F1 without Monaco may as well be IndyCar. I wonder if articles like these are posted to test public reaction.
When Bernie was at school the leaving age in the UK was actually 15. As for this story, Ditch Monaco for some Far East GP that no one gives a damn about?, never going to happen!. The teams and the F1 fans would be up in arms about it!. I seem to recall reading that the first race that gets put on the F1 calender every year is Monaco and then all the other races are arranged around Monaco's date. It's just Bernie doing his usual and being controversial to put F1 back in the news again as far as I can see.
The teams were/are up in arms about the lack of a USGP.... As long as the pygmy keeps lining their pockets, they'll do as told (or pull out....) Bernie doesn't give a flying **** about the fans [They're the one revenue source he doesn't benefit from.] Having said that: +1 Monaco ain't going away any time soon. Cheers, Ian
Whilst there was imense disappointment in F1 at the USGP being dropped, apart from Ferrari and Mercedes, I'm not sure it really affected any of the other teams that greatly and didn't come as that much of a shock. America has always been a tough nut for F1 to crack, mainly due to the fact that it's a sport that doesn't reward the casual observer readily, what with all it's technical regulations, politics and tactics. To get the most out of F1 you really need to study every facet and detail of the sport, for the drivers, the cars, the teams, absolutely everything. For the majority of American motor racing fans, they don't want to have to study the sport in detail, they want straight forward, wheel to wheel action every lap in cars that are very closely matched. This is why Nascar and IRL racing have been so successful but it's not what F1 is about. It's a bit like Hollywood movies. The most popular films tend to be the big blockbusters with simple scripts and loads of action and explosions. If the storyline takes too much thinking about, the film gets written off by the majority of people as being a bit boring. Another problem for the USGP is that history has already shown that F1 can survive okay without having a race in America, proven by the fact that they've done it several times in the past. Because of this I don't think there was as bigger outcry as there might have been. At the end of the day there was no on going tradition for F1 in the US, it was always a bit of a novelty sideshow. Hopefully the new circuit and race in Austin will change that and start a new, long, on going tradition. When it comes to Monaco however, the on going tradition is there and it's an incredibly strong one. Although just about all of the teams whinge about the cramped conditions, they all absolutely love racing there. It's so unique and the glamour of the occasion cannot be matched by any other race in the calender, no matter how much money is spent on the circuits and facilities. It is so special that I seriously doubt that Bernie would ever really contemplate dropping it from the calender, but if he did, I honestly believe that he would suddenly learn that you can kick a dog for year after year and it might not bite you, but one day you'll kick it once to often and it'll turn on you and savage your arm off!. Dropping Monaco would be a kick too many for the teams IMHO!. (BTW, no disrespect to the very knowledgeable US F1 fans on this board with My generalisation of motor racing fans in America. Here in the UK we also have plenty of people who simply cannot understand F1 and find it boring!). I Totally agree with your statement about Bernie's attitude towards the fans, I think it's one of the biggest things he gets wrong on a regular basis.
What about Honda, Toyota and BMW? What happened to them? Very well put, totally agree. I think Bernie's rich friends would not be very happy if Monaco was gone. I did not take offense but I am a dual national and have a UK passport too. Also my wife has a load of Coventry's in her family tree and we spent some time at Croome Court near you over the holidays.
It's the usual Bernie posturing during negotiations. Monaco has issued a statement. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85416 RM
A very succinct and dignified statement from the ACM- two adjectives that've rarely been used to describe Bernie.
Bernie would do well to remember is without Monaco there is no F-1. FOM should be paying Monaco for the privilege. RM
Both Honda and Toyota were already well established in the US long before their most recent F1 efforts so I don't think F1 leaving the USA made that much difference to them to be honest. As for BMW, what tends to get overlooked with them is that they are a comparitively small company and I suspect that they are already selling as many cars as they can in the US so again, F1 leaving the USA probably didn't affect them that much. Plus, what's the one thing that all three companies have in common?: they all decided to leave F1, which in itself tells you how vital they all felt F1 was to their companies. It had served it's purpose and had got very expensive to participate in and so they bailed out. Back on topic: Monaco's response to Bernies statement: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85416 , is suitably classy and shows just how strong they feel their position is. They obviously don't feel under any real threat whatsoever.
I'm not sure that all that follows. BMW is not a small niche manufacturer (They sell more 3 Series in the UK than Ford does in its sector) and Honda certainly isn't small period. I'd argue that if F1 had a presence in their vital US market they would have been more apt to stay.
The USGP technically is one of the older races... that was untill 1980, when it left Watkins Glenn. there has been a USGP since 1960 all the way to 1991. but never was it more popular or settled than at Watkins Glenn. F-1 demaned more creature comforts than the organizers could afford and the USGP corp. just faild under tremendous debt. then came Detroit, and again F-1 ( bernie) wanted more $$$ and left a spiritual home...in between there was Vegas, Long Beach, and Phoenix... Been to all of them, and in my opinon Watkins Glenn and Detroit were the best.
If you look at the total output of BMW (not just the 3 series), and compare it to the likes of Ford, Volkswagen, toyota, Mercedes Benz, GM, FIAT, etc,etc, they are a small company. Before the worldwide recession hit, BMW worldwide sales in 2007 were at a record high of 1,541,503 vehicles (not the numbers of a small niche manufacturer like Ferrari, I grant you). In the same year, worldwide, Toyota sold: 9,497,754 vehicles, GM sold: 9,369,524 vehicles, Ford sold: 6,247,506 vehicles. VW sold: 6,346,222 vehicles, Honda sold: 3,911,814 vehicles, FIAT sold: 2,679,451 vehicles, Daimler (Mercedes) sold: 2,096,977 vehicles, even Suzuki out sold BMW with: 2,596,316 vehicles. The fact that BMW outsells Ford in one particular market does not prove that BMW are not a small company, it proves that Ford do not do a good enough job in that sector considering how much larger Ford are compared to BMW. At no point did I say Honda were a small company, I said that both they and Toyota were already well established in the USA long before their recent F1 efforts. The point that I was making was that they did not enter F1 to raise their profiles in the USA, It was more to do with raising their profiles around the rest of the world to a younger generation, in a bid to help shake off their: "Cars for old people" image. If F1 was so important to their existance in the USA, wouldn't they have fought a lot harder to keep the USGP?. I don't seem to recall Honda, Toyota or BMW making that much fuss about losing the race!. The point you make are all fair enough apart from this one: Of all the countries around the world who could easily afford the "extra $$$" asked by Bernie, the USA has to be right up there and if F1 was so important to the USA then they would have paid to ensure they kept the race. As it was, the effort to keep the race was minimal at best. Yes F1 has been in the USA for many years, but it has always seemed unsettled, trying different venues in a bid to find a natural home and these days, F1 seems to simply flit in and out when it wants to, seemingly testing the waters to see if there is a home for it at the time. I have high hopes that the venture in Austin will prove to be that home, but F1 is an acquired taste that so far, the majority of American motor racing fans haven't taken to, for the reasons I have previously posted. Here in the UK, despite constant and regular threats from Bernie to drop the British GP, We have manged to maintain the race continuously ever since the very first F1 Championship race at Silverstone in 1950, despite having nothing like the disposable income that the USA has. The reason?, because it is that important to the British motor racing fans. Silverstone are spending over £20M on upgrades to ensure they keep the race so I'm afraid that talk of the USA not wanting to spend any extra $$$ to keep the race does not cut the mustard with Me!. As I have said before, If F1 was really that important to the USA, they would have found the money to keep it!.
I would argue that the loss of the USGP (or the lack of interest in a US Grand Prix in America) is in part why Honda, Toyota, and BMW pulled out of F1. It may not be the only reason but I'm sure it was in some way a part. The only way they could justify the expense was the "hope" or promise that it would help with their US marketing plans. This is why they bent over backwards for USF1 to enter the grid. The wild hope was that with a US team, at least some interest in F1 would filter into the mainstream US. It was also the entire "Scott Speed" fiasco. Again, the hope was that interest in the US media would pick up -- but it didn't. Speed was out as soon as the ratings came in. These manufacturers and sponsors (at least most of them) need US exposure to justify the huge costs. Without the US market, Bernie is only selling his brand to half the the world.
Thank you for expressing in a much more coherent manner what I was struggling to say If F1 offered car-makers like BMW and Honda a better marketing tool for US sales it would be another reason for them to continue.
2007? Geez, I stopped watching it closely after San Marino, 1994. You are probably accurate with that statement. Flip it around - why don't all the other tracks pay as much (less) as Monaco? Problem: F1 dropped Canada, Canada deemed it was financially worth it to have a race, so the gov't jumped in. That was bad news for everyone else, Canada gov't should not have caved in. Right now I'm 50/50 on a Texas race ever happening, if the economy takes another hit I'd obviously go the other way on it.
But the problem is, we can say that about EVERY 'fun' thing there is: baseball, basketball, hockey, football, soccer championships, outdoor concerts, even vacation destinations were 'better' until commercialism got hold of them. This is why you will never see another Woodstock. You may see concerts that big people-wise, but you won't see anything that is a 'culture' like that. The only thing even remotely close to something like that is maybe the infield at Daytona during speedweeks, but even that costs thousands of dollars to roll in with an RV for a week+. 30 years ago it was $50 for the week.
I would have to say that the loss of the US GP played a minute part in Honda, Toyota and BMW pulling out of F1, if any. The USGP ran at Indianapolis from 2000 ~ 2007. Toyota participated in F1 from 2002 ~ 2009. Honda participated in F1 from 2006 ~ 2008. BMW particpiated in F1 from 2005 ~ 2009. So none of these companies felt a desperate need to join F1 as soon as there was a USGP on the calender and none felt a desperate need to leave F1 as soon as the USGP was no longer on the calender. In fact it took BMW and Honda 5 and 6 years respectively to join F1 after the first modern day USGP was run. This tells Me that the USGP on its own wasn't a major factor in their decision to enter or leave F1. The biggest (and probably only), reason that these companies decided to leave F1 was due to the collapse in the automobile industry. They were all faced with lost production and the very real possibility of factory closures, redundancies, cut backs etc. Faced with having to tell hundreds of workers that they were probably going to be out of a job because they couldn't afford to keep them in work, they felt it was impossible to justify throwing away $200M ~ $300M a year on F1. I stand to be corrected but as I have posted previously, if the USGP was that important to F1 and the teams, a much bigger effort would have been made to save it. Monaco, on the other hand, really is that important to F1, and for F1 to lose it's jewel in the crown would be unthinkable. This is one race that in reality, even Bernie knows he cannot afford to drop, despite what he might say to the press. As for: The thing to remember here is that the half of the world that Bernie is selling his brand to, is the half of the world that is rising rapidly when it comes to having high levels of disposable income and will soon become more valuable to F1 than the US. Don't believe Me?, take a look at the amount of money being thrown at these new venues and check out how many have full Government support. whether the interest in F1 can be sustained in these new countries is another matter though.
Maybe Bernie can make up the Monaco $shortfall$ of of 'revised' fees on the 'new' Austin, TX track...might as well get really hypothetical now.
Monaco secures new 10 year deal: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85619 There's a surprise, huh!
