Bob Barnard Track Engineering

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.

Monetise, what an interesting word. George Lopez followed up on Martin Whitmarsh's comment the other week about F1 doing a better job to promote itself. Speaking to Autosport Lopez said, "Formula 1 does need to promote itself better as it is a global sport," Lopez told AUTOSPORT. "It probably also needs to monetise better, which is a different thing. Promoting means putting money into something and hoping you get known, monetising means making money."

So, what he wants is more money, not necessarily more fans. He goes on to talk about exploiting the Internet, "Lopez believes there are many other avenues on the Internet that can be pursued that would raise good finance for the sport.

"There is all the historic video content for example - and people would pay," he said. "I would, for example, love to really look at the Ayrton Senna/Alain Prost Suzuka accident, and I would pay to have monthly access to any race I wanted to watch." Well he may pay, but what he is really saying is that we can make money from existing fans by charging them to watch the good old days. Aren't existing fans getting soaked enough by high track entry fees? And didn't Bernie try to get us to pay for HD? That failed badly, one of Bernie's only missteps.

He has lots of other good ideas such as on-course betting. Again, getting money from those already at the race. His idea for new fans? Letting his drivers walk to the paddock without minders.

But maybe George has it correct. We had the Goodwood Revival race meeting over the weekend, a sell out, watching the old stars, both the cars and the drivers, so perhaps watching old races will pay? Perhaps returning racing to these good old days might also increase the audience.

Martin Whitmarsh had another interesting pronouncement the other day on Team Orders from a different perspective. He made the point that motor racing is dangerous, potentially lethal, and no driver should be asked to take that risk just to support his team mate. Good point.

The discussion continues on LinkedIn on spectator decline. A post today from David Harris, who presumably works for SPEED, tells us that viewing figures have grown from 20m when it was Speedvision in 1996, to 80m as SPEED today. Considering most people could not get Speedvision in 1996 I am not surprised. The problem is, are the 80m race fans or motoring soap opera watchers? Pinks, Dangerous Roads, etc. etc. to me do not constitute race fans. As I said yesterday there were great races going on all over the world that we did not see. Now, I do not blame Fox for chasing audience numbers of whatever sort, that is their business, to make money, but there is more to racing than endless NASCAR and "reality" shows.

That is George Lopez's business too, he runs a venture capital group like CVC, who own F1 and are in it for the money. That is great so long as that is not your only objective, all businesses have to make money to survive, but I doubt if you ask Sir Frank Williams, Patrick Head, Peter Sauber, and yes, that epitome of corporate correctness, Ron Dennis, what matters most, they will say the racing. Enzo Ferrari only built road cars to make it possible to go motor racing, not the other way round. Perhaps we have reached the root of the problem? Today's racing is run by "the suits," the grey men who only see the balance sheet, not the timesheet. They have forgotten what made the sport worth investing in in the first place, and will ruin it all.

Finally a mention for someone who does get it and lives it. Garry Dickinson returned to the track that nearly killed him two years ago and rode a couple of laps, virtually his first time back on a bike. Well done Garry, that takes real guts, not some fabricated made for TV BS. Where were SPEED when you did that?

On LinkedIn yesterday a discussion started in the Motorsport Professionals Group as the result of an article in the Sports Business Journal quoting David Hill of Fox and the drop off in viewing figures. To quote the discussion, "Fox Sports chairman David Hill recently told the Sports Business Journal that “the biggest problem facing NASCAR is that young males have left the sport.” Fox reports that ratings among men 18-34 have declined 29%. This isn't just NASCAR's problem, folks, this is racing's problem. If new life isn't injected into the sport in terms of technology and overall interest - and soon - before you know it there will be nothing left but vintage racing all across the country."

Just as an aside, David was the Producer for the telecast of my first F1 event in Adelaide in 1985, he has gone far since then.

Anyway, this seems to have struck a chord with a lot of the Group and there are several comments. Regular readers to my blog will know I posed the question, "Is motorsport in danger of becoming a non-spectator sport?' a few weeks ago, and commented that NASCAR were removing seats so obviously did not expect the audience levels to return.

It's interesting that the comment above talks about injecting new technology. Is that in the way that people interact with racing, or in the cars and motorcycles? One of the Group said that technology was killing the interest, but how can that be when just about every category is "dumbing down" the technology in the interest of cost savings? NASCAR still runs carburetors and five nut wheels and COT that is virtually a spec car, IRL is a spec car, as is basically Grand Am, Moto2 and soon 3 in motorcycle GP's, ALMS has two spec classes to make up the numbers, and even F1, that pinnacle of technology has control tires, common ECU, engine rules that are virtually spec, and moves for more common components. This spec racing is not reducing "costs" because it is costing racing spectators and viewers.

Then there are those that say that the marketers are getting it all wrong. So did they have it right when NASCAR went through it's growth spurt? I doubt it, it probably had more to do with Dale Earnhardt, a larger than life character. Where are they now? Only Tony Stewart even comes close and they slap him down every time he shows a spark of life. NASCAR went through a fad, and thought it would last forever and alienated it's fan base to chase the yuppie. It went to new markets. Did you read the piece here a couple of days ago from ESPN F1 about F1 chasing new markets like Korea?

So then there are the sponsors, who are pushing the sports towards these new markets and younger generations. Have they asked anyone if that is what the people watching now want? The sponsors came in because the sport was successful, and then they want to change what made it successful, and are then annoyed that the audience drops. I wrote the other week about Martin Whitmarsh suggesting F1 needs to market itself better and commenting that there is a problem marketing a product that is not good. Red Bull is probably one of the great marketing stories of the decade, and I watch their cars and motorcycles all the time, and did try it once. Hated it and have never bought one since. You cannot make people like something.

That is probably the nub of the problem. We have a generation growing up that does not want to watch what we are offering. No amount of marketing or packaging is going to change that. Some sociologists can probably tell us why they think this is. Maybe they are all brainwashed about global warming and racing wasting resources. Would they all watch if we raced electric cars? Maybe they cannot watch two hour races, but GT have tried shorter races and I do not think more people watched them. Maybe because they can all race every track and every car on their X-Box in their lounge room or on their phone they do not need to go to the race or watch on TV. Then again, as they get older will they "find" racing and become a fan? I do not profess to know the answer. But if we change racing to suit them, do we lose the audience we have now?

I do know that most tracks being built are non-spectator tracks for people to drive their own cars fast. This has to tell us something about the future? We may not like it, but we are not going to change it by "better marketing." Perhaps we have to adapt to a new world, or go the way of the dinosaur?

Aus$50m, that is what the Victorian Government has owned up to losing on this year's Melbourne F1 GP, despite a good crowd. Of course promoters attendance figures are always dubious at the best of times, but what must the total cost of staging that race be if they LOST $50m? Are you listening Tavo? Now there is a business plan I'd love to read. When I was involved with Adelaide it cost around $20m to stage, including Bernie's fee, which was a lot less in those days. Now that was 25 years ago, but even so, when you have a permanent pit building, the roads are all there, how does it cost that much to put up grandstands? It cannot all be promotion and staff. Allowing for income of say $20m from spectators, corporate etc, that puts the cost of Bernie's fee and staging at $70m!

After "letting the team down" in Monza, Lewis vows to try even harder for the rest of the season. Given how he has been racing that is going to be something to see.

Not much else of real interest going on. Rumors of Kimi to Renault continue, Grosjean is the new Pirelli tester, and Mark Webber is not asking Vettel for help winning the championship. Perhaps if Mark wins the Championship the loss in Melbourne may only be $45m?

Continuing refining the Sol Real layout with the development of the long section, the elevation of the track. The land is basically flat, so looking to move dirt around to make some more interesting corners. Most of the tracks around here are dead flat, so we need to have some elevation to make it different. Not that it is not already different in having safe run off, something sadly lacking at most tracks.  Started signing up potential members, and looking to do a session in Tucson soon with the local enthusiasts as the track is halfway between there and Phoenix.

There are a couple of interesting pieces on tracks this morning. I commented the other day under "Monza" about the situation at Donnington Park and Adroit. I said at the time it would be good to understand what went on, and fortunately David Broome of Adroit commented on that blog and set the record straight. Not quite what the media was presenting, so thank you David for reading and commenting. Please check out David's comment for the true story. Hopefully this is a happy end to a sad saga, and Donnington can continue as one of England's best circuits for many years to come.

That may not be the case for the new Korean track, where the inspection date has been put back another week, "due to local holidays." Weren't they on the calendar when they booked the 21st? ESPN F1 has a very insightful piece on what happens when it is built, and how likely is it to be financially successful.  Martin Williamson, managing editor of digital media ESPN EMEA, comments on today's web page, "Although it continues to take F1 to new locations, the FIA's determination to base its decisions on cash almost regardless of other factors - especially the local interest in the sport and the location of the circuits - have left the Formula One roadshow going to some places where grands prix take place against a backdrop of indifference. It's all very well to argue it is taking the sport into to new markets, but shouldn't consolidating the existing ones be equally important?"

"Assuming the organisers have a workable circuit by the time the FIA inspect later this month, the Korean Grand Prix will go ahead and contractually will remain on the schedule for the next seven years regardless. But you can't but help get the feeling that the hard work will really start when the builders leave."

Very well said Martin. Check out the full story at http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/28461.html.

I'm not against F1 going to new places, Adelaide would never have happened if it did not seek new markets, but there has to be more to the decision than if CVC is going to get a big payday. After all, do empty stands, failed tracks and bad races really look good for the sport and its long term future?