Hey, I learned my lesson. I didn't take the NASCAR bait, I didn't take the French bait...you won't ever hear a crack like that again from me!
On a more serious note, I think you're right when you say that it just comes down to what you're used to. I've never been able to get into NASCAR, but I have respect for the fact that it's far more of a level playing field than F1 could ever hope to be. Gracefully and humbly begging your pardon, but I sincerely doubt there is as much (or anywhere near) the amount of state of the art technology in NASCAR. That's the whole point of F1, and one of its biggest weaknesses and sources of criticism.
By its very nature, F1 operates in a realm where the GNP of Iceland probably wouldn't be enough to field a team for one season. After the FIA was mentioned, I went out to their site to review the rulebooks for the 2005 season. Before you build an engine, hire a driver or pay an engineering team or anything close to building a car, there's a $48 million application fee just to compete for the season. FORTY EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS just for the "privilege" of placing two cars on a grid. You and I and everyone else here (including Stuart, I suspect) know that's completely insane and reprehensively vulgar. But that's the sport.
In terms of competition, I'd have to tip my hat to NASCAR. The guys are neck and neck and there's more passing than almost any other category of motorsport I can think of. When it comes to "Holy Christ, those guys are nuts" entertainment value, give me a WRC any day of the week. But there's just something about the F1 circus that will remain near and dear to my heart. And it
is a shame that it's never really caught on here, because there's certainly a romance and glamour to it that few other sports offer.
