F1 Update: Indianapolis Gives Up On Usgp

[StoneIsland 0]

Well thank you for proving my point.

You just mentioned some of my sources yourself.

Uhm that's relative. If you don't count America NASCAR doesn't have much of an audience.

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.

[Eric 0]

We're still talking about this? Wow. Leave it to Americans to make a big deal over nothing

[DOF_power 0]

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.

Well you did prove my point.

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.

America's share of the World GDP has peaked after WWII and gone down (procentually) ever since (hint rebirth of Japan and W.Europe). The future will see this trend continue as countries like China and India will get an ever bigger share on the World's GDP (and let's not forget other countries). And F1 is quite covered here.

As for America, I think it should stop with (some) its idiosyncracies and get on the wagon with the rest of the world (universal health could be a good start; then you can move to things like football and F1; and maybe a baseball world series that actually involves the world). And understand this, America DOESN'T = the world.

[StoneIsland 0]

Well you did prove my point.

America's share of the World GDP has peaked after WWII and gone down (procentually) ever since (hint rebirth of Japan and W.Europe). The future will see this trend continue as countries like China and India will get an ever bigger share on the World's GDP (and let's not forget other countries). And F1 is quite covered here.

As for America, I think it should stop with (some) its idiosyncracies and get on the wagon with the rest of the world (universal health could be a good start; then you can move to things like football and F1; and maybe a baseball world series that actually involves the world). And understand this, America DOESN'T = the world.

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?

[DOF_power 0]

I actually know about NASCAR's demographics because I've used even more sources than you.

As for America's GDP (or was GNP) after WWII it amounted to about 50% of the world's national product. This was America's peak, with it's industry and agriculture dominating the world. For example, over 70% of cars alone were made in the USA.

With the 1960s W.E. and Japan developed and America's share of the WNP slipped (the Nixon administration was the first to deal with such realities). From 50% to ~20% is a long way down and will continue so. And we're not even considering the Big Mac PPP .

And I belive California would not be ahead of France. France is the fifth-largest economy, so California would be behind.

Now we have to give up our idiosyncrasies to homogenize with world culture?

Yep if they're proven better. Think metric system, universal health care, ... and ofcourse ... F1, football, ... and so on.

Wait, wasn't annoyance with other people's idiosyncrasies the defining characteristic of the Ugly American?

Nope, ignorance, "blindness" and stupidity.

But that's a formula for every "ugly" <insert nationality here>.

[StoneIsland 0]

I actually know about NASCAR's demographics because I've used even more sources than you.

As for America's GDP (or was GNP) after WWII it amounted to about 50% of the world's national product. This was America's peak, with it's industry and agriculture dominating the world. For example, over 70% of cars alone were made in the USA.

With the 1960s W.E. and Japan developed and America's share of the WNP slipped (the Nixon administration was the first to deal with such realities). From 50% to ~20% is a long way down and will continue so. And we're not even considering the Big Mac PPP .

And I belive California would not be ahead of France. France is the fifth-largest economy, so California would be behind.

Yep if they're proven better. Think metric system, universal health care, ... and ofcourse ... F1, football, ... and so on.

Nope, ignorance, "blindness" and stupidity.

But that's a formula for every "ugly" <insert nationality here>.

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.

[Yoda McFly 1]

I actually know about NASCAR's demographics because I've used even more sources than you.

I've been trying to stay out of this, but this is too much. You've repeatedly mentioned how many sources you've used, yet you haven't cited any.

Do we get to see any of your multitude of sources?

[DOF_power 0]

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.

Non-sense, France is the 6th economy in the world. Non of BS anymore.

For sources check american history. Learn about the post war period.

On the net I'm sure you'll find about America's GDP after WWII related to WNP.

State's economy still eighth in world

By Dale Kasler - Bee Staff Writer

Last Updated 6:35 am PDT Wednesday, July 11, 2007

We're No. 8.

For the second year in a row, California was home to the world's eighth-largest economy in 2006, according to statistics released Tuesday.

California as recently as 2002 was ranked fifth, a rating that was touted by state officials as a sign of the state's vigor. Lately, though, the state has slipped in the rankings because of fluctuations in currency values and the rapid-fire growth of China.

But the state's economy has been growing faster than the U.S. average. And California's economy is still 60 percent larger than that of Texas, the second-largest in the nation.

"In terms of states, we're still way ahead," said Stephen Levy of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto. Levy compiled the rankings from World Bank and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis statistics.

The state's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic output, was measured at $1.73 trillion in 2006, just behind Italy but well ahead of Canada.

Howard Roth, chief economist at the state Department of Finance, said California's world ranking has fallen in recent years because of China's growth and the relative weakness of the dollar against other currencies, which had the effect of increasing the GDP of countries such as France and Italy.

China's ranking at No. 4 underscores its ascendancy in recent years to status of economic superpower.

"The big deal is China; China is just racing through," Levy said.

India, ranked No. 13, is likely to crack the top ten within a decade, he said.

Roth said California's ranking has symbolic value but little else.

"I guess we take some pride in it, but other than that, I don't know what to make of it," he said.

[DOF_power 0]

Now back on topic.

With USA gone, I wonder could we get a great track like in Turkey somewhere ?!

[LabradoRacer 2]

Bernie should give the boot to small players like Spyker or Aguri. It's better to bring in at least one American team. Perhaps that may kindle the interest in F1 in USA.

Can any American tell me why the none of the big 3 (now sadly struggling,I hope they come out of this mess) don't want to enter F1?

[StoneIsland 0]

Bernie should give the boot to small players like Spyker or Aguri. It's better to bring in at least one American team. Perhaps that may kindle the interest in F1 in USA.

Can any American tell me why the none of the big 3 (now sadly struggling,I hope they come out of this mess) don't want to enter F1?

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:

Well, I think this is a tragedy!

As a paying customer (we have been, from England, to the USGP at Indy every year since 2001), I think Indy provides by far the best "experience" of any F1 track. We have been to many F1 races, including at supposedly modern tracks like Istanbul (we hated it!), and we ended up going only to Indy on a regular basis.

Apart from the racing (which, viewed from the stands rather than on TV, is as good as anywhere), Indy has the following attributes which we have found unbeatable:

- We had the "best" grandstand seats, in the "Penthouse" right above the main stand, and they were reserved for us each year unless we canceled

- Amazingly friendly and helpful staff and local residents

- Car parking just a hundred yards from our seats

- Excellent toilet facilities just a few yards from our seats

- Hot food counter and cold drinks served just a few yards from our seats

- The best organization and crowd control we have ever seen

- Free pit lane access on Thursday before the race

- The "best" grandstand seats cost only

[DOF_power 0]

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.

While I agree costs I would add being scared by the learning curve and cutthroat competitivity.

Unfortunately inovation in F1 was restricted even killed by idiotical regualtions. However with the developement of aero winglets the transmissions and drive-by-wire technology also progressed. For example, now teams have switched from super-fast semi-automatics to seamless ones (0.2 to 0.4 second per lap gained).

For major auto manufacturers F1 isn't only about advertising, but also about ego. As for the costs, the automakers don't spend up to 500 millions USD by themselves, they have (big) sponsors to contribue (in Ferrari's and McLaren's case quite a lot).

[StoneIsland 0]

While I agree costs I would add being scared by the learning curve and cutthroat competitivity.

Unfortunately inovation in F1 was restricted even killed by idiotical regualtions. However with the developement of aero winglets the transmissions and drive-by-wire technology also progressed. For example, now teams have switched from super-fast semi-automatics to seamless ones (0.2 to 0.4 second per lap gained).

For major auto manufacturers F1 isn't only about advertising, but also about ego. As for the costs, the automakers don't spend up to 500 millions USD by themselves, they have (big) sponsors to contribue (in Ferrari's and McLaren's case quite a lot).

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:

Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro

Ferrari is owned by the Agnelli Family, which is also the owner of Fiat. Ferrari is usually linked to Fiat but is in fact a different company. The ultimate control of the company rests with Gianni Agnelli, the 80-year-old patriarch of the family, who is the grandson of the founder of the Fiat car company. Agnelli, known in Italy as "the Avvocato", is one of the world's leading industrialists and chairman of Fiat between 1966 and 1996. Although he has now retired Agnelli continues to be closely involved in Ferrari's F1 program, having long been a supporter of Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo.

The Agnelli's acquired 50% of Ferrari in 1968 with an agreement that when Enzo Ferrari died another 40% of the firm would come under the control of the Agnellis. The remaining 10% are held by the Ferrari family. Ferrari died in 1988 and the shareholding in Ferrari has remained the same except that in 1996 three percent of the Agnelli shares were sold to a consortium of banks. The following year Ferrari acquired the Maserati company and is in the process of rebuilding as Ferrari does not wish to expand too much and ruin the exclusive image of being a Ferrari owner.

And, then, from Grandprix.com:

JANUARY 9, 2007

Why the question of chassis design is so important to F1

Formula 1 was built on the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest: constant competition forced the teams to seek technological breakthroughs and weeded out the companies that were not meant for success. Every aspect of a racing car was examined constantly and improved and the result was that only the best survived. The F1 teams and attitudes of today grew out of that system. There is an argument that it makes no sense to have 12 F1 teams all doing parallel development work which has no real purpose beyond the sport - but the reality is that the competition will remain that way as long as there is money to fund it - and at the moment F1 still provides a good return on investment for sponsors and car manufacturers.

The FIA has decided that it wants to add some kind of industry-relevance to the sport by embracing hybrid technologies (albeit to only a limited extent to avoid pushing up costs still further) and with the Concorde Agreement coming to an end the sport will be governed by new regulations which have been published by the FIA. In June 2005 the FIA World Council voted a change that teams "will be free to buy a complete car or any part of a car from another constructor" arguing that because of restrictive regulations there was little revolutionary change possible and so the opportunity to gain a technical advantage has been a process of constant updating which costs a great deal of money.

There are some who believe that allowing customer chassis is a disaster in the making and that it will result in the bigger teams controlling the smaller teams to ensure that they do as well as they possibly can - and do everything that the bigger teams want. Team owners like David Richards may talk about the new era of low cost F1 operations with small teams and no need for huge investment but the downside of this is that the smaller teams are unlikely to have any political voice or indeed independence. With testing restricted the number of cars that a team has access to is of key importance and thus, as we have seen in NASCAR, the drift is towards the big teams getting bigger and the small being gobbled up. As BMW's Dr Mario Theissen recently pointed out, having six constructor teams plus six customers would very quickly change to a situation in which there would be six four-car teams.

The budgets in F1 will go on rising as long as there is money to spend. The problem comes when the money runs out and car manufacturers decide, as they are wont to do, that they have had enough of F1 and withdraw. And while there will always be people willing to step in, there is unlikely to be the kind of money needed because of the sheer scale of the investment involved. The only way to keep up the number of cars if one or more manufacturers departed would be to have the remaining teams supplying more teams and that would send the sport down a path towards a situation in which F1 could end up with only one or two chassis suppliers - and, if one of those failed, a single chassis supplier. This is what happened in CART in the United States between 1980 and 2004. Nowadays, running Champ Car teams is cheap but public interest is a fraction of what once it was and the manufacturers have long since walked away, leaving one or two well-funded teams and most of the others struggling to survive. This is why Newman-Haas Racing has been so dominant in recent years.

Some of the F1 teams seem to believe that the question of customer chassis is still negotiable but others have already embarked on setting up satellite operations. The problem over 2007 has come because these operations are trying to muddle through 2007 without needing to invest too heavily.

This is not a question of regulations but rather of contractual obligation. The teams (and the other signatories of the Concorde Agreement) are bound by the terms of the agreement and it is not a question of whether the FIA rules that a car is legal. The FIA is contracted to act as the sport's regulator but if the other signatories do not agree with decisions made they have the right under Concorde to go to arbitration for a legal ruling. This is a lengthy and expensive business which would leave the outcome of races uncertain until a ruling is made. It is thus not a desirable route for the sport. The counter argument to this is that it is of key importance for the long-term future of the sport.

The FIA owns the sport and can do as it pleases in 2008 - but only up to a point. The teams have agreed commercial terms with the Formula One group until 2012 but the details of these agreements is currently not clear. Some say that they agreed to sign only on the basis that there would not be major changes to the Concorde Agreement and there may be people willing to challenge the legality of these contracts, if there is too much tinkering with the fundamental principles of the sport.

The rapprochement between the FIA and the car manufacturers is obviously designed to head off as much opposition as possible but that will mean that the private teams are more isolated than ever, which does not fit with the federation's stated position as protector of the smaller teams.

[StoneIsland 0]

What I don't understand is how Mike Doodson at Grandprix.com can write this paragraph about F1 in France, but not about F1 in Indianapolis:

This weekend's French Grand Prix will be the last to take place at the Magny-Cours circuit, famously located in a remote part of the country to which it has always been difficult to attract spectators in sufficient numbers to pay the increasingly onerous costs of staging a major international event. Despite some energetic efforts to publicise the race, the promoters have now been forced to give up the struggle, leaving France without any obvious alternative venue for an event whose history can be traced back for more than a century. While the corporate swells who demand five-star hotels will not miss Magny-Cours, Mike Doodson will be saying a regretful adieu to 'La France Profonde' and the attic in the village of Magny-Cours where a local family has hosted him for the last few years.

And,

...It's unfortunate that France's politicians took even longer to learn that lesson, for it was they - not hard-headed businessmen - who made the seemingly bizarre decision to build a permanent circuit in the middle of nowhere. In the post-war period, when British race organisers were using old military airfields as circuits, their counterparts in France continued to take advantage of their legal right to close down public roads for races. As a result, their country became notoriously short of permanent circuits. For a while the race alternated between Dijon, which had no proper access roads, and Ricard, which was too close to the Mediterranean beaches ever to attract a large crowd in summer. When Monsieur Paul Ricard got tired of subsidising the French GP, the French government decided to get involved.

It goes without saying that mixing politics with sport is a disaster. It's all very nice for London to be getting the Olympic Games in 2012, and I'm sure that we will make a good fist of organising them. But consider this: even if the projected cost estimates are only slightly exceeded, the money being spent on the games would pay for an all-new top-class F1 circuit and a couple of GPs in Britain every year for the next 50 years or more. Bernie Ecclestone's rate card may be going through the roof, but you can't argue with his contention that F1 is a bargain when compared with having to provide facilities for circus acts like synchronised swimming or dressage.

When the French government invested in Magny-Cours, it did so for a reason. The President at that time had his political base in the area surrounding Magny-Cours, so building a circuit there allowed him to square away some of his allies. Not all the details of the financial arrangements have been made public (this is France, after all), but suffice to say that a lot more money was spent than would have been the case if the project had been put into the hands of someone who was spending his own money rather than the taxpayers'. It has even been suggested to me that the new pit buildings had to be demolished and rebuilt when it was discovered that one of the President's supporters had not been allowed to get his beak wet when the first contracts were shared out. There was even a mysterious suicide of a local dignitary who shot himself in the head. His memorial, which stood in the paddock for several years, was a rounded black obelisk. Rather pretty it was, too, although I always thought that the hole pierced in the top of the stone was somehow inappropriate ...

Finally, on why BE doesn't hold GPs at the circuit he owns,

But then Bernie, more than anyone, knows the exact cost of promoting a Grand Prix. And if some government in a far-flung country thinks it's a good PR move to stump up all those millions to have its own Grand Prix, then he's not going to stand in their way. After all, I doubt that the politicians there will ever bother to study what happened when their counterparts in France got involved in building a race circuit and promoting a Grand Prix. The chances are that by the time they find out, they will already have signed a multi-year contract with Mr E.

No wonder he's wealthier than you or me.

[DOF_power 0]

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?

What does the Ferrari shareholder structure have to do with anything ?!

Ego precisely that. It's always been a part of GP racing. Manufacturers want to prove they are in the top of motor-sport. Other forms of motor-sport simply don't compare to F1. They're all bellow it.

As for scared, ofcourse. In many ways every other form of motor-sport is easier/less scary and cheaper than F1.

These are simple concepts, corporations do have egos and also know fear.

[StoneIsland 0]

What does the Ferrari shareholder structure have to do with anything ?!

Ego precisely that. It's always been a part of GP racing. Manufacturers want to prove they are in the top of motor-sport. Other forms of motor-sport simply don't compare to F1. They're all bellow it.

As for scared, ofcourse. In many ways every other form of motor-sport is easier/less scary and cheaper than F1.

These are simple concepts, corporations do have egos and also know fear.

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.

[StoneIsland 0]

US Economic PowerWaxing or Waning?by Deanne JuliusFrom Energy, Vol. 26 (4) - Winter 2005

A few facts are needed to set the stage for an assessment of US economic power. The United States currently produces just over 30 percent of total gross domestic product (GDP) when measured at market exchange rates, or 21 percent at purchasing power parity (PPP) rates. This is down from 46 percent just after World War II, but up slightly over the past decade due to the strong dollar and stock market boom of the mid-1990s. Looking ahead, it is most likely that the US share of world GDP will continue to shrink due to faster growth in poorer countries. The four big ones

[LabradoRacer 2]

To Stone Island :

Agreed,cost is a prohibitive factor,but aren't there sponsors ever willing to do the needful? I don't think there's a dearth of sponsors. A NASCAR car is chock-a-block with logos.

It's a pity that cigarette companies' sponsoring of F1 has been stymied. Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of smoking or those companies,but if their money keeps a F1 team alive,I'm all for it.

Just an aside: It's pretty doubtful whether anyone feels like smoking after seeing a ciggie logo on a car. A person smokes because s/he is just curious or to blend in with peers.

[DOF_power 0]

When the big cigarettes were outsted, F1 didn't die.

Why, because we have telecommunication and financial giants willing to spend money to get worldwide recognision. And big airline companies could be next.

[DOF_power 0]

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.

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.

...

Make no mistake about it, I'm not comfusing prestige with ego. Nor am I reducing everything to ego.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Well thank you for proving my point.

When I mentioned the 70k+ figure, I was thinking of household income (both husband and wife working). Anyway you look at it, though, the average demographis of NASCAR fans do not include very many 'Billy Bobs' with their moonshine-soaked thumbs up their arses...which was the point I was trying to refute. StoneIsland refuted that quite well, DOF.

You're dislike of America is obvious and shows through in your inaccurate view of the 'average' NASCAR fan. Geez man, if you dislike us, just say so...it frosts my arse to see guys like you typing out of both sides of the keyboard. You don't dislike America, but you dislike our attitude? Hell man, being an American is all about attitude. At least guys like Shane and Cavallino are up-front about their dislike....

[AutoRacer5 0]

Shane WAS upfront about it, emphasis on past tense.

[StoneIsland 0]

Uhm that's relative. If you don't count America NASCAR doesn't have much of an audience.

If you don't count England, nobody ever goes to EPL games!

[DOF_power 0]

If you don't count England, nobody ever goes to EPL games!

What are EPL's ?!

Oh, the premiership.

Well, true that people outside England don't go to EPL games in England (not entirely true actually).

But around Europe and outside it, people do watch EPL games on TV.

I know I watch some of them. And I know english football teams have demonstrative games/trips in SE Asia were they get a lot of money and are quite popular (and you won't see that at NASCAR).

The EPL, along side the Primera Division (Spain) and Serie A (Italy) are the most popular football national series in Europe (and they're second only to UEFA Champions League). Also players from around the world want to end up in these 3 national championships, since this is where the money and action is.

Chances are, around the world, the EPL is more watched/popular than NASCAR.

[pumpdoc 2]

What are EPL's ?!

English Premire league?