FOM has plans to regionalize F1

[Scott]

The new bosses at FOM are planning on putting the schedule on a more practical plan.  They hope to keep the races together in each region instead of the current zig-zag across the globe. 

Makes sense to me, as long as they keep in mind the weather patterns.

https://www.pitpass.com/58974/FOM-seeking-to-regionalise-Grands-Prix

[cosworth151]

I can understand why they would want to do this from a purely economic viewpoint. We'll have to see if they can make it work.

 

(FOM's commercial boss Sean Bratches) did echo Chase Carey's vision of turning Grands Prix into Super Bowl-style week long events, "massive global events that engage fans".

That's still really scary. They're still nattering on about the pretty buildings & nothing about the quality of the racing. It sounds like week after week of what we just suffered through with Sochi.

[Jericoke]

The new bosses at FOM are planning on putting the schedule on a more practical plan.  They hope to keep the races together in each region instead of the current zig-zag across the globe. 

Makes sense to me, as long as they keep in mind the weather patterns.

https://www.pitpass.com/58974/FOM-seeking-to-regionalise-Grands-Prix

It certainly depends on what their goals are.  If you want people to attend every single race, following the 'circus' from circuit to circuit, that's great.

If you're hoping to entice families to come and buy programmes, t-shirts and hot dogs, they're going to be hard pressed to attend two, much less three week long parties in a row, both from time off work, and spending that much money all at once.

Of course if we expect families to only attend only their 'local' race, then no big deal.

[Scott]

On the other hand if you plan a holiday around one race, it might offer the option of planning around two or more depending on your time off and size of your vacation budget.

[Alianora La Canta]

The reason nearby rounds got separated in the first place is because attendances (even in aggregate) tend to tank when two rounds of F1 are too close to each other in time. Families are typically struggling to make one round, let alone two, and for some reason having two near each other in time makes people less likely to attend either. It probably works better for events like NASCAR that are cheaper to attend. (The Superbowl talk makes me worry that F1's about to be sent even more the wrong way than Bernie did, further reducing audience).

[J.Clark]

Lumping races within a region into a series, such as Canada/US/Mexico/Brazil makes a great deal of sense, especially from a financial aspect.

Put all of the Pacific Rim races togther.  Put all of the European races together.

The problem, as I have understood it to be in the past was always that several venues, particularly those in Europe, have other events scheduled and could possibly produce a conflict when it comes to hosting a Formula One race weekend.  That problem could most likely be lessened by having all races within the region together, as flexibility and being able to make adjustments of a week or two at specific circuits would be easier.

[Jericoke]

The reason nearby rounds got separated in the first place is because attendances (even in aggregate) tend to tank when two rounds of F1 are too close to each other in time. Families are typically struggling to make one round, let alone two, and for some reason having two near each other in time makes people less likely to attend either. It probably works better for events like NASCAR that are cheaper to attend. (The Superbowl talk makes me worry that F1's about to be sent even more the wrong way than Bernie did, further reducing audience).

The 'Superbowl' talk is quite odd.  As a paying fan, the Superbowl is quite a small affair compared with The Canadian Grand Prix.  To be fair, I haven't been to a Superbowl, but the Canadian Grand Prix is literally the biggest party in Canada on an annual basis.  Sure the Superbowl has big ratings on TV, but it's on par with F1 racing world wide.  Why shoot for something that is at best diminished?  Look at events like Indy and Daytona which are probably the most epic single annual events in sports worldwide in terms of paying fans.

[Alianora La Canta]

The reason nearby rounds got separated in the first place is because attendances (even in aggregate) tend to tank when two rounds of F1 are too close to each other in time. Families are typically struggling to make one round, let alone two, and for some reason having two near each other in time makes people less likely to attend either. It probably works better for events like NASCAR that are cheaper to attend. (The Superbowl talk makes me worry that F1's about to be sent even more the wrong way than Bernie did, further reducing audience).

The 'Superbowl' talk is quite odd.  As a paying fan, the Superbowl is quite a small affair compared with The Canadian Grand Prix.  To be fair, I haven't been to a Superbowl, but the Canadian Grand Prix is literally the biggest party in Canada on an annual basis.  Sure the Superbowl has big ratings on TV, but it's on par with F1 racing world wide.  Why shoot for something that is at best diminished?  Look at events like Indy and Daytona which are probably the most epic single annual events in sports worldwide in terms of paying fans.

The Superbowl is a huge festival. To the point where the actual football match is almost a sideshow, albeit one that is extremely important to most of the attendees. That's what I worry about for the F1 - too much attention on peripherals (the equivalent of the "halftime show" and sideshows) and not enough on the central point of the competition. The Canadian Grand Prix may be the bigger party, but nobody could mistake any part of the festivities as being as big as the race, nor could anyone seriously believe the powers-that-be would consider their success to cover for any potential failures in the race itself.