Quote from DeadWolfBones :

As someone who's never had F1 without commercials, I think you'd be ok with your adverts.

The commentators fill you in on anything you missed during a break. It's not really a big deal.

Is commercial-free better? Yeah, always. Is it a dealbreaker? Not really.

But then again I've been weaned on American TV, so my perspective is certainly skewed.

Commercial free tv makes f1 so much better imho. I'd never pay a dime for any pay per view f1 services if it has advert breaks. Of course f1 is relatively unpredictable sport and advert breaks always end up in the way of the spectacle.

After being used to see the race in full without getting reminded about the latest pickup trucks and hair loss products every 10 minutes is just painful to watch. To me advert free broadcast is a dealbreaker and I send some assuring emails to my f1 broadcaster few times per every year just to remind them.

just comparing a nascar and f1 broadcast the difference in adverts is just mind boggling. I can not watch nascar races. Even half of the driver interviews are filled with some random vagisil speaches.

I think you are missing a lot. I've been watching f1 advert free for 3 or 4 years now and I'd never go back to having adverts.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

But then again I've been weaned on American TV, so my perspective is certainly skewed.

When I lived in the USA I found your TV broadcasting to be unwatchable. Even the occasional good programme was pulled to pieces by all the advertising. Awful.

I would prefer the BBC to drop football coverage, at least the money spent in F1 filters down to life saving technology on our roads, and the drivers don't go around sleeping with each others girlfriends and cheating on their spouses. Motorsport is also multicultural and has equal rights between men and women. That's my personal opinion though, and motorsport is much less accessable than football, so it's bound to get cut first.

Although I am slightly annoyed that the BBC has a million radio stations that hardly anyone listens to, and you have to wonder how much money is being spent paying wages to useless middle management and barbie doll news presenters that talk bollocks at 3am in the morning. I tried to watch the new Richard Hammond show after the BBC announcement but all I saw was money pouring down the drain everytime a fancy bit of CGI popped up. I still like the BBC though, it's just sad that the first things to get cut are sports rather than endlessly depressing and boring soap operas and autumn dead leaf watching shows.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

As someone who's never had F1 without commercials, I think you'd be ok with your adverts.

The commentators fill you in on anything you missed during a break. It's not really a big deal.

Is commercial-free better? Yeah, always. Is it a dealbreaker? Not really.

But then again I've been weaned on American TV, so my perspective is certainly skewed.

US programmes have adverts every 5 minutes. Which is retarded IMO, let the people enjoy the program then they will much less turn over or ignore adverts.

Quote from BlueFlame :

US programmes have adverts every 5 minutes. Which is retarded IMO, let the people enjoy the program then they will much less turn over or ignore adverts.

Certainly if they keep doing it, there must be enough people staying to make it worth it.

Quote from GreyBull [CHA] :

Certainly if they keep doing it, there must be enough people staying to make it worth it.

Well they are generic Americans we are talking about.

America was BORN on commercialization. So it's no suprise that all they ever know is needless plugins and no ammount of time to enjoy a program.

Mainly because there TV market wasn't robbed by a TV licencing fee.

Quote from Mustafur :

Oh, I thought abc brought in ads recently.

I wouldn't really know though because there shows are aimed at pensioners.

Doesn't SBS have a format where it has something along the likes of 10 to 20mins of straight adverts then none at all during the show. IMO it's a good format none the less and would work brilliantly during a live broadcast.

I don't really watch the ABC either. I do watch the SBS quite a bit (news and current affairs mainly), and they have 90-second ad breaks, up to 5 minutes per hour. They were losing too many audiences between shows with the old format (lengthy adverts between shows) so they changed.

F1 really needs to utilise the Internet more. Now that FOM owns the video feeds, they could broadcast the events via online streaming. I suppose it's more profitable for TV companies to pay them license fees though.

The license fee ain't that big of a deal, it just sucks when your money goes towards somethin you don't like EI soap operas and programs made for girls and or teenagers who actually care that Amy Horseface died.

Colin Kolles says HRT is "quite safe" and in a better position financially than some rivals
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93793

By some he means Virgin and virgin only?

Everyone else seems to be doing just fine. And maybe even "finer" than hrt. Maybe only one being Sauber that I can see having problems if I had to choose one. And even them are being backed by a millionaire soon... STR is effectively backed by redbull, lotus seems to be expanding, renault has no lack of sponsors, force india is millionaire's pet project like redbull and lotus as a whole and williams got a cash injection and seems to be doing ok.

If I had to bet one team going under I'd bet it's hrt or Virgin. Then sauber and merc and renault. And merc only for their lack of success being a pr nightmare for a team that was considered a race winner team when they were with mclaren. Now on their own they are looking like toyota and we all know how that one went.

But then again I know nothing really about the financial side of F1. The economy does not look to be getting so much better so soon that the f1 project in its current situation is good business for mercedes.

Hopefully this means the bottom 3 will form into the midfield in a few years as virgin is now using mclaren facilites and lotus is just improving immensley.

Someone has to be last.

Quote from 5haz :

Someone has to be last.

Not constantly.

I remember reading somewhere that at the start of 2010 Richard Branson told the Virgin team they had 3 years to become competitive or he would can it.

I imagine 'competitive' means more than beating HRT, and they're certainly not going to beat Lotus!

The virgin empire itself is on the decline anyway, judging by how low profile they are since entering F1, I don't think they have much ambition.

Branson has invested next to nothing in the F1 program and this is what happened.

Virgin F1 = Marussia F1 Virgin keep backing out more and more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/14624084.stm

Bye bye Nick.

Just read that, it's a joke ffs!

Money money money... plus senna dont look like to be good on the r31 (proof at Hungary...)

Oh my god, where Enstone will stop on the hell?...

Quote from 5haz :

Someone has to be last.

As long as it's a sort of last like in the 2009 season...no one really deserved to be last in a close season like that.

Quote from CSF :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/14624084.stm

Bye bye Nick.

Kind of gutted at this decision if it turns out to be true (Autosport says Renault are thinking about it) but seeing as it's an EJ article, it's probably (and hopefully) a wrong guess...but I don't know.

It is true that Heidfeld hasn't brought the expected great results, but it's not like Senna is going to do any better, I'm afraid.
That decision should most likely be about Senna's money income, given that GENII is pretty much living off the Lotus sponsorship now and they're looking for as many funding as they can get, because I'm pretty sure it's not Senna's uh...experience that would land him the seat. He's a talented driver, given that he managed to pick up a good pace in 5 years after a 10 year hiatus from racing, but again, that's what's hurting his current pace right now.
But again, Renault hasn't got a driver more experienced than Senna in their line-up, so they don't really have much of a choice other than getting Bruno to do laps on the car if they happen to get rid of Heidfeld.

It does hurt a bit, seeing all the flaws on my favourite team.

Nick is their second driver, so in a team needing sponsorship he can expect to be vulnerable.

Good chance to see what, if anything, Bruno has.

Quote from Storm_Cloud :

Nick is their second driver, so in a team needing sponsorship he can expect to be vulnerable.

I don't think nick is their 2nd driver. Nick just isn't bringing any big sponsorship money so renault just makes more money when they let senna drive and pay nick his salary for smiling at the hair parlor section of the renault garages.

I'm sure renault would replace petrov if he wasn't bringing money into the team. Those lada rubles make him valuable and the russians are probably pretty triggerhappy with the contract if they feel they are not getting what they pay for. Looking at results heidfeld has been the better of the two imho.

Senna has not been all that impressive in f1 as far as I recall. I still remember him driving in some practises and races and most of the time he couldn't even hit the apexes. Petrov will eat the guy alive and I don't rate petrov all that high either.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n ... push-tamaras-2341668.html

Quote :

Miss Ecclestone also harbours a grudge against the dashing F1 star Jenson Button, apparently because he once answered his phone in her company. "Jenson Button used to be a likeable guy but fame has gone to his head," she claims. "I was conducting an interview with him in 2009 and he broke it off to take a call on his mobile. To me, that's the height of bad manners. He seems to have changed enormously as a person on the back of his F1 success. I don't even think he deserved to be world champion. There's no way he'd have won in 2009 if everyone had been driving similar cars. Quite simply, there's no way he's the best F1 driver."

What a spoiled brat.

Quote :

"Don't call me a socialite, call me a businesswoman," demanded the socialite Tamara Ecclestone in The Mail on Sunday.

Business women never answer phones in meetings/interviews I guess. :rolleyes:

Quote :

If she were PM for a day, she says, "the first thing I'd do is abolish inheritance tax"

If she doesn't want to be called a socialite then maybe she shouldn't live off of daddy's fortune!