As motorsport fans, we really do understand that each series/category really is it's own 'thing', just as a foodie understands the difference between beef wellington and gelato.
From the outside 'racing is racing' isn't any different from 'food is food'. It's entirely possible to enjoy both series, just as one would enjoy both beef wellington and gelato, but you don't have to enjoy both to enjoy one.
I would imagine the sport you're exposed to is the one you enjoy the most, and then it's a matter of either expanding your world view, or coming up with reasons why you don't. However racing, even NASCAR, is more complicated than 'start your engines and put the pedal to the metal'. The cars are engineered. Even at the karting level it's a team sport, you're not going to get anywhere without help setting things up and coming up with a plan for how to race.
As for the seven points in the article:
Elitism: okay, hard to argue this. When your 'crown jewel' is a race encompassing an enclave for millionaires, your marquis team is an aspirational car that almost zero percent of your fans actually own, you're an elitist sport. Bernie Eccelstone famously wanted to keep the riff raff out of the sport, only wanting fans with deep pockets.
F1 HAS worked at expanding its fan base though. Drive to Survive has shown another side to the sport, that these rich people are still humans with human feelings, struggles and problems. Races in more locations makes it easier to attend the sport than ever (even if it is pricey, you no longer need to fly across the globe to watch). The drivers are engaged on social media, and the fact that you can find yourself in a sim race against Max Verstappen gives the sport a more populist appeal.
But yeah, it's a fair knock against F1.
F1 is too political? Compared with NASCAR? In NASCAR you automatically have a dozen teammates because they happen to run the same manufacturer as you. Could you imagine McLaren helping out Mercedes because they use the same engine? (Okay in the past some Ferrari customers have caused ripples, but I don't think there's any notable incidents of genuinely affecting the outcome). NASCAR does have in team orders too. In F1 they rarely come to light, but in NASCAR they'll show up in a race by race basis.
The Concord agreement, on the other hand, is as political as any sport (without Russian judges) gets. It is the heart of what makes F1 work. Very much a copy of what the National Football League and Major League Baseball use to stabilize their own leagues. NASCAR would benefit, I think, from having the teams work together instead of at odds.
Overtaking: sure, more passing sounds more exciting, but an earned pass, through strategy, design, patience, is FAR more exciting than a dozen passes simply because the leading car is at a disadvantage by design. NASCAR has to fight this phenomenon by awarding points for leading a lap. Otherwise drivers would cruise around in second until the last lap.
Predictable: This is cyclical, sometimes F1 is a run away championship. However, I feel like F1 coverage has gotten much better at showing the interesting part of the race. If the leaders are spread out by 20 seconds, then we're watching the battle for 11th with five cars in a DRS train. In NASCAR, we rarely see anything besides the battle for the lead. No one is coming from nowhere to win unless there's a fabulous wreck, and of the 40 starters, only 5 are in contention. It may be less predictable than F1, but there's still less to see.
Fragility/complexity. I'd put these as separate complaints. I wish F1 cars were more durable. I hate that innocent victims can lose 3 grams of carbon fibre when someone botches a pass, and their car becomes hopeless, while the offending driver goes on to win. As for complexity, that's why I'm here. F1 isn't just some driver putting his foot down, it's hundreds of engineers and technicians creating something 100% unique to go fast as hell. The fact that we get 10 different designs that evolve over 24 races, and they're still within 1% of each other in terms of performance is a miracle. There is no other racing competition that the difference between first and last is as close as F1. How can F1 be more complicated than NASCAR, and yet it's easy for a team to show up for a NASCAR race and not even be able to qualify?
Expensive: covered in elitism above. It's about market forces, if people are going to pay for F1, they'll charge for F1. NASCAR fans are supposed to be anti-communist, they should love the most expensive series, not the one that tries to make everyone equal. Honestly, I think NASCAR could make a lot more money if they exported their product worldwide. I understand their fear to mess with what's working, but criticizing F1 for taking gambles, and winning those gambles, while your own series just plays it safe?
Relatable drivers. Hard to argue this. The current crop of F1 drivers are mostly rich kids with solid backing (don't get me wrong, I think all of them are skilled enough to be in F1, yes even Stroll and Sargent). NASCAR has a narrative that you can work your way up, and it's more likely to happen than in F1 (remember when winning F2/GP2 meant you were going to race in F1?) but the top drivers are still rich kids there too. As for social media, I don't follow drivers of any series. Given Social Media is about following people who get to have experiences you can't, surely F1 drivers have more 'interesting' lives. I don't want to follow someone with the same problems I have.
I actually JUST started following Zac Brown, my first F1 follow, and he's talking about taking his car collection to Laguna Seca during the summer break. So cool! I don't want to hear about someone dealing with finding day camp for their kids.
Of course, the complaints go both ways.
NASCAR drives ovals. Although I understand their first ever street race in Chicago went well, so who knows?
Identical cars. Sure, the put different logos and paint schemes on the cars, but if they cars are identical what do I care what those logos mean?
Manufacturer support. Ford, GM and Chrysler used to give their employees tickets and time off to go watch the races. Once that stopped, NASCAR round their revenues dropped. A lot. Could you imagine if the British and Italian Grand Prix were only popular because the families of the teams showed up to cheer them on?
Homogeneous drivers. The winner of the race was a white guy from a southern state? I'm shocked, shocked I say! What's that? A small but vocal group of NASCAR fans want to keep it that way? No thank you.
Welcome
Guests: 220
Hidden: 0
Users: 0
