Will F1 Return to Indianapolis?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by MrTTraces

not a bad suggestion but the noise police might say no (like the sort of people who complained about croft in the UK) and locals might not like it either.

Bubbles the monkey to present the trophies?

Noise wouldn't be an issue, it's very secluded. The real problem would be building the track as the terrain is quite hilly.

[AndyS]

"Wrong crowd, wrong people". That's Bernie speak for their not paying me enough money. Agree with most on here, very unlikely anybody is going to stump the cash up in the States until Bernie is no longer around.

[Dutton]

The USA will have a GP instantly if a promoter will submit to Bernie's insane financial demmands.

It is as simple as that.

[Jamesy-18]

Hope not, no. Montreal's enough for the North-American audience for F1 I believe. Indy was a horrible track for F1, not to mention that it's kinda pointless to run therewhen time and again it's been proven that there arn't really many people who give a damn about F1 in America. Compare that to a place like GB and there's no competition.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Jamesy-18

again it's been proven that there arn't really many people who give a damn about F1 in America.

You should see the attendance figures. Well into 6 figures. 230,000 there for the first race. 120,000 for the last one. What's that, about 4 times as much as Bahrain?

So that's nonsense. There are plenty of people in America who give a damn about F1

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Jamesy-18

Hope not, no. Montreal's enough for the North-American audience for F1 I believe. Indy was a horrible track for F1, not to mention that it's kinda pointless to run therewhen time and again it's been proven that there arn't really many people who give a damn about F1 in America. Compare that to a place like GB and there's no competition.

Your signature makes me laugh.

[duke_toaster]

I'd like to see F1 return to the US, but the problem at the moment is calendar races. The elephant in the room is the trend of having more and more races in Asia with pitifully low attendances - I'm looking at Malaysia, the two Middle East ones (surely one is enough?), China and Turkey here. None of these get good attendances, and in the case of some the money may well run out. We'll see how well Korea goes as well, although I wouldn't be surprised it many of the fans there are actually from Japan.

In short, yes, but it would need to come at the expense of another race. Ideally, Finland and Portugal would get GPs too, and arguably Japan a second race, but that isn't going to happen.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Jamesy-18

Hope not, no. Montreal's enough for the North-American audience for F1 I believe. Indy was a horrible track for F1, not to mention that it's kinda pointless to run therewhen time and again it's been proven that there arn't really many people who give a damn about F1 in America. Compare that to a place like GB and there's no competition.

Your statement demonstrates how little you know about F1. The US has a long history with F1 going back to 1959 at Sebring, where Jack Brabham famously pushed his car over the line, after it ran out of fuel and won his first WDC. F1 was so popular that at one point there were two US GPs and despite its absence for several years it still proved very popular when the IMS hosted the race; it was Bernie's high fees that put an end to the GP there and we've seen that happen else where.

I think Bernie's wrong when he said F1 doesn't need the US GP. I think they need each other. F1 has a good fan base in the US, with fans who want to see the race at the track and it's good for automotive industry. The US is a big market for Ferrari and Mercedes, in fact the US s the worlds biggest market for car manufacturers and the US GP was extremely good for marketing.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

F1 was so popular that at one point there were two US GPs

Actually, there were three in 1982: Long Beach, Detroit and Las Vegas. No other F1 season has had three GPs in the same country. As they say, it says something... about the past.

[chunterer]

Why keep banging on about Indy (unless a substantially longer and revised layout is engaged)The race would end up being another stupid street circuit like LA or New York!!

I mean come on, how much would it cost relatively to resurface Watkins Glen and do some of the minimum upgrades required?

The track is long enough, sinuous enough and other series like NASCAR that visits would surely benefit from one of Bernie's necessary OTT Pit and Paddock complexes!

F1 needs to go where there is proper racing tradition in the States.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Why keep banging on about Indy (unless a substantially longer and revised layout is engaged)The race would end up being another stupid street circuit like LA or New York!!

I mean come on, how much would it cost relatively to resurface Watkins Glen and do some of the minimum upgrades required?

The track is long enough, sinuous enough and other series like NASCAR that visits would surely benefit from one of Bernie's necessary OTT Pit and Paddock complexes!

F1 needs to go where there is proper racing tradition in the States.

It would cost alot and the current economic conditions can't justify it at the mo. Longbeach would be the best bet. They've been racing there ever since the GP left, with CART, then Champcar and now the IICS. It has the infrastructure, though probably not too Bernie's liking and it is near LA.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Actually, there were three in 1982: Long Beach, Detroit and Las Vegas. No other F1 season has had three GPs in the same country. As they say, it says something... about the past.

Quite true, I failed to include that.

[Jamesy-18]

As expected, I get flamed by a lot of American people. Cool. Sorry, my view point. Indy is a dangerous track for F1, you only have to see the accidents of the last few F1 races that were there to understand it. I don't think a US GP is crucial to the championship and F1 has never been as popular even in newly emerging fan bases, espacially after the likes of the '05 race there. If a US GP was that important, I think Bernie would have put it back on the calendar.

For example, he knew that having a British GP was crucial. He put out a load of BS about "If not Donington, it's nowhere." And now look where we are. If there was no British GP this year, then not only would Bernie have got a roasting, but viewing figures in the country would have been too. In America, it doesn't matter if there is a GP or not. The viewing figures are still poor overall.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Jamesy-18

As expected, I get flamed by a lot of American people. Cool. Sorry, my view point. Indy is a dangerous track for F1, you only have to see the accidents of the last few F1 races that were there to understand it. I don't think a US GP is crucial to the championship and F1 has never been as popular even in newly emerging fan bases, espacially after the likes of the '05 race there. If a US GP was that important, I think Bernie would have put it back on the calendar.

For example, he knew that having a British GP was crucial. He put out a load of BS about "If not Donington, it's nowhere." And now look where we are. If there was no British GP this year, then not only would Bernie have got a roasting, but viewing figures in the country would have been too. In America, it doesn't matter if there is a GP or not. The viewing figures are still poor overall.

I grew up here, so I'm virtually English.

Indy is dangerous you only have to watch the Indy 500 over the years.

Bernie wants to go the Middle and the East because that's where the money is. Those countrys are willing to pay a lot of money to host those races and not just to Bernie but to build the facilities in the first place. The US isn't and neither was Silverstone, which is what started the whole Donnington thing off.

Also you need to put GP racing into its historical context. Silverstone was the first track to host the very first F1 GP, back in 1950, so for no GP to be held in England this year, being an anniversary year, would have looked very bad from a PR point of view. Bernie could have blamed anyone he liked but he's running the show and the buck stopped with him and he knew it. Shame about the French GP and that's where Grand Prix racing started.

[Dutton]

Jamesy, you are correct that there is low level of interest in F1 in the USA on a per capita basis. However, the US has a hell of a lot of per capita to go around. One very positive effect of it being such a niche interest there is that those who are into it are a very enthusiastic, loyal, knowledgable bunch when it comes to F1.

Those people will be willing to travel to get to the races, which has been proven. It is a really, really, really, really big country: those people who travel from other parts of the country to the races have often covered long distances, and consider expenses, to get there. It is like when I go to Mosport for the ALMS: the actual race ticket is pretty cheap, but when you throw in all the costs of getting to and from the track it is bloody expensive (it ain't as quick and easy as 4 hours driving down the road). It is quite insulting, really, to dismiss so easily the F1 fans in the USA with such a quick brush off. The perfectly respectable, athough admittedly dropping, attendance figures for the USA GPs at Indy reperesented many people will shell out an awful lot of time and money to be there.

If having dedicated fans attending in respectable numbers is an important aspect of an F1 race from your POV, well, that is something which happens in the States.

The manufacturers most certainly want a USA GP. You can bet a lot of the team's sponsors do: the USA is a really big market.

If your argument was simply that the USA shouldn't have a GP due to a low average interest in F1 per capita, well I think you miss the point a bit.

[Purist]

Indy IS dangerous, relatively speaking. Ovals are dangerous; that's just how it is. Even though the infield wasn't very good at Indy, you did have a "straight" of 1920m to make use of, which meant you could still have more overtaking at Indy that at Hungary, Barcelona, Valencia, or Monaco.

Repaving Watkins Glen would take several million dollars. Moving many of the barriers back substantially, and putting in swathes of paved run-off, would each cost several million more. A new pit complex, to Bernie's liking, would be tens of millions more. F1 would probably reinstate the chicane they added after Francois Cevert's crash in 1973, and I can't even begin to tell you how in the hell they'd make "the Boot" acceptable to F1 given the topography of that section of the course.

F1 would mutilate the Glen before they'd be satisfied with it. There isn't enough run-off. The pit straight isn't long enough, and maybe not wide enough either. The facilities aren't up to snuff. Also, the lap is just too fast for them to accept it as it is. Average lap speed for the GP Circuit as it is now would be 145-150mph. Average speed on the short course for F1 would be 160-165mph.

On top of this, I think F1 still owes WGI some $6 million from 1980 (not sure what that comes out to with inflation). And Watkins Glen is owned by ISC (Int'l Speedway Corporation), which is very closely tied to NASCAR. And since NASCAR basically owns the place, that's how it can afford to host Sprint Cup races. It also means, they don't have to take any guff from F1; they can easily afford to just tell Bernie to **** off.

The other Sprint Cup road race venue, Sears Point, is owned by SMI (Speedway Motorsports Inc.), and that group, under Bruton Smith, owns several major ovals. So, that's how Smith has leverage with NASCAR, and how Sears Point kept a top-tier NASCAR race after 1998.

[Dutton]

The only options are a return to Indy or a street course. As was highlighted by another eariler, of the two a street course is more likely. I could see the casinos at Vegas maybe thinking it worthwhile throwing some money into a pot for it from the PR point of view (thinking global TV here).

Other than that, what place is going to be willing to take such a completely unnecessary and pointless financial hit?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Purist

Average lap speed for the GP Circuit as it is now would be 145-150mph. Average speed on the short course for F1 would be 160-165mph.

Your good on stats etc. What's average lap speed of those Dallara's around Watkins Glen?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Other than that, what place is going to be willing to take such a completely unnecessary and pointless financial hit?

I was thinking of Longbeach. The Toyota GP has been held there for years. The first ever race was in 1975 and was a round of the SCCA/USAC Formula 5000 Championship. It could probably do with an upgrade that would also benefit the IICS and it's down the road from LA.

[Dutton]

You think they would cough up enough for Bernie?

I guess it is possible inititally (I could see him taking a relatively sane amount to start - the way a drug deal will give good products and prices to the new customer), but the way his costs just go through the roof how long would it ever last?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Dutton

You think they would cough up enough for Bernie?

I guess it is possible inititally (I could see him taking a relatively sane amount to start - the way a drug deal will give good products and prices to the new customer), but the way his costs just go through the roof how long would it ever last?

...and there lies the rub.

[Purist]

The Indy Car pole record for Watkins Glen is 136-mph and change around the GP Circuit. That translates to a lap time of right around 1:30, maybe just dipping into the 1:29s.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Thanks for that.

[Sodemo]

The Daytona road track is far better than the Indy one.

The Indy infield reminds me of an old kart circuit in London I used to go to.

[duke_toaster]

The banking on the oval there is far too steep for F1 cars, though.