Ironic, isn't it, that some of the least accessible spectator sports are the ones that make it on to TV? Few things could be duller to the layman than marathon running or horse racing - yet they get hours of coverage on the terrestrial channels. But it is far too easy to dismiss them as boring through nothing other than poor presentation and explanation. Often there is far more to these sports than meets the eye - games that have been around as long as these have evolved far beyond being the fastest from A-B.
Formula One is probably the finest example of a difficult sport that, with just a bit of effort from the broadcasting companies, teams and the FIA, could be made a far more enticing prospect for the viewing public. The biggest problem F1 suffers from is that people tuning in to see 20 cars racing round a track expect the racing to be happening, in a very obvious fashion, on the track. With overtaking and battling happening in a Mansell/Prost type way throughout the sixty or so laps. Only problem being that F1, to a certain extent, has evolved beyond overtaking in the traditional sense of the word. There is now far more to a race than simply getting to the front of the field through exceptional driving and holding off the other drivers until the end.
Formula 1 has been described as a 200mph game of chess and, to be honest, that's a pretty damn near perfect description. For Formula 1 fans a large portion of the interest comes from the technology, from watching the teams' different strategies unfold, seeing how the race takes shape as different variables are introduced and dealt with by strategic alterations to lap times, lines, pit-stop windows and track position. Why aren't these things explained in more depth by the expert commentators and broadcasting teams? With the tiny number of F1 teams on the grid now, there must be expert F1 tacticians who could be brought in to analyse a team's approach to the race and explain it to the audience in a way that we can understand. Strategies are a major part of Formula 1 that involves genuinely complicated mathematics to figure out exactly where their drivers need to be at a given second in order to pit in the right place to allow them to exit in clean air, in front of a rival, behind a team mate or anywhere else for that matter; so why is such a crucial part of the sport all but omitted from the broadcasts? It is like showing Royal Ascot with no betting odds. Rubbish. Far more needs to be made of this aspect of F1, we get ages before the race starts, so why not use a chunk of this for strategy prediction for each of the teams with rolling updates throughout the race from a team outside the commentary booth?
Technology is perhaps the most important part of F1 in terms of the influence is has on the racing. Motor sport is unique in this respect, how many other sports have to cope with an unpredictable number of rule changes each year, yet still be ready for one of the longest seasons in sport in January? To ITV's (and Red Bull's) credit, the technical analysis section with the computer-aided graphics is a fantastic addition, providing genuine insight into the mechanics of a Formula 1 car. Over the last year, they've done a fine job of making clear the differences between the single-seaters and road cars and Martin Brundle's explanations of how each individual package works both in isolation and unison have been very interesting, if a touch monotonous. Having said that, you can't help but feel that it has only been possible because every car on the F1 grid will be scrap composite by now. Technology made genuinely redundant by new regulations being made accessible by the seemingly crazy-liberal Red Bull team. What television coverage needs is engineers making analyses throughout the year of the current and even future technology. Surely if we can have an Army tactics expert second guessing every move made in Iraq, we can get an engineer on TV to speculate on the direction F1 will take. ITV should have someone dedicated to assessing component changes on the cars - how often have you heard a driver say "yes, we've got lots of aerodynamic changes for this race" only for it to be followed by… well, absolutely nothing at all. When that interview finishes, we should be cutting to an aerodynamicist who's been studying the cars over practice and qualifying and is ready to explain what parts have changed and why they might have done so. Where is the initiative?
Ignorance of strategy and technological developments are the sole reason for the grossly misinformed opinion that F1 drivers are really just passengers. Did you know that Michael Schumacher adjusts the brake balance and diff settings on his car between bends to optimise handling? Do you know what adjusting the brake balance or diff settings would do or even what they are? Possibly not, yet this is all crucial information for the enjoyment of the skill involved in piloting an F1 car. Tactical instructions that involve a driver being told to add or take off a second a lap are met with staggering ease by the driver, yet are brushed over by our hosts. Next time you're playing a racing game, try to get your lap times to be within half a second of each other and you'll see how difficult consistency is. Then try to go 1 second slower across the whole lap by braking a bit earlier and getting on the gas a touch later on every single bend – best of luck. Why not make it really interesting by running a marathon first? Subtle nuances like this seem to be over-looked by the commentary teams, who would rather use their time for banal statistical speculation about who finished in what positions at this race last year and who's just set the best lap time blah blah blah. It's all the same. Every week.
There isn't one way to drive a Formula 1 car and, anyone who reads F1 Racing particularly, will be privy to the different approaches to a bend. It's hard to notice on your own but, once it has been pointed out, is blindingly obvious for all to see. Did you know that every Formula 1 car is equipped with a GPS system that that alters the engine mapping for each bend? With technology like that, surely each car could be made to draw a virtual racing line on a bend, with the commentators being able to control ghost cars, replays and the number of 'lines' drawn in order to provide a base from which to give genuine insight into F1 technique. With the advent of the brake and throttle bars; you could even have a line that changed from red to green according to throttle and brake application. Then there are things like left-foot braking, traction control usage, steering input and goodness knows how many other F1 driving techniques to consider. There needs to be far more direct comparison between drivers.
Formula 1 is at the very cutting edge of automotive technology and the TV coverage is decades behind sports like tennis and cricket! How embarrassing is that?! At Wimbledon you can use the digital menu to pick what match you want to watch, what angle you want to watch it from and who you want talking over it. Cricket has the spectacular hawk-eye system, complete with ball paths mapped across an over, and unequalled tactical analysis, both by the live commentary teams and Simon Hughes. F1 doesn't even have a red button icon, and we're getting to the point when that's like not having a website. I'm guessing ITV's excuse would be that not every country would be able to provide the kind of coverage required to transmit multi-angle viewing, and would be unwilling to give up some control of their signals to the ITV crew. So do it at Silverstone where you control everything and show the rest of the world what's possible. We Brits have been at the fore-front of F1 racing technology for forty years, so let's set ourselves up at the head of what should be an imminent revolution in the way F1 is shown on TV.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by SlickHolden
when i see this article , i don't read anything , too long , but you did it yourself , i respect you , good effort for the forum , but I doubt about it
