Bob Barnard Track Engineering

Spectator motorsport in the US is dying, and I suspect that Europe is not far behind. OK, NASCAR can still fill half the stands, which is still a big crowd, but it is not what it was. Look at the Nationwide and Truck series and see who turns up. And then there is the Daytona 24 hour, arguably the best field of drivers put together for a race in the US, and it used to be a serious world wide event. I couldn't be bothered to watch most of it, and even less spectators turned up despite the best efforts of the SPEED Team to beat it up. So what happened? ALMS/Grand-Am combined is not going to change the series from a "back gate" supported basis, i.e. those that race pay entry fees to go race. Rich boys toys. IndyCar is going nowhere, and let's not even talk about motorcycle road racing. Supercross and Monster Trucks are what people seem to want to watch.

We saw the announcement today that the once mighty British F3 series, what was THE proving ground for young talent, is down to 4 rounds this year for lack of entries. The Italian F3 is cancelled altogether. Marussia let Timo Glock go because they have no money to pay him, they need a driver to pay them. How long can they go on?  So Glock is off to the DTM, which seems to have a clue how to make this work. Perhaps it is the three manufacturers paying for it? The Australian V8Supercars also seemed to have a formula for success, but now a venture capital firm owns it watch out. They are off the bill in Abu Dhabi, and the entry of Nissan and Mercedes will not please the Holden/Ford faithful, especially if they win!

Bernie for once is faced with a less than full calendar due to promoters and Governments not willing or able to meet his price. Are the cracks in the business model starting to show?

So what's wrong? Motorsport is expensive. It costs a lot more than a tennis racket and a pair of shoes to go play. Would be professionals, their families or sponsors, have to spend millions to get anywhere near the top and make money. Even at the top, F1, very few drivers are earning and not paying. Compare this with the three major, and successful sports here in the US. Football, Basketball and Baseball. All have systems in place to develop talent, either through colleges or minor leagues, knowing that their success depends totally upon new players coming in to keep filling the seats. Players get there on merit, not money. Motorsport, apart from a few schemes, has no such succession planning in place, not even for Bernie! The money gets sucked out, and nothing is going back to make people want to watch.

Now this is somewhat simplistic, as there are other social and generational factors going on, but that is the point. The game is changing and no one in charge is doing anything to make sure motor sport survives, and electric racing is not the solution.

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?

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?