The F1blog had an interesting post today: Five Wishes (he had ten, but then dropped one of the stone tablets and only has five left) to make F1 more “TV-friendly.”
To summarize, the five points are:
- FOM takes over each broadcast, and keeps a single (good) director.
- Picture in Picture is used again, show pitstops/interviews/secondary footage in the inset.
- Each car has a forward and rearward facing T-Camera, always recording, more onboard footage (entire laps).
- Constant listing of time gaps all the way down the grid, I don’t want to know how many stops people have done on Lap 3.
- Widescreen, High Definition.
I generally agree with all of these points. However, it is further recommended to look to NASCAR for production purposes. This is where I part company with our good friends at the F1blog. The reason why I say this is due to the nature of Formula One that makes it a difficult event to televise.
Formula One is technically challenging to produce as a televised event. This is due to the nature of the event which causes us to enjoy the event so immensely. To explain, it is necessary to differentiate Formula One from NASCAR on at least a rudimentary level.
First and foremost, Formula One is a three-dimensional race, whereas NASCAR is a two-dimensional race. By three-dimensional, it is meant that there is depth to the circuit. Depth is achieved in a Formula One circuit by one of two means: 1. Elevation changes and 2. Right-hand turns. Elevation changes cause portions of the circuit to be obstructed from view to the remainder of the race. The classic example would be Monaco. From the Tunnel, to the Casino, to Loew’s: entire portions of the race are completely obscured from view to spectators at the race. Second, right-hand turns: A fine example of this is Malaysia where the circuit wraps around the grandstands. Further, the serpentine of the circuit creates the need to watch across multiple portions of the race simultaneously to take in all of the action while cars slash back-and-forth across the spectator’s field of vision.
In NASCAR, the race is two dimensional. The cars race in a constant level loop entering your field of vision from the left and exiting to your right on the near side and across the way, in the same plane, from the right to the left. There are no elevation changes to speak of, and, generally, the grandstands are constructed to provide an un-obscured view of the entire raceway.
Second, Formula One requires the viewer to decipher the ebb and flow of information related to speed and braking. The nature of F1 requires the spectator to understand that some cars perform better through the tighter, turn-oriented portions of the circuits, while others excel on the straight-a-ways. NASCAR, and the nature of the track, results in a regular flow of information through your field of vision. Passing occurs under the same limited circumstances.
Finally, Formula One represents the pinnacle technical innovation in motorsport. This requires not only the most advanced technology, but the precise implementation of that technology to achieve success. (Just look at Toyota: arguably the largest budget in F1, but poor implementation leading to poorer results.) This creates a disparity among the manufacturers that elevates some within the sport to a superior status. NASCAR, conversely, is homologated racing series which, through regulation, tries to eliminate technological disparities among the teams. Furthermore, a stronger running car in NASCAR moves up through the field to become the lead car. Once in that position, it loses some of its performance superiority due to the fact that it is the lead car. Similarly, weaker cars become more effective against the strong car due to the draft effect. As more cars begin to take advantage of the draft effect, the greater it becomes allowing weaker cars to stay with the lead pack. This just doesn’t happen in F1.
Regardless of anyone’s opinion on that matter, NASCAR creates a tighter field: F1 by nature, creates a disperse field. Cars are spread across the entire circuit with battles for position occurring on all corners and straights. The fact that each team has two cars and the relative position of each is important for both driver’s and constructor’s championship points creates another dimension which exacerbates coverage requirements as well.
All things considered, one must realize that F1 must push the technical aspects of broadcasting to stay up with the pinnacle of racing technology.
- First and foremost, I agree with the fact that FOM must take over the production of all F1 events. This would create a uniform broadcast and avoid the local bias of television producers for their hometown hero.
- Second, all broadcasts must be in HD. This would enhance viewing beyond compare. Besides making it easier to see the orange T-bar camera on the #1 team car, we could see the tire tread to determine whether a driver was using intermediates or extreme weather tires ourselves.
- Third, the use of Internet technologies to simulcast race coverage or even On-demand broadcasting where various channels broadcast real-time onboard race coverage to augment traditional distribution.
- Finally, the use of dynamic camera mounts which “chase” the cars through turns to give the viewer a better feel of the braking and accelerative power of the F1 cars.
While F1 television coverage has its short-comings, it is still immensely engaging to watch and to appreciate what those drivers are capable of achieving is those technological marvels they call racecars.
Technorati Tags: F1, NASCAR, Formula One
