72 replies to this topic

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

A point of view other than this/that side.

 

"I had some time for Bernie in the end actually," said Clarkson. "But it's probably a good thing that he's gone and that's it's now going to be run as a show and not as just some tool for making already very rich men a little bit richer."

 

Full article: http://en.f1i.com/ne...d-thing-f1.html

Edited by RainyAfterlifeDaylight, 11 February 2017 - 14:24.

[jwill189]

A point of view other than this/that side.

 

 

Full article: http://en.f1i.com/ne...d-thing-f1.html

 

He's out of his mind if he thinks F1 needs to follow NASCAR's model.  That series has lost any sense of its identity and track owners can't keep up with removing enough seats to create the illusion of a sold-out venue.

[JHSingo]

...not as just some tool for making already very rich men a little bit richer."

 

Nail on head.

[Dangerpaws]

Clarkson:  "Think whatever you do of NASCAR, they can fill 250,000-seater stadiums, which no other sport on Earth can do."

 

When has NASCAR ever filled 250,000 seat stadiums?  Never....

Edited by Dangerpaws, 11 February 2017 - 17:08.

[Juan Kerr]

"Think whatever you do of NASCAR, they can fill 250,000-seater stadiums, which no other sport on Earth can do."

 

When has NASCAR ever filled 250,000 seat stadiums?  Never....

I don't give two hoots how many other people watch a sport, I would still watch F1 if I was the only person on the planet watching it. All I care about is the skills on display are genuine and not manufactured.

[Tsarwash]

It's ok. Jeremy has been dealing in alternate facts for years and years, before it was fashionable.

 

https://en.wikipedia...ues_by_capacity

[AustinF1]

He's out of his mind if he thinks F1 needs to follow NASCAR's model.  That series has lost any sense of its identity and track owners can't keep up with removing enough seats to create the illusion of a sold-out venue.

Like some F1 circuits. 

[AustinF1]

I don't give two hoots how many other people watch a sport, I would still watch F1 if I was the only person on the planet watching it. All I care about is the skills on display are genuine and not manufactured.

Yeah same here. That's why I get too wound up about trying to grow F1 in the U.S. I don't mind it being more of a niche sport here. In fact, I rather like it that way.

[Tsarwash]

Clarkson:  "Think whatever you do of NASCAR, they can fill 250,000-seater stadiums, which no other sport on Earth can do."

 

When has NASCAR ever filled 250,000 seat stadiums?  Never....

He is being stupid of course, because the British GP sells more tickets than many or most Nascar events, as far as I know.

[AustinF1]

He is being stupid of course, because the British GP sells more tickets than many or most Nascar events, as far as I know.

It wasn't uncommon just a few years ago for events at Texas Motor Speedway, Daytona, Talladega, Vegas, Charlotte, Bristol, Indy, and more to have race day crowds well in excess of 160k. Several more have regularly seen crowds in the 125K-150K range.

 

Texas's biggest NASCAR crowd was over 212K. The seated capacity there is over 180k, and even when they don't sell back straight tickets, the capacity is still over 112k. They drew over 250k at Indy the first year there.

 

 

I'm no NASCAR fan, but they do draw massive crowds, even in decline.

Edited by AustinF1, 11 February 2017 - 18:36.

[DS27]

Take the figures with a pinch of salt, like you always have to with JC. The point he is making is valid enough.

[Pete_f1]

I don't disagree with some of what he said

[superden]

Like some F1 circuits.

You can always take the 'China option' and just hide the seats under a cover and hope nobody notices ...

[AustinF1]

You can always take the 'China option' and just hide the seats under a cover and hope nobody notices ...

Yeah, that's the thing ... where there are permanent seats, like in China or most NASCAR ovals, you can only do so much to hide the empty seats. On F1 circuits they generally have only a handful of permanent seats and a lot of temporary stands they build each year to fit the demand. Voila! Very few empty seats!

[P123]

I suspect NASCAR tickets are a tad cheaper than the F1 variety...  Besides, NASCAR seems to be suffering it's own problem with declining attendances. 

 

Bernie's F1 didn't care if only a camel turned up to watch.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

If we put aside the details like the crowd numbers or names, IMO what Jeremy Clarkson means is that Formula1 haven't been successful to retain their fans (We are not still talking about increasing the fans) and Bernie Ecclestone wasn't able to solve it for whatever reason and I think Jeremy doesn't think Bernie has done enough to improve the situation. Jeremy just hopes the new owners who are American to be able to attract more fans because Americans have done it in their Nascar series.

 

One of the main aspects that Formula1 owners need to remember is the oldschool Formula1 fans who are very important IMO. I think LibertyMedia are aware that Formula1 are not Nascar or FormulaE. For example FanBoost and things like that won't work in Formula1. IMO LibertyMedia hired Ross Brawn because they want to step up in the right direction, not just rushing into things.

 

There is an interesting connection actually. Jeremy Clarkson used to work for BBC and now he works for Amazon which is an American company.

Edited by RainyAfterlifeDaylight, 11 February 2017 - 21:20.

[AustinF1]

If we put aside the details like the crowd numbers or names, IMO what Jeremy Clarkson means is that Formula1 haven't been successful to retain their fans (We are not still talking about increasing the fans) and Bernie Ecclestone wasn't able to solve it for whatever reason and I think Jeremy doesn't think Bernie has done enough to improve the situation. Jeremy just hopes the new owners who are American to be able to attract more fans because Americans have done it in their Nascar series.

 

One of the main aspects that Formula1 owners need to remember is the oldschool Formula1 fans who are very important IMO. I think LibertyMedia are aware that Formula1 are not Nascar or FormulaE. For example FanBoost and things like that won't work in Formula1. IMO LibertyMedia hired Ross Brawn because they want to step up in the right direction, not just rushing into things.

 

There is an interesting connection actually. Jeremy Clarkson used to work for BBC and now he works for Amazon which is an American company.

Think about that for a second ... after all the **** he's said about Americans.

[Clatter]

If we put aside the details like the crowd numbers or names, IMO what Jeremy Clarkson means is that Formula1 haven't been successful to retain their fans (We are not still talking about increasing the fans) and Bernie Ecclestone wasn't able to solve it for whatever reason and I think Jeremy doesn't think Bernie has done enough to improve the situation. Jeremy just hopes the new owners who are American to be able to attract more fans because Americans have done it in their Nascar series.

One of the main aspects that Formula1 owners need to remember is the oldschool Formula1 fans who are very important IMO. I think LibertyMedia are aware that Formula1 are not Nascar or FormulaE. For example FanBoost and things like that won't work in Formula1. IMO LibertyMedia hired Ross Brawn because they want to step up in the right direction, not just rushing into things.

There is an interesting connection actually. Jeremy Clarkson used to work for BBC and now he works for Amazon which is an American company.

BE did nothing for the fans because he doesn't make any money from them.

As for Clarkson, he still works for the BBC, just not on top gear. He is freelance, not an employee.

[pdac]

BE did nothing for the fans because he doesn't make any money from them.

As for Clarkson, he still works for the BBC, just not on top gear. He is freelance, not an employee.

 

This is the point that most seem to overlook. No one makes any money directly from the fans except the circuits, TV companies that charge explicitly for the coverage and, to a limited extent, TV companies that sell more subscriptions because F1 is part of the package that they offer. So fans are not that important to the FIA, FOM or the teams, really.

[Lazy]

This is the point that most seem to overlook. No one makes any money directly from the fans except the circuits, TV companies that charge explicitly for the coverage and, to a limited extent, TV companies that sell more subscriptions because F1 is part of the package that they offer. So fans are not that important to the FIA, FOM or the teams, really.

Well apart from the fact it's the fans that buy the products these companies offer and therefore finance the whole circus. It might be an indirect connection but it's a very important one.

[Tsarwash]

It wasn't uncommon just a few years ago for events at Texas Motor Speedway, Daytona, Talladega, Vegas, Charlotte, Bristol, Indy, and more to have race day crowds well in excess of 160k. Several more have regularly seen crowds in the 125K-150K range.

 

Texas's biggest NASCAR crowd was over 212K. The seated capacity there is over 180k, and even when they don't sell back straight tickets, the capacity is still over 112k. They drew over 250k at Indy the first year there.

 

 

I'm no NASCAR fan, but they do draw massive crowds, even in decline.

I'm sure that you are correct, and I'm certainly not interested in entering any kind of pissing contest with anybody about sport or motorsport crowds. My point is that JC is easily the most prominent 'motorsports' journalist/personality in the UK, and as far as I know the British GP sells 150K tickets every year, which is roughly comparable to the tickets sold for most Nascar events. So while his general point is valid, (and I'm assuming he was pretty vaguely quoted here) as the Uk's most famous media motorsport figure he ought to have better knowledge than that.

 

I think that while he has plenty of charm, the quote in the article that says, '"Because Chase is American, there’s no question that the Americans have a sense of theatre about them," he explained. "Think whatever you do of NASCAR, they can fill 250,000-seater stadiums, which no other sport on Earth can do.' just goes to show that he is a pretty shoddy journalist when it comes to facts. The Indy 500 is the only event that comes close to his numbers, and that is hardly the epitome of a thriving motorsport, as far as I know.

 

F1 had oodles of problems, but comparing the size of it's crowds with make-believe numbers and confusing motorsport genres just underlines his credibility. Somebody ought to slap him with a wet newspaper and remind him that he used to be a journalist.  

Edited by Tsarwash, 12 February 2017 - 01:59.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

There is an interesting connection actually. Jeremy Clarkson used to work for BBC and now he works for Amazon which is an American company.

Wrong, he sells HIS (well the trios) show to Amazon, I heard a rather bizarre interview with James May on Radio 2 about it!

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 12 February 2017 - 07:54.

[RA2]

I was kind of surprised that a NASCAR track Phoenix is spending $175 million on an upgrade. The owners must really believe that it is a good investment. On the other I wonder which current F1 venue will be willing to pour in that kind of money.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Think about that for a second ... after all the **** he's said about Americans.

He was indeed uncontrollable 

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Everytime Ross Brawn talks about current situation, he emphasizes on long term plan. I still think Formula1 don't have a long term plan and IMO Bernie was the man of short term plan and some kind of "Do it now" figure (I could be wrong).

 

Fans wanted more overtaking and DRS and cheesy tires came onboard and we still (specially oldschool fans) suffer from those two. Fans wanted overtaking but they didn't want DRS or cheesy tires and yet we have both of them still.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Everytime Ross Brawn talks about current situation, he emphasizes on long term plan. I still think Formula1 don't have a long term plan and IMO Bernie was the man of short term plan and some kind of "Do it now" figure (I could be wrong).

Fans wanted more overtaking and DRS and cheesy tires came onboard and we still (specially oldschool fans) suffer from those two. Fans wanted overtaking but they didn't want DRS or cheesy tires and yet we have both of them still.

He can't change things overnight and some of the changes need research time... so let's see where we are/heading this time next year... it's alright doing the talk but actions speak later than words...

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

BE did nothing for the fans because he doesn't make any money from them.

To be honest, Bernie tried to attract more fans but the technical changes were even more problematic. Bernie isn't Formula1 engineer so he should've hired veterans like Patrick Head or Ross Brawn or Rory Byrne to oversee technical aspects to come up with a solution together with the teams.

 

I know it is not easy and hybrid powerunit is the latest proof because this time constructors wanted hybrid powerunits (Not the fans) and Bernie couldn't avoid them.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

He can't change things overnight and some of the changes need research time... so let's see where we are/heading this time next year... it's alright doing the talk but actions speak later than words...

IMO current new Formula1 regulation has to last at least for three years because most of the teams can't afford another regulation changes and I think Ross Brawn as a technical person need more than three years to come up with a solution together with other teams in longer term.

[AustinF1]

I'm sure that you are correct, and I'm certainly not interested in entering any kind of pissing contest with anybody about sport or motorsport crowds. My point is that JC is easily the most prominent 'motorsports' journalist/personality in the UK, and as far as I know the British GP sells 150K tickets every year, which is roughly comparable to the tickets sold for most Nascar events. So while his general point is valid, (and I'm assuming he was pretty vaguely quoted here) as the Uk's most famous media motorsport figure he ought to have better knowledge than that.

 

I think that while he has plenty of charm, the quote in the article that says, '"Because Chase is American, there’s no question that the Americans have a sense of theatre about them," he explained. "Think whatever you do of NASCAR, they can fill 250,000-seater stadiums, which no other sport on Earth can do.' just goes to show that he is a pretty shoddy journalist when it comes to facts. The Indy 500 is the only event that comes close to his numbers, and that is hardly the epitome of a thriving motorsport, as far as I know.

 

F1 had oodles of problems, but comparing the size of it's crowds with make-believe numbers and confusing motorsport genres just underlines his credibility. Somebody ought to slap him with a wet newspaper and remind him that he used to be a journalist.  

Did you see in my last post that NASCAR put over 250k fans at Indy the first year they ran there? And they've drawn over 212k at TMS.  I'm no Clarkson apologist. Far from it. But I think those and many other really huge NASCAR crowds nearing 200k are what he's referring to there. And as bad as IndyCar crowds often are, the Indy 500 doesn't just come close to his numbers - it exceeds 250k on a regular basis and drew over 350k this past year for a race-day record. To be fair, F1 drew over 220k there the first year and over 200k the second, but that F1 was a different product. COTA hasn't even come close to those kinds of crowds in its history. Its biggest USGP crowd was a little over half the size of Indy's biggest for the USGP.

 

Where I think Clarkson and others really miss the point is in thinking that these races have drawn these huge numbers because of some uniquely American on site pre- or post-race fluff, or that LM have some special sense of spectacle or excitement because they're American. I've been to a NASCAR race at TMS (the 212k crowd the first year), some IndyCar races, several WEC, IMSA, MotoGP races, and I've been to several F1 GPs in Montreal and Austin. I've also been to more big college and pro football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and other sporting events than I could ever count. The most fluff I've ever seen surrounding any event, by far, was at the last USGP in Austin. It still didn't do much for the crowd.

 

All that fluff isn't staving off NASCAR's, IndyCar's, or F1's attendance decline. It's not what drew the big crowds in the first place.

Edited by AustinF1, 12 February 2017 - 11:36.

[Bloggsworth]

I note that Patrick Head said something along the lines of "If anybody thinks that the new regs were going to increase overtaking, they must have rocks in their head."

[AustinF1]

I note that Patrick Head said something along the lines of "If anybody thinks that the new regs were going to increase overtaking, they must have rocks in their head."

It was in reference to the idea that the new regs would close up the field.

[Nonesuch]

Le Mans has drawn crowds of 250,000 in the past couple of years. Clearly the way forward for F1 is to have 24 hour long races.

 

Anyway:

 

 

"The only thing that will get the fans watching and therefore the sponsorship money rolling in again is excitement, and I think the Americans understand that so I'm hoping and praying that they bring it back."

 

Everyone understands that.

 

Another question is: how far are you willing to go to create excitement - and at what long-term cost?

 

It wasn't Ecclestone's fault that all the teams except for Mercedes have done such a poor job and have been so bad at making a good car and engine for the 2014 formula.

Edited by Nonesuch, 12 February 2017 - 10:12.

[Ian G]

Clarkson:  "Think whatever you do of NASCAR, they can fill 250,000-seater stadiums, which no other sport on Earth can do."

 

When has NASCAR ever filled 250,000 seat stadiums?  Never....

 

They have but attendance figures and TV audiences have been on a downward spiral for several years,lots of spin applied by Industry Journo's and TV presenters but they haven't halted the decline,interesting to see what happens over the coming seasons.

 

 

 

http://www.indystar....e-saw/87507680/

Edited by Ian G, 12 February 2017 - 10:34.

[minime]

I'm sure that you are correct, and I'm certainly not interested in entering any kind of pissing contest with anybody about sport or motorsport crowds. My point is that JC is easily the most prominent 'motorsports' journalist/personality in the UK, and as far as I know the British GP sells 150K tickets every year, which is roughly comparable to the tickets sold for most Nascar events. So while his general point is valid, (and I'm assuming he was pretty vaguely quoted here) as the Uk's most famous media motorsport figure he ought to have better knowledge than that.

 

I think that while he has plenty of charm, the quote in the article that says, '"Because Chase is American, there’s no question that the Americans have a sense of theatre about them," he explained. "Think whatever you do of NASCAR, they can fill 250,000-seater stadiums, which no other sport on Earth can do.' just goes to show that he is a pretty shoddy journalist when it comes to facts. The Indy 500 is the only event that comes close to his numbers, and that is hardly the epitome of a thriving motorsport, as far as I know.

 

F1 had oodles of problems, but comparing the size of it's crowds with make-believe numbers and confusing motorsport genres just underlines his credibility. Somebody ought to slap him with a wet newspaper and remind him that he used to be a journalist.  

 

I think that selling that many (150K) tickets once a year does not compare to doing it many times a years as NASCAR does. As for Clarkson I can take him or leave him, mostly the latter as they years have reduced the novelty value of what he does. 

[minime]

I note that Patrick Head said something along the lines of "If anybody thinks that the new regs were going to increase overtaking, they must have rocks in their head."

 

I have said that in the past and been shot down for it, going faster is not the answer as we will find out this year.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

IMO current new Formula1 regulation has to last at least for three years because most of the teams can't afford another regulation changes and I think Ross Brawn as a technical person need more than three years to come up with a solution together with other teams in longer term.

I was meaning more plan(s) I know it can't and won't change overnight and for me not a lot needs to change...

[superden]

I have said that in the past and been shot down for it, going faster is not the answer as we will find out this year.

Faster, faster, faster has been the mantra of those guiding the regulatory changes and it's not the problem. Most people watch F1 on a TV and the increased speed won't translate to that format. Issues will remain around overtaking, which is the big problem and this 'new formula' isn't going to improve that aspect. If anything, it will cause additional problems.

[The Kanisteri]

"But it's probably a good thing that he's gone and that's it's now going to be run as a show and not as just some tool for making already very rich men a little bit richer."

 

Spot on Jeremy!

That's biggest fault F1 has had for past 30 years. Greedy and powerfull men putting so high price on tv rights, ticket price and fee for trackowners to even have the event.

Usually when group of people want to organize event they pay to infrastructure owner, not other way around.

 

Product - The F1 - has not developed much since 80's. Poor people can't watch, low cost people cam camp and get tickets at general admission (from standing places to occasional chairs), well off people gets grand stand and ultra rich people are inside protected walls of paddock so they cannot see poor people like 'well off' (not so influental and rich than them). Ticket prices has skyrocketed, quality of product not.

 

I hope Chase Carey will realise little money makes sense too if you get it from more people than now. Low cost audience entry, makes it possible for families to go see event, increase market of merchandise and all.

 

Same for tv-rights, but I don't want to begun rant about that now.

[Brod]

Faster, faster, faster has been the mantra of those guiding the regulatory changes and it's not the problem.

 

I'm not sure it's the problem, but for the past 12 years or so (ever since the rule changes in front of 2005) I really was not under the impression that the mantra was "faster, faster, faster". Quite the opposite was the case. 

[Nonesuch]

Going faster is not the answer

 

One of the things that has troubled racing has been, as no less a driver than Fernando Alonso has said, that the cars are 'too slow' and 'quite boring to drive'. The consequence being that drivers are less likely to make mistakes, because it's the relative slowness of the car and the terrible Pirelli tyres - not the driver's talent - that define the limit of the performance. One of the most celebrated overtaking moves of the year, rightly or wrongly, namely Verstappen on Rosberg in Silverstone happened in large part because Rosberg upset his car going through Becketts.

 

'Going faster' can be the answer to making F1 harder, less predictable. More mistakes means more lost time, means more opportunities for overtaking.

 

But there are multiple ways to 'go faster', and I'm not convinced that slapping a ton of downforce on the cars is the way to go.

[Tenmantaylor]

Me either. They definitely need better tyre compounds though. I find it hilarious that Pirellis answer to tyre longevity is wider tyres.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 12 February 2017 - 13:22.

[Andy35]

Rather rich Clarkson saying

 

"I had some time for Bernie in the end actually," said Clarkson. "But it's probably a good thing that he's gone and that's it's now going to be run as a show and not as just some tool for making already very rich men a little bit richer."

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Me either. They definitely need better tyre compounds though. I find it hilarious that Pirellis answer to tyre longevity is wider tyres.

Why? More tyre in contact with the ground? So load is spread over a greater area? Makes it easier for them...

[Dmitriy_Guller]

I don't think NASCAR is the sport to emulate right now.  Of all the major racing series, it's the one with the most downward trajectory and most incomprehensible decisions by the leadership.  NASCAR right now feels very soulless and vapid.

[chunder27]

Really?  And F1 doesn't?  

 

NASCAR has a monumental advantage over F1, and that is it's blue collar. it appeals to the lower end of the market, these people will always exist. They are the people that buy soap, choccy bars, cheap insurance, need loans, just look at the car spoinsors over the years, all brand name that REAL people know about, buy and use.  That formula works. So well that it doesn't even need to go outside it own damn country to be immense!!

 

F1 is not even white collar, it is diamond encrusted collar, up it's backside and really rather petulant and quite disturbingly opulent. 

 

I hope the new owners do try and do something about this.

 

NASCAR might not be everyones cup of tea, it's not mine to watch, but as an example of evolving a sport, keeping manufacturers interested and taking a sport most of the time to where real, working people want to see it makes F1 look like exactly what it is, a rich mans paradise. it is as close to football as motorsport will eve be in terms of what it offers the fans that go.

[Nathan]

You pay far too much attention to the Paddock Club and Bernie's marketing..  Quick look over most of last years cars show many brands are normal consumer brands.  The biggest ones certainly are..  Gas stations galore, Red Bull, Sensodyne, Unilever, and just like NASCAR there are a number of B2B sponsors. It's a bad sign luxury brands sponsor F1? Odd..

 

Where I get lost is you talk about how NASCAR has positioned itself to a certain economic crowd, but by your own admission the sport isn't your cup of tea or something you follow.  Do you think there is a relation to the type of racing, image and technology, and the fan bases that are drawn to the two sports?  There isn't a lot of fan overlap..

Edited by Nathan, 12 February 2017 - 22:47.

[minime]

One of the things that has troubled racing has been, as no less a driver than Fernando Alonso has said, that the cars are 'too slow' and 'quite boring to drive'. The consequence being that drivers are less likely to make mistakes, because it's the relative slowness of the car and the terrible Pirelli tyres - not the driver's talent - that define the limit of the performance. One of the most celebrated overtaking moves of the year, rightly or wrongly, namely Verstappen on Rosberg in Silverstone happened in large part because Rosberg upset his car going through Becketts.

 

'Going faster' can be the answer to making F1 harder, less predictable. More mistakes means more lost time, means more opportunities for overtaking.

 

But there are multiple ways to 'go faster', and I'm not convinced that slapping a ton of downforce on the cars is the way to go.

 

And Alonso has never been wrong. 

 

I see way better racing in lower categories that go slower. Drivers and engineers and team officials say things that suit themselves, always have and always will. 

[minime]

 

 

Where I get lost is you talk about how NASCAR has positioned itself to a certain economic crowd, but by your own admission the sport isn't your cup of tea or something you follow.  Do you think there is a relation to the type of racing, image and technology, and the fan bases that are drawn to the two sports?  There isn't a lot of fan overlap..

 

Americans do not follow sports in other countries, never have and never will. There is a large part of the US that does not have any interest in NASCAR as well due to it being very regional in its operations. All motor sport is on a downward spiral F1 and NASCAR are just the two that stand out due to their size and visibility.

[loki]

He is being stupid of course, because the British GP sells more tickets than many or most Nascar events, as far as I know.

As AustinF1 says, many (perhaps most) Cup events draw more than Silverstone, consistently over 100k for a good part of the season.  The smaller places, Richmond, Martinsville or even Loudon don't do that but most all the 1.5 mile cookie cutters and superspeedways easily hit over 100k.  Fontana and maybe Michigan might be exceptions for superspeedways (particularly Fontana).  In Vegas we'll get 130k plus, not a problem.  When I first moved here, it was more toward 160k.

 

As for the other post regarding a 225k capacity, IMS seats about 257k according to Curt Cavin who counted the seats http://usatoday30.us...nce-count_x.htm  (plus another 100-150k in the infield)  The first couple of Brickyard 400s  nearly hit capacity with the inaugural event reported at about 250k.  They don't get that now but it's still easily over 100k.  As for Clarkson, half of what he says is made up BS, the other half he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Were he a Yank he could run for President...

[chunder27]

I dont think you can say NASCAR is in a downward spiral that's all.  

 

It matters not if I personally like it or not, you canot argue with its ability to keep up there.

 

Since when have companies like Emirates, Rolex, UBS been consumer brands like Tide, Home Depot, 5 hour energy and Lowes!!  We have a few in F1 like Martini, Red Bull and the like, but most are fairly upmarket or engineering based like oil companies, tech and IT, different business model I guess. A few are common like Vodafone, Santander, but theya re not main sponsors now. Think of Boss, does it makes you thnk of blokes in pickups?  

 

f1 seeks out the richer client, NASCAR does that to a lesser extent while feeding the blue collar, surely you can see that?  Doesnt really make them any better or worse, just a different marketing aim?