MPH
Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 11:15AM
The best page in Autosport is the editorial by Mark Hughes under the heading MPH. (sorry to you other motor sport journalists but he writes the best lines) Some years ago he wrote a piece at the start of a new season called"The First Lap," which with his permission I will reproduce here sometime. Pure poetry.
This April 29 edition talks of the future of F1, and I'll swear he has been reading some of my pieces. "The only way F1 can justify its existence is as a sport." As some of you have read the need to be "relevant" annoys me to tears, football and baseball being relevant only to their fans, as should motor racing. I particularly like this paragraph:
"F1 shouldn't stake it's justification on meeting the green aims of the motor industry. If it can contribute to the process, fine. But making it the sport's reason for existing is a very dangerous path to follow. Long term, the only way F1 will be able to justify its existence is purely as a sport, an abstract competition unconnected to the trends of the motor industry in much the same way that horse racing flourished despite the horse being supplanted by the car as a form of transport." I believe I have made the same point about horse racing myself, but hopefully more people will listen to Mark.
F1 is going through a navel gazing exercise at the moment to try and come up with new engine rules for 2013, in the context of an overall look at the car specifications. Motorsport has a piece this month where it brought three "experts" to comment on what they see as the way to go, and their answers highlight the problem in F1. Harry Trueman was the master of great lines, "can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen etc." One of his was "if you laid all the economists in America end to end they would all point in different directions." Well, that is what came out of the article for me. Paddy Lowe summed it up best, "The difficult bit is what do you actually do?" Paddy was questioning the green credentials of KERS, which has always to me been sold on that basis, so where does that leave us? Patrick Head seems more concerned with down force and where do we get it or lose it? Peter Wright is concerned with what the engine will look like and where will they come from. Now I respect Peter, but when he says we need the manufacturers to make us engines I have to disagree. I grew up in the Coventry Climax and Cosworth era. I know Ford payed for the Cossie to be designed, but it was and still is a non-manufacturer engine. What about Judd and AER? In the past we've had Brian Hart and I'm sure if the manufacturers all left someone would build an engine. Nature abhors a vacuum so someone will fill it, and who knows the racing might be better. In my mind the manufacturers need F1, not the other way around.
The British Touring Car Championship provides an interesting counterpoint to Peter's argument. The series has commissioned an engine to be built to the new spec that is available to any team for about a quarter of the cost of building your own, which you can still do, so it is not a one make series. The BTCC has also been subject to manufacturers leaving the series, to the point where it is nearly all privateers, but the racing is just as good, the number of cars good and crowds are still coming to watch, so you see, there is more than one way to skin that cat, with apologies to Cfor, my cat.
Last, it comes as no surprise that Mr. Tilke is going to design the f1 track in Austin. It seems the Governor is putting up $25m a year which presumably goes some way to paying Bernie's fee. Still a long way from having it built, but the question remains, if it is private investors as reported, how do they expect to make the money back? No one has learned that trick lately. As Chris Pook told me in 1985 just after he had given up and switched to CART at Long Beach, "if Bernie thinks you are making money he will increase the price!"
This April 29 edition talks of the future of F1, and I'll swear he has been reading some of my pieces. "The only way F1 can justify its existence is as a sport." As some of you have read the need to be "relevant" annoys me to tears, football and baseball being relevant only to their fans, as should motor racing. I particularly like this paragraph:
"F1 shouldn't stake it's justification on meeting the green aims of the motor industry. If it can contribute to the process, fine. But making it the sport's reason for existing is a very dangerous path to follow. Long term, the only way F1 will be able to justify its existence is purely as a sport, an abstract competition unconnected to the trends of the motor industry in much the same way that horse racing flourished despite the horse being supplanted by the car as a form of transport." I believe I have made the same point about horse racing myself, but hopefully more people will listen to Mark.
F1 is going through a navel gazing exercise at the moment to try and come up with new engine rules for 2013, in the context of an overall look at the car specifications. Motorsport has a piece this month where it brought three "experts" to comment on what they see as the way to go, and their answers highlight the problem in F1. Harry Trueman was the master of great lines, "can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen etc." One of his was "if you laid all the economists in America end to end they would all point in different directions." Well, that is what came out of the article for me. Paddy Lowe summed it up best, "The difficult bit is what do you actually do?" Paddy was questioning the green credentials of KERS, which has always to me been sold on that basis, so where does that leave us? Patrick Head seems more concerned with down force and where do we get it or lose it? Peter Wright is concerned with what the engine will look like and where will they come from. Now I respect Peter, but when he says we need the manufacturers to make us engines I have to disagree. I grew up in the Coventry Climax and Cosworth era. I know Ford payed for the Cossie to be designed, but it was and still is a non-manufacturer engine. What about Judd and AER? In the past we've had Brian Hart and I'm sure if the manufacturers all left someone would build an engine. Nature abhors a vacuum so someone will fill it, and who knows the racing might be better. In my mind the manufacturers need F1, not the other way around.
The British Touring Car Championship provides an interesting counterpoint to Peter's argument. The series has commissioned an engine to be built to the new spec that is available to any team for about a quarter of the cost of building your own, which you can still do, so it is not a one make series. The BTCC has also been subject to manufacturers leaving the series, to the point where it is nearly all privateers, but the racing is just as good, the number of cars good and crowds are still coming to watch, so you see, there is more than one way to skin that cat, with apologies to Cfor, my cat.
Last, it comes as no surprise that Mr. Tilke is going to design the f1 track in Austin. It seems the Governor is putting up $25m a year which presumably goes some way to paying Bernie's fee. Still a long way from having it built, but the question remains, if it is private investors as reported, how do they expect to make the money back? No one has learned that trick lately. As Chris Pook told me in 1985 just after he had given up and switched to CART at Long Beach, "if Bernie thinks you are making money he will increase the price!"
Reader Comments (2)
Heaven knows I agree with Mark Hughes. F1 racing is the jewel in the crown of motorsport, the championship that any young racer who gains a license at least initially aspires to.
Unfortunatly the analogy with horse racing wouldn't wash with the least militant enviromentalist who would simply say that horse racing does less harm to the enviroment than a 20,000rpm racing engine.
The Greens are growing in power Bob, they even now have a member of parliment. Heaven help us.
As for Bernie, ah yes the man who dissected Paul Ricard. Grrrr.
I would like to know how much greenhouse gas a horse puts out a day. I know cows contribute an enormous amount. They race every day, so there is all that fuel to get them to and from, plus all the feed they consume. I bet you could make a case against anything if you wanted. It may be a losing battle but we should go down fighting. I saw a great quote the other day, "reformers live in houses just as big as they can afford." Logan Pearsall Smith. Al Gore where are you? The other line I think is very apt is "beware of prophets that profit."