FORUMula1.com

[texasmr2]

?????

[texasmr2]

EDITED, hopefully in time, by user .

[F1er]

I didnt say they should only stick to europe,but I think this is first time when the majority of races is held outside europe! You do realize thats where about 70% of fans come from!

[texasmr2]

I didnt say they should only stick to europe,but I think this is first time when the majority of races is held outside europe! You do realize thats where about 70% of fans come from!

Hmm realizing something about F1, thats a grasp for me so go easy.

[spankyham]

I remember reading that last years (09) growth in F1 attendances was as follows:-
Europe >20%
Globally 6%
(looking but still can't find my source for that)
At China, the little crowd you see is mostly bussed in school kids used to fill the grandstands - that I do know because I was there.

I would add in terms of Grand Prix history, the USA (Indy mostly) has been around as long as most. Also, before the Indy tyre fiasco, I think they got a crowd of over a quarter of a million at one F1 race - and it wasn't that long ago.

[F1er]

I didnt say they should only stick to europe,but I think this is first time when the majority of races is held outside europe! You do realize thats where about 70% of fans come from!

Hmm realizing something about F1, thats a grasp?

Bernie is talking big about cost saving while holding 11 races out of Europe,where all the factories are! I'm sure they will be saving massively in the near future when ONLY 3 races are in EUROPE if you count (Socshi ?)

[spankyham]

FiA "talks" about "green" and committing the teams to develop new engines, put together all the fuel they will save. Now, compare that to the fuel and energy consumed moving the F1 Circus around the world. That's going green? What a joke

[F1er]

FiA "talks" about "green" and committing the teams to develop new engines, put together all the fuel they will save. Now, compare that to the fuel and energy consumed moving the F1 Circus around the world. That's going green? What a joke

EXACTLY! my point

As for Indy it was Bernie asking for a gazillion dollas like always,and they told him to shove it up his

[Jack Master]

?????

Well, I see you don’t like it. I didn’t expect anything else.
I believe the F1 survival isn’t in danger; it’s just an excuse to force the teams to severe cost cutting, because the F1 owners don’t want them demanding more money. The benefits of the F1 owners are splendid.
I don’t know if any of you know exactly the terms of the Max Mosley proposal that produced the FOTA’s rebellion leaded by Briatore and Ferrari that finished with the demission of Max Mosley as President of the FIA. This was a FOTA’s exigency. I believe they forced as well the appointment of Jean Todt as new President.
Tell me if I am wrong.

[Jack Master]

I remember reading that last years (09) growth in F1 attendances was as follows:-
Europe >20%
Globally 6%
(looking but still can't find my source for that)
At China, the little crowd you see is mostly bussed in school kids used to fill the grandstands - that I do know because I was there.

I would add in terms of Grand Prix history, the USA (Indy mostly) has been around as long as most. Also, before the Indy tyre fiasco, I think they got a crowd of over a quarter of a million at one F1 race - and it wasn't that long ago.

Maybe I’m wrong, but attendances, being important, don’t affect directly the F1 owners’ results. They charge a fee and the gate goes for the organizers. I believe there are much more important for them the TV rights.
The market of the future for every product, including F1 is Asia and they are working looking at a longer term rather than a short one.
If I’m not wrong, the fees charged to the new circuits are far larger than those charged to the old ones and fees go directly to the F1 owners.
Traditional circuits, old fans opinions and so, are in a second or third order of priorities for them. The old fans will keep going; they are looking for new ones.

[spankyham]

I remember reading that last years (09) growth in F1 attendances was as follows:-
Europe >20%
Globally 6%
(looking but still can't find my source for that)
At China, the little crowd you see is mostly bussed in school kids used to fill the grandstands - that I do know because I was there.

I would add in terms of Grand Prix history, the USA (Indy mostly) has been around as long as most. Also, before the Indy tyre fiasco, I think they got a crowd of over a quarter of a million at one F1 race - and it wasn't that long ago.

Maybe I’m wrong, but attendances, being important, don’t affect directly the F1 owners’ results. They charge a fee and the gate goes for the organizers. I believe there are much more important for them the TV rights.
The market of the future for every product, including F1 is Asia and they are working looking at a longer term rather than a short one.
If I’m not wrong, the fees charged to the new circuits are far larger than those charged to the old ones and fees go directly to the F1 owners.
Traditional circuits, old fans opinions and so, are in a second or third order of priorities for them. The old fans will keep going; they are looking for new ones.

I don't see it as a here OR there thing. I think the point being made about Europe is that you can't ignore them, and take them totally for granted when they are the backbone of F1 "support and growth" now.

By all means develop new markets, but develop the existing ones as well. And don't do one at the expense of the other.

[Jack Master]

I remember reading that last years (09) growth in F1 attendances was as follows:-
Europe >20%
Globally 6%
(looking but still can't find my source for that)
At China, the little crowd you see is mostly bussed in school kids used to fill the grandstands - that I do know because I was there.

I would add in terms of Grand Prix history, the USA (Indy mostly) has been around as long as most. Also, before the Indy tyre fiasco, I think they got a crowd of over a quarter of a million at one F1 race - and it wasn't that long ago.

Maybe I’m wrong, but attendances, being important, don’t affect directly the F1 owners’ results. They charge a fee and the gate goes for the organizers. I believe there are much more important for them the TV rights.
The market of the future for every product, including F1 is Asia and they are working looking at a longer term rather than a short one.
If I’m not wrong, the fees charged to the new circuits are far larger than those charged to the old ones and fees go directly to the F1 owners.
Traditional circuits, old fans opinions and so, are in a second or third order of priorities for them. The old fans will keep going; they are looking for new ones.

I don't see it as a here OR there thing. I think the point being made about Europe is that you can't ignore them, and take them totally for granted when they are the backbone of F1 "support and growth" now.

By all means develop new markets, but develop the existing ones as well. And don't do one at the expense of the other.

As I said before attendance isn’t a priority for them. In my opinion they look into fees, sponsors, TV rights and new fans. Fees are larger at the new circuits; sponsors like exposition into other markets, TV rights increase with new countries involved and for new fans I believe they search into younger people and new markets. I thing they consider the old European fans assured. Changing old European circuits for new ones doesn’t mean to develop them at the expenses of Europe. They have a lot of European drivers and teams and the fans of F1 in Europe follow them and will continue doing it in the circuits or watching TV. New and young champions are attracting new and young European fans into F1.
It doesn’t mean that I agree with that, but if you put yourself into their position and take a look from his point of view I believe that’s what they’re looking for.
Maybe we have different opinions in that point but it’s nice to know them.

[Jack Master]

FiA "talks" about "green" and committing the teams to develop new engines, put together all the fuel they will save. Now, compare that to the fuel and energy consumed moving the F1 Circus around the world. That's going green? What a joke

In my opinion, committing the teams to develop new engines with lesser consume of fuel for the next season could be good for car manufacturers, because the engineering technological advances in that area should have a bigger application in road cars and in the longer term could produce a “green” effect and a positive economic input for car constructors, but I believe that these rules have been imposed for the teams. Bernie Ecclestone has said that they mean an unnecessary increment of costs.
I also believe that most of the new Grand Prix outside Europe have been an initiative of the Public Administration of those countries: Bahrain, Malaysia, China, Turkey, Abu Dhabi, Russia and India in a near future,… and they can accept loses as a public relations’ costs for putting his country on the map, attracting tourism, etc. For these reasons the poor attendance to circuits has, for the moment, a lesser importance for them.
Private initiative has nothing to do in that situation. They absolutely depend on the people’s attendance and they can’t compete with the public administrations in other countries. They can’t afford the payment of the enormous fees imposed by Bernie and his team as they can’t either afford losing money.

[Jabberwocky]

I started reading this thread, and I have come to the conclusion that maybe we have Bernie all wrong. We think that in a strange way Bernie is trying to do his best for F1. Maybe he is just squeezing the last bits of money out of F1 before he retires.

To be honest apart from the name I am not sure what Bernie has that makes him so powerful in F1. If you rebranded it "Formula extreme", and got all the same teams and circuits on board because of a better financial package, what would Bernie have?

[spankyham]

I started reading this thread, and I have come to the conclusion that maybe we have Bernie all wrong. We think that in a strange way Bernie is trying to do his best for F1. Maybe he is just squeezing the last bits of money out of F1 before he retires.

To be honest apart from the name I am not sure what Bernie has that makes him so powerful in F1. If you rebranded it "Formula extreme", and got all the same teams and circuits on board because of a better financial package, what would Bernie have?

Good thoughts, perhaps I'd ask a slightly different question .... what would we (the F1 fans) have? A=The motor sport we originally fell in love with probably.