Sports Q&A: NASCAR Versus Formula 1

Bernie from Atlanta asks, "Will the popularity of NASCAR in the United States ever be challenged by Formula 1?"

Formula 1 will never rival NASCAR in the States, although its popularity here has increased, with the return of the United States Grand Prix, and will continue to rise in the future. However, popularity in America is not a major key to Formula 1's success. F1 is a worldwide phenomenon already; besides the United States Grand Prix, F1 has added dates on the schedule with races in Bahrain, India, Malaysia, and China, in recent years. NASCAR itself is spreading its influence internationally, with recent exhibition races at the Suzuka circuit in Japan, and with a Busch Series race in Mexico this year.

I think F1 realizes they can't convert a NASCAR fan to F1; they can only hope to capture the true "racing" fan, on who appreciates any form of racing. Consequently, NASCAR is not likely to convert F1 fans to NASCAR. In both cases, fans of each have likely formed their opinions of the opposing series without ever even watching a race.

If you ask F1 fans why they don't like NASCAR, they will tell you that stock cars are technologically inferior to F1 machines, and that it takes virtually no talent to drive a NASCAR ride. Ask NASCAR fans their opinion of F1, and they'll have the opposite opinion: F1 cars practically drive themselves, and therefore, it doesn't take much of a driver to handle one.

To an extent, both are right. F1 cars are technologically superior, with gadgets like traction control, clutch and shifters on the steering wheel, and rev limiters to gauge pit lane speed. Technology does most of the work for fighter jets; does any one doubt the ability of jet pilots? Shouldn't F1 cars be technologically superior? Let's see, at a typical grand prix, you have Ferraris, Jaguars, McLarens, and BMW-powered cars. At a NASCAR race, you have Chevrolets, Fords, and Dodges. You could probably buy five or six Chevrolet Monte Carlos for the price you'd pay for one Ferrari. So, yes, F1 cars have a technological advantage, and the F1 car does more for the driver than the NASCAR vehicle.

Does this make it easier to drive an F1 vehicle? In some respects, but F1 drivers exclusively drive on circuits, so the amount of braking, shifting, and turning is much greater than with what a NASCAR driver deals. NASCAR drivers drive cars that are less responsive than F1 cars, and they deal with much more traffic, as NASCAR races feature 43 cars, while grand prix race only 22, at the most. A NASCAR season is certainly more grueling; NASCAR drivers race in more than twice as many races than F1 drivers, and turn out significantly more mileage. So, who's to say which drivers are more talented?

Formula 1 is trying to increase its fan base in the United States. Last year at Indianapolis, NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon and Williams F1 driver Juan Pablo Montoya exchanged cars for an exhibition drive at Indy's F1 circuit. This probably did more for impressing NASCAR fans than anything. NASCAR fans are a loyal bunch; many drink Pepsi because the Pepsi logo is on Gordon's car. So, just the fact that Gordon drove Montoya's car will spark a little interest in F1 for the NASCAR fan. And the simple fact that NASCAR and F1 both visit Indianapolis (NASCAR's Brickyard 400, F1 Grand Prix of the United States) should increase the notoriety of both series.

Loyal F1 fans in America must rise early on Sundays during the season to view most grand prix. With starts usually around 7:30 AM EST, the NASCAR fan won't be awake to see these races. However, CBS will televise four F1 races this year on a tape-delayed basis (they will televise June's Canadian Grand Prix live), F1's American exposure will dramatically increase. CBS' first telecast was last Sunday, April 24th, with the showing of the San Marino Grand Prix.

Luckily for CBS and Formula 1, that race was probably the most entertaining grand prix in several years, as seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher came from 13th on the grid to chase Renault's Fernando Alonso to the finish. Schumacher was nose to tail on Alonso for the closing 10 laps, delighting fans with the type of close racing that F1 normally lacks. Alonso held off Schumacher for his third straight win of the season, but a rivalry between the veteran Schumacher and the young Spaniard was born. Schumacher has been so dominant capturing his last three world titles that a rivalry was non-existent. So, provided any NASCAR fans were watching (they probably were; NASCAR's race in Phoenix took place the night before), then they saw an exciting race. Were they converted? No. Did they take notice? More than likely.

For the last three years, Red Bull has sponsored the "Red Bull Driver Search," a program to prepare young American drivers for a future in Formula 1. 2002 winner Scott Speed currently competes in the GP2 series, a proving ground for aspiring F1 drivers. Californian Speed has also served as a test driver for Red Bull's F1 program, so the prospects of an impending F1 ride are positive. Should Speed earn a ride in F1, America interest in the sport would pique, and Speed certainly has a marketable name.

So, the popularity of Formula 1 in America is rising, but it will never match that of NASCAR. F1 is comparable to soccer; worldwide, soccer is the most popular sport, but it will never touch the popularity of football in America.

Jason from Raleigh, N.C. asks. "Should Gary Sheffield have been punished for his incident with Boston fans on April 14th?"

No, Sheffield shouldn't have been punished because he didn't do anything necessarily punishable, although he did overreact to what was, at worst, a grazing by one fan's hand. I haven't studied the footage in detail, and I don't want to; it's boring, except for the security guard's perfect leap into the stands. From what I've seen, the fan supposedly "in error" wasn't even looking at Sheffield when the contact allegedly occurred. Did the fan touch Sheffield? Probably. Did he intend to? I doubt it. Should his season tickets be revoked because Sheffield has a short fuse and apparently wasn't thinking of the Pacers/Pistons brawl months earlier? Hell no. In Sheffield's defense, at least he didn't throw a punch at any one.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing Sheffield of unknowingly inciting a riot. But he could easily have done so. The Yankees, in Boston, surrounded by rowdy Red Sox fans? Sure, the potential was there for this incident to get way out of hand. Did it need to even reach the level of confrontation that was present? Not for what the fan did. Can Sheffield say for a fact that the fan intended to hit him? Can the fan say for a fact that he didn't touch Sheffield? The answer to both questions is no. I give the rest of the fans nearby in the stands that night credit for restraint. Someone in those stands could have reacted negatively and assaulted Sheffield in some way. But no one did. Some fan apparently threw a beer. Luckily, he/she missed. Otherwise, we could have seen baseball's version of the Pacers/Pistons NBA brawl.

I'll give the Pacers' Ron Artest on ounce of credit, just an ounce. He was hit by a full cup of beer after he walked away from what looked like a fight with the Pistons' Ben Wallace. Artest had more of a right to retaliate than Sheffield did. Neither should have reacted, but they both did. Had neither reacted, there would be nothing to talk about. Had Artest been able to find the fan who hit him with the beer, and pummeled him without interference from others, retribution would have been served. And I doubt anyone would fault Artest as much as he has been criticized. But it was the fans who got involved, and Artest's teammates who got involved, that made the incident so ugly.

I think, in the mind of some fans, just being involved in a brawl like this gives them a semblance of fame that they otherwise would never see in their pathetic existences. Are any of the fans involved in that brawl famous? No. I don't know any of their names. Are they infamous? Somewhat, but they are still losers for their actions. The players involved, notably Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson, seemed to just be "headhunting," looking for anyone to hit. They're big guys; they've probably gone a lifetime and never fought any one their own size. It's only a matter of time before an athlete goes after a fan, and the athlete finds himself on the short end of a butt-kicking from of fan who happens to be bigger than the athlete, or a more talented fighter (other than hockey players and Charles Barkley, I'm not too impressed by the fighting skills of athletes).

So, to answer your question again: no, Sheffield should not be punished, nor should the fan. As long as fans are sitting that close to the field of play, contact is bound to happen. Baseball fans are constantly leaning onto the field of play to grab a ball. Yankee players and fans should fondly remember the kid who leaned over the outfield fence and stole a ball from an Oriole outfielder. And, if Moises Alou didn't choose to give Steve Bartman a beat down, Sheffield certainly had no right to retaliate. Players should realize that there could possibly be a little contact, accidental or not, when fans are near the field of play. Some fans just want to say they touched a professional athlete. Of course, there are those fans who want to say they were punched by a professional athlete, so they can sue.

Get Your Questions Answered!

Do you have a question or a comment? Care to challenge me to a duel? Looking for Mr. Goodbar? Searching for Bobby Fischer? Need a drug test tampered with? Then send me your questions/comments/medical records with your name and hometown to [email protected]. You may get the answer you're looking for in the next column on Friday, May 13th.