June 28, 2006
Winners. America loves a winner. Always have, always will. Individual AMERICANS might pull for an underdog (see: Wonderduck, Minardi, SuperAguri), but as a whole, we love the big dogs. More importantly, though, we ALWAYS pull for American winners... this country didn't care about Women's Soccer until they won in the Olympics, for example.
America hasn't had a winner in F1 for decades. If Scott Speed, for example, wins a race or two, or even suddenly he'll be the subject of Sports Illustrated covers, he'd be on Letterman, he'd be elevated to "local hero" status. But until then, the American People (note caps) won't adopt F1, ever.
Action. As a people, Americans want action from their sports. They want to see the baseball fly 500 feet. They want to see the bone-crushing hits in football. They want to see cars going side-by-side for lap upon lap, and F1 just isn't like that. I fully believe that if Americans watched a few races with the Legendary Announce Team, they'd be hooked (particularly the gearheads who love technology. I'd think that computer geeks would really go for F1 racing), but the way to ge them to watch would be more action. If a Formula 1 race had, say, 20 laps of action like we get on the first lap of a race, people would be ADDICTED.
NASCAR. NASCAR is everything F1 isn't. It's got the personalities, it has the action, it has the good guys and bad guys, it's a uniquely American style of racing (much like drag racing... right, Steven?). As long as NASCAR markets themselves as well as they currently do, F1 will stand no chance of having a huge fanbase in the US.
So why do these things preclude an American team in F1? Really, it all comes down to money. Without fans to buy sponsored products, an American F1 team will constantly be a money-losing proposition. It's easier to slap sponsorship on a NASCAR team and get immediate exposure to the wallets of the US viewer than it would be to sponsor a F1 car/team/whatever (obviously, multinational corporations don't quite have this problem. Intel, AMD and Marlboro, for example, are all US-based companies that sponsor F1, but their products are in huge demand world-wide).
A Ford-based team with sponsorship from Fram oilfilters, Valvoline oil, Goodyear tires, ACDelco sparkplugs and so forth would really only be of interest to AMERICAN viewers, as those are American companies, with limited market penetration anywhere else in the world.
The first step is to get a good American driver in F1, and here's where I'm going to invoke the name Danica Patrick. Drop her in a Williams, lets say, and suddenly her every move in F1 will be covered like a blanket.
It'll never happen, of course, while Darth Ecclestone (who honestly seems to believe that F1 doesn't need the US, and is below the level of 'neanderthal' when it comes to women) is in charge, but it'd be a great step.
A great PR move would be for a NASCAR driver to turn some laps in a F1 car. Dale Jr, Tony Stewart, or Jeff Gordon would make an instant impact. This, too, would never happen.
Posted by: Don Speekingleesh at June 28, 2006 06:14 PM (fc6cT)
Posted by: flotsky at June 28, 2006 07:41 PM (6T2ID)
I think that for Americans, car racing is, or should be, a beer sport, not a wine sport. It's medium-rare steak, not quiche and brie. F1 just comes across wrong.
For all my joking about drag racing being a real man's sport, there's an element of truth to that in terms of how the sports are perceived. NASCAR and NHRA are, as you say, more earthy. F1 comes across as a bit effete.
I'm almost tempted to say that F1 comes across as gay. NHRA is more macho, and the fact that some of the top drivers are women doesn't work against this image in the slightest.
Having a good American driver competing in F1 would help, but I don't think it would make as much difference as you seem to think. The problem runs deeper.
Real car racing doesn't happen in places like Monaco and Paris. It happens in places like Texas and Georgia. Real race car drivers don't stay in 4-star hotels; they live in motor homes while they're on the circuit.
Car racing in America has much the same appeal that rodeo does, and I suspect there's a pretty significant overlap in terms of their fans (though NASCAR and NHRA are a lot more popular than rodeo). Can you imagine a rodeo fan traveling to Monaco to watch a car race? Sitting in the shade sipping an elegant chardonay and eating brie while watching the cars going past? Not even at gunpoint!
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at June 29, 2006 01:29 PM (+rSRq)
I think we're saying the same thing, you're just putting it more... concisely.
F1 does consider itself to be elite. If you look at it's past, it has a legit claim to that feeling. The problem is that that feeling DOES rub Americans the wrong way. The American fan may not put it that way, mostly because they don't give two figs about F1 (unless something bad happens, of course... see last year's USGP).
It doesn't help that there's a distinct undercurrent of anti-European feeling these days.
Posted by: Wonderduck at June 29, 2006 04:31 PM (y6n8O)
It also appeals to the casual gear-head. A Formula 1 car is as specialized a racing machine as a F-16 is as specialized a plane. It's beautiful...but you probably won't ever get as close to a real one than at a air show/Formula 1 race. NASCAR cars...you feel like you could buy one off the lot at home. And race them just as fast.
Honestly, the first person that can organize and regulate "rice burner" car races will have something so perfectly geeky that will be for the North and West what NASCAR is to the South.
Posted by: zakueins at June 29, 2006 05:45 PM (kVJ88)
47 queries taking 0.0848 seconds, 226 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.