Formula 1 2019 - May contain spoilers

[Chillidoggy]

So, it’s business as usual up the front.

[Bibs]

I watched the race on Sky, it was very dull. Might try one more but my grass does seem to want some attention to show me how well it's growing. 

[Composite guru]

Don't worry, we at RB are trying our best to knock Merc off the top spot.

Just need to get the Honda engine a few more horses.

[Bibs]

Would be nice to see some proper racing at the front

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

45 minutes ago, Composite guru said:

Don't worry, we at RB are trying our best to knock Merc off the top spot.

Just need to get the Honda engine a few more horses.

Blimey that didn't take long. An RB guy complaining about their engine supplier after just 1 race: Horner casts a long shadow over Milton Keynes! Verstappen's Honda engine had no problem overtaking Vettel's Ferrari, whereas the Renault in Sainz' McLaren went up in flames.

[Composite guru]

22 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

Blimey that didn't take long. An RB guy complaining about their engine supplier after just 1 race: Horner casts a long shadow over Milton Keynes! Verstappen's Honda engine had no problem overtaking Vettel's Ferrari, whereas the Renault in Sainz' McLaren went up in flames.

I'm not complaining. Honda are doing a great job.

[Chillidoggy]

I wonder what the viewing figures were like. Hamster was moaning about them last week, as I recall.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

There was an article on the BBC Sport website last week. I can't find it now, but in 2018, I think it said C4 got about 2.5 - 3 million viewers, whereas Sky got 707,000 or so (about a 21% increase on 2017). The gap may well close a bit this year due to C4's highlights only package meaning less viewers for them and Sky F1 pushing hard with TV advertising and deals. I am fairly certain that the overall number of UK F1 viewers will fall considerably. The thing is Sky HAS to make the numbers work over the period of their contract (Bernie's UK broadcast deal runs until end 2024!), whereas C4 can say "meh" and bin off the highlights, if they find baking cakes more lucrative. The problem for the new F1 owners and Sponsors is that they have Bernie to thank for tying their hands to Sky in the UK until 2025. A UK TV audience rating of <1 million is not a big draw for those guys.

[C8RKH]

2 hours ago, Composite guru said:

Don't worry, we at RB are trying our best to knock Merc off the top spot.

Just need to get the Honda engine a few more horses.

I wish you and the team all the best. But I have to admit I just cannot get a liking or take to Vercrasheshappen. Not sure what it is but there is just something about him. However, would be good to see RB and Renault up their charging hard this year and keep Ferrari and Mercedes honest and under pressure. Here's hoping for you.

@LotusLeftLotusRight I wouldn't be too upset for the F1 organisation, the UK deal for three years was worth £105m to them so not too shabby at all.  For Sky, that's £50 cost per subscriber based on 700,000 paying viewers and they are charging what, £150 for a an annual Sky Sports F1 pass so they are killing it!  That's a 300% return without the extra revenue of advertising etc.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

The number banded about at the time of Bernie's Sky deal being agreed was over £1 billion for 6 seasons from 2019 to 2024 inclusive. Even if every one of the 707,000 Sky F1 viewers was a subscriber (they're not of course), that would be £236 per Sky F1 viewer per year for 6 years. Sky is desperately trying to claw back revenue. A Sky F1 streaming (only) NOW TV pass is £195 for this season, so effectively £10 per race  for 20 races (British GP is free on C4, anyway). Existing Sky customers are being enticed with a £10 per month surcharge for F1, so that would be another £120 for a full year. It will be interesting to see how they get on in 2019. I can't see the status quo lasting for 6 years.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Might be unrelated, but Sky has just handed over their cycling team a full year earlier than previously announced. That will save them £35 million at a stroke.

[Mark Blanchard]

The problem with Bernie’s deal is it’s cutting out the casual viewers of F1 that used to watch it.  And with the reduction in viewers this could mean a lack of interest or relevance for the younger generation.  My Son’s a car nut but we don’t have Sky, so he never see’s F1 races and consequently doesn’t seem interested.  Very different to when I was a kid.

Bernie’s deal is a short term monetary gain for the F1 business but long term they’re shooting themselves in the foot.

[Julian73]

17 hours ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

Blimey that didn't take long. An RB guy complaining about their engine supplier after just 1 race: Horner casts a long shadow over Milton Keynes! Verstappen's Honda engine had no problem overtaking Vettel's Ferrari, whereas the Renault in Sainz' McLaren went up in flames.

I doubt that was a complaint, they did split the Ferrari's. However, given a choice anyone would take a few more Hp if it was offered.

[Julian73]

14 hours ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

The number banded about at the time of Bernie's Sky deal being agreed was over £1 billion for 6 seasons from 2019 to 2024 inclusive. Even if every one of the 707,000 Sky F1 viewers was a subscriber (they're not of course), that would be £236 per Sky F1 viewer per year for 6 years. Sky is desperately trying to claw back revenue. A Sky F1 streaming (only) NOW TV pass is £195 for this season, so effectively £10 per race  for 20 races (British GP is free on C4, anyway). Existing Sky customers are being enticed with a £10 per month surcharge for F1, so that would be another £120 for a full year. It will be interesting to see how they get on in 2019. I can't see the status quo lasting for 6 years.

It's not just direct Sky viewers, Sky has sold access to their F1 content to ABC/ESPN in the US.  I don't know what ABC paid, but I am certain it was not a small amount of money, and at least one more such deal was cut with FoxTel in Australia.

[Composite guru]

14 hours ago, Mark Blanchard said:

The problem with Bernie’s deal is it’s cutting out the casual viewers of F1 that used to watch it.  And with the reduction in viewers this could mean a lack of interest or relevance for the younger generation.  My Son’s a car nut but we don’t have Sky, so he never see’s F1 races and consequently doesn’t seem interested.  Very different to when I was a kid.

Bernie’s deal is a short term monetary gain for the F1 business but long term they’re shooting themselves in the foot.

I agree. I work in F1 and refuse to pay for Sky.

It is on constantly on at work and they just regurgitate the same stuff over and over again just to keep the channel alive. I just follow online and watch the highlights.

As soon as people stop subscribing to Sky then that's when it will come back to terrestrial TV again I reckon.

 

 

[C8RKH]

6 hours ago, Julian73 said:

It's not just direct Sky viewers, Sky has sold access to their F1 content to ABC/ESPN in the US.  I don't know what ABC paid, but I am certain it was not a small amount of money, and at least one more such deal was cut with FoxTel in Australia.

Yes, but we were talking about the Sky deal that specifically covered the UK - those were other deals they did. So the £105m for 3 years was for UK coverage.

20 hours ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

The number banded about at the time of Bernie's Sky deal being agreed was over £1 billion for 6 seasons from 2019 to 2024 inclusive. Even if every one of the 707,000 Sky F1 viewers was a subscriber (they're not of course), that would be £236 per Sky F1 viewer per year for 6 years. Sky is desperately trying to claw back revenue. A Sky F1 streaming (only) NOW TV pass is £195 for this season, so effectively £10 per race  for 20 races (British GP is free on C4, anyway). Existing Sky customers are being enticed with a £10 per month surcharge for F1, so that would be another £120 for a full year. It will be interesting to see how they get on in 2019. I can't see the status quo lasting for 6 years.

No. That was £1bn "GLOBALLY"!"  The £105m and the 700k subscribers are the UK portion of that only, not the total global revenues or subscriber numbers.

[Julian73]

5 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Yes, but we were talking about the Sky deal that specifically covered the UK - those were other deals they did. So the £105m for 3 years was for UK coverage.

No. That was £1bn "GLOBALLY"!"  The £105m and the 700k subscribers are the UK portion of that only, not the total global revenues or subscriber numbers.

I just saying that things like the ESPN deal are pure profit to Sky. They are selling access to their feed that they already produced for themselves, it cost no more licensing fee for them to F1 as ESPN paid F1 directly for the right to air F1.

[pete]

Comparison here between f1 and Indy on same track

https://uk.motorsport.tv/formula-1/video/how-indycars-austin-debut-compared-to-f1/20449

[Bravo73]

Or, another view:

18 seconds a lap difference!

[USAndretti42]

I've subscribed to Sky Sports F1 as it covers the Indycar races.  Indycars are about 250bhp down,  F1 minimum weight is 743kg plus 80kg (823kg total) for the driver plus fuel.  Minimum car weight for an Indycar in road course form is 1630lbs plus 185lbs for the driver which is also 823kg total so they have ¾ the power to weight ratio.  They also have a lot less downforce allowed by the regulations so no wonder they are a lot slower.  They do produce some good racing, though.

Today's Bahrain race was good, though, with some good battles and a sudden change in fortunes at the front in the last part of the race.

[pete]

So was the French GP the most boring ever on the most boring track,what is it with all those lines. Even Hamilton is saying it is getting boring and they need to change the rules without the teams being involved. Trouble is we are a few years away from any changes and by then most will have switched off. Perhaps Sky will put pressure on the FIA as they have paid a lot of money for the rights for the next 5 years

[Chillidoggy]

I agree, the wife actually fell asleep during the race. It’s now become a case of which Merc will win each race. Didn’t see what the attendance figures were, but wouldn’t be at all surprised if it wasn’t a capacity crowd. Sky must be looking for an exit.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Yes, tedious. Despite all the recent complex technical tinkering and rule changes, guess what, the fastest driver in the fastest car wins. Very much like the Schumacher era, but now with added reliability to eliminate the risk of a DNF. Many of the tracks aren't helping: either too tight so no overtaking, or too expansive so mistakes aren't punished. We see very few genuinely skilfull overtaking manoeuvres now that we have DRS. If you're not a Hamilton fan it must be a real turn-off nowadays. 

[red vtec]

Not watched for several years, its so boring. I keep giving it a try but just turn it off, The races are boring and so are the drivers. its all far to corporate.

[Neal H]

I agree that the French GP was very boring and the visuals of the track certainly don't help! But not every race is like that - there are exciting ones and boring ones - just like every GP season.

Yes, Mercedes have now won five championships in a row (and are about to make that six), but in 2017 & 2018 Ferrari had arguably the faster car over the course of those seasons and it was only the combination of Mercedes better organisation and Hamilton's brilliance (and Vettel's failings) that won those championships. There were some excellent races as the advantage swung one way or the other.

Lets not forget the Red Bull dominance from 2010 to 2013, the Ferrari dominance from 2000 to 2004, or McLaren's dominance when they won seven out of eight titles between 1984 and 1991. F1 has always been this way.