I don´t get Formula One races.

[toe mash]

A lot of informative stuff

Oh. I see. Maybe I'd even rank F1 races below football/soccer for "sports I have no respect for" now

[InstrumentalityOne]

This is something I do not quite get. Where does the money come from? The car companies put in millions of dollars but how do they get money in return? Not award money I am sure. The TV broadcast rights and the sponsorship (not coming from car companies) amount to that much?

Probably advertising?
It´s like with the Motorcycle races.
e.g.:If Yamaha wins it, people will think that they make great motorcycles and buy a Yamaha one.

[toe mash]

Probably advertising?
It´s like with the Motorcycle races.
e.g.:If Yamaha wins it, people will think that they make great motorcycles and buy a Yamaha one.

Yeah but what about companies that consistently lose or rarely ever win? (Ornette mentioned Toyota for example..)

[InstrumentalityOne]

Well, there are a lot of companies who don´t even participate, so yeah.

[Ornette]

With the extraorindary privileges Bernie was able to enjoy then I do not think he could end the dispute without conceding anything. But I doubt it actually cut much into his control. He is still the effective owner of the whole thing.

He's only the CEO of FOA and management. He doesn't "own" F1. He only owns the advertising rights. There are 3 separate bodies that govern F1. His dispute was the money he was making from the advertising and how it was distributed to the teams along with a potential rule (which he has no say in) which allows teams that spend under a cap to field a different kind of car. The rule was stupid, nobody liked it, not even teams that were already spending under the cap.

This is something I do not quite get. Where does the money come from? The car companies put in millions of dollars but how do they get money in return? Not award money I am sure. The TV broadcast rights and the sponsorship (not coming from car companies) amount to that much?

Yeah but what about companies that consistently lose or rarely ever win? (Ornette mentioned Toyota for example..)

The kickback you get is simply being a part of it. Not anyone can build a car and get a spot on the grid. There are a fixed amount of slots for teams and if your car isn't within a certain percentage of lap time with the other cars, it is deemed dangerous and you can't participate. Anyone who's a car enthusiast know what a big deal it is to even be a part of F1. That kind of recognition is priceless. Though, at some point you just can't afford to stay in the game if you're not winning or at least consistently getting points (the money made is distributed to teams, the more points you have the more money you get).

The other thing, car companies at least, get out of it is that it's practically an R&D division that makes its own money. Like most racing divisions of car companies that participate in all kinds of races, the R&D that goes into those race cars end up back in the mass produced passenger cars. But again, it's retarded expensive, so when it doesn't make sense as a business, it doesn't make sense to take part in it. Keep in mind there are teams in F1 that aren't affiliated with car companies. Teams owned and run by individuals. Some of them are pretty competitive (Ross Brawn's F1 team 2 years ago, won the whole championship), and have historically been competitive (Eddie Jordan's team, Benneton, Minardi, etc).

[symbv]

He's only the CEO of FOA and management. He doesn't "own" F1. He only owns the advertising rights. There are 3 separate bodies that govern F1. His dispute was the money he was making from the advertising and how it was distributed to the teams along with a potential rule (which he has no say in) which allows teams that spend under a cap to field a different kind of car. The rule was stupid, nobody liked it, not even teams that were already spending under the cap.

I wrote "own" not to mean actual physical ownership but effective control of how F1 is run and the spoils are divided. I am sure his control has decreased after the rebellion 2 years ago but I think he still calls many shots on F1 even now.

As for how powerful he was before the rebellion, I could quote from this Economist article from 2009

Teams backed by big carmakers such as Toyota, Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari (part of Fiat) and Renault had grown frustrated at the autocratic way the sport was being governed by (Max) Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone, two British racing veterans who have kept a tight grip on the rule-book and purse-strings of F1 for around 30 years. Firms founded by Mr Ecclestone control the sport’s commercial affairs, including the lucrative sale of rights to stage races and to broadcast them. They receive over half the fees paid by broadcasters and the companies or governments that put on the races. The teams want a bigger share of the revenues, although the current arrangement will remain in place until 2012.

The way it was means Bernie effectively owned F1 and could do anything he liked and he was not even an elected head or had any length of term to speak of. It needed a large scale rebellion just to shaken his iron grip a little bit.

One reason I said F1 is a vanity sport is because car companies count their ego and possible "reputation boost" as being worth millions of dollars and they do not seem to think rationally in monetary investment return terms. Calculated this way I can understand why they get into F1 because there is all this peer group pressure. I have a feeling that if a significant portion of the car industry is to wake up and just say the emperor has no clothes and call it off, they may find that the dreaded drop of reputation after dropout will not happen.

And regardless of whatever background story there is, I still cannot understand how watching F1 on TV is enjoyable. As I am typing this now, my TV happens to start showing the heat race of 2011 F1 Malaysia GP and the noise noise noise just got on my nerve so much that I had to change channel before I finish typing this post....

[Ornette]

That's a gross exaggeration. The contractual agreement between the teams an FOM does put Bernie in control of advertisement and broadcast rights, all teams went in knowing this. That same contract also gives the teams the right to say "this rule is dumb, we don't want it". The "tight grip" on the rule-book just means the teams can't make up their own rules, but they can throw out any rule they want.

I don't agree with how the money is distributed in F1, but I agree with what Bernie is trying to do by trying to lower the costs to compete in the sport. Though you do have companies like Ferrari that actually trace the money put into their F1 program and the money they make from it, and they're making money hand over fist from their F1 program.

Like I mentioned in my first post in this thread, if you're not into motorsports, don't expect to enjoy any aspect of F1. Being at races (which I have), you sit in one spot and watch cars go by, you have no idea what's going on at the rest of the track except via a TV monitor placed somewhere within view (which displays the same feed that people watch at home) an a vertical numeric board that tells you the overall position. The noise is so loud that you will go deaf if you don't wear some kind of ear protection. It's so loud that the ground shakes each time a car goes by.

I like motorsports, I think that sound is exhilarating. I don't expect everyone to feel the same way about it.

[Obstermaxmaster]

One has walls you can crash into regularly, and the other does not.

"Facts about NASCAR and Formula One...".

Okay. I just thaought they the were exactly the same, also it is cool to know that NASCAR began as something people wanted to do to out-race the cops.

[Sachi]

A lot of people insist that it´s the greatest sport ever, so I´m clearly not *getting* it.

The appeal is essentially the same as in any sport, or any form of entertainment for that matter. There's a sense of enjoyment in watching a competitive race, just as there is in watching two groups of people bouncing a ball back and forth to get into a basket; it's entertaining to a certain demographic of people. Since there's a demographic—a demand—there will be a supply. Your lack of understanding in the appeal of racing sports is akin to others lack of understanding in the appeal of film, literature, art, etc. It's not a bad thing; there's simply a large variance among the interests of people, and it works for certain individuals.

[symbv]

Your lack of understanding in the appeal of racing sports is akin to others lack of understanding in the appeal of film, literature, art, etc. It's not a bad thing; there's simply a large variance among the interests of people, and it works for certain individuals.

That is not very helpful isn't it? I think if somebody asks why film or literature is appealing one would try to explain its appeal, rather than telling the person who asked he has "lack of understanding" ("yeah, you just don't understand. so leave us alone.")

At least Ornette said he found the noise exhilarating. Although I still do not understand why a race that is hard to see overtaking (and when it happens it is caused by accident or engineering breakdown) is considered exciting.

Personally I do not like to watch competitive sports - I never watch any professional baseball, basketball, soccer, golf, american football, tennis etc etc unless someone asked me (the only exceptions being the Olympics and Soccer World Cup) but at least I understand where the appeals of those sports matches are...

[Sachi]

That is not very helpful isn't it? I think if somebody asks why film or literature is appealing one would try to explain its appeal, rather than telling the person who asked he has "lack of understanding" ("yeah, you just don't understand. so leave us alone.")

You're misinterpreting my use of "lack of understanding" as "ignorance" in a derogatory sense, and then you further claim it to be an argument for separatism. I'm not saying "you don't understand, so you're stupid; go away." I'm saying that people find appeal in different things, and it's not going to be entirely understood by those who lack that same appeal.

A jock is not going to understand why a geek loves math and biology (I'm using very basic stereotypes here), and that geek isn't going to understand why the jock loves throwing a ball and tackling people. They don't have to be ignorant of where the other finds appeal, but they're not going to entirely understand it. Just like what Ornette said in his first reply, here:

If you're not already into motorsports, then there's no chance you're going to get it no matter how much explaining is involved.

[symbv]

You're misinterpreting my use of "lack of understanding" as "ignorance," and then you further claim it to be an argument for separatism. I'm not saying "you don't understand, so you're stupid; go away." I'm saying that people find appeal in different things, and it's not going to be entirely understood by those who lack that same appeal.

I understand you about people finding appeal in different things. The latter half of your last post said so. But I think the use of "lack of understanding" could lead to people thinking that they were told "you don't understand. so leave us alone."

A jock is not going to understand why a geek loves math and biology (I'm using very basic stereotypes here), and that geek isn't going to understand why the jock loves throwing a ball and tackling people. They don't have to be ignorant of where the other finds appeal, but they're not going to entirely understand it. Just like what Ornette said in his first reply, here:

If you're not already into motorsports, then there's no chance you're going to get it no matter how much explaining is involved.

I read it and in fact Ornette said the same twice in this thread.
Despite all these, there is still no explanation why F1 can be exciting to watch. As I said I did not watch professional football, baseball, basketball, golf or tennis but I understand what their appeals are, and I can explain to a newcomer to the sport why people like to watch them if I need to. I cannot do so for Formula car racing, and so far I have not heard any explanation that could help me on this regards. I am sure it will be difficult to convey or inject the passion to a person who does not like it, but explaining why it holds appeal to certain people should be easier.

[Sachi]

I understand you about people finding appeal in different things. The latter half of your last post said so. But I think the use of "lack of understanding" could lead to people thinking that they were told "you don't understand. so leave us alone."

Just like with derogatory names and insults, such as faggot and mother fucker, it's people's own connotation that gives power to words and phrases. The words themselves mean nothing; they have no moral right or wrong, no positive or negative connotation; the only thing that matters is the context they're put in. If you interpret the words as they are within the context of the sentence, and exclusive of prejudice or preconceived interpretation, then you will get the essential meaning of the use of the words. It's not my fault my words may become misconstrued.

I cannot do so for Formula car racing, and so far I have not heard any explanation that could help me on this regards.

Can you see the appeal in competitive foot racing? It's essentially a test of the physical speed and endurance of the body, and the most fit wins the race. And can you see the appeal in fast cars? It's essentially the thrill and need for speed. Well, put the two together and you've got motor racing. I don't expect this to convince you; I just felt like adding this to the collection of reasons (then again, I haven't read the thread, so it might have already been given).

[symbv]

Can you see the appeal in competitive foot racing? It's essentially a test of the physical speed and endurance of the body, and the most fit wins the race. And can you see the appeal in fast cars? It's essentially the thrill and need for speed. Well, put the two together and you've got motor racing. I don't expect this to convince you; I just felt like adding this to the collection of reasons (then again, I haven't read the thread, so it might have already been given).

All true, but for the fact that in forumula car racing, overtaking seldom occurs which means that you sit there waiting for that to happen but mostly in vain. An accident or some mechanical problem will cause an overtaking but that should not be the main appeal of watching the competition. Hence my question about its appeal.

[Ornette]

If overtaking were truly the main appeal for motorsports, we'd all watch the slowest of cars with the worst of drivers because they'd be overtaking each other all the time.

You need a minimum understanding of how the sport works, especially the engineering involved, how tires effect the race, how track situations affect the race, why strategies are important, how pit situations are intensely vital, the things that make overtaking infrequent (not sure what kind of F1 you've been watching, but overtaking happens a lot, just not all the time) and the strategies involved in being able to overtake someone.

Everything involved in an overtaking maneuver spans multiple laps. F1 drivers rarely make mistakes so overtaking isn't like in F2000 where drivers are fumbling around in slow cars the whole race, so overtaking is about strategy. Sometimes it involves following behind someone but taking the off-line (not the optimal racing line), so that the driver can "clean" that area of the track. The track off the racing line is dirty with marbles of rubber and debris, it's considerably less traction than the optimal racing line. But if a driver can clean that area of the track for several laps by picking up debris and marbles, the driver can pull an overtaking maneuver at there. People do that in the rain as well by purposely driving off-line to dry up a certain section of a corner so they can overtake.

With the advent of KERS and this year, DRS, it's even more vital to accumulate energy in KERS at the right times. So everything all goes into one overtaking maneuver. Everything has to be right and setup correctly and it could take 5 or 10 laps to do it. And when it happens, it's really exciting to see someone pull it off. Sometimes it doesn't work and they could go off the track.

Nobody watches F1 because they want to see a lot of overtaking.

[symbv]

If overtaking were truly the main appeal for motorsports, we'd all watch the slowest of cars with the worst of drivers because they'd be overtaking each other all the time.

You need a minimum understanding of how the sport works, especially the engineering involved, how tires effect the race, how track situations affect the race, why strategies are important, how pit situations are intensely vital, the things that make overtaking infrequent (not sure what kind of F1 you've been watching, but overtaking happens a lot, just not all the time) and the strategies involved in being able to overtake someone.

Everything involved in an overtaking maneuver spans multiple laps. F1 drivers rarely make mistakes so overtaking isn't like in F2000 where drivers are fumbling around in slow cars the whole race, so overtaking is about strategy. Sometimes it involves following behind someone but taking the off-line (not the optimal racing line), so that the driver can "clean" that area of the track. The track off the racing line is dirty with marbles of rubber and debris, it's considerably less traction than the optimal racing line. But if a driver can clean that area of the track for several laps by picking up debris and marbles, the driver can pull an overtaking maneuver at there. People do that in the rain as well by purposely driving off-line to dry up a certain section of a corner so they can overtake.

With the advent of KERS and this year, DRS, it's even more vital to accumulate energy in KERS at the right times. So everything all goes into one overtaking maneuver. Everything has to be right and setup correctly and it could take 5 or 10 laps to do it. And when it happens, it's really exciting to see someone pull it off. Sometimes it doesn't work and they could go off the track.

Nobody watches F1 because they want to see a lot of overtaking.

That all makes a lot of sense. Thanks Ornette!

Yet how does it link to the experience of watching formula car racing on TV?? All those research about the engineering, the track, the car can all be done off the race. From what you said, apparently the main appeal of watching it live on TV is to patiently wait for the strategy of one team to be successfully pulled off so that the champion does not go to the car at the pole position by default?

[Xard]

I too would like to thank Ornette for writing that post. My uncle has always been crazy about motorsports and F1 in particular but I never understood the appeal very well. Now I can see it :)

[KnightmareX13]

I too would like to thank Ornette for writing that post. My uncle has always been crazy about motorsports and F1 in particular but I never understood the appeal very well. Now I can see it :)

yeah dildos are pretty usual these days, my uncle has one

same uncle who has the dildos?

[Xard]

same uncle who has the dildos?

which was a crude joke to begin with.

As far as I know he doesn't have any such things...

[Ornette]

Yet how does it link to the experience of watching formula car racing on TV?? All those research about the engineering, the track, the car can all be done off the race. From what you said, apparently the main appeal of watching it live on TV is to patiently wait for the strategy of one team to be successfully pulled off so that the champion does not go to the car at the pole position by default?

It's hard to quantify how a TV experience can cover everything that happens in the race. In a lot of ways, the TV experience has more information about what's going on than actually being at the race. But there's a couple of things involved.

First, the broadcast for the sport isn't like for most sports. There is a single feed that goes to all countries/broadcasters. There are commentators for each of the actual broadcasts. I've seen broadcasts from a lot of different countries and sometimes they are laughable (in Mandarin, CCTV sports in China) to very well informed (ITV in the U.K., which is now only on BBC). So depending on the actual broadcast, you can get a lot of information about a race, but everyone sees the same visual feed.

That said, there's a lot of stuff happening at other places on the track that you don't see on TV. This is why it's important to follow the timings that are often shown at the bottom of a broadcast, or alternatively you can bring it up on your phone or computer. It tells you all the sector times and who has overtaken who (that's not shown on the live feed). Aside from the first couple of laps of the race where the entire field is scrunched up together, there's overtaking and other shenanigans at other parts of the track than the one you see on TV. Sometimes the feed will do a replay of certain events. Keep in mind this is the F1 feed, and not the actual broadcast that is doing replays.

The other thing is you can't look at overtaking simply from the point of view of a guy passing another guy. The guy that is in front is actively doing everything in his power to defend his position. So even if no overtaking is happening, there is a very compelling battle between 2 very talented drivers. There are rules about what you can do to defend and such, but drivers in F1 are so good that most of the overtaking is one guy outdueling another. This makes for great sport.