tagged 
F1, Fuel Efficiency, Future, Motorsport, Noise, Tires, Tour de France
F1, Fuel Efficiency, Future, Motorsport, Noise, Tires, Tour de France The Future
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 12:35PM
Who can foretell the future? A lot of people are trying lately in respect of motor racing. The discussion on LinkedIn Motorsport Professionals Group rolls on, with the latest social media being the focus of much of it. Then there is the article in GP Week, "F1's Chance to Change the World," which is focused mainly on the 2013 engine regs, and the chance to be "seen" as green by sponsors.
GP Week asks, "But will a greener Formula One really help in attracting more sponsors to the sport? Harry Gibbings is the Head of Global Sponsorship at TW Steel, a Renault sponsor, and he thinks it will make sponsors less intimidated to join the sport: "From a sponsor's perspective the green ethos is important and, from my point of view with TW Steel, Renault has pushed that to great lengths, taking the technology from the F1 programme and translating it to small fuel efficient cars," explains Gibbings."
"That's not the primary reason that we're in Formula One sponsorship. Obviously we're there to get a return on investment - it hits 450 million people at each round - so from our point of view, that's the important thing. But to have positive green credentials in the future is also an important aspect of it."
So, in the end it is about raising money, as I said yesterday. As you all know I continue to question why motor racing has to be "relevant" when no other sport has to?
In the same article Martin Whitmarsh, the thinking man's team principle, says that F1 must keep the sound, or noise as some would say. I agree, and it is likely that F1 and NASCAR will always be allowed to make as much noise as they want, but what about the rest of motor sport? Much is made of fuel efficiency when "green racing" is discussed, but you know, whenever I have been at a town hall meeting over a new or existing track no one ever raises the issue of fuel efficiency, it is all about the noise generated.
As we have seen with the Croft decision in the British High Court, noise restrictions have potentially a much bigger impact on the future of racing. Unless racers in most series agree to limit their exhaust emissions their opportunity to race will become limited to tracks in the middle of nowhere that they do not want to go to. No one is saying it has to noiseless, but a serious attempt has to be made to limit it to a reasonable level of say 90dba? Either that or we will be watching electric cars with noise makers in them to sound exciting.
Then there are the enormous numbers of tires used at a race. NASCAR seems the worst offenders with new tires fitted at every pit stop, and there are a lot of those thanks to the yellow flags. It cannot be a good advert for a tire manufacturer when their tires wear out after 100 miles or less. Tony Dowe is the only person I know who has raised this issue, but think of the resources and cost. Have a look in the Michelin or Goodyear tents next time you go to a race. We now have engines and gearbox limitations that require teams to use them for more than one race. Did the world end as we know it? Most fans would not tell the difference from the old days of qualifying specials. So how about one set for a race weekend, unless you puncture? Use the set from the race before for practice and qualifying at the next. In the sixties it was not unknown to use a set for two or three races. Then maybe we will see who can drive to manage their tires.
So, back to the future of F1 and motor racing. Are they one and the same? If F1 died as we know it, it would survive, it always has done. Whatever was the next level of racing would by right would become F1. Would F1 survive if the rest of motorsport died? Probably, we all watch major events like the Baseball World Series, Superbowl, Tour de France, Le Mans, Indy 500 etc. as the best of the sport, so I suspect F1 would survive, but where would the drivers come from, a virtual GP2?
The future of the rest of racing as a spectator sport is definitely under question, but there will always be those that wish to experience the thrill of driving fast, and yes racing their competitors, and not just in a simulator.
GP Week asks, "But will a greener Formula One really help in attracting more sponsors to the sport? Harry Gibbings is the Head of Global Sponsorship at TW Steel, a Renault sponsor, and he thinks it will make sponsors less intimidated to join the sport: "From a sponsor's perspective the green ethos is important and, from my point of view with TW Steel, Renault has pushed that to great lengths, taking the technology from the F1 programme and translating it to small fuel efficient cars," explains Gibbings."
"That's not the primary reason that we're in Formula One sponsorship. Obviously we're there to get a return on investment - it hits 450 million people at each round - so from our point of view, that's the important thing. But to have positive green credentials in the future is also an important aspect of it."
So, in the end it is about raising money, as I said yesterday. As you all know I continue to question why motor racing has to be "relevant" when no other sport has to?
In the same article Martin Whitmarsh, the thinking man's team principle, says that F1 must keep the sound, or noise as some would say. I agree, and it is likely that F1 and NASCAR will always be allowed to make as much noise as they want, but what about the rest of motor sport? Much is made of fuel efficiency when "green racing" is discussed, but you know, whenever I have been at a town hall meeting over a new or existing track no one ever raises the issue of fuel efficiency, it is all about the noise generated.
As we have seen with the Croft decision in the British High Court, noise restrictions have potentially a much bigger impact on the future of racing. Unless racers in most series agree to limit their exhaust emissions their opportunity to race will become limited to tracks in the middle of nowhere that they do not want to go to. No one is saying it has to noiseless, but a serious attempt has to be made to limit it to a reasonable level of say 90dba? Either that or we will be watching electric cars with noise makers in them to sound exciting.
Then there are the enormous numbers of tires used at a race. NASCAR seems the worst offenders with new tires fitted at every pit stop, and there are a lot of those thanks to the yellow flags. It cannot be a good advert for a tire manufacturer when their tires wear out after 100 miles or less. Tony Dowe is the only person I know who has raised this issue, but think of the resources and cost. Have a look in the Michelin or Goodyear tents next time you go to a race. We now have engines and gearbox limitations that require teams to use them for more than one race. Did the world end as we know it? Most fans would not tell the difference from the old days of qualifying specials. So how about one set for a race weekend, unless you puncture? Use the set from the race before for practice and qualifying at the next. In the sixties it was not unknown to use a set for two or three races. Then maybe we will see who can drive to manage their tires.
So, back to the future of F1 and motor racing. Are they one and the same? If F1 died as we know it, it would survive, it always has done. Whatever was the next level of racing would by right would become F1. Would F1 survive if the rest of motorsport died? Probably, we all watch major events like the Baseball World Series, Superbowl, Tour de France, Le Mans, Indy 500 etc. as the best of the sport, so I suspect F1 would survive, but where would the drivers come from, a virtual GP2?
The future of the rest of racing as a spectator sport is definitely under question, but there will always be those that wish to experience the thrill of driving fast, and yes racing their competitors, and not just in a simulator.
Reader Comments