Bob Barnard Track Engineering

The quote of the weekend was "it is a week's holiday at the end of which they run a race." And what a race we were treated to this year! Xan and I both had no trouble staying awake for the 24 hours. Fourteen seconds separated first and second, Audi and Peugeot, at the end of 24 hours. There have been closer finishes, but all staged. A slow down lap was added after the 24 hours were up as the last lap was full out racing, not the usual parade for the cameras.  You could say the race was won by the length of the pit lane, as that is what it came down to with both cars stopping with about 30 mins to go, the Peugeot just for fuel, the Audi for a dash of fuel but then new tires, so a longer stop and he got out 6 seconds in front, thanks to the Peugeot being at the opposite end of the pit and Audi being close to pit out.

All four classes saw some great tussles, most of them cleanly fought. I'm not sure I am happy about the antics of the Peugeot drivers, despite their claims they were innocent and it was down to bad visibility out of the closed cockpit cars. Davidson and Gene knew all too well where the Lotterer Audi was and being laps down on the Audi should have have had more respect for the leader. It is one thing to make things hard for the overtaking car, it is another to deliberately move over on him on a straight piece of road after you have just collided in the second chicane on the Mulsanne Straight. We had already seen all to graphically what happens when a car moves over on another at those speeds, and I for one expected better from Gene. I still have not forgotten Davidson putting the Corvette into the wall at the Porsche curves.

Yes the Audi guys were aggressive too, they had to be, and the changes to the rules had an unintended consequence. The ACO reduced engine size and air intake size to slow the LMP1 cars down, but in the usual fashion the engineers worked out how to recover some of that speed by reducing drag, and therefore downforce. So the cars were more on the limit when it came to cornering and avoiding traffic, and needed to keep up the momentum, so they took chances and had less control when they did not work out. We saw two massive accidents to the Audis which thanks to the design of modern cars both drivers survived with virtually no injuries. As I said a week or so ago, car design is where safety has improved. The walls and tires did their job too, especially for McNish's accident where there were a lot of marshals and photographers. We had two long safety car periods to repair damaged guard rail, and great job by the track to get it fixed, but it showed why I prefer concrete as the hits in the Porsche Curves with the Corvette and Ferrari required no repairs at all. Guard rail is made to give, and is probably a bit better for the drivers in that respect, but McNish almost went over the guard rail perhaps due to the fact it did give and provided a ramp?

Unlike almost any other form of racing Le Mans does not red flag a race except for exceptional rain or fog, so we saw a one hour and a two hour procession. They have three cars due to the length of the track, and this makes for some interesting strategy. The race goes on, albeit at a reduced speed, and a lot happens. Drivers make mistakes due to cold tires or boredom, teams with a slower driver take advantage of this time to put him in, therefore meeting the time requirements for drivers but not losing any time. Refuelling stops have to be made and tire changes can be done without the normal loss of time, but who is behind which safety car has to be considered, and when to stop. At the start of the period, yes if you are low on fuel, or at the end to maximise your next run and if you actually wait until the final moments you can actually make time as you can leave under green without waiting for the next safety car. Great strategy games.

The strategy between Audi and Peugeot was fascinating. This year Audi were the fast cars but used more fuel, so more pit stops. So which was better, a fast pace and more stops or a slower pace, relatively, and less stops? As it turned out there was no difference. 14 seconds in 24 hours, 0.016%! Tire wear also played a part. Audi, despite running faster could run four or five stints between tire changes, and the poor drivers did those stints too! The Peugeot although slower could only run three and sometimes four stints. Either way they ran about twice the distance on one set of tires as F1 does on three or four, so who's green?

The standards applied by the Stewards both here and at Montreal make me scratch my head. Robert Kaufman who made contact with Rockenfeller in the Audi in the dark and when taking the racing line, as the slower drivers were told, is ejected from the race. Gene who deliberately moved Lotterer over almost to the barrier in broad daylight while racing with him and on a straight does not even get called to the Stewards! Hamilton gets called to the Stewards in Montreal and Button who took him and Alonso out while winning the race does not? Now, that is probably due to the past problems of Hamilton as much as anything, but it is still inconsistent.

I did not see too much of the Canadian GP. After getting up at 5:30 on Saturday and staying awake until 7:30 Sunday and being emotionally wrung out by the Le Mans race, I went to sleep and set the alarm for Montreal. Speed had given the race over to Fox who dd their usual stellar job, starting the coverage as the race started despite a paid for ad being on the half hour prior, and thankfully for them it was behind the pace car due to the rain. I got up for this? We had the usual BS from Bob Varsha and the boys. This is network so we must have a whole lot of new viewers who know nothing about F1 so we have to talk to us like we are children. Then we start, and it is all crazy, Hamilton more than most, and the outcome was all too predictable. I personally thought Button put him in the wall, but I guess his explanation stands up, that would have been out of character. Then we had the red flag, so I gave up and went back to sleep. I wrongly thought Fox would give up after the mandatory two hour broadcast but apparently no. I'm glad I did not wait up though. I have read it was an exciting race, but from what I have read it was a crap shoot. Give me Le Mans every weekend.

The coverage of Le Mans was great. I had Radio Le Mans on one computer so had all the action and information on what was happening, not a load of infomercials, FromsportCOM.com live streaming on the TV via the other computer, and SPEED if I needed it, when they were actually on and following the action. The Eurosport Director went to the same school as the SPEED guy, he would at times rather show someone asleep in the pits or media center rather than two cars racing their hearts out.

Needless to say I did not watch the MotoGP or the WSBK, both predictably won by Casey Stoner and Carlos Checa respectively. Great gutsy ride by Colin Edwards though.

Finally a word about Lewis who is reported to have met with Red Bull's Christian Horner at the weekend. A very smart man, Warren Willing, told me years ago that when a rider or driver is struggling with a slow machine one of two things will happen. Either he will get depressed and stop trying, or drive over aggressively and crash. This seems to be the consensus for Lewis' problems at the moment. The McLaren is almost there, but never quite there when it comes to beating the Red Bull, so he tries to make the difference up by driving harder. It cannot be easy to watch Vettel in that car and know you could be there too.  Something needs to change before his career will be remembered as a great talent wasted. Maybe a change of team is it?

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.