I wasted part of my life watching the Austrian GP (pictured) and the Canadian race before it. Previously I had been bored out of my skull with the Spanish GP, and then for most of the Monaco GP.
After the strategy snafu with Lewis's pit stop, the result was never in doubt so we had excitement for, ooh, several seconds. We now have a Virtual Safety Car, how long before we have virtual crashes just to enliven a race? I am not altogether joking because it has happened.
Bill France Snr, creator of NASCAR, was known to throw a wrist watch on the track and signal the race stewards that there was debris which meant yellow flags and the field closing. France was a great fan of 'Monsewer Dey-brie' and he created one of the great threads in motor sport. He put on a show and people came.
Carl Fischer built the Indianapolis Speedway in 1909 and then, for 1911, he had it paved and announced that he would stage just one race a year, the 500, with a fabulous prize fund. It was an inspired piece of showmanship. Long before television shows offered big prizes, Fischer realised that spectators would pay to see someone win the long dollar, he bought into the American Dream.
Fischer made money because he gave the public what they wanted. I can remember when 'purists' in Europe (all self-appointed) criticised Indianapolis and all American racing because of features like safety cars and yellow flag/light spells.
Forgive me if I have missed the point, but I thought that F1 was about attracting an audience, aka putting on a show. TV rights are sold on the back of an expected audience. Sponsorship is sold on the back of television exposure. Carl Fischer and Bill France Snr understood the Show Biz element and F1 has lost it.
Even before qualifying began we had drivers out of contention because they had to use new mechanical elements (the internal combustion unit, what most of us know as the 'engine', is only one of six elements.) We are not even halfway through the season.
Putting the quickest drivers at the front was originally a safety measure. The safety aspect has gone out of the window, now grid position is a way of penalising drivers and teams.
If the new power units are so unreliable that drivers have used up their allocation before halfway through the season, there may be something wrong with the basic concept. The 2.4-litre V8s were reliable and there is much to be said for the adage: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'
We have mandatory pit stops for tyres to spice the show. It has been proposed that fuel stops be reintroduced to add interest though they were abandoned on safety grounds, or so we were told. How has refuelling suddenly become safe?
Motor racing pioneered sport sponsorship, but there is now a host of sports competing for the money. We have come to accept that some F1 teams are struggling financially, but the FIA has been less willing to see why: they are not attracting sufficient sponsorship to pay the bills. The FIA may regret the rise of the pay driver, but that is the economic reality.
It does not help that the new generation of power units are much more expensive than the outgoing engines.
In Montreal we saw drivers having to feather-foot because of fuel. This is nothing new, fuel has always been a part of motor sport. It's a part of everyday driving. A heavy right foot affects economy. Run a Bugatti Veyron at full chat and you need to find a petrol station after 24 minutes.
What the FIA Strategy Group has introduced is fuel-flow, as though we in the grandstands, or in front of the telly, can grasp that. Fuel-flow is what cost Danny Ricciardo a podium finish in his native Australia last year leaving a lot of fans not gruntled.
In this season's early races, it is possible that Ferrari found a legal advantage by increasing the diameter of some of the pipes in the engine's plumbing. If this happened, it was a case of storing a reserve in the wider-diameter pipes until it could be utilised whereupon an extra 25 bhp could, in theory, be obtained.
The rules were 'clarified' before Barcelona.
What are you and I supposed to make of that? Is it possible that Ferrari won a Grand Prix, not because of the consummate skill of Sebastian Vettel, but because of the diameter of some fuel pipes? How Show Biz is that?
The headline to a piece in 'The Daily Telegraph' ran: '80,000 Brits descend on Le Mans to sample glorious antidote to troubled F1.' More major manufacturers are in endurance racing than are in F1. Sports car racing uses hybrid power without fuss and manufacturers support it even though it does not have much TV coverage.
If the Telegraph is correct, more Brits went to Le Mans, with the English Channel in the way, than fans in the whole of Europe went to Austria for the Grand Prix. The crowd was down to 55,000 from 95,000 in 2014.
In most branches of show biz, and professional sport it has always been about putting on a show, such a drop in an audience would be catastrophic. Serious answers would be sought.
The time maybe right to ask whether F1 has run its course? Sports do wax and wane in popularity. Just after WWII there was a time when motorcycle speedway was second only to football in popularity and major events were televised. Now it is a niche sport.
sign in