Is a Oval race the missing link between America and F1?

[FW17]

This piece was originally going to be about why Formula 1 should seriously examine having an oval race.

Yes, yes I can hear you saying it now. Oval racing? Who wants to see that except some beer-swilling, RV-driving, moonshine-making rednecks? Sort of.

You see oval racing is something that rarely gets talked about among the F1 fraternity but seems to be mentioned online by quite a few fans either positively or negatively.

But in light of the Grand Prix Drivers Association survey findings that the sport does not connect to younger audiences nor to women, it now seems paramount to attract some new fans quickly.

Staging more races in the USA – an oval race and another US race, probably an iconic one like Long Beach – would help to build US audiences and get mums, dads and kids into F1. The survey also shows that it’s vital that F1 broadens its marketing from the wealthy and exclusive to the aspirational middle class and average Joe, and then make it easy for this audience to connect via their preferred media.

Why? Because it is absolutely vital to F1 that it starts re-attracting a certain type of sponsor: Global Companies with big marketing spends that have broad global customers. Think big tobacco and remember the heady days of F1. Since banning tobacco sponsorship and car manufacturers evacuating F1 has been short on cash.

Now think McLaren and their lack of title sponsor and the current 20 car grid compared with 30 cars lining up for pre-qualifying in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only serious sponsorship would provide a team with the resources it needs to compete at the top. Now think of Red Bull Racing.

So the GPDA survey results are a massive negative for F1 in attracting global companies as sponsors. These companies target the 14 -21 year old target market as these they want to capture their customers early and hold on to them for the remainder of their life (just like F1 does).

It also clearly answers some recent questions that were posed regarding Red Bull’s sponsorship of F1 and Coca-Cola and Pepsico’s distinct absence.

Why does Dietrich Mateschitz go so heavy into F1 with 2 teams, 4 drivers and a home race while his direct competitors stay out?

Red Bull likes motorsport and extreme sports because their target is males aged under 40 and they love these sports. This is completely vindicated by the GPDA survey results that show that F1 attracts a strong global audience of 22 – 45 year old men.

Just like Red Bull, Pepsico and Coca-Cola are estimated to spend up to 30% of revenue on marketing.

So why does Coca-Cola and Pepsico (and McDonalds, beer brands et al) stay away?
1.There is only 1 US F1 race and no oval race therefore little direct US exposure
2.There are other forms of highly watched and lucrative motorsports in the US eg Nascar
3.They prefer to spend BIG on global sports when they have a broad age and gender audience
eg FIFA World Cup, The Olympics
4.They don’t market to high rollers that can afford $25,000 watches. They market to mums, dads and kids through sports like football codes and baseball etc.
5.These other sports have embraced an online presence with free-ish content. F1 is only just recognising this as vital to being relevant to the younger set.

Oval races and more US races would in part help cure this problem by validating the sport in the world’s biggest consumer market and hence ‘globalising the sport’ for sponsors. Just watch a Nascar or Indy race crowd to see kids, women & men living average lifestyles, perfect for the big spenders in sports marketing.

But here’s the catch for current fans: Does it really matter if a few less Britains or Europeans watch one race compared to many more Americans tuning in? Probably not as market growth is the name of the game and that’s what helped Bernie get all those races going from Australia to Argentina back in the tobacco era.
[img]
Opinion by Matt Bolzon
GP247[/img]

[bhall II]

The Indianapolis 500 formerly paid points for the World Drivers' Championship. So, there's precedent for an oval race in F1.

A single race might be an interesting affair. But, it seems like oval racing would be incompatible with current power units. It's difficult to harvest braking energy when there's no braking, and I can't imagine F1 ICEs would react favorably to 300km spent entirely at full-throttle.

EDIT: A one-off oval race every year with complete engine freedom is an outrageous gimmick I could definitely get behind.

[Jersey Tom]

Oval racing is good stuff. I'd highly recommend checking out this year's Indy 500 and maybe Firestone 600 (Texas) at least. Lot of close racing, passing. Probably partly because the cars have more parity coming from a single manufacturer, and partly the aero package run at ovals allows for more slip streaming and passing without the crutch of DRS etc. Unreal speeds too.

Pretty good racing in NASCAR as well - but IndyCar is probably the closest analog in the open wheel field.

Oval racing introduces some unique challenges in car setup, tire and aero development - and the tracks themselves can be more technical than you'd think.

[FW17]

Indy 500 and maybe Firestone 600 (Texas) at least.

IMS as a track is awesome; not too convinced of Texas track (maybe ICS with its restrictions makes it easy)

Are there any other superspeedways that are as demanding as the IMS?

[bhall II]

Pocono Raceway might be interesting, but its location isn't exactly favorable.

Pocono Raceway has a unique design. Each turn is modeled after turns at 3 different tracks. Turn One (14 degree banking) was modeled after the now defunct Trenton Speedway, Turn Two (also known as "The Tunnel Turn") is like Indianapolis Motor Speedway (9 degree banking), and Turn 3 (6 degree banking) is similar to The Milwaukee Mile. It could be said to be a tri-oval, but the turns are much more severe than those of a more typical tri-oval such as Daytona and the track is really nearly a triangle. They have been likened somewhat to the hairpin-style turns of road courses. An additional complication is that the three turns are not identical, nor are any of the three straights identical in length. The banking of each turn is considerably less than on many other long ovals. Although the track is long (2.5 miles), the sharp nature of the turns and low banking tends to make the overall speeds much lower than at other tracks of similar lengths, thus restrictor plates are not needed here. For its unique characteristics, Pocono is sometimes referred to as a roval (an oval track that behaves like a road course). Others refer to Pocono as a modified road course due to the use of shifting gears to handle the range between the slowest curve and the fastest straightaway.

[krisfx]

I'm pretty sure Coca Cola are in F1, under the Monster Energy brand. To some extent I agree, F1 really needs to bring in races that ultimately attract bigger sponsors so whatever works but as previously said, the current engines are not really built for that sort of racing and I think it would just end up being a bit of a mess like the Indianapolis race in 2005.

[sgth0mas]

I dont care much for an F1 race on an oval...but more f1 races in the US would be great. The agreements between NASCAR and Indy will make it hard for F1 to get on a good track however. Additionally...there is too much or a performance gap in F1 for an oval to be reasonable. I think seeing only 20 cars run the entire race in the exact same positions start to finish would suck. Nascar has over 40 cars and indy has over 30...and theyre all closer together with respect to performance gap. Thinking more on it...it would probably hurt F1s image even more to expose it like that.

[mertol]

They could make it on a short oval, remove the 100kg limit for that race and allow refueling. They might need stronger tires tho.

[bhall II]

Additionally...there is too much or a performance gap in F1 for an oval to be reasonable.

Oddly enough, the spread for a NASCAR event held at a road course is basically the same as a typical grand prix, if not greater.

Sonoma 2015: 1:14.385 - 1:17.658

Silverstone 2015 (ignoring Manor's ancient cars): 1:32.248 - 1:35.207

If that means ovals promote parity in NASCAR, is it reasonable to assume they'd likely have a similar effect in F1?

[mertol]

The road races for nascar are the unusual ones, the ones that not everyone is prepared for. I think that is the main reason for the bigger differences.
For that same reason I expect even bigger differences on ovals than on road courses in F1 however not necessarily in favor of the same teams that dominate the road races. I think highest power with lowest drag would win so I would bet on williams.

[sgth0mas]

Additionally...there is too much or a performance gap in F1 for an oval to be reasonable.

Oddly enough, the spread for a NASCAR event held at a road course is basically the same as a typical grand prix, if not greater.

Sonoma 2015: 1:14.385 - 1:17.658

Silverstone 2015 (ignoring Manor's ancient cars): 1:32.248 - 1:35.207

If that means ovals promote parity in NASCAR, is it reasonable to assume they'd likely have a similar effect in F1?

Over 40 cars competed, and did you watch sonoma this year? The only f1 race that compared would be the british GP, and thats the best race of the season so far. You also have to lool at the statistical distribution of lap times...not just the spread. Hell even the number of safety cars brought in makes the field massively closer in finishing order. In 2014...the top 24 cars were less than 1s difference in qualifying at sonoma. At silverstone, the top 18 cars had a 3s difference in qualifying times.

[noname]

Valid question about F1 powertrains dealing with oval track. I agree oval brings interesting engineering challenges (aero, suspension, tires, etc.), however this means spending money on developing one-off car. Probably Monza spec aero would do the job, but tires may be very different. Very limited testing will not help, and chances we could see of 2005 Indy F1 again might not be that slim.

Not to mention some of F1 teams can not afford developing their cars throughout the season. Gap between their and top teams oval specs could be even bigger than what we are seeing today. 107% rule will take care of the safety, but we may end up with the race when just putting the car on grid will give the point.

And I remember Bernie saying he is far more interested in fellas buying 25,000 USD watches than mums, dads and kids.

[SectorOne]

But in light of the Grand Prix Drivers Association survey findings that the sport does not connect to younger audiences nor to women, it now seems paramount to attract some new fans quickly.

Here´s an idea, absolutely crazy i know.

How about...they fix the problem?

Otherwise you´d run into the same problem again and what will the proposal be then? D1 Grand Prix?

[bhall II]

Over 40 cars competed, and did you watch sonoma this year?

I know very little about NASCAR, which is why I asked the question. That said, you'd think the leading car at an oval grand prix would need to be all sorts of quicker in order for it to pull away from the field, given the ability of slipstreaming to quickly erase leads. That effect can be further enhanced by the Hanford device...




I'm not saying F1 should or shouldn't feature an oval grand prix, just that the prospect of engine difficulties is the most likely stumbling block in terms of feasibility. I think other issues could probably be addressed the same way teams already deal with different circuits throughout the season.

[SiLo]

They could just go back to Indy again. The track was a tad boring, but the racing was always good with all the slipstreaming.