Red Bull dominance is a turn-off for “avid” F1 fans but not new viewers – Domenicali

2023 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull’s dominant start to the 2023 Formula 1 season isn’t a turn-off for newcomers to the sport, the series’ CEO Stefano Domenicali believes.

Speaking at a Liberty Media conference of F1 investors, Domenicali said long-time “avid fans” of the sport were more concerned about the lack of competition at the front end of the grid than those who have recently started watching.

Red Bull won the opening three races of the new season from pole position, continuing a dominant streak which began in the middle of last year, since when they have won 13 out of 14 grands prix. Their RB19 has proved capable of lapping up to a second per lap faster than its rivals in races.

Domenicali said Red Bull deserve credit for their strong start to the season. “First of all, if a team is faster than the others, congratulations,” he began. “They did a better job than the others.”

Domenicali expects Red Bull’s rivals to catch up
He is confident their rivals will close the gap over the coming races. “If you look at the others, the bunch of the other teams are very close. Very, very close.

“I’m very confident that with the budget cap, this situation will evolve in the best way for the better competition.”

However he is not concerned Red Bull’s dominance will have a negative effect on F1’s popularity at a time when interest in it is growing. “What is interesting to see in the new markets when the new audience is coming in, that [Red Bull’s dominance] is not a real important factor,” Domenicali explained.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“It’s more for the avid fans that if you see a car that is dominant, that’s creating a level of less interest. For the new market, for the new fans that are coming to the business, this is not really very important.”

Max Verstappen, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2023
Analysis: The single lap when Verstappen revealed some of Red Bull’s true pace in Melbourne
Nonetheless he stressed F1 does want to see a close contest. “For us it’s important because we want to make sure there is a great competition in the ecosystem,” said Domenicali.

“But I would say if I look today in the market where we are growing, this factor is not so relevant as you think. This is in a way very interesting to share, but that’s the truth.”

Three races into the new season, Red Bull already lead the constructors championship with 123 points to Aston Martin’s 65. However Domenicali said it is “too early and too premature” to conclude Red Bull will run away with the championship.

“For sure we see in the first three races Red Bull was very competitive. I’m expecting the others to catch up.

“We need to wait and see the effect of the penalty they had last year with the wind tunnel reduction. The championship is very long and I think we are going to have good surprises before the end.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2023 F1 season

Browse all 2023 F1 season articles

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.

69 comments on “Red Bull dominance is a turn-off for “avid” F1 fans but not new viewers – Domenicali”

  1. No Stefano, you’ve got it wrong mate. Avid f1 fans understand periods of dominance exist in the sport. Newcomers think f1 is all close and exciting because of the fake show liberty wants to impose.

    1. Well said, +1

    2. I’d love to know Stefano got his information from

      1. From the Liberty Media Talking Points brochure. Where he gets most of his ‘great’ ideas and ‘information’.

    3. + 1 Sums it up nicely.

    4. Nah Stefano is right here. My source? Friends who are new to f1

    5. +1. My nieces turned on to F1 during the pandemic because of Drive To Survive and have already stopped watching wondering what we old people see in it. Although, they still watch Drive to Survive…go figure.

    6. Yep exactly this. While we may not enjoy it, we are used to it and accept and find plenty of other battles in the sport to enjoy. We’ll watch it regardless. It’s the casual fans who only care about who wins who see the domination and think ‘oh that’s boring, that’s not what DTS made it out to be.’

    7. Correct, F1 fan since the late ’70’s. Dominance comes and goes and still watching the sport.

    8. This is my comment of the day.

    9. +1. Amazed again by how not suited this man is for his job.

    10. This is just what I wanted to say: the “avid” fans have been around long enough to know that dominance is the normal state for F1. If we were turned off by it as much as he says, we would not still be “avid” fans. It’s newer fans who are now likely to be unhappy with it, particularly those who began watching during 2021.

  2. Formula 1 keeps enacting rules that result in a dominant team being able to run away with it for an entire rules era, only to then be surprised when exactly that comes to pass.

    1. The new rules aren’t at fault and have made the overall field closer than it’s ever been. Talent differentials between aero designers and other engineers are. Unless you make it a spec series, this will always be the case.

      Despite how often F1 fans talk about retaining the DNA of F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport and engineering, it’s ALWAYS been clear fans have a much greater desire to see the drivers competing on equal terms. They just want to have their cake and eat it too.

      Personally, the desire to see both an engineering display and drivers on equal terms is why I’ve always thought F1 should alternate weekends (or have two races and qualifying per round) between constructor cars and spec cars. You’d get the team/tech battle satisfied and insanely close races where it was 98% up to the drivers. It’ll never happen though unless there is a unanimous push by drivers, fans and media for that format and even then it’d likely only be 50/50.

      1. Exactly, I keep wondering where all the Newey apprentices have gone. As we see in other sports with coaching, one would think that over the years, people would have worked under Newey, learned something from the Master and then gone on to other teams to make a name for themselves. Yet, that doesn’t seme to be the case. It’s like Newey is doing his work in a bubble and no one is allowed to see his notes or ask questions. By now, we should have at least 8 or 9 Newey disciples working their magic in F1 resulting in several teams competing for podiums and wins.

        1. @velocityboy It’s probably not as simple though. I remember Peter Prodromou who rejoined McLaren after a spell with Newey but somehow the McLaren never did a lasting impression. Engine, chassis, aero, all of it, who knows.
          And then there’s Dan Fallows and his current success at Aston Martin. How much of the aerodynamicist’s brain, how much of company’s culture, it’s probably a mix but Stroll father certainly put more cash than anyone to see it succeed. He is the only example I can recall, though I’m not sure he’s exactly a “Newey’s protege”.

        2. Dan Fallows, Newey’s protege, went to Aston Martin. Hence their sudden and immense improvement. And Brawn, the last designer of equal fame, quit after designing the Mercedes chassis that dominated for nearly a decade.

      2. Raising floor heights to appease Mercedes made the ground effect less powerful and dirty air a bigger problem. Added to that increased development in sensitive aero over the off season and the following problem is exasperated again. The regs worked, is the fiddling with them during the season that needs to stop.

        1. Except the regs didn’t work, and they won’t, because they are focused on the wrong thing. Let’s assume that leaving cleaner, less turbulent air behind a car is better for the following car. (I’m not insinuating that is crazytalk, I’m just saying I don’t know if that is actually the most important thing to focus on. But for the sake of discussion, let’s say it is.)

          The current regs say you can build in this area, and this size box, and with these characteristics, and so on. F1’s hope is that this will result in the cleaner air they want. But they are regulating X in an attempt to get result Q. Which is pretty foolish because if there is one thing that F1 engineers are good at, is finding ways around restrictions to claw more power or downforce.

          If you want clean air, MAKE THAT THE MEASUREMENT. Team has to provide design and eventually actual car to F1 for wind tunnel test. If the air behind does not meet the requirement, it doesn’t race. Teams could potentially be given more leeway so long as they meet the turbulent air requirements.

          1. I can’t disagree. If you wish to control a parameter, measure and control that parameter.

            “Dirty air”/turbulence behind the car is a difficult one to measure, though.

          2. To quote Massa, “for sure” it is a difficult one to measure. But every time they move the measurement a step away from what they are after, the step away is what teams meet, not whatever the original intent was.

            In stupidly oversimplified terms, put a car in a wind tunnel and measure the turbulence (figuring out that metric is one of the difficulties, admittedly) at a number of distances and locations behind the car.

            @drmouse

          3. I’m broadly in agreement with you.

            That said, you couldn’t use a wind tunnel unless you either made the wings non-adjustable or measured in every possible position, as even a minor adjustment to one of the wings could have a significant effect on the dirty air generated. Every update would need retesting, and even the spare parts (manufacturing tolerances could make a difference). Even tyre wear and pressures could change things.

            It’s a difficult challenge.

      3. I don’t care about drivers competing at all, I want to see the fastest cars possible racing without the necessity of being managing fuel and tyres, even if they eventually have AI pilots or are RC instead of having people on board, and F1 races now are all about going slow as fast as possible

    2. Seems like you have no idea what you’re talking about. The field, overall, is closer than it’s ever been. So, clearly the new rules are working. Moreover, there will ALWAYS be gaps due to a difference in talent between each team’s designers and engineers (not to mention things like infrastructure).

      Many to most F1 fans always wax poetic about the paramount importance of ensuring F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport engineering/technology despite it being absolutely clear they’d rather see the drivers and/or the teams competing on equal terms. They want to have their cake and eat it too. The only way we’ll ever get both is to have a series which includes races using unique constructor cars and spec cars (either alternating rounds between each or having two qualis and races per round).

    3. Seems like you have no idea what you’re talking about. The field, overall, is closer than it’s ever been. So, clearly the new rules are working. Moreover, there will ALWAYS be gaps due to a difference in talent between each team’s designers and engineers (not to mention things like infrastructure).

      Many to most F1 fans always wax poetic about the paramount importance of ensuring F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport engineering/technology despite it being absolutely clear they’d rather see the drivers and/or the teams competing on equal terms. They want to have their cake and eat it too. The only way we’ll ever get both is to have a series which includes races using unique constructor cars and spec cars (either alternating rounds between each or having two qualis and races per round).

      1. You’ve completely misread my point. And then chose to insult me for it, too.

        1. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the latter, now that I can see that you tried to make your point before without your comment actually getting published.

          I am not criticising some teams doing a better job than others and gaining a well-earned advantage from that.

          I am criticising that Formula 1 has, repeatedly, chosen to impose limitations on all other teams implementing the lessons learned from their defeat, which only ever reduces competition at the front.

          1. I lacked sleep and was irritable. My bad.

  3. Really? I’d have thought the opposite was true. Avid fans are used to teams dominating. New fans have been sold a Drive to Survive version which dramatises the sport into the realms of fiction. I fear the fans who get on board via Netflix will soon drop off when they realise the product they’ve been sold is quite different. I’m in no way knocking F1. I love it and always will. But it’s not what is portrayed in Drive to Survive.

    1. The first few seasons of Drive to Survive came during the last years of Mercedes dominance. It created drama by focusing on things that were happening off-track, and when the racing was featured, it was generally for battles in the midfield. So I don’t think the DTS generation are under any illusions about the recent quality of competition at the front of F1.

      1. Yeah was gonna say the same. All the new people I know aren’t bothered by a team dominating and are happy to look for their fix of action down the midfield

      2. Indeed, @red-andy . DTS success is based on a reality TV principle of the struggling average Joe, facing difficulties and failing half the time. And the race coverage provides just that, as we don’t get to see the better car in front at all, cruising anonymously until the penultimate lap.

        This crowd probably want to see Gunther Steiner grimacing rather than a fast lonely big-budget car. In the meantime, “avid viewers” also want to see battles, so the coverage will just aim towards the battles. Only thing is, there are more subtle ways of fighting than banging wheels and the strategic dimensions tend to be ignored in favor of drama, real or artificial.

        But nothing new from FOM as that was already a cause for concern for Mercedes sponsorship in 2015: https://www.racefans.net/2015/09/27/did-fom-give-mercedes-its-invisible-treatment-in-japan/

    2. It could well be that it has not started affecting the overall numbers YET @tommy-c. As @red-andy mentions there are a lot of new fans coming into the sport and for one they never got anything but one of the teams being clearly ahead but another factor is that even if some of the new fans might be leaving, there are enough others coming in to make up the difference.

      If Red Bull dominate for another 2-3 years, will all of them stay? That is hard to tell, and I think a lot of it depends on how F1 balances the sport in the mean while and whether they throw away the baby with the bathwater by throwing stuff like more and more sprint races and stupid qualifying formats at fans, possibly more so than whether a team is mostly on top (depending on how far ahead of the field they would be too)

  4. Mark in Florida
    14th April 2023, 1:31

    Well Stefano, we had 8 years of Mercedes dominance with no one else in sight other than the number two driver for the team.
    I feel the teams are much closer than they’ve been in years. Yes RB looks very strong but Merc is narrowing the gap. AM is looking great with Alonso driving for them.
    McLarens problems seem self inflicted along with Ferraris Italian soap opera ongoing. With engine development frozen and limited wind tunnel time for the front runners the midfield is moving forward not backward as in years past. I believe that the field will continue to close up as the year progresses. Even though RB might win the championship again, I’m not disturbed by it because there’s at least a chance that MB or AM will start taking wins and podiums off RB.

    1. I agree. It’s a shame that the ground effect era started with RB and Ferrari within a tenth and the engines were frozen with no clear advantage like the Merc era, yet we have seen RB pull away. The blame for me lies with Merc and Ferrari for getting it so wrong but at least the opportunity is there for them to close the gap. I’m hoping we then get back to what we saw in the first races of 2022.

    2. I agree, but he is simply falling for the Mercedes narrative. They just finished a decade of dominance and cry the loudest at the moment. It’s like watching toddlers.

  5. Data shows the opposite is true, Always has.

    The avid fans, Especially those who have been watching the longest understand the sport and tend to be more understanding and accepting when a team has an advantage over the rest. It’s also those fans who tend to be more willing to sit through less eventful races and not necessarily automatically call a race with fewer overtakes boring because they can look for other things to get into (Strategy battles, Close attempted overtakes and so on).

    It’s the newer and younger fans who tend to be more turned off by those things because they don’t have as good an understanding of the sport and therefore tend to be less heavily invested in things such at strategy and more tactical racing battles (As they don’t have as deep an understanding of it) and more easily distracted by other things during duller periods of a race.

    Stefano will surely know this not just because of how long he’s been around the sport but also because he’ll have surely seen the data given how many polls, surveys and social media trends Liberty Media are using to shape F1’s direction now.

    1. @gt-racer my thoughts exactly.

      Also I presume avid-fans are more likely to be interested in specific battles throughout the entire field, not just up the front. For example an out of place Williams in the fight for points.

      1. Spot on. We also see the ebb and flow of teams through decades, watching engineers, designers, and drivers mature and grow. The race is just part of it.

    2. @gt-racer is it therefore more of a case of Stefano wanting to project a different image in public to the one that he knows about in private then? I imagine that admitting that the image that Liberty Media wants to build upon is rather fragile would not do their stock price value any good.

  6. Coventry Climax
    14th April 2023, 1:52

    I’m being turned off alright, not by Red Bull’s dominance but by the fake mess that F1 has become over the past years.

  7. A time will come in the not so distant future when the “new” viewers in the growth market(s) will also become so called “avid” viewers and according to Domenicali’s interpretation may lose interest. What will F1 do then? An unnecessary statement and that too at a conference of F1 investors.

    1. Attract new fans? Like it always does and seeks to do more of in the future? It’s not like new fans will stop coming once this influx of new fans turn into avid ones

  8. I can totally see Domenicali’s point.
    After more than 35 years as a viewer, I feel that F1 competition is as poor as it has ever been in some ways.
    It’s also no secret that more people follow celebrity drivers now than the teams they drive for or (crazy statement alert) F1 holistically without taking any side at all.
    If their favourite driver is winning all the time, then all is good. And If they stop winning, it’s a conspiracy or a deliberate plan to penalise them… Apparently.

    Go back 20+ years, and dominance lasted at most for a year or two. There was no time for people to become bored with F1 or settle into the status quo as it was a case of constant change in almost every way. Reliability (and the lack thereof) resulted in even the strongest teams failing to finish on a reasonably regular basis, thus changing up most races and results. Cars were much less predictable, were not constantly micromanaged by the team and endlessly refined through non-stop driver coaching, and were vastly harder to control, meaning drivers also made more errors – major and minor. Even strategy was far more interesting, as it hadn’t been simulated millions of times using thousands of variations and real-time computer timing modelling and prediction tools. Never mind the amount of in-the-loop simulator work they do now before and during every event.

    Almost every change F1 has made in the last 20-30 years has decreased the sporting element and allowed engineering to remove unpredictability.
    Someone very new to F1 will likely not know or care just how crazy F1 used to be. They know what it is now and only compare it to the most recent past.

    1. Go back 20+ years, and dominance lasted at most for a year or two

      Not sure what you’re on about in your post. Exactly 20 years ago we were in the middle of probably the biggest dominance period in the sport. Where reliability became paramount, so you had Ferrari finishing every race on the podium the whole year.

      1. dont forget the driver assists too eg abs, traction control.

      2. Where reliability became paramount, so you had Ferrari finishing every race on the podium the whole year.

        Throughout all of 2000, 2001 and 2002. So three years. The streak started in Malaysia 1999 (after the messy European GP and ended in at the 2003 season opener in Australia. It goes without saying that Michael Schumacher was primarily to thank for that fantastic run – and he did indeed personally finish every race on the podium in 2002. In total Ferrari was on the podium for 53 races straight.

        It’s telling that even with the much better reliability in modern F1, and a stronger second driver in Rosberg, the best Mercedes managed was just over half, at 28 times throughout 2014 and 2015.

      3. Dominance is nothing new, but besides 2005, the Ferrari wasn’t at all dominant. Seems so many people have forgotten, but Schumacher was rarely a shoe in for pole during his title streak. You are right though, it was the Ferrari’s unprecedented reliability that was largely responsible for the time. Literally the first chassis to do more than one season without a single mechanical DNF.

    2. Almost every change F1 has made in the last 20-30 years has decreased the sporting element and allowed engineering to remove unpredictability.

      This is very true, but it’s not just an F1 issue. At the end of the 1980s, car technology reached a point where race cars became too fast. This was across the board, from rally to Indycar and Le Mans to F1. Ever since then, they’ve been reined in through various means.

      Obviously there have been brief moments when speeds rose beyond the accepted limits; such as F1 cars reaching 378 km/h at Baku in 2016, or Kobayashi smashing the Le Mans lap record in 2017. Not surprisingly, regulation changes soon followed that shifted the performance into other areas.

  9. Domenicali is a turn-off for F1’s “avid fans” but not new viewers.

    There, fixed it.

    1. I find it incredible that he really comes out with so much tosh. Does he think people don’t see through him. He should start being more honest.

  10. Stop thinking for me mister Domenicali. I’m just about capable of forming my own opinions on the matter, thank you very much

  11. I think he got that the wrong way round. Avid F1 fans are still here after Mercedes dominated, after Red Bull dominated (previously), after Ferrari dominated… new fans come and go.

    If it’s not interesting at the front, viewing figures drop. It’s always been like that, unless they have new data to twist this time.

  12. I much liked the suggestion that would assist while not making serious changes to f1. Simply: race 1- 1st team, 2nd team, 3rd team. And so forth down to last team in terms of position won. Next race. Laps/ time allowed for team to prepare must be 1st team gets least number of laps or time, 2nd team, second least number of laps or time and so on. This should assist the slower teams to eeck out performance while restricting the previous race winners etc. F1 plz try this. This should also equate to time spent in simulators to set cars up for the races.

    1. Coventry Climax
      14th April 2023, 14:42

      The Trees – Rush (Album: Hemispheres)

      Music: Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson
      Lyrics: Neil Peart

      There is unrest in the Forest
      There is trouble with the trees
      For the Maples want more sunlight
      And the Oaks ignore their pleas.

      The trouble with the Maples
      (And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
      They say the Oaks are just too lofty
      And they grab up all the light
      But the Oaks can’t help their feelings
      If they like the way they’re made
      And they wonder why the Maples
      Can’t be happy in their shade?

      There is trouble in the Forest
      And the creatures all have fled
      As the Maples scream ‘Oppression!’
      And the Oaks, just shake their heads

      So the Maples formed a Union
      And demanded equal rights
      ‘The Oaks are just too greedy
      We will make them give us light’
      Now there’s no more Oak oppression
      For they passed a noble law
      And the trees are all kept equal
      By hatchet,
      Axe,
      And saw…

  13. As an avid fan I’m not.turned off by dominance of a team, but far more by justifying decisions of it’s governing body by looking at ‘markets’.

  14. petebaldwin (@)
    14th April 2023, 9:27

    In some ways, you have to admire Domenicali a little bit… The way that he can just shut off any sense of reality or personal integrity to spout absolute nonsense like this in order to keep his bosses happy is impressive. Whenever I have to tell a blatant lie, I get a bit nervous and struggle to be convincing but he just repeatedly does it and seems confident and happy about it….

    He’d stand in front of you and tell you convincingly that there are only 6 days a week if that’s what Liberty wanted him to do. He wouldn’t hesitate to tell the world the colour of Ferrari is blue if that’s what Liberty wanted him to say.

    The funny thing is that because he’s clearly been told to always say positive things to “sell the product”, you can actually get a good read of the things Liberty care about and the things they don’t. The fact that they’re willing to admit that long-term fans might not be happy about something shows they don’t care about long-term fans. Of course, those newer Netflix fans are very important to Liberty so we must be told they love everything about F1 even if it’s spectacularly illogical like what he’s said above.

    1. 100% This!!!! Used to like him when he was at Ferrari, but he has just become a corporate shill who doesnt give a monkeys about the sport, or the long term fans. Its just about content and money. Even if the content is terrible, its content none-the-less. We dont care about the history or tradition of the sport, we just want new fans who are willing to spend over the top on entry tickets. We dont care about getting the costs down for the teams as we keep adding sprint races to grand prix events. We dont care about about countries with racing heritage (Argentina, South Africa) as we want to add more and more circus city street races (Las Vegas, Miami) where we can overcharge everyone because its a spectacle rather than an sporting event. Unfortunately everyone, the running of the sport we love is on a very slippery slope……

      1. Unfortunately I feel this is true. It’s quite sad.

  15. I thought some politicians are the people I almost never agree with what they say in public, but this man opens new horizons. Either he’s new to the sport or he’s just the most dishonest person I’ve seen. Who’s gonna replace him, Mr. Wolf or Mr. Horner? If they lower some other standards as well, perhaps Mr. Steiner, “for the lolz”.

  16. As a McLaren fan, I have no issue with Red Bull dominance.

    I wish they weren’t, but they simply did a better job than everyone else

    I will continue to watch every week, because just like football, there can only be one champion, But there are still battles to be one up and down the grid

  17. Domenicali said long-time “avid fans” of the sport were more concerned about the lack of competition at the front end of the grid than those who have recently started watching.

    I suspect I don’t qualify as an avid fan since I haven’t ever watched any of the Drive to Survive programs. That said, when I read a statement like this it makes me suspect they want to bring in some sort of handicap system, or a more aggressive handicap system than what is currently being used with the governing of wind tunnel time and CFD time.
    I’m more concerned about the inclusion of Sprint Race points into the World Driver’s Championship results than Red Bull leading the Constructors Championship. I’m more concerned about the “freezing” of engine development “except for reliability reasons”. This sounds like a recipe to slow down engine development, which just helps the race leading cars stay in front. I’m more concerned about the ban on active suspension systems. I’m more concerned about how the TV rights payout is done, especially in favour of one particular team.
    So before someone in F1 bold announces “F1 fans DEMAND cars that win be handicapped”, sorry, but NO! This fan doesn’t want the winning cars to be handicapped (more than what is being done now).
    F1 isn’t just a car race, it is also a technology race. Handicapping is an excuse to not develop your car. The cars we saw on the grid in Melbourne were vastly different from the cars that raced there 10 years ago. Every time there is a major reshuffle of the rules there’s a new pecking order. This time it happens to be Red Bull are at the front, last time it was Mercedes, going back to the turn of the century and it was Ferrari. At the next rule change I wouldn’t be surprised if a team other than Red Bull ends up in front, but maybe it will be Red Bull, but I want whoever it is to be there on merit, not because they happened to get right some magic balance between handicap and car development.

  18. If anything’s going to turn me off F1, it’s Sprint Races.

    1. Your complaining about MORE racing?

  19. “It’s more for the avid fans that if you see a car that is dominant, that’s creating a level of less interest.

    I think the avid fans are getting annoyed by the sprint misery that has been rammed down their throats. And more NASCARising is incoming. We already have competition red flags these days.

  20. He starts with:

    Domenicali said Red Bull deserve credit for their strong start to the season. “First of all, if a team is faster than the others, congratulations,” he began. “They did a better job than the others.”

    And then continues:

    “I’m very confident that with the budget cap, this situation will evolve in the best way for the better competition.”

    Ah yes… the budget cap.

    Did he, by any chance, manage to miss the biggest F1 story in the second half of the 2022 season?

  21. I all depends on the definition of “avid”. If by avid he means the regular commentators of this and similar sites (predominantly British, predominantly with 5-15 years of existence etc.), then he is not entirely wrong, actually. Across this site, Sky, F1i, motorsport.com etc, there’s – unsuprisingly – a lot of predominantly British fans with at least 5 years experience. Many of them comes – less unsurprisingly; but still – across as rather avid Mercedes/Williams/Mclaren/Hamilton/Russel/Norris/Albon fans. They have been quite vocal about their dislike of the current state of affairs. At least to outsiders like me, it seems many experienced fans are more avid fans of their countrymen than the sport itself. and thus disgruntled. I think 2023 has been full of 1st class racing – and I’m not even a Verstappen/Redbull fan (though I am impressed by them).

    To this day people who refer to themselves as avid motorsport fans trash the first races of this season, goes on and on and on about costcap-infringements, complain about the inconsistency of stewarding as something new, trash the FIA and F1 leadership etc. To me the sport is more fair, more interesting, more technical, more nail-biting than ever. Then again, I’m not an avid fan, just a longterm one…

Comments are closed.