Interesting point from grandprix.com re F1 and NASCAR.

[johnph]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19648.html

Quietly building up to international expansion.

[davyboy]

It would be great to get NASCAR at Rockingham.

[motormania]

Interesting report...

With F1 being so far up it's own arse and unable to offer the fans anything, I could quite agree that NASCAR could have benefits.

Not really into NASCAR right now, but is it a motor sport governed by the FIA ?

If not, I can't see any hurdles then to them spreading around the world. A1GP has had it's wings clipped by Bernie and Max to keep F1 at the top, but if the FIA have nothing to do with NASCAR then we could see a real fight on.

I also agree, the thought of the NASCAR circus hitting The Rock would be awesome...

[SimonY]

I don't mind NASCAR but not going to work....Yanks drive in straight lines across deserts in softly sprung cars with massive V8s, so they like racing that reflects that. We like racing that reflects our roads and driving - touring cars and sports/GTs around circuits.

Rockingham was built because some clever person thought that if we had an oval NASCAR and Indycar would suddenly want to come here every year and oval racing would become our national sport, now it is used only six times a year and has grids of about 10 for the SCSA (or whatever it is called this year) so there is clearly little interest.

I think it being successful in the long term is about as likely as American Football replacing 'Soccer' as our national sport.

Edited by SimonY on Friday 14th September 13:42

[HiRich]

SimonY said:

I think it being successful in the long term is about as likely as American Football replacing 'Soccer' as our national sport.

Definitely a risk, but the France family have proven themselves smarter than the average franchise holder. The article reports how NASCAR is putting all the foundations in place - Toyota, internationally-known drivers, etc., and let's not forget that they have some of the biggest brand names as sponsors (I suspect McDonalds and Burger King would both fight for license rights, then Bud, de Walt and half the field would take an interest in their own sectors).
Now build a European tour, commit long term, work on upgrading the TV coverage over a few years (Note how the Daytona 500 was presented live on Five this year), and back it with a major marketing blitz, and I can see it succeeding. It's still risky, but the prospects are better than the NFL, which let's not forget still does OK - I believe there will be a regular season match at Wembley this season.
NASCAR would only need to break even. Happy sponsors would be the payback.

[motormania]

Simon,

There is one thing that NASCAR does better than F1 currently does, and that is engage the audience...

[SimonY]

Depends who the audience is. I still find F1 more engaging than NASCAR because I can relate to the type of racing more easily

[Baldylocks]

motormania said:

Simon,

There is one thing that NASCAR does better than F1 currently does, and that is engage the audience...

By what? Throwing a yellow flag every five minutes and having a big crash?

I find NASCAR very boring compared to F1. I only watch it to laugh at the drivers names and hope to see a big crash. I'm sure it is good to actually watch at the ovals, perhaps even better than many F1 circuits.

[mko9]

SimonY said:

I think it being successful in the long term is about as likely as American Football replacing 'Soccer' as our national sport.

The NFL is going to play a reular season game at Wembley this year in front of a sellout crowd of 90,000.

I certainly don't think American football will ever aproach football in terms of popularity, but if the NFL can succeed in England who is to say that NASCAR can't?

[SGirl]

I prefer NASCAR to the complete farce F1 has become. The racing is interesting (when it's not stopped because 25 cars have had an off, or because it's a bit damp...), and it's good to see a bit of variety on the podium. There was a time not so long ago when F1 was just completely processional, and I got bored with it. I've never really started watching it again. But I do like to watch NASCAR races.

[PiB]

Nascar has it's own dictatorship by the France family which is much criticized over here for some of the same things the FIA has done. Issues like safety, the way penalties are handed out, revenue distribution and merchandising rules at the tracks have fueled a lot of critics.

On the other hand found this info . .

"NASCAR's early history included several foreign manufacturers, such as Aston Martin, Austin-Healey, Citroën, Jaguar, MG, Morgan, Porsche, Renault, and Volkswagen." Wikipedia has some interesting info.

Edited by PiB on Friday 14th September 19:12

[andyps]

motormania said:

Not really into NASCAR right now, but is it a motor sport governed by the FIA ?

If not, I can't see any hurdles then to them spreading around the world.

The hurdle is that if a track were to run a NASCAR event it would be in breach of any agreement it may have to run any FIA sanctioned event and may not be able to run them again in the future. Max and Bernie have it pretty well sown up.

[kenthardy]

NASCAR is FIA sanctioned i believe - in fact the first time I went to the Daytona 500 their literature referred to the FIA openly.

It's not some hick backstreet promotion at all and FIA's Charlie Whiting has informal contacts with their tech people. (Got me my passes indirectly)

As someone else has said it delivers what the fans want - great entertainment - and after 10 years of going to races I can't help but agree!

F1 has forgotten the fans in favour of corporate entertainment and TV advertising.

Ford, GM and Chrysler still know what sells cars thank goodness!

(So to Mercedes and BMW but Bernie is too greedy to let them play in the US)

Edited by kenthardy on Friday 14th September 23:51

[andyps]

kenthardy said:

andyps said:

The hurdle is that if a track were to run a NASCAR event it would be in breach of any agreement it may have to run any FIA sanctioned event and may not be able to run them again in the future. Max and Bernie have it pretty well sown up.

NASCAR is FIA sanctioned i believe - in fact the first time I went to the Daytona 500 their literature referred to the FIA openly.
It's not some hick backstreet promotion at all and FIA's Charlie Whiting has informal contacts with their tech people. (Got me my passes)

I didn't know that - I stand corrected.

Edited by andyps on Wednesday 19th September 13:26

[belleair302]

I think you will find NASCAR has NO relationship with the FIA. It may well be recognised by the FIA but NASCAR is ruled by its own board and has no interference from Max or Bernie who are both worried about both the DTM and its expansion along with the US situation. F1 if it had thrown out McLaren yesterday would have died forever in 2008 with a massive loss in TV revenue, sponsorship deals and lack of talented race winning drivers.

Nascar is interesting because there is strategy, the drivers are characters, the races are set up for fans, not high spending VIP's and all of the cars are very similar...thus close racing and many lead drivers.

For top rcing watch the WTCC.

[EDLT]

They would need to include more races on proper circuits to really expand, not just from a purist view but because the rest of the world has a distinct lack of ovals.

Apparently driving a NASCAR on a "road course" sucks, according to one of the drivers in a Top Gear/Evo (can't remember which) interview.

[belleair302]

NASCAR chssis are 'angled' to whether driving on a superspeedway or a short course oval....thus road courses make the car impossible to drive. To really appreciate NASCAR you have to attend a race or series of races. It is amazing to see these cars doing over 200mph, inches from the wall and for hundreds of miles....one behind or beside the other. Very different than F1 and the two cannot be compared.

[macsport]

belleair302 said:

NASCAR chssis are 'angled' to whether driving on a superspeedway or a short course oval....thus road courses make the car impossible to drive. To really appreciate NASCAR you have to attend a race or series of races. It is amazing to see these cars doing over 200mph, inches from the wall and for hundreds of miles....one behind or beside the other. Very different than F1 and the two cannot be compared.

NASCAR car teams have a separate 'Road Course' and 'Oval' cars. When Rockingham hosted the Richard Petty school in 2001 they brought over three oval cars and one road course car and the set up was completely different between the two types.

With regards to a circuit running NASCAR or another non FIA sanctioned series - Rockingham did this with Champ Car in 2001, 2002, Lauzitz in 2001 and 2003, Brands Hatch in 2003, Zolder and Assen in 2007 and non of them lost the right to run FIA sanctioned series so why should it be any different for NASCAR if they choose to visit Europe?

[johnph]

macsport said:

NASCAR car teams have a separate 'Road Course' and 'Oval' cars. When Rockingham hosted the Richard Petty school in 2001 they brought over three oval cars and one road course car and the set up was completely different between the two types.

True, the new Car of Tommorrow that they'll be using full time next year is supposed to be adjustable enough to eliminate the need for track-specific cars, which means any international leg wouldn't be confined to one type of track.

[alman]

I'm sure Nascar would be great live and the drivers are skilled etc. but on t.v. i find it even more boring than F1. If f1 is drivers just going round a track Nascar's the same but in circles.