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

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm not arguing that tradition doesn't count. I'm arguing that you can't put a price on it, and that to try - especially for the sake of continuing the event - only cheapens the race. It's a bit like selling your soul.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Racing "heritage" is what makes F1 special. Even the pre-f1 era (grand prix) cars are, rightfully or not, part of the F1 heritage.

And Bernie knows it. Why does he protect so fiercely the name F1 and all names/tradenmarks related?

Why is Ferrari so powerful that any breakaway threat is doubled the meaning if Ferrari is with the "Rebels"?

Why, besides F1, are LE MANS 24 HOURS and INDIANAPOLIS 500 "special" and different from any other 24 hours or 500 miles races? Because they carry the weight of decades, of dozens of champions, of mythical men and mythical cars that raced them.

Bernie knows this and - in F1 - he takes great profit for himself because of it. Would he run a series without tradition? No. Why? No money to earn there.

 

[Ardius]

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.

If I remember correctly, Monaco does get special deals. Monza doesn't but then I wouldn't be particularly be surprised if Ferrari/FIAT help them along. Monaco wouldn't complain because of the amount of money floating around there.

If this "group of old men" (whats with that being a negative thing? parliament is a group of old men too, so is the FIA....so is Bernie) doesn't care about the future - then why are they trying to secure a long term deal so that spending all this money on facilities Bernie wants and paying the apparently very large host fee makes sense? That doesn't sound like people who are "only caring about the history". It sounds more like common sense. As a business you don't spend money on things that help promote an event you may only have for 1 more year, why should Silverstone spend this money when they don't have a secure future for the GP? It only makes sense with a long-term contract to justify the spending.

Who do you suggest does a better job of running a circuit? Gillet? The guy who has screwed Donington over and reportedly had a salary of £250K?

 

[tibiquera]

I'm not arguing that tradition doesn't count. I'm arguing that you can't put a price on it, and that to try - especially for the sake of continuing the event - only cheapens the race. It's a bit like selling your soul.

I see it in a different way. Some of the new tracks are backed by the country's government who only has business reasons behind it. I don't think Dubai, Abu Dabhi, Turkey and others are hosting races for the love of the sport, but for business purposes only, and the day that it doesn't make business sense anymore, they'll move out. On the other hand, places like Silverstone don't have that much business support behind them, but they do have a great passion for racing, and a great heritage. So is it fair to treat both equally? I think in a sense it's a bit like the private constructors vs. manufacturers. You know Williams is there because they love the sport, but Toyota is there for business only. We know Frank Williams will do anything he can to stay onboard, but Toyota will only do so if it makes business sense (look at BMW and Honda to see what I mean). So is it right to get rid of the private teams just because they can't pour as much money into it? FIA's recent actions seem to indicate the answer is no. And I agree with them, because a sport with no passion has no soul.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I'm not so bothered about the heritage of a track. I just want to see an exciting track that commands the respect of the drivers. Frankly, if the drivers aren't whingeing about it being dangerous, then it's too sanitised. Look at somewhere like Shanghair, and compare it with Suzuka. Or even Fuji & Suzuka. I'm tired of races at "a car park with delineated kerbs" (Martin Brundle) where the cameras are presenting really dull viewpoints with the cars seemingly stationary.

I do think though that races should be at nations with motoring heritage. Two races in the UAE and none in North America is a travesty.

 

[Pescara for GT5]

Well, Monaco is part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, which is now 4 races(Indy 500, Daytona 500, 24 Hours Of Le Mans), so F1 isn't going to give up a chance to have that race, at least that is the way it is in America.

 

[niky]

I do think though that races should be at nations with motoring heritage. Two races in the UAE and none in North America is a travesty.

Blame the brickyard.

I think it would be fantastic to see Laguna SECA on the F1 calendar...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think it would be fantastic to see Laguna SECA on the F1 calendar...

It won't happen. Laguna Seca lacks proper pit facilities and grandstands. More challengingly, the Corkscrew is way outside the acceptable standards for circuits, and would be considered too dangerous unless it was seriously reworked and made shallower.

And aside from the Corkscrew, Laguna Seca is really bland. Terribly over-rated, IMHO.

 

[Pescara for GT5]

And aside from the Corkscrew, Laguna Seca is really bland. Terribly over-rated, IMHO.

I agree.
What about Infineon.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Most American tracks would require major upgrades to meet Bernie's demands. And even then they might not be very profitable.

 

[The Outlaw]

I agree.
What about Infineon.

Infineon!? Infineon is is WAY more bland than Laguna in all aspects (scenario and the track itself, etc) Neither track is very scenic TBH, but Laguna is one of the most enjoyable circuits to drive...and if you've driven it in real life (like I have ) you would probably agree.

I say run em at Laguna! Screw it! It will probably never happen though 👎 Given all the FIA legality crap and issues regarding Laguna's sound limit



"The Pass" at the 96' Cart race at Laguna. I just about peed my pants when I was there to see it in person with my dad...was only about 11 at the time

 

[niky]

Envy... I had to watch that one on TV... a classic.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It might be a classic, but it was desperate and very messy. Half a second later on the brakes and Zanardi would have found the wall and everyone wold be all over him for an opportunisitic move that never existed.

Like I said, Laguna Seca is over-rated; aside form the Corkscrew, there's nothing.

 

[The Outlaw]

Like I said, Laguna Seca is over-rated; aside form the Corkscrew, there's nothing.

The same can be said for just about all of the track on the F1 calender though...with the exception of Spa, Monaco, and to a lesser extent Suzuka and Silverstone IMO.

 

[niky]

It might be a classic, but it was desperate and very messy. Half a second later on the brakes and Zanardi would have found the wall and everyone wold be all over him for an opportunisitic move that never existed.

It's the luck of the Italian... Zanardi's whole career in CART was about daring maneuvers and showmanship behind the wheel. Whether you love his daring overtakes or hate his cheeky guts, there's no denying "Mister Donut" was a massive part of CART's success in the 90's.

Like I said, Laguna Seca is over-rated; aside form the Corkscrew, there's nothing.

It's a terrific driver's circuit. The worry is whether there are enough overtaking opportunities... but with the fast sections in the back, I think a good driver could create these for himself.