit for F1, then the fanpages of all these brands, drivers, etc. would have contributed to that - instead, it rather didn't.

So let's be honest here, Bernie may be an old crazy rascal....but he's definately not an idiot. I wouldn't underestimate him, really.

Does Formula 1 have areas where the sport can improve? most definately, yes.
I however don't think F1 is in dire need for change just because some sensationalists think so.

Do we need better tires? Well, when we actually saw tires that didn't shatter around after 2 laps we had one of the most boring races in years [ sochi ]. Kudos BTW to Pirelli for playing it safe and providing reliable tires, and the fact the exploding tires are history. So again, do we need better tires? - No, because it would make the race mindnumbingly boring and did not improve overtaking or on-track fun.

Do we need aesthetic improvements? - why? Sure, the noses aren't genuinly something to appreciate but that'll probably rather be fixed next season anyway. as for the rest? larger diameter rims? Yeah, that's something that would be interesting to keep in touch with reality. Oh wait, there are already plans for that and real-life tests commited.

Do we need technical improvements? I don't think it gets much higher-tech than the V6Turbo with the hybrid engine paired to strict rules. I think we should welcome the new engine formula and be angry at FOM for castrating the transfer of sound to our living room. It's like putting an exhaust with katback system on the mouth of Toni Braxton, Adele, or Luciano Pavarotti. Are we going to complain the artists sounds lousy and are crap or are we gonna accept it's rediculous there are exhausts put into an artists face? In other words, why are we complaining on the engines instead of FOM?

Do we need financial solutions? Yeah, well thats the only real deal here. Yes F1 is wildly expensive nowadays. However, Marussia and Caterham falling doesn't generally mean F1 really has a huge problem. Does anybody remember the REAL team lotus? They falled back in 1994, with a deficiency of about 12 million UK pounds. Remember, F1 budgets were in no way close to what they are nowadays, despite the fact Lotus had plenty of sponsors on the car and big teams could do with just a real tiny few. Rothmans, Marlboro, anyone?
So in 1994 we lost, arguably besides Ferrari and Mclaren, one of the most Iconic F1 teams in history. Yet, was F1 in that day insanely expensive? was there something genuinly wrong with F1 back then?
Well, apart from the driver safety and the horrible events of Imola '94, i'd say no, not really.

So why would it now? just because some tabloid says so? Just because humans in a collective tend to copy-paste bold sentiments so to shout along?

I genuinly don't think there's real substancial truth on the recent attacks on F1.
And i even put less value on a figure like Martin Whitmarsh whom supposedly 'warned' for 'this to happen'
Martin Whitmarsh has made a mess of Mclaren, himself, and what more. Now if somebody in the likes of a team principal that actually recently provided championship cars, or, let's put it better; actually did the job they were hired for well, stated something like this, it would hold a significant tad more of value.

[wesley123]

And i don't think it genuinly makes a difference for F1 in general for social media to be paired to F1.
Heck, scratch that - If view ratings and F1 popularity is still 'spiraling down', then there's all the proof social media doesn't work - just like Bernie says.

Why? because all of the social media pages of Mclaren, Mercedes, RedBull, etc. If social media really did have any benefit for F1, then the fanpages of all these brands, drivers, etc. would have contributed to that - instead, it rather didn't.

Well, when you can't show very much it becomes nothing more than a tool to promote your own brand.

Social media works on reaching people, and people reached does not automatically mean more viewers. I would say it is the opposite, why do i need to watch a race that has already been recapped?

But there is the issue; While Social media helps reach more people, it'll take the people away from the screen, and that is where F1 needs them to get the cash. It can't reliably be sold on social media(or the internet in general).

Seeing how many brands, products, sports promote themselves on social media shows there is a real value in it, however, with F1's way of making money, it does not.

Popularity/viewers isn't about the TV anymore, it is a combination of many, many services together to reach a large amount of people, even outside available areas.
I'm not from the US, but by following NBA's Facebook page I can get a good idea of what is going on.

So Social Media does work, however it does not work in getting people in front of the TV.

[coaster]

[/quote]
Does Formula 1 have areas where the sport can improve? most definately, yes.
I however don't think F1 is in dire need for change just because some sensationalists think so.
[/quote]

100% agree, the ink is dry now, at worst they could scale it up a notch.

[CBeck113]

@ all: a blog is social media too. Nice to see you don't lkke it here.

[Andres125sx]

Do we need better tires? Well, when we actually saw tires that didn't shatter around after 2 laps we had one of the most boring races in years [ sochi ]. Kudos BTW to Pirelli for playing it safe and providing reliable tires, and the fact the exploding tires are history. So again, do we need better tires? - No, because it would make the race mindnumbingly boring and did not improve overtaking or on-track fun.

This is a repeated argument, wich IMHO is far from accurate...

There are many factors that affect overtaking and on-track fun, so pointing tires as the root of the problem is not correct. People always tend to compare with bridgestone era, when hard tires have been used through F1 history many more times, with most of them being quite exciting

Bridgestone era was mindnumbingly boring because other reasons, aero reasons to be more precise. That´s the reason I´ve stated many times FIA always try to patch the problem instead of solving the root of the problem. Crappy tires have been just a patch, a patch that maybe solved the lack of overtaking, but also discredited overtaking. Now most overtakings are due to different strategies, not because the driver/car overtaking is better/faster.

Some time ago any overtaking was exciting, today most overtakings don´t make me jump from my seat. They simply made up the numbers, but didn´t solve the problem

[donskar]

I got in contact with school 'friends' of a long time ago through social media.
Then it faded into the background just the same it did a long while ago.
Before, they were in the memory of my mind. Now, they're in the memory banks of the social media's 'friendlist'.
Did anything change? Did my life suddenly improve? Did I get a better social position? Did women suddenly flock towards me? did my boss suddenly offer me salaries in multiples? Nah, nothing changed. It only tends to make life more annoying.

I could care less about social media just the same like strad.

And i don't think it genuinly makes a difference for F1 in general for social media to be paired to F1.
Heck, scratch that - If view ratings and F1 popularity is still 'spiraling down', then there's all the proof social media doesn't work - just like Bernie says.

Why? because all of the social media pages of Mclaren, Mercedes, RedBull, etc. If social media really did have any benefit for F1, then the fanpages of all these brands, drivers, etc. would have contributed to that - instead, it rather didn't.

So let's be honest here, Bernie may be an old crazy rascal....but he's definately not an idiot. I wouldn't underestimate him, really.

Does Formula 1 have areas where the sport can improve? most definately, yes.
I however don't think F1 is in dire need for change just because some sensationalists think so.

Do we need better tires? Well, when we actually saw tires that didn't shatter around after 2 laps we had one of the most boring races in years [ sochi ]. Kudos BTW to Pirelli for playing it safe and providing reliable tires, and the fact the exploding tires are history. So again, do we need better tires? - No, because it would make the race mindnumbingly boring and did not improve overtaking or on-track fun.

Do we need aesthetic improvements? - why? Sure, the noses aren't genuinly something to appreciate but that'll probably rather be fixed next season anyway. as for the rest? larger diameter rims? Yeah, that's something that would be interesting to keep in touch with reality. Oh wait, there are already plans for that and real-life tests commited.

Do we need technical improvements? I don't think it gets much higher-tech than the V6Turbo with the hybrid engine paired to strict rules. I think we should welcome the new engine formula and be angry at FOM for castrating the transfer of sound to our living room. It's like putting an exhaust with katback system on the mouth of Toni Braxton, Adele, or Luciano Pavarotti. Are we going to complain the artists sounds lousy and are crap or are we gonna accept it's rediculous there are exhausts put into an artists face? In other words, why are we complaining on the engines instead of FOM?

Do we need financial solutions? Yeah, well thats the only real deal here. Yes F1 is wildly expensive nowadays. However, Marussia and Caterham falling doesn't generally mean F1 really has a huge problem. Does anybody remember the REAL team lotus? They falled back in 1994, with a deficiency of about 12 million UK pounds. Remember, F1 budgets were in no way close to what they are nowadays, despite the fact Lotus had plenty of sponsors on the car and big teams could do with just a real tiny few. Rothmans, Marlboro, anyone?
So in 1994 we lost, arguably besides Ferrari and Mclaren, one of the most Iconic F1 teams in history. Yet, was F1 in that day insanely expensive? was there something genuinly wrong with F1 back then?
Well, apart from the driver safety and the horrible events of Imola '94, i'd say no, not really.

So why would it now? just because some tabloid says so? Just because humans in a collective tend to copy-paste bold sentiments so to shout along?

I genuinly don't think there's real substancial truth on the recent attacks on F1.
And i even put less value on a figure like Martin Whitmarsh whom supposedly 'warned' for 'this to happen'
Martin Whitmarsh has made a mess of Mclaren, himself, and what more. Now if somebody in the likes of a team principal that actually recently provided championship cars, or, let's put it better; actually did the job they were hired for well, stated something like this, it would hold a significant tad more of value.[/quote]

I disagree with too many points in your post to try to respond to each. I will touch on one point: it is a simple fact that social media is the fastest growing marketing tool around. It works. Companies that spend millions of dollars tracking the effectiveness of various media tools are pouring growing amounts into social media. You don't like it? NEITHER DO I. But our feelings do not change reality.

[Manoah2u]

And i don't think it genuinly makes a difference for F1 in general for social media to be paired to F1.
Heck, scratch that - If view ratings and F1 popularity is still 'spiraling down', then there's all the proof social media doesn't work - just like Bernie says.

Why? because all of the social media pages of Mclaren, Mercedes, RedBull, etc. If social media really did have any benefit for F1, then the fanpages of all these brands, drivers, etc. would have contributed to that - instead, it rather didn't.

Well, when you can't show very much it becomes nothing more than a tool to promote your own brand.

Social media works on reaching people, and people reached does not automatically mean more viewers. I would say it is the opposite, why do i need to watch a race that has already been recapped?

But there is the issue; While Social media helps reach more people, it'll take the people away from the screen, and that is where F1 needs them to get the cash. It can't reliably be sold on social media(or the internet in general).

Seeing how many brands, products, sports promote themselves on social media shows there is a real value in it, however, with F1's way of making money, it does not.

Popularity/viewers isn't about the TV anymore, it is a combination of many, many services together to reach a large amount of people, even outside available areas.
I'm not from the US, but by following NBA's Facebook page I can get a good idea of what is going on.

So Social Media does work, however it does not work in getting people in front of the TV.

Nice analogy, haven't taken that into account before. I think you might hit the nail on the head on why F1 won't be embracing social media as a 'brand'.

[hollus]

Not to be negative here, but there is simply no comparison with what F1 used to be.
Some of us are old enough to remember the golden times when there was free and pure competition, different engines, no aero (cough!), definitively no teams pulling away by race 3, a fuel limit, rock hard tires that were supposed to last a race distance and tire explosions and pit stop strategies did not decide championships.

[strad]

There are many factors that affect overtaking and on-track fun, so pointing tires as the root of the problem is not correct. People always tend to compare with bridgestone era, when hard tires have been used through F1 history many more times, with most of them being quite exciting

Dead On..Big thumbs up!