Kate,
A couple of quick corrections are in oreder here.  First off, the race in Texas that was cancelled was a CART indy car race, not a NASCAR round.  Secondly, most of the complaints I've heard from US fans are not with what happened, its the way that it happened (self included). Michelin came out said there is a problem, nothing new here, NASCAR, CART and the IRL have all run into tire issues before, the tire supplier simpy flies in a different batch of rubber, situation resolved.  The biggest problem at Indy was that solutions were proposed and no-one would budge on their position i.e  Michlein wanted to fly in new tires and the FIA wouldn't allow them and when they proposed running with a chicane, all of the teams (including two Bridgstone shod teams) agreed with the exception of Ferrari.  Simply put, solutions to the situation were there, nobody would agree to them because it would compromise their position.  For a long time now one of the biggest problems F1 has faced in the US is the widely held perception that the F1 community are a bunch of greedy, self-important, prima-donnas who don't give a sh*t about the fans.  Why do they have any reason to think otherwise now.
Fax

Whoops! Sorry Kate, I stand corrected, you did mention that it was a Champ Car race, I didn't correctly read your posting.  The ninety degree heat here in Cincy has cooked the old grey matter.  Agreed about Tony George anything that costs him money and makes him look like a boob (which he is) is fine with me.  I also agree to a certain extent about the Euro factor.  I've always felt that the USGP belongs at a proper road racing venue (Laguna Seca, Road America, Road Atlanta, etc.)  I've always thought holding the GP at Indy is inviting too much of the "good 'ole boy factor" which yes, is going to be anti-Euro biased.  I remember after the first GP at Indy back in 2000 where a huge portion of the crowd was the curious NASCAR type, there was alot of "I'm getting sick of listening to all these foreign fagots" type of comments after it was said & done.  The race needs to be held at an established road racing venue where the spectator base is knowledgable and enthusiastic of road racing.  The Indianapolis Motor Speedway is just too much a part of IRL and NASCAR territory.
Fax

Why does an F1 circuit need to be in close proximity to a cultural centre? Silverstone, Magny Cours, Spa, Hockenheim - all in the middle of nowhere. It could be argued that Indianapolis is the historical center of racing in USA. I don't think the city is the problem, in fact I'd argue that Indy is evocative, in terms of racing heritage. It's the facility that's wrong. A superspeedway infield will never make a great road course - especially if a large part of the speedway itself is utilised. Daytona's road course is equally compromised - and perhaps the Rolex 24's status in sportscar racing has deminished, as a result.
It's academic now, but a road course like Elkhart Lake, Watkins Glen, Sears Point or Road Atlanta would work if there was the incentive to spend the money to bring such a circuit to FIA standard. (Trouble is, of course, that in doing so, the appeal of these tracks to the spectator, is lost amongst the acres of gravel traps and debris fencing).

You are of course absolutley spot on with this comment Fax. The powers that be have no idea what the American market wants or even expects for that matter. I have been lucky enough to live in the states for a couple of years and can safely say that you guys know how to put on a good show even if the cars just go round in circles! (fire suit on)!

The only driving force in F1 is money. Lets take Monaco as an example. There is zero, let me repeat that, zero overtaking oportunities so the word "race" actually becomes an oxymoron! But........ there is sh*t loads of money involved and that is the ONLY reason F1 stays there.

I hope personally that is dies.

But that's just my opinion.

Now that's what I call damage control!  Good for Michelin!

==========

I am thinking of the international fan when I suggest that a modern-day F1 race needs to be near a big city with night life (e.g. Montreal) to be attractive to people outside the immediate area.  I think it also needs to be near a metro area due to the sheer size of the USA, in order to draw a larger local audience; people are not going to drive 24 hours for a 3 day weekend unless they are crazy (well, we did it to attend Road Atlanta, but then it was the week after 9/11 and a good reason to get out of Canada and back to solidarity with our fellow Americans) or unless they have other things they can do than sit in a grandstand and watch race cars.

Yes, in the "good old days" when people didn't have the choices they have today, you could stage a race in a wilderness and people would come.  Now they will say "Well why should I pay $2,000 to go to Indianapolis for an F1 race when I can pay $300 and see a NA$CAR race half a day's drive from here?"

Kate,
I tend to disagree with you on a couple the points you made in your last post.  First off, in the good old days there was every bit as much in the way of motor-racing choices as there are today, it just wasn't as promoted.  There are some forms of the sport which were much healthier in the "old days", Indycar racing springs to mind instantly.  As far as needing a metro area to draw from?  Most of the largest attended races in the US every year are at relatively remote venue's.
The NASCAR races at Talladega and Bristol draw massive crowds and both tracks are in the boonies.  The largest attendance for any bike race in North America (including the Daytona 200 and the World Superbike round at Laguna Seca) every year is the US Superbike championship double-header at Mid-Ohio, another venue out in the sticks.  How do you explain the 200,000 spectators that show up at Sebring every March, talk about a circut in the middle of nowhere.  Circuts like Mid-Ohio and Road America draw huge ALMS crowds.  The spectators that make a single trip to an event and make a big production out of it aren't the fans that will make or break an event.  That's Bernie type thinking.
You need a strong, loyal fan base that returns year after year to a venue that will keep a race healthy.  Look at the crowds that go to the Glen every year for the NASCAR race, many of them are veterans of the GP days there.
Going to a race meeting isn't about going clubbing at night in a big city and staying in posh hotels.  Its about camping at the circut ot staying at a cheap hotel nearby and enjoying the friendship of fellow racing fans.  Many times its the small towns nearby that add to the charm of the event.  I think you look at it too much from the "Big Event" viewpoint.  Very Bernie-esq.
Fax  

I agree 100%, except for the ALMS at Road America comment.  They drew well the first year, but it's been off each year since.  Last year was a ghost town, complete with tumbleweeds.

For once, and I hate to say this, I don't think Bernie was to blame. He seemed genuinely to be trying to get a show on. No, it's Facist Max Moseley at the FIA and the arrogant half-witted idiots at Ferrari to whom we can lay the blame for no race. They are the ones who objected to the chicane.

Michelin screwed up, of that there is no doubt. But it was not done deliberately. I cannot understand why the FIA wanted teams to race with tyres that were potentially killers. IMO this is the beginning of the end, esp if the FIA hit the teams with draconian penalties at tomorrows disciplinary hearing. I think we will see a parting of the ways between the teams and the FIA, who are the main villains of the peice.