Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Racing Posts
JohnC

BBC F1 Coverage

It looks as though our terrestrial TV coverage is going to be watered down in the future:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a...coverage-bid-save-150million.html
Bob Sacamano

Probably for the best, it's becoming a niche interest for masochists.
Sav

That would be a shame. The last GP got 4.57 million viewers on both stations, the highest for Interlagos since 2012.

I would want the Beeb to retain regular live coverage of some sort of motor racing, if F1 coverage is considerably cut. Considering what a prominent role British companies and drivers plays in international motorsport, even leading the way in certain sectors, our national broadcaster really ought to reflect this.
PhilD

I've still got this years BBC races recorded so I will just play them again next year. I doubt the results will be much different and I tend to sleep through them anyway.
TreVoR

I subscribed to Sky Sports to catch this season and cancelled after a couple of races.

Haven't watched a single race all the way through since and haven't missed it.  I think it's a shame but the races send me to sleep these days.
Frank Bullitt

Bob Sacamano wrote:
Probably for the best, it's becoming a niche interest for masochists.


Agreed, I don't really care if the Beeb gets to show another F1 race or not.
Andy C

TreVoR wrote:
Haven't watched a single race all the way through since and haven't missed it. †I think it's a shame but the races send me to sleep these days.


Same here. I find F1 so boring these days , and have loved the last 2 years of the BTCC... Who'd have thought  it ?!
Chris M Wanted a V-10

About the only reason I buy the TV licence is to watch F1 on terrestial channels. Am looking to get cable installed (survey due in 2 weeks' time); anyone know what cable channels you need to get motorsports and F1?

Also can you legally use a TV for cable but not terrestial and avoid having to pay the BBC Licence fee so long as you don't watch BBC on cable?
Martin

No, you need a TV Licence
Bob Sacamano

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:


Also can you legally use a TV for cable but not terrestial and avoid having to pay the BBC Licence fee so long as you don't watch BBC on cable?


'Fraid not.

If you watch live TV, on any device, regardless of channel, you need a TV license.

If you only watch catch up TV after it has been broadcast, you don't, although this may change in the coming years.
Twelfth Monkey

Fifteen years of (mostly) domination by one driver or another has turned me from the sort of person who engineered a trip back to the hotel on Honeymoon which coincided with the French GP to someone who now registers pretty much zero interest.  I watched an old Autocar DVD this week with Sutcliffe driving a V10 Honda F1 car, and the difference that the soundtrack makes is massive - far bigger than I can rationalise.  F1 cars should sound epic and unhinged - it makes them seem alive and barely tamed.  Not so any more.

When the evil empire of Murdoch muscled its way in a few years ago I wondered whether I'd pay if there were no choice.  The notion is almost funny now.
JohnC

I have no intention of paying Sky at all, let alone for Sky Sports. However the future of some sports could suffer significant damage without the numbers of viewers that terrestrial TV brings. I worry about golf now that the Open is going to Sky and I can't see F1 being anything like as attractive to trackside and other advertisers when the UK viewing numbers are recorded in hundreds of thousands instead of millions.

If F1 goes to Sky, that will be the end of my viewing days and I will stick to the motorsport I can watch on Motors TV.
Bob Sacamano

I don't worry about The Open going to Sky, the BBC's coverage was terrible and Sky just do all sports so much better.
Martin

As dissapointed as I have been with recent F1, I'm sticking with it for now and Lindsay feels the same.  I have SKY anyway and don't pay extra for the F1 channel despite not having SKY Sports.  I've watched a couple of races on the BBC and SKY coverage is better, but the EJ effect makes the biggest difference.

I might start recording the highlights rather than the full race next year if the racig doesn't improve.
Humphrey The Pug

TreVoR wrote:
I subscribed to Sky Sports to catch this season and cancelled after a couple of races.


I had the Sky Sports and Movie package on Virgin, mainly for the F1 and thought that it would be great for the Movies; I wasn't interested in any other sport that was on offer.

Anyway, we never watched the movies and being as F1 was pretty much on the BBC for very second race I was basically paying to watch 1 race a month so I dropped it; saving around £40 per month; I like F1 but paying £40 per month for 1 race is madness and I was never really interested in the F1 show and all the other extras that Sky F1 offered.

The highlights are fine for me but if it is dropped in 2018 then so be it, my enthusiasm for it now is nowhere near what it was when I first started watching F1; 20 years ago.
JohnC

It's the £40/mth bit I can't justify either.

I'd rather see limited advertising being allowed on the BBC and these big sporting events and things like the Red Button being kept. If the BBC gets watered down too far it could stop being a mainstream offering with poor audience levels and diminishing credibility.

However from a consumer point of view it is going to be near impossible to see all you want without having to subscribe to Sky, Amazon, BT and possibly others - for cash strapped Britain, I doubt the majority will be able to afford them all, if any.
Eff One

F1 is infinitely more interesting now than it was in 1992 when Mansell walked it, or the worst of the Ferrari/Schumacher domination seasons.

It would be a great shame to lose it from the BBC and as others have said, it could well have a knock-on effect on sponsorship etc.

If it went I'd buy a Now TV pass for race weekends and watch online, as I currently do for half the races anyway.
BeN

Frankly I struggle to find most races exciting now. I lost interest rapidly during the Vettel years in fact.
Big Blue

I think if it goes off of terrestrial TV FOM (or whatever the fuck they call themselves these days) will finally get dragged into the modern era and develop an app across multiple platforms and sell an annual, per-race or second-half season pass Š la MotoGP. A recent survey in F1 magazine showed this was a preferred option for McLaren team principle Eric Billiard-table and to my mind is absolutely insane that they don't offer this already.
Sav

I have found myself preferring to watch the actual races on Sky, at least on my TV the picture and sound quality is noticeably better compared to the BBCís coverage. Unfortunately, Sky's pre and post GP coverage is dull; Damon Hill just nods along agreeing with everyone, Herbert just agrees with whatever Brundle says.

I do question the strategy from Sky. The F1 channel is basically filled with repeats, and apart from GP2 and GP3, they donít regularly broadcast any other live motorsport on the channel. Perhaps if Sky F1 showed a few other series, the £40 per month would be more palatable for motorsport fans, but diehard racing fans themselves shun Sky F1, their viewership is more limited than it ought to be. That is reflected in their viewing figures, Sky F1 hasnít topped a million for viewers very regularly, and they get around 600K for F1 races.

Considering the massive amount that Sky spent on acquiring the F1 rights, they surely canít be happy with their limited viewership.

I initially thought Sky was going in the right direction in 2012. At the time they still showed IndyCar, and a few races were televised on Sky F1. A continuation of that crossover, along with other motorsport series would have worked well for me and other racing fans.
TreVoR

I think it was Jeff mentioned that a lot of motorsport fans aren't football fans which makes the subscription unpalatable.  It certainly does to me.  If I was charged £5 per month for the F1 channel as a stand alone option then I would pay for it.  

I suspect that there are more people refusing to pay the £40 per month than those who are paying it.  I also suspect that a lot of people (Martin as an example) are on the legacy package when it was bundled with the £10 per month HD option so Sky are losing out on that too.
simonp

I have a friend who hasn't bought a TV licence for 2 years now and just tells them he only watches catch up TV when they contact him. Nothing they can do about it apparently. The movement towards not paying is snowballing and is why the spending at the Beeb is being continuously cut.
JohnC

simonp wrote:
I have a friend who hasn't bought a TV licence for 2 years now and just tells them he only watches catch up TV when they contact him. Nothing they can do about it apparently. The movement towards not paying is snowballing and is why the spending at the Beeb is being continuously cut.


I think that shows that the system of paying for the BBC has to change somehow - put income tax up 1% and give it to the BBC. Somehow I would be happier with that than paying Sky £60+ a month for TV and Sport.
gooner

I've not really missed it tbh. I find it's too heavily biased towards the talent of the car rather than the driver. Alonso and Button are probably the most marked example this year of how even the best talents in the sport can't get anywhere near the front on any occasion if the cars not up to standard. That's partly why I don't play the forum F1 game, I don't really know who will win. The BBC have been pretty patchy in which races they have shown live with some of the big name circuits missing from their live schedule.
Giant

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
Also can you legally use a TV for cable but not terrestial and avoid having to pay the BBC Licence fee so long as you don't watch BBC on cable?


Do you never listen to any BBC radio stations, watch BBC news, use any of their websites or use Iplayer?

Ive said it before, but what you get for your £12 per month is at very worst good value. Maybe the TV licence needs to rebranded as a Multimedia Licence, required if you have a TV or internet connection.
Frank Bullitt

Giant wrote:
Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
Also can you legally use a TV for cable but not terrestial and avoid having to pay the BBC Licence fee so long as you don't watch BBC on cable?


Do you never listen to any BBC radio stations, watch BBC news, use any of their websites or use Iplayer?

Ive said it before, but what you get for your £12 per month is at very worst good value. Maybe the TV licence needs to rebranded as a Multimedia Licence, required if you have a TV or internet connection.


Agreed, especially when you play it against having to have a house phone to have broadband which costs me more than £12 per month and we never ever use.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

I listen to the BBC radio every day - but the Wireless Licence was abolished many years ago (I'm old enough to remember it !).

Not watched the news on TV for a few years now, hardly ever watch TV except for the F1 races/highlights.  I watch iPlayer sometimes.

To give you an idea of my viewing habits, recently the best (only?) thing to watch on Saturday evenings has been yet more repeats of "Dad's Army".
Big Blue

No to the continuation of the license fee.

The BBC funding model is based in an era prior to deregulation of the available airwaves so should be stopped within the current parliament. The BBC remit is:

Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities.

It does not need several channels, rolling 24 hr televised news in HD, any game shows, a soap opera or professional sport to achieve this. It can be stripped back to a single TV channel that has shows that allow talent to get the opportunity to broadcast that which will not be commissioned by other channels, an early morning, early evening and late evening news bulletin, children's programming between the hours of 1530 and 1800 and on weekend mornings, a radio channel for current affairs, a radio channel for contemporary popular music that schedules time for various genres of such, a channel that plays classical music that schedules time for various genres of such and a station that plays a selection of contemporary music from the lifetimes of the ages of all listeners that are alive. For overseas broadcasting there should be one TV channel and one radio channel broadcast on affordable platforms in host countries, be that digital or analogue.

Everything else imaginable is now available in the commercial sector ten times over. If anything there should be fewer BBC channels than there were in the 80s as the rest of broadcasting has been allowed to have a fucking go at it stead of being swamped by the bloated, unfair funding of the BBC that led to a London based soap opera becoming their most successful output when his clearly does not meet any element of their charter aside from the odd story line that could be loosely classed as public information.

If the BBC is structured in this manner it can be funded from some metaphorical loose change found down the back of an armchair at No11 Downing Street and the entire mechanism of the license fee collection and policing can be dismantled at a stroke. For too long some tech head geeks have been bloating their hobby on a zillion platforms just because they can, not because it's required. Fine in the infancy of the medium of radio and television; bollocks now.
JohnC

Sorry BB but I feel quite different about the BBC. I watch the BBC in preference to the commercial channels and love features like the red button where I can find out what I want to know very quickly and easily.

I use the iplayer regularly and listen to BBC Radio on my PC, my phone and in my car. I also use the radio iplayer through my phone to play programmes I have missed when I am in my car - these things were all pioneered in the UK by the BBC.

I would like the BBC to stay as it is and not to go cutting services everywhere. I am more than happy to pay to keep the BBC.
Twelfth Monkey

Agree with John.  The licence fee is worth it for the natural history output alone.
Big Blue

That's fine then. Those that love the additional elements of the BBC can pay for it just as those that love MotoGP, Premiership football, the cinema, theatre, drinking etc pay for that. Why should people be forced to pay for an entertainment medium they might not want? As this is a car forum, if you ordered and specced a new car and it arrived with an additional spec item you didn't want would you accept a price increase? The BBC needs to be dragged into the commercial world it tries to compete with.
PhilD

Big Blue wrote:
Why should people be forced to pay for an entertainment medium they might not want? As this is a car forum, if you ordered and specced a new car and it arrived with an additional spec item you didn't want would you accept a price increase? The BBC needs to be dragged into the commercial world it tries to compete with.


The BBC is not a car, it's public transport.
Big Blue

PhilD wrote:
Big Blue wrote:
Why should people be forced to pay for an entertainment medium they might not want? As this is a car forum, if you ordered and specced a new car and it arrived with an additional spec item you didn't want would you accept a price increase? The BBC needs to be dragged into the commercial world it tries to compete with.


The BBC is not a car, it's public transport.


An even better analogy. Some tax is spent on making sure public transport actually exists but if you want to use it you pay a fare. So the base BBC provision of news output and some arty stuff is paid for by tax; if anyone wants enhanced services they pay up.
PhilD

Big Blue wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Big Blue wrote:
Why should people be forced to pay for an entertainment medium they might not want? As this is a car forum, if you ordered and specced a new car and it arrived with an additional spec item you didn't want would you accept a price increase? The BBC needs to be dragged into the commercial world it tries to compete with.


The BBC is not a car, it's public transport.


An even better analogy. Some tax is spent on making sure public transport actually exists but if you want to use it you pay a fare. So the base BBC provision of news output and some arty stuff is paid for by tax; if anyone wants enhanced services they pay up.


I'll make it simpler. Keep it as it is, but charge for Eastenders - you could half the license fee.
Frank Bullitt

Big Blue wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Big Blue wrote:
Why should people be forced to pay for an entertainment medium they might not want? As this is a car forum, if you ordered and specced a new car and it arrived with an additional spec item you didn't want would you accept a price increase? The BBC needs to be dragged into the commercial world it tries to compete with.


The BBC is not a car, it's public transport.


An even better analogy. Some tax is spent on making sure public transport actually exists but if you want to use it you pay a fare. So the base BBC provision of news output and some arty stuff is paid for by tax; if anyone wants enhanced services they pay up.


Even better, you only pay £12 per month if you want a TV which is universally available rather than paying for subsidies for buses and trains that I only ever use if going in to London (i.e. once a year)

Bargain.
Big Blue

That implies the TV is on permanently and tuned to the BBC. The stuff the license fee pays for is as available as the railway is. I don't have the TV on for as long as I spend on public transport.
Sav

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
About the only reason I buy the TV licence is to watch F1 on terrestial channels. Am looking to get cable installed (survey due in 2 weeks' time); anyone know what cable channels you need to get motorsports and F1?



Motors TV have a whole host of motor racing, and this is fortunately available on Freeview now. British GT, WEC, Blainpain Endurance, WRC, IMSA Sports Car Championship from America, V8 Supercars, V8 Utes, European F3, Euro NASCAR and more is televised. I just wish they would broadcast in HD, but considering their level of motorsport coverage, I wonít complain too much.

ITV 4 Ė Formula E and BTCC. The BTCC coverage includes all of the support races live, so you essentially get a dayís worth motorsport action.

Eurosport Ė Le Mans 24 Hours in full, selected live coverage of WEC, World RallyCross, WTCC, World Superbikes, British Superbikes, World Series 3.5, ERC, Porsche Supercup.

Sky F1 channel Ė F1, GP2, GP3. This includes all sessions live.

Premier Sports Ė NASCAR. This wonít be everyoneís cup of tea, but considering the NASCAR season is almost non-stop from February until November, I consider it relatively good value for money.

BT Sport. Moto GP, IndyCar, World Series 3.5, DTM, Blainpain Sprint, V8 Supercars, WRC. BT Sport doesnít have exclusive rights to a few championships they broadcast, but unlike Sky, at least they have a healthy offering for motorsport fans.
PhilD

How do you have time for anything else Sav!  
Sav

Ha! A few people I know seemingly go on a global tour to see racing, one of them is in Miami for the NASCAR finale today. Wish I could do that, I don't see enough.  
the other ct

Sav wrote:
...one of them is in Miami for the NASCAR finale today.


Didn't realise Hamilton was a friend Sav!

Sav



That picture of Mario Andretti, Jeff Gordon and Hamilton was something special, so much talent in one picture.

Hamilton is friends with a few NASCAR drivers; Gordon, Kasey Kahne, Tony Stewart.

Kyle Busch winning the championship makes me very happy.  
Eff One

Did anyone else catch the very end of BBC's coverage in Abu Dhabi? There was an ominous sense of finality about it I thought, and Suzi Perry's choice of words suggests that they aren't sure if they'll be on air at all in 2016.
Big Blue

Eff One wrote:
Did anyone else catch the very end of BBC's coverage in Abu Dhabi?


No. The nation was sound asleep by then after that race.
PhilD

Big Blue wrote:
Eff One wrote:
Did anyone else catch the very end of BBC's coverage in Abu Dhabi?


No. The nation was sound asleep by then after that race.


Like watching paint dry.
JohnC

Eff One wrote:
Did anyone else catch the very end of BBC's coverage in Abu Dhabi? There was an ominous sense of finality about it I thought, and Suzi Perry's choice of words suggests that they aren't sure if they'll be on air at all in 2016.


That was my view as well. Can't they just put the TV licence up £10 or something so that they can keep The Open and F1?

David Coulthard also seemed to be very sorry the season has come to an end rather than looking forward to what next season might bring.
Sav

I think Coulthard was spot-on in his latest column. Free to air coverage is essential for Formula 1 to grow and inspire a next generation of children. Many people would have first saw Formula 1 by accident (my father made sure I was brainwashed all things motoring, so Iím the perfect Sky customer). Sure, F1 has got its loyal viewing audiences, but where have those audiences stemmed from? Free to air TV, or from a subscription channel that canít even be purchased on its own?

The viewing figures themselves entirely justify the sport remaining free to air. The Canadian GP, broadcasted on Sunday evening in the UK got 5.48 million viewers on the BBC, with an average of 4.62 million. The Hungarian GP peaked with 4.97 million viewers with an average of 3.67 million viewers. Sky F1 could only peak with 803k viewers in comparison. Even the Brazilian GP, derided as deeply dull got an average of 4.02 million viewers on the Beeb. These figures arenít too shabby compared to the BBCís other programmes.

I respect what Sky do. The picture and sound quality on Sky F1 is stunning, noticeably better than BBC, and they are committed to showing all sessions live for F1, GP2 and GP3. However, and this is something I care a lot about, proliferation of the subscription approach will ensure accidental viewers donít view F1 to the same extent as the BBC, and generally motorsport further down might suffer if the supposed pinnacle of motorsport isnít accessible to view for the next generation.
Eff One

Worst fears confirmed - Abu Dhabi 2015 was BBC F1's last race: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35149963
PhilD

Eff One wrote:
Worst fears confirmed - Abu Dhabi 2015 was BBC F1's last race: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35149963


Worst fears? "Channel 4 will take on the BBC's F1 broadcast rights from next season"  - what's wrong with this? C4 can be pretty good at sport.
Bob Sacamano

I agree with the decision, F1 is very poor value for money at the moment. I can see no justification for spending the money on such a poor product.
TreVoR

I agree too.  No point in spending money to send the majority of people watching it to sleep.
Twelfth Monkey

Could be worse, could have happened when it was worth watching.
JohnC

Back to F1 with adverts! At least it will still be on terrestrial TV but I am disappointed.

F1 had better shake itself up a bit though because it won't just be the BBC who are thinking this way - I am sure that TV advertising is nowhere near as lucrative as it used to be now that a large proportion of people record programmes and then FF through the adverts etc.
Eff One

JohnC wrote:
Back to F1 with adverts! At least it will still be on terrestrial TV but I am disappointed.


+1. F1 belongs on the BBC and they've done a superb job since 2009, particularly when live. But the axe has been hovering ever since they scaled back in 2012. With a £150m budget cut to find, it was always going to be F1 fans who got fucked over - again.

Some of my karting friends bang on about Sky's supposed superiority but having sampled it I don't see what the fuss is about. Brundle is great but I can take or leave the rest of them - Croft and Kravitz are annoying and the anchor/pundit trio are just shit. I'd actually rather listen to Eddie Jordan.

Channel 4 have promised to show live races uninterrupted which is encouraging. If they've any sense they'll cherrypick the best of the BBC team on both sides of the camera.
gooner

PhilD wrote:
Eff One wrote:
Worst fears confirmed - Abu Dhabi 2015 was BBC F1's last race: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35149963


Worst fears? "Channel 4 will take on the BBC's F1 broadcast rights from next season" †- what's wrong with this? C4 can be pretty good at sport.


Agree. They really elevated the Paralympics to a stage not seen before. I was impressed by the way they bought the games to the masses. I think it needs fleshing up with better presenters. I also see no reason to have the presenters and production team all flown around the world for a highlights program. If the use the money savings to focus on the quality of the broadcast they could be on to a winner.
Alf McQueef

I would expect C4's coverage to be worse than the BBC's, which was already patchy, with too many of the races shown well after they finished. but presumably the commercial deal is the same so it may stay as it was. If they shunt even more races back to the evening, when they could have shown them earlier, that will be a big shame for non-Sky users.

Givem how I feel about the last 2 seasons, I'm not sure if this makes me more likely to go back to Sky - after 6 years off - or not. We seem to have worsening signal in crap weather on Freesat, but then the apple box, Netflix, and YouTube can fill that gap.
simonp

Get a NowTV account (tis on Apple TV now) and buy a week's Sky Sports pass whenever there is a race not on CH4. Think they're around a tenner.

Nice piece by Steve Cropley here, which I can't really find any disagreement with:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/mo...has-bbc-stepped-down-f1-just-time
Eff One

gooner wrote:
I also see no reason to have the presenters and production team all flown around the world for a highlights program. If the use the money savings to focus on the quality of the broadcast they could be on to a winner.


That isn't where the money goes. The production cost is a small fraction of the rights fees which go to Bernie and CVC. Keeping the presenters at home would serve little purpose other than making the highlights shows even more limited. As far as I know the timing (and length) of these is constrained to some extent by the contract, ie they have to wait a certain amount of time before they can show the highlights.

Details so far suggest the contract is the same as the Beeb's - 10 races to be shown live, the others as highlights.

I've got a Now TV box and stump up the £10 or so for a Sky Sports pass once in a while. It works fine on a smart TV, though you can't watch on a Windows PC which is poor.
gooner

Agree with Cropley, the governing body have messed around too much and bought in money saving rules based on reducing fuel consumption at a time when the price of oil is falling and the cost of hybrid-turbo engines is going up. And what on earth is going on with all the penalties they're giving out. How can they give drivers 50 place grid penalties when there's only 20 grid slots? It just makes the FIA look petty!

Shunting races back isn't such a bad thing. With weekdays being so busy these days, I don't have time on Sunday's to spend from 12-3pm sat watching Mercedes parade their F1 cars around.
Sav

It is a shame that the BBC has ditched Formula 1, but I am pleased that the sport stays free-to-air pretty much as it stands now. That was important. F1 solely on Sky F1 would result the sport becoming an even greater minority than it is now, Mr E probably recognises the critical importance of free-to-air coverage, even though he wonít admit it.

BBC for me achieved an awful lot with their Formula 1 coverage. After years of remoteness from ITV, they interviewed more people on the spot, the F1 forum added discussion and analysis that UK F1 coverage had never been seen before, they grabbed the winner for live interview, and the internet coverage was second-to-none. In particular when Humphrey wasthere, BBC offered an insight into the human side of F1 and of course Eddie Jordan was a clown, but nobody else could get the interviews and gossip that he could. The set-up was so good, Sky F1 essentially copied it.

I agree with Eff One, Sky F1 isnít anything special. Skyís HD quality is stunning, but almost everything else doesnít impress. Brundle is of course the saving grace and Anthony Davidson is a great commentator, but David Croft is just annoying and not as concise as Ben Edwards. Kravitz was decent on ITV and the BBC but was given an expanded role for Sky and he waffles on far too much. And then you have Johnny Herbert and Hill, let me summarise them quickly: ďI agree with MartinĒ. Didnít Sky hear how wooden Hill was when he occasionally filled in for Brundle on ITV? Great drivers, rubbish on TV.

The Sky F1 channel in general is filled with old repeats, and the sport really could do without a dedicated F1 channel. There have been some interesting programmes, like Steve Riderís rather revealing interview with Montoya (yes, he moans a lot † ), but there is no cross-over with other non-F1 related coverage, so for the motorsport fan, this channel doesnít represent particularly good value considering the vast outlay that is required to access it.

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Racing Posts
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum