167 replies to this topic

[dpardyrx7]

Now before you send threatening letters, please understand that I am a big F1 fan. Been to many races and even drive one of those little red cars from Maranello. However from a marketing point of view F1 is constantly screwing itself into the ground compared to NASCAR. Here are some examples:

1. F1 drivers hate to do promo work - NASCAR guys love it.

2. F1 bosses are currently criticizing there #1 asset - Ferrari. Can you imagine NASCAR criticizing Gordon, Earnhardt or Petty in public.

3. NASCAR drivers are identifiable - everyone knows who # 24 is - Quick - what number was Irvine last year????

4. In any given race there are about 30 lead changes in NASCAR - F1 had that many in all of last season.

5. NASCAR has network television - F1 - Bernievision

6. NASCAR - 37 races - F1 - 17, oops sorry only 16. We are going to kill Spa, sort of like getting rid of Daytona.

The only good news is that the NASCAR guys don't have their sights set on Europe and Asia. It would take them about 10 years to out hussle, out thinks, and out perform F1.

Ok, I'm ready for the pies.............

[Ross Stonefeld]

F1 - 6am

NASCAR - 2pm



Thats all there is to it

[Dudley]

Outside American, Nascar will never be successful because you won't get Europeans to watch ovals.

--

4. In any given race there are about 30 lead changes in NASCAR - F1 had that many in all of last season.

And that's why it sucks. Why watch the first 90% of the race when anyone can still win 10laps from home?

--

And who cares about numbers? Eddie Irvine is recognisable because he's Eddie.

[Formula-1]

ASSCAR:

www.noright.com

[jonpollak]

And a niche sport it should remain...
I would Hate for F1 to be Americanised to the point of NASCAR over saturation.

I like going to races in the USA and NOT paying a fortune to get in,
Waiting in traffic jams for hours,
Paying €10 for a beer,
Looking at Ralf staring back at me from a cereal packet,

etc etc


count your blessings in disguise
Jp

ps..

5. NASCAR has network television - F1 - Bernievision

Ever seen BernieVision™?

[baddog]

Originally posted by dpardyrx7
Now before you send threatening letters, please understand that I am a big F1 fan. Been to many races and even drive one of those little red cars from Maranello. However from a marketing point of view F1 is constantly screwing itself into the ground compared to NASCAR. Here are some examples:

1. F1 drivers hate to do promo work - NASCAR guys love it.

what makes you think the drivers like it any more or less? they may do more of it (though I doubt it , the promo workload of an f1 driver is huge) but like it more? evidence?

2. F1 bosses are currently criticizing there #1 asset - Ferrari. Can you imagine NASCAR criticizing Gordon, Earnhardt or Petty in public.

F1 fans are a critical, cynical, and mature audience. If all F1 did was pat itself on the back it would garner only contempt. Critical self analysis increases the respect and the fanbas in most of the world.

3. NASCAR drivers are identifiable - everyone knows who # 24 is - Quick - what number was Irvine last year????

Formula one cars are open wheel. most F1 fans could recognise 80% of helmets in an instant. Numbers arent important in F1, helmets are.

4. In any given race there are about 30 lead changes in NASCAR - F1 had that many in all of last season.

Yes, nascar is good for the instant thrill junkie. God save us from F1 ever being that

5. NASCAR has network television - F1 - Bernievision

F1 needs to get its best coverage onto free to air tv and fast. This is your most vaild point

6. NASCAR - 37 races - F1 - 17, oops sorry only 16. We are going to kill Spa, sort of like getting rid of Daytona.

F1 has around the right number of races . more than 20 and you are spreading yourself too thin.

The only good news is that the NASCAR guys don't have their sights set on Europe and Asia. It would take them about 10 years to out hussle, out thinks, and out perform F1.

It would take forever. Really.

Ok, I'm ready for the pies.............

heres a steak and kidney, with tomato sauce.

Shaun

[Amnios]

Sorry but oval racing is a snore fest. Yay lets watch cars go round and round and round.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It's dull.

Amnios.

[GunStar]

Hate to say it, but the cars are all marketing tools. (Betcha nary knew that one) I don't know about you, but in Europe, try buying a 5.7 litre engined car. In some countries the tax on the displacement of that size is more than a new Corvette. Heck, my 2.5L Probe isn't cheap on the tax. Now, try telling that Yank that the little 3 litre V-10 can put out just as much power as his carburated big block 427 and watch the smoke pour forth from his noggin.

Oh, and NASCAR DOES turn right on ovals. The bloody cars are set to turn left to be neutral in the corners, and the driver turns right on the straights.

Lets all stone the unclean one now.

[Bruce Moxon]

Well, I like NASCAR racing. I watch it every chance I get. I like the trust those guys demonstrate. I like to see slipstreaming battles, the odd rubbing-up, cars that don't handle or stop particularly well being driven well.

I think NASCAR drivers do more PR work with the fans, while the F1 guys are expected more to schmooze with the suits and cheque books. Still PR, just aimed differently.

There is variety in NASCAR, it's just not all that obvious. There are the tracks like Talladega and Daytona which are flat out all the way. Then there are places like Martinsville and Bristol - half mile ovals that are more like a bullring than a racetrack. And then there are in-between tracks like Charlotte and Homestead - mile and a half - have to brake for the turns.

Don't you think it would be boring if all motor racing was the same?


BM

[CLX]

NASCAR laps in circles and in less than one minute, so the audience's short attention span won't make them lose track of the events of the race.

[CLX]

Originally posted by CLX
NASCAR laps in circles and in less than one minute, so the audience's short attention span won't make them lose track of the events of the race.

And they also happen to turn left, ALL THE TIME.

[mikedeering]

Loosely related...

I was thinking today about how US sports differ in general from the rest of the world (or at least Europe).

It is a strange situation, but in North American sports, it seems the powres that be all interfere to create a level playing field for all teams. In field sports they have things like salary caps, drafts that favour the worse placed teams, no promotion/relegation etc. In motorsports they have technical regs aimed specifically to prevent one car/team being dominant.

Yet their whole way of life is built on capitalist leanings - survival of the fittest etc. In business, the government doesn't intervene much to protect weaker firms. Put simply, if you aren't successful then you are put out of business. So why does this apporach not carry across to the world of sports?

I much prefer the European model - with field sports the idea of promotion/relegation is brilliant - and adds an exciting element for fans. Watching your team involved in a relegation dogfight and avoiding it is almost as thrilling as seeing them win the league! In US sports, if your team is playing badly, what is the motivation for the fans? OK, European sports are not perfect - it is getting increasing hard for smaller football clubs to compete with the top teams as the divide between rich and poor widens, but I think this better to artifical intereference. Why have US sports adopted such an interventionalist approach? Its almost socialist in its leanings!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by CLX


And they also happen to turn left, ALL THE TIME.

So what? Turning right isnt any more difficult than turning left.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Loosely related...

Yet their whole way of life is built on capitalist leanings - survival of the fittest etc. In business, the government doesn't intervene much to protect weaker firms. Put simply, if you aren't successful then you are put out of business. So why does this apporach not carry across to the world of sports?

Because Major League Baseball, or NFL Football would be very boring with 2 teams. BTW ask Microsoft or IBM or AT&T or Standard Oil what happens in America if you become dominant. Do European Touring car series not use tech regs to keep the cars level. Don't they also use weight penanlties and flip the grid in some of these series???

And when European Football consists of Madrid, Manchester and Inter Milan, lets see how you feel if all the small market teams collapse.

[fuzzybunny]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


So what? Turning right isnt any more difficult than turning left.

Hmmm... You should try my Civic since I whacked a pavement.

On the plus side it turns left really nicely

[OssieFan]

Originally posted by tifosi


Because Major League Baseball, or NFL Football would be very boring with 2 teams. BTW ask Microsoft or IBM or AT&T or Standard Oil what happens in America if you become dominant. Do European Touring car series not use tech regs to keep the cars level. Don't they also use weight penanlties and flip the grid in some of these series???

And when European Football consists of Madrid, Manchester and Inter Milan, lets see how you feel if all the small market teams collapse.

I would rather watch a dominant team(s) who dominate because they are the best (Ferrari etc) than watch a sport that artificially tries to keep the teams on an even playing field.

I can't believe so many people want to turn sports into McDonalds.

[mikedeering]

Originally posted by tifosi


Because Major League Baseball, or NFL Football would be very boring with 2 teams. BTW ask Microsoft or IBM or AT&T or Standard Oil what happens in America if you become dominant. Do European Touring car series not use tech regs to keep the cars level. Don't they also use weight penanlties and flip the grid in some of these series???

And when European Football consists of Madrid, Manchester and Inter Milan, lets see how you feel if all the small market teams collapse.

It's true - the BTCC tried to use artificial means to make closer racing - and the whole series imploded a few years later and is only just trying to recover...

I know other Touring Car series in European (and around the world) try to level the playing field, but aside from that I know of few other sports that do so. It can be argued that touring cars are not what the US would term "major league" sports as well.

As for 2 teams dominating sports - what is wrong with that? In English Premier League, in recent years there has been maximum 3 clubs that could legitmatally claim to be contenders - Man Utd, Arsenal, and to a lesser degree Liverpool. Has English Football been boring as a result? I would say no. Is it predictable? Not really - in theory Man Utd (based on their huge revenue streams and playing talent) should dominate - yet they don't. Last year they finished 3rd. So far this season they have been unpredictable and are currently 5th. No need for league interference - just natural cycle of things as teams work out how to play against them and exploit their weaknesses.

Regardless of how dominate a team is, the interest at the other end of the league keeps things exciting through promotion/relegation. What incentive is there in US sposrts for the worse teams to improve? There is no relegation - and they actually get rewarded for their mediocrity through the draft! How is that fair?

So would the NFL be boring if the same team won every year? I don't think so. Nothing wrong with a team doing a better job than anyone else. Better that than inteference IMHO. I think its insulting to the fans if teams are artificially handicapped - whats the point in watching such a spectacle? If I want that I would watch wrestling...

I don't know much of the background about the companies you mention. On the MS case, I thought the problem was not so much the monopoly they held - but the fact they abused their position in one market to leverage dominance in another market that they didn't dominate. It wasn't their dominance that was wrong - it was how they achieved that dominance.

If a sports team achieved dominance through artificial means e.g. cheating, bribing officials (look at Olympique Marseille in 1993) - then fair enough, intervention is required. If a team plays within the rules and is dominant, then kudos to them.

[CLX]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


So what? Turning right isnt any more difficult than turning left.

You comlpetely misunderstood my post.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Oh I got it, I just identified it for what it was

[Williams]

F1 will never overtake NASCAR in the states because NASCAR is rooted in American culture, F1 is not.

[BRG]

I used to enjoy a bit of NASCAR for a nice change from road-racing and open-wheelers, Then they fixed the race at Daytona so that Dale Jr could win and everyone could have a good cry. I sort of lost my respect for the series then. On the other hand, we have seen some probable fixing, or at least manipulation, in F1 as well, albeit usually a bit more subtle. So let he without sin cast the first stone (or pie).

NASCAR does have some useful lesson for F1 and for other racing series too. It is a well-presented show - colourful and exciting - with plenty of "characters" for the fans to side with or against. The sponsors get full value for their bucks, even if they are sponsoring a less competitive car. The TV coverage is usually very good. OK, you can criticise the standard and integrity of the racing, but they fill those stadiums to capacity race after race, so they must be doing something right.

Can you imagine that NASCAR would have kicked BAT in the teeth when they wanted to have dual liveries for BAR, the way that Bernie did? Hardly, it would have been welcomed - more colours, more brand names, great! Would NASCAR drop their most historic race, the way Bernie has ditched Spa? Of course not. Would NASCAR go to court to STOP a team entering, the way F1 did with DART. I doubt it. Would NASCAR allow costs to spiral out of control until there aren't enough teams to fill up the grid. No, they wouldn't. Would NASCAR sell the TV rights to some dodgy German firm that wants to make it pay-per-view with only a few thousand viewers? I doubt it - they want a mass audience so that Kellogs and Goodwrench and Tide etc get the maximum exposure. In commercial and presentational terms, NASCAR makes F1 look like amateur hour.

Instead of looking down on NASCAR (and CART and IRL and WRC etc) with disdain from some Olympian height, F1 should be all the time learning from them - both what they do right as well as what they do wrong.

[Garagiste]

Williams - spot on.
That is of course the same reason that NASCAR amounts to nothing outside the USA.

[Spunout]

"1. F1 drivers hate to do promo work - NASCAR guys love it.

2. F1 bosses are currently criticizing there #1 asset - Ferrari. Can you imagine NASCAR criticizing Gordon, Earnhardt or Petty in public.

3. NASCAR drivers are identifiable - everyone knows who # 24 is - Quick - what number was Irvine last year????

4. In any given race there are about 30 lead changes in NASCAR - F1 had that many in all of last season.

5. NASCAR has network television - F1 - Bernievision

6. NASCAR - 37 races - F1 - 17, oops sorry only 16. We are going to kill Spa, sort of like getting rid of Daytona."

7. All the drivers in F1 are "furreigners"

8. All the cars in F1 are "furreigners"

9. All the people who run F1 are "furreigners"

[tifosi]

Originally posted by BRG
I used to enjoy a bit of NASCAR for a nice change from road-racing and open-wheelers, Then they fixed the race at Daytona so that Dale Jr could win and everyone could have a good cry. I sort of lost my respect for the series then. On the other hand, we have seen some probable fixing, or at least manipulation, in F1 as well, albeit usually a bit more subtle. So let he without sin cast the first stone (or pie).

NASCAR does have some useful lesson for F1 and for other racing series too. It is a well-presented show - colourful and exciting - with plenty of "characters" for the fans to side with or against. The sponsors get full value for their bucks, even if they are sponsoring a less competitive car. The TV coverage is usually very good. OK, you can criticise the standard and integrity of the racing, but they fill those stadiums to capacity race after race, so they must be doing something right.

Can you imagine that NASCAR would have kicked BAT in the teeth when they wanted to have dual liveries for BAR, the way that Bernie did? Hardly, it would have been welcomed - more colours, more brand names, great! Would NASCAR drop their most historic race, the way Bernie has ditched Spa? Of course not. Would NASCAR go to court to STOP a team entering, the way F1 did with DART. I doubt it. Would NASCAR allow costs to spiral out of control until there aren't enough teams to fill up the grid. No, they wouldn't. Would NASCAR sell the TV rights to some dodgy German firm that wants to make it pay-per-view with only a few thousand viewers? I doubt it - they want a mass audience so that Kellogs and Goodwrench and Tide etc get the maximum exposure. In commercial and presentational terms, NASCAR makes F1 look like amateur hour.

Instead of looking down on NASCAR (and CART and IRL and WRC etc) with disdain from some Olympian height, F1 should be all the time learning from them - both what they do right as well as what they do wrong.

Would F1 force Ferrari to run a bigger rear wing to make up for the fact they produced a faster car?

Would F1 throw yellow flag after yellow flag to ensure that there will be close racing at the end.

Colorful characters???? Who in the world is more colorful than Eddie Irvine?

The WWE sells out all of its shows too, so is that what you want to see Formula One become.

Spa is not F1's most historic race and Bernie did not drop it. The teams did mainly because the deal with there sponsors limits the number of non-tobacco races. Anyway, the hammer has not fallen on this horse yet, Why do you think Spa has not been replaced?

The reason F1 costs have spiralled out of control is for the very reason that it is so hugely commercially succesful. Believe me, if NASCAR sponsors were paying $70-80M to be plastered on the side of the car, the teams would spend it. I hardly think there are very many things in the world that are more succesful commercially than F1 is.

[Lateralus42]

I dont think NASCAR is typical American culture, its sort of part of a subculture. There are plenty of Americans who hate NASCAR and in some parts of the country being called a NASCAR fan is kind of an insult. Just listen to shows like Jim Rome and how he and his listeners crack on 'NECKAR' all the time. Thats why I think F1 could make it here, but they need a bigger presence.

[RiverRunner]

Originally posted by tifosi
Believe me, if NASCAR sponsors were paying $70-80M to be plastered on the side of the car, the teams would spend it.

NASCAR costs a lot more to run than many here think, most teams have a huge amount of chassis in the shop and even build specific chassis for just one race. Add in the dinero that NASCAR sponsors tend to spend on commercials to tie their team/driver in with their product with the cost of timebuys on TV and you are likely looking at budgets in the 50 mil range.

Other than that point, I agree with Williams.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Hold on, its not that high


10-12mil will get you primary sponsorship on a midpack team. You want to be a name driver and/or win races you're looking at 13-17 with the 17 being the Buds, the DuPonts, etc. If you include all the PR, some event/series sponsorships, commercials, etc Bud is maybe in the 20mil range, and they are the sponsor with the highest exposure #s currently;



Top-5 Year-to-Date NASCAR Winston Cup Team Sponsors



1) Budweiser $155.4
2) Lowe's 86.8
3) NAPA At. Pts. 71.4
4) Miller Lite 71.3
5) UPS 70.1

*Comparable exposure valued reflected in millions. Values based on clear, in-focus exposure time and verbal references received during event broadcasts through the NAPA 500 (Atlanta).

[ehagar]

Originally posted by tifosi

Colorful characters???? Who in the world is more colorful than Eddie Irvine?

The WWE sells out all of its shows too, so is that what you want to see Formula One become.

What amazes me about Nascar are the number of spinoff shows on cable... and the nuber of drivers that appear on them. I can't imagine F-1 drivers doing what they do. The PR staff (or information control officers) would have a heart attack.

Actually... this comparison of Nascar to the WWE is getting tiresome. Pro Wrestling is actually in sharp decline. House shows are at 1/4 capacity. Raw and Smackdown are starting to not sell out. Television ratings are in decline and the product has discovered new ways to insult the viewers and make it turn it off.

[tifosi]

That sounds about the numbers I have heard with $30-35M being the cost to run a competitive team.

My point was more that like, F1, if more dollars were being funneled into the team, say $300M a'la Ferrari, a way would be found to spend it. The reason Ferrari, McClaren, and Williams can spend $300M is that F1 is succesfully enough commercially to pull in that kind of dough. Maybe F1 should have revenue sharing and everyone gets the same budget.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by ehagar


Actually... this comparison of Nascar to the WWE is getting tiresome. Pro Wrestling is actually in sharp decline. House shows are at 1/4 capacity. Raw and Smackdown are starting to not sell out. Television ratings are in decline and the product has discovered new ways to insult the viewers and make it turn it off.

Point is, I'd much rather F1 remain a competitive racing series than start packaging itself just to sell seats, which is what the origianl point of this thread was, that NASCAR concerns itself more with the packaging of its product than true racing competition. I.E. changing rules mid-season to keep the points races level, ensuring plenty of caution flags etc etc etc. I have nbothing against NASCAR's way of doing business, iI just like F1 not doing that, I don't need more of the same. The most amazing thing to me about F1 is the constructor's and there efforts to build the most competitive car on the track. That to me is what F1 is about. NASCAR isn't, no problem, 2 series, 2 different ways of doing business. Why in the world people can't except both but always have to pit one against the other I have no clue. But to insinuate F1 isnt succesful commercially or that F1 drivers do not spend huge amounts of time doing PR work is ludicrous.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by tifosi
That sounds about the numbers I have heard with $30-35M being the cost to run a competitive team.

Team or car? Keep in mind sponsors have 1 car, not entire teams, in NASCAR. Id say 13-14 is a good average for title sponsorship of a NASCAR. Associates sponsors are 100k-1mil depending on how big the team and sponsor are.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld



Team or car? Keep in mind sponsors have 1 car, not entire teams, in NASCAR. Id say 13-14 is a good average for title sponsorship of a NASCAR. Associates sponsors are 100k-1mil depending on how big the team and sponsor are.

That's the number I heard for a car and that is at the top end. This would include title sponsor, all other sponsors, the NASCAR sponsor package (those little decal around the fron wheel) and whatever other money poors into NASCAR (tv, merchandising, whatever Bill France deems they should share). I' m sure you could actually do it much cheaper but that is a number I've heard a few times this year for the higher-end teams.

[George Bailey]

It's ironic to hear that Europeans love sports where teams are free to dominate on a BB where the whole season has seen crying about how the Ferrari dominance has made F1 boring.

It must be Americans with short attention spans who changed the qualifying rules and point scoring system to level the field.



Back OT

I think Ross's 1st post gives 99% of the reason for the difference in size of the American F1 and NASCAR fan bases. As for the other 1%, NASCAR and F1 are two different sports only somewhat related by the fact that in both cases people are driving 4 wheeled vehicles. Why fans of either series feel the need to analyze the pyschologies and motives of fans of the other series is beyond me. What you watch does not make you better or worse than people who watch something else, it's just entertainment.

[tania_walesuk]

NASCAR is a pretty good sport I have enjoyed watching it this season, but if I had to pick F1 would win hands down flat out. Why ? it's more exciting has more to do and more monuvers, and I basically just prefer it.

[UMSLtifosi]

Originally posted by tifosi


Because Major League Baseball, or NFL Football would be very boring with 2 teams. BTW ask Microsoft or IBM or AT&T or Standard Oil what happens in America if you become dominant. Do European Touring car series not use tech regs to keep the cars level. Don't they also use weight penanlties and flip the grid in some of these series???

And when European Football consists of Madrid, Manchester and Inter Milan, lets see how you feel if all the small market teams collapse.

For one point, European Football won't ever consist of just Madrid (Real Madrid?), Manchester (Manchester United or City?) and Inter Milan. These clubs are in different leagues (La Liga, EPL, and Serie A). Within each nation is a different system, and there would never be just those clubs. If I'm remembering things correctly, ManU is about 5th in the EPL with Arsenal and Liverpool in the lead. And I believe Real Madrid is about fifth as well. These teams do have some dominance, but not as complete as some believe. These are just some of the most known clubs.

Just wanted to clear this up as you're comparison is like syaing 'What would happen if only the Yankees, Rams, and The Red Wings existed?" It's completely irrelevant. The whole point of this post is to point out that European sports (for the most point) don't interfere with their regs to make everyone equal. We value the inequality and understand that when a lower team defeats a larger team, it's even better (ManU 0 - 1 BWFC!!!!!!!!). Intentially equalised sports are less interesting because it's known that the best don't always win, just the luckiest or best that day.

Cheers

UMSLtifosi

[Todd]

Originally posted by George Bailey
It's ironic to hear that Europeans love sports where teams are free to dominate on a BB where the whole season has seen crying about how the Ferrari dominance has made F1 boring.

It must be Americans with short attention spans who changed the qualifying rules and point scoring system to level the field.

We have a winner....

[tifosi]

It was more of just a point rather than an actual 'could happen' statement. It's not like MLB makes the Yankees use deader bats, or the Redwings skate witrh dull skates. Revenue sharing is simply a way for the collective league to share league revenue among all markets. Salary Caps aren't even important since any first year law student can work around them. The league, and even the owners recognize that ALL teams big markets and small, are better off with a succesful league. The one league that hasn't recognized it is MLB and it is falling on its keister. It's not a matter of the best winning but simply recoginizing that Green Bay, Wisconsin will never for any reason wahtsoever have the television audience of New York, New York. Evidently Europeans belief is then that Green Bay shouldn't have a team, but I guess America feels differently, we like our Green Bays and Charlotte's. And we are only talking about reveb=nue sharing, noone manipulates any rules to make weker teams competitive with stronger teams.

[maxell]

What's NASCAR?

[tifosi]

Originally posted by maxell
What's NASCAR?

Some local-yokel thing they do in the southern US

[mohrgan]

I am an American living in the US and NASCAR sucks. 'Nuff said, y'all.

[Jackman]

Originally posted by tifosi
It's not a matter of the best winning but simply recoginizing that Green Bay, Wisconsin will never for any reason wahtsoever have the television audience of New York, New York. Evidently Europeans belief is then that Green Bay shouldn't have a team, but I guess America feels differently, we like our Green Bays and Charlotte's.

Actually, it's nothing of the sort - in European sports (particularly football) teams have the ability to be promoted into the big game, whether it's the Premiership in England, Serie A in Italy, La Liga in Spain or whatever. This gives the guys in the small teams an incentive to play better, as they may get their moment in the sun. The equivalent here would be for minor league teams to be able to compete and qualify for the majors (rather than being feeder teams only).

[tifosi]

Well, the players do actually, exactly that. They play their best hoping to get 'in the show'. Still, I'm not exactly sure why revenue sharing is considered manipulating the sport. Hell people on this BB have been crying for F1 to do that for years, and a lot of those doing the crying are Europeans. As far as using tech regs to govern motorsports, as has been pointed out, the Europeans have done that in all there national series also with weight penalties and grid flipping. And yes, irregardless we still enjoy the little guys pulling it off. Despite revenue sharing Green Bay still doesn't hold a candle to New York in available dolars to spend on talent, yet has managed to win more championships then all New York teams combined. Of course the 'little-guy' Charlotte Hornets won there championship and the team crashed and burned.

[George Bailey]

With ovals the tracks are certainly easier to learn and drive, but you're in traffic 90% of the time. A road course is harder to learn and drive, but in F1 you're driving in the clear with no one ahead or behind you for 90% of the race, or more.

So which is harder, turns or traffic? If you think for a minute about the potential carnage at the start of any given F1 race, or think about how backmarkers are expected to move way off line to allow the front runners to easily pass, it becomes clear that traffic is harder to manage than any left or right series of turns.

In the end F1 puts more of a premium on car development, and on the driver getting each corner right lap after lap - like a marathon of qualifying - whereas NASCAR is more about dealing with traffic, drafting, getting loose or tight because of the way your car handles when leading or being followed. Different sports, asking only that we enjoy them both for what they are, rather than blast this or that one for what it's not.

[Jackman]

Originally posted by tifosi
Well, the players do actually, exactly that. They play their best hoping to get 'in the show'.

But most fans like to support a team, not a player. F1 excluded, clearly.

Despite revenue sharing Green Bay still doesn't hold a candle to New York in available dolars to spend on talent, yet has managed to win more championships then all New York teams combined.

Not if you include the Yankees

[Scoots]

Originally posted by mikedeering


It's true - the BTCC tried to use artificial means to make closer racing - and the whole series imploded a few years later and is only just trying to recover...

I know other Touring Car series in European (and around the world) try to level the playing field, but aside from that I know of few other sports that do so. It can be argued that touring cars are not what the US would term "major league" sports as well.

The BTCC doesn't use "success" ballast?

It's not turning right that's the problem ... it's turning right AND left that's the problem. I have a little shop at Sears Point (now Infineon) Raceway where NASCAR has 1 of it's two left and right turning races of the year and I now avoid that weekend like the plague. Only a few of the drivers actually like it, most tolerate it, and some hate it. NASCAR has enough power that they messed up the track taking several of the most interesting turns out because NASCAR drivers couldn't handle it and so that the lap times were short enough for the fans limited attention span. I love racing and have been to several F1 races and I've got to say that all of the bad things said about NASCAR fans are true, even in the polite and sophisticated Napa and Sonoma valleys here in california. A few years ago Dale Earnhardt won his only road course race of his career and he made the pass about 50 meters from my shop ... how did he do it? He simply waited until the last turn and punted Mark Martin out of the way, and he is the most reveared driver in F1 history ... what happens when that sort of **** happens in F1? The driver almost gets drawn and quartered.

NASCAR is the worst of American society. The no-attention-span-lowest-common-denomnator-I-can't-win-in-an-unfair-world-so-everybody-has-to-come-down-to-my-level-rather-than-making-me-raise-myself-to-their-level people are in charge and the result is not-surprisingly crap, but easily digestible friendly to middle-america crap.

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by Jackman
But most fans like to support a team, not a player. F1 excluded, clearly.

I'd say players and teams share the fan love pretty evenly here in the US. A Jordan, Gretzky or Bonds is loved (and hated) no matter what color he's wearing at the time.



I'm such a tool I spelled Gretzky wrong, the hockey gods will surely hunt me down!!!

[Ross Stonefeld]

To continue with George said, and sum it up a little too simply

Road racing puts an emphasis on driving and driving technique.

Oval racing puts an emphasis on racecraft.



Ive watched every single NASCAR race this year (Then again ive watched every other major series too) and I really enjoy it. For 3 hours every Sunday I can let my mind go blank and just watch the madness. I used to get annoyed by "y'all these are tha best drivers inthe warld right heyar!" but now i just ignore it and enjoy the fantastic entertainment it puts on.

[Pesko]

When US leagues put rules in place to promote parity amongst their teams believe me they don't do it because they're socialists. We don't have socialists here. They do it for one reason, to make as much money as possible. As someone pointed out earlier, it's not as if they're making the Rams play with a lead football, they're just making sure that each team plays by the same financial rules. It results in a better, more interesting sport. It's a strategy that has made the NFL the most popular sport in America. It's not always a sin to try and provide and entertaining "product." And nobody questions the NFL's integrity(except for the occasional Raider's fan).
As for NASCAR, I don't think it would ever get popular in Europe. I live in NY and I think I'm the only person I know that watches it. NASCAR is still a very much a southern sport, and most Americans have the same complaints about it that I see the Europeans raising here.
But you have to admit the race coverage in NASCAR is excellent. I've often watched F1 wishing they'd give some more information (adjustments, pits, just more access..). That may be because we get a crummy feed here I'm not sure, but it's never a bad idea to make an effort to please your audience. That doesn't mean change the rules mid-season the way NASCAR does, but you can't deny that F1 could be doing a better marketing job.

[Scoots]

Originally posted by Pesko
We don't have socialists here.

You've never been to Berkeley!

[RiverRunner]

Originally posted by Scoots


You've never been to Berkeley!

Or the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica....