"Tradition" and "Racing Heritage" - are they REALLY that important?

[prisonermonkeys]

Okay, I'm pouncing on this one before anyone else does. I've seen this pop up a few times on the internet as Bernie's latest pearl of wisdom, and every single time it has been taken out of context.

There is one thing I would like you do to before you start reading: once you start reading, make sure you go through to the very end before posting. Bernie's comments are typically loaded, and the outrage I have seen as a result of the may prompt you to say something without getting the whole picture. And that's not going to look very good.

With the organiers of Donington Park having painted themselves into a corner, Silverstone has stepped up to the plate to continue hosting the race. Ecclestone has said that Formula One does not need a British Grand Prix. Okay, stop right there. I know the temptation is to start criticising Bernie, but there is more to this story. Read on:

F1 doesn't need British GP - Ecclestone

Bernie Ecclestone insists he is prepared to scrub Britain's name from the 2010 calendar if Silverstone does not want to pay the going rate for its Formula One race.

With Donington's chances now all but over, it had been expected that the F1 chief executive might move to safeguard the British Grand Prix by reaching an alternate deal with the race's traditional venue.

But after a Silverstone spokesman said Ecclestone's current offer is not "commercially viable", the British billionaire hit back: "No one is forcing them to take it.

"This is business. We have offered them a deal," he told the Daily Express newspaper. "Do we need a British Grand Prix? No."

Ecclestone disputes that Silverstone, scene of F1's very first world championship event in 1950, should enjoy protected status as one of the sport's 'traditional' venues.

"Italy is a traditional race because they have always raced at Monza," he argued. "Monaco is traditional as they have always had the same track.

"Britain and France have raced at three different circuits. They want a cut-price deal because it is traditional. That's not traditional to me. Britain is not protected," said Ecclestone.

"I would like a new plane because it's traditional as I have had one for 40 years but no one is offering me a cheap deal. That's not how it works."

Meanwhile, The Times newspaper reports that Donington's breach of contract may cost the circuit up to 15 million pounds sterling in cancellation fees.

Okay, I don't actually believe Bernie means this. I think he's just covering himself because he knows negotiating with Silverstone is going to be difficult. He publically announced that the circuit would never host the race again, but now that Donington Park has fallen through, he has to go back to them. And I'm willing to bet that Damon Hill and the BRDC aren't going to let him forget about it any time soon, if ever.

Ecclestone, I think, is just drawing the lines on the battlefield. He doesn't want the Silverstone to start thinking that it can somehow get itself a better deal. He wants to go in and work out the terms of a new deal, but he's making it pretty clear that he's not going to stand for Silverstone trying to dictate its own terms. I can see him taking the Britsh Grand Prix away for a year as punishment, saying "You had your opportunity, but you didn't show you deserved it, so lets see how you go for a year".

Now, all of this raises the question of what I really want to talk about in this thread: do a "racing heritage" and "tradition" count for anything? And if so, does that mean it is deserving of a discount? And how do you quantify the much-vaunted "tradition"?

On of the major criticisms of a race in a place like Bulgaria is that Bulgaria does not have a racing tradition. I think this is complete and utter BS, because at the same time as Bulgaria cannot have a race without a racing tradition, they cannot get a racing tradition without having a race. People seem to think that the calendar slot would be better-spent on a United States Grand Prix, but aside from being notoriously difficult for one location to keep race in America, Bulgaria and Eastern Europe have no less than six drivers in the lower leagues (Petrov, Aleshin, Vasisliauskas, Arabadzhiev, Kralev and Pavlovi&#263 and one in Formula One already (Kubica) - I tend to group all Eastern European drivers together as having one race in ach of their home countries is impractical - while America has none. Sure, there will be an American team next season, but Windsor and Anderson have already admitted they may not run an American driver in 2010. But this isn't about whether America deserves a Grand Prix more than somewhere else, so please don't talk about it unless it actually relates to arguments for and against the importance of "racing heritage" - if this thread does degenerate into that, I'll ask that it be locked.

My main argument is that "tradition" and "racing heritage" (two of my least-favourite terms in the vocabulary of a Formula One fan, as well as "corrupt" when referring to the FIA) count for nothing except maybe sentimentality. 2009 has been a very difficult year for Formula One. Between the political crisis that dominated the middle of the season and the investigation into Renault and Flavio Briatore, Formula One has been faced with tough times that have only been made worse by the ongoing global recession. Right now, we need to be looking at the sport's future, and we're not going to find that buried in the past. The FIA is already doing this, opening up grid positions. Ecclestone is doing it, too, introducing the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix for 2009, the Korean for 2010 and the Indan in 2011. So what does a "racing tradition" give us? Nothing. It can't be quantified. It shouldn't mean a venue gets a better deal, because like Ecclestone said, Monza and Monaco have that tradition Silverstone lays claim to.

"Tradition" and "racing heritage" are nice. They give you a warm, fizzy feeling. And they bring circuits and history to the sport. But looking to the past to try and predict or protect the future is futile. They don't give us anything that will help build the sport. And for all its "tradition" and "racing heritage", the British Grand Prix was one of the most boring this year. If venues should be given better deals, then it should be on the basis of how exciting a race is (in which case, Interlagos is the clear winner, followed maybe by Spa-Francorchamps).

 

[senamic]

I read what you wrote, and all I could think of is isn't Kubica Polish?

Edit: Brain freeze. Your earlier comment blanked out your later one in my mind.

 

[Ardius]

I would have thought this is quite obvious.

"Racing tradition" means a fanbase. Quite a large one at that. Here we are talking about the most successful countries in Formula 1, with almost all the teams based in one of the "traditional" countries. The reason for this is infastructure, because motorsport has been present in these countries (partiularly Britain and Italy) for a long time, the chain of suppliers has built up over the years. Therefore, its easier for teams and drivers to go racing in these countries and has been for many years. This in turn leads to a large amount of motorsport talent from these areas and naturally more success.

Should places like Silverstone be given a cheaper price for the sake of tradition? Well, lets see the reasons why such circuits are arguing this:
1. They cannot compete with the new circuits which have X millions of dollars invested in them by their governments.
2. Such new circuits who can pay Bernie's rediculous fees also have a poor attendance. In contrast, Silverstone was packed this year.
3. Silverstone was one of the few circuits to turn a profit last year.

As for the argument that new countries cannot build a racing tradition without a GP. This is nonsense. So you want us to see them drive around tracks with no life in them for the sake of "opening new markets" (which it has failed to do in Turkey).
Racing traditions start from a growing public interest. You may want to note that the countries with the highest following for F1 also have very successful drivers and teams. (though there are exceptions). Spain had a Grand Prix for ages with no one turning up, but then Alonso came along and they came in their thousands.

Although I agree to an extent with Bernie, at the same time I wonder how he thinks any of the circuits are still going to be around in 10 years time? If we have a calendar full of circuits like Bahrain and Istanbul, the interest will fall, the governments backing those projects will cut finance and the circuits will suddenly not be able to pay Bernie.

In my opinion, Bernie has gone the wrong way with how he manages Grand Prix. He essentially puts up a price to the highest bidder then starts forcing the other tracks to start paying more because he can argue "if X country can, why not Y?".
I have nothing against introducing new circuits...but getting rid of the European tracks simply because they cannot compete with places like Bahrain ignores what the sport is based upon.

The BRDC are doing a good job in my opinion, sure they are still largely a bunch of old men who sometimes cannot agree on anything. But they are not all like that and they are running Silverstone well. Bernie only wants a short term deal with them but expects them to make expensive additions to the track. How can Silverstone justify spending such money without having a guarantee of future Grand Prix? Whats the point?

So to sum up, yes "racing tradition" means a lot, I'm actually quite surprised it needs to be asked. Should we move all the V8 Supercar races to China if they offer more money? I mean, according to you it shouldn't matter because they should build a racing tradition in China, right?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

As for the argument that new countries cannot build a racing tradition without a GP. This is nonsense. So you want us to see them drive around tracks with no life in them for the sake of "opening new markets" (which it has failed to do in Turkey).

Racing traditions start from a growing public interest. You may want to note that the countries with the highest following for F1 also have very successful drivers and teams. (though there are exceptions). Spain had a Grand Prix for ages with no one turning up, but then Alonso came along and they came in their thousands.

I don't mean it like that. Of course Grands Prix should go where there is interest - or the potential for interest, like Eastrn Europe - but to dismiss them out of hand simply because they lack the fanbase of other countries is foolish. Turkey is strange in the respect that they only really got the race because it would add to their international image, and if it were to sink, I think it wold be a shame because I honestly do think it's one of Tilke's best circuits, alongside Malaysia.

 

[senamic]

Okay, my mind is coherent enough to make a basic point... I think.

The major elements of this argument are whether tradition is beneficial to entertainment, and whether it is beneficial to increase the tradition of existing institutions or attempt to introduce new institutions.

All that I have to say is why not have both? Does it have to be as clear cut as fans make it out to be, that we must abide by tradition or abandon it to the future? Why not have both?

Make it so that these countries with rich heritage, such as Great Britain, France, Brazil etc. are permitted to keep their tradition alive through continued participation in motorsport. Make sure that while safety is important, great facilities need not be altered too drastically for the sheer reason of modernisation, as if one practices modernisation for modernisation's sake, there is no tradition left to support. So give the countries with a tradition a chance to retain there tradition.

By the same token, we must not exclude other countries from joining the bandwagon for the sheer sake of not having a heritage. I mean, I live in Perth, and Barbagallo Raceway has a fine heritage by my standards, but that is because I have personal experiences connected with it. People involved in Bulgarian motorsport, to use the earlier example, probably feel the same way about their circuits, and would feel that they have heritage of their own to rival what the general viewing audience view as traditional. So why not bring them into the fold?

I say give these countries a go, maybe through exhibition Grand Prix? They used to exist, so why not bring them back to perhaps... replace in-season testing? It could be a viable alternative as a compromise between teams wanting testing back, the FIA not wanting testing, and the countries not on the calendar that want exposure to F1.


Just some food for thought. When the conversation picks up a bit more I will streamline my points.

 

[Alex.]

"We don't need a british grand prix"


We don't need Bernie either, difference is, one of these things we want and one we do not.

 

[senamic]

"We don't need a british grand prix"


We don't need Bernie either, difference is, one of these things we want and one we do not.

Have to agree there. 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

"We don't need a british grand prix"


We don't need Bernie either, difference is, one of these things we want and one we do not.

Okay, this is exactly what I was talking about and exactly what I was afraid of when I posted this thread. I bet you didn't read much further than that because you're taken his comments completely out of context. Ecclestone said that to put the burden of responsibility on Silverstone: he's made his offer, so if there is no British Grand Prix, it's because Silverstone made their choice. If they decide not to agree, Ecclestone won't care because he gave what he felt was a reasonable offer.

This is exactly what's wrong with threads on Ecclestone's comments: he talks sense, but people take them out of context to justify a pity attack on him that's not going to do anything but make the person launching the salvo feel better. Here I am, trying to start what I think is intelligent and thought-provoking conversation, but now you've gone and ruined it. Thank you, Alex. Guess what? Ecclestone might think we don't need the British Grand Prix, and you might think that Formula One doesn't need Ecclestone, but I know this conversation doesn't need you at all if you're going to gnore the topic and run the thread off its rails like that.

Mods, please lock this thread.

Everyone else, if this thread survives, please don't do what Alex. just did.

 

[Alex.]

To be Fair, I don't think he honestly believes what he said. Yes it has put Silverstone in a bit of a position being offered a contract they previously declined in order to save a prestigious race, but I think Bernie offering the same contract is a bit too tough. Ecclestone knows there will be an outrage if there is no British GP, as do BRDC. I think if the contract is agreed, it won't be the exact same that was offered last year.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Now, all of this raises the question of what I really want to talk about in this thread: do a "racing heritage" and "tradition" count for anything? And if so, does that mean it is deserving of a discount? And how do you quantify the much-vaunted "tradition"?

I have to say yes, but mainly because the new circuits we're getting are all very meh.

 

[Grand Prix]

Of course Formula One needs to keep its racing heritage. It would be an empty shell without it. Tracks like Monza, Monaco and Spa (and to a lesser extent, Silverstone and Interlagos) are what people identify with when they think of F1 tracks. Getting rid of them would be akin to going away from wooden bats in baseball, or banning fighting in ice hockey, there are much "better" alternatives, but the sport wouldn't be the same without it. It would be a different sport - with a different fanbase.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't mind having new circuits as long as they're good and provide a non-boring experience. But never under any circumstances, should the classic circuits be axed in favour of these. The older circuits are what define Grand Prix racing. They are what give it its character. They have been racing at Spa and Monaco since the 1920's, the fact that these races are held in small European nations is irrelevant. It is not the country that is important, it is the circuit, and I think that is what Bernie fails to understand.

 

[Northstar]

Tradition and Heritage is important no matter what. That is why businesses that have been in business for a long time normally include it in their logo. Of course new tracks are a breath of fresh air and are a chance to introduce F1 to a new market but you also have to keep the tradition that the sport was built on.

 

[Ardius]

I don't mean it like that. Of course Grands Prix should go where there is interest - or the potential for interest, like Eastrn Europe - but to dismiss them out of hand simply because they lack the fanbase of other countries is foolish. Turkey is strange in the respect that they only really got the race because it would add to their international image, and if it were to sink, I think it wold be a shame because I honestly do think it's one of Tilke's best circuits, alongside Malaysia.

I don't see many of the currently planned Grand Prix being in said fanbases though. Korea? India?
Once more countries have gained an interest, either through drivers or teams' success, then give them a Grand Prix. Not the other way around, at least not with the spending levels of some circuits.

Also, the logic Bernie uses of "well, this government bankrolls my GP, so why not this one?" probably isn't going to go too far in Eastern Europe - I'm not saying they are the poor of the poor but they are certainly not Bahrain/Abu Dhabi levels of spending.

 

[niky]

Mods, please lock this thread.

Everyone else, if this thread survives, please don't do what Alex. just did.

You've just got to roll with the punches.

On the face of it, his comments make sense. From a strictly business point of view, his entire argument makes sense.

But F1 isn't strictly business business... it's racing business. Furthermore, it's the entertainment business. What makes sense for entertainment in F1? A deep sense of history... a global reach... layers of heritage and tradition... star appeal... it works for futbol...

Now... for the racing portion... tradition matters not one whit. It's who's good now that's important. But heritage draws in fans and draws in viewers... and any business model for racing that ignores that is a poor one.

Besides, his seemingly logical argument falls flat in the face of the massive Ferrari monetary bonuses they've given over the years... why should Ferrari get special treatment? ...because from a strictly business point of view, they shouldn't... but from an entertainment point of view... well... millions of casual viewers are not going to be tuning in to see McLaren or Brawn win another race... but to see that red car going around the track? Those same millions won't care if it's coming in first or twenty first (yeah... we'll see how that grid lines up next year)... the point is it's there.

Yes, Bernie doesn't have to give discounts to historical circuits, but in the end, he's only hurting himself. Short term gain versus long term loss, and all that.

 

[tibiquera]

Well, there are many points to this discussion.

First of all, the question is whether we need to give traditional tracks a better deal, and the answer is yes. Formula One would lose a lot of its appeal should the traditional tracks be replaced by less traditional ones. I'm fine having newer tracks, but I'm beginning to see a trend today where tracks that have a real soul are being replaced by places that don't have interest on the sport, only on the money.

Second point is whether Silverstone is a traditional track or not. Bernie said it isn't in the same level as Monaco or Monza, but I have to disagree. I see those 3 tracks at the same level of tradition and I totally believe those 3 should have a guaranteed spot every year no matter what. I see on a second level tracks like Gilles Villeneuve, Interlagos, Spa, and Suzuka. Those tracks are very fun, have a lot of personality, have been around for many years, and had some really memorable races. Those should be kept too, but are not quite as important as the first three.

In conclusion, what made Formula 1 so great isn't the business behind it, but the passion of the fans around the world. I don't mind if people use it to make money, but when business becomes more important than the sport itself, then it's very disrespectful to the fans. It was very sad when private teams disappeared and it'll be even more when traditional tracks disappear too. I think if you wanna make it popular, then the best way is to make rules that make sense, and not take the passion out of it.

 

[Pescara for GT5]

Well, since there hasn't been a track that has been used in all 60 seasons of F1, I guess any track could be taken out, but I would be mad if Monza or Monaco were taken out.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Uh, those two circuits you just mentioned, Monaco and Monza?

They have been used in all sixty season. I'm a little surprised you don't know this since you copied out the listed of every singe race and race winner since 1950 a few weeks ago.

 

[cpp214]

do a "racing heritage" and "tradition" count for anything? And if so, does that mean it is deserving of a discount? And how do you quantify the much-vaunted "tradition"?

Yes, racing heritage and tradition count for quite a bit in my view.
Formula 1--perhaps more than any other form of motorsport--changes dramatically from year to year: driver changes, car changes, rule changes, etc.

The great tracks like Spa (with the exception of its recent absence), Monza, and Silverstone offer a much needed source of continuity for F1 fans, teams and drivers. I can only speak for myself, but if Silverstone was not on the F1 schedule next year--for whatever reason--I would be greatly dissapointed. And I'm not even from Britain.

Tracks like Silverstone have made F1 what it is today. Racing venues play a huge role in the history of all major motorsports. Winning at Monaco is huge for any driver in F1. The same can be said for winning the Indianapolis 500 or Bathurst in V8 Supercars. If I'm a driver in one of these series, I want to win "there" (fill in the blank, Monaco, Indy, etc.).

It can't be said for all Grand Prix events, but some of them--such as the British GP at Silverstone--are inextricably linked to the tracks themselves.
As far as deserving a "discount" I don't really know how you would quantify that. I think if Ecclestone is smart, he will do what it takes to keep the British GP at Silverstone. Oh, and he should also try to come up with better analogies/metaphors when talking to the press. The one he tried to use with the plane, etc. was just lame.

 

[Roo]

Uh, those two circuits you just mentioned, Monaco and Monza?

They have been used in all sixty season. I'm a little surprised you don't know this since you copied out the listed of every singe race and race winner since 1950 a few weeks ago.

San Marino hosted the Italian GP in 1980, the only year Monza hasn't been used. Monaco has been used every year, but only since 1955. The only other Monaco GP was in 1950.

 

[TAFKADY]

Can't really decide - I'm leaning towards "very important" but people do make a point when they say the traditional races can be as boring as any other. On the other hand these traditional races mostly take place mid-season and are rarely in a championship deciding position, unlike the Japanese or the Brazilian GP. Or did anyone ever yell "He lost the championship mid-season in race X!"

 

[tibiquera]

Uh, those two circuits you just mentioned, Monaco and Monza?

They have been used in all sixty season. I'm a little surprised you don't know this since you copied out the listed of every singe race and race winner since 1950 a few weeks ago.

Dude, before you point out someone's mistake it's good to check your own facts first. Monza has hosted all Italian GPs except 1980, where it was in Imola. Monaco wasn't in the calendar for the years of 51, 52, and 54.

Edit: Looks like I came late to party, as Roo had already posted it. My bad.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Dude, before you point out someone's mistake it's good to check your own facts first. Monza has hosted all Italian GPs except 1980, where it was in Imola. Monaco wasn't in the calendar for the years of 51, 52, and 54.

My point is still valid: both Monaco and Monza have far more claim to being the sport's traditional venues than Silverstone does. And where the same basic shape has been retained in Italy and Monte Carlo, Silvertone has seen several major reconfigurations, and if they get race from 2010 and beyond, there will be another reconfiguration: the "main" circuit will be the Ireland-Arrowhead layout, while the pre-2010 design will only be used by request.

 

[Oshow]

The fee F1 charges vary widely from place to place. Some places do get a better deal than others. Monaco doesn't pay ANYTHING to hold a race there!!!

 

[Only_in_f1]

Nothing else to say.

 

[tibiquera]

My point is still valid: both Monaco and Monza have far more claim to being the sport's traditional venues than Silverstone does. And where the same basic shape has been retained in Italy and Monte Carlo, Silvertone has seen several major reconfigurations, and if they get race from 2010 and beyond, there will be another reconfiguration: the "main" circuit will be the Ireland-Arrowhead layout, while the pre-2010 design will only be used by request.

I'm sorry, but Monza had as many reconfigurations as Silverstone. And the only "major reconfiguration" I remember in Silverstone is the one done in 1991.

 

[Ardius]

My point is still valid: both Monaco and Monza have far more claim to being the sport's traditional venues than Silverstone does. And where the same basic shape has been retained in Italy and Monte Carlo, Silvertone has seen several major reconfigurations, and if they get race from 2010 and beyond, there will be another reconfiguration: the "main" circuit will be the Ireland-Arrowhead layout, while the pre-2010 design will only be used by request.

Monza used to be an oval....I don't know about you, but I'd consider that a "major reconfiguration".

Besides, first you were arguing against all "traditional" circuits, now you're arguing against just Silverstone. I think theres more to your opinion than you're letting on.
Also, I think most people are arguing the "tradition" of the British GP, not just Silverstone itself. We stand to lose our Grand Prix entirely, despite being the most successful country and hosting it every year ever since the World Championship started. There are no alternatives now, Brands Hatch is out of the question and doesn't suit todays cars. Donington obviously is dead now. Rockingham maybe, but its not going to happen. Silverstone has trouble finding money for this, none of the other circuits will be able to either.

 

[yeti]

Silverstone regularly brings in one of the biggest crowds of the season...

Yet Bernie would rather they have races in Turkey where about 5 people watch the race.

C.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Monza used to be an oval....I don't know about you, but I'd consider that a "major reconfiguration".

Besides, first you were arguing against all "traditional" circuits, now you're arguing against just Silverstone. I think theres more to your opinion than you're letting on.
Also, I think most people are arguing the "tradition" of the British GP, not just Silverstone itself. We stand to lose our Grand Prix entirely, despite being the most successful country and hosting it every year ever since the World Championship started. There are no alternatives now, Brands Hatch is out of the question and doesn't suit todays cars. Donington obviously is dead now. Rockingham maybe, but its not going to happen. Silverstone has trouble finding money for this, none of the other circuits will be able to either.

I'm not arguing against tradition, I'm arguing against its value. Do you hear Monza and Monaco making noises about how they're so essential to the calendar that they deserve better deals? No. But here is Silverstone, run by a group of old men who only seem to care about the history of the race as opposed to the future of it. If the British Grand Prix was that essential, they'd have no problem raising the funds.

I honestly doubt you'll lose your Grand Prix, and that if you do, it will only be for a year: like I said, I think Ecclestone's comments are designed to incite and provoke Silverstone into action. If all they care about is the history of the event and how it's so important to Formula One, then they should move faster than they ever have before to save it. Ecclestone is simply giving them a clear-cut choice: either sign on and save the race, or don't sign and lose it. Whatever happens, the future of the British Grand Prix depends on them. You might not like Ecclestone and you might try and appeal to him, but when was the last time your cries fell on anything but deaf ears? If you really do want to save the British Grand Prix, appeal to the BRDC instead - they're the ones who can make it happen.

Like I said in my opening post, I don't see why tradition should be worth a circuit getting a better deal. You cannot quantify it, you cannot measure it. You simply cannot put a price on it. Try and do that for something else that is traditional, or has heritage, like a piece of artwork. If you placed as much value in that artwork as you did in the importance of a certain race and then tried to put a price on said piece of artwork, you'd probably be faced with outrage. If tradition is as essential as you make it out to be, then it is virtually priceless. It cannot be obtained elsewhere, and if it could, it would be years before tradition becomes a label associated with certain races.

Tradition is nice - but you can't put a price on it. If the BRDC obviously feel the need to, then they clearly aren't in a position to be holding a race since they can't match everyone else in the world, and that includes the circuits with more claim to fame than they.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

I'm not arguing against tradition, I'm arguing against its value. Do you hear Monza and Monaco making noises about how they're so essential to the calendar that they deserve better deals? No. But here is Silverstone, run by a group of old men who only seem to care about the history of the race as opposed to the future of it. If the British Grand Prix was that essential, they'd have no problem raising the funds.

I honestly doubt you'll lose your Grand Prix, and that if you do, it will only be for a year: like I said, I think Ecclestone's comments are designed to incite and provoke Silverstone into action. If all they care about is the history of the event and how it's so important to Formula One, then they should move faster than they ever have before to save it. Ecclestone is simply giving them a clear-cut choice: either sign on and save the race, or don't sign and lose it. Whatever happens, the future of the British Grand Prix depends on them. You might not like Ecclestone and you might try and appeal to him, but when was the last time your cries fell on anything but deaf ears? If you really do want to save the British Grand Prix, appeal to the BRDC instead - they're the ones who can make it happen.

Like I said in my opening post, I don't see why tradition should be worth a circuit getting a better deal. You cannot quantify it, you cannot measure it. You simply cannot put a price on it. Try and do that for something else that is traditional, or has heritage, like a piece of artwork. If you placed as much value in that artwork as you did in the importance of a certain race and then tried to put a price on said piece of artwork, you'd probably be faced with outrage. If tradition is as essential as you make it out to be, then it is virtually priceless. It cannot be obtained elsewhere, and if it could, it would be years before tradition becomes a label associated with certain races.

Tradition is nice - but you can't put a price on it. If the BRDC obviously feel the need to, then they clearly aren't in a position to be holding a race since they can't match everyone else in the world, and that includes the circuits with more claim to fame than they.

Maybe the people at Monza and Monaco aren't making any noises because they already have a good deal as traditional locations. The question is why doesn't Silverstone get a similar deal? Exactly what is it about those two that makes them traditional, that doesn't qualify Silverstone for? Okay, I understand Monaco is probably the most important of all, but I don't see why Monza is rated so far above Silverstone.

You seem convinced that this is all on BRDC, and not on Bernie asking for unsustainable fees. It doesn't make sense for them to sign a contract that they can't profit from in the long run (guess who's feeling smarter between Gillet and Hill today...). Whatever your personal views are on Silverstone and it's management, the fact is hundreds of people still enjoy the spectacle there, as seen this very year. It may not mean much to you, but do realize you're in the minority.

Frankly, I think Bernie stands to lose more from cutting off the British fan base than Silverstone not having an F1 event.

 

[tibiquera]

I'm not arguing against tradition, I'm arguing against its value. Do you hear Monza and Monaco making noises about how they're so essential to the calendar that they deserve better deals? No. But here is Silverstone, run by a group of old men who only seem to care about the history of the race as opposed to the future of it. If the British Grand Prix was that essential, they'd have no problem raising the funds.

Well, if you read what Bernie said, he basically said Silverstone doesn't deserve the same treatment as Monza and Monaco. That's the whole point. I'm actually not British, have never been in Britain and English isn't my first language, but I still think Silverstone is as legendary as the other two. If you don't care about tradition, that's fine, but I do, and so does the majority of people. Formula 1 is the most watched racing event because of its tradition, and part of its tradition comes from the tracks. I really can't think of F1 without tracks like Silverstone and Monza.