Correct, and I think this is reason Bernie is looking at far flung places. The thing about it is, Bernie love or hate the guy, he has made a lot of money for F1, himself and others, he has made it was it is today, it may not even survived this long without him.
I love Bernie, and I hate him. However you cannot fault him, or other investors in F1 because its their business to make money. Remember, money really has no colour or taste to it, so a $100 bill from USA, China, or Bahrain will do just fine. Business is about growth, "either grow or die" goes a well quoted verse. Bernie and the other F1 investors are trying to grow the business and keep it modern and appealing to new customers (customers with money!)...so that has been the strategy from 50 years. If F1 remained in the depressed US and Euro economy...and didn't go to China, Bahrain, India etc...they might have not survived as you said.
And while everybody loves to hate greedy Bernie, lets not forget that a huge part of the money he collects is getting redistributed to the team managers.
Personally I think Bernie needs to be thinking bigger. How about two divisions? With Austin looking like a go, and N.J. likely, Mexico could put a fifth venue in the Western Hemisphere. Now, I'm talking four or five years out here, but how about another venue in Brazil (Brazilia), get Argentina back in, and a second Mexico race? Add a west coast race in South America, bring Indy back, and add at least one race on the west coast of U.S. Then get Canada to add one or two races. Finally, move Japan, China, and Korea (if they last) into the new division. Lower Bernie's fees (since he'll have so many more to collect) so ticket prices can be dropped to attrack bigger crowds. Encourage new teams like Lola and VW. Red Bull can split it's teams between the two divisions. Ferrari wants antoher car, how about two more? The last race of the season alternates between divisions, with the top 50% of each division competing in the race.
That's not what Formula 1 is about though is it? What your suggesting equates to a Formula 1a and Formula 1b in a similar vein to the NFL's AFC and NFC divisions but that's never going to work in F1 as far as I can see. Look at this scenario: In division 1a the top driver dominates the season (a la Vettel this year), and wins the division by 200 points. In division 1b the top driver wins the division by a single point but 200 points behind the division 1a winner. They then meet in your alternating final: Which one is the real WDC when the only time they raced each other directly all season is in the last race? How do suggest the WDC gets decided fairly? You can't have it decided by the only race of the season where the two leaders actually race each other as that would make a mockery of the rest of the season, so how are you going to do it? Also, in the past the USA has had enough problems sustaining one Formula 1 race a year over a long period of time and suddenly you're under the impression that it can sustain four races in a year with no problems based on the fact that there's (allegedly), going to be two races in the near future. Sorry but F1's track record in the US just doesn't support that idea. Currently there's a struggle to get next years Austin GP up and running and it doesn't appear to be the case that the whole of the USA has suddenly gone F1 crazy! Sure there will be an initial excitement about it, just like there was at Indianapolis, but the problem is the excitement tends to dwindle away and F1 struggles to draw the crowds in after a couple of years. Lets also not forget that it's only been a couple of days since Newman/Haas quit the very American Indy series due, as Team owner Carl Haas said, to: "The economic climate no longer enables Newman/Haas Racing to participate in open wheel racing at this time". If they can't generate enough interest to stay racing in a purely American racing series, how is there suddenly going to be enough interest to sustain four races a year in a series that the vast majority of race fans simply don't get?
It wasn't my intention to suggest that the final race of the season would be crowned World Champion. Both divisions would have their own champions, and the final would just be a more important race with points either not awarded or possibly distributed towards the two division championships. I do not hold that the U.S.'s history with formula 1 implies it can never be successful here. Things change and more exposure should be better for the sport than less. The fact that a formula car is a very technical car could attract a new generation of technically oriented fans. We also have a much more globally aware society that can find an international sport more appealing that a U.S. only sport.
So now you have two F1 WDC's instead of one? (a bit like the multiple heavy weight champions in boxing), again that's not what F1 is about. F1 fans want to see a single definitive World champion at the end of a season, they don't want to be left with: "The best in the World that year was either 'A' or 'B' take your pick!", that's no real conclusion to a season, it leaves too many questions unanswered. As for your second point about F1 in the USA, why has it never really caught on in the past in the States then? F1 has always drawn in the "technically oriented fans", that's not been the problem (as is clearly demonstrated by the superb in-depth knowledge of those from the US who post in this very section). The problem has been in attracting (and keeping), the non "technically oriented fans" who have no interest in understanding the technology or the tactics used in the race, they just want to see flat out driving with loads of overtaking every lap. Now with DRS and KERS F1 stands a much better chance of succeeding in the USA because it has brought in more overtaking, but I'm not convinced that's going to be enough to win over the casual fans for the long term still. They're not going to understand why Mark webber's in a great position to overtake Vettel lap after lap but doesn't do it because the team's told him not to. Take a look at the new rule for defending your position on track that's being brought in next season for example: from 2012, drivers will not be allowed to move back onto the racing line after having moved off it to defend their position. To the casual fan, even though this guarantees a bit more overtaking, they're eventually going to be saying: "What the hell's this, the guy in front moves over and has to let the guy behind go by, that's not racing!" They will question why there has to be rule that appears to say: "If someone wishes to overtake you, you must let them by!" Any wheel to wheel action? ( a la Massa/Hamilton): "Why the hell has the guy got a penalty for trying to overtake?" As I mentioned before, Indy racing is struggling at the moment (and losing out to NASCAR I believe), and this is almost a simplified F1 style series that is home grown. It's far less complicated than F1 when it comes to rules and regulations and yet it is struggling. I may well be wrong but I'm not totally convinced there will be a single US GP in five years time, let alone four of them.
