If you think Autosport is bad...
Telegraph
| TBK-Light.com https://tbk-light.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| 2012 Random F1 Discussion https://tbk-light.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=7283 |
Page 252 of 261 |
| Author: | Gaara [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
If you think Autosport is bad... Telegraph
|
|
| Author: | kals [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
A1-Ring is a shit track, pure and simple. It's just an old circuit carved up, shortened and the old fast sweeps replaced with sharp corners akin to hairpins. And the reconfiguration happens to have all but destroyed the former awesome circuit. What is there to like? (And I've been there). However, the races there were very good. For what ever reason the configuration lent itself to great and intense battles, late braking overtakes and memorable races. I don't like the track, never have and never will. But I'd take that over Korea or India or Turkey or Rusia anyday. And yes, Autosport is full of shit. That's nothing new. It is nowhere near the same level as Crash.net however. |
|
| Author: | phil1993 [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
It's more difficult for the likes of Autosport in the modern age because every reader knows what's happened because of improved TV coverage, Twitter etc. I was reading some of Roebuck's race reports from the 1970s in the archives and they are amazing. So in-depth, it's like imagining the race again. But that was with the idea that you're reading something for the first time... now, everyone knows what has happened. They ideally need to scrap a lot of the news segment and do more in-depth pieces. It's also more difficult in that the sponsor-driven world means drivers are protected a hell of a lot more, more elusive to talk to, and if you find yourself writing something critical and interesting, you might not find the team so welcoming next time... Also, people are willing to pay £3.60 or whatever it is now for a weekly magazine, but as soon as there's talk of online content people seem to be outraged. "We want you to go to races and report on them for us, but we're not paying!" is the main concept. And don't think that just because some guys like Buxton tweet about MEGA things or whatever means that it's like 20 holidays a year, it isn't. I've only been around them for one race, but they work bloody hard. They are a fairly small team though, although now that Autosport, MN and F1 Racing are all owned by Haymarket it does indeed limit competition. I also agree with the comments regarding the same writers. I read anything by Roebuck and feel that I've learnt something, or a new writing technique. He has an artistry with words. Similar with Peter Windsor. Too many of them feel formulaic. Reading the same faces gets tiring and irritating, especially when you read it thinking you could do just as good a job (as most of you know that I want to). So many of the same writers contribute to so many publications. I've done two weeks worth of work there and it is interesting to see how it operates. The reality is that they're doing the best possible on the budget, because sending 5 people to every F1 race is rather expensive. Back thirty years ago it was just a weekly magazine. Now they're trying to run the magazine, run the website, as well as other areas as well. |
|
| Author: | ellis [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
Quote: Also, people are willing to pay £3.60 or whatever it is now for a weekly magazine, but as soon as there's talk of online content people seem to be outraged. "We want you to go to races and report on them for us, but we're not paying!" is the main concept. I'm not outraged, I'm sensible. I'd buy Autosport magazine if the reporting wasn't just made up and it had some good articles. I won't pay for online content because I can find it elsewhere, just as accurate (if not more), and I don't see what I gain by handing over that money. Everybody knows it's hard work, and nobody will suggest otherwise, but I don't see the upside of paying for content which is free elsewhere. And it isn't even free like torrenting games is free. It's legally free. With no downside. So why pay money for the same content? One of the reasons people dislike Autosport is a lot of is actually a lie. "Autosport can exclusively reveal" is the biggest one. It's so overly arrogant, ignorant and big headed that I can't believe they continue to use that line. It's so infuriating to read a story on Reddit, or TBK, or anywhere, then 2 days later, Autosport exclusive reveals it. Crash.net is like, the News of the World. It's just bollocks, lol. Anyone reading it should know it's bollocks. Autosport is like a less offensive version of the Daily Mail. It pretends to be more upmarket than it actually is. Not that Autosport likes it's casual racism. 
|
|
| Author: | ellis [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
kals wrote: A1-Ring is a shit track, pure and simple. It's just an old circuit carved up, shortened and the old fast sweeps replaced with sharp corners akin to hairpins. And the reconfiguration happens to have all but destroyed the former awesome circuit. What is there to like? (And I've been there). However, the races there were very good. For what ever reason the configuration lent itself to great and intense battles, late braking overtakes and memorable races. I don't like the track, never have and never will. But I'd take that over Korea or India or Turkey or Rusia anyday. And yes, Autosport is full of shit. That's nothing new. It is nowhere near the same level as Crash.net however. The old circuit was long dead and ruined before the A1 Ring was built. And I'd say that apart from the first two corner, every single corner on the circuit is excellent. Hell, I even like the first two. Not amazing, but still better than India for example. Turn 2 is a thinner version of the hairpin at Austria... |
|
| Author: | phil1993 [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
ellis wrote: Quote: Also, people are willing to pay £3.60 or whatever it is now for a weekly magazine, but as soon as there's talk of online content people seem to be outraged. "We want you to go to races and report on them for us, but we're not paying!" is the main concept. I won't pay for online content because I can find it elsewhere, just as accurate (if not more), and I don't see what I gain by handing over that money. Everybody knows it's hard work, and nobody will suggest otherwise, but I don't see the upside of paying for content which is free elsewhere. Therein lies the problem. Quality will drop because there won't be the money to send people to races. Unless everyone charges for content. We did a survey and 80% of people said they wouldn't pay for content on F1Zone. So you get stuck in a vicious circle. Our quality can't improve, because the money isn't there. If people paid, we could go to races, have more accurate and better information and then justify charging. But so long as there are alternative sources, it won't happen. Autosport is still one of the best publications out there, compared to some of them. Another problem is that a feature can take all day, for 10 minutes of reading. Especially in the winter. I'm very quick at transcribing, but even a 6-7 minute interview that I transcribed of Perez or someone at the Italian GP still took about 20-25 minutes, and that's just for a simple article about his thoughts on the weekend. Oh, and A1-Ring is win because it's a narrow track, with grass, gravel, barriers and some stunning scenery. |
|
| Author: | kals [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
ellis wrote: Turn 2 is a thinner version of the hairpin at Austria... That's like saying every right hand corner is an alternate version of another. New turn 2 bears no resemblance to original turn 2. Original was a third'ish gear sweep, very fast. Whereas new turn 2 is as sharp as it can be. When I went to the 1998 GP we watched practice from the exit of turn 2, the TV angles do not fairly show how sharp that corner is. Turn 1 is a nothing corner but I'm not sure how you could make it any better. As for the rest, I do like the middle section (turns 4-7) but the rest is just meh. We agree about A1-Ring over India though. |
|
| Author: | ellis [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
phil1993 wrote: Therein lies the problem. Quality will drop because there won't be the money to send people to races. Unless everyone charges for content. We did a survey and 80% of people said they wouldn't pay for content on F1Zone. So you get stuck in a vicious circle. Our quality can't improve, because the money isn't there. If people paid, we could go to races, have more accurate and better information and then justify charging. But so long as there are alternative sources, it won't happen. Right, but that is the publications problem with the business model, not the end user, or customer. Customers always go for the cheaper option. But right now, the cheaper option also seems to provide quality equal to the paid content. Autosport brings nothing to the table IMO. I'd pay for properly awesome content. I won't pay for content which everybody else gives away for free. |
|
| Author: | ellis [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
kals wrote: ellis wrote: Turn 2 is a thinner version of the hairpin at Austria... That's like saying every right hand corner is an alternate version of another. New turn 2 bears no resemblance to original turn 2. Original was a third'ish gear sweep, very fast. Whereas new turn 2 is as sharp as it can be. When I went to the 1998 GP we watched practice from the exit of turn 2, the TV angles do not fairly show how sharp that corner is. Turn 1 is a nothing corner but I'm not sure how you could make it any better. As for the rest, I do like the middle section (turns 4-7) but the rest is just meh. We agree about A1-Ring over India though. Actually I fucked up the bit you quoted. I meant to say it's a thinner version of Austin. As in, Austin turn 1. It's up hill, crest apex, but the circuit is significantly thinner. You're right about the old Austria turn 2, but I didn't mean to say that, my bad.
|
|
| Author: | phil1993 [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
ellis wrote: phil1993 wrote: Therein lies the problem. Quality will drop because there won't be the money to send people to races. Unless everyone charges for content. We did a survey and 80% of people said they wouldn't pay for content on F1Zone. So you get stuck in a vicious circle. Our quality can't improve, because the money isn't there. If people paid, we could go to races, have more accurate and better information and then justify charging. But so long as there are alternative sources, it won't happen. Right, but that is the publications problem with the business model, not the end user, or customer. Customers always go for the cheaper option. But right now, the cheaper option also seems to provide quality equal to the paid content. Autosport brings nothing to the table IMO. I'd pay for properly awesome content. I won't pay for content which everybody else gives away for free. I understand your point, but with F1 it's a very difficult market to offer something very different. I'd love to charge for content, but people will naturally go elsewhere. It's a problem, I see where you're coming from, but if we keep going down this road then we'll end up with a core group of people at races...always the same people... |
|
| Author: | kals [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
ellis wrote: kals wrote: ellis wrote: Turn 2 is a thinner version of the hairpin at Austria... That's like saying every right hand corner is an alternate version of another. New turn 2 bears no resemblance to original turn 2. Original was a third'ish gear sweep, very fast. Whereas new turn 2 is as sharp as it can be. When I went to the 1998 GP we watched practice from the exit of turn 2, the TV angles do not fairly show how sharp that corner is. Turn 1 is a nothing corner but I'm not sure how you could make it any better. As for the rest, I do like the middle section (turns 4-7) but the rest is just meh. We agree about A1-Ring over India though. Actually I fucked up the bit you quoted. I meant to say it's a thinner version of Austin. As in, Austin turn 1. It's up hill, crest apex, but the circuit is significantly thinner. You're right about the old Austria turn 2, but I didn't mean to say that, my bad. Ah I see. 
|
|
| Author: | Artur Craft [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
Tobias wrote: Russian GP track in Sochi on schedule  http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104932 looks pretty cool actually  Mika Kimi wrote: That layout looks worse than any other circuit on the current calendar. What a shame.. this! |
|
| Author: | Juihi [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
Apparently one of Lotus's major sponsors is pulling out |
|
| Author: | codename_47 [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
kals wrote: A1-Ring is a shit track, pure and simple. It's just an old circuit carved up, shortened and the old fast sweeps replaced with sharp corners akin to hairpins. And the reconfiguration happens to have all but destroyed the former awesome circuit. What is there to like? (And I've been there). However, the races there were very good. For what ever reason the configuration lent itself to great and intense battles, late braking overtakes and memorable races. I don't like the track, never have and never will. But I'd take that over Korea or India or Turkey or Rusia anyday. And yes, Autosport is full of shit. That's nothing new. It is nowhere near the same level as Crash.net however. You may not have liked it, but when you were there surely being able to see the majority of the action from your seat must've been a big plus point? I remember in my early days on forums on Farzad's, he posted pics from the A1 Ring after he went and judging from how you could see 80% of the track from his seat just past turn 1 it made me want to go there. Then the next year they stopped going there, so I never got my chance. |
|
| Author: | kals [ Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
It was ok, you couldn't see that much. We had the grandstand on the exit of the final turn. So we had a perfect view of Schumi and JV's offs during the race and also could see turn 2. That was about it. |
|
| Author: | codename_47 [ Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
kals wrote: It was ok, you couldn't see that much. We had the grandstand on the exit of the final turn. So we had a perfect view of Schumi and JV's offs during the race and also could see turn 2. That was about it. 98 then? 
|
|
| Author: | kals [ Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
From higher up this page... kals wrote: When I went to the 1998 GP we watched practice from the exit of turn 2...
|
|
| Author: | codename_47 [ Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
kals wrote: From higher up this page... kals wrote: When I went to the 1998 GP we watched practice from the exit of turn 2... Lol whoops, I thought that was yours and Ellis' business so I didn't read that
|
|
| Author: | scarsurfing [ Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
winter blues tonic.  [youtubeidiot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB50EB3BDec&feature=player_detailpage[/youtubeidiot] |
|
| Author: | Ferrari [ Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2012 Random F1 Discussion |
Nigel Mansell is becoming a Used Car Salesman. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/mot ... ealer.html |
|
| Page 252 of 261 | All times are UTC+01:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|