http://www.itv-f1.com/news/news_story/19810
Ganassi will be destroyed ... unless he selects a very, very good team. Look at Zanardi and Panis! Pete
One thing to remember here is that the "G" in G-Force stands for Ganassi so he already has a factory in place that can produce a car. So this can be a starting point for the team. Also never over look the fact that Chip has a very good knack for finding sponsorship for his teams.
This could be just what F1 needs, a legit NORTH AMERICAN (read USA) based and BIASED race team with a legit heritage doing the "going up against the big boys" That woudl drag some coolers away from the NASCAR circuit and (my .02) that sad disfunctional world of open world (Tony George there is a special place in hell for you after ruining 1 great racing series and creating a poor option)
I thought G-Force was owned by Elan Technologies/Don Panoz. They are based in England and were purchased by Don Panoz in '99. Are Ganassi and Panoz linked? Best Mark
It sure would be nice if he could convince an American engine builder to enter F1 with him. Say Ganassi-Ford?
I could not agree more, I am sadly unsure, however, that F1 can steal any red-neck 'round and round fans. I believe the apeal is that they leave the track after a day of swilling beer and sweating BO all over eachother in the SAME cars (in looks) that were on the track that day.
Anybody ever been to the museum in Daytona? Very interesting and they show the inner workings of a NASCAR. Couldn't be more farther away from a street car. Also shows how relatively low tech the series is.
and "gasp, gulp blush" i Just got my press Creds for my Very first NASCAR race.... I have to fight tempation....... I know these words will get me killed there..... "Hey lady, Nice Tooth..."
HA !!! No kidding ! How about, "show us your tooth!" Jeff Foxworthy: "if anyone has ever said you lie through your tooth... you might be a redneck"
The only way to get the average race fan interested in F1 would be to lower the tech of the cars and get some passing back on the track. Eliminate the launch control and traction control, bring back a real gearshifter, lower the downforce and bring back slicks. Make F1 a series about the best drivers instead of the biggest budget, and put some excitement on the track. All a US team might do is get the casual motorsports fan to actually turn the race on the TV, instead of completely ignoring the race. Once that fan is watching, the race itself has to be interesting enough to hold his or her interest. Right now, that's just not the case. And yes, I know the "you're just a dumb redneck NASCAR fan and have no clue" comments are coming my way from some of you, but the sport just isn't going to grow beyond its current market without better on-track competition. There's too many other sports competing for the fans' attention and money. Ganassi's presence will help F1, as will the shattered state of open wheel racing in the US, but the product has to be great to capture the US market.
Ford is aleady in the JAG and Daimler Chrysler could do the Ja' eets goot a Hemi for a Dodge run or (adorns flame proof undies) Chev (part owner of FIAT and that is.....f)
Tillman no Redneck Nascar jokes here.... From a marketing standpoint EVERYone can learn a lot from the France's they have created one of the most successful "Brands" out there but, like i said at lunch, it is tough to deal with "It takes a lap or so to get up to speed..." and the suspention adjustments with Rubber Wedges and things like that as a "High Tec Racing"
I agree, much to some of my friends dismay, I'm sure,(bit I'm not telling them) I busted my NASCAR cherry on Sunday and watched my FIRST race. I figured if I was going to do it, I would watch the NASCAR equivalent of the Superbowl. Nevertheless, I only did it because I AM JONESING FOR F1 TO START !! I turned to my wife, the sweetest-of-sweet Georgia peaches and said: I just don't get it. What's the appeal? Now being a REFORMED NASCAR fan, (once she met me she realized there was more to life than yanking the wheel left in a Chevy Cavalier) she replies: I dunno, when is the Melbourne race? AAAAHHHH, PRICELESS !!! The pupil has learned well from the Jedi-master !!!!
Say what you will about F1's (over-?) reliance on high-tech, I've always thought of NASCAR as the only racing series in which the race cars are in many ways less technically sophisticated than the street cars on which they're (allegedly) loosely based.
DITTO!! If any Nascar fan wants an education, watch the replay on Speed of "Trading Paint" where Jeff Gordon and JPM trade cars. Very informative and they go into a straight-up comparison of technology and car stats.
Now THAT is an interesting statement. Coming from a racer actually. Personally I wouldn't go as far. Similar discussions have been made about F1 in the early nineties when the electronic aids were discussed. Banning them would in some ways make a F1 less techy than a street car. Comparing the 2004 F1 Ferrari to an Enzo already shows, that the Enzo in some ways is more technically advanced as it doesn't have to adhere to regulations (e.g. moveable aerodynamics). But even a NASCAR is relatively sophisticated. When you look under their skin, there is some nice technology. Same argument goes for CART and IRL. The difference is just, that there is no real competition in developing the cars. It is all frozen. F1 is the opposite: An arms race. As far as my NASCAR cherry goes: No I can't watch this stuff. I just don't get it, it bores the hell out of me. However I have been to Daytona (when there was no race) and do admire the place and one day I will take a NASCAR driving experience class (Petty? I believe). Just because I like to experience ANY racecar to get a sense for it. I also TOTALLY loved the Speed TV stunt with JPM and Gordon at Indy last year. I simply find comparing race cars/classes utterly fascinating. Just my two pennies.