Junior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About StoneIsland

  • Rank
    Rookie Driver
  • Birthday 12/08/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
  1. Whats Your Favorite Circuit?

    Indianapolis Motor Speedway. According to a few people, though I have yet to independently verify this, it had among the best facilities for spectators.
  2. Montoya's Crash Course

    Despite commonly held opinion, NASCAR, apparently, isn't all that easy.
  3. Prodrive

    So, Prodrive won't brand as Aston Martin, then?
  4. Speed Says "no" To F1

    I don't think the numbers back up your assertion. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, he did consistently better than his teammate, who doesn't garner half the criticism, with substandard equipment. The real question, would another driver, say a certain young Brit wunderkind on a well-funded, well-run team, have done much better had he had the bad luck to end up at STR? Probably. But, I don't think all American drivers should have to be as good as Lewis Hamilton to gain respect in F1. If they did, that would be an example of anti-American bias.
  5. Hamilton - Backstabbing Hypocrite Or Saviour Of F1?

    Being a great F1 driver implies a certain level or courage and spiritedness. If Hamilton didn't exhibit his thumos by shouting back at RD when the situation warranted it, I would imagine that he lack the grit or courage necessary to be a champion. F1, after all, isn't just another job.
  6. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    If you don't count England, nobody ever goes to EPL games!
  7. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    US Economic PowerWaxing or Waning?by Deanne JuliusFrom Energy, Vol. 26 (4) - Winter 2005
  8. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    Oh really? Then, sir, it should be no problem for you to provide some shred of evidence. You mistake simple for simplistic. What is the purpose of proving that one is the top of motorsport; what is the goal of participation in F1? I think that you are confusing "eqo", a feeling of self-satisfaction pursued for its own sake, with prestige, a judgment bestowed on one by others, and forgetting the connection of prestige (or Q Score) to the allure of, say, a brand. The argument is that success, in part, drives sales. VW has argued, in print, that the cost of success in F1 would not translate into enough sales to justify the outlay, whereas WRC does. Whether success in a form of motorsport feeds anyone's ego is secondary to whether it improves sales performance. To anthropomorphise a corporation and apply a squishy concept like "ego" is sloppy thinking. Because Ferrari is family controlled, and not under the direct control of the bean-counters at Fiat, they are outside the normal bounds of having to prove that the benefit of continued participation is worth the cost. I think that Ferrari, along with the privateers, is different than the major manufacturers in this respect. Of course, even the privateers have to make more money from their sponsors than they spend, if they wish to continue operation. Since they are small, private concerns, their profit margins can be as slim as they wish. Which brings us back to the question of F1 participation in the U.S. Insofar as F1 is advertising, and a business itself, as well as a forum for the business of others, the question becomes, where should this advertising be aimed? The U.S., and Europe, have a high degree of personal wealth whereas countries like India, Russia, and China are becoming economically more powerful, but still lacking in widely diffused levels of personal wealth. F1 certainly needs to aim in that direction in the future, but for the near and medium term, manufacturers are still better served trying to sell cars to the wealthy Western hemisphere while laying the groundwork for future sales in the East. The U.S., while its share of world GDP is falling, is still much, much wealthier per capita than all but the wealthiest nations of Europe, and with those it is merely on par.
  9. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    What I don't understand is how Mike Doodson at can write this paragraph about F1 in France, but not about F1 in Indianapolis: And, Finally, on why BE doesn't hold GPs at the circuit he owns,
  10. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    All of these companies are involved in other forms of motorsport. The idea that they are scared, or simply driven by ego, is, to me, odd. First, because it doesn't seem that either of those concepts can be measured; what would count as data? Second, that both of those concepts are somewhat amorphous when applied to large, mutli-national corporations. In any case, what do you mean by "ego"? It seems that an analysis of cost/benefit in terms of advertising, or increase in technology applicable to road car use, is a more robust means of predicting the decision to participate. Oh, and of course, could you provide some source other than your opinion? "Who owns what in Formula 1?", by Joe Saward: And, then, from
  11. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    Probably for the same reason that VW (as Audi, presumably) or Nissan don't want to get involved: it's very expensive and it's not clear to them that it serves as effective advertising. A WRC looks like a production car (as does a touring car and GT). NASCAR, while being custom fabricated race vehicles under their skin, look like production cars and are closely associated with production cars. In their view, given the costs involved, and how hard it is to succeed (i.e., Toyota spending heaps of money for little or no return), F1 has too little connection to what the consumer thinks about when they decide to purchase a vehicle. Obviously, different manufacturers asses the relevance/usefulness of F1 differently. I haven't seen any data that would lead me to believe that one side is more correct than the other. Does participation in F1 increase sales at a high enough rate to cover the costs involved? Also, our Big Three auto companies are in heaps of trouble, losing money left and right. Throwing a half a billion dollars down the F1 money hole doesn't seem like a good way for your average CEO to keep his/her job. My major premise: For major auto manufacturers, F1 is about advertising. I think that we can all agree that that most of the innovation taking place in F1 involves ever more esoteric aerodynamic tweeks. Since these have little or no relevance to your average production car, auto manufacturers have no incentive to use F1 as a test bed for technological advancement of their products. If the focus of innovation changed, then, perhaps, the incentives of involvement in F1 might change as well. From the ITV board re: loss of the USGP at IMS:
  12. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    Sources, or more stories? According to the World Bank, France's economy is 14.7% the size of the U.S.'s. California makes up ~17% of the U.S. economy.
  13. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    I didn't prove your point. I proved that your point was wrong, that you had no idea what NASCAR demographics looked like. W-R-O-N-G. Now, if I didn't know better, I would say you're lying just to get a rise out of me. What's next? Wait, if California was a separate country, it's GDP would be the 8th largest in the world. Ahead of France. In 1950, USA had 27% of the world's GDP. In 1998, it had 22%. China has roughly half, or 11.5%. At this rate, in another 50 years America will only represent, what, 20% of the world's economy? America doesn't equal the world, just roughly 22%. Wait, wasn't annoyance with other people's idiosyncrasies the defining characteristic of the Ugly American? Now we have to give up our idiosyncrasies to homogenize with world culture? Ironic, eh?
  14. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    I only proved that when you wrote, "An average fan has an income between 40k to 45k, and there are plenty who have less." you didn't know what you were talking about. 71% of fans have incomes over 30K. 42% have incomes over 50K. Also, I'd be willing to bet that NASCAR's age demographic skews younger than F1's (I don't have the $3,000.00 to download that particular marketing study). So, when you take into account children, students, and those at the very beginning of their careers, the numbers look even better. In any case, why wouldn't you count America? Other than to make a simplistic rhetorical point, I mean. Given America's share of world GDP, I would think that it's fairly clear that F1 is doing itself a long-term disservice by not making more of an effort to crack the US market. It's almost like BE never heard of a loss-leader.
  15. F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

    From the Delaware NewsJournal (2004): INCOME DISTRIBUTION