Bob Barnard Track Engineering

Back in the early seventies when vehicle emission controls were first introduced I was working as the Aide to the Head of the State Road Authority. Australia had two major car makers at that time Ford and GM, with Nissan, Mitsubishi and maybe Toyota also producing there. We were such a small market that even today it seems crazy for Australia to make it's own cars, but of course Governments like that sort of thing. But, the manufacturers were of course loath to retool, and GM for instance still ran a 179 cu in, 6 cylinder "grey" motor from pre WWII. So they just bolted stuff on and changed the timing and cam to meet the emission standard, resulting in poor performance, burnt valves etc.

Around this time the Government asked my boss, i.e. me, as I did all the work, to put a committee together to advise them on removing lead from gasoline, also a hot topic in those days, particularly as we had a very large lead mine in our State. We had all the usual suspects represented; Health, Energy, Mining, and Environment. What was intriguing to me was the objective of the environmentalists. Yes they wanted to get rid of lead, but they saw this as a way of forcing the manufacturers to bring in to Australia their latest engine designs that we knew they were running overseas and which were meeting emissions without all the downside with better economy, and it worked.

The point of this story is that in the course of these deliberations we naturally were looking at alternatives to gasoline. The Club of Rome, a meeting like the climate change in Copenhagen, had predicted that gas would run out before the turn of the century. They also said we'd all starve to death by then too so it was not a problem. This all sound familiar? One of the fuels that Environment believed was the most promising was hydrogen, and that has always stayed in my mind as the most likely. Fast forward to today's discussions on what fuel to use in the future.

In this months Road & Track is an interesting article by Dennis Simanaitis on who is going to have the first hydrogen filling station network, Japan, Germany or the US? My original belief was that we would burn hydrogen in an ICE instead of gas, but it seems that using it in fuel cells, a reverse electrolysis I presume, to produce electricity is the way to go. Hence FCEV. Most of the world's car makers have FCEV vehicles and plans to go into mass production by 2015, with Germany having a target of 600,000 on the road by 2020. To serve them they are planning 1000 refueling stations by 2018, and Japan plans to have that many by 2015. So this is serious stuff, and a much better answer to electric vehicles than plugging them into the already overloaded power grid system that burns carbon based fuels anyway. The hydrogen is produced by electrolysis using renewable energy, so at last we have a really green fuel.

In the article Southern California or Hawaii are suggested as the best test sites in the US for this technology, with GM stating that an investment of only $100-200m in infrastructure would support 15 million vehicles. It is a good article and you should try and find it. I am encouraged that this technology is so far advanced, and it reinforces my belief in our ability to meet the challenges of preserving resources, protecting the environment, and maintaining our transportation needs, not to mention racing!

That takes me nicely to the Le Mans 24 hour which actually starts this Sunday with the traditional inspection of the cars in the Town Square, and yes it is Sunday this year. Le Mans as I have told you started as a demonstration of automotive technology, and has continued as such all it's history. It has had an "Index of Performance" prize, a fuel economy trophy since I was a boy, and probably beyond that. Of course it favored the small engined French Cars, but hey, it's a French race. It truly introduced alternative engines when it had a prize for the first gas turbine car to finish, which Rover duly won and was never seen again. Then came the diesels with Audi and the Peugeot, and I know in the US everyone looks down their nose at diesels, but we are really missing out here compared to the rest of the world in not pursuing this more.

I mentioned the Porsche Hybrid nearly winning the Nurburgring 24 hour. Now it and nine more alternative fuel cars and hybrids will be shown off at Le Mans in 2010. The following is from the Le Mans newsletter.

"10 avant-garde cars with sporting tendencies will put on a demonstration on the big Le Mans 24-Hours circuit on Saturday 12th June at 12h10. They will then be on display in the 24-Hours support paddock from 14h00 on Saturday to 16h00 on Sunday.

How often do you ask yourself why? This weekend we were treated to motor sport overload. On Saturday we had qualifying for the Turkish F1 race and then in the afternoon the delayed telecast of the Laguna Seca ALMS race, with the  World of Outlaws from Charlotte that evening. That does not include various bits from NASCAR and IRL. Sunday we started with the Turkish F1 GP, then Indy 500 followed by the Coca Cola 600 to get us through the day. Yesterday we had Grand-Am from Lime Rock and World Super Bike from Miller. Last weekend we had the French MotoGp, and in less than two weeks we have the Le Mans 24 hour classic and the Canadian F1 GP.

With all this going on I had a wealth of choices, and I watched a lot due to my passion for the sport and also it is  my business. But I started asking myself why I was more interested in one race than another, or not at all in some cases. Is it the technology, or lack of, in the cars and motor cycles? Is it the drivers or riders? Is it the track, the quality of the racing, or the length of the race? Or is it the TV coverage and the commentary? Tony Dowe wrote a great piece on Last Turn Club a couple of months ago analyzing the coverage of ALMS, and he was as always spot on.

I am unquestionably more interested in cars with a higher level of technology, but not to the extent that I will not watch a WOO Sprint Car race. That is some of the best racing on TV and deserves a bigger audience, in cars with one gear and some pretty basic technology. I am averse to a one make series because to me a top series should be able to support diversity. But GP2 is good to watch. I prefer Moto GP with purpose built race bikes, but WSB still puts on a better show most weeks. I much prefer ALMS to Grand-Am even though Grand-AM has more cars that can compete at the front.

So is it the drivers or riders? I will confess that to really get me interested I need to feel some connection to the drivers, and as I know many personally that will always get me more involved. Now I have raced, so I understand very well that all these guys, and gals, out there are way better than I ever was and deserve a great deal of respect, but I guess some have more or less of my respect than others, and not just because of their ability to drive. Obviously their personality comes into it, and for me the way to market any sport is to expose the heroes, something NASCAR does very well. That does not mean you will always like them, but any sport needs its heroes and villains.

There are definitely certain tracks that I want to watch, such as Spa and Suzuka, partly because I know what a challenge they represent to the drivers, and also because I expect a good race from them. There were tracks like Magny Cours that I knew would be just plain boring. I get very annoyed by race series that go to tracks that do not show their "product" off in a good light. As I have often said, it is like putting Frank Sinatra on in a barn. Not knocking Lime Rock, a nice and historic track, but not where to run top line sports cars. Listening to the in-car it sounded like the drivers were feathering the throttle for most of the lap.

So the answer is not simple, and is obviously a combination of a number of factors, but last but not least is the TV coverage and the commentary. I tune in to watch the race, not to hear the life story of one of the drivers or the complete history of the track, or how the car was bolted together. Many years ago I stopped watching the Channel Seven coverage of the Bathurst 1000, the best touring car race in the world, because they filled up the seven hours with nonsense and not what was happening on the track. OK, maybe I am a fanatic and want to see all 24 hours of Le Mans, because anything can happen at any time, and a lot of fans need some distractions to help them pass the time, but let them go on line or whatever, just do not drag the racing away from the screen. I swear that if Bob Varsha tells us one more time about the qualifying format for F1 I will throw something at the screen. I know there are probably a few people turning on for the first time, but they can work it out, and will know the second time.

So we come to people like Bob Varsha. If you have read my blog you will know I am not a fan of Bob, but the pull of F1 is such that I will watch anyway. But Murray Walker where are you. Murray commentated on BBC for many years and God bless him he was wrong as often as he was right, but could laugh at himself, and had a way of conveying enthusiasm that does not jar like our friend Lee Diffey on the Grand-Am show. I have to turn him off he is so bad. So watching Grand-Am is OK, but could be much better. As I said yesterday the Indy commentary team was good and I watched more of it than I intended. The NASCAR team does nothing for me, and the WSB does even less. Ralph Sheheen should stick to Sprint car, and no one should let Scott Russel near a microphone. He is one of those guys who obviously can ride a motorcycle, but his voice is not made for TV, I had to mute the coverage. On the other hand, the French Moto GP was not such an good race, but I could listen to Nick Harris or Julian Ryder all day

So, where does that leave me in terms of my selection of what to watch? Thanks to the bad coverage and commentary I have only one must watch on a regular basis, and that is F1, and that is born of passion for the cars and respect for the drivers and teams. Le Mans and the Petit le Mans are a must, despite the Speed commentary, and I will probably tune them out and listen to radio Le Mans via the web. Other events largely depend if there is nothing better to do, sad but true.

On a final note, a car that runs wide on a corner should not have the whole nose ripped off, the suspension damaged and the underfloor rearranged, without getting anywhere near a barrier or tire wall, thank you Lime Rock Park.

No, it is not a typo, it is how long I think that race needs to be. The first 450 miles sees drivers just eating up miles to get the car set up for the last laps dash. It was really only the last 25 miles that were exciting enough to get my wife Xan's attention, and only then because of the reported fuel situation. Yes the McLaren boys had a similar situation in Turkey, but the interest started at the first corner there, not the last few laps. The Coca Cola 50 sounds good too. Even the commentators said after the last pit stops that now the drivers were going to get serious. I tuned in and out over the course of the 600 miles and do not think I missed a thing. The highlight was when Chip Ganassi turned up.

Now I love long distance racing like the Le Mans 24 hour, but I do not recall teams just running around waiting for the last hour. If they did that they would be so far behind it would be impossible to come back. I was surprised to see so many empty seats at both Indy and Charlotte, and for the World Of Outlaws race Saturday night from Charlotte. With so many people camping at Charlotte then I would have expected the dirt track to be full for a show like the WOO. I thought ticket prices were lowered this year to make attending these races easier, but either the economy is still hitting the average ticket buyer hard, or they are losing interest.

As I have been known to criticise commentators, I would like to commend the trio in the booth for Indy. Marty Reid I thought did a very good "blow by blow,"  without inserting his own views or a bunch of nonsense about anything but what is on the race track, such as Monte Carlo and Monaco are not the same place! Eddie Cheever and Scott Goodyear backed him up well with good points and not rambling stories about what happened in their day. One jarring note to me was at Charlotte where dear Darryl Waltrip wished everyone a "Happy Memorial Day." Sunday was not Memorial Day, and I doubt that it is "happy" for those remembering the fallen. And on a similar note do we have to interview the fake heroes of the new "A-Team" movie when there are clearly many, many real heroes in uniform at the track?

Following on interviews, do we really sell more when the driver or team owner actually says the sponsors name? Which marketing genius thinks it has more impact to say it when the name is blazoned across all the team wear and the car, which is usually also in shot? A much better selling strategy is to crash your car if it is not running well, it is a certainty to get a lot of air time and repeated often. If you can crash it into your sponsors billboard, or in front of it you get more brownie points, but the best of all is to have your two cars run into each other in pit lane. Sebring anyone? Chevy got more airtime than the winner, especially the class winner. Team Manager interviewed, rerun every hourly update, it does not get much better than that. No one interviewed Dave Sims or Giuseppe Risi and they won the class!

A last comment on Indy concerns Tony Kanaan. If you read my blog on Pole Day about Tony's struggles to qualify his performance in the race would have been unexpected to say the least. Tony ran from dead last to 2nd and eventually finished 11th. Not the first time this has been done, but it is an interesting exercise to consider what went on during qualifying that changed for the race? Obviously set up, but of the car or driver? I was fortunate when I worked for Kenny Roberts to see the minds of top level racers at intimate detail, and it is clearly where that last step in performance comes from that goes beyond shear talent.

It is interesting to read some of the comments on WSB rider Haga, who is under performing and his head is presumed the reason. Haga is competing at Miller Motorsport Park this weekend, and yes the race is today not yesterday. Carlos Checa and Max Biaggi top the qualifying and not for the first time I ask where are the young guys? It sounds as if the Utah State Police lived up to the reputation of many police forces across the globe in making life difficult for motorcyclists. You would think police these days would be too young to have seen "The Wild Ones." I ran into this at Phillip Island initially, but I have to commend the Victorian Police for their attitude for the first GP, and the behaviour of the crowd.

On a final note about the Turkish F1 Gp and Red Bull, although I do not think we have heard the last of their internal problems, their crisis management procedures need a serious rework. Different stories coming out from each of the individuals and the story changing. The one I liked was the teams racing guru and advisor to the owner, Helmut Marko, himself a not too shabby driver.  Asked for his views on the accident, Marko reckons that Vettel was in the right to turn across the track, even with Webber there, since the German had got his nose ahead.

"He [Vettel] was already ahead, at least two metres ahead, and there was a corner to the left side coming, so he had to go for the line," he said. "He cannot brake on the dirt because for sure he knows what happens." Now two meters is just over six feet which means he had half the car in front of teammate Mark before he turned right. What is Helmut suggesting, that Mark's car just falls through a hole in the asphalt and disappear? Vettel says he lost it under braking, so what is the true story? And then there is the "Webber needed to save fuel story but Vettel did not." And also, "Vettel had to get by because Hamilton was going to pass him." So it is OK if Hamilton passes Webber?

I will announce here and now, if has not been obvious, that I love Formula One. I know many people, especially here in the US, will say it is boring, but who could say that after today's race from Istanbul. This sport evolves at a pace unequalled by any other. After Bahrain, which I must say was boring, we all expected an uninteresting season, but the rate of development of these cars is such, helped by a bit of rain and some bad calls by teams and drivers, that it has turned into the season we actually expected.

I know a lot of people will say there is not enough overtaking, but it is the level of tension for me that develops that makes me want to watch. One of the best races I ever saw was Villeneuve winning in Jarama, Spain, with a train of six cars behind him. No one overtook anyone else all race, but the excitement and tension was enormous as Villeneuve did what we thought was impossible. He drove a perfect line at every corner for every lap, not one slightest mistake to let anyone by. Impossible, but there it was happening in front of your eyes. I agree with Max Mosley about very little, but his analogy about F1 being chess, and one overtaking maneouvre being worth a hundred in NASCAR is true. It is the difference between soccer and basketball, both sports I played and loved, but for me that one winning goal is memorable, when one basket rarely is.

And then there is the human component, Webber vs Vettel, Button vs Hamilton, Alonso vs Massa, and these are team mates. Some will say look at Jimmie Johnson and Jeff Gordon, but I do not think that is on the same plane. It needs a Phil Jackson inside every team to try and manage the egos and abilities to produce an overall winning environment. It is going to be interesting to see how Christian Horner manages that within the Red Bull team after this race.

I did not think it very smart if, as reported, he has blamed Webber for the incident. I can only imagine he is saying Mark should have given way, but there are no team orders in F1, and he has two drivers equal in points at the top of the Championship, so why would he expect Mark to just lie down? The McLaren drivers showed how to compete without taking each other out, even though the pit wall must have been beside themselves watching. With Mark still not contracted for next year that may have been the decider for him whether to go or stay. It is interesting the different quotes that have been attributed to Vettel. Most of them are about how it is Mark's fault, but the only one that runs true for me is the Telegraph in England quoting him as saying he lost control under the heavy braking. That jibes with what I saw on the TV. Mark did not do him any favors, but why should he? Vettel clearly had enough asphalt to keep all four wheels on, but Mark did not move over on him.

The whole point of this is that the incident was caused by Mclaren putting pressure on the Red Bulls. OK, they were not overtaking back and forth, but it was still exciting stuff, with towards the end the possibility of fuel becoming an issue keeping it that way.

The post race interview was a bit more interesting than usual, with a picture certainly being worth a thousand words. I have to applaud Mark Webber's self control when asked repeatedly by the interviewer about the incident. While he did blame his team mate he did it carefully, grimacing through clenched teeth. The most telling point was when Button was talking Lewis Hamilton leaned over to Mark and asked him what happened. Even though we obviously could not hear what was said we could clearly see Mark using his hands to demonstrate his version of events.

I said yesterday that Mark is a very tough cookie, and I think he has Sebastian rattled. The team has a very difficult decision to make now, do they support Mark who is leading the Driver's Championship, or favor Vettel who presumably has a longer future with the team?

Don't you just love post race and qualifying interviews? In today's politically correct world and schooled drivers we could all write the script for what they will say. Must thank the team of course, which I don't really mind because they deserve it, and at least in F1 they do not mention the car maker and sixteen sponsors in the first breath. The one phrase I laugh about every time is "it is a long race tomorrow." Now, as far as I know, all the F1 races are basically the same length to comply with the rules, so why do they make it sound each week that this one is longer or harder? I know they are saying that compared to a few laps for qualifying the race has a lot more and lots of things can change and happen, but we all know that. At least Hamilton tells us how he feels occasionally on the team radio, but the press conferences would be a lot more fun if they said what they felt. Mind you these are the three quick guys, so why should they complain? Maybe we should interview the three slowest, or the ones who had accidents, or maybe Alonso? I am sure that if they let him tell you what he really thought after Q2 it would have been fun to listen.

Vettel looked decidedly unhappy to be third. I wrote earlier about Webber being a mentally tough team mate, and he is keeping the pressure on young Sebastian. I am sure Vettel is not happy about the problems he has been having with his cars, and it seems odd that it is consistently the left front. Is there something in the way he drives, or just coincidence?

Button seemed to have the goods on Hamilton during practice, and I was beginning to think his smoother style was going to work better around Turkey. Lewis has had tire issues here before and seems harder on them than everyone else, so it will be interesting to see if he can make them work for the whole race.

There are a lot of rules in racing that have been introduced recently to reduce the cost, but I have to ask at what cost to the quality of the show? It seems to me that the fans are being forgotten in some of this. I understand that the cost of "qualifying specials" was not really worth it for either the teams or the fans, but there has to be a better way of achieving this than locking the cars up after qualifying. The Sunday morning warm up has gone, which at least had the cars on track to entertain the fans, and I cannot see that stopping this saved any money on team members. They bring the same numbers I'm sure, they just have less to do. Then there is the situation where a team has a problem with a car and cannot change anything, I presume unless it is a safety issue. I will not swear to knowing all the ins and outs of the rules so perhaps someone can comment, but I would think that in Vettel's case there is a potential safety issue with his front brakes and the team will be able to find it and fix it. The fans all want to see good racing, and preventing teams from improving cars is not helping that.

I read that Max Mosley is complaining about Ferrari getting special treatment! Hallo, who was minding the store for most of this period! Who oversaw the insertion of a clause giving Ferrari a veto on changes?

Still in Turkey, Alexander Rossi finished fourth in the GP3 race after qualifying ninth.

I have not forgotten Indy, Charlotte, World Superbike or Grand Am, just nothing about them incites my brain today, so as they say in the classics "That's all folks."