94 replies to this topic

[Disgrace]

About 23 people watch these Indycar races on TV with the exception of the Indy 500.

 

 

Sorry Juan.

 

That is not to say there's nothing that can be learned from it. Think of a low-budget but lovingly-made film compared to the Transformers series, or the flocks of people at a tourist trap whilst the gems of the city remain undiscovered. Quality has never been exclusively synonymous with numbers.

 

Other than the image, I find the general level of racing in IndyCar more entertaining, regardless of its overall popularity. It doesn't have the potential levels of entertainment offered by F1, but F1 rarely delivers on that potential (and we've been lucky this year). There is endless wheel-to-wheel action in IndyCar, something we have been denied in F1 since the introduction of DRS. It takes good fortune rather than the good judgement of the FIA to ensure DRS isn't horribly overpowered, and the cars are permitted to physically race each other on the circuit.

[warp]

1) Current F1 cars don't look powerful to the average viewer, they look fragile and ugly.

 

2) TV viewing is restricted for the casual watcher with pay TV. In the UK, I can either pay something like 40 pounds a month for sky f1 or watch intermittant live coverage/highlights free on the BBC. Neither of those are really good strategies for engaging with fans.

 

3) Driver's aren't accessible and things like the paddock club are very elitist. Again not exactly a way to engage with potential fans.

 

4) Tickets are expensive

 

5) No social media presence

 

The list goes on...

 

1) Kind of get the point, but that's a viewer's fault. The people who think that are kindly invited to Monster Truck events where they can watch something more sturdy.

 

2)  Good point, though I may say that in some countries (like Australia, at least in Darwin) we get some world caliber events like F1 and Le Tour de France on air TV.

 

3) Try to shake hands with Christiano Ronaldo while you attend a Real Madrid match... this is a rather unrealistic point to me. Yeah, I'd wish my kid could have a chat with Fernando Alonso but it's a little unrealistic and the only way I can think of a reasonable filter for a limited number of people to get close to drivers is by paying bags of money (which already may be in place) or by raffles, fan clubs, etc. Drivers are already loaded with tons of media commitments during a race weekend.

 

4) True. Bring prices down, please.I can see tickets being ridiculously expensive for paddock access (see Nr. 3), but the rest of the track should be more affordable.

 

5) As replied by others, I think they cover that already.

 

 

I only followed CART for a short while when Adrian Fernandez was kind of a big thing there, but it was never quite good and it was kind of sad to see F1 drivers going there and become competitive even if they were cucumbers in F1 (Sebastian Bourdais, Cristiano DaMatta?). Throw in a decent caliber driver like Mansell, Villeneuve or Montoya and they were constantly winning races.

[CARTurbo]

1) Kind of get the point, but that's a viewer's fault. The people who think that are kindly invited to Monster Truck events where they can watch something more sturdy.

 

2)  Good point, though I may say that in some countries (like Australia, at least in Darwin) we get some world caliber events like F1 and Le Tour de France on air TV.

 

3) Try to shake hands with Christiano Ronaldo while you attend a Real Madrid match... this is a rather unrealistic point to me. Yeah, I'd wish my kid could have a chat with Fernando Alonso but it's a little unrealistic and the only way I can think of a reasonable filter for a limited number of people to get close to drivers is by paying bags of money (which already may be in place) or by raffles, fan clubs, etc. Drivers are already loaded with tons of media commitments during a race weekend.

 

4) True. Bring prices down, please.I can see tickets being ridiculously expensive for paddock access (see Nr. 3), but the rest of the track should be more affordable.

 

5) As replied by others, I think they cover that already.

 

 

I only followed CART for a short while when Adrian Fernandez was kind of a big thing there, but it was never quite good and it was kind of sad to see F1 drivers going there and become competitive even if they were cucumbers in F1 (Sebastian Bourdais, Cristiano DaMatta?). Throw in a decent caliber driver like Mansell, Villeneuve or Montoya and they were constantly winning races.

 

Bourdais spent maaaaany seasons after coming back from F1 (to the unified Indycar series, not the split series where he won championships) before earning a win. In fact, it only happened a few weeks ago. Seabass had a short F1 career, but he was paired with what was a future 4x wdc, so... And Mansell, Villeneuve and Montoya only decent? 

Edited by CARTurbo, 13 August 2014 - 22:29.

[Watkins74]

That is not to say there's nothing that can be learned from it. Think of a low-budget but lovingly-made film compared to the Transformers series, or the flocks of people at a tourist trap whilst the gems of the city remain undiscovered. Quality has never been exclusively synonymous with numbers.

 

Other than the image, I find the general level of racing in IndyCar more entertaining, regardless of its overall popularity. It doesn't have the potential levels of entertainment offered by F1, but F1 rarely delivers on that potential (and we've been lucky this year). There is endless wheel-to-wheel action in IndyCar, something we have been denied in F1 since the introduction of DRS. It takes good fortune rather than the good judgement of the FIA to ensure DRS isn't horribly overpowered, and the cars are permitted to physically race each other on the circuit.

 

That must be their pitch to sponsors. "Sure no one watches, but it is quality".

 

What you find entertaining I find to be amateur hour. Somehow they find it impossible to restart a street race without crashing. 

 

edit: If you enjoy it, I am happy for you. 

Edited by Watkins74, 13 August 2014 - 22:32.

[Lee Nicolle]

The Americans do make the sport more accesible. And a good deal cheaper too. Though a LOT of the F1 money goes to Bernie,, so he can pay bribery bribery!

F1 is way to expensive, the cars are way too high tech and worse pointless. Ugly cars with farting engines is not very exciting really.

Though Indy cars these days look like Sports Cars! The one race I have seen this year was ok. Though in the past I watched most of them. And they were more entertaining though sometimes a bit embarrassing too. Airports, very average road courses. The worst thing is ofcourse the endless full course yellows, most of which should be a local yellow only. A nesecity on ovals ofcourse but not a 2 mile road course!

The pious god fearing crap pre race is bilious, and seemingly being copied in many other events now. A very short 'blessing' may be just ok. But then it needs to be done in Hindu, Moslem, and all other religous branches!  And all their warring sects! So probably not!

Driver introductions can be ok, but really is just time wasting. get em racing, that is what the punters come to see!

Spectator access to the pit area is great. So many races these days they are too high and mighty to be interupted by the paying punter!

Here in Oz we get F1, the bikes, occasionally Nascar and Indy cars on free to air. Currently Supercars BUT they are going pay next year. So far less people than now will care any more!

Personally I refuse to pay for TV. If it is not free to air it cannot be worth watching! And with pay you still get too many ad breaks. Another reason not to pay.

[917k]

Saying Indycar ratings are up is a bit of hyperbole - they have gone from nothing to slightly less than nothing. Indycar ratings are no higher than F1 is in the US, and that's next to nothing.

[Disgrace]

That must be their pitch to sponsors. "Sure no one watches, but it is quality".

 

What you find entertaining I find to be amateur hour. Somehow they find it impossible to restart a street race without crashing. 

 

edit: If you enjoy it, I am happy for you. 

 

You're right - it can be amateur hour on occasion. The series can get the simple things wrong, but it also gets a lot of simple things right. F1 is more complex, which is why I think it has a greater potential for maximum entertainment. But when F1 gets it wrong, it can be farcical.

 

Think of parc fermé and the noses. The former introduced to reduced costs, it has had huge repercussions on setups and therefore the ability of the cars to race in the wet. Now we have safety cars on track usually until it's dry enough for intermediates, and it appears the best drivers in the world can no longer race in the wet. We've now had step and strap-on noses for three seasons due to the way the rules are written. 

 

Someone mentioned football not requiring "fan interaction" to become the most popular sport, but everyone can kick a ball around any environment. It's a simple premise, and even its vast amount of problems have great sociability. By contrast, discussing F1 AFK gets tiring once you get into the convoluted ways it screws itself: "Why are the rules written such that the cars have penises? Why do the cars that make it into Q3 have to start on the tyres they qualified on? Wait, unless they don't set a time? Why are the Pirelli tyres rubbish anyway? You mean it's deliberate? Why must the drivers race on both sets if one is even more rubbish?"

 

If asked why the IndyCar drivers keep crashing on restarts, the simple answer is that they're not as good as F1 drivers. I suppose the lesson is keep it simple stupid. A lot of F1's complexity is needless, alienating of it's own fans and causes more trouble than it's worth.

[warp]

Bourdais spent maaaaany seasons after coming back from F1 (to the unified Indycar series, not the split series where he won championships) before earning a win. In fact, it only happened a few weeks ago. Seabass had a short F1 career, but he was paired with what was a future 4x wdc, so... And Mansell, Villeneuve and Montoya only decent? 

 

Yeah, I had in mind the split series. That's why I pointed I used to watch CART.

 

And as for Mansell et al, they were not Senna, Prost or Schumacher were they? 

(I see your point )

[tifosi]

Formula One should copy Formula One from around 1989.

[CoolBreeze]

Talk about over exaggeration. They drive in rain all the time unlike some American series. When they don't race it's because it's incredibly dangerous. The cars don't function at all below a certain speed, no grip, no brakes no matter how talented you are.

 

I'm not asking to race every weekend like Fuji 2007 or Malaysia 2009. But look at Malaysia 2001. Look at Hockenheim 2000. Look at Spain 1996. Spa 1998. And they still raced. And entertained us!

 

Now, ever the slightest rain, it just get delayed, sc start, etc. As anyone here who thinks I'm wrong. 

 

 

Football has absolutely no fan interaction  but it became the most popular sport.

 

There are other problems like the sound and the artificial racing which are more important.

 

I'm not sure if you mean football football, or soccer. 

 

If you are talking about normal football, european football that is ;) then what you just metioned is entirely untrue. 

 

Teams like Manchester United, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Arsenal make trips to various parts of the world, they train in public, they have proper meet the fans session, they come out early during this tours, greet the fans, interact with fans. 

 

But i'm not sure if you are talking about American Football..

[CARTurbo]

Yeah, I had in mind the split series. That's why I pointed I used to watch CART.

 

And as for Mansell et al, they were not Senna, Prost or Schumacher were they? 

(I see your point )

Haha, I guess not! Maybe decent, though, is not giving them enough credit. Fair enough 

[George Costanza]

Formula One should copy Formula One from around 1989.

 

Indeed..... oh, V10, V12, V8 engines.... and lovely cars.

[CoolBreeze]

Indeed..... oh, V10, V12, V8 engines.... and lovely cars.

 

Please stoppp... bringing back golden memories...

[AustinF1]

Juan Pablo Montoya made a point that's probably been on people's tongues for a while now

 

IndyCar works and it works well because of its closer approach to fans, but not just. The sound and the racing are great and the investment + the money involved really falls shy of some budgets in Formula 1. 

 

Should European racing look into how its done in the U.S.? And perhaps stop obsessing about spending less money because, well, no matter what they do they'll always spend a lot more than they probably should. 

IndyCar works? 

 

Hmmm....

 

Judging by attendance, I take issue with that assertion. I would love to see F1 more accessible to the fans, but it's hard to argue that it's helping IndyCar much or that the lack of it is hurting F1 much. 

Edited by AustinF1, 14 August 2014 - 02:30.

[jonpollak]

Damn those Americans... With their joye de vivre and freedom of spirit being all positive all the time... They should be miserable like the rest of us oppressed non entities. Jp

[Tourgott]

I'm not sure if you mean football football, or soccer. 

 

I'm talking about the real football - European football.

 

Those things you mentioned are the exception. Just a few major clubs do these trips once a year. Bayern even covered their training terrain so that people can't watch them.

If you remember the World Cup, the players were completely shielded for 8 or 9 weeks.

 

By the way: F1 also has fan meetings and autograph sessions. I don't think football does much more.

Edited by Tourgott, 14 August 2014 - 06:32.

[loki]

I think both sides could usefully learn from the other.  Both have strong elements and both have major weaknesses.

From a business standpoint F1 has little to offer US racing.  The media is behind on technology, failing to introduce online and HD until late in the game and even then far behind what networks in the US have been doing for years.   The access and pricing for fans is dismal and the commercial side is concerned with getting as much as it can out of the sport while devoting as little as possible. The business model of F1 is built on a stodgy, class based arrogance that is out of touch with the younger market and as a result is suffering as viewers die off (literately) and aren't replaced with younger viewers.

 

Those that run F1 aren't going to take input from any outsiders let alone some septics from Daytona with two first names...

[V8 Fireworks]

3) Try to shake hands with Christiano Ronaldo while you attend a Real Madrid match... this is a rather unrealistic point to me. Yeah, I'd wish my kid could have a chat with Fernando Alonso but it's a little unrealistic 

 

It was realistic before 

 

http://news.bbcimg.c...11c3ad91bd2.jpg

 

http://news.bbcimg.c...mh5151-edit.jpg

 

http://www.pinterest...04237616356344/

 

It is still realistic therefore!?       

 

http://0.tqn.com/d/g...ndPrix_1932.jpg

 

https://farm8.static..._f9bd90ec64.jpg

[PayasYouRace]

 Why must the drivers race on both sets if one is even more rubbish?"

 

That's one that F1 borrowed from Indycar (well Champ Car at the time). Funnily enough, it was when Bridgestone supplied tyres to both.

[Nonesuch]

Have a look at these popular organisations on Twitter: NBA, ATP, NFL, Premier League. Here's IndyCar as well for reference, though viewership is clearly much lower and it reflects in the number of followers. Notice the links to features and content such as highlights, videos and interviews. The feeds are filled with pictures. The delivery is also personable.

 

Now compare those to the dry, photo-free F1 feed, which is used (as per the description) as nothing but a placeholder for the official website. It seems to me as though the number of followers is disproportionate to the sport's popularity. There is also an FIA feed but that content will be dedicated to all FIA-sanctioned series.

 

The effective monopoly position of FOM means they need to do jack other than delegate promotion to TV and the circuits (what great value they get). Whether or not you believe social media is the correct tool, it certainly can demonstrate the reality that there's very limited interaction between the sport itself and the fans. The social disconnect is just another manifestation of F1's unwillingness to adopt new media as a whole.

 

Thank you for those suggestions. Like you said, the degree to which one finds these interesting is of course personal, but there is no denying that the sports you linked to seem to be putting in more of an effort than FOM is. I wonder, though, how much of that is the result of restrictive broadcasting agreements. On sites like YouTube, older F1 content seems to be relatively safe from the FOM's copyright claims, whereas more recent material is not. That recent material, of course, being the content that national broadcasters pay good money for and don't want to see ending up on YouTube - or, perhaps, the FOM's global website or 'social media' outlets.

 

But whatever the case, it's always a good idea to keep an open mind and learn from others in the business. I do, however, object to the story that seems to have gotten a life of its own - that being that F1 has no 'social media' presence whatsoever, which seems blatantly untrue. It might not be the pinnacle to which others look for inspiration, but here too I think we should first look to the teams before trying to centralize everything in the hands of the FOM and FIA.

[Seanspeed]

Sorry, I keep reading this and keep thinking it's just plain wrong. So the UK finally has to pay for F1. So what? In South Africa we havent had free to air F1 for over a decade. I'm ok with that. Because I get not one single advert during all the live free practice sessions, qualifying and the race. Not even a break during sessions in Quali, it's all live. I also get build-up shows we never had before and the race and quali will repeat at a more convenient time if it's an early morning or late night event. So not all countries are better off with FTA and I don't believe for one second that viewership has been negatively affected apart from the manner in which they count them.

I think this sounds like a case of 'Well I pay to watch F1 so boo hoo if you have to, also'. Which is understandable, but for people in England, the home of F1, having F1 put behind a paywall is like a kick in the gut for the fans.

And looking at the viewing figures, only BBC's highlights show is really saving F1 from being shockingly dropped by fans in terms of interest. Average figures for Hungarian GP for SkyF1 was 996k. BBC highlight show later that day? 3200k. And total, the combined viewership was the lowest since 2008. So what's happening is that the hardcore of hardcore F1 fans are shelling out to get decent coverage, while the rest of us(most of the vewiership, remember) are dealing with the fairly poor coverage and refuse to pay up to watch something they've always been able to watch for free. Meanwhile, overall viewing figures are dropping and that will likely continue as the majority receiving poor coverage will likely start to see declining interest.

So be fine with paying to watch F1 if you want, but I'm not, and I think it certainly hurts interest overall. Maybe less so in places that are already paying for it, but how would viewership be if people didn't have to pay for it? I get that business-wise, its necessity in many places, but I don't think that's the case in England where the only reason it went to a paywall channel is because Sky has gone on a spending spree, outbidding others for sports TV rights to essentially blackmail fans into subscribing to their package. Its all round lousy for fans.

Edited by Seanspeed, 14 August 2014 - 09:54.

[billm99uk]

There's a lot of "I want everything, and I want it for free!" on this thread. No pay TV, cheaper ticket prices, more and better coverage. I'm all for a fairer distribution of funds to the teams but face it, somebody has to pay for the pretty cars to go round and round. And, with advertising budgets being spread over more and more platforms, that somebody is probably you.

[Kraken]

I'm not asking to race every weekend like Fuji 2007 or Malaysia 2009. But look at Malaysia 2001. Look at Hockenheim 2000. Look at Spain 1996. Spa 1998. And they still raced. And entertained us!

 

Now, ever the slightest rain, it just get delayed, sc start, etc. As anyone here who thinks I'm wrong. 

 

You must be watching different races to me. Apart from a couple where they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't the others weren't safe to race.

 

Which series do you race in?

Edited by Kraken, 14 August 2014 - 12:38.

[tifosi]

Please stoppp... bringing back golden memories...

 

FOUR qualifying sessions over two days with big fat gummy tyres that adhered to the track like glue and engines that disentegrated 50 yards after crossing the start finish line.

The anticipation of intense development and testing going on between races.  Vainly searching the intenert and racing magasines for the tiniest sliver of information that Ferrari may have edged up on McClaren.

[Frank Tuesday]

There's a lot of "I want everything, and I want it for free!" on this thread. No pay TV, cheaper ticket prices, more and better coverage. I'm all for a fairer distribution of funds to the teams but face it, somebody has to pay for the pretty cars to go round and round. And, with advertising budgets being spread over more and more platforms, that somebody is probably you.

 

If that's the case, they won't get any money from me until they are selling something I want to buy.  If they provide me a product that has value to me, I'm more than happy to pay for it.  If they want me to watch what they are currently providing, they'll need to pay me to watch. 

[loki]

There's a lot of "I want everything, and I want it for free!" on this thread. No pay TV, cheaper ticket prices, more and better coverage. I'm all for a fairer distribution of funds to the teams but face it, somebody has to pay for the pretty cars to go round and round. And, with advertising budgets being spread over more and more platforms, that somebody is probably you.

There is plenty of money in the business with the single largest sum going to just one entity.  That's the problem.  Big Bill France learned long ago that if there is a big pot of money, instead of hogging it take a bit less, rub that money all around on those that make the sport what it is and they'll be happier and he'd get better buy in from them for when he wanted to do something different.  FOM is the opposite.  The distribution is not equitable and exclusivity is still a primary marketing force in a market where that is less viable.  It may have worked 20-30-40 years ago but this is now.  That sort of attitude turns more people off than entices them to watch.  There is a point at which the fans nor the sponsors will be willing to participate and that point is now as evidenced by the declines in veiwers, ticket sales and the teams ability to attract sponsors.

[CoolBreeze]

I'm talking about the real football - European football.

 

Those things you mentioned are the exception. Just a few major clubs do these trips once a year. Bayern even covered their training terrain so that people can't watch them.

If you remember the World Cup, the players were completely shielded for 8 or 9 weeks.

 

By the way: F1 also has fan meetings and autograph sessions. I don't think football does much more.

 

Thanks for the clarification mate!

 

Well yes, i agree they make annual trips, but what can they do, they are based in Europe. And when they make trips here, they do take effort to spend time with fans, with orphans, etc. 

 

Of course sometimes, they have to train in secret, as it's the World Cup. It's war!

 

Now, in F1, there's already no testing. The drivers come, we, the fans, which i have experienced myself, wait 3-4 hours in the line just to have a autograph session, and guess what..the whole thing lasts not even 10 minutes. It's disgusting, after waiting for hours, they just wave and smile, and ushered off. It happened a couple of times. 

[Tourgott]

Yeah, true.

But I still think this is not the main problem of F1. A few years ago, when F1 had their peak, fan interaction was the same.

[PayasYouRace]

Yeah, true.

But I still think this is not the main problem of F1. A few years ago, when F1 had their peak, fan interaction was the same.

 

If you're standing still, you're falling behind. Especially when it comes to social media in the 21st Century.

[Lazy]

No, but they might have a look at some of the camera angles they use.

[V8 Fireworks]

100 pounds to sit in the rain or 50 pounds for a track day to drive your evo or golf gti on the track yourself.... which would you choose?

 

no wonder a 15 pound day at the BTCC is more appealing than a day at f1, especially for a family. ... and the teams and drivers are friendlier too!

[V8 Fireworks]

There is plenty of money in the business with the single largest sum going to just one entity.  That's the problem.  Big Bill France learned long ago that if there is a big pot of money, instead of hogging it take a bit less, rub that money all around on those that make the sport what it is and they'll be happier and he'd get better buy in from them for when he wanted to do something different.  FOM is the opposite.  The distribution is not equitable and exclusivity is still a primary marketing force in a market where that is less viable.  It may have worked 20-30-40 years ago but this is now.  That sort of attitude turns more people off than entices them to watch.  There is a point at which the fans nor the sponsors will be willing to participate and that point is now as evidenced by the declines in veiwers, ticket sales and the teams ability to attract sponsors.

 

surely a smart promoter can along and start a more accessible, european based fan friendly grand pix open wheel series?

 

to tap the wealth of independent chassis and engine builders like dallara, wurth research, judd, cosworth etc. instead of pirelli why not continental or dunlop?

 

how hard can it be? it is much easier to be faster than f1 and take that prestige status now too.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 16 August 2014 - 09:39.

[taran]

One important reason IMO why F1 is so restrictive is that there is a chassis design competition between all teams. Everyone has their own different chassis design. And everyone wants to keep their things secret as much as possible, and not let random people wander around their garages. In contrast in IndyCar everyone uses the DW12, so it doesn't make that much difference in terms of fan approach.

 

I am sure F1 can and should ponder ways how to open up a bit more to people, but I can understand, why teams want to keep at least some vital secrecy.

 

Are you sure about this? I'd argue that because each team has its own chassis design, its not that easy to simply copy some part or design trick another team has come up with. You'd have to redesign your entire chassis to really benefit. While with standard chassis, some aero trick used by another team could immediately be put on your own car (with a bit of finetuning...)

[Shambolic]

surely a smart promoter can along and start a more accessible, european based fan friendly grand pix open wheel series?

 

to tap the wealth of independent chassis and engine builders like dallara, wurth research, judd, cosworth etc. instead of pirelli why not continental or dunlop?

 

how hard can it be? it is much easier to be faster than f1 and take that prestige status now too.

 

I doubt it's *hard* as such, just overwhelmingly, mind numbingly, never spend a day in court again in your life-ishly, expensive.

[billm99uk]

surely a smart promoter can along and start a more accessible, european based fan friendly grand pix open wheel series?

to tap the wealth of independent chassis and engine builders like dallara, wurth research, judd, cosworth etc. instead of pirelli why not continental or dunlop?

how hard can it be? it is much easier to be faster than f1 and take that prestige status now too.

But the one thing F1 can DEFINITELY learn from the US: Splitting a series is just plain SUICIDAL!

[Lotus53B]

No.

[loki]

surely a smart promoter can along and start a more accessible, european based fan friendly grand pix open wheel series?

 

to tap the wealth of independent chassis and engine builders like dallara, wurth research, judd, cosworth etc. instead of pirelli why not continental or dunlop?

 

how hard can it be? it is much easier to be faster than f1 and take that prestige status now too.

Ask Tony George how that worked out when he decided to split.  

 

There won't be a break away series.  At some point Ecclestone will either get too old to work and/or exit the planet and CVC will either have to get someone else or more likely I think sell.  They won't get the kind of money Kirch paid but they should make a tidy sum.  Eccelstone has done many good things for F1 but he's running the sport for short term gain and in the long run his strategy and approach aren't contemporary enough to compete in a very crowded entertainment/sports market.

[HeadFirst]

Are you sure about this? I'd argue that because each team has its own chassis design, its not that easy to simply copy some part or design trick another team has come up with. You'd have to redesign your entire chassis to really benefit. While with standard chassis, some aero trick used by another team could immediately be put on your own car (with a bit of finetuning...)

Aero tricks are not allowed in IndyCar. All teams must use the standard package.

[MrPodium]

There's a lot of "I want everything, and I want it for free!" on this thread. No pay TV, cheaper ticket prices, more and better coverage. I'm all for a fairer distribution of funds to the teams but face it, somebody has to pay for the pretty cars to go round and round. And, with advertising budgets being spread over more and more platforms, that somebody is probably you.

 

Eaxctly this!

F1 is an expensive sport. It relies on sponsors, who's needs have to be catered to at each and every grand prix weekend. Their cash primarily keep teams going, not that of attendant fans. So who do you think teams give priority to? It's not rocket science. Also, (and I'm talking as a UK viewer), Sky TV ain't that big a stretch, my subscription is less than a tenner a week, which I don't feel is a huge amount to follow the sport I love given the coverage provided.

Edited by MrPodium, 16 August 2014 - 21:23.

[Risil]

Ask Tony George how that worked out when he decided to split. 

 

I think Tony George believed he'd differentiated his product enough with an all-oval schedule, all-American drivers and stock car engines. If I'd been around at the time I'm not sure I'd have had the foresight to call it as an inevitable failure. Of course as things turned out it made for a crummier but more financially secure version of CART.

 

Give the cheaper, European-based, fan-friendly alternative F1 a Brickyard 400 sized annuity and I reckon things might go the same way. For all the fan-friendliness I don't however believe the fans would be well disposed towards either series by the end of it.

Edited by Risil, 16 August 2014 - 22:52.

[spacekid]

I have never understood this whole 'access' argument. All I want to do is watch the sessions of track action. A half hour/hour package from the broadcaster either side bringing me up to date with technical developments/analysis is fine. My enjoyment if the sport would not be enhanced by knowing what Jenson Button had for breakfast, or getting a retweet from a PR drone employed by a team/driver.

Basically I enjoy watching the people do their sport, but I have zero interest in viewing them as celebrities.

[loki]

I think Tony George believed he'd differentiated his product enough with an all-oval schedule, all-American drivers and stock car engines. If I'd been around at the time I'm not sure I'd have had the foresight to call it as an inevitable failure. Of course as things turned out it made for a crummier but more financially secure version of CART.

 

Give the cheaper, European-based, fan-friendly alternative F1 a Brickyard 400 sized annuity and I reckon things might go the same way. For all the fan-friendliness I don't however believe the fans would be well disposed towards either series by the end of it.

The split was nothing more than George trying to claim control of the sport after the CART board wouldn't take him seriously.  It had nothing to do with ovals, US drivers or technical packages.  It had everything to do with George feeling like he should have more (any) input to the series and playing the Indianapolis trump card to try and get that control.  At the time he was fairly inexperienced in business, particularly running a racing series and according to court records had a substance abuse issue at the time.  Several of us that were around back then said it would end badly.  I think it's fair to say it did end badly. 

 

Added on edit:  It's not a more financially stable version of CART.  It a shell of what CART was not only in terms of exposure but in terms of fan and sponsor base.  The IRL went most seasons with no title sponsor while the post split has title sponsors, they aren't of the size and the deals aren't as lucrative as they were back then.  The only reason the sport survived the split was because the Hulman-George money via the now devalued Indy 500 and some stalwarts like Penske, Forsythe, Ganassi and later Kalkoven had enough money to burn to keep it together during the split.  Nothing good came of the split and it's irreparably damaged the sport to the point where the Indy 500 is only a couple weeks long and the season is less than six months.

Edited by loki, 17 August 2014 - 02:35.

[loki]

Eaxctly this!

F1 is an expensive sport. It relies on sponsors, who's needs have to be catered to at each and every grand prix weekend. Their cash primarily keep teams going, not that of attendant fans. So who do you think teams give priority to? It's not rocket science. Also, (and I'm talking as a UK viewer), Sky TV ain't that big a stretch, my subscription is less than a tenner a week, which I don't feel is a huge amount to follow the sport I love given the coverage provided.

Who do you reckon those sponsors are marketing to? The team members and drivers?  The sponsors pay that money so they have a marketing platform.  Without fans there is no reason to have the marketing platform.

[V8 Fireworks]

Basically I enjoy watching the people do their sport, but I have zero interest in viewing them as celebrities.

 

Who says it is a celebrity-esque chat?

 

As their small boy sits proudly in Jimmy Clark's Lotus, his Mum and Dad might be talking shop about roll centres, weight distribution etc with Mr. Clark.
 

Why is this not possible any more!  Terrible!  It is still possible at other motor racing.  Mum and Dad might talk to Jill the GT racer about the new air restrictor rules while little Alice sits proudly in the cockpit of the 456 Scuderia.         

[turssi]

I think American racing should copy F1. They should have the money for it! Would be great, but wont happen for nationalistic reasons. I mean that they will keep buying American stuff instead of some English racing concept.