Bob Barnard Track Engineering

Here we are on a Saturday near the end of the season for most series, and I do not have a clue what to write about! The F2 and F3 championships have been run and won, and it will be interesting to see where these champions go from here. The British F3 Champion, Vergne, won in his second FRenault 3.5 race, the drive his reward for wrapping up the F3 series early, but won after the winner was disqualified for a piece of tape on the bodywork following a morning crash. Sounds a bit harsh, but I guess the rules are rules.

On two wheels Casey Stoner finally has the Ducati working the way he wants, or he has found a track he likes, and is on pole for the MotoGP race from Aragon, Spain. Rossi is struggling in seventh, the shoulder being a big problem for him. It will be interesting to see the track tomorrow and if Casey can turn pole into a win.

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?

Aus$50m, that is what the Victorian Government has owned up to losing on this year's Melbourne F1 GP, despite a good crowd. Of course promoters attendance figures are always dubious at the best of times, but what must the total cost of staging that race be if they LOST $50m? Are you listening Tavo? Now there is a business plan I'd love to read. When I was involved with Adelaide it cost around $20m to stage, including Bernie's fee, which was a lot less in those days. Now that was 25 years ago, but even so, when you have a permanent pit building, the roads are all there, how does it cost that much to put up grandstands? It cannot all be promotion and staff. Allowing for income of say $20m from spectators, corporate etc, that puts the cost of Bernie's fee and staging at $70m!

After "letting the team down" in Monza, Lewis vows to try even harder for the rest of the season. Given how he has been racing that is going to be something to see.

Not much else of real interest going on. Rumors of Kimi to Renault continue, Grosjean is the new Pirelli tester, and Mark Webber is not asking Vettel for help winning the championship. Perhaps if Mark wins the Championship the loss in Melbourne may only be $45m?

Continuing refining the Sol Real layout with the development of the long section, the elevation of the track. The land is basically flat, so looking to move dirt around to make some more interesting corners. Most of the tracks around here are dead flat, so we need to have some elevation to make it different. Not that it is not already different in having safe run off, something sadly lacking at most tracks.  Started signing up potential members, and looking to do a session in Tucson soon with the local enthusiasts as the track is halfway between there and Phoenix.

There are a couple of interesting pieces on tracks this morning. I commented the other day under "Monza" about the situation at Donnington Park and Adroit. I said at the time it would be good to understand what went on, and fortunately David Broome of Adroit commented on that blog and set the record straight. Not quite what the media was presenting, so thank you David for reading and commenting. Please check out David's comment for the true story. Hopefully this is a happy end to a sad saga, and Donnington can continue as one of England's best circuits for many years to come.

That may not be the case for the new Korean track, where the inspection date has been put back another week, "due to local holidays." Weren't they on the calendar when they booked the 21st? ESPN F1 has a very insightful piece on what happens when it is built, and how likely is it to be financially successful.  Martin Williamson, managing editor of digital media ESPN EMEA, comments on today's web page, "Although it continues to take F1 to new locations, the FIA's determination to base its decisions on cash almost regardless of other factors - especially the local interest in the sport and the location of the circuits - have left the Formula One roadshow going to some places where grands prix take place against a backdrop of indifference. It's all very well to argue it is taking the sport into to new markets, but shouldn't consolidating the existing ones be equally important?"

"Assuming the organisers have a workable circuit by the time the FIA inspect later this month, the Korean Grand Prix will go ahead and contractually will remain on the schedule for the next seven years regardless. But you can't but help get the feeling that the hard work will really start when the builders leave."

Very well said Martin. Check out the full story at http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/28461.html.

I'm not against F1 going to new places, Adelaide would never have happened if it did not seek new markets, but there has to be more to the decision than if CVC is going to get a big payday. After all, do empty stands, failed tracks and bad races really look good for the sport and its long term future?

So Nick Heidfeld has gone from reserve driver at Mercedes, to Pirelli tire tester, and now Sauber driver. Is Peter getting a jump on the opposition with the experience Nick has with the tires? I thought the point of using Nick was he was not driving for any of the teams? Pedro de la Rosa has done a decent job, if a bit up and down, but for a guy who was test driver for McLaren for many years he did better than Luca Badoer. Must have been a shock for Pedro, but it is a smart move by Peter Sauber. Will make Singapore even more interesting.

Martin Whitmarsh says we should all be very happy with the racing this season, and he is actually right. No team has dominated, even though Red Bull probably would have if they did not shoot themselves in the foot so often. They have more issues with brakes than all the rest put together, why is that? It has been interesting how car and driver combination have suited different tracks, and the technical side has been up to par. The remaining tracks are all different. A street track with little passing, Suzuka, one of the great tracks, Korea and unknown but looks like a street circuit which might break up, Brazil, always a good race, and the Abu Dhabi. Martin says it will be great to have a finale there with the championship on the line, but at a track where there was no passing and very little action I'm not so sure.

So Kimi is looking to come back to F1 with Renault. I'm not surprised. He might enjoy rallying, but has crashed so many times you must wonder if he has a future. It would be good to have him back. I know I say we need to make room for young guys, but Kimi will add to the show and make the driver line up even stronger.

A friend sent me a piece from the Isle of Man local Radio which is questioning the future of road racing, on real roads, as they do on the Isle and in Ireland and parts of England. They lost another rider last weekend in Ireland. It takes enormous courage to race a motorcycle around these roads, but common sense says it is not the smartest or safest thing to do. It mentioned insurance. How do you insure something like that? Sure, the riders all sign a waiver, but the insurer must know that sooner or later a spectator is going to be seriously hurt or worse. The question is, if you want to keep doing this how do you make it safer, and if it is do these guys still want to do it?