# DROMO Fan Experience Benchmark — Methodology

**Snapshot:** 19 August 2026  
**Universe:** 40 contemporary Formula 1 and/or MotoGP venues. MADRING is intentionally excluded because it did not yet have a post-event Formula 1 spectator record. Bahrain and Jeddah remain in the contemporary comparison set even where the 2026 event status changed.

## Research question

What physical and operational choices explain why spectators rate apparently comparable motorsport venues differently? The benchmark measures the customer experience, not the sporting or technical quality of the racing circuit.

## Evidence base

1. Google place-listing aggregate rating and review count, captured as a dated snapshot. Google states that the displayed review score is the average of published 1–5 star ratings.
2. A purposive, publicly accessible qualitative review corpus, triangulated with venue and event information. Recurring positive and negative themes were coded into eleven dimensions. This is not represented as a complete scrape of every review.
3. Current Formula 1 and MotoGP calendar sources to define the contemporary venue universe.

The 40 listings contain **432,071 aggregate rating observations**. This is the sum of listing review counts, not the number of review texts manually coded.

## Listing correction and scope

The Las Vegas public-sentiment input uses the **Grand Prix Plaza** Google listing (4.4; 818 reviews), verified on 20 August 2026, instead of the low-volume Las Vegas Strip Circuit listing previously used (4.3; 60 reviews). Grand Prix Plaza is the official home of the Las Vegas Grand Prix Pit Building, but its listing also covers year-round F1 attractions. Its aggregate rating and volume therefore feed only the public-listing signal; the eleven qualitative race-week dimensions remain coded from Grand Prix spectator evidence. All other venue inputs retain the 19 August 2026 snapshot.

## Indices

### Public Sentiment Index (0–100)

`75 × (Google rating ÷ 5) + 25 × ln(review count) ÷ ln(maximum review count)`

The logarithmic volume component rewards confidence without allowing the largest listing to dominate.

### Venue Experience Score (0–100)

Each dimension is scored from 1 (structural weakness) to 5 (benchmark). The weighted score is:

`Σ (dimension score × dimension weight) ÷ 5`

| Dimension | Weight | Coding focus |
|---|---:|---|
| Visibility | 14% | Amount and quality of track visible; obstructions; variety of views |
| Atmosphere | 10% | Crowd intensity, event energy, rituals and cultural depth |
| Access / egress | 10% | Public transport, road access, parking, queues and post-event exit |
| Internal mobility | 8% | Ability to circulate, change viewpoints and reach shared amenities |
| Toilets | 7% | Availability, cleanliness, queues and maintenance |
| F&B | 7% | Range, quality, queueing, water and payment experience |
| Shade / weather protection | 8% | Shade, cover, heat, rain, wind and hydration resilience |
| Grandstand comfort | 8% | Seating, legroom, accessibility, screens and time-in-seat comfort |
| Value for money | 8% | Price relative to view, freedom, services and event content |
| Hospitality / fan entertainment | 8% | Fan zones, concerts, museums, premium products and family offer |
| Track / venue identity | 12% | Landscape, heritage, local culture and recognisable sense of place |

### Overall Benchmark (0–100)

`40% Public Sentiment Index + 60% Venue Experience Score`

The qualitative component is intentionally larger because star ratings are highly compressed and do not explain design causality.

## Confidence

Confidence is a transparent editorial flag based on review volume and consistency of accessible evidence. It is not a statistical confidence interval. “Very low” applies to extremely small listings and should prevent over-reading the rank.

## Limitations

- Google listings cover many venue uses, not only Formula 1 or MotoGP spectators.
- Listing identities and counts can change; duplicate or merged place records may affect comparability.
- Public review sampling introduces language, platform, visitor-type and recency bias.
- Dimension scores include expert judgement. All raw scores and weights are exposed so users can recalculate alternatives.
- The benchmark is directional and does not replace on-site capacity, accessibility, safety, transport or operational audits.

## Primary sources

- Formula 1 2026 calendar: https://www.formula1.com/en/racing/2026
- MotoGP 2026 calendar: https://www.motogp.com/en/calendar/2026
- Google review-score definition: https://support.google.com/business/answer/4801187?hl=en
- Dromo F1 development and operations framing: https://studiodromo.it/insights/f1-development-operations/

## Licence and citation

© 2026 DROMO — studiodromo.it. DROMO's original selection, structure, coding, analysis, charts and editorial text are licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Required attribution: © 2026 DROMO — studiodromo.it. Source: DROMO, “Fan Experience Benchmark: 40 F1 and MotoGP Circuits”, https://studiodromo.it/insights/fan-experience-benchmark-40-f1-and-motogp-circuits/. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Indicate if changes were made.

Third-party source material, Google services and trademarks, individual reviews, and third-party images are not covered by this licence. Preserve the snapshot date and identify any modifications.