Bob Barnard Track Engineering

I saw a piece today that said Mark Blundell and Martin Brundle, say that a few times fast, are teaming up for next months Daytona 24 hour! That's pretty scary, time goes by so fast. We have just finished this season and we are talking about next month's races. I know it is late in January so it is closer to two months, but still. Only 90 days to the Bahrain F1 GP.

F1 news still centers on drivers and teams with HRT reported in big trouble following the falling out with Toyota. Seems Toyota wants paying, how rude of them. So no new chassis, no drivers, no money, but a Cosworth engine, presuming they have paid them. Petrov is being told to move to England near the team and improve his English, that will improve his consistency apparently. I suppose being around the team can keep an eye on him, but not sure really how it improves his consistency. Hulkenburg is being tipped to fill one seat at Force India, let's hope so, he is good enough to stay in F1, unlike some.

Interesting that Mazda is setting up a scholarship to help young drivers step up from Star Mazda to Indy Lights and then Indy Car. They have a big motorsport image here in the US so this is part of that, but what about a Mazda engine in Indy Car?

Alain Prost regrets the Renault sale of it shares in the F1 Team and believes that France has become "auto-phobic." It would appear so with no French F1 GP, but what about Le Mans, Peugeot and Citroen in WRC? Vergne is on the brink of an F1 drive and Renault are still producing engines for F1 and reviving the young driver program that was so successful in the past. So things are no quite as gloomy as Alain would see them.

The "green" engine rules are due to be approved by the FIA World Council today, and it seems it is Jean Todt who has pushed this through against the protests of the engine manufacturers. I was never quite sure why we went away from turbo cars in the first place. I know the power was getting out of control, but presumably that is being addressed now, so why not then? In an Autosport piece about how this green engine will be better for the sport David Tucker, director at sports agency KTB, told Brand Republic: "The potential rule change will allow F1 to appeal to a wider potential sponsor audience, and demonstrate to fans F1 is still at the cutting edge of technology." Seeing as how we had 1.5 liter turbo engines in the eighties I'm not sure how cutting edge this is. Turbo cars running around in some sort of efficiency run may appeal to would be "seen to be green" sponsors, but what about the F1 fans? If Tucker is talking about all the energy recovery systems, we did not need a new engine to do that, just ask Williams and Porsche. It seems we are headed to a world engine of 1.6 liters, turbo charged, with fuel monitoring in F1, Touring Cars and presumably sports and rally cars. Where is the "cutting edge" in that? All looks like "Spec Racing" to me. Common ECU, common chassis in BTCC and V8Supercars, where is this all going? Tony Dowe said the other day, go back to big block V8's that will run a season and put them in F5000 and Can-Am style cars. Cheap, fun and people want to watch.

You have to love the man, he gets mugged, looks awful, but uses it to promote the watch he was relieved of. Well done Bernie, you have some guts to do that, and you always have an angle.

Christian Horner is not impressed about Webber's shoulder injury, or the book. It appears he knew nothing about either. He might be more miffed about what is said in the book, unusual for a sports celebrity to write about current events, they normally wait until after they retire.

I have started a "conversation" on FaceBook about the future direction of motorcycle racing. There is a lot of agreement that there is plenty wrong and that the future is bleak, but little about what to do about it. Back to the future seems to be the consensus, and you only have to look at the success of events like Goodwood and the Nurburgring 24 hr to see that the spectators will come out for historic or modern events on classic circuits. Historic racing is strong, and why? It cannot be just nostalgia, there are not enough of us old farts to race and attend, there is something about those old cars and bikes, and the drivers that we miss. So what is it? The characters that are now muzzled by PC? Engineering we understand, and drivers can afford? Or just good racing? We want to see good drivers and riders, not just some young kid with a bag full of money. DTM and V8Supercars seem to have an answer, what is it in their formula that works with only two makes of vehicle? Moto2 would seem to have answered some of the problems with huge grids this year, but it already seems it is too expensive for young riders. Anyone with some good ideas?

Seems I stirred someone up over the CAMS issue, thank you Laynie. It is actually a world wide and multi sport problem. That is why the GP's went to Bernie and DORNA, Tennis the ATP and golf the PGA. I was going to write my thoughts on what is wrong with motor racing but got side tracked by the book. One chapter was to be "The Suits," the accountants and corporate types and yes "sports business consultants," who come in to a sport because it it successful and then control and change it without understanding how it got there in the first place.

Then there are the "Blazers," the sporting office holders who spent their whole life in meetings, getting elected, making political connections, and working their way to the top, forgetting what it was like to compete. Others are too busy competing to spend the time to do this. They turn up at the events in their blazers and badges and think they are important. And who pays for the trips?

How do you change it? There are more of them than us and they have time. There was a great Dilbert a week or so ago where Dilbert asks the smart garbage man why is it the stupid people get to make the decisions, and the garbage man tells him it is because the smart ones are too busy doing the work. Too true. I saw it at my last job, my "boss" spent all day in the client's trailer or our head office trailer making himself look important. I could never work out how he had the time. But perhaps they are the smart ones?

Qualifying at Abu Dhabi was excellent and we should have a good race tomorrow, it is still anybody's to win. The manager of Abu Dhabi says he wants a MotoGP there as well. I'd like to hear the riders' opinion on that.

A couple of odd pieces of news today caught my eye. BMW is "considering a V8Supercar entry." As far as I knew, and I would think most motorsport fans are concerned, the V8's are a closed shop. Toyota have even tried court action to get an entry, so why should BMW, a yuppies car not liked by your average aussie race fan, think they can just apply? Well lo and behold, the V8 Supremo said in response, "We would love a brand like BMW to be involved," V8 Supercars boss Tony Cochrane told AUTOSPORT. "We're very open-minded about working with them and trying to find some common ground. We're talking about quite a few manufacturers at the moment and we're trying to be as accommodating as we humanly can." What an odd way to put it, "accommodating as we humanly can." What does that mean? Is it a Japanese no? The success of the V8's is built on the Ford/GM rivalry that borders on fanatical, that is where "fan" comes from. There was a time when the Touring Car series, as it then was, had BMW, Nissan, and Toyota, and Ford's were Mustangs or Sierra's, not quite the fair dinkum aussie Ford. Then there were two series, one with 2 liter super tourers for the BMW's etc to win, but we know who won that battle. So, are we going to see a real BMW out there, even a DTM silhouette car, or are we going to see a spec racer with a BMW badge on the front? At the price of BMW's in Australia I am amazed they sell any of them.

The other odd news was that Jeff Gordon, who has Dupont paint in his veins, is to lose them as a major sponsor and replace them with an ARRP Foundation "Drive To End Hunger" campaign sponsorship. ARRP Foundation ultimately expects the sponsorship will help raise far more funding that they will actually spend, estimates about the foundation's investment being between US $10 and $15 million per season. Is that all? You can feed a lot of people for that, or buy a lot of lobbyists. I dislike most of what ARRP does, it seems to me as a past member they are more interested in selling insurance than anything else, and this smacks of desperation on the part of Hendricks, and a stunt on the part of ARRP to promote their insurance in the guise of a worthy cause. If NASCAR wants to help this cause get each of the drivers and owners to drop a percentage of their prizemoney in it. It is like the NASCAR "jeans day" deal, buy a pin and wear jeans to the office. This is one of the wealthiest group of people in America, you donate the money.

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.