94 replies to this topic

[Ross Stonefeld]

Im watching an interview with NASCAR president Mike Helton and he says something that reminds me of my greatest annoyance with NASCAR.


Their refusal to acknowledge the rest of racing

"NASCAR is the greatest sport in the world"

"we wanted to meet with the core [the drivers and team owners] of the sport"


"NASCAR is the greatest form of racing" would be okay with me, but I really dont like their little "we're the only option" even if it is brilliant marketing

[nascar hater]

NASCAR started out right...a bunch of hillbillies running corn likker in souped-up hot rods to outrun the feds. At least those guys made right turns.

[nichotj]

This just typical of American PR. They have to believe that they are the best and the world stops at both of their coasts.

Fortunately, when you talk to the real people, they at least understand that there is somewhere other than the US but that's all they understand!

[Mr. Salty]

Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement with you on this one, Ross. I can understand why (among the other reasons) so many people DESPISE NASCAR when I see them do their press releases, promos, etc etc. They don't even pretend there are other forms of racing, and the incessant self back patting is so annoying.

All that being said, I still watch them when I have time. I don't plan my day around NASCAR like I do other racing series though.

[ForzaF1]

The most amazing thing Ive heard come from NASCAR is the claim that they have "the safest race cars in the world" !!!! WTF! ???

And this was after Dale Earnheart was the 4th driver in a year to be killed in one of those "safe cars" (although IIRC one of those deaths came in a NASCAR truck-thing) DO they have no idea? Do they think that everyone listening is completely clueless? How can a 3500lb/1600kg car with a tube steel chassis be safe when it hits a concrete wall at 180mph/290kmh? On an oval there is often little room to bleed off speed, and "deformable structures" are non-existant in NASCAR!

At least many of their drivers realize that NASCAR is not the be-all and end-all of motorsports: many drivers are fans of F1 and other forms of racing.

[Ross Stonefeld]

yeah, ill watch a Busch race saturday afternoon when there's nothing to do on a non-F1/CART race


I heard a second hand story that there was a commercial for Driven on a TV in a pub and someone sitting at the bar said "god, not another NASCAR spot"

Thats scary

[f1racer]

You have to understand that NASCAR is riding a huge crest of popularity right now.

NASCAR has decided that they have become mainstream, and therefore, this validates that indeed NASCAR racing is the greatest thing on earth. You know, anything that is mainstram in the greatest country on earth of course is the greatest of the greatest of the greatest of all things...

Americans now say, 'I watch racing'. They don't even say NASCAR. It's assumed.

But anyway, our friend Joe Fan will be along soon to make a case for why in fact it *is* the greatest sport on earth....

Over to you Joe...

[Ross Stonefeld]

and following an interview with Mike Helton about the Dale E situation on Fox Sports, they follow it with a program featuring "the best of pit incidents' Fires, crew men getting run over, etc


I gotta move

[Spaman]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
yeah, ill watch a Busch race saturday afternoon when there's nothing to do on a non-F1/CART race


I heard a second hand story that there was a commercial for Driven on a TV in a pub and someone sitting at the bar said "god, not another NASCAR spot"

Thats scary

Yes alot of Americans are following the herd these days.

[Drinky]

Ross,

To me, NASCAR calling itself the greatest sport on earth wouldn't be a problem, after all, all sports consider themselves the best, otherwise they wouldn't play 'em.;)
But I would have a problem with it calling itself "the greatest form of racing", because that is just ridiculous. NASCAR compares very poorly with other forms of racing. I consider it to be somewhere in between Touring Cars and Demolition Derby...

[JayWay]

ESPN did that after Moore died. They ran a RPM2nite special on Greg Moore (which means 10 minutes on Moore, the rest Nascar) and right after they aired a best of autoracing crashes show.

[Pacific]

While NASCAR management is annoying me right now with the Dale Earnhardt seat belt story (I believe the Simpson belts were not broken) and many NASCAR fans annoy me in their insults towards F1, CART, and the IRL (they don't know ALMS exists) don't hold it against the drivers. Most of the drivers hold the F1 drivers in the highest respect. Most of the NASCAR drivers are real professionals, they are truly great drivers, but they know that most of them are not a match for F1 drivers. Most of the NASCAR drivers come from humble backgrounds, all they could afford was stock car racing. They couldn't cross the sea to go racing in European F3 divisions and such.

Even NASCAR's biggest star ever, Dale Earnhardt, was a huge F1 fan. He loved it, and I'll always remember Dale giving Ayrton the nod at Talladega back in 1994. The NASCAR drivers are great guys, good drivers (some of them truly are great drivers though), and they aren't as mind-numbed to things. The drivers really help me stay interested in NASCAR. Some of the teams keep me interested.

I know oval-track racing isn't most of your guys' thing (they are fun to attend though, oval track races) but NASCAR does require a certain skill set that must be developed. They are very good at what they do. Some of them have become pretty good road racers as well. (I know that Dale Earnhardt took his 24 Hours of Daytona seriously and was proud of their result) Yeah, Ron Fellows, Butch Leitzinger, and Brian Simo will show many of them who's boss at the road courses, but...nowadays all the Winston Cup guys are acceptable road racers and some of them are pretty damn good. The J. Gordon kid can turn right pretty good. (I truly believe Jeff could have been an F1 driver, but he made the right choice, on Schumacher and Earnhardt made/make more money.) But in the future, if more people take to F1, maybe some kid born in America will work towards F1. There are some working at it (Edwards, Gurney, Hill...) But Gurney and Hill aren't surprising when you consider their heritage.

But I do my best to let a lot of that stuff roll off my back and enjoy watching the drivers and teams I like at the track each weekend in NASCAR. It's always interesting to see which Petty Enterprises car is going to get gyped and how.

[Mr. Salty]

Pacific,

I think the major issue in this thread is NASCAR's ridiculous assertion that they are the best racing series in the WORLD, not the drivers. Many NASCAR drivers are F1 fans, as stated by others here. I too was amazed when I found out about DE's tribute to Senna, even though it was only last year that I learned about it.

[ForzaF1]

Well said Pacific!

Personally I find all but the highest speed/longest ovals dreadfully dull, and restrictor plates/Handford Devices haven't helped much, but I do agree with everything in your post above

[Joe Fan]

Ross, have you gone stupid on us? I mean really, what do you expect him to say? NASCAR is the second-best sport in the world? Would you expect NHL commissioner Gary Bettman to say that NHL hockey is the greatest sport behind English Premier Soccer?

At any rate, this really this pails in comparison to what Bernie Ecclestone once said, "The only thing bad about F1, is that it completely destroys all forms of motorsport." When I heard that I could hear Bill France rolling on the floor laughing. Bernie wishes that he could get a NASCAR-like TV contract.

[Mr. Salty]

Joe,

I hope you are ready. I'm gonna kick your ass again if you keep posting pablum like that....

[Joe Fan]

Mr. Salty, Bernie really made that quote sitting next to Niki Lauda. Then after he makes that comment, he laughs like he is so enamored with strength and power in the motorsports world. It is on one of the Formula One saga tapes that you can buy or see on Speedvision every once in awhile.

Anyway, I can just see Mike Helton at a press conference saying, "NASCAR is the greatest sport in the world behind Formula One." And then a bunch of fans go "really?" and start scrambling for the remote. That wouldn't be smart on his part unless he want to take food off his table. By looking at his waistline, maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea, huh? NASCAR has obviously allowed him to eat some of the best food in the world and in copious amounts. That waistline isn't a byproduct of eating Baloney burgers.

However, NASCAR can make the claim that it is the greatest motorsport in the world if you base it upon attendance and TV revenue. But if you are looking at subjective measures, well then that is up to the individual.

Back over to you F1racer

[Drinky]

Joe,

I seriously doubt NASCAR is bigger than F1 in attendance and TV revenue. Does anybody have any numbers on this? Remember, F1 is a truly international sport and it dominates the European motorsport market, which by itself is larger than the US one.

[PDA]

The TV revenues for NASCAR are $400 million per year for teh US only. F1 is the same order of magnitude for worldwide rights. F1 has some additional income from PPV digital, but at the moment, it is miniscule.
Just about every WC race is a sell out, with crowds up to 140,000 attending on race day at tracks like Bristol and Daytona and down to 70/80 000 at tracks with limited seating such as Sonoma and Darlington. Indianapolis is about 400,000. The race day attendances are quite staggering for a 34 race series.
NASCAR has achieved this level by denying the existance of any other form of motor sport, so it is hardly surprising that they continue in this vein. For many people not interested in motor racing (in the US) NASCAR is synonymous with motor sport (see post above).
The only time I have seen NASCAR even acknowledge that there is any other form of motor sport was in an advertisement shown on TV earlier this year. It shows a number of NASCAR drivers waiting besodes their (road) cars. One, Kyle Petty, is doing a crossword. He turns to the others and says: " What's a four letter word for a farm vehicle?"

What is really worrying is that since Fox have taken over the TV contract and moved the WC races to broadcast TV rather than cable, the Neilsen ratings show that viewership is up 39% on average so far this year compared with last. By any standard, that is remarkable growth, and may even justify the increased rate card that Fox presented to advertisers earlier this year.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Joe Fan if you read you'd see that I was referring to NASCAR's lack of acknowledgement of other forms of racing. "we are the best form of racing" is one thing "we are the best sport" is another

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Drinky
Joe,

I seriously doubt NASCAR is bigger than F1 in attendance and TV revenue. Does anybody have any numbers on this? Remember, F1 is a truly international sport and it dominates the European motorsport market, which by itself is larger than the US one.

Sorry but it is true.

1) NASCAR currently generates $400 million a year in TV revenue. F1 generated $241 million a year in TV revenue in 1999.

Taken from The Economist:

"Companies issuing bonds that are to be listed on a stock exchange have to prepare a prospectus. This document discloses all material matters, like important contracts, affecting a company's business. A likely candidate for disclosure in such a prospectus was the arrangement between Mr Ecclestone and the FIA. The royalty of $8m-9m a year payable by FOM rose to $38m a year, though this still seems a small amount given that F1's total TV revenues for 1999 were $241m. A 30% share for the FIA would be equivalent to $72m, and F1's TV revenue can be expected to rise over the next few years.

The relatively small size Of F1's total TV revenue surprises some observers. "Mr Ecclestone is not extracting full rents from his TV rights," says one leading sports rights consultant. One explanation may be the 33.3% discount that Mr Ecclestone has given to broadcasters if they agree not to show other races, such as America's Indy 500. Another may be that Mr Ecclestone is, in effect, FOM; he spreads himself extremely thinly as he handles the negotiations with TV companies. But a cynic might predict that the rents may rise now that FOM has bought the FIA's F1 rights for a further 100 years for a multiple of less than one times FOM's 1998 revenues ($404m). In 1998, FOM made pre-tax profits of $202m.

Other motor-sports rights are soaring in value: the American TV rights for NASCAR, an American stock car championship, fetch $400m a year. FOM, in fact, makes most of its profits from promoters' fees rather than TV income. FOM's share of TV revenues has to pay the millions of dollars that it costs to provide the picture feed to broadcasters. By contrast, FOM is maximising revenues from promoters. For instance, a South Korean company was to have been charged $12m to stage a race in Korea in 1998, and that fee would have risen by 10% a year."

Found at: http://www.tifosi-club.com/index.htm?http://www.tifosi-cl...ive/000810a.htm



2) As far as attendance, NASCAR Winston Cup races generated 6.3 million in attendance in 1998. In 2001, the schedule has grown by three races. So current attendance this year will probably at least 6.5 million.

Source: www.hutchnews.com/special/progress2/story16.html

Formula One generated slightly less than 2 million in attendance in 2000 (actually 1,994,000). This number was compiled from information found on www.forix.com

[Pacific]

I recently did a 25 page report on how NASCAR is cultural tourism. (I picked NASCAR because NASCAR reflects the American culture more than the F1 and CART, which are so international and receive little attention compared to NASCAR here.) NASCAR Winston Cup races do average more attendance than F1 races. The US GP was the largest crowd for an F1 race ever, but Indy's two other races, the Indy 500 and the Brickyard 400, beat the US GP. Also, in terms of economic impact, the US GP was 5th out of all sporting events in the US. But still behind the Indy 500, the Daytona 500, the Brickyard 400, and the Super Bowl. (Needless to say, IMS makes the city of Indianapolis over 1 billion dollars per year!!)

As far and TV revenues are concerned, worldwide the TV revenues for F1 are huge: $350,000 million. However, in the US...the figures haven't been released but common logic states that SpeedVision does not pay anything that approaches NASCAR's contract. (F1 receives less than a 1 in the Nielsen ratings. Even if SpeedVision reached every home, I doubt it'd break 1.) F1 currently beats NASCAR in TV revenue, because NASCAR's contract increases annually, that's how it averages out to be over $400 million, but right now it's at $244 million. So, F1 will probably adjust and always be higher than NASCAR, but no one country will pay as much for F1 as the US does for NASCAR. Now, the US is large, wealthy country, so...This sort of thing is difficult for private companies to do in Europe, which, for the most part, are very socialistic. When you're paying high taxes (corporate and individual), it's difficult for a country to have the disposable income the US has. If you're government is giving you your dollars' worth back in services, great, but...here in the US, where taxes are also pretty high, we often don't. But, the extreme revenue of the US and sheer size (regardless of some people being taxed over 50%) allow for US media companies to shell out such huge sums for NASCAR. I don't know how well it'd go over in European countries where much F1 coverage is shown on government owned channels. "The government paid $300 million for exclusive F1 rights today. Our next story, the dilapidated conditions of local hospitals.."

NASCAR races average 190,000 in attendance. (This average gets skewed by the Brickyard, but it's still over 150,000.) There's a lot of you in Europe that just don't understand, in fact nobody except us big NASCAR fans, understand/realize how big NASCAR has become. It is mainstream. NASCAR commercials are starting to penetrate regular programming. I know a couple years ago Rusty Wallace's Lennox heating/AC commercial was shown a lot on our morning news. NASCAR is huge business nowadays. Nearly all the tracks are owned by track conglomerates. Only Martinsville, Pocono, and New Hampshire are privately owned. Pocono is a very interesting track in a lot of ways because of how owner Joe Mattioli is kind of the rogue owner of NASCAR. Like how Pocono doesn't have its races sponsored. Mattioli feels, and ticket sales concur, that his track is recognized more by the public when it is called the Pocono 500 and the Pennsylvania 500. The fan instantly knows the tracks' location. But most races don't have a common sponsor like the Coca-Cola 600, which is coming up. I still call the summer Daytona race the Firecracker 400. It's the Pepsi 400, which has been a consistent sponsor for a decade now. Or the Mountain Dew Southern 500...if a track can keep a sponsor like that, great, but some can't, so...I don't know if Mattioli makes enough to offset not having it sponsored, the way he talked it sounds like he does.

NASCAR is huge, the TV ratings when on Fox are WAY up. NASCAR gives cable operators a reason to have FX. (Sly **** Fox) F1 and CART get demolished in all money generating areas by NASCAR. I no longer prefer NASCAR racing to F1 or CART, like I did pre-1994. In 1994 my interest in CART and F1 developed. Before it was very casual, now...the CART race at Nazareth in 1994 won me over. For F1, the computer game World Circuit won me over. And if you think NASCAR is just a bunch of bubbas going to the track...tickets for NASCAR races aren't as cheap as they once were. NASCAR is penetrating nearly all the demographics. (Minority interest is still rather low in NASCAR...Willy T. Ribbs doesn't think having a black, Hispanis, etc driver will really change that.)

F1 is the most popular world-wide, but in the US, NASCAR rules. And I don't see it changing. (My 25 page paper hits on that some.) American fans identify with the American drivers of NASCAR. It was easy for people to identify with Dale Earnhardt, a man who grew up in modest conditions. Sure, his father was a great stock car driver, but...Dale dropped out of school after the 9th grade. Very few of the drivers grew up around wealth. A lot of the younger drivers have though, so things may change. I don't think as many people can identify with Jeff Gordon as a lot of the good ol' boys. While Adam Petty was the most likeable kid you'd ever meet, would a lot of NASCAR fans identify with Adam? Petty fans such as myself...he was our next hope. Now we hope Kyle can get the 45 car rolling and that Mark Petty (Maurice's son) can work his way up from the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series. And there are rumors Austin may try racing. (He'll never be like Adam, because Adam truly loved it. Austin has never really made up his mind on what he'd like to do.)

But no 1 country in the world likes any form of auto racing as much as the US. (This is partly because the US is such a spectator, as opposed to participator, country. The general population that is.) For instance, here in the States there are about 18,000 experts in the stands at every NHL hockey game. And about 17,000 can't even do a cross-over. (I use the word experts very sarcastically.) You might think that's very conceited of me, but the fact is, unless you've played the game at the levels I have and above, you cannot truly understand the game. You can read all about the Sistine Chapel, but unless you've really been there...(no, I've never been there either, one reason I mention it.)

A lot of you are probably F1 fans because it's stylish. This is true for a ton of NASCAR fans. There is the old core of us NASCAR fans who loved NASCAR before the media proliferation. Let me tell you, when you meet a knowledgeable F1 fan in the US, you've come across a unique individual. (But it was bound to happen to me, I love all racing on four wheels that turns, even if it's usually only left. Trust me, from a spectator point of view at the track, ovals are great. Watching Sears Point and Watkins Glen on TV rocks though.)

[Ross Stonefeld]

comparing attendance isnt fair when one series has 34odd races and one has 16. One series is ovals, one is road courses, again different type of attendance

[Spunout]

I have one thing: as far as race attendance go you compare HOW MANY PEOPLE are attending. Right? You are not talking about how much money those races make. This is ok IMO BUT why do you compare money when talking about TV? Shouldn´t you compare how many people are watching NASCAR and F1 via TV?

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
comparing attendance isnt fair when one series has 34odd races and one has 16. One series is ovals, one is road courses, again different type of attendance

Well, even using average attendance, NASCAR would still draw more than 60,000 per race than a Formula One Grand Prix.

[Ross Stonefeld]

F1 races cant hold the same amount of people though



NASCAR as a racing series is a total joke and disgraceful. As a marketing exercise its pure genius

[Joe Fan]

PDA, the four letter word for farm wagon was supposed to be RIDE like the said right after that question in the commercial. I know because I live in the midwest. Inferring that it was supposed to be CART is just ridiculous propaganda stirred up by CART fans who have an inferiority complex.

BTW, where did you come up with this statement? "NASCAR has achieved this level by denying the existance of any other form of motor sport, so it is hardly surprising that they continue in this vein."

Did you know that ISC (NASCAR's corporation for speedways) owns our new Kansas Speedway? And our track is also holding an ARCA race and IRL race? There has also been discussions with CART to hold a race there in the future. NASCAR also owns the Grand American Sports Car Series. So how are they denying the existance of other form of motorsport? They will at least allow other like series run on their same track layout unlike F1 who will not allow CART to run on F1 road circuits over in Europe.

Spunout, I just posted this to show that NASCAR could have some means to state that they are the number one motorsport in the world. In terms of ratings, I am unsure but I am sure that F1 has a larger total following. But what if NASCAR expanded outside of the US market? The numbers could mind boggling, that is, if the rest of the world did not turn their noses up at stock car racing.

[Ross Stonefeld]

They dont state that they are the number #1 form of racing, just the #1 sport, as if NASCAR itself was the only racing in the world

[JayWay]

"Nascar is racin"

[Spunout]

"if the rest of the world did not turn their noses up at stock car racing."

Not true. Stock car racing is very popular in Europe. There are series like DTM (mainly in Germany) etc. Also I would like to remind you even our small country (only 5 million people) organized a stock car race (current DTM series) and we had over 100 000 spectators. You must understand Americans and Europeans look for different things in sports in overall (obviously some Europeans like American sports and vice versa) and NASCAR IS as American as anything can be. It has positive and/or negative sides depending on ones opinion. Many Europeans don´t like what NASCAR is and watch European stock car racing (like DTM) instead.

[Pacific]

NASCAR does produce a lot of great pure racing at the races without restrictor plates. (Which I despise because of the artificial, dangerous racing they create. Thank God the drivers were awesome at Talladega this year. It CAN be done, but...we'll see how long it lasts.)

I mean, as far as pure racing goes, it's hard for F1 to compete with NASCAR at a place like Bristol. Some NASCAR fans bitch that too many of the races don't have enough passing. I always invoke the Eddie Irvine "you could have sex with 500 women in one month, but after a while it'd sort of lose its meaning" quote.

Again, I don't see why so many get mad at NASCAR for its success. Its success is based upon its racing, not the marketing. The big-time NASCAR marketing came AFTER NASCAR proved itself in the 80's on ESPN. The cult following became kind of large and so here we are today. But NASCAR's roots are from the great racing, the accessibility of the drivers, and the general good times at the track. NASCAR isn't the XFL, which was a pure attempt at marketing a new sport. NASCAR was around for 40 years until it really became popular. And after its 50th birthday...man. (Some would say it was after NASCAR's 30th birthday, it's 31st specifically...the 1979 Daytona 500, televised live by CBS.) The reason CBS started doing this was because they felt the racing/spectacle of NASCAR would attract TV viewers. (You cannot tell me that all forms of motor racing aren't some part spectacle.) Low and behold, CBS was right. But it took NASCAR over 30 years to get to that point. And what brought it to that point? The great racing, etc. The drivers like Richard Petty, David Pearson, Cale Yarborough, Bobby Allison, a young Darrell Waltrip, and in 1979, some young man named Dale Earnhardt was new on the scene. Others like Neil Bonnett, Buddy Baker, and Benny Parsons also contributed to some great racing. But the racing of NASCAR from Herb Thomas and Lee Petty to Richard Petty and David Pearson in the late 70's is what brought NASCAR to prominence. During the 80's the exploits of Dale Earnhardt, Darrell Waltrip, and Bill Elliott really brought NASCAR that much more popularity. DW won some championships, so did Dale, with his aggressive style, and then there was Awesome Bill from Dawsonville winning the Winston Million in 1985. Bill, and the Melling team's, speed at places like Daytona and Talladega...that interested people. Watching Bill Elliott and Davey Allison battle at Talladega at 209 mph...that was awesome.

Some of you just assume that NASCAR is all about marketing. Today it is marketed a lot, sure, but to us NASCAR fans who have been watching since the 80's and earlier, we know why NASCAR became popular. It was almost a "where have you been?" And now, I wish NASCAR was like it was in the 80's, before it was mainstreamed. But it is great that some of my favorite drivers can make so much money nowadays. Richard toiled in NASCAR driving over 30 years and his career earnings on the track are less than what some drivers make per season in purse earnings today!

It's like Roger Waters explained about Pink Floyd in 1972 on Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii: "If they (the consumer) don't like it (the concert) they don't come again." You can market NASCAR all you want, but if the racing/product doesn't satisfy the fans, they won't watch, they won't go to the track, etc. Why do I watch NASCAR? Because many of the drivers I've liked since the 1980's still race in it, and occassionally, you get to see a finish like the one between Jeff Gordon and Kevin Harvick at Atlanta. I think the NASCAR drivers prove themselves at the road courses. I mean, you can watch the BTCC and there's plenty of bumping and banging in that. I think a lot of people are looking for excuses to hate NASCAR because its winning the popularity contest in the US. Well what does that mean? Nothing. Who cares? If you enjoy F1, CART, the IRL, and ALMS, like I do, but don't like NASCAR (unlike me) great. Isn't your enjoyment of the other series enough? Or do you have to have the rest of the world's approval and be justified/vindicated with your sport being the most popular? I could care less if the NHL never beats football or basketball in TV ratings. I love hockey. And I don't have to go around bashing football and basketball because I love hockey but most of the rest of the country does not.

Those of you who always bash NASCAR are suspect. Something's wrong, because if you have to bash NASCAR, if you're personal enjoyment of F1 and/or CART is not enough to keep you happy, then that's sad. If you don't like NASCAR, don't watch it. It reflects poorly on you if you're always bitching about things. I don't like rap music much, I prefer Pink Floyd, Roger Waters, etc. But I don't go around putting down rap music and its enthusiasts. Rap fans like rap, I like Pink Floyd and related music. But some of you, if there's something you don't like, you always have to insult it or tear it down. It's like you're in middle school or high school or something with your cliques and popularity contest and "I'll be damned if I'm not the most popular."

I just can't imagine someone's love for F1 not being enough, to where a person has to always tear down other forms of auto racing. I mean, as far as NASCAR is concerned with popularity in the US, "Let the baby have its bottle." Of course, these put downs are not limited to racing series, its F1 drivers too. A lot of people here are always slagging something. I'm always defending the "lesser" drivers and some of the "superior" drivers get a lot of unfair criticism. You're suspect if you're always having to put other people/things down. You can't live your life happy as it is, you have to put down people with different enjoyments/views.

A lot of you hold the "pay drivers" in contempt. I don't. Why? Because you have to have a certain skill level to make it into F1 nowadays. Like Gaston Mazzacane for instance. His resume wasn't that bad previous to F1. Did PSN give him that boost? Yep. Know what I say? Good for Gaston Mazzacane. Why? Because somehow he was able to convince PSN to support him and he got to race F1 cars, something I'd love to do. How did he convince PSN? Probably, "Hey, I raced in F3000, picked up some points, was second in the South American F3 series a few years back, done some road racing, I'm from your neck of the woods, maybe we can work together." The fact is, Gaston would wipe the floor with all of us. But some of you resent Gaston so much. You are unable to share in his enjoyment of F1. He was not a disgrace to F1. You look at all the drivers in F1 history, we could only wish the "worst" drivers in F1 in most seasons were as "bad" as Gaston Mazzacane. (Plus, you must not have watched the Indy GP last year. He was pretty good for Minardi in every session, and his racecraft during the GP...he proved he was an F1 driver to me on that day.)

It's...interesting...

[Ross Stonefeld]

The racing can be enjoyable, I was criticising the attitude


I had a lot of pride when the mechanics from the mark martin team came to look at our Pilbeam sportsracer last year at the Pepsi 400

[crbnfbr]

One has to understand that nasar rules in the usa, I think it's
a total joke as far as the racing or the technical chalenges of the sport go, but this is why Cart and F1 both suffer from lack of fan interest in the U.S.
Living in the south in the U.S. is torture for a person like me, everything is nascar, the average nascar fan hates cart because
of the furrin drivers, they don't understand the skills required to
race on a road course and they hate F1,those that know it exsists,
as much as cart. They don't undrestand that an F1 car or a champcar have performance levels way beyond that of a stock car
or the skills involved in driving one of these beasts.
Nascar is popular because they have taken racing and dumbed it
down to it's most basic element. There is no need to understand
the nuances that are occuring during the race, or the brillance of
schumachers control of the car in the rain.

They just know that rubbin is racin and the want to see passing.
and forget about them sissy open wheelers .

[John B]

I've been following NASCAR as long as F1 and enjoy them as diverse opposites. I've been able to (from the viewpoint of the Northeast, which is not a racing hotbed) watch its rise from obsurity to mainstream. No problems with the quote, but what does bother me is that it's taking a long time for measures to be taken on the safety front. Some things are being talked about which I agree with, most especially the softer front ends. But I wish this perhaps could have been initiated after the accidents last year, rather than waiting for a big name to die in the sport's biggest race. While I don't like restrictors either, given the other deaths happened at a track as opposite Daytona and Talladega as you can get, I'd prefer to see the hard frames receive the attention. It's frustrating because the sport seems to have gone backward in safety from what it was a few years ago.

[Drinky]

Pacific,

No need to get so pickled, I think there are many legitimate reasons of why NASCAR isn't God's gift to racing. No-one doubts NASCAR is popular because a lot of Americans like it and more power to 'em, but that still doesn't mean people can't criticise it when compared to other forms of motorsport. Those people are simply stating why they don't like it.

I myself don't care about NASCAR and I wouldn't mind if it took over all of American motorsports. I'm European and over here the NASCAR equivalents are called Touring Cars (BTCC, DTM, etc.) These series are always considered to be lesser forms of racing, but that doesn't mean they're no fun. They're quite popular, having a style that differs significantly from open-wheel racing, but everyone involved realises this isn't the pinnacle of motorsports and nobody claims it to be so.

So why does the American Touring Car Championship think it is? I guess it comes down to one's definition of what racing is. For many NASCAR fans I think it's close racing in fairly standard machines by people that do not differ too much from themselves, which is fine. But you'll find that a lot of open-wheel fans think technology and racing excellence, actual skill, regardless of nationality are more important, things that are in short supply in NASCAR.

I guess NASCAR and open-wheel are like religion and science, they both provide a similar experience, but never the twain shall meet...

By the way, one addendum to your report perhaps, but most European TV coverage is now on private, commercial channels, not government owned ones.

[Ross Stonefeld]

heh there is nothing making NASCAR and BTCC/DTM even remotely close to each other. NASCAR isnt even production based vehicles

[Pacific]

Drinky: I was aware of the European TV coverage in some countries like England. But I don't know what it is in most countries, say Sweden, Finland, etc. So, I went with the safer assumption. I would expect F1 to be on private channels, just the nature of the beast.

Also, I think it's completely fair for an F1 fan when confronted by a NASCAR fan, "F1 sucks" to state why they feel F1 is superior. But we always get people who just bash NASCAR because they can. Those are the people I have problems with. I mean hell, I have some qualms with NASCAR myself, and I'm a die-hard fan. (Restrictor plates, the Dale Earnhardt cover-up, and more)

But why we have people getting mad at NASCAR for claiming to be the greatest form of racing on Earth because they forget about F1....it is an opinion. Bill France Sr and Bill France Jr very seriously did take a lot of pride in NASCAR. Again, to me, NASCAR isn't to blame for this safety stuff. It's up to the teams and the drivers. I mean, if you read about Petty Enterprises you find out all the advancements they made in roll cages. After certain accidents, they'd analyze things and add new bars, change the placement of others...like after Petty flipped a bajillion times at Daytona in 1988, padding in the roll-cages proliferated. After they were done, they told the other teams, "Hey, maybe you want to see what we've done." I know the Hendrick team has done a lot about the area around the windshield safety-wise. Roush racing developed the roof flaps in response to a problem. Now it is certain that with the concrete walls in NASCAR, the cars front ends need to be softer; more of a crumple zone.

Remember back in Bristol, 1990 I think it was...during the Busch race Michael Waltrip's Kool Aid car backed into the wall and disintegrated...like...a CART car. The energy was dispersed. The car was a goner, but Waltrip was A-okay. Scott Pruett said it best on RPM tonight when he compared a NASCAR to putting an egg in a steel box. You can smash the steel box into things and the steel box will stay in pretty good shape, but the egg inside is getting scrambled. What has happened is the NASCAR teams have gone too far in saving the cars, and not the drivers. It's no different than how passenger cars crush tons more than the Ford Galaxies of the 1960's. You have these small fender benders in parking lots in which cars look pretty bad nowadays, but the car takes all the energy, not the drivers. So, in one regard, NASCAR has gone backwards. Well, it's time for them to catch up.

But to say that NASCAR must mandate things...that's taking away the personal responsibility of the teams and the drivers. Nobody forces these drivers to race NASCARs.

But, anyway, I think its strange that somebody gets upset with NASCAR making claims/having a difference of opinion. I think NASCAR from a financial view feels it is the best. I personally feel F1 is the pinnacle of racing, most NASCAR drivers agree. However, as far as the best racing overall...I think CART is the best. Why? Because CART has the most diverse track set. You get to watch so much different types of racing in one series. Plus, CART is a very technological series, not as much as F1, but...CART is kind of the best of both worlds. Now, my enthusiasm for F1 and NASCAR is higher...it's weird that way. NASCAR is my first love, I find F1 fascinating, and I love CART racing too. It disappoints me that so many Americans dislike CART because they "can't relate with the drivers." Whaddya talking about? They're all human beings naturally born. I can relate to all of them. Why? They love racing too.

Now Ross' criticism of NASCAR is very mild compared to many. I just wonder why Ross found it necessary to start a whole new topic to basically slag NASCAR. (What other purpose would it serve?) It's actually kind of "un-Ross" like. (No offense intended Ross. I still value your opinion highly. I can understand your frustration with NASCAR management, I too am frustrated with them currently, but for different reasons.)

[Keith Young]

NASCAR doesn't even take that much driver skill. All they really do is lay on the gas, and turn left. In Daytona they don't need to use their brakes at all. They just go in circles. In F1, there are a variety of different kinds of turns, and in different directions. The drivers have to have more skill to race a circuit than to go in circles.

Even if you put an F1 car on an oval, it will beat a Stock Car. Every aspect of the car is better. The only time I watch nascar is when there is no open wheel racing or hockey on.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It just frustates me becuase I look at all the other series as part of our 'family' but it seems like nascar doesnt want to be part of the house. You know? I may be looking for something when they say it, but it seems like the tone of voice is kind of arrogant. "NASCAR is the best form of racing" can be debated and I think it would be very fun to discuss it but "NASCAR is the best sport" seems to kind of say they dont even want to acknowledge us over here, even though the drivers and teams do.

When I read that NASCAR doesnt want to talk to the medical and safety experts from CART IRL and ALMS (who all talk to each other) it only reinforces this. Oh well

[IndyIan]

I just had a thought about NASCAR being financially bigger: What about sponsership money? I don't think any NASCAR team gets anywhere near the amount of money that even Minardi or Arrows gets. I can see why since a NASCAR team would have a hard time spending big bucks but if it is so popular why doesn't it attract big time money? Even taking in the fact that there are more than twice as many NASCAR teams as F1 I think Ferrari or McLaren's budget is probably bigger than all of them.
F1 reaches a smaller audiance but I guess it's more valuable?;)

[Bjorn]

I heard somewhere once that F1 was third when it comes to TV viewers, the Olympics being first and Footie WC second... and those come every four years!

I can't remember where I read/heard/saw that, though, so you probably shouldn't take it too seriously...

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by rough_wood
NASCAR doesn't even take that much driver skill.

This statement is just as ignorant as the pro-Nascar quote that got Ross pissed enough to start this thread in the first place.

With the huge prize money in the sport, why doesn't some F1 washout like Magnusson or Zanardi take his superior skills into the vast talentless wasteland that is Nascar and win 20 races and the Cup? It would be as much trouble as shooting a commercial right, just show up, work for a few hours and walk off with a six figure check.

[ForzaF1]

F1 reaches a much larger audience than NASCAR, and therefore the sponsors can justify the much larger costs of F1 sponsorship. And Im sure you're right, a Ferrari or McLaren team budget is probably more than the entire NASCAR field's!

Then again there are no $10 million plus driver salaries in NASCAR, and a single F1 gearbox costs more than an entire race-ready NASCAR racer, so for a sponsor interested in targeting a mainstream American consumer audience NASCAR is probably a good bargain. NASCAR sells soap (literally).

Racing in NASCAR probably requires a lot more skill than we non-drivers can appreciate, but it is a limited skill when compared to the skills needed to drive an F1 car on a road course.

In F1 there are fast sweepers at Monza, Hockenhiem, Spa that are just as fast as any Oval corner, and don't have banking to help the driver get through them. They also have a variety of other corners to deal with all the way down to the Lowes hairpin (often on the same track) and most of these corners actually require modulation of braking force to get through.

My conclusion is that road racing in general takes a lot more skill than oval racing, so anything that's primarily on ovals can't possibly claim its anywhere near the top of the motorsports heap. IN addition, at least to this TV viewer, most ovals make for rather boring viewing (yes I know there are million who disagree in the USA, but I'd bet none of them have ever watched a road race unless it was NASCAR, and those races are jokes)

[Ross Stonefeld]

I dont beleive NASCAR is any more competitive than CART, F1, or Formula Ford. You dont have the right car and team you arent going to gte anywhere. I think the fact that its oval racing and that setup is such a key part of going fast on ovals that it may actually be more so than other series.

I saw something once in a Bill Elliot interview where he said something along the lines of "this days you cant go into the season with a budget, you have to be able to spend whatever it takes" which made me think there were massive budgets involved. I think NASCAR's budget per car is a bit less than CART if my numbers are correct, but its not much. A single CART may be 9 a NASCAR 8 or something

Anyone have the 95 sports illustrated NASCAR year in review magazine thingy? It might even be 96. At any rate I recall reading an article in there that said NASCAR shops put F1 shops to shame. I have to admit having seen the Childress shop it is absolutely HUGE. Ganassi's shop is gigantic too. Though I doubt they are as teched up as F1. Then again they do their own engines.

Thats one thing ive always found strange about F1. The transporters and factories are dwared by the US side. Heck Ive even seen some massive shops that only refit Atlantic cars

[Spunout]

"With the huge prize money in the sport, why doesn't some F1 washout like Magnusson or Zanardi take his superior skills into the vast talentless wasteland that is Nascar and win 20 races and the Cup? It would be as much trouble as shooting a commercial right, just show up, work for a few hours and walk off with a six figure check."

One must remember few things making NASCAR so close competition:

1. Almost equal machinery
-Differences do exist but not as major ones as in F1. This is surely not why former F1 dropouts etc don´t drive in NASCAR. However two following reasons might be.

2. Cars not as difficult to drive as F1 cars or CART cars.
-This is one reason why differences between drivers are not so big (another one is number 3). NASCAR vehicles are easier to drive and therefore it doesn´t take as much skill to make a good lap as it takes in F1 or CART (please notice I didn´t say it doesn´t take any skill at all). This means a good driver can´t get as big benefit from his skills in NASCAR as he can in F1 or CART series.

3. Lots of oval racing
-In ovals there are rarely big differences between drivers. Those who win have often slightly better setup and therefore they will win or get a pole by a slight margin. This means once again good drivers can´t benefit from their skills as much as they can in road races where braking/accelerating/different corners give better chances for winning time compared to other drivers.

If I may conclude I would say: If you would put 22 drivers in similar F1 cars in any road track and 22 drivers in similar NASCAR cars on any oval it´s clear there would be much bigger differences between those who drove F1 in road track. In F1 or CART series drivers simply have better chances to benefit from their skills compared to others. If you would be a great driver in low-end NASCAR team I´m not sure would you have enough chances to benefit from your skills to win at oval races. Perhaps in road races you would have a better chance but even then less demanding cars would make it more difficult.

There are few examples of F1 drivers testing stock cars (or any closed-wheel cars) in races so there is not much material we can use to compare open-wheel (F1/CART etc) and closed-wheel racers (NASCAR etc). I don´t count IROC races at all because 1 - IROC is NASCAR in disguise 2 - They drive on ovals (read my statements 2 and 3). However I remember Mika Häkkinen participating two Porsche Supercup races during 93. He was MacLaren test driver and drove those races mainly for fun. He had never drove any kind of Porsche before and didn´t have much time for car setups etc. Despite of all this he took two poles and two wins in dominating style. I have no doubt Schumacher&co couldn´t do it too. I just think NASCAR wouldn´t give a decent chance for former F1 drivers to show are they superior or not. Jean Alesi once stated he would like to drive NASCAR after his F1 career. IF he wasn´t joking we might see am I right or not.

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Spunout

2. Cars not as difficult to drive as F1 cars or CART cars.
-This is one reason why differences between drivers are not so big (another one is number 3). NASCAR vehicles are easier to drive and therefore it doesn´t take as much skill to make a good lap as it takes in F1 or CART (please notice I didn´t say it doesn´t take any skill at all). This means a good driver can´t get as big benefit from his skills in NASCAR as he can in F1 or CART series. [/B]

Oh really? Jenson only had two years of driving actual race cars and he goes into F1 and does not embarrass himself. Same with 21 year old Kimi who has said himself that F1 isn't that difficult. With all the driver aids, F1 is fast becoming a "Just steer, point and click" series.

[G8R_Sackmasters]

Until a friend introduced me to Formula One I had never been very interested in motor sports. Living in the southeast part of the US one gets barraged with NASCAR. Living in Gainesville, FL I have been to NHRA events and I also attended the Firecracker 400 when I was younger. The power of the vehicles was impressive but none of the series really had me hooked. I'll admit I tried to get into NASCAR but in the end it just boored me. I thought the races were too long and the lack of variety didnt help either. I didnt have anything against NASCAR--I just wasnt into it.

I was aware of Formula One but hadnt really watched a race or talked with a knowledgeable fan about the sport until a new coworker and I started talking about cars this past offseason. He knew I was about to start restoring a Lotus Elan and he mentioned the F1 history of Lotus--which I vaguely was aware. I could tell he was passionate about the sport but I was skeptical Id be really interested. Well obviously I was wrong. After watching Australia by myself and watching Malaysia with him I was majorly hooked. I wont go into all the reasons I liked it but lets just say it was everything NASCAR wasnt.

Its really exciting to discover something new and this was one great discovery. Once I was hooked I got online to clamor for anything related to the sport and found several sites including this one; they have made the sport even more fascinating. This interest in F1 has led me to discover some other series that werent real well known in the US also. Now I watch Speedvision to catch not only F1, but Rally and Le Mans racing as well--before I used to watch for the classic car shows.

So whats the point(yes I know Im long-winded)?

Well a poster asked why some bash NASCAR. I wouldnt say Im a die-hard hater of NASCAR but since Ive become a fan of F1 the dominant series here can frustrate one a bit. You cant find much on TV about it. You cant hardly find anyone to chat with about it. I find many either like NASCAR or dont like auto-racing at all because they equate it all with NASCAR. NASCAR is very good at what they do but it can get on your nerves if you get blasted with it all the time and one of your favorite sports gets short-changed because of its popularity. What Ive had to resort to doing is converting some people I know so I can have a group to watch it with. So far Ive got 3 in the fold(including my wife).

So while I agree with your point that NASCAR should be left alone to those who like it and not be bashed--I can understand why it is trashed by some in here.

[crbnfbr]

I don't have a problem with somebody being a big nascar fan, after
all their entitled, my problem is that nasccar has basiclly brainwashed the general american public into believing that racing
concists of drivers slaming their cars into each other so a position
can be gained. I always hear coments about how open wheelers
cant race like stock cars because they cant touch.
Maybe so but in cart or Formula 1 if you make contact with another
car ,your concidered to be less skilled or clumsy then the other drivers.
Racing is about precise skill and control and focus, the General public in the states can't see this, they think it's a blood sport
that anybody can do.

[Spunout]

"Oh really? Jenson only had two years of driving actual race cars and he goes into F1 and does not embarrass himself. Same with 21 year old Kimi who has said himself that F1 isn't that difficult."

First we are talking about two extraordinarily talented drivers. Like you said JB didn´t embarrass himself. He didn´t beat his teammate who had more experience which I think shows how difficult F1 is even for major talents like JB. Also you are forgetting car control etc are very much about being talented (reactions etc) and experience is needed more in car setups etc. Anyone can get experience but not talent. Young and talented drivers doing well does not indicate F1 car is not difficult to drive. Experienced but mediocre drivers doing well in F1 perhaps would.

"With all the driver aids, F1 is fast becoming a "Just steer, point and click" series."

I guess driving F1 is easy now. Anyone could beat Michael Schumacher at Monaco or Spa (especially at rain). I´m sorry Joe Fan but your comments tell something about how much you know about F1 cars.

Are you really suggesting NASCAR cars are more difficult to drive?

Please remember if F1 is "just (brake)-steer-point-click" NASCAR oval races are "just steer". The only difference in steering is there are many kind of corners in F1 - fast/slow - left/right etc.

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Spunout
I´m sorry Joe Fan but your comments tell something about how much you know about F1 cars.

Are you really suggesting NASCAR cars are more difficult to drive?

Well, I have the same feelings you do as it pertains to NASCAR Winston Cup stockcars. Because you don't have anything to base your belief on other than myths or subjective feelings. Well, I have something to base an argument on and that is physics. The reason why a Winston Cup stock car should be more difficult to drive F1 car, Champcar or IRL car is simple, downforce!

Winston Cup stock cars only produce around 1000 pounds of downforce. Here is what former CART driver Scott Pruett had to say about a Winston Cup car, "The weight of the car, we're going from a 1,500-pound car to a 3,400-pound car. And the downforce, just the pure grip, is different. These (stock cars) make maybe a thousand pounds of downforce and an Indy car makes 5,000-pounds of downforce and that's a pretty significant difference."

Source:http://www.lasvegass.../509918010.html

Downforce is what stabilizes a car at high speeds. This is why Top Fuel Dragstars need between 4,000 and 8,000 pounds of downforce in order to stick to the track for 300mph quater mile runs. Here is a quote to back up what I am saying: "Keeping a Top Fueler's 6,000 horsepower glued to the racing surface at more than 300 mph is no mean feat, and a driver's best friends are the huge rear wing and the front canard wings that keep the race car from becoming a airborne missile. The carbon- fibre rear wings, which can measure no more than 1,500 square inches, produce 6,200 to 6,500 pounds of downforce on the rear tyres."

Source: http://www.darrendif...m/carspecs.html

Here is another factoid that should make it all clear right off the IRL's website: "Did you know...that the 1,550-pound Indy Racing League cars generate 5,000 pounds of downforce at 220 mph, enough to allow the car to run upside down if that speed is maintained?"

Source: http://www.indyracin...didyouknow.html

Yes, run upside down! Yes, this same fact has been said about F1 cars too. That shows you how stable open-wheel winged cars are. If they are stable enough to run upside down, how in the world can they be more difficult to drive if they are that stable? NASCAR stock cars run around 200mph with only around 1000 pounds of downforce. Therefore, they are less stable and easier to spin out. Especially since they have no wing to catch their spin. Richard Petty said that the winged Superbird stockcars of the late 60's and early 70's were the easiest cars to drive because the rear wing made the cars almost impossible to spin out at high speeds. He said that when you did start to loose them, the rear wing would help re-stabilize the car once it started to get sideways.

Also note that on ovals, NASCAR stockcars run at high speeds all the time, no 30mph and 60mph chicanes on an oval. So they are more frequently running in their "loss/control" window than an open wheel car on a road course. I will say that the grooved tires make F1 cars harder to drive than Champcars or IRL cars, due to the loss of mechanical grip. At last year's Homestead CART race, Kenny Brack drifted up into the marbles in one of the turns, and then he proceeded to scrub his tires at 200mph! If you tried to do this in a Winston Cup stockcar, you would have a date with a concrete wall. But getting back to the argument on which open wheel cars are most difficult to drive, there are more drivers aids on a F1 car than these two and they run more frequently in traffic.

And before anyone states that a sports car is more difficult to driver than Winston Cup driver, Dale Earnhardt said that the Corvette C5-R drove very similar to a Winston Cup car. But he thought that the C5-R was easier to drive than a Winston Cup car despite a significant difference in acceleration and top-end speed.