Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Before COTA, why was a permanent location so difficult in US for F1?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 ronsingapore

ronsingapore
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 25 December 2014 - 17:08

Before COTA, why was a permanent location so difficult in US for F1?

 

During the 1950s, there was the Sebring Circuit and Riverside International Raceway.

 

During the 1960s, it was at Watkins Glens, until rumour had it that there was increasing dissatisfaction that the track was not maintained and over rowdy behavior of beer-up young spectators.

 

Then it moved to Long Beach, then to Las Vegas, in a Ceasar's carpark, followed by 7 years at Detroit, then to Dallas, then to Phoenix, and then, Indianapolis.

 

I've read that the Dallas and Phoenix were superbly marketed, but for some strange reason, the calendar insisted that it be placed in the middle of summer in a desert region.



Advertisement

#2 nosecone

nosecone
  • Member

  • 1,938 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 25 December 2014 - 17:18

I can imagine that the high hurdles set by the FiA is one reason. There are surely enough tracks in the US like Laguna Seca, Barber... but i doubt these tracks fulfil all requirements set by the FiA

 

Another reason is that the building of a new track is expensive. And in a country where the most popular motorsport is Nascar (which is obviously driven on tracks with a lack of righ-turns (i know there are some tracks but... you call that racing? it's roboter vs wrestler on 4 wheels)) it will be difficult to get that money.


Edited by nosecone, 25 December 2014 - 17:20.


#3 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 25 December 2014 - 17:30

Historically, probably not enough fan base to justify the rising expense(mainly sanction fees).

 

Currently, that F1 races are hugely loss making unless you have government funding.

 

And before we call COTA a permanent home, it's only had three races...



#4 dweller23

dweller23
  • Member

  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 25 December 2014 - 17:41

Didn't Watkins Glen win like 5 or more "best organised race of the year" awards? I think it was more about bankrupcy of WG, rather than dissatisfaction with the track.



#5 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,277 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 25 December 2014 - 18:13

Let's talk about this in 2020s if COTA still hosts F1.

#6 Prost1997T

Prost1997T
  • Member

  • 8,379 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 25 December 2014 - 18:17

I can imagine that the high hurdles set by the FiA is one reason. There are surely enough tracks in the US like Laguna Seca, Barber... but i doubt these tracks fulfil all requirements set by the FiA


Barber Motorsports Park is a grade 1T circuit.
 

Another reason is that the building of a new track is expensive. And in a country where the most popular motorsport is Nascar (which is obviously driven on tracks with a lack of right-turns (i know there are some tracks but... you call that racing? it's roboter vs wrestler on 4 wheels)) it will be difficult to get that money.


While the top-tier Cup series only races at Sonoma and Watkins Glen once each per year, various stock car series below it also race at Mosport, Road America, Mid-Ohio, Road Atlanta, Miller Motorsports Park etc.

#7 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 12,037 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 25 December 2014 - 19:29

F1 isn't a good business proposition in the US even though the US is the largest participant motorsport market in the world. There are many purpose built, natural terrian road courses in the US. They service club racing, driving schools and street car track days and do very well.  Popular tracks like Miller in Utah or Willow Springs in the CA desert are booked well in advance.  Making a Grade 1 FIA circuit (as well as the F1 fees) just aren't something that private money can make a good return vs the amount spent.  Ecclestone doesn't understand the US market and never has though in his hubris he beleives he does.



#8 InSearchOfThe

InSearchOfThe
  • Member

  • 2,622 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 25 December 2014 - 19:49

Same reason as always with F1 and the US. No American teams or drivers with any ass behind them.

 

Plus, CART was in it's prime in the '90s. 

Before the Michelin bebacle of 2004 I thought IMS road course had a future having gone to the inaugural 2000 event.

 

COTA feels like a success. They keep putting it on the calender so they must be paying the bills on time. 

It still needs what everything else in F1 needs. Stability.



#9 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 25 December 2014 - 19:58

There have been American teams in the past, notably Penske who did very well and even Parnelli.

 

PLus a few others round and about.

 

I do not think the Americans give a hoot to be honest, their motorsport tastes are very different to the rest of the world. They adore oval racing, I find it fairly dull unless its on a short oval.

 

Their favourite bike sport is motocross these days, even though for a decade or more they dominated 500cc bike racing. It was never huge in the States.

 

They love drag racing, and it has a cult floowing in the market Britain cant reach, the ethnic minorities. In fact in the import classes they dominate.

 

They do a lot of things right and just ahve different tastes, no track will ever last the distance there adn COTA will be nno different. It is bankrolled very well and crowds like F1 there for some reason, so it might last a while.



#10 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 3,919 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 25 December 2014 - 20:13

Watkins Glen hosted no fewer than 20 F1 races. By the time of the revisions in 1971 it was regarded as the most modern facility in the world. It was simply that Vegas and other cities were offering FOCA more money by the 1980s.

#11 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 25 December 2014 - 20:14

Because F1 races on F1 tracks, not on racing tracks. F1 has outgrown racing and although some F1 tracks are built, it stands basically naked.
For other racing series, the F1 clothes does not fit very well, specially considering their price tag, so they go elsewhere. Building a F1 track is an economic fiasco almost guaranteed.


Edited by ardbeg, 25 December 2014 - 20:17.


#12 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 25 December 2014 - 20:27

Didn't Watkins Glen win like 5 or more "best organised race of the year" awards? I think it was more about bankrupcy of WG, rather than dissatisfaction with the track.

It was the best organised race in the Argetsinger years. When the management changed it all fell apart.

 

Long Beach remained a pretty good alternative and there were even years with 3 GPs in the US. Phoenix in the early 90s was kind of a disaster though.

It was a sign for Bernie to look elsewhere and we know that mr. E. only wants things to go his way, especially financially. The Indy relaunch was an uneasy affair right from the start and COTA only came into view the moment they obliged to run the show more or less Bernie's way.


Edited by scheivlak, 25 December 2014 - 20:28.


#13 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 31,165 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 December 2014 - 20:40

Because F1 races on F1 tracks, not on racing tracks.

 

Just in time for quote of the year.



#14 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 25 December 2014 - 20:45

Just in time for quote of the year.

+1



#15 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 25 December 2014 - 21:54

Same reason as always with F1 and the US. No American teams or drivers with any ass behind them.

 

Plus, CART was in it's prime in the '90s. 

Before the Michelin bebacle of 2004 I thought IMS road course had a future having gone to the inaugural 2000 event.

 

COTA feels like a success. They keep putting it on the calender so they must be paying the bills on time. 

It still needs what everything else in F1 needs. Stability.

Agree with most of this, but from what we hear, COTA's only still on the calendar because of the huge annual subsidy from the State of Texas.


Edited by AustinF1, 25 December 2014 - 22:09.


#16 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 25 December 2014 - 22:00

There have been American teams in the past, notably Penske who did very well and even Parnelli.

 

PLus a few others round and about.

 

I do not think the Americans give a hoot to be honest, their motorsport tastes are very different to the rest of the world. They adore oval racing, I find it fairly dull unless its on a short oval.

 

Their favourite bike sport is motocross these days, even though for a decade or more they dominated 500cc bike racing. It was never huge in the States.

 

They love drag racing, and it has a cult floowing in the market Britain cant reach, the ethnic minorities. In fact in the import classes they dominate.

 

They do a lot of things right and just ahve different tastes, no track will ever last the distance there adn COTA will be nno different. It is bankrolled very well and crowds like F1 there for some reason, so it might last a while.

There are more than enough F1 fans in the U.S. to make it work. The U.S. crowds are generally among the biggest crowds of the year, even at COTA where the pre-race promotion is pathetic. With good promotion they could set attendance records.

 

COTA bankrolled well? Maybe if you count the huge ($25-30M) annual state subsidy I mentioned above. They're apparently mired in massive debt.

 

BTW, I do like short ovals, esp dirt.. No big ovals for me. Drag racing? Snooze.

 

 

As for needing an American team or American driver, it won't help, imho, unless that team or (esp) driver has a big following as he/she enters F1. A relative unknown like Rossi or whomever, was just never gonna move the needle here. I don;t mind it the way it is though. I rather enjoy the niche nature of my favorite sport. I doubt it would be nearly as fun for me if it were everyone's passion & if all my friends and coworkers obsessed over F1 like I do.


Edited by AustinF1, 25 December 2014 - 22:05.


#17 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 26 December 2014 - 00:25

The venues named by the OP were not sequential as he suggests. For several years there were two (or more) World Championship F1 races in the USA: the US Grand Prix at Watkins Glen and the US Grand Prix West at Long Beach from 1976 to 1980 and The US Grand Prix West and the Caesars Palace Grand Prix (in Vegas) in 1981. In 1982 there were three World Championship Grands Prix in the USA: the US Grand Prix West, the Detroit Grand Prix and the Caesars Palace Grand Prix. In 1983 and 1984 it was back to two US races, Long Beach and Detroit in 83 and Detroit and Dallas in 84 before going back to a single race in 1985.

 

Yes the US Grand Prix has moved circuits over the years - but the same is true of most of the long established Grands Prix, apart from Monaco. For many years the British Grand Prix oscillated between Silverstone and Aintree and then Silverstone and Brands Hatch and the mighty Spa circuit has not always hosted the Belgian Grand Prix - for most of the 1970s and early 80s the race was held at Zolder or sometimes Nivelles. For goodness sake they even held the Italian Grand Prix at somewhere other than Monza one year - in 1980 it went to Imola.



#18 ronsingapore

ronsingapore
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 26 December 2014 - 01:14

The venues named by the OP were not sequential as he suggests. For several years there were two (or more) World Championship F1 races in the USA: the US Grand Prix at Watkins Glen and the US Grand Prix West at Long Beach from 1976 to 1980 and The US Grand Prix West and the Caesars Palace Grand Prix (in Vegas) in 1981. In 1982 there were three World Championship Grands Prix in the USA: the US Grand Prix West, the Detroit Grand Prix and the Caesars Palace Grand Prix. In 1983 and 1984 it was back to two US races, Long Beach and Detroit in 83 and Detroit and Dallas in 84 before going back to a single race in 1985.

 

Yes the US Grand Prix has moved circuits over the years - but the same is true of most of the long established Grands Prix, apart from Monaco. For many years the British Grand Prix oscillated between Silverstone and Aintree and then Silverstone and Brands Hatch and the mighty Spa circuit has not always hosted the Belgian Grand Prix - for most of the 1970s and early 80s the race was held at Zolder or sometimes Nivelles. For goodness sake they even held the Italian Grand Prix at somewhere other than Monza one year - in 1980 it went to Imola.

 

Many thanks for correcting me on this, much appreciated.



#19 Chubby_Deuce

Chubby_Deuce
  • Member

  • 6,861 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 26 December 2014 - 06:08

Not many fans and tons of NIMBYs that kept nice tracks relegated to locations like Tooele, Utah.



Advertisement

#20 travbrad

travbrad
  • Member

  • 1,058 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 December 2014 - 06:29

Historically, probably not enough fan base to justify the rising expense(mainly sanction fees).

 

Currently, that F1 races are hugely loss making unless you have government funding.

 

And before we call COTA a permanent home, it's only had three races...

 

Yep at the end of the day it all comes down to money.  Even with a sell-out crowd it's not profitable to hold a F1 race at many of the circuits.  Government subsidies are the only thing keeping most of them "profitable" or breaking even, and government subsidies usually require some major palm greasing in the US.

 

On top of that there isn't much interest in F1 in the US.  Most people have never even heard of it, let alone follow it or watch it.



#21 RedRabbit

RedRabbit
  • Member

  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 26 December 2014 - 11:26

Yep at the end of the day it all comes down to money.  Even with a sell-out crowd it's not profitable to hold a F1 race at many of the circuits.  Government subsidies are the only thing keeping most of them "profitable" or breaking even, and government subsidies usually require some major palm greasing in the US.

 

On top of that there isn't much interest in F1 in the US.  Most people have never even heard of it, let alone follow it or watch it.

 

This, is a massive problem with F1



#22 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,497 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 26 December 2014 - 13:07

If they gave trackside advertising and some other stuff back to the tracks, track owners could make a profit and probably reduce the ticket prices a bit. I find it weird the track owners are hardly united.



#23 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 26 December 2014 - 13:50

Yep at the end of the day it all comes down to money.  Even with a sell-out crowd it's not profitable to hold a F1 race at many of the circuits.  Government subsidies are the only thing keeping most of them "profitable" or breaking even, and government subsidies usually require some major palm greasing in the US.

 

On top of that there isn't much interest in F1 in the US.  Most people have never even heard of it, let alone follow it or watch it.

 

In the days of modern high speed internet I find this pretty pathetic.  Nothing against US specifically but for anyone not living in a third world country.  For any country, where their culture acts this way.  And they all do to some extent.

 

There was a time where sporting events, they had to hop on ships and it'd take weeks just to arrive at the destination.  The people following it would need to rely on newspapers or radio, sometimes with big delays.  Then there was TV and jet airlines.  The world was smaller and it became easier to follow overseas events.  Then there became cable TV and the internet, which connected everyone worldwide.  There's even internet in phones these days.  You can do a google search to keep track of something while sitting at a train station or even watch the event live (sometimes).  You might not be a fan of something, but what excuse is there for ignorance these days?  The answer to everything is literally at your finger tips.  I guess the two things that annoy me about this is one.. how insular local media usually is, saturating local things but showing little airtime to other things outside of that.

 

ESPN Sportscenter for example could show 45 mins on NFL, 5 mins on Indy and nothing on F1.  Here in Australia even if Riccardio won the race, they'd just show 1-2 mins (at most) showing a very brief summary of the race and a 5 second mention at the end as the winner crosses the finish line.  Meanwhile all week, they'll show an upcoming Rugby game, with what the players ate for breakfast, what niggling injuries they are having, what the coach thinks and what the whether is expected to be for the game, and which beach the players will be training at tomorrow.

 

And secondly, the mentality that if your friends in high school haven't heard of it, or the friends at the pub.. or your coworkers, then it doesn't exist.  I don't understand the whole borders/nationalistic thing that is still so prevalent today.  All the divisions that are put up, like mental prisons.  The technology has improved but the people using it haven't caught up and are still limited by many things.  The main reason people get into any sport is because their parents did, and it sort of became ingrained in them.  They were exposed to it enough to be open and give it a chance.  Many people don't like giving anything new a chance.  But with anything.. even something as simple as food, how do you know what you like unless you've tried them all?  So many people don't even see it that way and just follow the crowd.  And like what they are told to like.  A part of all of this is understandable but a part of it is frustrating, and it's like a self fulfilling prophecy.  To me, variety is the spice of life.  And with the internet and modern TV, we have the opportunity to be connected to many things at once.  The world becomes smaller.  To me this is a good thing, but to others, it's something to be afraid of.



#24 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 1,065 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 26 December 2014 - 14:17

bernie, is the simple answer. unless you can find the $25-30m for the privilege of hosting a financial injection into the local economy you won't be getting a GP. bernie is now no longer selling GPs, he's selling economic success. you see bernie is telling prospective hosts that when his show rolls into town, the local area can expect to make hundreds of millions of dollars of extra business. he wants a slice of that action. he thinks $30m is a fair price for a GP. investors, local politicians and the general public do not. they did the math(s) and realised they would be hard pressed to make a profit with this model. the COTA GP is a financial scandal waiting to happen.



#25 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 26 December 2014 - 15:51

 he thinks $30m is a fair price for a GP. investors, local politicians and the general public do not. they did the math(s) and realised they would be hard pressed to make a profit with this model. the COTA GP is a financial scandal waiting to happen.

I do not believe he thinks it is a fair price, neither do those that go along with him. What he actually offers are a way for those who follow him to get rich on tax payers money. When it comes to constructions of that magnitude, there is one hell of a lot of money that disappears without a trace.



#26 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 26 December 2014 - 16:15

far more then how B E  screwed the teams

he screwed the tracks far worse

 

there are two things needed to run a race

cars [teams] and tracks

B E sucked up all the money from the tracks

tracks get no income from TV or on track ads

no concessions ect

it is not a good biz model for any track owner



#27 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 26 December 2014 - 16:16

F1 is sort of an elitist circus that travels around the world and says.. "we are better than you, but you can hop on the ride and join us if you want, and if you don't.. we'll find someone else that will".  It takes more than it gives, and there is a lot of excess and wastage and it's not really profitable but you get to feel that.. "we are a part of it" feeling if you take part.  Over the years, lots of people seem to go broke and lots of people seem to get caught for espionage or corruption or fraud.

 

If the word elitist doesn't taste good going down, "prestige" offers the same meaning.  There are better ways to approach it but nothing will be changing anytime soon.  The worst aspect is when tracks like Monza or Silverstone are threatened while new tracks in some far distant oil country builds a new circuit (probably to be ditched 2 seasons later).  And the biggest thing that frustrates me about the prestige of F1, is that the sporting element has so much more to offer than models and actors sipping martinis.  There is so much talent in F1 when the drivers are behind the wheel, beyond the superficial image of car companies and fancy watches.  High revving engines, high G forces, high corner speeds and drivers who are like fighter pilots, vs high heels, champagne and car company logos.


Edited by HoldenRT, 26 December 2014 - 16:18.


#28 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 December 2014 - 16:20

far more then how B E  screwed the teams

he screwed the tracks far worse

 

there are two things needed to run a race

cars [teams] and tracks

B E sucked up all the money from the tracks

tracks get no income from TV or on track ads

no concessions ect

it is not a good biz model for any track owner

I don;t know about other tracks, but COTA gets concessions.



#29 Ensign

Ensign
  • Member

  • 203 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 26 December 2014 - 21:29

One of my old F1 books from the 90s (Ultimate Encyclopaedia of Formula One?) said they stopped going to Watkins Glen in part because of lack of four star hotels in the area for the drivers, teams, and sponsors etc.  It wasn't glamorous enough either for F1's image.


Edited by Ensign, 26 December 2014 - 21:30.


#30 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 26 December 2014 - 21:48

The Glen disappeared from the calendar when the owners went bankrupt, even though the race itself always made a profit. This thread gives some insight http://forums.autosp...s-glen/?hl=glen - especially Mike Argetsinger's posts. 

 

Mike is the son of Cameron Argetsinger, the man who brought F1 to Watkins Glen.


Edited by scheivlak, 26 December 2014 - 21:54.