|
|
Post by hairyscotsman on Oct 29, 2021 11:02:44 GMT -8
Exactly - or at least you shouldn't pass. These days, though, it seems that all you have to do is say something to make it a 'fact'. Challenge the writer on it and they say "Well, so and so told me this was true, so yeah, I'm good", and that's the end of it as far as they're concerned. Fact-checking isn't in the equation. Journalists these days rarely challenge anything and are easily seduced by access & perks. I guess my point is; how do you assess these numbers? They are generally estimates anyway. I'd guess for this event and past ones around the world, the numbers are probably +/- 10k or so. COTA's crowd was definitely estimated. They don't even know how many people are there on a given day. They can't because the 3-day wristband, which is by far the most common ticket, isn't scanned or counted. It doesn't even have a barcode or chip in it. So what they do is just count every 3-day wristband sold as 3 days of racing attendance, whether the bearer was there for 0, 1, 2, 3 days of racing or they just showed up to one of the nighttime concerts (3-day wristband is the cheapest way into the concerts). Re: how to compare them ... OK, so even if you do take COTA's 400K as a somewhat accurate estimate (Brawn said it was 380K btw, which is still a little far-fetched, but more believable than 400K given the 140K they say they had on Sunday), it helps to remind yourself that Sunday crowds don't exist in a vacuum. There is a pattern to F1 attendance numbers across 3 days. You don't get 10K on Friday, 20K on Saturday, and then 100K on Sunday. For a race that draws 100K on Sunday, for example, typical numbers would be more like 30-40K on Friday, 60-80K on Saturday, and 100K on Sunday. Nobody used to announce three day numbers until recently, and COTA doing it to help them with the subsidy is a big reason that's shifted. And those old numbers are estimates, sure, but they're no less valid than COTA's estimates, since they don't actually know how many of the bearers of their most popular ticket are on site. So then if we apply that model to, for example, Indy 2000 ... you get 75-100K on Friday, 150-200K on Saturday, and 250K on Sunday - or 475-550K for all 3 days. Given that, then you can make a reasonable comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by pushtopass on Oct 29, 2021 11:39:10 GMT -8
I guess my point is; how do you assess these numbers? They are generally estimates anyway. I'd guess for this event and past ones around the world, the numbers are probably +/- 10k or so. COTA's crowd was definitely estimated. They don't even know how many people are there on a given day. They can't because the 3-day wristband, which is by far the most common ticket, isn't scanned or counted. It doesn't even have a barcode or chip in it. So what they do is just count every 3-day wristband sold as 3 days of racing attendance, whether the bearer was there for 0, 1, 2, 3 days of racing or they just showed up to one of the nighttime concerts (3-day wristband is the cheapest way into the concerts). Re: how to compare them ... OK, so even if you do take COTA's 400K as a somewhat accurate estimate (Brawn said it was 380K btw, which is still a little far-fetched, but more believable than 400K given the 140K they say they had on Sunday), it helps to remind yourself that Sunday crowds don't exist in a vacuum. There is a pattern to F1 attendance numbers across 3 days. You don't get 10K on Friday, 20K on Saturday, and then 100K on Sunday. For a race that draws 100K on Sunday, for example, typical numbers would be more like 30-40K on Friday, 60-80K on Saturday, and 100K on Sunday. Nobody used to announce three day numbers until recently, and COTA doing it to help them with the subsidy is a big reason that's shifted. And those old numbers are estimates, sure, but they're no less valid than COTA's estimates, since they don't actually know how many of the bearers of their most popular ticket are on site. So then if we apply that model to, for example, Indy 2000 ... you get 75-100K on Friday, 150-200K on Saturday, and 250K on Sunday - or 475-550K for all 3 days. Given that, then you can make a reasonable comparison. I would suggest that in a pandemic and the first US GP in two years, patterns get disrupted. But still the point is that it is all still estimated so there is little you can do rigorously. You can do all the investigating you want but you will never get a quantitative answer. However, given that I would have put a qualifier on that statement if I were writing it. |
|
|
|
Post by pushtopass on Oct 29, 2021 11:41:02 GMT -8
Max’s tyre curve fall-off only happened on ‘very last lap’ Mercedes have said that Max Verstappen managed his tyres to perfection at the United States Grand Prix.With just 1.333s separating race winner Verstappen and second-placed Lewis Hamilton as the chequered flag waved in Austin, Texas, there was a lingering question surrounding the timing of Hamilton’s second stop which provided him an 18-lap window to hunt down his title rival. But, Mercedes’ motorsport strategy director, James Vowles, has said it was not really a case of whether Hamilton could have boxed slightly earlier, it was more to do with how well Verstappen looked after tyres having pitted eight laps before the seven-time World Champion. In Mercedes’ post-Austin debrief, Vowles revealed that Verstappen’s tyres only began to fall off on the last lap. Had that have happened one or two laps sooner, then he feels that is where Hamilton would have emerged the winner in Austin. www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/maxs-tyre-curve-fall-off-only-happened-on-very-last-lap/ar-AAQ6oJY?li=BBnb7Kz This seems to be what the monday morning quarterbacks were missing in their criticisms of Mercedes' strategy; there was a lot of uncertainty about how long tires were going to last. And RB got it right while Mercedes got it less right, but both were estimates with pretty big error bars. |
|
|
|
Post by hairyscotsman on Oct 29, 2021 12:16:20 GMT -8
COTA's crowd was definitely estimated. They don't even know how many people are there on a given day. They can't because the 3-day wristband, which is by far the most common ticket, isn't scanned or counted. It doesn't even have a barcode or chip in it. So what they do is just count every 3-day wristband sold as 3 days of racing attendance, whether the bearer was there for 0, 1, 2, 3 days of racing or they just showed up to one of the nighttime concerts (3-day wristband is the cheapest way into the concerts). Re: how to compare them ... OK, so even if you do take COTA's 400K as a somewhat accurate estimate (Brawn said it was 380K btw, which is still a little far-fetched, but more believable than 400K given the 140K they say they had on Sunday), it helps to remind yourself that Sunday crowds don't exist in a vacuum. There is a pattern to F1 attendance numbers across 3 days. You don't get 10K on Friday, 20K on Saturday, and then 100K on Sunday. For a race that draws 100K on Sunday, for example, typical numbers would be more like 30-40K on Friday, 60-80K on Saturday, and 100K on Sunday. Nobody used to announce three day numbers until recently, and COTA doing it to help them with the subsidy is a big reason that's shifted. And those old numbers are estimates, sure, but they're no less valid than COTA's estimates, since they don't actually know how many of the bearers of their most popular ticket are on site. So then if we apply that model to, for example, Indy 2000 ... you get 75-100K on Friday, 150-200K on Saturday, and 250K on Sunday - or 475-550K for all 3 days. Given that, then you can make a reasonable comparison. I would suggest that in a pandemic and the first US GP in two years, patterns get disrupted. But still the point is that it is all still estimated so there is little you can do rigorously. You can do all the investigating you want but you will never get a quantitative answer. However, given that I would have put a qualifier on that statement if I were writing it.Exactly, and I would also mention those other very large crowds in past years and the likelihood that those were actually bigger 3-day crowds. One author mentioned Adelaide, but neither author mentioned Indy 2000, which is afaik the biggest of all time. They didn't even try. And if they're all estimates, then new estimates shouldn't get any preference over older ones, which they don't seem to get, either, even when confronted with it. The author I tweeted with told me that part of the reason she didn't mention the other races was that they were "just estimates", apparently not even realizing that COTA's numbers are purely "just estimates" (and dubious ones at that). |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Oct 29, 2021 12:44:37 GMT -8
I guess my point is; how do you assess these numbers? They are generally estimates anyway. I'd guess for this event and past ones around the world, the numbers are probably +/- 10k or so. COTA's crowd was definitely estimated. They don't even know how many people are there on a given day. They can't because the 3-day wristband, which is by far the most common ticket, isn't scanned or counted. It doesn't even have a barcode or chip in it. So what they do is just count every 3-day wristband sold as 3 days of racing attendance, whether the bearer was there for 0, 1, 2, 3 days of racing or they just showed up to one of the nighttime concerts (3-day wristband is the cheapest way into the concerts). Re: how to compare them ... OK, so even if you do take COTA's 400K as a somewhat accurate estimate (Brawn said it was 380K btw, which is still a little far-fetched, but more believable than 400K given the 140K they say they had on Sunday), it helps to remind yourself that Sunday crowds don't exist in a vacuum. There is a pattern to F1 attendance numbers across 3 days. You don't get 10K on Friday, 20K on Saturday, and then 100K on Sunday. For a race that draws 100K on Sunday, for example, typical numbers would be more like 30-40K on Friday, 60-80K on Saturday, and 100K on Sunday. Nobody used to announce three day numbers until recently, and COTA doing it to help them with the subsidy is a big reason that's shifted. And those old numbers are estimates, sure, but they're no less valid than COTA's estimates, since they don't actually know how many of the bearers of their most popular ticket are on site. So then if we apply that model to, for example, Indy 2000 ... you get 75-100K on Friday, 150-200K on Saturday, and 250K on Sunday - or 475-550K for all 3 days. Given that, then you can make a reasonable comparison. So CoTa doesn't know how many 3 Day, 2 Day and Race Day tickets they SOLD? I wouldn't ask them about 'No Shows'. |
|
|
|
Post by hairyscotsman on Oct 29, 2021 12:58:28 GMT -8
COTA's crowd was definitely estimated. They don't even know how many people are there on a given day. They can't because the 3-day wristband, which is by far the most common ticket, isn't scanned or counted. It doesn't even have a barcode or chip in it. So what they do is just count every 3-day wristband sold as 3 days of racing attendance, whether the bearer was there for 0, 1, 2, 3 days of racing or they just showed up to one of the nighttime concerts (3-day wristband is the cheapest way into the concerts). Re: how to compare them ... OK, so even if you do take COTA's 400K as a somewhat accurate estimate (Brawn said it was 380K btw, which is still a little far-fetched, but more believable than 400K given the 140K they say they had on Sunday), it helps to remind yourself that Sunday crowds don't exist in a vacuum. There is a pattern to F1 attendance numbers across 3 days. You don't get 10K on Friday, 20K on Saturday, and then 100K on Sunday. For a race that draws 100K on Sunday, for example, typical numbers would be more like 30-40K on Friday, 60-80K on Saturday, and 100K on Sunday. Nobody used to announce three day numbers until recently, and COTA doing it to help them with the subsidy is a big reason that's shifted. And those old numbers are estimates, sure, but they're no less valid than COTA's estimates, since they don't actually know how many of the bearers of their most popular ticket are on site. So then if we apply that model to, for example, Indy 2000 ... you get 75-100K on Friday, 150-200K on Saturday, and 250K on Sunday - or 475-550K for all 3 days. Given that, then you can make a reasonable comparison. So CoTa doesn't know how many 3 Day, 2 Day and Race Day tickets they SOLD? I wouldn't ask them about 'No Shows'. No, they know how many they sold. They do not, however, know how many people with 3 day passes -their most popular ticket by far - are actually coming out to the track on a day-to-day basis. |
|
|
|
Post by olderguysrule on Oct 29, 2021 14:03:33 GMT -8
Max’s tyre curve fall-off only happened on ‘very last lap’ Mercedes have said that Max Verstappen managed his tyres to perfection at the United States Grand Prix.With just 1.333s separating race winner Verstappen and second-placed Lewis Hamilton as the chequered flag waved in Austin, Texas, there was a lingering question surrounding the timing of Hamilton’s second stop which provided him an 18-lap window to hunt down his title rival. But, Mercedes’ motorsport strategy director, James Vowles, has said it was not really a case of whether Hamilton could have boxed slightly earlier, it was more to do with how well Verstappen looked after tyres having pitted eight laps before the seven-time World Champion. In Mercedes’ post-Austin debrief, Vowles revealed that Verstappen’s tyres only began to fall off on the last lap. Had that have happened one or two laps sooner, then he feels that is where Hamilton would have emerged the winner in Austin. www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/maxs-tyre-curve-fall-off-only-happened-on-very-last-lap/ar-AAQ6oJY?li=BBnb7Kz This seems to be what the monday morning quarterbacks were missing in their criticisms of Mercedes' strategy; there was a lot of uncertainty about how long tires were going to last. And RB got it right while Mercedes got it less right, but both were estimates with pretty big error bars. The elephant in the room question that nobody has seemed to ask or answer as far as I can tell is what would have happened if Merc pitted the lap after max on both pit stops. Well, baring a cluster f+++ lulu would have came out ahead of max. Max was behind lulu by about 3 seconds on the first pit stop. The under cut wasn't 3 seconds. Maybe one orr two seconds but not three. That would have forced max to pass lulu on the track. Which was difficult to do, even with the back markers. My take is that giving max 6-8 seconds, then expecting lulu to catch up, and pass him on the track was a classic kobayashi maru. The no win scenario. Max may have won the race anyways but he would have been in lulu's dirty air, burning up his tires while trying to pass him. |
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Oct 29, 2021 14:18:58 GMT -8
This seems to be what the monday morning quarterbacks were missing in their criticisms of Mercedes' strategy; there was a lot of uncertainty about how long tires were going to last. And RB got it right while Mercedes got it less right, but both were estimates with pretty big error bars. The elephant in the room question that nobody has seemed to ask or answer as far as I can tell is what would have happened if Merc pitted the lap after max on both pit stops. Well, baring a cluster f+++ lulu would have came out ahead of max. Max was behind lulu by about 3 seconds on the first pit stop. The under cut wasn't 3 seconds. Maybe one orr two seconds but not three. That would have forced max to pass lulu on the track. Which was difficult to do, even with the back markers. My take is that giving max 6-8 seconds, then expecting lulu to catch up, and pass him on the track was a classic kobayashi maru. The no win scenario. Max may have won the race anyways but he would have been in lulu's dirty air, burning up his tires while trying to pass him. The undercut was 3+ seconds. That is why RB pitted Max early again on his second stop. Lewis was reeling Max in and getting close to being able to undercut Max |
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Oct 29, 2021 14:21:57 GMT -8
I would suggest that in a pandemic and the first US GP in two years, patterns get disrupted. But still the point is that it is all still estimated so there is little you can do rigorously. You can do all the investigating you want but you will never get a quantitative answer. However, given that I would have put a qualifier on that statement if I were writing it.Exactly, and I would also mention those other very large crowds in past years and the likelihood that those were actually bigger 3-day crowds. One author mentioned Adelaide, but neither author mentioned Indy 2000, which is afaik the biggest of all time. They didn't even try. And if they're all estimates, then new estimates shouldn't get any preference over older ones, which they don't seem to get, either, even when confronted with it. The author I tweeted with told me that part of the reason she didn't mention the other races was that they were "just estimates", apparently not even realizing that COTA's numbers are purely "just estimates" (and dubious ones at that). Recency bias permeates way more than race attendance numbers. It is rampant everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Oct 29, 2021 14:43:52 GMT -8
So CoTa doesn't know how many 3 Day, 2 Day and Race Day tickets they SOLD? I wouldn't ask them about 'No Shows'. No, they know how many they sold. They do not, however, know how many people with 3 day passes -their most popular ticket by far - are actually coming out to the track on a day-to-day basis. Which makes no difference - they sold the ticket for 3 days - count the ticket for 3 days. As in any other form of human endeavor - follow the money! |
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Oct 29, 2021 15:24:29 GMT -8
This seems to be what the monday morning quarterbacks were missing in their criticisms of Mercedes' strategy; there was a lot of uncertainty about how long tires were going to last. And RB got it right while Mercedes got it less right, but both were estimates with pretty big error bars. The elephant in the room question that nobody has seemed to ask or answer as far as I can tell is what would have happened if Merc pitted the lap after max on both pit stops. Well, baring a cluster f+++ lulu would have came out ahead of max. Max was behind lulu by about 3 seconds on the first pit stop. The under cut wasn't 3 seconds. Maybe one orr two seconds but not three. That would have forced max to pass lulu on the track. Which was difficult to do, even with the back markers. My take is that giving max 6-8 seconds, then expecting lulu to catch up, and pass him on the track was a classic kobayashi maru. The no win scenario. Max may have won the race anyways but he would have been in lulu's dirty air, burning up his tires while trying to pass him. Merc lost the race on the 1st stop because they broke the cardinal rules of defending against an undercut, If you can't build a big enough lead to beat you pursuers out lap YOU HAVE TO PIT FIRST, track position is king. |
|
|
|
Post by hairyscotsman on Oct 29, 2021 21:26:50 GMT -8
No, they know how many they sold. They do not, however, know how many people with 3 day passes -their most popular ticket by far - are actually coming out to the track on a day-to-day basis. Which makes no difference - they sold the ticket for 3 days - count the ticket for 3 days. As in any other form of human endeavor - follow the money! It makes no difference in typical attendance terms, where the overstated number doesn't really affect anything more than a public image of the event and/or venue. But in terms of helping COTA qualify for the subsidy, it makes a massive difference. For example, they can sell a block of 3-day tickets to an aftermarket ticket reseller, and they're going to count attendance for all those tickets x 3 days - whether the reseller ever sells them or not. That's not how it's supposed to work, re: the subsidy, but that's what they're doing. The subsidy is not based on ticket sales. It's based on actual human beings and their money that the race brings from out of state. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Oct 29, 2021 21:34:46 GMT -8
Which makes no difference - they sold the ticket for 3 days - count the ticket for 3 days. As in any other form of human endeavor - follow the money! It makes no difference in typical attendance terms, where the overstated number doesn't really affect anything more than a public image of the event and/or venue. But in terms of helping COTA qualify for the subsidy, it makes a massive difference. For example, they can sell a block of 3-day tickets to an aftermarket ticket reseller, and they're going to count attendance for all those tickets x 3 days - whether the reseller ever sells them or not. That's not how it's supposed to work, re: the subsidy, but that's what they're doing. The subsidy is not based on ticket sales. It's based on actual human beings and their money that the race brings from out of state. In other words, it's a scam!  |
|
|
|
Post by hairyscotsman on Oct 29, 2021 21:42:27 GMT -8
It makes no difference in typical attendance terms, where the overstated number doesn't really affect anything more than a public image of the event and/or venue. But in terms of helping COTA qualify for the subsidy, it makes a massive difference. For example, they can sell a block of 3-day tickets to an aftermarket ticket reseller, and they're going to count attendance for all those tickets x 3 days - whether the reseller ever sells them or not. That's not how it's supposed to work, re: the subsidy, but that's what they're doing. The subsidy is not based on ticket sales. It's based on actual human beings and their money that the race brings from out of state. In other words, it's a scam! Yep. And just to give you just a couple of examples of the lengths they go to to scam the State, they have been known to require out of state vendors to accept a portion of their payment in tickets rather than money. Then they count those tickets as having been sold out of state. They even did it with major vendors of food & drinks, a printing company who printed tickets, etc. Same with resellers who are based out of state but actually sell tickets in Texas. If they donate tickets to a charity or other group in Austin that has a home office out of state. Donate some tickets to the Austin Firefighter's Association, a local chapter of the AFL-CIO, and you have tickets distributed 'out of state' - to a bunch of firefighters right in Austin. Those tickets get counted as out of state sales (or 'tickets distributed', which is how they word it). These are just a couple of many, many ways they fudge it all. |
|
|
|
Post by hairyscotsman on Oct 29, 2021 22:27:49 GMT -8
And here's COTA's response today to the people they took $210 from & then failed to deliver service to in the Lot Q fiasco. A $60 refund and a $150 credit toward next year, to a bunch of people who mostly don't ever want to return to COTA. Unbelievable, really, for anyone else, but it's such a perfectly typical, predictably 'COTA' way of responding. These people need to dispute their credit card charges.  |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Oct 30, 2021 4:39:53 GMT -8
Which makes no difference - they sold the ticket for 3 days - count the ticket for 3 days. As in any other form of human endeavor - follow the money! It makes no difference in typical attendance terms, where the overstated number doesn't really affect anything more than a public image of the event and/or venue. But in terms of helping COTA qualify for the subsidy, it makes a massive difference. For example, they can sell a block of 3-day tickets to an aftermarket ticket reseller, and they're going to count attendance for all those tickets x 3 days - whether the reseller ever sells them or not. That's not how it's supposed to work, re: the subsidy, but that's what they're doing. The subsidy is not based on ticket sales. It's based on actual human beings and their money that the race brings from out of state. Such subsidies are a scam from the word go. Especially when you are dealing with sprawling facilities such as road racing tracks that are difficult to police - especially when the event holders view security for the most part as cost to be avoided. Wasn't there a time when the NFL, who has a TV policy that required local games to be 'sold out' was publicizing 'No Shows' at their games. In the post-Covid world I am not hearing No Shows being announced any more. |
|
|
|
Post by boiler on Oct 30, 2021 4:58:49 GMT -8
In other words, it's a scam! Yep. And just to give you just a couple of examples of the lengths they go to to scam the State, they have been known to require out of state vendors to accept a portion of their payment in tickets rather than money. Then they count those tickets as having been sold out of state. They even did it with major vendors of food & drinks, a printing company who printed tickets, etc. Same with resellers who are based out of state but actually sell tickets in Texas. If they donate tickets to a charity or other group in Austin that has a home office out of state. Donate some tickets to the Austin Firefighter's Association, a local chapter of the AFL-CIO, and you have tickets distributed 'out of state' - to a bunch of firefighters right in Austin. Those tickets get counted as out of state sales (or 'tickets distributed', which is how they word it). These are just a couple of many, many ways they fudge it all. That explains the survey they sent out after the race, 40% of the questions asked in various ways where you came from to attend the race. The other ridiculous question well not the question the prepopulated responses, how did you hear about the race 80% of the responses revolved around hearing about it from COTA. I had to write in the comment box that amazingly some people are F1 fans...... |
|
|
|
Post by BigDad on Oct 30, 2021 5:55:06 GMT -8
It makes no difference in typical attendance terms, where the overstated number doesn't really affect anything more than a public image of the event and/or venue. But in terms of helping COTA qualify for the subsidy, it makes a massive difference. For example, they can sell a block of 3-day tickets to an aftermarket ticket reseller, and they're going to count attendance for all those tickets x 3 days - whether the reseller ever sells them or not. That's not how it's supposed to work, re: the subsidy, but that's what they're doing. The subsidy is not based on ticket sales. It's based on actual human beings and their money that the race brings from out of state. In other words, it's a scam! Carmine Sabatini : "This is an ugly word, this, scam. This is business - and if you want to be in business, this is what you do." (Marlon Brando in The Freshman) |
|
|
|
Post by pushtopass on Oct 30, 2021 6:39:01 GMT -8
If Texas doesn't know all of this, then it seems they do not WANT to know all this. They probably provide those loopholes on purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Oct 30, 2021 8:15:45 GMT -8
If Texas doesn't know all of this, then it seems they do not WANT to know all this. They probably provide those loopholes on purpose.Of that, I have no doubt.  |
|
Korean cable TV is lousy. no more NASCAR nor NHRA