Champ Car vs. F1 attendance
Discussion
60-65 thousand in Brazil. The cost of F1 is much higher than Champcar and Brazil is not a rich race. If you want massive figures go to NASCAR where they get over 200,000 at some races and rarely below 80,000, but at £20 a ticket it is not surprising. DTM has good attendance figures and some of the Nurburgring endurance races get huge attendences.
While that might be a massive result for ChampCar, bear in mind they've had to cancel two races this season because they couldn't shift any tickets, and they're dropping another one or two next year. In fact, when they're in a double bill with the ALMS, it's the sportscar race that brings in the punters.
The IRL is doing a lot better these days than ChampCar, (all things being relative).
The IRL is doing a lot better these days than ChampCar, (all things being relative).
The other thing to remember is that the Surfer's event is actually (believe it or not) more popular because of the V8 series, the Champ car race is seen as a support event by most. I watched it on TV, but skipped through the Champcar race. I'm thinking of going next year, but the motivation is more the party on the Gold Coast and the V8s, I would go even if the Champcars weren't there. I would put money on the vast majority of the crowd having the same view.
So, does F1 deliver the value for the money?
In the case of sponsorship, does F1 sponsorship represent a good value, when 300,000 people over a race weekend can see your sponsorship--for a lot less money?
Assuming 360,000 people attended the Brazil GP (pure speculation, no basis in fact), is sponsoring an F1 team at how many multiples more than LeMans, V8's, NASCAR, IRL, ChampCar, etc.) really a good value for the sponsorship dollar?
Also, with F1 racing in so many second tier sites, doesn't the value proposition of sponsorship of race series that run in first tier sites have a greater value for sponsorship?
I would venture that the value of ChampCar (primary racing in first tier markets--Australia, Canada, Europe and USA) sponsorship is greater than F1--(Bahrain, Malaysia, China, India--next year, Brazil and Europe). F1 is in first and second tier markets, ChampCar is in first tier markets. Follow the money...
In the case of sponsorship, does F1 sponsorship represent a good value, when 300,000 people over a race weekend can see your sponsorship--for a lot less money?
Assuming 360,000 people attended the Brazil GP (pure speculation, no basis in fact), is sponsoring an F1 team at how many multiples more than LeMans, V8's, NASCAR, IRL, ChampCar, etc.) really a good value for the sponsorship dollar?
Also, with F1 racing in so many second tier sites, doesn't the value proposition of sponsorship of race series that run in first tier sites have a greater value for sponsorship?
I would venture that the value of ChampCar (primary racing in first tier markets--Australia, Canada, Europe and USA) sponsorship is greater than F1--(Bahrain, Malaysia, China, India--next year, Brazil and Europe). F1 is in first and second tier markets, ChampCar is in first tier markets. Follow the money...
jpf said:
So, does F1 deliver the value for the money?
In the case of sponsorship, does F1 sponsorship represent a good value, when 300,000 people over a race weekend can see your sponsorship--for a lot less money?
see my point above, I doubt if it was 300,000 people, more like 75,000x4days
Assuming 360,000 people attended the Brazil GP (pure speculation, no basis in fact), is sponsoring an F1 team at how many multiples more than LeMans, V8's, NASCAR, IRL, ChampCar, etc.) really a good value for the sponsorship dollar?
surely the value for sponsors in F1 is the VAST TV audience rather than live specatators?
...
In the case of sponsorship, does F1 sponsorship represent a good value, when 300,000 people over a race weekend can see your sponsorship--for a lot less money?
see my point above, I doubt if it was 300,000 people, more like 75,000x4days
Assuming 360,000 people attended the Brazil GP (pure speculation, no basis in fact), is sponsoring an F1 team at how many multiples more than LeMans, V8's, NASCAR, IRL, ChampCar, etc.) really a good value for the sponsorship dollar?
surely the value for sponsors in F1 is the VAST TV audience rather than live specatators?
...
jpf said:
So, does F1 deliver the value for the money?
In the case of sponsorship, does F1 sponsorship represent a good value, when 300,000 people over a race weekend can see your sponsorship--for a lot less money?
Assuming 360,000 people attended the Brazil GP (pure speculation, no basis in fact), is sponsoring an F1 team at how many multiples more than LeMans, V8's, NASCAR, IRL, ChampCar, etc.) really a good value for the sponsorship dollar?
Also, with F1 racing in so many second tier sites, doesn't the value proposition of sponsorship of race series that run in first tier sites have a greater value for sponsorship?
I would venture that the value of ChampCar (primary racing in first tier markets--Australia, Canada, Europe and USA) sponsorship is greater than F1--(Bahrain, Malaysia, China, India--next year, Brazil and Europe). F1 is in first and second tier markets, ChampCar is in first tier markets. Follow the money...
F1 races could be held in a cardboard box and it'd still deliver more value to sponsors than ChampCar. It's all about the TV coverage rather than the race attendances (and as has been mentioned, Surfers Paradise was down to the V8's rather than the champ cars themselves). Unfortunately no-one watches ChampCar, despite it being good racing with interesting strategy...In the case of sponsorship, does F1 sponsorship represent a good value, when 300,000 people over a race weekend can see your sponsorship--for a lot less money?
Assuming 360,000 people attended the Brazil GP (pure speculation, no basis in fact), is sponsoring an F1 team at how many multiples more than LeMans, V8's, NASCAR, IRL, ChampCar, etc.) really a good value for the sponsorship dollar?
Also, with F1 racing in so many second tier sites, doesn't the value proposition of sponsorship of race series that run in first tier sites have a greater value for sponsorship?
I would venture that the value of ChampCar (primary racing in first tier markets--Australia, Canada, Europe and USA) sponsorship is greater than F1--(Bahrain, Malaysia, China, India--next year, Brazil and Europe). F1 is in first and second tier markets, ChampCar is in first tier markets. Follow the money...
egomeister said:
F1 races could be held in a cardboard box and it'd still deliver more value to sponsors than ChampCar. It's all about the TV coverage
F1 TV coverage is sold all over the world...US audiences tend to watch US racing as I understand it - so not so likely to watch F1. But EVERYONE else watches F1. Who watches Champ Car, though? The US. A bit. I don't think its even on sack-o-shite TV in the UK.
I believe CCWS currently has to pay for what little TV coverage they get, whereas F1 generates vast amounts of money by selling TV rights. As for sponsorship...forking out for a season only to end up having two races pulled doesn't strike me as especially good value for money. As much as I loved CART, I can't help but think CCWS will be dead in two or three years. The IRL may not be to everyone's taste, but it is slowly evolving into what CART once was. Might not have been the original plan, but it now has a decent mix of tracks, some half decent drivers and of course the Indy 500. I just can't see CCWS carrying on for much longer to be honest.
tim the pool man said:
The other thing to remember is that the Surfer's event is actually (believe it or not) more popular because of the V8 series
Yep, thats the main point here - the Aussie V8s were the main draw and as mentioned the crowd numbers are reported for the entire event rather than just on race day.Don said:
egomeister said:
F1 races could be held in a cardboard box and it'd still deliver more value to sponsors than ChampCar. It's all about the TV coverage
F1 TV coverage is sold all over the world...US audiences tend to watch US racing as I understand it - so not so likely to watch F1. But EVERYONE else watches F1. Who watches Champ Car, though? The US. A bit. I don't think its even on sack-o-shite TV in the UK.
Really, this attempt to try and portray CCWS as somehow in ruder health than F1 is ludicrous if you actually follow the respective series. As has been posted, CCWS is in dire straits, even compared to IRL. US road racing fans are moving to the ALMS and open wheel fans have gone to the IRL.
Edited by Dr JonboyG on Tuesday 23 October 14:20
Don said:
egomeister said:
F1 races could be held in a cardboard box and it'd still deliver more value to sponsors than ChampCar. It's all about the TV coverage
F1 TV coverage is sold all over the world...US audiences tend to watch US racing as I understand it - so not so likely to watch F1. But EVERYONE else watches F1. Who watches Champ Car, though? The US. A bit. I don't think its even on sack-o-shite TV in the UK.
johnph said:
Don said:
egomeister said:
F1 races could be held in a cardboard box and it'd still deliver more value to sponsors than ChampCar. It's all about the TV coverage
F1 TV coverage is sold all over the world...US audiences tend to watch US racing as I understand it - so not so likely to watch F1. But EVERYONE else watches F1. Who watches Champ Car, though? The US. A bit. I don't think its even on sack-o-shite TV in the UK.
In a way I wish they'd just pull the plug. That would be reunification by default, but it would be better than seeing the series limp from disaster to disaster. The US very obviously can't sustain two premier open wheel series, and the IRL is now so far from the original vision that I don't think the politics matter any more.
I think going down the one make route screwed them up a bit. For me it was interesting to see which combinations of chassis/engine/tyre worked best on which circuits. It produced interesting racing because it produced variations between different cars/teams throughout the race, and it kept the series from stagnating.
It also used to have a good mix of drivers like Zanardi who really never made it in F1, Montoya before he was in F1, and the likes of Paul Tracey, who I think is a bit of a prat, but can make for an interesting race.
Racing for die hard fans who would rather watch that than Come Dancing on a Sunday evening.
On the other hand it was also good to see live, sort of like a cartoon racing series with big powerful cars on sticky slicks bouncing and sliding round corners, banging wheels and overtaking each other.
Surely out of these two elements they could have made a decent series?
It also used to have a good mix of drivers like Zanardi who really never made it in F1, Montoya before he was in F1, and the likes of Paul Tracey, who I think is a bit of a prat, but can make for an interesting race.
Racing for die hard fans who would rather watch that than Come Dancing on a Sunday evening.
On the other hand it was also good to see live, sort of like a cartoon racing series with big powerful cars on sticky slicks bouncing and sliding round corners, banging wheels and overtaking each other.
Surely out of these two elements they could have made a decent series?
USA single-seaters have two things F1 does not - iron brakes and aerodynamic restrictions. Bring both of these into F1 and you will see cars with more power than grip, and braking distances that allow the 'late brakers' to overtake in places that at present they can only dream about.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff