Bob Barnard Track Engineering

A few days ago I wrote about the demise of the LMP2 from the Tudor Sports Car Series. Well it did not take long. We now have the news from IMSA that they are looking to replace DPs and LMP2 prototypes with a "spec" class which is in essence a carbon tub replacement for the tube frame DP. Designed to accommodate a variety of engines, as the DP is, and able to accept different body styles a la DP. This is the article from Racer Magazine.

http://racermag.kinja.com/talks-continue-on-2017-spec-prototype-chassis-1566231732?rev=1398199229

IMSA wants a car that can compete in a variety of series, including Le Mans. LMP2 anybody? Don't say I didn't warn you.

On a different note, literally, there is an interesting article on F1 engine noise in the April 3 issue of Autosport. I know it is old, but I have to wait to receive it. Apparently it comes by ship. It shows that yes, the new cars are quieter by about 11 dB, which is significant, but they are still louder than NASCARs! The real difference is in the frequency, which due to the lower revs and the turbo is lower pitched. The human ear relates to more higher frequencies, that is why the readings are not actual but scaled to mimic human response, the dbA scale. I always had a theory about that when I worked for Panoz. Anyone who heard that car would know it was LOUD, but being a big V8 it was all low down on the scale. The only way I could see it would pass the noise test was due to that absence of top end noise, and it seems I was right. 

The other point is of course those of us listening at home are not hearing the real sound, only what the TV decides to give us. Positioning of the microphones around the track, and the filtering have an effect. That is why Bernie changed his tune a bit when hearing them live. So, come on TV Director, give us the real deal and we can turn the sound up. 

So we are still going to Bahrain despite a demonstrator being shot last weekend! Bernie and the boys have a big PR campaign going to convince us all is well though, and Bahrain is apparently the best value for sponsors above the European races. This is measured by the viewing audience, so more people watch Bahrain than Spa! Maybe when it was the first race of the year, certainly no one watches it because the track is so great. More PR BS? There are stories of teams having alternative flights from China in case Bahrain is cancelled, so we will see.

Over to Indycar. Some of you will recall that at the time of Dan Wheldon's death I questioned the construction of the safety fence, SMI tracks being different to anyone else. Yesterday I received my March 15 Autosport and was reading the story about the drivers not being happy at going to Texas. The test was cancelled there you recall, apparently to save the teams from switching to an oval set up and then back for St Pete. More to do with the drivers I think. They are not convinced that the 2012 car will prevent pack racing, but they are also unhappy about the fence, which is the same as Vegas. The last paragraph of the piece is interesting as I have not read this anywhere else. "An investigation into Dan Wheldon's accident revealed that pack racing and the Vegas fencing contributed. ... with the supporting poles on the inside (track side) of the mesh." That's what I have said all along. This is not the FIA style of fence. Don't hold your breath for SMI to change it though.

They say money makes the world go round, and it certainly makes the F1 world go round. In fact it has enough money to go around, it just isn't being split up correctly at present. The Resource Restriction Agreement, RRA, was raised again by Horner, and Whitmarsh continued in the  "we must be more relevant and not be seen as gas guzzlers" vein. F1 engines are I believe the most efficient engines around when you consider the power they produce from each gallon, and not just look at the miles per gallon. And there is that old "relevant" again. I guess the World Cup is relevant because most of us have kicked a ball around at some time in our life, but there again most of us have driven a car.

Bernie in responding to the Mayor of Melbourne about the value of an F1 GP compared it to the Olympics and the World Cup, and as far as the Olympics goes he is dead right. I was in Barcelona in 1992 and watched the Sydney Games lead up, and what a con job that is. Go and spend $6 bn  on facilities you did not need and will not use again for two weeks of exposure that no one cares about afterwards. At least you get an F1 race each year. The World Cup  has been different as the stadiums are used afterwards, although we now have South Africa looking for someone to run them and Qatar building stadiums in the desert.

Mark Hughes writing in Autosport the other week said "The sport can't afford to allow money to haemorrhage out." His article concentrated on the cost to promoters of staging a GP and where that money is going. The basic problem is it is not going back into the sport, it is going to a bunch of investors who have done no more than buy the rights. No one begrudged Bernie making a lot of money, he built this sport over many years and with his own abilities, and made others rich along the way, but the current situation with CVC is unsustainable. Hughes questions how many new countries there can be that will keep paying for GP's, and when the existing ones will get tired of it, like Malaysia and Bahrain. Now I met both those track chiefs in Cologne last year and they are already asking those questions. In Bahrain the Parliament is asking what they get for their money, and the circuit chief has a good answer. "What would it cost us to send everyone who watches the race a postcard?" It is a good argument, and has worked till now, but for how much longer? Malaysia says it has achieved it's objective of putting the country on the world stage, now they need the track to make money.

Joe Saward asks the question what these latest popular uprisings mean for F1? It is OK to go to all these exotic places with loads of money, but how safe and stable are they? Apparently there are stirrings in Bahrain today, and the F1 circus is headed there shortly. Would a new popular government be so keen to spend millions on a rich man's toy?

In a somewhat related article Sebastian Vettel is asking if the wheel has turned too far towards making F1 a "show" rather than a sport? Movable wings, KERS buttons, all to make the show better, but not for the driver. Alonso does not think it will be any easier to pass a car that is similar in speed, only those pesky back markers, and as I said a week or so ago, timing when to turn the wing back at the start of the braking zone is going to be a tricky problem, with some drivers missing it in early testing. So, we are spending loads of money on "widgets" that we are not sure even work. OK, KERS or some form of energy recovery system is going to be part of future automotive design, but that is being developed in spite of F1, not because of it. Porsche and Williams kept on developing their system when F1 had given it up.

So we have a situation where there is an incredible imbalance between the three parties to the deal. The promoters are not making money, the teams are getting some of the money coming into the sport, and a third party who are a silent partner effectively is creaming most of it off. Is this sustainable? Add to that the alienation of the traditional supporters of the sport by removing the opportunity to see it live and pandering to an elite who will lose interest and move on to the next big thing. Ask NASCAR how that is working for them. And while we are at it let's think about the "Car of Tomorrow" where the rules are so tightly proscribed it is almost spec racing. The teams spend enormous amounts on the smallest, silliest parts just to gain a thousand of a second, and as soon as they find it the part is banned. Does any of this sound "relevant" or "sustainable?" Oh yes, and now we are to have tires that wear out faster to make the "show" more fun, is that being efficient or relevant, or even safe? Interesting how the word "green" has disappeared from most of the motorsport vocabulary, apart from good old ALMS.

Thank you for those friends who are spreading the word for photos for the book. It is a great feeling to have so many friends and supporters.

Not much going on today other than my team Tottenham giving league leaders Man Utd a great game, quite worn out watching that. The NFL playoffs have a hard act to follow. Amazing isn't it how humans make connections to sports teams and keep them for life, and beyond. It is said that years after the Roman Chariot races ended there were fights in the street between team supporters.

The Ferrari/Ducati made for journalists event and the Autosport Show still dominate the news, so I guess I will have to go back to the football, American style, and see you all tomorrow.

It is interesting that Audi have gone from an open cockpit car to a closed for this year's Le Mans contender the R18, and Aston Martin has gone from a closed cockpit to an open. Can they both be right? Audi have preferred the open cockpit since they built the R8 due to the easier driver changes and less problems with visibility. They had power to burn presumably to overcome the extra drag. Now they say the restrictions on the engine mean they have to minimise drag, hence the closed cockpit. Allan McNish at the Autosport Show said that the petrol cars will be very competitive this year due to Article 19, and that the Aston was already very fast last year. So does Aston now have power to burn over the diesels and can therefore go to the open cockpit? I recall when Tony Dowe was running the Panoz he cut the roof off as the open cars at that time had some rule breaks which if I recall correctly allowed larger rear tires and a bigger fuel tank. Who makes this up? Although it did not have the elegance of the Coupe, it won races.  All part of the "knowing the rules and exploiting them" game that is motor sport.

Every journalist on earth must be at the Autosport Show or Wroom with Ferrari and Ducati. Not sure how much Ferrari and Co. spend on this bash but it is worth every penny in the PR onslaught they achieve at a time when there is not much else happening. Some one must have been in Venezuela to cover Maldanado in the Williams with Hugo Chavez and the deal with PDVSA. As I think Joe Saward commented, there ways of being a "pay for ride" driver without actually paying for it yourself, which is what most of these deals are. So Williams protesting that this is not a pay for play deal sounds a little far fetched. I don't really care if PDVSA give Sir Frank the money he needs to be competitive again  as long as Maldanado does not turn out to be another Eliseo Salazar.

I love Luca di Montezemolo, he says such great quotes. "maybe when others have won 10% of what Ferrari has won, then they can also have their say." He does not think Red Bull know how to behave as Champions, and is also using their overspending to point out the silliness of the RRA. And I love the comment on Brawn winning due to "technical drug taking." F1 on steroids. They presumably grew bigger diffusers.

On the home front I completed the text for my book, so now to find a publisher, edit and select the photos. I need a shot of me on the winners rostrum at Phillip Island in '89 if anyone knows a photographer who was there. I have a concept plan for the Circuit Grand Bayou and waiting on feedback from the client, who at first sight liked it a lot. Busy on a business plan for another project, so watch this space. Don't forget the Circuit Forum in LA in April, the program is just about done and will be out probably next week.