| By Nigel Roebuck | |
| Special Contributor | |
In NASCAR, as in other forms of motorsport, spectator interest has been on the wane for many years, and those in authority are trying to do something about it.
A place such as Bristol Motor Speedway - only half a mile in length, but one of the signature tracks - used 10 or 15 years ago to be full to the rafters, but these days its amphitheatre stands, expanded to meet apparently unlimited demand, look forlorn on race days, and even the Daytona 500 pulls nothing like the crowds it did.
In Formula 1 it's been the same story. Silverstone might be invariably a sell-out, but it's far from typical, and in part this is due to the changing map of the world championship.
In recent years, under the dread ownership of CVC Capital Partners, Bernie Ecclestone's focus - even more than before - has been on finding countries willing and able to pay silly money for a race, and discarding those not.
Very frequently the new grands prix have been in places where the culture of F1 was unknown, and spectators stayed away in droves. In Malaysia, for example, MotoGP might have caught on, but the F1 race has always been poorly attended, which is why the circuit owners are looking to drop it.
Falling spectator figures, both at the track and on TV, have caused the powers-that-be in both NASCAR and Formula 1 to seek ways of turning the situation around, of pulling in again those longstanding fans who have lost interest - and, far more, to attract a new, young audience, on which motor racing's future, be it at Hockenheim or Talladega, necessarily depends.
In both series, they have largely gone about it in the wrong way. Rather than recalling what worked so well in the glory days, they have resorted to gimmickry - think of the double points in Abu Dhabi in 2014, the laughably convoluted qualifying system at the beginning of last year - and appear surprised when such changes not only fail to appeal to the young, but also drive away those who have loved racing all their lives. The need to keep it simple, keep it real, seems never to occur to them.
As we go into a new F1 season with heavily revised cars that might, on the face of it, have been designed to keep them from racing effectively, so NASCAR has come up with a complete revamp of its races. The aim is - yawn - to 'spice up the show', and many of the drivers, perhaps fearful of the retribution swiftly dealt to those who dare criticise NASCAR, have praised it to the skies.
A few years ago 'The Chase' was introduced, this a contrivance aimed at keeping the championship alive to the final race, and now NASCAR has tried to address a problem with the races themselves, this - in these days of apparently shortened attention spans - being that they are too long. That being so, each race is to be broken into three segments, and at the end of each of the first two the cars will park for 10 minutes, with additional points being awarded to the top 10 at the time.
Presumably the thinking is that, rather than droning along until the closing laps, when points come into the picture, the drivers will have an incentive to 'race' all the way through. This may or may not prove to be the case, but in toto NASCAR's revised point-scoring system is so complicated as to require a rulebook and calculator to work out championship positions. Can't imagine what Bill France would have thought about that.
It seems a shame that NASCAR is following this path - particularly when last season it very positively bucked the trend in motor racing, and significantly reduced downforce.
As a consequence, the quality of the racing was better than for many a year, and how one wishes this thinking could carry over into F1.
Instead of that, in their blind casting about to 'improve the product', the decision-makers concluded that the cars needed to be much faster, as in the 3-litre V10 era of a dozen years ago - when, lest we forget, FIA president Max Mosley informed us that speeds were getting out of hand, that in the interests of safety we needed to go to 2.4-litre V8 engines...
Mosley recently said he doubted that increasing downforce was the way to go, and many others have expressed similar opinions, but if the aim were to make Formula 1 much faster, how else was it to be achieved?
The move to hybrid engines, for all Jean Todt's contention that it was essential if interest from the manufacturers were to be maintained, might have produced stunningly efficient technology, in terms of the balance between power and fuel consumption, but if we are back to 1000bhp, so also we are landed with lumbering cars of more than 700kg. Can't imagine what Colin Chapman would have thought about that.
It is good that the wretched 'token' system has been dropped, allowing manufacturers a free hand once more in developing their engines, and I'm pleased, too, that after years of 'high degradation' rubber Pirelli has now been instructed to build proper racing tyres, allowing drivers to charge - rather than cruise - for long periods.
Throw in that the stewards are apparently to take a less 'nanny state' attitude to race incidents, issuing fewer penalties than in the recent past, and there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of Formula 1.
Apart, that is, from the seismic increase in downforce. Patrick Head, ever a fount of common sense, pointed out recently that the way to put speeds up should have been to increase mechanical, rather than aerodynamic, grip. Not a new thought, but one widely shared throughout motor racing - except, apparently, by aerodynamicists and those who dreamed up this new Formula 1.
"Anyone," says Head, "who thinks increasing downforce will improve the racing has got rocks in his head..."
| By Nigel Roebuck | |
| Special Contributor | |
In NASCAR, as in other forms of motorsport, spectator interest has been on the wane for many years, and those in authority are trying to do something about it.
A place such as Bristol Motor Speedway - only half a mile in length, but one of the signature tracks - used 10 or 15 years ago to be full to the rafters, but these days its amphitheatre stands, expanded to meet apparently unlimited demand, look forlorn on race days, and even the Daytona 500 pulls nothing like the crowds it did.
In Formula 1 it's been the same story. Silverstone might be invariably a sell-out, but it's far from typical, and in part this is due to the changing map of the world championship.
In recent years, under the dread ownership of CVC Capital Partners, Bernie Ecclestone's focus - even more than before - has been on finding countries willing and able to pay silly money for a race, and discarding those not.
Very frequently the new grands prix have been in places where the culture of F1 was unknown, and spectators stayed away in droves. In Malaysia, for example, MotoGP might have caught on, but the F1 race has always been poorly attended, which is why the circuit owners are looking to drop it.
Falling spectator figures, both at the track and on TV, have caused the powers-that-be in both NASCAR and Formula 1 to seek ways of turning the situation around, of pulling in again those longstanding fans who have lost interest - and, far more, to attract a new, young audience, on which motor racing's future, be it at Hockenheim or Talladega, necessarily depends.
In both series, they have largely gone about it in the wrong way. Rather than recalling what worked so well in the glory days, they have resorted to gimmickry - think of the double points in Abu Dhabi in 2014, the laughably convoluted qualifying system at the beginning of last year - and appear surprised when such changes not only fail to appeal to the young, but also drive away those who have loved racing all their lives. The need to keep it simple, keep it real, seems never to occur to them.
As we go into a new F1 season with heavily revised cars that might, on the face of it, have been designed to keep them from racing effectively, so NASCAR has come up with a complete revamp of its races. The aim is - yawn - to 'spice up the show', and many of the drivers, perhaps fearful of the retribution swiftly dealt to those who dare criticise NASCAR, have praised it to the skies.
A few years ago 'The Chase' was introduced, this a contrivance aimed at keeping the championship alive to the final race, and now NASCAR has tried to address a problem with the races themselves, this - in these days of apparently shortened attention spans - being that they are too long. That being so, each race is to be broken into three segments, and at the end of each of the first two the cars will park for 10 minutes, with additional points being awarded to the top 10 at the time.
Presumably the thinking is that, rather than droning along until the closing laps, when points come into the picture, the drivers will have an incentive to 'race' all the way through. This may or may not prove to be the case, but in toto NASCAR's revised point-scoring system is so complicated as to require a rulebook and calculator to work out championship positions. Can't imagine what Bill France would have thought about that.
It seems a shame that NASCAR is following this path - particularly when last season it very positively bucked the trend in motor racing, and significantly reduced downforce.
As a consequence, the quality of the racing was better than for many a year, and how one wishes this thinking could carry over into F1.
Instead of that, in their blind casting about to 'improve the product', the decision-makers concluded that the cars needed to be much faster, as in the 3-litre V10 era of a dozen years ago - when, lest we forget, FIA president Max Mosley informed us that speeds were getting out of hand, that in the interests of safety we needed to go to 2.4-litre V8 engines...
Mosley recently said he doubted that increasing downforce was the way to go, and many others have expressed similar opinions, but if the aim were to make Formula 1 much faster, how else was it to be achieved?
The move to hybrid engines, for all Jean Todt's contention that it was essential if interest from the manufacturers were to be maintained, might have produced stunningly efficient technology, in terms of the balance between power and fuel consumption, but if we are back to 1000bhp, so also we are landed with lumbering cars of more than 700kg. Can't imagine what Colin Chapman would have thought about that.
It is good that the wretched 'token' system has been dropped, allowing manufacturers a free hand once more in developing their engines, and I'm pleased, too, that after years of 'high degradation' rubber Pirelli has now been instructed to build proper racing tyres, allowing drivers to charge - rather than cruise - for long periods.
Throw in that the stewards are apparently to take a less 'nanny state' attitude to race incidents, issuing fewer penalties than in the recent past, and there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of Formula 1.
Apart, that is, from the seismic increase in downforce. Patrick Head, ever a fount of common sense, pointed out recently that the way to put speeds up should have been to increase mechanical, rather than aerodynamic, grip. Not a new thought, but one widely shared throughout motor racing - except, apparently, by aerodynamicists and those who dreamed up this new Formula 1.
"Anyone," says Head, "who thinks increasing downforce will improve the racing has got rocks in his head..."
