Jump to content


Photo

IndyCar 2009 (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1624 replies to this topic

#1001 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 February 2009 - 18:08

Originally posted by red stick



He's a Monday morning staple. Perhaps American racing's most thoughtful current scribe.


Here's an interested fact... When the winds of change move back and forth so does the press covering them. An historical look back places Kirby as the # 2 basher of the IRL. Now he's pretty much on board?

People may not like the IRL and CART fanboys but at the very least they are consistant.

*Note this goes right back to my earlier comments ofn Kurt Cavin.

Advertisement

#1002 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,387 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 February 2009 - 18:23

Originally posted by aportinga
People may not like the IRL and CART fanboys but at the very least they are consistant.

Consistently persistent, yes, but I usually just call that stubbornness.  ;)

#1003 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 February 2009 - 18:28

Yup.

Don't mean to be a dolt but the Atlantics have killed off the opener (we all knew that was coming) but look to be moving ahead - with a prize payout equal to that of the IRL...

More good news.

March 20 Sebring International Raceway - Sebring, Fla.
May 17 Miller Motorsports Park - Tooele, Utah
June 13 New Jersey Motorsports Park - Millville, N.J.
June 14 New Jersey Motorsports Park - Millville, N.J.
July 18 Lime Rock Park - Lakeville, Conn.
July 25 Autobahn Country Club - Joliet, Ill.
July 26 Autobahn Country Club - Joliet, Ill.
August 8 Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course - Lexington, Ohio
August 16 Grand Prix de Trois-Rivieres - Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada
August 30 Mosport International Raceway - Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
September 25 Road Atlanta - Braselton, Ga.
October 11 Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca - Monterey, Calif.

Seven of the 10 weekends will be run alongside the American Le Mans Series, including Sebring, Miller Motorsports Park, Lime Rock Park, Mid-Ohio, Mosport, Road Atlanta and Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca. The Atlantic Championship will be the "headline" attraction at New Jersey Motorsports Park, Autobahn Country Club and Trois-Rivieres.

More...

- MAZDA AND COOPER TIRES REAFFIRM SUPPORT FOR ATLANTIC CHAMPIONSHIP
- IMSA SANCTIONING RENEWED FOR 2009
- COSWORTH ENGINE SERVICE AGREEMENT RENEWED

#1004 D82

D82
  • Member

  • 1,391 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 09 February 2009 - 18:37

Originally posted by aportinga
Here's an interested fact... When the winds of change move back and forth so does the press covering them. An historical look back places Kirby as the # 2 basher of the IRL. Now he's pretty much on board?

People may not like the IRL and CART fanboys but at the very least they are consistant.

No offense Aportinga, but i think that's a pretty lame comment. Kirby is pretty objective. I too don't like it, but IRL is the only Indy style racing activity today... What would you like him to do instead?

#1005 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 February 2009 - 18:45

Originally posted by aportinga


Here's an interested fact... When the winds of change move back and forth so does the press covering them. An historical look back places Kirby as the # 2 basher of the IRL. Now he's pretty much on board?

People may not like the IRL and CART fanboys but at the very least they are consistant.

*Note this goes right back to my earlier comments ofn Kurt Cavin.


That doesn't make any sense.

GK always supported CART/Champ Car over the IRL until CCWS ceased to be. He was also one of the more persistent critics of CART and Champ Car while it existed. Now there is one series and he covers it.

So in your mind that proves... what?

#1006 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 February 2009 - 18:47

No offense taken.

I just find it funny how many press members are against it and then for it. Sure it may be the "ONLY" game in town but quite honestly some of these people got pretty personal over the years.

#1007 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 February 2009 - 18:49

Originally posted by HaydenFan


Which would be very ironic, seeing that Kevin Kalkhoven is the owner. Sold out Champ Car to Tony the Grate, and not even one year later, his team is gone.


I hope it isn't true. At last report one driver with funding was in place for 2009 and the team was trying to put together a deal for Tracy, which would be great. But as you say, it would be ironic. A few years ago Kalkhoven was going to be the future of open-wheel racing.

#1008 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 09 February 2009 - 18:51

Originally posted by aportinga


How do you know it's displeased manufactures???


Well, for example:

http://edition.cnn.c...prix/index.html

Now, in the interests of fairness and full disclosure, I did not check with the reporter to determine what his personal views are on the state of F1, whether he supports Max Mosley or not, whether he's ever heard of Bernie Ecclestone, and whether he had an opinion on the state of USOW.

So, proceed with extreme caution:

Excerpt:

With the US Grand Prix, last held in 2007, also absent from the 2009 calendar, F1 will not be paying a visit to North America for the first time since the sport's inception in 1950.

F1 teams, backed by some of the world's biggest engine manufacturers, are already disquieted by the lack of a US Grand Prix. With the removal of Canada as well, the lack of exposure to the pivotal North American car-buying market has added to their ire.

BMW boss Mario Theissen said: "We are not happy about not being in North America. The US is the most important and biggest car market for BMW and I think for the industry as a whole.

"It has always been difficult to set foot into the US but Canada has always been a very strong Formula One supporter. I have seen the race in Montreal as an operational base to get a second race up and running in the US."

An unhappy Honda team principal Nick Fry agreed that to overcome the economies-of-scale issue F1 needs to host potentially three races in North America.

"We are hugely disappointed -- it's difficult to emphasize by how much," he said. "Honda is very successful in Canada, we make cars there, the local company there is hugely enthusiastic about Formula One.

"We have large numbers of guests from America and from Canada. We sponsor the event, we would like to see it back on the calendar as soon as possible.

"We need to look at how we're not just going to get back Canada but how we get back to America, potentially more than once, as it is such an important market."

The matter is expected to be raised when the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) meet FIA president Max Mosley after the Chinese Grand Prix this weekend.

Discussions will focus around how F1 is to combat the current economic crisis -- including the FIA imposing a single-engine rule, against the wishes of the manufacturers, from 2010.

But until that comes into effect, the teams' desire not to miss out on the North American market is strong.

Toyota team principal John Howett said: "I think one of the targets of FOTA is to actually ask the commercial rights holder to really establish a strong foothold in North America, particularly the US, with a race which showcases Formula One well, and is economically beneficial to Formula One as a whole.

"I think this is one of the core discussions FOTA wishes to have because it is a very important market for our sponsors and for Formula One.

#1009 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 09 February 2009 - 19:00

Originally posted by McGuire
A few years ago Kalkhoven was going to be the future of open-wheel racing.


Just like how a few years ago Bobby Ginn was the future of NASCAR. It's evidently not as easy as it looks.  ;)

#1010 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 February 2009 - 19:13

red stick I just do not buy it...

After years of selling and marketing, existing manufactures have enough metrics to simply look at the States and forcast profit. In fact with so many years of data the forcast in many cases is enough to approve an entire operating budget.

The Far and Middle East are emerging - NEW REVENUE!!! That's exactly why F1 is there. Ford/Honda and Toyota will meet their expectations in the States - even if thats grim. China and U.E. are another ball game - open territory - ripe for the taking. It's not a constant - it's an entirely new stream of revenue altogether.

#1011 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 February 2009 - 19:15

Originally posted by red stick


Just like how a few years ago Bobby Ginn was the future of NASCAR. It's evidently not as easy as it looks.  ;)


A whole wave of "real businessmen" swept into NASCAR a few years ago as team owners, investors, and upper managers. Remember how they were going to take the sport to a whole new level with their contemporary management techniques, blah blah blah, etc? Except for the Fenway people they pretty much had their asses handed to them. I bet Boston Ventures wishes it never heard of NASCAR.

#1012 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 09 February 2009 - 19:34

Originally posted by aportinga
red stick I just do not buy it...

After years of selling and marketing, existing manufactures have enough metrics to simply look at the States and forcast profit. In fact with so many years of data the forcast in many cases is enough to approve an entire operating budget.

The Far and Middle East are emerging - NEW REVENUE!!! That's exactly why F1 is there.



Hey, hey, I'm just the messenger. Your beef is with the heads of Honda, BMW, and Toyota.

As for why F1 has taken a sudden interest in Asia, I was under the impression that parties in China, the U.A.E., Bahrain, Turkey, etc, were paying Ecclestone a princely sum for the privilege of hosting a race, and he was graciously taking it off their hands. I'd not thought that he then polled the manufacturers to see if they thought it was a good idea. Unless his management style has changed . . .

#1013 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 February 2009 - 19:59

Originally posted by red stick



Hey, hey, I'm just the messenger. Your beef is with the heads of Honda, BMW, and Toyota.

As for why F1 has taken a sudden interest in Asia, I was under the impression that parties in China, the U.A.E., Bahrain, Turkey, etc, were paying Ecclestone a princely sum for the privilege of hosting a race, and he was graciously taking it off their hands. I'd not thought that he then polled the manufacturers to see if they thought it was a good idea. Unless his management style has changed . . .


Far and Middle East work well for all parties.

The US is a very sensitive issue. While BE can bad mouth the States the manuafactures have to take a different role - even going out of their way to NOT be aligned with BE - because of his many past comments.

What they (manufactures) say is no suprise too me. I would expect that. However from a revenue perspective the new money is NOT in the US... Our nation will for ever be reserved as a means for these companies to sharpen their marketing skills.

#1014 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 09 February 2009 - 20:15

So, to sum up, they're pulling our leg.

Given a choice between believing that auto executives, willing to be quoted by name in a public forum, are telling us the truth about how they feel about the value to their companies of racing in North America, or the musings of an anonymous scribe, we should believe . . . A.S.?

#1015 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 09 February 2009 - 20:28

Sheesh
The reason F1 is not in the US is dead simple.
No one is going to pay BE what he wants to stage a race.
Last time I checked, BE does not recieve funding from the manufacturers, the teams are either manufacturers or buy engines from them.
For another scribes view on indy's new engines check this article out:
Not quite as optimistic as Kirby

Oh, and BTW, didn't TG already have the brainfart that engines at indy should be somewhat relevant to street cars already. I seem to remember something about Nissan and GM stock blocks.....
The engines that they are talking about sound just about the same as the Offy's, talk about Back to the Future...

#1016 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 09 February 2009 - 20:46

Anyone heard how Helio did in court today?

#1017 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 February 2009 - 21:00

Originally posted by red stick
So, to sum up, they're pulling our leg.

Given a choice between believing that auto executives, willing to be quoted by name in a public forum, are telling us the truth about how they feel about the value to their companies of racing in North America, or the musings of an anonymous scribe, we should believe . . . A.S.?


No...

They are being political.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

#1018 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 09 February 2009 - 21:16

Originally posted by aportinga


No...

They are being political.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?



It's not. I've worked for politicians my entire career. I'm aware of the dance.

If they were racing in India and China I'd buy it. I think their reported ire is sincere because I really don't think, left to their own devices, they really think that much of the idea of racing in the markets of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

Which (thank you WWII), to circle around to the issue we started at, is why I don't think F1 will be picking off Audi, VW, Alfa Romeo, etc., if they are interested in establishing a racing presence in the US. As WWII points out, there is no F1 presence in NA because no track promoter is interested in paying Bernie, and there's no sign of that changing anytime soon.

#1019 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 09 February 2009 - 21:54

Your missing my point completely...

US = Standard returns (revenue based on what now can be considered a fixed operating cost or costs which will not flutuate wildly based on an abundance of consumer data collected over 100 years).
Emerging Market = New Income - no data - new plan - new start.

NEW INCOME is NEW REVENUE - not yet recognized. THAT opportunity provides for growth and value + $$$.

All the manufactures need to do is to MAINTAIN REVENUE in the STATES by throwing up a few commercials during a PGA tournament. To EXPAND INTO EMERGING MARKETS they need greater penetration - more attention/marketing and so on.

THEREFORE THE EMPHASIS MOVING FORWARD WILL BE IN THE FAR AND MIDDLE EAST.

BUT

The manufactures have to be political because they do not want to LOSE the cash cow of the STATES either. And part of that is to distance themselves from BE who has slammed the US every chance.

UndERstANd :confused:

RECOGNIZED REVENUE VS NOT RECOGNIZED REVENUE - PERIOD.

Advertisement

#1020 HaydenFan

HaydenFan
  • Member

  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 09 February 2009 - 21:59

Originally posted by whitewaterMkII
Sheesh
The reason F1 is not in the US is dead simple.
No one is going to pay BE what he wants to stage a race.

Last time I checked, BE does not recieve funding from the manufacturers, the teams are either manufacturers or buy engines from them.
For another scribes view on indy's new engines check this article out:
Not quite as optimistic as Kirby

Oh, and BTW, didn't TG already have the brainfart that engines at indy should be somewhat relevant to street cars already. I seem to remember something about Nissan and GM stock blocks.....
The engines that they are talking about sound just about the same as the Offy's, talk about Back to the Future...


Not true. There are two groups currently working to bring back the USGP, and neither is Tony the Grate.

#1021 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 February 2009 - 22:29

Originally posted by aportinga
Your missing my point completely...

US = Standard returns (revenue based on what now can be considered a fixed operating cost or costs which will not flutuate wildly based on an abundance of consumer data collected over 100 years).
Emerging Market = New Income - no data - new plan - new start.

NEW INCOME is NEW REVENUE - not yet recognized. THAT opportunity provides for growth and value + $$$.

All the manufactures need to do is to MAINTAIN REVENUE in the STATES by throwing up a few commercials during a PGA tournament. To EXPAND INTO EMERGING MARKETS they need greater penetration - more attention/marketing and so on.

THEREFORE THE EMPHASIS MOVING FORWARD WILL BE IN THE FAR AND MIDDLE EAST.

BUT

The manufactures have to be political because they do not want to LOSE the cash cow of the STATES either. And part of that is to distance themselves from BE who has slammed the US every chance.

UndERstANd :confused:

RECOGNIZED REVENUE VS NOT RECOGNIZED REVENUE - PERIOD.



Posted Image

#1022 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 09 February 2009 - 22:32

Originally posted by aportinga
UndERstANd :confused:


Yes. I simply don't agree. And don't think going to 36 point type is going to help you.  ;)

#1023 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 00:17

I disagree - I don't think you do understand.

#1024 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 10 February 2009 - 01:34

I understand your argument and I don't agree with it either. BE is simply chasing sanction fees.

#1025 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 10 February 2009 - 02:57

Originally posted by McGuire
I understand your argument and I don't agree with it either. BE is simply chasing sanction fees.

See, I do agree with you sometimes.
Someone above said there are two other groups pursuing F! in the USA, anything on that?
And now that it's water under the bridge what is your 'objective' view on ims and it's dalliance with BE?

#1026 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:44

Originally posted by aportinga
I disagree - I don't think you do understand.


Well my friend, we are at an impasse then.

Now it could be that I've spent the better part of an afternoon stating and defending a position I hold insincerely just to vex you. But that would run counter to the spirit of friendly and intelligent discourse several have lately determined this thread should strive to pursue, (although individuals disagree on method, and some precincts are out), and I have argued mightily that that goal is a worthy one, so I think we can safely rule that possibility out.

Or it could be that, like many Americans, economic arguments bore me and I can't be bothered to follow the finer points of your presentation. But, as a graduate of a small midwestern university, evidently near where you live, that is famed for its teaching in the field of economics, rest assured that I have a passing familiarity with your 1000 level course version of marketing, and that I could, in fact, understand it, particularly after you helpfully explained it so slowly and in such big print.

Or it could be that I just don't know much about automobile racing, and specifically, what makes manufacturers interested in pursuing certain forms of it in certain places at certain times. And I'm on more uncertain ground there, having never worked in the trade, but it's worth pointing out that McGuire and Whitewater, who famously have evidently never much agreed on anything across several years and many forums similar to this, agree with each other, and parenthetically, me, on this question.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Frankly, I'm not sure why my sharing your opinion matters to you so much.

#1027 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:48

Originally posted by whitewaterMkII

Someone above said there are two other groups pursuing F! in the USA, anything on that?


IIRC, one is based out in your area and seeking a west coast grand prix; the other is on the east coast. Since neither have demonstrated the financial resources of China or the sheiks, don't hold your breath.

#1028 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:07

Originally posted by red stick
Who else believes that Dan Wheldon will not win another race?


Dan's an enigma to me. He showed well at AGR, winning a 500 and a championship. His last season at TCGR puzzled me. Dixon thrashed him, and many weekends he looked lost, particularly on road courses, leading me to speculate that he had benefited in the past from Dixon's and his AGR teammates' (Franchitti and Kanaan) setups and just wasn't as adept at managing a car through a race. I was more than a little shocked when Chip gave up on him, although given a choice between Dan and Kanaan, I suppose it's understandable. Now he's the lone man at Panther. Will Panther make him look good again, or will being alone expose him as not the complete racer he appeared to be circa 2005?

#1029 D82

D82
  • Member

  • 1,391 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 07:54

A question about the new engine issue... Is it me or wasn't the V4 option including double turbochargers?

#1030 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,070 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:25

I think it was inline 4's with single turbos.

#1031 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:57

It appears Honda was holding out for a choice of I4 or V6 as it really wants to do a V6, but it's not a deal breaker.

#1032 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 13:00

Originally posted by McGuire
I understand your argument and I don't agree with it either. BE is simply chasing sanction fees.


No you don't understand - BE is NOT even the topic :rolleyes:

#1033 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 13:02

Originally posted by McGuire
It appears Honda was holding out for a choice of I4 or V6 as it really wants to do a V6, but it's not a deal breaker.


Do you have somthing to back that up because last they stated, they only would agree to a re-tool of the current V-8?


Nevermind

Found it > http://www.thatsraci...tory/22014.html

New view on the future perhaps? That's a positive note moving forward because from the earlier stance (V8 re-tool only) this could have meant Honda was out altogether if the I4 was introduced.

#1034 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,070 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 February 2009 - 13:08

Kirby's latest has new Honda quotes.

#1035 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 10 February 2009 - 14:00

Originally posted by aportinga


No you don't understand - BE is NOT even the topic :rolleyes:


BE is the entire topic when it comes to deciding where F1 events are run. You suggest he is responding to global macroeconomic forces to position the series for the future. I say he is chasing the buck. The thing about racing in the East is their economies can't truly benefit for another five or ten years out. (In the Middle East, never.) Does Bernie care? Not if the check clears. He's not playing long ball here. The OEs are on their knees begging for F1 to race in North America. Bernie wants F1 to race where they write the biggest check. Who's winning so far?

#1036 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,070 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 February 2009 - 14:02

I've never got that, because there's no exposure here. Who at Corporate HQ is really saying "damn, we need a race in America, otherwise we won't sell X widgets this quarter!"

Merc would be better off running ads for Lewis Hamilton than chipping in the costs to help host the race and send McLaren over to compete in it.

And it's not like Indianapolis was some massive power brokering convention.

#1037 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 10 February 2009 - 14:42

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I've never got that, because there's no exposure here. Who at Corporate HQ is really saying "damn, we need a race in America, otherwise we won't sell X widgets this quarter!"



Ssssh, you have just exposed the fallacy behind all OE motorsports marketing. .

#1038 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,070 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 February 2009 - 15:20

Well, you've just given me an idea.


Visteon was the top of the wtf mountain for me, but I figured that was a typical OEM-gun-to-the-temple sponsorship.

#1039 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 15:35

Originally posted by McGuire


BE is the entire topic when it comes to deciding where F1 events are run. You suggest he is responding to global macroeconomic forces to position the series for the future. I say he is chasing the buck. The thing about racing in the East is their economies can't truly benefit for another five or ten years out. (In the Middle East, never.) Does Bernie care? Not if the check clears. He's not playing long ball here. The OEs are on their knees begging for F1 to race in North America. Bernie wants F1 to race where they write the biggest check. Who's winning so far?


No the topic is revenue - and it's apparent you've never run a business or had a significant budget within a business that is based on generated revenue.

I am sorry you do not understand - I really cannot make it any easier.

Advertisement

#1040 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 15:37

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I've never got that, because there's no exposure here. Who at Corporate HQ is really saying "damn, we need a race in America, otherwise we won't sell X widgets this quarter!"

Merc would be better off running ads for Lewis Hamilton than chipping in the costs to help host the race and send McLaren over to compete in it.

And it's not like Indianapolis was some massive power brokering convention.


YOU ARE 100% CORRECT!

The manufactures do not need BE or F1 to generate exposure here - in fact it's detrimental when compared to many other less costly avenues.

THAT is WHY BE is not the point of this exercise - it's about the MANUFACTURES and REVENUE.

#1041 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 10 February 2009 - 16:08

Originally posted by aportinga


No the topic is revenue - and it's apparent you've never run a business or had a significant budget within a business that is based on generated revenue.

I am sorry you do not understand - I really cannot make it any easier.


No, I have run a business and you have been thinking about this too long. You have managed to convince yourself that you know better what the OEs are doing than they do. They want F1 in North America because they sell units here. They are not just being "political." Bernie wants F1 where it pays the most. It is as simple as that.

No offense but I think you are going a little nutty with the cap locks and so forth. Let it go, let it go. Even if your theory is right it does not mean anything. Go TAKE some DEEP BREATHS or something. :D

#1042 wide-front-wing

wide-front-wing
  • Member

  • 509 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 February 2009 - 16:19

Originally posted by McGuire


BE is the entire topic when it comes to deciding where F1 events are run. You suggest he is responding to global macroeconomic forces to position the series for the future. I say he is chasing the buck. The thing about racing in the East is their economies can't truly benefit for another five or ten years out. (In the Middle East, never.) Does Bernie care? Not if the check clears. He's not playing long ball here. The OEs are on their knees begging for F1 to race in North America. Bernie wants F1 to race where they write the biggest check. Who's winning so far?


Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Abu Dhabi - all cities with orders of magnitude more prestige than Indianapolis. People seem to like to forget also that a new race just opened in Valencia...Bernie knows what he is doing, the races he is adding are in major and important areas on the globe...

Bernie is just chasing sanctioning fees, doesn't cut it - circuits are being custom built...

#1043 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 16:26

Stop with the business running - you're looking like a fool.

Further more do you understand ratings? If so please tell me the ratings for all the USGP and then justify how any manufacture would find more value in said ratings against really anything on Network television??? Hell Sponge Bob plows the USGP ratings 3 times over man!

The USGP by year 2 had asses in the seats and that's it. There was no further value then what was sold at the track and that is exactly when the USGP moved from ABC to cable within a year.

You are just so unbelievably wrong it's embarrassing - I am embarrassed for you... HOW ON EARTH ARE YOU GOING TO EXPLAIN THE DEPATURE OF SAP AS A TITLE SPONSOR :lol:

How on earth are you going to explain the fact that no manufactures ever stepped up to support even some minimal support for the race? How on earth can you justfiy all this when the race was held at the greatest venue on earth???

Why is it gone if the Manufacture wanted it? Was it the venue (Indy)? Was it the Venue management (Tony George).

You pick - I'm listening :rotfl:

#1044 Jambo

Jambo
  • Member

  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 February 2009 - 16:28

Maybe because the race wasn't that great anyway. The track wasn't exciting, F1 has no successful Americans for many years, what was there for the fan to get behind?

#1045 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 16:33

No - the fact is that the contingent of F1 fans in the States is minimal at best. Thereby F1 is not - actually no where near, a vehicle which ANY manufacture is going to pick to market their products.

IF - BE/MM makes F1 more applicable in terms of cost and technology standards, I would see more actual "racing investment" in F1 (to get on board with those emerging markets) with an increase in advertising in the States during the Final Four and PGA tournaments - for those manufactures *supposedly looking at the IRL - with exception to FIAT via Alfa who has no presence at all in the States today. However in their case based on budget I would say that GrandAm or the ALMS would be more realistic options.

#1046 AyePirate

AyePirate
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 10 February 2009 - 17:00

Originally posted by aportinga
Your missing my point completely...

US = Standard returns (revenue based on what now can be considered a fixed operating cost or costs which will not flutuate wildly based on an abundance of consumer data collected over 100 years).
Emerging Market = New Income - no data - new plan - new start.

NEW INCOME is NEW REVENUE - not yet recognized. THAT opportunity provides for growth and value + $$$.

All the manufactures need to do is to MAINTAIN REVENUE in the STATES by throwing up a few commercials during a PGA tournament. To EXPAND INTO EMERGING MARKETS they need greater penetration - more attention/marketing and so on.

THEREFORE THE EMPHASIS MOVING FORWARD WILL BE IN THE FAR AND MIDDLE EAST.

BUT

The manufactures have to be political because they do not want to LOSE the cash cow of the STATES either. And part of that is to distance themselves from BE who has slammed the US every chance.

UndERstANd :confused:

RECOGNIZED REVENUE VS NOT RECOGNIZED REVENUE - PERIOD.


I think your theory while very solid is a something of a red herring in this instance I'm afraid. I can't recall Bernie ever pulling a race and replacing it with a lower paying race .

Let's say Bill Gates was a huge F1 fan and decided he wanted to promote 3 F1 races in North America paying the standard Bernie Emerging Market Rate sanctioning fee. There would be 3 North American races.

If you have the right sanctioning fee and a track that meets the FIA safety standards you will eventually get a race (except Silverstone). And what if no one comes to the race? Empty seats only bother Bernie when the sanctioning fee is not meeting his expectations.

I don't think what the manufacturer want is even a blip on Bernie's radar.
If having a races in China helps Manufacturers that just a coincidence.
Bernie helps Bernie.

#1047 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,405 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 February 2009 - 17:08

Well it ain't Penthouse . . . . but Danica's done the Sports Illustrated Calendar for 2009 :

SI 2009

:clap:

#1048 Keir

Keir
  • Member

  • 5,214 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 February 2009 - 17:10

Ricardo F1,

Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

#1049 rghojai

rghojai
  • Member

  • 362 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 10 February 2009 - 17:14

So manufacturers relating a perceived value in F1 racing in the USA are lying? Not as smart as those here who say otherwise?

Further more do you understand ratings? If so please tell me the ratings for all the USGP and then justify how any manufacture would find more value in said ratings against really anything on Network television??? Hell Sponge Bob plows the USGP ratings 3 times over man!

There are differences between ratings relative to other shows and acceptable ratings.

The USGP by year 2 had asses in the seats and that's it. There was no further value then what was sold at the track and that is exactly when the USGP moved from ABC to cable within a year.

There is a reasonable view that success or failure, whoever defines it and how they define it, would take more than a couple years.

Why is it gone if the Manufacture wanted it? Was it the venue (Indy)? Was it the Venue management (Tony George).

Where is it written that the manufacturers have enough power to make a race happen, regardless of venue management or otherwise?

#1050 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 February 2009 - 17:16

Originally posted by AyePirate


I think your theory while very solid is a something of a red herring in this instance I'm afraid. I can't recall Bernie ever pulling a race and replacing it with a lower paying race .

Let's say Bill Gates was a huge F1 fan and decided he wanted to promote 3 F1 races in North America paying the standard Bernie Emerging Market Rate sanctioning fee. There would be 3 North American races.

If you have the right sanctioning fee and a track that meets the FIA safety standards you will eventually get a race (except Silverstone). And what if no one comes to the race? Empty seats only bother Bernie when the sanctioning fee is not meeting his expectations.

I don't think what the manufacturer want is even a blip on Bernie's radar.
If having a races in China helps Manufacturers that just a coincidence.
Bernie helps Bernie.


The discusion was manufactures *wanted to be in the States - which somehow was linked with F1. That is all I am arguing.

As far as your comments I agree. All I am saying is, if the manufactures were so interested they would have at least had a car corrall with clubs. Shit even Road America does that.