FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[texasmr2]

:D Done my bit for F1. Just sent this letter to that man.

Dear Mr. MacKinley,
Have you ever watched or been to an F1 race? I’ve seen most races for the last 10 years at least and have visited Silverstone every year as well. I see no evidence there that F1 is a rich mans sport. It is enjoyed across socio-economic groups with one thing in common, we all love the sport. We all support different teams but there is never the hooliganism and fighting associated with football and you seem happy to let the BBC screen that sport. Real fans of motor sport are not the people you see walking the grid at Monoco, they are the people who save up to see ONE live race a year. One race incidentally that your government has no interest in protecting for the future. Neither are the drivers rich when trying to establish a racing career. Lewis Hamilton lived in a council house in Stevenage and his father had to take two jobs to fund his career. Many talented youngsters have to give up their racing career due to lack of funds. Of course the team owners and car manufacturers are rich but so are the football teams and owners that you seem happy to allow on the BBC.
Finally you say F1 is not a competitive sport. Have you any idea how hard those drivers train? They are one of the fittest groups of sports people around! Teams of mechanics and Engineers (who are not rich!) work their socks off to gain 100th’s of a second. How much more competitive can you get than that?
Please do not argue against our sport in the House of Commons when you are so devoid of the real facts.

From Racechick (a dedicated F1 fan)

You go girl!!!

[McLaren Fan]

My reply to Mr MacKinlay:

Dear Mr MacKinlay,

I write to challenge the views of Formula 1 motor racing which you voiced on the floor of the House on Thursday. I do not disagree that BBC News should have properly probed the BBC as to the cost of the coverage, but your added barbs about the nature of Formula 1 itself were wholly unnecessary for the point you were making, and in addition they were, in my view, totally and utterly naïve.

I refer to the following:
“The question that they did not ask was how much the licence payer would have to pay for something that could and should be provided on commercial television, with the licence money being diverted to promoting real, competitive sports, rather than the wealthy industry that is Formula 1.” (Hansard)

Firstly, you say that Formula 1 is more suited to commercial television.

This is utterly wrong. It is probably the one sport LEAST suited to being interrupted by advertising breaks, because from the start of the race to the chequered flag it is continuous. In cricket a change in over provides a nice gap for a single advert, in football and rugby there is several minutes available at half time, in tennis there is the rest time after a certain number of change of ends, and so on. Ask any Formula 1 fan and they will immediately be able to recall an occasion when a vital development took place while TV viewers were watching adverts (e.g. Hill overtaking Schumacher, 1997 Hungarian GP). It is a major irritation, which is the main reason why all British F1 fans were delighted with this morning’s news.

Secondly, your second line of attack is that Motorsport is a wealthy industry.

So is football. Perhaps you would like to tell your constituents why you believe the BBC should no longer cover England football internationals and stop showing Match of the Day. “Ah”, I hear you say “but football is a working class game.” Well I have news for you: the fans who save up, camp out and queue up outside the gates of Silverstone for the British Grand Prix year after year are demographically little different to those passing through the gates at Anfield or Old Trafford, and they are most certainly distinct from the average Wimbledon-goer. Dedicated and knowledgeable they may be, wealthy they are not. Why else would it be that papers like the Sun and the Mirror routinely give Formula 1 greater prominence than broadsheets?

Thirdly, and most predictably, you round on Motor Racing by implying that it is not a “real, competitive sport”.

On the competitive side, I would remind you that in last year’s World Championship a single point separated the three leading protagonists. That hasn’t happened in the top flight of English football since the 1971-72 season. Perhaps this is why the final Formula 1 race of last year was the most watched sporting event of all in Britain.

As for Formula 1’s status as a sport, I have already had to put Michael Gove MP right on this point. My dictionary defines a “sport” as:

“An activity or game requiring physical skill and having a set of rules or code of practice, that is engaged in either individually or as part of a team, for exercise or recreation or as a profession”

Under this definition motor racing most definitely qualifies. The physical skill and fitness required to drive a Formula 1 car is not easily understood by those not familiar with the sport, but it is as demanding as any other sport you can name. It centres around the skill of carrying speed through a corner by balancing braking, steering and acceleration at various points through the corner to make the most of the available grip, judging how the car will react given various constantly-changing conditions such as tyre wear, tyre temperature, track condition, fuel load Etc, and the ability to concentrate for up to two hours without any sort of break save for a 6.5 second pit-stop now and again. All these qualities a tested five-fold when it rains. All this must be performed while battling with cockpit temperatures of up to 50 degrees centigrade, sometimes in parts of the world which are already unusually hot and humid, and G-forces which are totally unimaginable to all but the most capable military or aerobatic pilots. F1 drivers are certainly not merely going for a leisurely Sunday drive.

Aside from correcting your misguided comments, there are two further points I would like to make:

Firstly, Formula 1 plays a similar role to that of the 1960s space race in inspiring children to take an interest in science and engineering. If handled properly the high-tech status of the sport and the fact that British teams, designers, engineers and drivers are presently and historically so successful in this field should be seen as the greatest possible opportunity to increase the number of British children studying scientific subjects at school and pursuing similar subjects at university. This in turn will have a trickle-down effect meaning Britain has more highly skilled scientists and engineers with which to compete in a knowledge-based global market.

Secondly, I fully expect that within a decade or so car manufacturers will view Formula 1 as the ideal arena in which to show off their green technologies to best advantage. Just look at Honda's current F1 marketing strategy, or the fact that Audi have won the Le Mans 24 Hours for the last two years with a Diesel-powered car. Perhaps it would be productive if you asked the Secretary of States for the Environment or Culture, Media and Sport what representations they have made to Formula 1’s governing body to persuade them to change the technical regulations so that more environmentally-friendly power sources can compete on a level playing field with the petrol-fuelled engines that are currently the only allowable powerplant type in the formula.

Yours sincerely,

(onelapdown)

Brilliant reply.

[Stephen]

Superb response onelapdown - have you considered writing news for Forumula1.com btw?