The end of road for Indy

[slackbladder]

I have been led to believe it's simply about money. The USGP doesn't create enough as far as Eccelstone believes. He'd make far more in a GP in Asia (tobacco advertising is BIG in Asia - the lung cancer continent of the world), even though the grandstands will be half empty and 70% of TV viewers would have to watch the race live at 5am in the morning (or video it and cut out the adverts.
Advertisers would'nt like that. Audience figures would drop off and who knows, maybe TV companies like ITV would find it hard to stump up the cash to buy the rights.

Well, Eccelstone's what, 77? Hopefully he'll be out of F1 soon (one way or the other) unless he's made a pact with the devil, which is entirely possible...

Shame about Indy though. It was a good race there this year as well.

 

[Roo]

Well, Eccelstone's what, 77? Hopefully he'll be out of F1 soon (one way or the other) unless he's made a pact with the devil, which is entirely possible...

A few years ago, he managed to find a way of ensuring he owned the TV rights for Formula 1 for next 100 years. Go figure.

That Alabama track looks terrible for F1 - 18 mid-speed corners and a haipin, only 1 decent length straight... Processionarific.

 

[Tornado]

Moto GP visits Laguna Seca, i'm sure their standards are not far behind what F1 requires.

I'd imagine a pit area for a MotoGP bike would need alot less space than one for a Formula 1 car. And in any case, I'm quite sure most of the walls and run-offs would have to be redone for F1 to even consider going there.

 

[ExigeEvan]

70% of TV viewers would have to watch the race live at 5am in the morning (or video it and cut out the adverts.
Advertisers would'nt like that. Audience figures would drop off and who knows, maybe TV companies like ITV would find it hard to stump up the cash to buy the rights.

Atleast in the UK, that's rubbish. ITV has had the policy of repeating in full the Asian and Australian GPs in the normal slot of 1pm for aslong as I remember. The only problem has been the American GPs (north and south) that start more in the evening.

So if anything, the loss of North American GPs would actually benfit the broadcaster.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ah sorry i didnt know that.
Didnt Las Vegas have a Gp?

Yes. Yes they did.

 

[BobK]

I'd imagine the chicane would lead to many accidents, the elevation may be too much for the cars to handle, there isn't much room to pass and there is little in the way of grandstands. The pits are somewhat cramped, as well.

Almost sounds like you're talking about Monaco.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ecclestone has admitted that the only reason Monaco has a round of the World Championship is because it's been a part of the series for so long. In other words, if Monaco never had a Grand Prix before and applied for one today, they'd get knocked back. Personally, I think Laguna Seca is overrated. Sure, the Corkscrew might be fun, but we've already got Eau Rouge, and the rest of the circuit (save for maybe the last corner) is actually rather bland. If F1 were to return to the US, I'd much rather see it at Sears Point.

 

[YSSMAN]

Its a disappointing end to a series that was gaining a footing here in the US. While the USGP would be overshadowed by almost any other F1 event in the world, one has to remember that it is a growing sport in NASCAR-land. It was my understanding that FOX paid quite a bit of money for the later F1 races this season, and I've heard that they've been going over moderately well.

The problem is, Indy to me isn't a very exciting race. There isn't a lot of passing, and when it does happen, the drivers complain about blocking and whatnot, and sound like babies. Boo hoo. Its call racing guys...

Back on topic:

The Autoextremist had an interesting rant about the demise of the USGP earlier this week, and what I took from it is that its yet another case of European impatience and a thirst for profit that is taking the race away from Indy. We paid big bucks to get the race at the home of motorsport. We drastically changed the track and the pits to meet F1 standards. We watched the race with a fairly decent fan base (for US-standards). And then we get left out in the cold?

While I'd call a street circuit like Las Vegas to be a bit more interesting than the rather "open" course like Indy, one has to wonder if the folks in Nevada will be willing to foot the bill. A lot of work will have to be done, and furthermore, it has to be questionable how well the city will be able to host the event.

...That being said, it gives me an excuse to go to Las Vegas beyond getting drunk, gambling, and going to strip clubs... So why not?

But the Autoextremist has a point: Our American tracks shouldn't cave to F1 standards in order to have the USGP at places like Road America or Sebring. The character of the tracks are well-defined, and at least in the case of Sebring, unique in every way. Smoothing out surfaces and corners, adding what amounts to oversized and ugly F1-spec pit/garages, and just the overall modernization required to even tempt the F1 guys to consider these places just isn't worth it. We're better off keeping these tracks to ourselves guys... If they want a legendary track, if anything, F1 should be bending to our rules.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We're not asking you to compromise your own circuits in terms of character. The FIA would primarily be concered with safety, be it for drivers, teams or spectators. You might think the pit buildings are oversized and ungainly, but look at Laguna Seca. You can't exactly expect pit crews to stand for several days under the Californian sun dressed in full fireproof suits, can you? The reason Indy lost the Grand Prix was because "neither side could come to an agreement" when it came time to renew the contract. While that sounds rather vague, "neither" is the operative term. You're not as hard done-by as you seem to think.

See, you can have the attitude of "you should be answering to us", but with so many countries wanting to host a Grand Prix these days, you kind of need to comply with the FIA rules if you want to keep your race. If not, they'll just pull the plug and award the race to another country that is willing to comply with the rules. Formula One is the highest pedigree of motorsport in the world, and so should expect that circuits hosting an event comply with its rules.

 

[Pupik]

Ah sorry i didnt know that.
Didnt Las Vegas have a Gp?

Yes. Yes they did.

Eccelstone's been courting a GP race in Las Vegas for quite a while now; back in 1996-97 there was a lot of talk of a street race in Las Vegas for an eventual return of the USGP in 2000. As we know, Indy/Tony George won the rights for the race, which seemed a natural choice as the US hadn't had a permanent track for the race since last using Watkins Glen in 1980. Temporary street circuits in Detroit, Phoenix, and Dallas filled the void, and attendance was usually poorer as the years went on. If I remember correctly, the first Phoenix race in 1989 had about 15,000 paid ticket-holders.

However, Bernie's been eager for a US race, even stating that the market was always a bit of an untapped goldmine. The sport is for sure better known in this country, but it still has to fight for a place at the table along with many other team/stick-and-ball sports, not to mention NASCAR. I think the drivers and teams like coming here for that reason; they aren't celebrities here, and can slip by relatively under the radar. It's the largest automobile market in the world, and it's been an important player in the role of automobile racing history.

We'll see a race here soon, even if Indy disappears from the calendar. It is a pity that we lose one of our best circuits to the yearly F1 grind, but look at it this way: Imola disappeared, Spa has alwyas been on-again/off-again in both long and short formats, the great circuits of the past like the real Nurburgring, Clermont-Ferrand, Estoril, Montjuich, are long-gone from the calendar. Consider it a badge of honor, then?

 

[YSSMAN]

See, you can have the attitude of "you should be answering to us", but with so many countries wanting to host a Grand Prix these days, you kind of need to comply with the FIA rules if you want to keep your race. If not, they'll just pull the plug and award the race to another country that is willing to comply with the rules. Formula One is the highest pedigree of motorsport in the world, and so should expect that circuits hosting an event comply with its rules.

Not that I completely disagree with you, but I think it is a bit unfair that because they are "the highest pedigree of motorsport in the world" that we automatically need to cave to the FIA's commands. We spent a lot of money trying to get the race here, quite frankly bending over backwards to get it at Indy, and then we're left in the dark.

Granted, there isn't a lot of money to be made with it as it stands today (that largely is funneled to NASCAR, Indy, or ALMS), but the potential is HUGE. Just like soccer, F1 needs to build a foothold in the US before it can be as large as they think it needs to be. Going for that goal, the FIA needs to do their best to create a positive relationship to the US, something that hasn't happened in the past few years. The tire issues were probably straw number one, and with them essentially sticking their thumb in our eye by leaving Indy, its all stuff that just doesn't sit well with us.

What it comes down to is that we need something like Beckham, for the lack of a better metaphor, to make F1 popular in the US. Bring the USGP to Indy, to Detroit, whatever (just make sure its a good track), make a big deal about the American racer (or better yet, allow an American company to compete at some point?), and people may pay attention.

Its a building process, and whats going on right now isn't helping.

 

[Blake]

Honestly, it’s the track promoter’s job to make F1 tickets sell. The track promoter only gets money from ticket sales, everything else (advertising, etc.) goes to the FIA.

Bernie doesn’t care how popular the event is, he just wants the promoter to pay the amount Bernie wants for the event (which is usually way over ROI for the track promoter, and that’s why the government steps in in most cases).

The USGP was dropped because Tony wouldn’t pay. No other reason. F1 isn’t giving up on the US, it is a simple case of going where the money is. And the US is too, for want of a better word, patriotic for F1 to be as successful as it is in Europe. It needs a quick uptake or a lot of government funding to be a good ROI for the track promoter, and I don’t see that happening in the US.

 

[YSSMAN]

IMO, the big expiriment is going to be how the Detroit Grand Prix turns out in September. If they can pull that off with Indy and ALMS, maybe they could convince F1 to come back to the home of the automobile...

 

[Omnis]

They should make the cars run at Talladega.

 

[Muzaffar]

They should make the cars run at Talladega.

Yeah,and the drivers are willing to crash at over 300km/h and have little chance of surviving?(remember what happened to Dale Earnhardt?) Bad idea!Just ask Robert Kubica.He knows how it feels to crash at that speed (or somewhere near that) So it just want to make F1 stay away from the US.

About the Detroit GP,yeah maybe Bernie could give the track a chance as it seems Bernie wants to have more street circuits on the F1 calendar.....i just wonder how it turns out.....

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yeah,and the drivers are willing to crash at over 300km/h and have little chance of surviving?(remember what happened to Dale Earnhardt?) Bad idea!Just ask Robert Kubica.He knows how it feels to crash at that speed (or somewhere near that) So it just want to make F1 stay away from the US.

Ever seen an IRL race?

 

[Muzaffar]

Yeah,i seen IRL a couple of times.But isn't the cars build differently for the race?And besides,not all F1 drivers will get used to racing on an oval track.And safety is the most important right?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not that I completely disagree with you, but I think it is a bit unfair that because they are "the highest pedigree of motorsport in the world" that we automatically need to cave to the FIA's commands. We spent a lot of money trying to get the race here, quite frankly bending over backwards to get it at Indy, and then we're left in the dark.

Granted, there isn't a lot of money to be made with it as it stands today (that largely is funneled to NASCAR, Indy, or ALMS), but the potential is HUGE. Just like soccer, F1 needs to build a foothold in the US before it can be as large as they think it needs to be. Going for that goal, the FIA needs to do their best to create a positive relationship to the US, something that hasn't happened in the past few years. The tire issues were probably straw number one, and with them essentially sticking their thumb in our eye by leaving Indy, its all stuff that just doesn't sit well with us.

What it comes down to is that we need something like Beckham, for the lack of a better metaphor, to make F1 popular in the US. Bring the USGP to Indy, to Detroit, whatever (just make sure its a good track), make a big deal about the American racer (or better yet, allow an American company to compete at some point?), and people may pay attention.

Its a building process, and whats going on right now isn't helping.

I'm pretty sure that if you were willing to upgrade safety to the standard FOM and the FIA want, they'd be willing to let you do just about anything else. With safety being the watchword, everything else is negotiable. And if you have to compromise a circuit's character simply to meet safety requirements, it probably shouldn't have applied for F1 in the first place.

 

[YSSMAN]

...Or they could grow a pair and race like real men, look death square in the face, and give it the finger...

(RUNAWAY!)

God, I remember the days when it really took something to go racing, and now look what it has become. We're so worried about sliding off a track ever so slightly that we have to change the tracks completely around just to compensate? Please... If these guys are supposed to be the best racers in the world, we shouldn't have to worry about them going off the track in the first place, right?

Wrong, apparently I am.

I really miss the days when your car could kill you. Sure, we've lost many great drivers because of the horrible accidents they have been in, but they knew, just as the race managers knew, that its part of the business. Quite frankly, its part of what makes racing so attractive. Most of us wouldn't dream of gunning around downtown Detroit well over 100 MPH, but these guys do, knowing full well that a wrong-turn is going to take them into concrete, avoiding Cobo Hall (or whatever).

If they want safety, they can drive NERF cars in a straight line at 8 MPH. But I don't know about you, but I'd rather see the cars screaming up the Rahall straight at nearly 160 MPH full on the brakes before diving into the corkscrew at Laguna... It takes balls to do that, and unfortunately, not every driver (or race series for that matter) seems to have what it takes to do it.

(Flame-On!)

 

[Andrew R]

You can't complain about a sport because not enough people die in it. That's just retarded. The FIA plan to keep F1 the pinnacle of motorsport, not a cemetery and if that means tracks get refused, hard cheese.

 

[Blake]

...Or they could grow a pair and race like real men, look death square in the face, and give it the finger...

You know what, you go to work and look death in the face. Go and risk your life countless times in a year doing your job. Would you do it without complaining? What if it was a family member, who risked their life every other weekend for a job? Tell me you wouldn’t push for safety measures, then we can talk.

These are peoples lives. You don’t have to risk your life to be a man. Wake up, think about what life means to you before you start trivialising the lives of your heroes.

 

[Tornado]

...Or they could grow a pair and race like real men, look death square in the face, and give it the finger...

There is a reason Jackie Stewart quit F1 in '73.

Please... If these guys are supposed to be the best racers in the world, we shouldn't have to worry about them going off the track in the first place, right?

Thought of that nature is why Formula 1 lost a driver every year before the 1980's.

I really miss the days when your car could kill you. Sure, we've lost many great drivers because of the horrible accidents they have been in, but they knew, just as the race managers knew, that its part of the business. Quite frankly, its part of what makes racing so attractive. Most of us wouldn't dream of gunning around downtown Detroit well over 100 MPH, but these guys do, knowing full well that a wrong-turn is going to take them into concrete, avoiding Cobo Hall (or whatever).

The problem is, what you describing has nothing to do with car safety. What you are describing is determined by track layout and track safety. I'm sure that F1 cars of today are some of the safest in the world, but that would mean nothing if F1 was to go to Sebring or try to tackle the Nordschleife.

But I don't know about you, but I'd rather see the cars screaming up the Rahall straight at nearly 160 MPH full on the brakes before diving into the corkscrew at Laguna... It takes balls to do that, and unfortunately, not every driver (or race series for that matter) seems to have what it takes to do it.

Going at the corkscrew at 160MPH would launch cars into the air.

 

[Stevisiov]

...Or they could grow a pair and race like real men, look death square in the face, and give it the finger...

(RUNAWAY!)

God, I remember the days when it really took something to go racing, and now look what it has become. We're so worried about sliding off a track ever so slightly that we have to change the tracks completely around just to compensate? Please... If these guys are supposed to be the best racers in the world, we shouldn't have to worry about them going off the track in the first place, right?

Wrong, apparently I am.

I really miss the days when your car could kill you. Sure, we've lost many great drivers because of the horrible accidents they have been in, but they knew, just as the race managers knew, that its part of the business. Quite frankly, its part of what makes racing so attractive. Most of us wouldn't dream of gunning around downtown Detroit well over 100 MPH, but these guys do, knowing full well that a wrong-turn is going to take them into concrete, avoiding Cobo Hall (or whatever).

If they want safety, they can drive NERF cars in a straight line at 8 MPH. But I don't know about you, but I'd rather see the cars screaming up the Rahall straight at nearly 160 MPH full on the brakes before diving into the corkscrew at Laguna... It takes balls to do that, and unfortunately, not every driver (or race series for that matter) seems to have what it takes to do it.

(Flame-On!)

I really miss the days when your car could kill you

I am sure Senna feels the same way.

If these guys are supposed to be the best racers in the world, we shouldn't have to worry about them going off the track in the first place, right?

I suppose every highspeed crash is the drivers fault then, is that the case with Kubica's?

...Or they could grow a pair and race like real men, look death square in the face, and give it the finger...

Again, perhaps Gilles Villeneuve felt that way at one time, then again perhaps he would have given the choice chosen improved safety in racing, rather than the little safety, which do you think he would choose now?

Fact is F1 got far too dangerous, whether you believe the following changes is a good or bad thing, the fact is if they allowed more and more speed without a thought for safety, deaths of drivers in F1 would keep increasing to a point where it would be more a case of survival not racing. I don't watch F1 to see which driver will go a season without dying, I watch it to see the best racing driver, meaning who can drive the fastest.

What I would like to see in F1 is reduction in aerodynamic parts which tend to dispel the air behind the car, while this is useful for slipstreaming, it also means less air to act on the wings in the corners therefore less downforce for cornering, making it harder to overtake round the corners where it counts, that would make races more exciting, not killing everyone.

 

[YSSMAN]

I agree with everyone's points, and I by no means was advocating the notion of purposefully making F1 dangerous because I want someone to be killed. My problem has largely come down to the fact that while everyone is so concerned about safety (and this isn't just F1), we end up missing out on real competition. Sure, safety has come a long, long way because of the deaths of several drivers, much of which was an unbelievably good thing, but it nevertheless has had a bit of an effect on the overall "feel" of the sport.

I get a bit nostalgic sometimes, and I can't help it. To me, the "danger" of motorsport is part of what makes it so attractive, so IMO there should always be an element of it wherever they go.

But the overall point was simple: Its not worth changing our American legend tracks just to suit F1's safety standards, as 99% of the time, F1 won't be running on it, drastically changing the tracks for the rest of the folks. Dangerous or not, it would be awesome to see the cars on Road America or Sebring, but it won't happen.

...I'm happy enough with the rumored city course at Las Vegas...

 

[Pupik]

IMS did change in 1993, with the addition of warm-up and cool-down pit lanes. This change affected many other tracks, and they soon did the same. The SAFER barriers came a few years later, so The Brickyard is not immune to safety changes.

The change from Indy to an artificial track was not mitigated by safety reasons. Besides, I don't think it's safer to change from a track with one concrete-lined turn to a street course with many concrete-lined corners.

In my mind, Road America has always appeared to be the most F1-ready course in terms of safety and challenge; wide run-off areas, a variety of different turns and elevation changes. The only problem is, it's in the middle of nowhere.

As much as I'd like to see F1 at Sebring, it's not likely since it's bumpy, narrow in most places, and would need substantial upgrades to get it to modern FIA specifications, since it's appearance and safety are about where F1 was 25 years ago (barrier placement, sand traps, markings, controls). Could it be done? Yes, but only with heavy financial input. It's also located in the middle of nowhere. Getting 50,000-75,000 fans for the annual sports-car enduro is one thing, but it's going to take 100,000-150,000 paid people in the gates to make it happen. There's also almost no lodging in the area, as most locals rent an RV to solve that problem, it isn't likely that tourists from out of the country are likely to do so. The metropolitan area has about 40,000 people in it, by my estimation, so there's going to be a lot of changes needed to handle in influx of people.

 

[Earth]

I don't think Road America will ever be on the F1 calendar. It is too long at 4 miles in length. All F1 tracks now-a-days have to be 2.5-3.0 miles long it seems...

Road America has concrete walls too close to the track for F1 in many of it's turns, which results in accidents like this at the track:



There is also not enough run off room at the end of at least one of the straights.

There is also deer running across the track , remember when Christiano Damatta hit one?

A purpose built course will have to be constructed, it's the only way. American tracks are too dangerous for F1. But I always thought it was odd seeing tire barriers up against turn 1 at Indy when the cars go by at 140mph but IRL drivers have no problem going through that turn at 225mph with no tire barriers

I do respect F1 for keeping high safety standards, though. Have they not lost a driver since Senna (which was really a freak accident)? It seems that way

 

[Sureboss]

Yes, Senna was the last man to die in an F1 car. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...shes#Deaths_in_Formula_One_World_Championship

 

[Tornado]

A purpose built course will have to be constructed, it's the only way.

I dunno about that, but it is probably how it will turn out.