Daniel Ricciardo Says The F1 Fanbase Has Changed ‘Massively’ Since Drive To Survive – WTF1

Daniel Ricciardo Says The F1 Fanbase Has Changed ‘Massively’ Since Drive To Survive

Even if you were an F1 fan before the series existed, if you haven’t watched Drive To Survive, where have you been? The series debuted in 2019 and became an instant hit, giving us insights into the world of F1 with its somewhat overdramatised rivalries and cut-throat business decisions. Oh, so much drama.

Think ‘Keeping Up With The Kardashians’ but make it F1.

It’s no secret that Drive To Survive has played a massive role in expanding the sport’s reach across the globe, particularly in America.

It has had its fair share of criticism, too, with some drivers – including world champion Max Verstappen – having concerns about how the sport is being presented in a much more dramatic way than it is.

But you can’t deny that the show has had an incredible effect on bringing new fans into F1.

On a podcast with YMH Studios, Daniel Ricciardo was asked whether the Netflix series had changed the F1 fanbase.

“Massively”, he says, “It really has changed, like, drastically since the series because it was a very, like, niche group of followers. F1 is some people’s life, [and] it’s the only sport they love and all they’re into.

“It wasn’t very accessible for many years, and, especially because of even the simple fact we wear helmets – like you couldn’t really put a face to a name.

“So the show also just lets people in, personalities, stories, like everyone can kind of buy into that, and it makes it seem more normal to some degree.”

With race attendance at an all-time high and tickets for the 2023 races selling out before you can say the word ‘motorsport’, it’s clear Drive To Survive has made its mark.

Do you think Drive To Survive has had a positive effect on F1? 

7 thoughts on “Daniel Ricciardo Says The F1 Fanbase Has Changed ‘Massively’ Since Drive To Survive

  • There’s been the usual gatekeeping a la “I knew about X before it got popular therefore I’m smarter, stronger, and more sexually virile than you” but I think the influx is great for the sport and is driving positive changes in the regs and race management. Things like Vegas are a shallow cash grab, but probably short-lived just to capitalize on the current surge (kind of like the Dutch GP) and still less immoral than Bernie’s dictator and middle east slave-state weekends. I’m quite optimistic about how things could look in a few years.

    • Totally agree. As much as I don’t love Zanvoort as a track and think Las Vegas is going to be an Adventure, it is nice to see decisions being made in response to where the fanbase is picking up. I don’t think it matters too much if they’re short lived. And I agree, I’d much rather have that than another Saudi. I like a good balance on the calendar, some historic places, some newer based on new interest. Each place has their own flavor.

      • Dr Prometheus says:

        To be honest i would rather have Paul Ricard then Las Vegas or any other “square streetcircuit”.

        • I mean, fair. I’m just thinking that for the American audience, it’ll be great. The US is huge, having something closer to the west coast would be a huge draw. I don’t think it’s going to be a particularly exciting race, but it’ll be a good spectacle

  • Aarius Bacchulum says:

    The only downside I see is there seems to be no ‘in depth’ commentary anymore, everything has been simplified and dumbed down for the new comers or casual viewers. Sure, it’s good to engage them but it needs to be balanced with some more technical and insightful information for the long time fan. Ant Davidson is the only one adding something to my knowledge base, so I would like to see him replace Martin and Crofty can translate for the non-technically minded.

  • The only issue is it is out pricing the average American. Tickets for Vegas started at $500 and those sold out within hours. That’s before jacked up hotel rooms and flights.

Comments are closed.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap