Ferrari, Mugello, 2020

Mugello “pretty likely” to get F1 race, Portimao possible – Brown

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown believes it’s “pretty likely” Mugello will be added to the 2020 F1 calendar.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Less is more when it comes to on-screen grapihcs, reckons @Frood19:

If anyone has been watching the classic races on YouTube, they will know that a lack of graphics makes little difference to enjoying the race. The only thing I felt I was missing in some of the older races was the time gaps but they did have the facility to show this, just there was a slightly poor director/producer team in place. I think that problem is largely solved now (recent seasons have generally been quite good at capturing the best of the action from all through the field).

In short, we don’t need all the silly guesswork graphics, just the occasional relevant time gaps and well framed shots of the track.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Kim Philby, Brandonrc and Brandonrc!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

18 comments on “Mugello “pretty likely” to get F1 race, Portimao possible – Brown”

  1. I completely agree with COTD.

    The tower graphic in particular that shows all the positions and continuously updated real-time gaps takes away all the suspense from the race. The same with the halo graphics, it makes you feel like you are watching a video game as opposed to the raw, spectacular experience it should be.

    Now that we’ve all agreed that, can we discuss the broadcast sound..? Turn the car volumes up !!!

    1. Hmm.. I feel the opposite; I think the tower graphic adds suspense because you can see that a driver is closing up a gap (or losing time) even when it’s not obvious. Especially helpful in the midfield when they don’t get video time.

      1. All gaps, all the time. More data not less. I’ve ‘watched’ races just on live timing when video wasn’t available and enjoyed them almost as much as watching – how else can you really tell when a driver is outperforming without relying on commentators?
        Speaking of commentators, it’s great that they’re no longer chosen solely for their ability to outscreech the cars.

    2. Actually, the one thing I do like about modern F1 graphics is the position ladder. It makes it easier to follow the race without (in my view) taking away the suspense.

      Other than that, I’d love to see F1 graphics stripped back to the basics. Lap count and position ladder, fastest laps, the occasional popup showing how long a driver was in the pits, yellow flag and safety car graphics, and that’s about it. Limit what team radio is broadcast too.

      They should give the commentators some limited extra information, such as live lap times, to use as they see fit.

      Also, make all the tyres indistinguishable so we (the viewers and the other teams) don’t know who is running what, as it used to be in the past.

      While we’re at it, heavily restricting the amount of live data the teams receive would help greatly

    3. Like most other repliers I disagree, I think the timing tower is one of the best part of the current coverage. I can actually turn to the no-commentary audio channel during a live race and follow it by myself, and I don’t miss out on anything while also not getting irritated by commentators misreading what we see. I rewatched a few old races with my buddy in the past months, and we were both annoyed by the lack of information on screen – for example when we had the constant bar on the bottom of the screen only showing info about five drivers at a time, what good was that?

  2. I think I have to disagree a bit with the COTD and with the comment by @aussierod. Being a non-English speaking person, I can understand the articles in English well, and more or less write “so that I am understood” although I am sure that I make many mistakes. But listening is something else. Especially if the person who speaks English is English. As long as the classic races are still available only in English on the official website of F1, I can see and enjoy the races, but I would do it much more if graphics were added to explain the positions of the drivers on the track, the time differences , etc. because I don’t understand a word of what the commentators are saying. Although I would rather prefer that they put the races in my language, which would also be a small stone in the wall of the “accessibility” of this sport.

    As for the current graphics, I think precisely the ones that @aussierod doesn’t like are the ones that I like. The halo graphic, is for me the best addition in a long time. To be able to know at all times the speed, the gear, if you are stepping on the accelerator or the brake, etc. And the placement of it makes the image look good, since otherwise what we see is a bar (the halo) with some ugly advertising on it. It also allows to see the hands and use of the steering wheel below, and the track above. The tower of positions and times is something that seems essential to me, to know the positions of all the drivers in the race, and the differences between them. In a way, it can replace (not entirely, but partially) live timing. You can see, just looking at the time differences in real time, if one driver is getting closer to another, or if he is doing fast laps or must have problems or very worn tires because he has been doing 5 laps doing bad times and losing against the drivers who are just above and below in the classification.

    What I completely agree with, is the rest of the graphics. The graphics of “possibility of overtaking”, or the new “rankings” and “scorings” with numbers that I do not know where they come from, seem to me nonsense. Give me the raw data, the times, the lateral forces if you want, and I’ll do the ranking in my head if I want, and taking into account the parameters that I consider appropriate, not those that a person (or machine) considers for me. Don’t treat me like a child. Instead of this, for example, they could give access from F1 TV to the telemetry of the cars, even if only after the race, so that we could analyze for ourselves the acceleration or braking points, the forces, the wear, etc. but it seems that infantilizing the audience should be a good thing, because it is not a problem unique to F1.

    1. An interesting post @esmiz and nicely worded. It demonstrates the challenges Liberty face dealing with such a broad world-wide audience.

      Perhaps when their F1-Live offering is more widely available (and better resolved) it could solve some of these problems by allowing the ability to configure (ie turn on or off) some of these overlays.

      1. It’s a great idea, if they can get the whole F1TV thing to work fine at last. I understand that each person’s tastes and interests can be different, and offering the possibility of customizing what you want to see would be very good. Although here in Spain we still do not have the races live on f1tv because a pay TV channel has the exclusive. The opportunities offered by something like F1TV are big, hopefully they will be able to take advantage of it. And I hope the exclusive ends soon, too.

        1. So annoying about paywall. When I was living in Barcelona it was free to air on both Spanish and Catalan tv.

    2. I completely agree – provide the data and let us make up our own minds.

      I also commend your English, I wish I was as skilled in a second language!

      1. Thanks JC :)

        Google translate helps a lot. It’s not perfect but you can translate the large text and then make changes where you see that google has not done well. Then you translate again in reverse, and see if what you have written in English makes sense in your language.

  3. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Just get on with it already.

    The BS stops when the green flag drops.

  4. I have read an article on a different site that Mugello is practically scheduled to happen the week after Monza (13th September) and Algarve should get a slot a week after Sochi (4th October). Kind of sad that Hockenheim and Imola got sidelined but at least we are in for some new and unpredictable venues.

    1. hockenheim is still a possible replacement for Sochi

    2. @pironitheprovocateur I don’t know what to buy into anymore, LOL. First, there were reports (from Portugal) that Algarve would get two races on both September 27 and October 4 (which would mean either a postponed Russian GP or no Russian GP for this year). On yesterday’s round-up, an article from a Canadian-site ( claims Montreal would get October 11 as a follow-up to Sochi on its original date. Different sites seem to be reporting different stuff about the same matter. Concerning your specific post: Algarve would be better off being on October 11 than 4 with Sochi on September 27 due to the distance between them.


      1. @jerejj Algarve is likely to host a single race sometime in October-November (most likely right-after Sochi), the two race reoprt said that if Sochi dropped unexpectedly then to make up the numbers Portugal might have gotten two back-to-back races in Algarve.

        Practicly many circuits expressed interest to host two races: Hockenheim, Sochi, Algarve, Shanghai… but aside from Austria, Silverstone and Bahrain i don’t think any other would host two, maybe if something unexpected happens then as a replacement they’ll do it.

        The Canada story on October 11 is weird, because even with a crazy schedule as this, many circuits insist to host their races at a specific/original date. Sochi wants the original date on September 27 even if they can race there in October-November with no problems weather-wise, Mexico insists on November 1 because they have some festival or something (like it matters to them even with a no-crowds race), Canada can’t go any later than October 11 because it would be freezing and in the midst of all this, FIA has to fill the gaps so it’s feasible for the teams… you can’t put a Sochi-Algarve-Montreal triple header because it’s almost impossible to do it.

        The best i can think of that includes most circuits, if everyone agreed is this:

        Aug 30 (Spa) ► Sep 6 (Monza) ► Sep 13 (Mugello)
        Sep 27 (Montreal) ► Oct 4 (Austin ?) ► Oct 11 (Mexico) … or Oct 4 (Mexico) {if Austin cancels}
        Oct 25 (Imola) ► Nov 1 (Algarve) … or Oct 18 (Hockenheim) ► Oct 25 (Imola) ► Nov 1 (Algarve) {if Austin cancels}
        Nov 15 (Sochi) ► Nov 22 (Shanghai)
        Dec 6 (Bahrain normal) ► Dec 13 (Bahrain oval) ► Dec 20 (Abu Dhabi)

        1. @black Montreal’s rough deadline is the middle of September, but the ultimate one would be the end of the month as October as a whole is a bit too risky with the temps.

  5. I couldn’t agree more with Cyril, more or less what I’ve been pointing out.

Comments are closed.