Formula 1

[stralis440]

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

I'd guess the reason for that is the race organisers (either the ACO or FIA) are responsible for the video, with broadcasters only doing the commentary.

.

They are and always have been poor commentators on the Eurosport coverage, I think they`re mostly journalists who can probably put in writing far better than the spoken word. However there is no excuse for the continual cutting away from fast laps and action to show people in the garage, cars being shunted around on jacks, slo-mo tyre chenges etc, etc.
The commentators are at the track and passing comment about the fact that Rebellion and SMP are pushing Toyota with some fast lap times. Not one has been shown. Pathetic. I really want to watch and get excited about some great racing, but it just ain`t happening

[Roger Allott]

Originally Posted by stralis440

They are and always have been poor commentators on the Eurosport coverage, I think they`re mostly journalists who can probably put in writing far better than the spoken word.

Fair enough, but I think it's important to note that Eurosport simply can't compete financially with the likes of Sky, BBC or even ITV. Their commentators and crew are therefore selected from those who can't get a gig on the bigger channels, because of either inexperience or they just didn't make the grade when they got their opportunity.


In a way, it's analogous to the whole WEC experience, which is littered with drivers, mechanics and engineers who would much prefer to be in or creating a (competitive) F1 car.


.



.

[risen]

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

Fair enough, but I think it's important to note that Eurosport simply can't compete financially with the likes of Sky, BBC or even ITV. Their commentators and crew are therefore selected from those who can't get a gig on the bigger channels, because of either inexperience or they just didn't make the grade when they got their opportunity

I wouldn’t put David Addison in that category as he is a very experienced Circuit commentator here, but knowing how Eurosport dealt with MotoGP in the days when they covered it everything else you say is correct. I know both of Eurosport’s ex MotoGP commentators very well. One continued to work on BT Sport and the other finds himself in reduced circumstances but is still at Le Mans working for an outfit called Best TV who provide English language coverage into the Far East.

I found last nights night practice coverage very frustrating for the reasons Stralis quotes although it was good to see Jan Lammers interviewed for my own personal reasons.

[pharoahegypt]

I don't have Sky, but my dad does; and I find their snooker commentary just as irritating as you guys find this....

Bloody Joe (i fluked winning the world championship once) Johnson & his noisy toffee wrappers! Not to mention the other ones pretty much wrapping up every frame result within two shots of it starting, if not the whole match on the back of those same two shots.

[penfold007]

Originally Posted by stralis440

I read comments about the poor coverage of F1 by certain channels. If you think that`s poor, then check out Eurosports coverage of Le Mans 24 Hour. It`s chuffing diabolical and it`s only the first practice session.

Some of the commentators on Europsort are good, some not. If you want better commentary turn down the sound on your telly, connect your computer to Radio Le Mans and listen to Hindy et al. And they usually get some interesting people in to talk during the race as well e.g. Leena Gade.

[stralis440]

Originally Posted by penfold007

Some of the commentators on Europsort are good, some not. If you want better commentary turn down the sound on your telly, connect your computer to Radio Le Mans and listen to Hindy et al. And they usually get some interesting people in to talk during the race as well e.g. Leena Gade.

Yeah, I`ve done it before, it`s really good for a bit more of a technical view of the race too I`ve found. However, I can cope with the commentators on Eurosport (just) as they are quite knowledgable, it`s just they don`t seem to be able to put their knowledge across that well, it was the piss poor TV footage that screwed it up for me. If there`s action on the track, I want to see it, if there isn`t, due to safety cars or slow zones, then fine, let`s have a few other shots.
On another note, I`ve read that the non-hybrid LMP1 cars are not alloowed to go faster than the Toyota Hybrid cars or they`ll get penalised. I`ve been wanting Toyota to win it for a few years, but after reading that, the ACO are doing more for Toyota than the FIA have ever done for Ferrari, so let`s hope it`s anyone but Toyota that takes the victory

[penfold007]

Originally Posted by stralis440

On another note, I`ve read that the non-hybrid LMP1 cars are not alloowed to go faster than the Toyota Hybrid cars or they`ll get penalised. I`ve been wanting Toyota to win it for a few years, but after reading that, the ACO are doing more for Toyota than the FIA have ever done for Ferrari, so let`s hope it`s anyone but Toyota that takes the victory

It's very far from being that simple - did you read it in Andrew Benson's column on the BBC Sport website? Because he stated the regulation but completely failed to explain any of the context in one of the most spectacularly useless pieces of journalism I've ever read.

Basically, under the regulations as they always have been in the hybrid era, the Toyotas should be about 7 or 8 seconds faster a lap on average because the very expensive hybrid engine systems that manufacturers are obliged to run give a substantial power advantage over the much cheaper conventional engines that independents are obliged to run.

In previous years with there being at least one other manufacturer, there was competition for the victory. This year there isn't, so the Toyotas could potentially run and hide they were so much faster and just take it easy for the whole race. So to make the racing closer, and with Toyota's agreement, an "Equivalence of technology" (EoT) correction was introduced to allow the indpendents to go faster - don't know the technical details of how, suspect it was increased fuel flow - and so get within 0.25% of the lap speed of the Toyotas (about 0.5s / lap, rather than the 7-8 s/lap they would have been slower).

The EoT correction for each team was calculated using the performance of the independent teams in testing / practice, so there is the potential there for them to be "sandbagging" to get a bigger boost to the performance increase they are allowed - remember what Ford did when they brought the GT to Le Mans the first time a few years back? Consequently, if an independent team suddenly starts running consistently faster than the best times put in by the Toyotas and there are no extenuating circumstances to explain it, they run the risk of being penalized, because it means that before the race they have tried to manipulate the EoT bonus they have been given.

The consequence of all this is that given flawless execution and running the cars at full beans all the time, Toyota should still win, as you would expect, they spend vastly more than any of the independents on development after all. But, if they slip up, an independent could take the victory. Without the big EoT boost given to the independents, Toyota would win by dozens of laps and could cruise round saving the car the whole time, which no-one wants, not even Toyota.

[risen]

Originally Posted by penfold007

"Equivalence of technology"

I’ve developed a tendency to ignore Andrew Benson, there are far better writers attached to the old ‘green banner’ Motorsport Magazine and also Autosport (which now shares its national desk with Motorsport News) has some decent young chaps on board these days.

I’m sure several of you know Le Mans has long had special equalisation rules such as Index of Performance and Index of Thermal Efficiency that were written to ensure the locals such as the old DB/Panhard teams would win something.

On one occasion in the mid-50’s the Brits led by Colin Chapman found a way of beating the French at their own game leading to the disgruntled ACO rewriting the rules only to be beaten again a few years later by Tony Marsh and John Wagstaff whose son Ian is still writing and reporting.

[stralis440]

Balance of power and equivelent of technology is fine in the way of engineering a race. I personally don`t agree with it. There are are set of rules and regulations set out for each class. If a team has a car significantly faster than others and they are within those regulations, then so be it. Just because Toyota spend vast amounts of money on the expebsive hybrid regulation, doesn`t mean that the rules should be engineered that others who spend less can`t produce a faster car. It`s like saying Force India aren`t allowed to make a faster car than Mercedes because of the difference in money spent. Yes, the reality is because they spend less, the chances of them making a faster car are slim, but it is possible, look at Buttons championship winning Brawn.
Thankfully, Le Mans is an Endurance race, so many other things come into play and outright speed doesn`t mean everything, look at last year, an LMP2 car came very close to winning outright.
Anyway, not long to go and I love Le Mans, so will watch and enjoy whoever wins, the action comes thick and fast all through the race

[RafaelS]

For once I agree with both of these guys:

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/23...martin-brundle

http://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/23...1-championship

Kimi is done and Vettel must deal with having a competitive teammate. As for what Hamilton is saying, it's already ridiculous to have three engines this year, but the FIA always surprises us in a negative way, so I wouldn't be surprised if they go down to two engines next year.