Bob Barnard Track Engineering

There was a lot of talk about how great it is that in 2014 Sebring looks like it did 50 years ago. What other major track looks 50 years old and has outdated safety. Probably the other track owned by ISC, Watkins Glen. And this is good why? I have said in past years that there is a point beyond which "character" becomes dangerous, and Sebring is long past this. Turn 17 is hideous with cars "kangaroo hopping" through it. Dorsey Schroeder said he was always amazed when he got through it each lap. Well we had a reg flag for a couple of cars that did not. The wall on drivers left at exit is too close and has one row of tires not properly attached. Compare that with Turn 5 in Melbourne where there are at least four rows if not five. Again the wall comes back to accommodate the bridge abutment.

That was just one crash however. After the three hours on Fox, with all the usual infomercials and historic photos we had a car almost burned to the ground and a previous crash so had about an hour of racing. It got a little better when it streamed on IMSA.com with fewer breaks, but in the end we had almost 6 hours of yellow and red flag in a 12 hour race. Part of this the ridiculous time it takes to clear a car and get back to racing under the closed pit lane system. In the last hour we had a car off at Turn 9, not damaged, just stopped. It took 30 minutes to go back racing, so we had a 20 minute sprint and no time to catch the Ganassi car which benefited from pitting just before the yellow.

The standard of driving was so bad that even Jim France suggested that they pass out business cards for racing schools. I know "gentlemen" drivers have been part of sports car racing since the first Le Mans, but some basic level has to be maintained or as was said, they will kill someone. It says much for the design of the cars that no one was, especially the crashes at 16 & 17. 

The US commentary was right up to it's usual standard. They must think we are idiots, Radio Le Mans where are you? On Motors TV in Europe that's where. Two gems when it got dark  Varsha, " now you can see why headlights are so important." His emphasis. The Justin Bell talking about how drivers cope with the reduced visiblity at night. "Generally the track doesn't change between corners." Really, so sometimes they rush out and throw in a chicane or something? Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up.

I am at a total loss why Fox would even show this. Three hours of a twelve hour race, and the first three, not the last. Filled with ads and nonsense. It must be a condition of the NASCAR contract.

I have mentioned before that here in the US motorsport TV commentators are just a mouthpiece for the sport. Promoting the event is usually left to the person staging it, but I guess when the TV is basically paying to keep the sport alive you could argue that they are the promoter.

Yesterday we saw a Las Vegas track with perhaps 25% of the seats filled. Now I expected there to be a very good crowd given the terrible winter most of us have had. The chance of some sunshine in Las Vegas should have been irresistible. The economy is getting better, so having a holiday and watching the race should be a no brainer for an east coast "good "ol boy."

So, when we hear Mike Joy tell us that the promoter has said "the place is packed" while seeing a shot of sparsely filled seats in the main grandstand is ridiculous. Either Joy is a fool, or is prostituting himself for Fox. Lost my respect.

As is becoming the pattern this year the race was won on the last lap, if not the last corner. People have said for a long time they watch the start and the last 20 laps. Now they do not even need to do that. Sure we all like a close race, but this is a brief moment of excitement in a 2 to 3 hour race.

Note to the Fox Director, stay away from overhead shots, it is too easy to count the fans.

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?