R.I.P. Formula One (1950-2014)

[dj_bytedisaster]

Reports are coming in that the toad from Suffolk has dodged another bullet as Paul Walsh walks away from plans to be installed as CVC's executoive director in a bid to get rid of Ecclestone. Obviously, the senile old tyrrant has enough blackmail material on CVC and once again coerced them into caving in to his demands, which would have left Walsh with being little more than a representative figure.
So we all look on as F1 is dying a slow agonizing death, while there is still no-one who removes this ulcer from humanities arse. The Grim reaper should have done so by now, but he's obviously gone AWOL.

[Doc Austin]

The Grim reaper should have done so by now.........

That's all class. :rolleyes:

[philipbain]

The Grim reaper should have done so by now......

Knowing Bernie he probably paid him off to get off his case!

[rjbetty]

Yes, this is all a real shame. I can´t be too happy that this sport is run by someone who is happy Marussia are gone and who deplores any sort of retirements or thrills and spills in a race, believing them "unprofessional".

Í don´t know why he can´t just play bowls and chill out like other old people do... :/

[steveaki13]

F1 has been dying in my eyes since 2003 in many ways. That seemed to be when "The Show" was first mentioned.

[Whyzars]

F1 has been dying in my eyes since 2003 in many ways. That seemed to be when "The Show" was first mentioned.

I see it as changing in ways that I'm not necessarily happy with but is that going to see the end of F1?

I don't actually think F1 will ever die and its because of the "show" aspect. As a show it is beautiful people performing in a goldfish bowl whilst a peasant (me) has his nose firmly pressed against the glass looking in. I think technology and rules will sometimes give F1 a trip to the hospital but the patient will inevitably recover. The definition of F1 has always been an evolution.

Think of the America's Cup. Purists are likely flipping out but the yachts of today bear no resemblance to the yachts of 30 years ago. The America's Cup is still one of the premier yachting contests and lusted over by very rich people the world over. There is only one America's Cup and there is only one F1 WCC.

I've never had an issue with Mr Ecclestone heading up F1 but do feel that his succession planning might need firming up. If asked, I would do the job exactly as Bernie tells me to. If others have a problem with that condition then I can understand Bernie not wanting to hand the keys to the manor over just yet.

And you know what, F1 is safe as long as the Steveak13's of the world do things like "Rate the Race" and the Mark's of the world run good forums.

Good fun and all good for F1.

[henners88]

F1 is dying in terms of popularity as its slipped to a 15 year low. Blame greed and crap TV coverage in its biggest markets for that along with Mickey Mouse regulations.

[N. Jones]

Bernie is a master businessman and he is going to hold on to power as long as he can.

[steveaki13]

And you know what, F1 is safe as long as the Steveak13's of the world do things like "Rate the Race" and the Mark's of the world run good forums.

Good fun and all good for F1.

What do you think Mark? On this basis could we get a share of F1 profits? :D

[driveace]

The Dwarf ain't likely to hand the reigns over to anyone yet !The amount of his wealth is grotesque ! Where is he registered for tax returns ,or is he above the law that all us mortals are ?

[jens]

Í don´t know why he can´t just play bowls and chill out like other old people do... :/

Wondering the same thing to be honest. LOL!

I think this is what makes successful businessmen so successful. They are so committed, determined and success-oriented that they can't really think of another way of living. They don't know, what relaxing means, and do not imagine taking their lives "easy".

In Bernie's case it is probably the same. He keeps going till death. Basically Enzo Ferrari did the same. Managed his own legendary team till he died at the age of 90 if I remember correctly.

[jens]

F1 has been dying in my eyes since 2003 in many ways. That seemed to be when "The Show" was first mentioned.

Yeah. 2002 is one of the most boring F1 seasons I can remember, if not THE most boring, but in a way it was the last of the "natural" seasons. Back then we still had one hour-12 laps qualifying format; engines in qualifying setup; pure qualifying setup and flat-out empty-tank flying laps; Sunday morning warm-up; and some other things I associate my childhood nostalgia with.

Sadly the boringness of 2002 triggered a huge reactionary movement and Bernie famously claimed such a boring season should never ever happen again! So that's how we have gradually got here now... But at least the double points are gone for next year, could be worse you know...

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't think it matters whether it's Bernie running the show or some Andrew Craig-like character (any old CART fans still in here?). As long as F1 is owned by CVC, or any other private equity outfit, we should fully expect it to be treated like any other asset owned by a private equity firm. These firms invest as little as possible, suck out as much as possible and then usually move on after a few years. The only hope I see is that CVC may eventually sell F1 to some group that isn't just in it for the money. My dream is to wake up one day and hear that Bernie is gone, CVC is gone, John Malone has bought a controlling interest and Zak Brown is running the show.

It's very hard for me to judge how well or poorly F1 is being marketed globally. But I hear and read that it's nothing special. Being in the U.S., the marketing effort here is almost non-existent. I can only see that the website is boring and unimaginative. F1 could learn a helluva lot from NASCAR - that I truly believe. And with Bernie truly showing his age by saying that young people don't have money, so why bother to appeal to them... I would say, yes, it probably is time for him to either step down or at the very least, allow someone with a more modern vision to head up the marketing exercise. If it's all about how much money the fans have, maybe Bernie should realize that the average American teenager probably has more disposable income than the adults in some of the countries where F1 has races. So his logic is poor with that point, IMO.

I am greatly concerned about where F1 is headed. I could not care less about fostering a "green image", because other than the OEMs needing to portray that public image, who cares? IMO, the average fan watches racing for the noise, speed, excitement and danger. F1 is the last sport and about the only TV that I feel obliged to watch these days, no matter how busy I am. And if there is some move afoot to make it more politically correct, just tell me now so I can begin weaning myself off that too. If anything, I want F1 to be more politically incorrect!

[RS]

I don't like the way F1 is going with the new superlicence rules, and apparently Bernie is not going to allow any more start up teams to join either. I understand the reasoning (to improve the quality of the field) but instead I think we will just end up with a smaller grid.

It will become harder for the back of the grid teams to find funding if they are only able to chose from a limited pool of drivers, and harder for drivers to progress to F1 if there are less teams.

[journeyman racer]

Having not bothered to post itt because I thought I already did. 1993 was the last "real" F1 season. The rules of 94 were the first to be brought in for the intended purpose to provide "better entertainment", to counter the rise of worldwide interest and popularity of Indycar racing. The rules in in 98 took this further, and 03 further still.

[journeyman racer]

. F1 could learn a helluva lot from NASCAR - that I truly believe.
Like what???


I don't like the way F1 is going with the new superlicence rules, and apparently Bernie is not going to allow any more start up teams to join either. I understand the reasoning (to improve the quality of the field) but instead I think we will just end up with a smaller grid.

The quality of the drivers, the teams, or both?

[Malbec]

Like what???

Marketing itself to new demographics for starters.

NASCAR used to be the redneck sport, now its popular across the US. Despite being largely confined to the US drivers can make more money from it than in F1 through merchandising. The sport is much more open to licencing. Competing costs are strictly controlled to ensure a decent field despite the drop in sponsorship income that has hit teams over there as much as it has elsewhere, but the level of race engineering (as opposed to the design/development of the cars) is world class. It attracts fans by making the races worth going to, cheap tickets and frequent races. Driver access is superb.

Despite expanding to China and the Middle East F1 has manifestly failed to attract new viewers. It has an ageing viewer demographic largely limited to Europe, South America and Japan. TV coverage is slowly but steadily shifting to subscription services further limiting the likelihood of a new generation of fans stumbling upon the sport. Licencing is poor, when is the last time F1 appeared in a film? Races are increasingly more expensive to attend and at many places nearly empty. F1 hasn't embraced social networking sites at all, nor youtube. In short it is doing everything possible not to acquire a new fanbase and milking more out of the dwindling ageing body of fans.

Look at this forum for example. Where are the teenagers getting excited about F1? F1 does indeed have a lot to learn from NASCAR.

[AndyL]

Your argument is a convincing and well-reasoned one Malbec, but this is not the strongest element of it:

when is the last time F1 appeared in a film?
No doubt someone will rush in with a counter-example ;)

[Malbec]

Your argument is a convincing and well-reasoned one Malbec, but this is not the strongest element of it:

No doubt someone will rush in with a counter-example ;)

Ummm yes forgot about that one, and Senna of course.

[journeyman racer]

Marketing itself to new demographics for starters.
NASCAR used to be the redneck sport, now its popular across the US.
Still is redneck. But going through a purple patch of mainstream appeal, in it's history. There's a political factor to it's supposed popularity. This can be overturned.


Despite being largely confined to the US drivers can make more money from it than in F1 through merchandising.
Irrelevant.


The sport is much more open to licencing. Competing costs are strictly controlled to ensure a decent field despite the drop in sponsorship income that has hit teams over there as much as it has elsewhere, but the level of race engineering (as opposed to the design/development of the cars) is world class.
This does not contribute to it's mainstream popularity


It attracts fans by making the races worth going to, cheap tickets and frequent races. Driver access is superb.
F1 was supposedly more popular when it he less races. You want more? It dilutes the value of races. Driver access is not important


Despite expanding to China and the Middle East F1 has manifestly failed to attract new viewers.
It is not the fault of F1, that China and ME generally are not interested.


It has an ageing viewer demographic largely limited to Europe, South America and Japan.
So what?


TV coverage is slowly but steadily shifting to subscription services further limiting the likelihood of a new generation of fans stumbling upon the sport. Licencing is poor, when is the last time F1 appeared in a film? Races are increasingly more expensive to attend and at many places nearly empty. F1 hasn't embraced social networking sites at all, nor youtube. In short it is doing everything possible not to acquire a new fanbase and milking more out of the dwindling ageing body of fans.
This has nothing to do with F1, in the motor racing sense.


Look at this forum for example. Where are the teenagers getting excited about F1? F1 does indeed have a lot to learn from NASCAR.
It has nothing to learn from Nascar. F1 is the designated leading motorsport competition in the world. Even if it's completely ****, it will still be popular and relevant

[Malbec]

Still is redneck. But going through a purple patch of mainstream appeal, in it's history. There's a political factor to it's supposed popularity. This can be overturned.

Incorrect. NASCAR has widened its fanbase by reaching out to new demographics. If they have used political means to do so then so be it. Yet another way in which NASCAR has used a means F1 ignores.


Irrelevant.

Irrelevant only because you do not understand the point.

The US may be the world's largest economy but it is only one market. F1 has access to the entire world supposedly. Driver salaries are a decent indicator of the financial wellbeing of the sport as they are driven by sponsorship income. NASCAR from one country draws in comparable money to F1 which draws from the entire world. See the issue?


F1 was supposedly more popular when it he less races. You want more? It dilutes the value of races. Driver access is not important

Quit the strawman stuff. I have made no comment on the number of races.

Driver access is not important? Fan experience at races isn't important? OK, guess it doesn't matter if with sky high prices and poor value for fans if race attendances drop and circuits that aren't backed up by lavish government backing (ie the legacy tracks in Europe like Silverstone, Monza) can no longer afford to have races. We can have more races in dodgy dictatorships willing to pay hosting fees. What does that do to advance the sport?


It is not the fault of F1, that China and ME generally are not interested.

Nor has the sport tried much to engage the locals, ensuring that only those with subscriptions can watch the races on TV in China and in parts of the Middle East.


So what?

Without wishing to be rude if you don't understand the relevance of my comment perhaps you shouldn't discuss off-track stuff? You can't see the relevance that the F1 fanbase is not being replenished by new fans as other sports manage quite well and is therefore falling in size? Really? Has it not crossed your mind that the amount of money entering the sport is entirely based on the supposed returns the sponsors and state backers think they can get from the fans and therefore the size and affluence of the fanbase is crucial in the longterm?


This has nothing to do with F1, in the motor racing sense.

What a bizarre comment. The stewardship of F1 has nothing to do with F1 in the motorracing sense. It is all about the business aspect and about the longterm future of the sport, not about whether Alonso can beat Hamilton next year. That is the theme of this thread I hope you realise...


It has nothing to learn from Nascar. F1 is the designated leading motorsport competition in the world. Even if it's completely ****, it will still be popular and relevant

Then you know nothing about NASCAR and the way it has been marketed. Nor do you understand my points. How will F1 still be popular if it doesn't get new fans? Old fans tend to die you know, they need to be replaced.

[N. Jones]

With all of the crap that goes on during the off-season I am still excited for the upcoming season;.

[Tazio]

Not taking side here, but being an American I would just like to share some observations. I live on the west coast, an area much less conservative than the heartland and bible belt, although their is no lack of rednecks here. This is ony one market (albeit a large one), and as far as I can tell both NASCAR, and F1 are growing in popularity. I never paid much attention to NASCAR until JPM joined the series, and now that he's left I have lost most of my interest in it, basically because I don't care for oval track racing, or road racing in bulky (compared to open wheelers) cars, that is a personal preference. My best friend is very conservative, but also a rather enlightened redneck! :crazy: He keeps himself abreast of all current events, and although I usually disagree with his political views, only recently has he started keeping tabs on F1. Our sports conversations used to revolve around other traditional US sports, with a huge emphasis on Baseball, as we played together and roomed on road trips. Now he is talking to me about guys like Jochen Rindt, JYS, and Ronnie Peterson, as well as "the shoe", and current events in F1. F1 is having a renaissance in the US. I even have a couple nephews, that have started following the series, but then again they come from a very affluent family which puts them in a very small minority in the US. I was going through some personal adds and noticed one by a woman in her late 40's that listed F1 as one of her interests. I decided to write her, and asked her who her fav pilot was. She admitted to me that she only knew of Lewis Hamilton, and wasn't really very interested in the sport. The idea of F1 is chic, and does appeal to the some fashionistas in this country, as superficial as their interest actually is.

There is one aspect of NASCAR that is a huge turn off to liberals, who generally have more disposable income then your redneck types, and it is why I can't really embrace the sport. That is that they prey before every race. Philosophically I cannot seriously embrace any sport that brings religion into the experience in any way, and I think a lot of other Americans on the left feel the exact same way as I do.
Just my two cents :)

[jens]

Interesting thoughts about F1, NASCAR and popularity in US.

I think it is entirely possible the state of F1 might be improving in some parts of the world (like the mentioned US), but the key question is, where are they heading on the whole.

I don't have in-depth information, but based on comments and also that F1 is increasingly hiding itself behind Pay TV-wall, the viewing figures are dropping and the future doesn't look all that bright. It is also reflected in sponsorship, as sponsor interest is directly linked to the amount of audience. And what we have seen - even a team like McLaren has struggled to attract a title sponsor in the last few years!

I don't know what exactly has NASCAR been doing in comparison, but if they have managed to at least maintain their viewing figures, they will have done a better job comparatively!

[Franky]

I doubt F1 will die. It only dies if there's no one to race. But I agree that selling licence to pay-TV with heavy profits has hurt the number of people the sport can possibly reach.

And regarding NASCAR, remembered this joke - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nTqnrU1m1Q

[GravettFan99]

@Franky not available in my country. :(

I actually think Malbec is right about F1 needing to take after NASCAR a bit. There were a lot of different winners, a very competitive field, a series very open to the "youngsters" (Bernie does not approve :P), the minnows of the field actually have a chance at the big-time (unlike Caterham & Marussia), they are more open to the fans, etc.

I have to admit, as for their points systems, NASCAR and F1 both screwed up with the way their finales were set up this year. (NASCAR - reset top 4 to a tie on points. F1 - double points)

In any case, though, F1 is on the backfoot and has some catching up to do. BTCC, NASCAR, DTM, all of the like... they're all getting better than F1. F1 needs to step up its game.

[Franky]

@Franky not available in my country. :(


Odd, it's uploaded by the CNNinternational, so thought it should be viewable everywhere. It's from Robin Williams: Weapons of Self Destruction standup. The Youtube bit has three short jokes, the main part is the following:

"I love the guys who say I watch NASCAR for the racing. Yeah, and I watch porn for the acting. You liar!
You watch NASCAR to see team Viagra to spin out in flames and the guy getting out with his ... on fire going "I'm okay!""

[journeyman racer]

Incorrect. NASCAR has widened its fanbase by reaching out to new demographics. If they have used political means to do so then so be it. Yet another way in which NASCAR has used a means F1 ignores.
You haven't the faintest idea why Nascar has had some mainstream popularity in recent times.



Irrelevant only because you do not understand the point.

The US may be the world's largest economy but it is only one market. F1 has access to the entire world supposedly. Driver salaries are a decent indicator of the financial wellbeing of the sport as they are driven by sponsorship income. NASCAR from one country draws in comparable money to F1 which draws from the entire world. See the issue?
Irrelevant because it's irrelevant. Comparing income streams for the drivers is beyond logic. Drivers get an excess of income, now matter what the economy is. I can't even think of an analogy to express such irrational reasoning. You've just found a reason to suit your prejudiced opinion.


Quit the strawman stuff. I have made no comment on the number of races.
It was me who mentioned "frequent races"?


Driver access is not important? Fan experience at races isn't important? OK, guess it doesn't matter if with sky high prices and poor value for fans if race attendances drop and circuits that aren't backed up by lavish government backing (ie the legacy tracks in Europe like Silverstone, Monza) can no longer afford to have races. We can have more races in dodgy dictatorships willing to pay hosting fees. What does that do to advance the sport?
Advance the sport? Where the **** do you think it's going? It's the world championship. That's it. It's reached it's zenith long ago. It can't go anywhere else. Those dodgy dictatorships are willing to pay those hosting fees because F1 is relevant. x amount of money is supposed to equal x amount of relevance. But this is not what's been happening for a couple of decades now. Nascar is ok, it has it's "strengths", but it is not relevant worldwide.

[journeyman racer]

Nor has the sport tried much to engage the locals, ensuring that only those with subscriptions can watch the races on TV in China and in parts of the Middle East.
This is a comment where you just are not "with it". You idea of what F1 should be doing, it's power, and it's place worldwide is delusional. You have no understanding why in the meantime, F1 are incompatible with those countries.

"I've got an idea! Why don't we send the most expensive competition on the planet. The competition that represents huge excess, and send it to poverty stricken China?" "With F1 also being hugely flaunting, why don't we also go to the socially rigid Middle East too? It's be a sure-fire winner!"

China and the Middle East are at least a number of decades away from being able to embrace F1, regardless of how much money is spent. These areas must develop a popular domestic motorsport culture first, where F1 then arrives with acceptance. These countries don't have a motorsport culture, so F1 will remain with minimal popularity. But you don't get that, don't you?



Without wishing to be rude if you don't understand the relevance of my comment perhaps you shouldn't discuss off-track stuff? You can't see the relevance that the F1 fanbase is not being replenished by new fans as other sports manage quite well and is therefore falling in size? Really? Has it not crossed your mind that the amount of money entering the sport is entirely based on the supposed returns the sponsors and state backers think they can get from the fans and therefore the size and affluence of the fanbase is crucial in the longterm?
You should not be discussing off-track stuff yourself. I'm not worried about F1's popularity. If it is going through a period of lower popularity, then it's just a trough. Unlike you, I don't have an expectation that it must consume the world.




What a bizarre comment. The stewardship of F1 has nothing to do with F1 in the motorracing sense. It is all about the business aspect and about the longterm future of the sport, not about whether Alonso can beat Hamilton next year. That is the theme of this thread I hope you realise...
You talk like F1 is a living organism and that it'll die. It won't. Its be around for decades, hundreds of years. As the designated no1 motorsport competition in the world, F1 is fluid. The only thing that does count, is if Alonso can beat Hamilton next year.


Then you know nothing about NASCAR and the way it has been marketed. Nor do you understand my points. How will F1 still be popular if it doesn't get new fans? Old fans tend to die you know, they need to be replaced.
I know quite a bit about Nascar and the way it's marketed. I've often seen it's "propaganda" on tv here, and I've seen V8Supercars try to copy it.

What you don't understand, is why this is happening. Nascar makes every effort to be relevant, because it's never been relevant in it's whole history. It may be enjoying a purple patch atm, but that's all it is.

[Mia 01]

I will Watch Fp 1,2 and 3, quali and the race, all races this year as usual.

[Malbec]

This is a comment where you just are not "with it". You idea of what F1 should be doing, it's power, and it's place worldwide is delusional. You have no understanding why in the meantime, F1 are incompatible with those countries.

"I've got an idea! Why don't we send the most expensive competition on the planet. The competition that represents huge excess, and send it to poverty stricken China?" "With F1 also being hugely flaunting, why don't we also go to the socially rigid Middle East too? It's be a sure-fire winner!"

China and the Middle East are at least a number of decades away from being able to embrace F1, regardless of how much money is spent. These areas must develop a popular domestic motorsport culture first, where F1 then arrives with acceptance. These countries don't have a motorsport culture, so F1 will remain with minimal popularity. But you don't get that, don't you?

Hmmm so you think a sport that flaunts its expense and wealth is incompatible with Middle Eastern culture.... okay. Nothing more needs to be said there.

Given that the size of the Chinese middle class is greater than the entire population of the USA, that luxury car sales there have overtaken Europe and threaten to overtake the USA and the country is the second largest economy in the world your stereotyping of the Chinese as poverty-stricken is rather outdated. This is a country where flaunting wealth is the norm and where there is a lot of interest in cars, the largest car market in the world. There are a lot of poor people there but F1 isn't really interested in reaching out to them, but it isn't interested in poor people in developed countries either.

The Middle East does have a motorsports heritage BTW, rallying, drag racing and an informal street racing culture. However the relative lack of motorsports heritage in both should not be a significant factor. Most fans in traditional F1 following countries do not follow other forms of motorsport, the question is how should F1 promote itself in countries that it has not previously raced in. At the moment the sport does little and leaves it completely up to local promoters who in most cases are not capable of doing so, this is something that can be remedied.


You should not be discussing off-track stuff yourself. I'm not worried about F1's popularity. If it is going through a period of lower popularity, then it's just a trough. Unlike you, I don't have an expectation that it must consume the world.

Again, strawman. I have no expectation that F1 consume the world. It can however be better promoted.

Also I do not share your complacency re: F1. 30/40 years ago F1 was only one amongst several types of motorsport popular globally including Group C sportscars, rallying and to a lesser extent Indycar. It rose to the top largely through Bernie grasping the importance of TV rights and to a ruthless suppression of the other formulae's access to TV through various means. Bernie clearly hasn't grasped the importance of the internet and social media while other sports, not just motorsports, have and therefore F1 stands to lose out in the future.


You talk like F1 is a living organism and that it'll die. It won't. Its be around for decades, hundreds of years. As the designated no1 motorsport competition in the world, F1 is fluid. The only thing that does count, is if Alonso can beat Hamilton next year.

Designated by who or what? There is nothing inherently superior about F1 (except over other single seat open wheel formula) except the way it has been marketed and exploited by Bernie over the previous three/four decades.

Indycar was the most popular form of racing in the US. Where is it now? No form of any sport is guaranteed popularity anywhere.


I know quite a bit about Nascar and the way it's marketed. I've often seen it's "propaganda" on tv here, and I've seen V8Supercars try to copy it.

What you don't understand, is why this is happening. Nascar makes every effort to be relevant, because it's never been relevant in it's whole history. It may be enjoying a purple patch atm, but that's all it is.

So educate me, what are the factors behind the 'fact' as you seem to see it that NASCAR is doomed to failure?

[Malbec]

Irrelevant because it's irrelevant. Comparing income streams for the drivers is beyond logic. Drivers get an excess of income, now matter what the economy is. I can't even think of an analogy to express such irrational reasoning. You've just found a reason to suit your prejudiced opinion.

Oh dear.

Do you think drivers would be getting astronomical fees if the sport they were in had negligible money flowing in? Have you wondered why F3 drivers, even the most talented, are almost entirely pay drivers while the best F1 drivers are not? Hadn't you wondered why the number of pay drivers in F1 has increased and whether it has anything to do with the slowdown in the global economy since 2007 and is at all related to the trouble even teams like McLaren are having attracting sufficient sponsorship?

This isn't about whether drivers are paid too much or whether they deserve the money. They are paid what the market deems they are worth. If there is little free money in the market then the amount they are paid goes down. Simple economics. It is because of this that it is relevant that NASCAR drivers can expect to earn money on a par with F1 drivers. Driver salary is one marker amongst several that indicates the financial wellbeing of a sport.

Given that NASCAR is largely limited as its name implies to North America and therefore accesses a smaller market than F1 the fact that its finances are so robust is an indicator that it offers very good return for the money for sponsors and promoters interested in the American market. Why is that?


Advance the sport? Where the **** do you think it's going? It's the world championship. That's it. It's reached it's zenith long ago. It can't go anywhere else. Those dodgy dictatorships are willing to pay those hosting fees because F1 is relevant. x amount of money is supposed to equal x amount of relevance. But this is not what's been happening for a couple of decades now. Nascar is ok, it has it's "strengths", but it is not relevant worldwide.

And how do you define 'relevance'? Because FOM says its the most important championship? Or because it can currently boast a huge fanbase in the wealthiest countries in the world? What do you think happens to that 'relevance' if the fanbase goes down?

NASCAR is not relevant worldwide, however F1 can learn from aspects of the way the sport is run and promoted, after all it is a sport that has increased market share in a difficult financial climate and does things very differently to F1 in terms of distribution of revenue which is far better geared towards longterm viability.

[schmenke]

... The competition that represents huge excess, and send it to poverty stricken China?" ....

China is poverty stricken?

[Franky]

China is poverty stricken?

Wealth distribution in China is near awful. And if it gets worse, I doubt the poor will stay silent.
One article about the wealth distribution from last year - http://english.caixin.com/2014-08-04/100712733.html

[Doc Austin]

I have to admit, as for their points systems, NASCAR and F1 both screwed up with the way their finales were set up this year. (NASCAR - reset top 4 to a tie on points. F1 - double points)

Thankfully the double points had little, or no, effect on the final standings. Thankfully it will be gone next year.

However, I think it could have been implemented a little differently and it would have been ok. Monaco, Silverstone and Monza (and maybe Spa) are probably the most prestigious events on the calendar, so they probably deserve double points. I certainly would rather win one of those than any Abu Dabi race. The only thing that has ever made Abu Dabi special in any way is that it's the final race.

Nascar's new playoff, however, could not have played out any better for nascar itself. Every week there was some sort of drama. Everyone was facing elimination and was totally stressed out. You could see it in the tension on and off the track, and lots of times it simply boiled over. I have absolutely zero interest in nascar, but every weekend there was a story about a fist fight in the pits or someone putting someone in the wall on purpose or threatening to retaliate next week. There might be a bit of professional wrestling type hype thrown it there too, but it kept it interesting and nascar fans loved it.

I ended up watching it just for the hell of it, and even if it was fake, pretentious and phoney, it was still entertaining if for nothing else than to see what kind of pile of dog poop everyone would step into next.

The whole chase thing is artificial, which is supposedly why F1 fans hate it. This is why I am so surprised that F1 fans don't raise more hell about the artificial benefits of the DRS, or why teams are forced to artificially use a second tire compound in the race. Both of those are just as artifical, contrived, and full of crap as anything nascar does, but we just swallow it and keep watching.

In the end, people are going to watch what entertains them and ignore what doesn't. As long as big money drives the sport, it's going to have to entertain enough people to generate that big money, even if it has to do so artificially. Sucks, but true.

[journeyman racer]

Hmmm so you think a sport that flaunts its expense and wealth is incompatible with Middle Eastern culture.... okay. Nothing more needs to be said there.

Given that the size of the Chinese middle class is greater than the entire population of the USA, that luxury car sales there have overtaken Europe and threaten to overtake the USA and the country is the second largest economy in the world your stereotyping of the Chinese as poverty-stricken is rather outdated. This is a country where flaunting wealth is the norm and where there is a lot of interest in cars, the largest car market in the world. There are a lot of poor people there but F1 isn't really interested in reaching out to them, but it isn't interested in poor people in developed countries either.

The Middle East does have a motorsports heritage BTW, rallying, drag racing and an informal street racing culture. However the relative lack of motorsports heritage in both should not be a significant factor. Most fans in traditional F1 following countries do not follow other forms of motorsport, the question is how should F1 promote itself in countries that it has not previously raced in. At the moment the sport does little and leaves it completely up to local promoters who in most cases are not capable of doing so, this is something that can be remedied.
The point is, those countries have no relationship with mainstream motorsport/circuit racing. Therefore they don't have a relationship with F1. Middle Eastern countries do have a culture of rallying. Therefore it would make sense for the WRC to go there.



Again, strawman. I have no expectation that F1 consume the world. It can however be better promoted.

Also I do not share your complacency re: F1. 30/40 years ago F1 was only one amongst several types of motorsport popular globally including Group C sportscars, rallying and to a lesser extent Indycar. It rose to the top largely through Bernie grasping the importance of TV rights and to a ruthless suppression of the other formulae's access to TV through various means. Bernie clearly hasn't grasped the importance of the internet and social media while other sports, not just motorsports, have and therefore F1 stands to lose out in the future.
It could be promoted, but it's not as important as you make out. Once you go down the promotion path though, you are beholden to it and must keep doing it (like Nascar is always doing it). The best promotion is relevance.

It's all very well to embellish BE influence. But the major advantage he had was that he was looking after the leading motorsport series anyway. Had all the motorsport classes had equal TV time, more people would still gravitate towards F1 because it's the designated leading motorsport class.


Designated by who or what? There is nothing inherently superior about F1 (except over other single seat open wheel formula) except the way it has been marketed and exploited by Bernie over the previous three/four decades.

Indycar was the most popular form of racing in the US. Where is it now? No form of any sport is guaranteed popularity anywhere.



So educate me, what are the factors behind the 'fact' as you seem to see it that NASCAR is doomed to failure?
There's a key misunderstanding of your pov right here. "There is nothing inherently superior about F1" Well, in actual fact, there is. The fact they're 15 secs a lap quicker than anything else (about 3min a lap quicker than a Nascar) is what makes them inherently superior to everything else. That's how it goes in sport. The higher levels are higher because they're quicker, speed is the key factor. Add that it's the World Championship, the only genuine one. Then there's it's history, but speed is the defining factor.

Regards Indycar racing. You are confusing the interest in the series, the cars, the drivers, and all the peripheral stuff, as the be all, end all of American motorsport. You ignored what's relevant. What was relevant was the Indy 500. All of American motorsport revolved around Indy. The other stuff was just a development of Indy. Tony George ******* the relevance of Indy, is the single biggest factor of the supposed popularity of Nascar.

I'm not saying Nascar is doomed for failure. I'm saying there are key factors against it from being the no1 motorsport series. Just because it's the flavour of the month, doesn't mean it's a threat to F1.

[journeyman racer]

Oh dear.

Do you think drivers would be getting astronomical fees if the sport they were in had negligible money flowing in? Have you wondered why F3 drivers, even the most talented, are almost entirely pay drivers while the best F1 drivers are not? Hadn't you wondered why the number of pay drivers in F1 has increased and whether it has anything to do with the slowdown in the global economy since 2007 and is at all related to the trouble even teams like McLaren are having attracting sufficient sponsorship?

This isn't about whether drivers are paid too much or whether they deserve the money. They are paid what the market deems they are worth. If there is little free money in the market then the amount they are paid goes down. Simple economics. It is because of this that it is relevant that NASCAR drivers can expect to earn money on a par with F1 drivers. Driver salary is one marker amongst several that indicates the financial wellbeing of a sport.

Given that NASCAR is largely limited as its name implies to North America and therefore accesses a smaller market than F1 the fact that its finances are so robust is an indicator that it offers very good return for the money for sponsors and promoters interested in the American market. Why is that?
Which part of this do you want me to answer?



And how do you define 'relevance'? Because FOM says its the most important championship? Or because it can currently boast a huge fanbase in the wealthiest countries in the world? What do you think happens to that 'relevance' if the fanbase goes down?

NASCAR is not relevant worldwide, however F1 can learn from aspects of the way the sport is run and promoted, after all it is a sport that has increased market share in a difficult financial climate and does things very differently to F1 in terms of distribution of revenue which is far better geared towards longterm viability.
F1 is the most important title, because the rules were drawn up for it to be so. The cars have changed many, many times, but it's still the World Championship. Being called (F1) World Champion is the highest title you can achieve in motor racing. Regardless of it's economy, depth of entries, popularity, relative to other motorsport. You can't escape it. Being a Nascar champ is nice, but it means little.

[Doc Austin]

F1 is the most important title, because the rules were drawn up for it to be so. The cars have changed many, many times, but it's still the World Championship. Being called (F1) World Champion is the highest title you can achieve in motor racing.

Agreed.... for the most part, that is.


Being a Nascar champ is nice, but it means little.

It means little to you. To most Americans, is does mean something.

In the states most people can name the Nascar champ, and even a lot of the drivers. I don't hardly even watch it, but I know most of the drivers because they are on TV all the damm time. They are ESPN sportscenter, NBC sports channel, NBC, CBS, Fox, and on and on and on. You simply cannot escape it, much like there is no escaping soccer in Brazil or Cricket in the UK.

However, if you go around America anywhere but Austin, Texas, asking who Sebastien Vettel is you will get a lot of blank, empty stares and confused looks. You would probably even get a lot of that in Austin too. In America, the F1 championship might be nice, but it means next to nothing compared to the Nascar championship.

I get it that some people hate Nascar and think it sucks, and to a point I am one of them, but their is no denying their success and popularity. You can go into any supermarket and find dozens of cereal boxes with Nascars stars on the. Nascar lighters. Nascar dinner plates. You can buy Nascar air fresheners. I think you can even buy a Nascar feminine deodorant! If Nascar means very little, how do you account for this kind of marketability?

I get it. Non-Americans feel like their kind of racing is superior, but mostly Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks. This is coming from a guy who aspired to race in F1 and LeMans, so I don't quite think that way. I have just observed it.

[Malbec]

F1 is the most important title, because the rules were drawn up for it to be so. The cars have changed many, many times, but it's still the World Championship. Being called (F1) World Champion is the highest title you can achieve in motor racing. Regardless of it's economy, depth of entries, popularity, relative to other motorsport. You can't escape it. Being a Nascar champ is nice, but it means little.

You and I approaching this from completely different angles. We're not talking about the same thing at all.

You are talking about the kudos attached to driving in F1. I'm not discussing this at all, I'm referring purely to F1 and NASCAR's business model. You stated clearly that F1 has absolutely nothing to learn from NASCAR. As Doc Austin has pointed out re: promotions and marketing actually F1 has a lot it can learn from NASCAR. You might well feel that circuits should be squeezed dry of cash and driven out unless they can get a state or dictator to fund F1 races, I think F1 can learn from NASCAR where race-hosting fees are low enough that privately owned tracks have an incentive to bid for races knowing they can turn a profit. Not having an investment fund suck out 40-50% of the income at source is another, or giving a single team such an inbuilt contractual advantage that they can veto rules and get $100 million or so just for being Ferrari every year.

Those are obvious flaws in the way F1 is run, don't tell me you think all that is great and the way NASCAR is run is worthless.

[Malbec]

I get it. Non-Americans feel like their kind of racing is superior, but mostly Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks. This is coming from a guy who aspired to race in F1 and LeMans, so I don't quite think that way. I have just observed it.

Actually in terms of the governance and business aspect of the sport NASCAR is highly regarded over here because it puts F1's embarrassing governance to shame and has increased market share despite an extremely difficult business environment. I've read quite a few articles about the business side and I've been impressed even though I can't name a single NASCAR driver, except maybe one or two who have migrated from F1.

That said as some posts here have proven there is a great deal of snobbery regarding NASCAR and unfortunately a lot of that comes from inside F1 itself. Its a shame because it would be to F1's advantage to take a close look at how they made NASCAR a success over in the US and learn from it.

Obviously since F1 is so superior to NASCAR in all aspects I'm sure it will be purely a matter of time before F1 becomes the dominant form of motorsport in the US ;)

[Malbec]

It's all very well to embellish BE influence. But the major advantage he had was that he was looking after the leading motorsport series anyway. Had all the motorsport classes had equal TV time, more people would still gravitate towards F1 because it's the designated leading motorsport class.

I'm not sure where you are from or how old you are but this certainly wasn't the case in Europe which for decades along with the US was the main motorsport market. You should read a little more about the history of F1 and other motorsports and Bernie's manipulation of the sport because what you say has no basis in fact.

Back in the 70s and before F1 wasn't routinely televised at all. This idea you have that F1 was always the most popular form of motorsport is incorrect. Globally rallying was, largely due to the liberal TV rights where any manufacturer involved in the sport was allowed to use race footage however they wanted wherever they wanted for free. Given the low cost of the footage car advertising worldwide featured a lot of rallying promoting the sport further. Anyone walking into a car showroom of a competing manufacturer would have seen rally footage on the TV and rallying memorabilia everywhere because it was free for the company to use. In addition Group B was absolutely stunning to watch and caught the public imagination.

F1 didn't overtake rallying in popularity because its inherently superior as you claim, its because Bernie bought up the TV rights to rallying and pretty much suppressed its access to its traditional TV audience by jacking up the licencing fees and prohibiting anyone from using footage for free. F1 became the most popular motorsport simply because it soon became the only form of motorsport promoted globally, its rivals were ruthlessly suppressed to the extent the EU took an interest in anticompetitive business practices.

I'm sure you will dismiss all this, all I can suggest to you is that you read and study the subject a little more.


There's a key misunderstanding of your pov right here. "There is nothing inherently superior about F1" Well, in actual fact, there is. The fact they're 15 secs a lap quicker than anything else (about 3min a lap quicker than a Nascar) is what makes them inherently superior to everything else. That's how it goes in sport. The higher levels are higher because they're quicker, speed is the key factor. Add that it's the World Championship, the only genuine one. Then there's it's history, but speed is the defining factor.

I'm not talking about technology or the quality of the driving or racing. I'm talking about F1 as an overall package to sell to audiences and TV channels, most of whom do not care about the technical aspect or overall lap times. Again this shows we are simply not talking about the same issues.


Regards Indycar racing. You are confusing the interest in the series, the cars, the drivers, and all the peripheral stuff, as the be all, end all of American motorsport. You ignored what's relevant. What was relevant was the Indy 500. All of American motorsport revolved around Indy. The other stuff was just a development of Indy. Tony George ******* the relevance of Indy, is the single biggest factor of the supposed popularity of Nascar.

I didn't ignore anything I'm afraid. I am fully aware of the political problems around the sport which was in fact what I was referring to. Whether it be the Indy 500 or Indycar, as you yourself said it was the most popular class of motorsport in the US. Its fall from grace has been spectacular no?

Alternatively look at Germany. You might think that a country where a German manufacturer just got the WCC and for four years before that a German won the WDC on the trot F1 would be firmly established as the most popular motorsport class right? Wrong. Its popularity has dropped below that of DTM which still manages to pack out the circuits and the Nurburgring and Hockenheim are struggling to find a compromise whereby the country can afford to keep an F1 race at all. Nothing is certain in this business.

This assumption of yours that F1 is guaranteed its place therefore might be right in terms of kudos but not for popularity, and you just might find that the kudos attached to the sport will drop if it becomes less popular. Certainly its income will drop and the sport will stand to lose even more teams than it has already.

The other thing to note is that F1 is not just competing with other forms of motorsport for audiences, its competing with other sports like football which are still expanding in terms of global viewership. F1 cannot afford to be complacent and carry on with its current business model which is purely set up for short term profit.

[airshifter]

There are a whole lot of factors leading to the diminishing return of F1, and among them are the feelings that F1 will be by nature, always on the "top" in terms of performance.

If you look at the Canada races in the years both F1 and CART raced, F1 fastest laps were only 6-7 seconds faster. When you consider that regs made the CART cars a minimum of 350+ lbs heavier, that's not much. And then when you consider budgets, F1 look like the chumps. The big F1 teams are running budgets 10 times those that CART teams used, and even the back of the pack F1 guys (that struggle to beat the CART car times) are spending 5 times as much.

Fastest times vs bang for the buck, take your pick. And I bring this up for another reason, the cost of attending races. F1 ticket costs are through the roof due to the budgets involved. This is an area where they are really hurting themselves. When ticket prices go up so much, you limit your live viewers, and people will simply not go to as many races. They do the same with TV viewing, and for most it's a pay package. Compare that to NASCAR or Indycar where you can get tickets for a reasonable price, and the teams (and drivers) supplement their income through cheaper sponsorships, much cheaper licensing for merchandise, and being accessible to a much larger audience.

On top of that, half the time you don't see much real racing as compared to the "lesser" motorsports. For the cost of a (much cheaper) ticket you can go to Indycar, NASCAR, SBK, or even drag racing and see side by side racing at almost every single event. By putting more sensible limits on the "formula" involved, they have all kept costs down and created more side by side racing. As F1 fans we love if cars are just running close and battling, and are thrilled if it actually creates a side by side duel for a few corners. But you can go to just about any NASCAR race and see guys run three or four wide for laps on end.

And at the end of the day, if F1 wants to retain the technology edge, we're running out of overhead to allow that without jacking up costs even more, which trickles down to the consumer. Let's face it, this last round of altering the Formula brings us back to turbo engines banned some 25 or so years ago in the sport, and new versions of hybrid tech that are cutting edge..... oh wait mainstream hybrid street cars and SUVs have been selling for over a decade now! If we are advancing the sport to compete with readily available consumer vehicles, the tech race is now gone as well. And to top it off the teams are killing themselves to fix minor stuff due to the packaging of the new powerplants, when we had a reliable V8 that had been ironed out and had the teams closer in levels of performance.


I really enjoy open wheel road racing, and also really enjoy the tech side of F1 even when they come up with a stupid formula change. But IMO if Indycar or something similar went global and raced on the good tracks, they would quickly eat Formula 1 alive due to the quality of racing. And I wouldn't be surprised if a stock car series could do the same, even though I'm no big fan of heavy cars on road courses.


I could probably spend a weekend at a NASCAR race, and throw in a fine dining restaurant for my dose of snobbery, and get more bang for the buck than going to see a Formula 1 race. It seems to be the racing series that forgot about the primary draw..... racing.