Well, this goes back to the difference between how both auto racing and bike racing evolved in Europe and the United States. Europe has long favored point-to-point racing, while in the US it's long been circuit racing. When autos in Europe were forced into circuits, the "circuits" were huge. Think LeMans, the old Spa, or the Nordschleife. The Targa Florio course was 11 laps of a mountain: 72 km per lap! (In contrast, the relatively tiny Indianapolis track was scaled *up* from more common venues.) Bike racing in Europe has never had to make that transition and still uses the original point to point format.

In the US you can see the whole course from any grandstand seat. Why? Because America was big and (relatively) sparsely populated. There was no "moneyed class" to provide the costs, so events had to be self-funded. Auto races were introduced as local events because once the cars left town there was no one to buy tickets, so the format had to be circuit racing. And spectators got used to being able to see the whole event on a single ticket. Similarly when bike racing was the rage here, even long-distance events were conducted in a velodrome.

Because of this history, point-to-point events like ToC draw surprisingly large crowds, yet they are - and probably never will be - self-supporting.

Anyway, to the issue:

• NASCAR has a fee-paying audience and huge TV contracts. They have an incentive to improve coverage, and they can spread their costs over 40-some events per year. TdF has no similar audience, probably no similar TV contracts, and one event per year. (Actually, ASO expanding into other events might change this equation, so there's hope.)
  
  
• NASCAR runs on closed circuits. The cars go by 200 times per event. At TdF they go by once.
  
  
• NASCAR can hard-wire every camera and measuring device. In TdF the signals go through a (mobile!) ground transmitter, to a helicopter, to an airplane, to a control center, to a satellite, etc.
  
  
• NASCAR can make permanent installations, and at worst have to set up once a week. In TdF all the equipment has to be moved and set up every night, over roads that can be nearly impassable.
  
  
• In NASCAR the platform weighs 1545 kg and is powered by a 900 HP engine on a flat track. Adding a camera, motorized mount, batteries, etc. makes no measurable difference, and at worst comes out of the minimum weight. In TdF the platform weighs 1/10th that yet is pushed by a mere 1/2500th the power — up mountains. Additional mass might be accommodated by adjusting minimum weight, but it better not weigh more than a few grams! So how much does a power hub and transponder mass?

All that said, I too would like to see improved coverage. Let them start by figuring out how to produce a HD signal!

I also think that a great deal more can be done with the current transponders. The location of riders on the course, integrated with a detailed course profile, would make coverage a lot more interesting to me. Maybe they don't do it because the French don't watch NASCAR so they don't know what they're missing.