US Grand Prix- Austin (USA)

[Marbot]

I'm thinking that it's going to go back-to-back with Brazil. Bernie will sort it. The teams will make sure of that, because it's a very important race for some of them.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I'm thinking that it's going to go back-to-back with Brazil. Bernie will sort it. The teams will make sure of that, because it's a very important race for some of them.

It's looking that way..

I mean it could happen as planed, but it is rather on the warm side here at the moment... Today we expect 100F with humidity at 48% ..

Dry heat not a major problem unless you are strapped into a F1 car..

The weather can change on a dime here though like Melbourne at times..

[Spritle]

Dry heat...please don't make me laugh!

I have been to the Southwest USA in summer as have many friends and acquaintances and the general consensus from folks that don't live there is, it is bloody hot!! So hot in fact that all of them told me they wouldn't dare go back during the summer unless they were forced to. Oh yea, a couple of them went to Austin in June and said it wasn't too hot...

...if you kept perfectly still.

So I have to think "dry heat" is a mindset and tolerable to folks that are used to it, you know Texans, F1 promoters and such. Folks from more northern climates call it "hot as hades" regardless of the humidity!

I hope for Austin's sake they move the race to the fall but I wouldn't bank on common sense from the FIA. Don't forget; to them moving India to mid December and squeezing Bahrain back in the schedule made perfect sense. I also don't know how moving the date away from the week after Canada will effect attendance once the hype wears off. A LOT of folks who went to Indy were in Montreal the week before and planned their holidays accordingly. I don't know if a USA/Brazil would work the same way.

[ujoint]

Is there a rock solid locked in guaranteed date set for the Austin F1 race? By contract I mean?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by ujoint

Is there a rock solid locked in guaranteed date set for the Austin F1 race? By contract I mean?

June 17 is the slot that has been *allocated* for the USGP...

The date can change it's not set in stone...

[ujoint]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

June 17 is the slot that has been *allocated* for the USGP...

The date can change it's not set in stone...

Just curious. Thanks for that reply Jeremy. This thing has legs and arms of its own.

[JeremySmith]

I should add that Austin as per contract must be ready by said date to stage a race..

[JeremySmith]

I am delighted that "The Australian V8 Supercar Series"
Has been added to the race calendar for 2013.. I think it's a great series!

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by Spritle

The Scott Speed factor was negligible I suspect for the reasons you stated, and maybe more importantly, because of the lack of a US team. I also suspect the results oriented US sports fans grew impatient with a racing series that is so predictable, especially when your driver is in a crummy car.

Too bad USF1 couldn't make a go of it.

I know friends of Peter Windsor that told me their takes on it. It was never going to happen from the start, although Peter was blinded by the hope it would.

The only way an American driver will ever have a fanbase for driving in a series where almost all events are on at 7 in the morning is if it's a crossover from NASCAR or Indycar because they'd have a pre-existing fanbase that followed them, as well as having some level of success. That's what Bernie and Frank Williams tried to do with Jeff Gordon in the late '90s and Gordon declined. No one beyond the diehards knew who Scott Speed was in F1, he was not "the American hero". And so we were supposed to cheer for him...for what reason? Having an American that's somewhat successful isn't even likely enough, Eddie Cheever has a lot of F1 podiums to his name and no one ever cared about him. In MotoGP, Ben Spies, Colin Edwards, and Nicky Hayden are all successful, Hayden is a former world champion, and they would all fail the New York waiter test.

The reason it's highly unlikely a NASCAR or Indycar driver will ever come to F1 is because they would be driving in a more difficult series for in some cases for the guys less money, and no driver is going to go to a series like GP2 where they have to pay for their ride instead of getting paid to drive every week.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

And again no it is not IMHO as[Long Beach] is just not that great to be honest.

Since the **** when has that ever mattered in Bernie Ecclestone's Formula One?

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by Texas

Critique?

OK.

The reason I didn't address anything in your post is that there wasn't anything to address. There's nothing in that mass of speculation, supposition, and speculation on your own suppositions that can be proven by you or disproven by me, so what's the point?

NASCAR point - not speculation, that's a fact; if you know ANYTHING about NASCAR, you'd know this because that's how the sport has operated its dates for the last 20 years, do a google search on a thing called the Ferko lawsuit, or look at the travails of Kentucky trying to get a date, which they only got a Cup date (which is this coming weekend) when they sold to Bruton Smith

Montoya fan draw at Indianapolis - not speculation, I was there

Indianapolis not capable of making money on the U.S. Grand Prix - fact, Tony George said in an interview on 1070AM in Indianapolis a month ago that if the Grand Prix made money, it'd still be there (seeing as spending money on things that don't make money is why he got ousted); you can listen to the interview here, go to the Ride with JMV show, go to its podcasts, it's from May 31st and has Tony George and Robin Miller listed as guests http://www.1070thefan.com/podcast/Ep....aspx?PID=2161

attendance and the amount of money I paid for tickets, that's a fact too since I know full well what I paid and the attendance was pretty clear to see; since when is a person doing simple arithmetic considered "speculation"?

pair with Interlagos and your comments on travel - fair enough, I'll grant you that

Honestly, all I want is a business plan that shows how we at a minimum break even, because that is required for my definition of sustainability as you stated the race would be. That lack of breaking even is the reason that all these cities have held U.S. Grand Prix and all ceased to do so, in all but three cases after only a few years:

Riverside
Sebring
Watkins Glen
Long Beach
Las Vegas (Caesers Palace)
Detroit (Belle Isle)
Dallas
Phoenix
Indianapolis

If Bernie cut the race a sweetheart deal because it's being organized by his friend, just say so, it means Bernie is treating people differently based on their relationship to him, which is a little shady and reminds me of the worst mechanisms of CART.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

I know friends of Peter Windsor that told me their takes on it. It was never going to happen from the start, although Peter was blinded by the hope it would.

The only way an American driver will ever have a fanbase for driving in a series where almost all events are on at 7 in the morning is if it's a crossover from NASCAR or Indycar because they'd have a pre-existing fanbase that followed them, as well as having some level of success. That's what Bernie and Frank Williams tried to do with Jeff Gordon in the late '90s and Gordon declined. No one beyond the diehards knew who Scott Speed was in F1, he was not "the American hero". And so we were supposed to cheer for him...for what reason? Having an American that's somewhat successful isn't even likely enough, Eddie Cheever has a lot of F1 podiums to his name and no one ever cared about him. In MotoGP, Ben Spies, Colin Edwards, and Nicky Hayden are all successful, Hayden is a former world champion, and they would all fail the New York waiter test.

The reason it's highly unlikely a NASCAR or Indycar driver will ever come to F1 is because they would be driving in a more difficult series for in some cases for the guys less money, and no driver is going to go to a series like GP2 where they have to pay for their ride instead of getting paid to drive every week.

Where does Mario Andretti fit in, or indeed Michael Andretti?

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Where does Mario Andretti fit in, or indeed Michael Andretti?

Mario is before the modern era and isn't really all that applicable. Mario you have to remember while he raced in F1 still raced in USAC Indycar events, and the odd NASCAR and sportscar event as well and that's what made Mario a national name, with F1 just another feather in a cap. Mario when he won the F1 world title in 1978 competed in the Indy 500 as well as 7 other Indycar races that season, which wouldn't be allowed today.

Michael would be the example that I provided of a person forming a pre-existing fanbase in a series stateside before heading over to F1 and that interest than following him. One thing to bear in mind is that the landscape has changed drastically in the last 18 years. Being Indycar champion was far more recognized to the American racing fan back in 1992 than it is in 2011 and that's because in contrast to 1992 NASCAR is now the most followed form of motorsport here. So the modern equivalent of Michael Andretti would be if Jimmie Johnson decided he'd race F1 next year, which if you were him why would you considering he'd likely be finishing in the back half of the field for less pay?

[Spritle]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

The only way an American driver will ever have a fanbase for driving in a series where almost all events are on at 7 in the morning...

Does anybody know if the 12:00 noon tape delay broadcasts in the US that happened at the last race and will happen at Silverstone this week make any difference in the US viewership numbers?

I realize it may be tough to make accurate comparisons but it seems to me a delay may attract some casual viewers but anger some die hard fans since FOX Sports often cuts out the podium ceremony and the post race interviews.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Spritle

Does anybody know if the 12:00 noon tape delay broadcasts in the US that happened at the last race and will happen at Silverstone this week make any difference in the US viewership numbers?

I realize it may be tough to make accurate comparisons but it seems to me a delay may attract some casual viewers but anger some die hard fans since FOX Sports often cuts out the podium ceremony and the post race interviews.

Why do they cut the podium ceremony and the post race interview, doesn't make much sense?

[Spritle]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why do they cut the podium ceremony and the post race interview, doesn't make much sense?

Because they limit themselves to a two hour broadcast regardless of red flags, safety cars, rain or other things that delay a race. I heard they began their broadcast of Canada underway, two laps into the race when the field was behind the safety car.

The SPEED Channel which is the normal US F1 feed, (which is owned by Fox interestingly enough) usually dedicates at least a 3 hour slot which includes a 30 minute pre-race show, podium ceremony, interviews and wrap-up.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why do they cut the podium ceremony and the post race interview, doesn't make much sense?

Of course it makes sense.............................

[thebear]

Originally Posted by Spritle

Because they limit themselves to a two hour broadcast regardless of red flags, safety cars, rain or other things that delay a race. I heard they began their broadcast of Canada underway, two laps into the race when the field was behind the safety car.

The SPEED Channel which is the normal US F1 feed, (which is owned by Fox interestingly enough) usually dedicates at least a 3 hour slot which includes a 30 minute pre-race show, podium ceremony, interviews and wrap-up.

Actually, here in the US it is a half hour pre race and a two hour race show.

Don't forget that $peed = NA$CAR

[BobHWS]

This sounds like a good idea.

Austin ponders annexing F1 racetrack
Extending city limits would yield tax dollars
Austin Business Journal - by Vicky Garza , ABJ Staff
Friday, July 8, 2011

Planners deep inside Austin City Hall are exploring the possibility of annexing the land under and around the Formula One racetrack being built east of town. If they do, it will bring millions of additional dollars in tax revenue to the city while adding significantly to track owners’ annual property tax bill...

...[T]rack owners’ property tax bill would rise, city officials said, from about 10 cents per $100 in property value to about 45 cents. If the F1 site is valued at $200 million, and that’s the most conservative estimate from the city, Austin could collect $914,200 in annual property taxes, city officials said.

[Marbot]

Only in America....

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Of course it makes sense.............................

How come?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

How come?

It is network television, not the sports channel...

Next program please...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

It is network television, not the sports channel...

Next program please...

I don't live in the States at the mo, so I got no way of knowing how they program the TV schedules.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't live in the States at the mo, so I got no way of knowing how they program the TV schedules.

John what I meant to say was that The Fox Network will only show as much as they have to, this does not include a pre race show, which I think if you are attempting to draw new fans to the sport is a mistake..

So the Fox broadcasts start with the grid ready to race and waiting for the lights..

The Speed Channel on the other hand has a 30 min pre race show, airs practice 2 live and their website streams practice 1 and practice 3, and also various other bits and pieces concerning F1...

Which brings me to my final point, if I can not have the BBC broadcast you guys get then I just prefer to pay to watch a sport I love and I am happy to do so..

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

John what I meant to say was that The Fox Network will only show as much as they have to, this does not include a pre race show, which I think if you are attempting to draw new fans to the sport is a mistake..

So the Fox broadcasts start with the grid ready to race and waiting for the lights..

The Speed Channel on the other hand has a 30 min pre race show, airs practice 2 live and their website streams practice 1 and practice 3, and also various other bits and pieces concerning F1...

Which brings me to my final point, if I can not have the BBC broadcast you guys get then I just prefer to pay to watch a sport I love and I am happy to do so..

The BBC coverage is excellent, it will be a shame if and when the BBC axe it, which they will. They've even got Murray Walker guesting for the British GP.