Official 2024 Monaco Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Poll: Official 2024 Monaco Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Total Members Polled: 152
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
davidd said:
TheDeuce said:
But viewed as entertainment, it's about the greenest entertainment that exists, due to the sheer number of viewers. One bloke going for a bike ride does more damage than the entire footprint of the F1 circus in terms of individual pass times.
I'd have to see your workings for that...You start with the view count, roughly 1 billion people.
They you realise that it doesn't matter what fuel they use of how much kit they drag around the globe, on a per viewer basis, it's an extremely efficient way to generate spectacle and entertainment.
Divide the entire dirty footprint of F1 by 1 billion and you get something fractional, probably genuinely less than a little wear and tear on a bike ride. Feel free to suggest your own comparisons though; driving a kid to five a side football, having a BBQ, buying new clothes etc etc..
Saying that doing this active thing is more damaging than one other person sitting on their arse watching TV because a billion other people are also watching isn't really that meaningful. Not even sure that it would stack up on that measure anyway ... you'd need to include the energy cost of running their TV, heating/cooling their house, the beers they drink while doing it etc..
Surely the Race weekend is just about massaging the money sponsors and has no relavence
in today's sport!
I sadly went there many years ago when Page & Moy did a day trip there ! Pissed down all day long , Could not see sod all , Even tried offering a huge amounts of Francs to watch from their flat!
Got ripped off trying to get some refreshments !
Saving grace was we were sheltering from the rain in a Foyer of some flats after the race and seeing people in with our brollies from their taxis and got some huge tips!!!
As Max said it would make a decent circuit for a superKart rather than today's tractors!
in today's sport!
I sadly went there many years ago when Page & Moy did a day trip there ! Pissed down all day long , Could not see sod all , Even tried offering a huge amounts of Francs to watch from their flat!
Got ripped off trying to get some refreshments !
Saving grace was we were sheltering from the rain in a Foyer of some flats after the race and seeing people in with our brollies from their taxis and got some huge tips!!!
As Max said it would make a decent circuit for a superKart rather than today's tractors!
tertius said:
TheDeuce said:
davidd said:
TheDeuce said:
But viewed as entertainment, it's about the greenest entertainment that exists, due to the sheer number of viewers. One bloke going for a bike ride does more damage than the entire footprint of the F1 circus in terms of individual pass times.
I'd have to see your workings for that...You start with the view count, roughly 1 billion people.
They you realise that it doesn't matter what fuel they use of how much kit they drag around the globe, on a per viewer basis, it's an extremely efficient way to generate spectacle and entertainment.
Divide the entire dirty footprint of F1 by 1 billion and you get something fractional, probably genuinely less than a little wear and tear on a bike ride. Feel free to suggest your own comparisons though; driving a kid to five a side football, having a BBQ, buying new clothes etc etc..
Saying that doing this active thing is more damaging than one other person sitting on their arse watching TV because a billion other people are also watching isn't really that meaningful. Not even sure that it would stack up on that measure anyway ... you'd need to include the energy cost of running their TV, heating/cooling their house, the beers they drink while doing it etc..
Don't get hung up on the cyclist example, it's just there to illustrate that just about anything that 1 billion people could collectively be doing at any one time to occupy themselves, is very unlikely to be result in less overall environmental impact than the F1 circus generates. It's simply more economical to have a centralised form of entertainment that billions can enjoy (or try to enjoy, these days..), rather than everyone doing their own thing.
The same is true of film & TV production, any sport with a large global audience, a rock concert - the bigger the audience, the less per viewer the impact of whatever you're doing will be. F1 has a particularly large audience.
ETA I concede the point about energy usage to watch and to brew the inevitable beers. But still I think it's totally fair to say that the scale of F1 reduces the impact per viewer, as opposed to just about anything else that viewer could be watching. And without F1 would I drink less beers a week...
Edited by TheDeuce on Wednesday 29th May 10:16
PhilAsia said:
I could not give a f
k as to who is or isn't on the grid walk. Don't know who AK or MS are. Always tune in right before the race to avoid all the superfluous crap. Since 2023 I have just caught up with highlights. I watch the racing, not the walking.
Edit: looks a bit in-your-face on a re-read. wasn't meant to be.
Don’t worry! k as to who is or isn't on the grid walk. Don't know who AK or MS are. Always tune in right before the race to avoid all the superfluous crap. Since 2023 I have just caught up with highlights. I watch the racing, not the walking.Edit: looks a bit in-your-face on a re-read. wasn't meant to be.
Edited by PhilAsia on Wednesday 29th May 09:52
The point about AK and MS are they both hugely successful speed sport stars - alpine skiing. MS is arguably the greatest skier of all time. They’ve just got engaged, AK is recovering from a pretty horrific injury and on top of that they are entirely unassuming and were wandering around the grid without minders. An easy fascinating couple of minutes conversation if a producer had the wit to figure out who they were.
TheDeuce said:
The whole point is that it's not one cyclist vs the whole of F1's footprint
Don't get hung up on the cyclist example, it's just there to illustrate that just about anything that 1 billion people could collectively be doing at any one time to occupy themselves, is very unlikely to be result in less overall environmental impact than the F1 circus generates. It's simply more economical to have a centralised form of entertainment that billions can enjoy (or try to enjoy, these days..), rather than everyone doing their own thing.
The same is true of film & TV production, any sport with a large global audience, a rock concert - the bigger the audience, the less per viewer the impact of whatever you're doing will be. F1 has a particularly large audience.
ETA I concede the point about energy usage to watch and to brew the inevitable beers. But still I think it's totally fair to say that the scale of F1 reduces the impact per viewer, as opposed to just about anything else that viewer could be watching. And without F1 would I drink less beers a week...
So individually and collectively we'd be better off without F1 ... Don't get hung up on the cyclist example, it's just there to illustrate that just about anything that 1 billion people could collectively be doing at any one time to occupy themselves, is very unlikely to be result in less overall environmental impact than the F1 circus generates. It's simply more economical to have a centralised form of entertainment that billions can enjoy (or try to enjoy, these days..), rather than everyone doing their own thing.
The same is true of film & TV production, any sport with a large global audience, a rock concert - the bigger the audience, the less per viewer the impact of whatever you're doing will be. F1 has a particularly large audience.
ETA I concede the point about energy usage to watch and to brew the inevitable beers. But still I think it's totally fair to say that the scale of F1 reduces the impact per viewer, as opposed to just about anything else that viewer could be watching. And without F1 would I drink less beers a week...
Edited by TheDeuce on Wednesday 29th May 10:16
TheDeuce said:
The sport aspect is questionable these days. But viewed as entertainment, it's about the greenest entertainment that exists, due to the sheer number of viewers. One bloke going for a bike ride does more damage than the entire footprint of the F1 circus in terms of individual pass times.
However, that would still be true if they went back to V10's, as we know it makes no significant difference in green terms of the sport.
But commercially, it clearly makes a difference to the manufacturers and the sport has to stay relevant to an extent in order to make sense to new generations of viewer.
I see the changes as sad from my POV, but not ironic or 'wrong', just commercially unavoidable.
I am surprised at how bold they're being with the PU's though. The 50% power from electric specification is going to really stretch the tech and alter the way the drivers have to manage and use that power significantly. Better/worse than today? It'll definitely be very different...
The most worrying thing about your statement is that you used the word "damage". Has the indoctrination really been that effective? However, that would still be true if they went back to V10's, as we know it makes no significant difference in green terms of the sport.
But commercially, it clearly makes a difference to the manufacturers and the sport has to stay relevant to an extent in order to make sense to new generations of viewer.
I see the changes as sad from my POV, but not ironic or 'wrong', just commercially unavoidable.
I am surprised at how bold they're being with the PU's though. The 50% power from electric specification is going to really stretch the tech and alter the way the drivers have to manage and use that power significantly. Better/worse than today? It'll definitely be very different...
tertius said:
TheDeuce said:
The whole point is that it's not one cyclist vs the whole of F1's footprint
Don't get hung up on the cyclist example, it's just there to illustrate that just about anything that 1 billion people could collectively be doing at any one time to occupy themselves, is very unlikely to be result in less overall environmental impact than the F1 circus generates. It's simply more economical to have a centralised form of entertainment that billions can enjoy (or try to enjoy, these days..), rather than everyone doing their own thing.
The same is true of film & TV production, any sport with a large global audience, a rock concert - the bigger the audience, the less per viewer the impact of whatever you're doing will be. F1 has a particularly large audience.
ETA I concede the point about energy usage to watch and to brew the inevitable beers. But still I think it's totally fair to say that the scale of F1 reduces the impact per viewer, as opposed to just about anything else that viewer could be watching. And without F1 would I drink less beers a week...
So individually and collectively we'd be better off without F1 ... Don't get hung up on the cyclist example, it's just there to illustrate that just about anything that 1 billion people could collectively be doing at any one time to occupy themselves, is very unlikely to be result in less overall environmental impact than the F1 circus generates. It's simply more economical to have a centralised form of entertainment that billions can enjoy (or try to enjoy, these days..), rather than everyone doing their own thing.
The same is true of film & TV production, any sport with a large global audience, a rock concert - the bigger the audience, the less per viewer the impact of whatever you're doing will be. F1 has a particularly large audience.
ETA I concede the point about energy usage to watch and to brew the inevitable beers. But still I think it's totally fair to say that the scale of F1 reduces the impact per viewer, as opposed to just about anything else that viewer could be watching. And without F1 would I drink less beers a week...
Edited by TheDeuce on Wednesday 29th May 10:16
TheDeuce said:
The sport aspect is questionable these days. But viewed as entertainment, it's about the greenest entertainment that exists, due to the sheer number of viewers. One bloke going for a bike ride does more damage than the entire footprint of the F1 circus in terms of individual pass times.
No it doesn't. F1 is not green and never will be - no mass spectator event will. All the recycled tyres and sustainable fuels in the world can't make up for getting 150k spectators to each and every race, many of whom fly or drive long distances. The event itself is irrelevant in terms of footprint. It's all about how many spectators there are and how far they travelled.The greenest season of F1 was 2020 because there were no spectators at many races.
Tim the pool man said:
TheDeuce said:
The sport aspect is questionable these days. But viewed as entertainment, it's about the greenest entertainment that exists, due to the sheer number of viewers. One bloke going for a bike ride does more damage than the entire footprint of the F1 circus in terms of individual pass times.
However, that would still be true if they went back to V10's, as we know it makes no significant difference in green terms of the sport.
But commercially, it clearly makes a difference to the manufacturers and the sport has to stay relevant to an extent in order to make sense to new generations of viewer.
I see the changes as sad from my POV, but not ironic or 'wrong', just commercially unavoidable.
I am surprised at how bold they're being with the PU's though. The 50% power from electric specification is going to really stretch the tech and alter the way the drivers have to manage and use that power significantly. Better/worse than today? It'll definitely be very different...
The most worrying thing about your statement is that you used the word "damage". Has the indoctrination really been that effective? However, that would still be true if they went back to V10's, as we know it makes no significant difference in green terms of the sport.
But commercially, it clearly makes a difference to the manufacturers and the sport has to stay relevant to an extent in order to make sense to new generations of viewer.
I see the changes as sad from my POV, but not ironic or 'wrong', just commercially unavoidable.
I am surprised at how bold they're being with the PU's though. The 50% power from electric specification is going to really stretch the tech and alter the way the drivers have to manage and use that power significantly. Better/worse than today? It'll definitely be very different...
I personally believe that technology fixes the problems it solves and that worrying about burning fuel for fun is not particularly useful, nor is it the biggest difference we can make, or even one we need to make.
Sadly I'm not running F1 though. And even more sadly, if I was, under commercial pressures I would most likely ultimately make mostly the same decisions they have made about the sports future.
Leithen said:
PhilAsia said:
I could not give a fk as to who is or isn't on the grid walk. Don't know who AK or MS are. Always tune in right before the race to avoid all the superfluous crap. Since 2023 I have just caught up with highlights. I watch the racing, not the walking.
Edit: looks a bit in-your-face on a re-read. wasn't meant to be.
Don’t worry! k as to who is or isn't on the grid walk. Don't know who AK or MS are. Always tune in right before the race to avoid all the superfluous crap. Since 2023 I have just caught up with highlights. I watch the racing, not the walking.Edit: looks a bit in-your-face on a re-read. wasn't meant to be.
Edited by PhilAsia on Wednesday 29th May 09:52
The point about AK and MS are they both hugely successful speed sport stars - alpine skiing. MS is arguably the greatest skier of all time. They’ve just got engaged, AK is recovering from a pretty horrific injury and on top of that they are entirely unassuming and were wandering around the grid without minders. An easy fascinating couple of minutes conversation if a producer had the wit to figure out who they were.
tertius said:
TheDeuce said:
davidd said:
TheDeuce said:
But viewed as entertainment, it's about the greenest entertainment that exists, due to the sheer number of viewers. One bloke going for a bike ride does more damage than the entire footprint of the F1 circus in terms of individual pass times.
I'd have to see your workings for that...You start with the view count, roughly 1 billion people.
They you realise that it doesn't matter what fuel they use of how much kit they drag around the globe, on a per viewer basis, it's an extremely efficient way to generate spectacle and entertainment.
Divide the entire dirty footprint of F1 by 1 billion and you get something fractional, probably genuinely less than a little wear and tear on a bike ride. Feel free to suggest your own comparisons though; driving a kid to five a side football, having a BBQ, buying new clothes etc etc..
Saying that doing this active thing is more damaging than one other person sitting on their arse watching TV because a billion other people are also watching isn't really that meaningful. Not even sure that it would stack up on that measure anyway ... you'd need to include the energy cost of running their TV, heating/cooling their house, the beers they drink while doing it etc..
TheDeuce said:
Well...
You start with the view count, roughly 1 billion people.
They you realise that it doesn't matter what fuel they use of how much kit they drag around the globe, on a per viewer basis, it's an extremely efficient way to generate spectacle and entertainment.
Divide the entire dirty footprint of F1 by 1 billion and you get something fractional, probably genuinely less than a little wear and tear on a bike ride. Feel free to suggest your own comparisons though; driving a kid to five a side football, having a BBQ, buying new clothes etc etc..
I see your point however and just using me as an example.You start with the view count, roughly 1 billion people.
They you realise that it doesn't matter what fuel they use of how much kit they drag around the globe, on a per viewer basis, it's an extremely efficient way to generate spectacle and entertainment.
Divide the entire dirty footprint of F1 by 1 billion and you get something fractional, probably genuinely less than a little wear and tear on a bike ride. Feel free to suggest your own comparisons though; driving a kid to five a side football, having a BBQ, buying new clothes etc etc..
Me sitting at home watching F1, uses power which apparently is bad.
Me out on my bike, uses no power, this is good.
Mass sporting events of any kind where thousands of people drive to a venue to spectate (in massive boats in some cases) is never going to be green, especially where the sport is F1.
davidd said:
TheDeuce said:
Well...
You start with the view count, roughly 1 billion people.
They you realise that it doesn't matter what fuel they use of how much kit they drag around the globe, on a per viewer basis, it's an extremely efficient way to generate spectacle and entertainment.
Divide the entire dirty footprint of F1 by 1 billion and you get something fractional, probably genuinely less than a little wear and tear on a bike ride. Feel free to suggest your own comparisons though; driving a kid to five a side football, having a BBQ, buying new clothes etc etc..
I see your point however and just using me as an example.You start with the view count, roughly 1 billion people.
They you realise that it doesn't matter what fuel they use of how much kit they drag around the globe, on a per viewer basis, it's an extremely efficient way to generate spectacle and entertainment.
Divide the entire dirty footprint of F1 by 1 billion and you get something fractional, probably genuinely less than a little wear and tear on a bike ride. Feel free to suggest your own comparisons though; driving a kid to five a side football, having a BBQ, buying new clothes etc etc..
Me sitting at home watching F1, uses power which apparently is bad.
Me out on my bike, uses no power, this is good.
Mass sporting events of any kind where thousands of people drive to a venue to spectate (in massive boats in some cases) is never going to be green, especially where the sport is F1.
Don't more people travel to football matches in a year of the sport than travel to watch F1? But in either case, the majority watch from home. I think once we get into 1bn+ viewers, it really doesn't matter if a few million travel to watch live. As with the TV watching example, we all travel for leisure to an extent, if not for one reason, we'd find another. If you don't pay to travel to and attend a GP one year, you have the time and money saved to have another holiday...
We could debate the minutia endlessly of course. But I'm quite confident that the core of my point about F1 being a very efficient and low impact form of entertainment per viewer, is sound. The economy of scale is clear to see. It dwarfs my work in feature films in terms of how clean it is and how many people are entertained, and for how long.
asfault said:
re Ocons penalty.
got me thinking, what if a driver got a grid penalty for Monaco. Could the team elect not to run him in that race as a grid penalty there has a much bigger effect and run another driver instead? then put the driver back in to serve thier penalty at the next race?
As the new driver wouldn't have met the 107% time, the stewards would have to allow him to race. The stewards may not like what you are doing and just say "No, sorry, it's Ocon, or nobody".got me thinking, what if a driver got a grid penalty for Monaco. Could the team elect not to run him in that race as a grid penalty there has a much bigger effect and run another driver instead? then put the driver back in to serve thier penalty at the next race?
pingu393 said:
asfault said:
re Ocons penalty.
got me thinking, what if a driver got a grid penalty for Monaco. Could the team elect not to run him in that race as a grid penalty there has a much bigger effect and run another driver instead? then put the driver back in to serve thier penalty at the next race?
As the new driver wouldn't have met the 107% time, the stewards would have to allow him to race. The stewards may not like what you are doing and just say "No, sorry, it's Ocon, or nobody".got me thinking, what if a driver got a grid penalty for Monaco. Could the team elect not to run him in that race as a grid penalty there has a much bigger effect and run another driver instead? then put the driver back in to serve thier penalty at the next race?
He's talking about if a team know they are carrying a penalty heading into a race weekend, eg Ocon for Canada now, could they bench the affected driver for a reserve instead, maybe by stating they are ill or some other excuse, and offset that drivers penalty to the following event instead.
djgritt said:
pingu393 said:
asfault said:
re Ocons penalty.
got me thinking, what if a driver got a grid penalty for Monaco. Could the team elect not to run him in that race as a grid penalty there has a much bigger effect and run another driver instead? then put the driver back in to serve thier penalty at the next race?
As the new driver wouldn't have met the 107% time, the stewards would have to allow him to race. The stewards may not like what you are doing and just say "No, sorry, it's Ocon, or nobody".got me thinking, what if a driver got a grid penalty for Monaco. Could the team elect not to run him in that race as a grid penalty there has a much bigger effect and run another driver instead? then put the driver back in to serve thier penalty at the next race?
He's talking about if a team know they are carrying a penalty heading into a race weekend, eg Ocon for Canada now, could they bench the affected driver for a reserve instead, maybe by stating they are ill or some other excuse, and offset that drivers penalty to the following event instead.
But what is the likelihood of the temp driver getting a better result for the team? Some drivers make a great fist of their first GP effort, such as Lawson recently, but most are unlikely to qualify particularly high and even if they are a few places higher up than the driver they're subbing would be at the back of the grid, are they likely to make or hang onto the same places in the GP?
Seems like a complex work-around more likely to raise eyebrows than results..
davidd said:
Mass sporting events of any kind where thousands of people drive to a venue to spectate (in massive boats in some cases) is never going to be green, especially where the sport is F1.
Why say 'especially where the sport is F1'?Football is a whole order of magnitude worse than F1. In fact the numbers show that 4 years worth of F1 is slightly less than equivalent to the 4 yearly World Cup.
MustangGT said:
davidd said:
Mass sporting events of any kind where thousands of people drive to a venue to spectate (in massive boats in some cases) is never going to be green, especially where the sport is F1.
Why say 'especially where the sport is F1'?Football is a whole order of magnitude worse than F1. In fact the numbers show that 4 years worth of F1 is slightly less than equivalent to the 4 yearly World Cup.
TheDeuce said:
MustangGT said:
davidd said:
Mass sporting events of any kind where thousands of people drive to a venue to spectate (in massive boats in some cases) is never going to be green, especially where the sport is F1.
Why say 'especially where the sport is F1'?Football is a whole order of magnitude worse than F1. In fact the numbers show that 4 years worth of F1 is slightly less than equivalent to the 4 yearly World Cup.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff