Beer & Brats vs Wine & Cheese

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

Semantics. I picked one of the most popular sports. My point is that you can't compare a single race of any type to a single baseball, basketball, hockey, football game. ESPN may not look at it that way, but MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL do. That's why they show these sports regionally. I watch ACC football on ABC. Most of the time I see either GT or FSU play. What are you watching? UNC, NC State, VaTech, etc. We're both watching ACC football and those numbers are what the television contracts are based on. From that standpoint all of the stick and ball, ball and hoop, foot and net, ice and grass sports crush motorsport.

Why are you watching ACC football?



















I keed.

[fieldodreams79]

I think we are talking apples and oranges with the bottom line being the majority of sports viewers in the US choose not to watch motorsports of any variety.

Other sports have a firm foundation in Americana and have become a part of our culture. College football, the NFL, MLB, the NHL and even the MLS have been around longer than the ALMS, so why would the average American care about a sportcars series with a French name attached to it? People here know why we and others care.

Ask an American sports fan to name pre WWII American sports heroes and they'll rattle off at least a handful; probably baseball players, would be my guess. Ask them to name pre WWII racing heroes and you'll most likely see their eyes glaze over. I don't think I even know any.

I could be wrong, but it seems NASCAR Cup/Grand National is the only major racing series in the US that has run a consistent schedule year in and year out for over 50 years (maybe USAC sprint cars, I don't know). Every other series or genre of American motorsports have gone through major transformations that have alienated fans, media outlets and the general public. Seems we are currently in this ugly phase of motor racing, again.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

Seriously? Seriously? You're just arguing for arguments sake, now.

Gee, maybe you do not remember in the early days when the Indy 500 was time delayed because track said it was going to be, not because the networks wanted it to be.
Hmm, I also remember when racing was a rare item the Wide World of Sports, and racing KEPT GETTING BIGGER any way, without TV-- OHHH, the humanity....

Pleiase, please tell how race tracks, with the exception DJ said, where the France family owns the tracks it runs its own races at, will run a series if there are not enough fans in the stands to stop the race track from losing money.

They are making this stick and ball comparison, so you must be ignorant of U.S. sports where stick and ball teams have left, or been dissolved, because of THE LACK of fans in the stands. TV means **** to the owners of those teams and ball parks; ditto for race tracks.

TV is ballyhooed here because you sit at home and watch racing on TV, so to you it is important.
At best you are comparing road racing to NASCAR and the France faminly which, owns tracks, whilst quasi-owning its own network, which hypes NASCAR seven days a week; foolish and not comparable.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Gee, maybe you do not remember in the early days when the Indy 500 was time delayed because track said it was going to be, not because the networks wanted it to be.
Hmm, I also remember when racing was a rare item the Wide World of Sports, and racing KEPT GETTING BIGGER any way, without TV-- OHHH, the humanity....

Pleiase, please tell how race tracks, with the exception DJ said, where the France family owns the tracks it runs its own races at, will run a series if there are not enough fans in the stands to stop the race track from losing money.

They are making this stick and ball comparison, so you must be ignorant of U.S. sports where stick and ball teams have left, or been dissolved, because of THE LACK of fans in the stands. TV means **** to the owners of those teams and ball parks; ditto for race tracks.

TV is ballyhooed here because you sit at home and watch racing on TV, so to you it is important.
At best you are comparing road racing to NASCAR and the France faminly which, owns tracks, whilst quasi-owning its own network, which hypes NASCAR seven days a week; foolish and not comparable.

If there aren't series to race, there wont be any racing, either. You made the argument that Audi and Peugeot and Porsche don't race because of TV. Why, pray tell, do they spend massive amounts of money yearly to do it?

[dj4monie]

C'mon Hot Dog Eating Competitions are on TV.

Racing sells cars, that's why the companies even bother. For the US OEM's in NASCAR is truck sales. When Dodge started throwing money at SCCA under Maximum Bob Lutz, it was for people to buy Dodge Neon ACR's and maybe a Dodge RAM truck to tow their race car around, guess what? It worked..

So there's different ways to promote motorsport, TV is just the easiest.

As for ALMS, it has a solid few million following, enough to almost fill the stands at the event full of locals and enough to have a few million watching it at home and a few more listening or watching it around the world.

This is the base it should focus on, it will build a fan base slowly it will not build them overnight. NASCAR did not become the media sensation it was overnight, it was mostly a regional sport until CBS broadcast the 1979 Daytona 500 live for the first time.

Like Bob I remember Le Mans and Firecracker 400 and other races on Wide World of Sports.

But things have changed and we want to be entertained. Doesn't matter if its on the TV, PC screen or your mobile device.

Having thought about what Versus did for the NHL, maybe ALMS moving to Versus may not be a bad idea.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

If there aren't series to race, there wont be any racing, either. You made the argument that Audi and Peugeot and Porsche don't race because of TV. Why, pray tell, do they spend massive amounts of money yearly to do it?

To show their vehicles and engineering are the best.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

If there aren't series to race, there wont be any racing, either. You made the argument that Audi and Peugeot and Porsche don't race because of TV. Why, pray tell, do they spend massive amounts of money yearly to do it?

If the series dies, in road racing, it is because it has become worthless to the manufacturers and boring for the fans.
The Trans-Am almost died many years ago because the factories were leaving, but loyalist racers, and FANS, kept coming, and pretty soom the factories came back.
Eventually the sanction, kind of like the IMSA, drove both away, to a degree, and now it is just sort of simmering, at best, slightly worse off than the IMSA.
TV was not involved.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

To show their vehicles and engineering are the best.

To who?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

To who?

Ummm, the guys they beat!

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Ummm, the guys they beat!

They spend a quarter billion dollars solely to show their competitors that they can beat them on a certain track on a certain day.






Makes perfect sense.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

If the series dies, in road racing, it is because it has become worthless to the manufacturers and boring for the fans.
The Trans-Am almost died many years ago because the factories were leaving, but loyalist racers, and FANS, kept coming, and pretty soom the factories came back.
Eventually the sanction, kind of like the IMSA, drove both away, to a degree, and now it is just sort of simmering, at best, slightly worse off than the IMSA.
TV was not involved.

You keep harping on about "many years ago". Many years ago, not everybody had a TV, and people listened to the radio and read newspapers. Many years ago, racing could be done out of your garage for less than a million bucks. Many years ago, a racing engine could be put in a road car and sold to the public.





Many years ago was many years ago. The game has changed.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

From that standpoint all of the stick and ball, ball and hoop, foot and net, ice and grass sports crush motorsport.

Not to be argumentative, but hockey really doesn't. Both the Indy 500 and Daytona 500 had better numbers than most hockey games. Maybe a few of the playoff games got into the same neighborhood as Daytona. Indy was a 3.6 and Daytona a 7.8, most hockey games are in the 2.0 area while a few playoff games got around 4.0 or 5.0. NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA yeah they swamp motorsports.

DK

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

They spend a quarter billion dollars solely to show their competitors that they can beat them on a certain track on a certain day.

Makes perfect sense.

You are catching on, that is why- "Race on Sunday, sell on Monday" became the creed of auto makers.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

You keep harping on about "many years ago". Many years ago, not everybody had a TV, and people listened to the radio and read newspapers. Many years ago, racing could be done out of your garage for less than a million bucks. Many years ago, a racing engine could be put in a road car and sold to the public.

Many years ago was many years ago. The game has changed.

Really?
Not ever body had TV, hmmm-- just how young and ignorant are you.
Are you saying that "many years ago" people had brains but now they are complete twits?

Please tell me how spectators have become irrelevant and tracks do not need them.
Please tell me how race series are created not because of fan and auto maker interest but in- modern - (is this related to abstract art?) times first comes the TV contract- badaBOOM- and then a race series is formed.

Hmmm-- tell me how race tracks survive without spectators to pay the bills-- how Road America lives off of TV money, this ought to be a real revelation. Kind of like modern schools, don't worry about being correct, close is good enough.

Is this related to those youts who think "racing" computer games is good way to make road racing grow--

PS:
Adjusted for inflation, a top rank IMSA or SCCA GT cost just as much in 1980 as it does in 2010.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

You are catching on, that is why- "Race on Sunday, sell on Monday" became the creed of auto makers.

So they sell their cars to the other manufacturers?

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Really?
Please tell me how spectators have become irrelevant and tracks do not need them.
Please tell me how race series are created not because of fan and auto maker interest but in- modern - (is this related to abstract art?) times first comes the TV contract- badaBOOM- and then a race series is formed.

Hmmm-- tell me how race tracks survive without spectators to pay the bills-- how Road America lives off of TV money, this ought to be a real revelation. Kind of like modern schools, don't worry about being correct, close is good enough.

Is this related to those youts who think "racing" computer games is good way to make road racing grow--

You're the only one that's saying that.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

So they sell their cars to the other manufacturers?

I am keeping my answers down to the level of intelligence of your questions.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

You're the only one that's saying that
.

NO that is exactly what you are saying, now defend your rhetoric.
You said TV is most important, so you have relegated spectators to the level of irrelevance.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

NO that is exactly what you are saying, now defend your rhetoric.
You said TV is most important, so you have relegated spectators to the level of irrelevance.

Where did I ever say TV was most important to the tracks? I said Tv was important for sponsorships, so that the teams could stay afloat. You went on some massive tangent, and you believe that teams only race so that they can sell their cars to other manufacturers.




You're the one that's been dancing around my questions. Who are the manufacturers trying to reach? What is the point in them spending millions of dollars to go around a track more times in a set time period than anyone else? In case you try and pull a facetious BS answer, I'll spell it out for you. They race to sell their cars, not only to the 50-100,000 at the track. But to millions across the planet. Otherwise, the Green X challenge wouldn't exist, because most people that go to the tracks could give a crap less about it. They also want to be on TV to attract new fans, and maybe even new drivers, teams, and sponsors. That's how I got roped in. That's how my friends that enjoy it got roped in. Some people aren't as lucky as I was in 2008, to be able to take three days to go and sit in the Central GA heat, getting red clay over everything they have. Some people would never know there was such a thing as the ALMS if it weren't for their TV's.



But you go on with your bad self. Yeah you go to all the races you can, that's fantastic. Don't act like that makes you any more of a racing fan than me or any other people that get most of their racing in front of a screen. Or those who choose to use what they have to gain a better understanding of the sport. Yeah, the extent of my racing experience is in front of a computer screen. Yeah, the extent of my race crew experience is with an FSAE team and what I read in Carroll Smith's books. That doesn't make me any less of a fan.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

Where did I ever say TV was most important to the tracks? I said Tv was important for sponsorships, so that the teams could stay afloat. You went on some massive tangent, and you believe that teams only race so that they can sell their cars to other manufacturers.

You're the one that's been dancing around my questions. Who are the manufacturers trying to reach? What is the point in them spending millions of dollars to go around a track more times in a set time period than anyone else? In case you try and pull a facetious BS answer, I'll spell it out for you. They race to sell their cars, not only to the 50-100,000 at the track. But to millions across the planet. Otherwise, the Green X challenge wouldn't exist, because most people that go to the tracks could give a crap less about it. They also want to be on TV to attract new fans, and maybe even new drivers, teams, and sponsors. That's how I got roped in. That's how my friends that enjoy it got roped in. Some people aren't as lucky as I was in 2008, to be able to take three days to go and sit in the Central GA heat, getting red clay over everything they have. Some people would never know there was such a thing as the ALMS if it weren't for their TV's.

But you go on with your bad self. Yeah you go to all the races you can, that's fantastic. Don't act like that makes you any more of a racing fan than me or any other people that get most of their racing in front of a screen. Or those who choose to use what they have to gain a better understanding of the sport. Yeah, the extent of my racing experience is in front of a computer screen. Yeah, the extent of my race crew experience is with an FSAE team and what I read in Carroll Smith's books. That doesn't make me any less of a fan.

I do not know what reading skills you have, but you had better improve them if this rant is what you think I wrote.

Your questions have either been troll bait, or incredibly naive.

FSAE, Carrol Smith-- GOOD for you , ditch the TV and read some more, you will learn much; and stick with your hands-on work, you will gain knowledge in the best manner.

Beyond you, simply fact, no race tracks, no races; no race fans, no race tracks.
Spectators keep tracks open, not sitting at home watching TV.

Which came first, the race track, race car, or race team.
Race track as they existed before cars, but came in real handy to show who builds the best car, and that is how U.S. manufacturers got involved.

[Gil Abobeleira]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Which came first, the race track, race car, or race team.
Race track as they existed before cars, but came in real handy to show who builds the best car, and that is how U.S. manufacturers got involved.

Are you sure?

The fast race was run some 14 years before the first race track was ever built!

[dj4monie]

GT2/GT3/GT4 is the epitome of "Win On Sunday, Sell On Monday" you can buy the very same car either for street use or ready to race.

Saleen raced what it sold as well, eventually OEM's return to common sense principals. Ford has Mustangs available to race and built off the line separate from the other Mustangs.

Chevy needs to do the same with Camaro but there in this narrow PR window. They can't be seen as "returning to their old ways" or the critics will start howling in rags like USA Today and WSJ talking about "Government Motors Racing, your tax dollars at work" of course glossing over NASCAR the entire time.

These classes as long as they don't go overboard, will keep the OEM's grounded.

[gucom]

if I can contribute my 2 cents...

yes, race tracks probably get most of their budget from spectators (i dunno how much the TV stations pay to the organizers for the TV rights, or how much money flows to the organizers from TV ads, but I'll just assume track-side spectators bring in more direct money).

but that's only half of the equation; if you want top-level racing, you'll need manufacturer involvement and like ptclaus said, they'll wanna have a larger audience than even de quarter of a million spectators at Le Mans, before investing the sums of money they do. This is especially true for prototype programs.

Like dj4monie just said, in GT racing, there's a certain potential for self-sustainability of manufacturer involvement without TV audiences, if they sell the racecars themselves with a profit to privateer teams (like Porsche has been doing for ages). Then you'll need either spectators or entry fees to keep the race organization going...

as for the importance of TV and games, my interest in endurance racing was caused by:
-Need for Speed Porsche, and all the awesome Porsche racers, most notably the 911 GT1 and the 935 Moby Dick
-Another Need for Speed game that introduced me to the McLaren F1 and its history at Le Mans
-Seeing an ALMS race on French Eurosport, and later staying up at night to see the LM24 coverage on TV

these things have turned me into an avid endurance racing fan, with now 5 visits to Le Mans, and a strong wish to visit other races when my budget allows... without TV and games, the manufacturers wouldnt have gotten their exposure and the tracks wouldnt have had me as a loyal spectator...

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Gil Abobeleira

Are you sure?

The fast race was run some 14 years before the first race track was ever built!

IN the U.S.-- they used pre-existing horse tracks.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Which came first, the race track, race car, or race team.
Race track as they existed before cars

Why ?

What would be the point of having a race track , when race cars didnt even exist !?!?!?

I reckon your either talking outta your hat , or very , very old indeed and know so much more than the rest of us put together . Why dont you try the Gandalf for a change .