Today’s announcement that Ford is returning to endurance sports car racing with its GT model, allied with Wednesday’s news that BMW is considering a Le Mans assault, should cause a few furrowed brows in Formula 1 circles.
Why? Simply, because there is a very small pool of car manufacturers with the resources to enter expensive top-line motor racing. The fact is, the more that commit to sports cars and other championships, the fewer there are to consider Formula 1, which costs enough to effectively preclude a manufacturer from establishing any other major competition projects.
You can't blame Ford and BMW. Together the FIA and ACO, who set the endurance racing rules, have come up with a very appealing set of regulations that achieve the almost impossible feat of moderating performance and controlling costs, but leaving enough room for engineering innovation.
That much can be seen by the fact that the four major teams at this year’s Le Mans race – Porsche, Audi, Toyota and Nissan – have all chosen different technical approaches to crack the same nut.
Similarly, the likes of Aston Martin and Corvette (and now Ford) use the more-standard Le Mans GT category to prove the potential of their high-performance road cars on the track.
Motorsport ebbs and flows as manufacturers’ priorities change and they seek to promote different aspects of their businesses, but it seems to me that Formula 1 is in danger of meandering semi-consciously into a state of stagnant funk.
It isn’t even Merc’s fault for dominating - the sport is lacking the multi-faceted interest that's essential to maintain widespread interest.
The engineering story isn’t as interesting as it could be because teams hide it all away in secret. F1 should look at Nissan’s LMP1 outfit and the Bloodhound speed record project as shining examples of how to engage with current and future engineers.
The one-dimensional drivers are micro-managed by PR handlers, and scared to speak their minds. They could heed the heart-on-sleeve personalities in the World Rallycross Championship or the quiet, matter-of-fact heroics of Isle of Man TT racers for how this should be done properly.
In terms of on-track action and strategy, there doesn’t seem to be scope for a moment of inspiration of the kind we saw when Michael Schumacher and Ross Brawn were hauling Ferrari up the grid in the mid-1990s.
Join the debate
Add your comment
Yes!
1) The cars look like insects.
2) The drivers act like spoiled prima donna's.
3) The teams treat racing like a marketing operation, with ads all over the place.
4) The manufacturers gave up of real cars; I want:
...a) Naturally aspirated engines;
...b) Real Manual Transmissions (gearboxes), to show skill there too;
...c) NO active aero (no wings, canards, spoilers, dams, vents, etc).
=====================
f1
personally i'm not much for the hyped q1,q2,q3:/! and why not have 3 car teams instead of b teams? b teams should be banned if they could not show up with 90% of the year in and year out cash proven for the fia. otherwise you are going to end up with teams like caterham who should be in gp2 right!
another thing that's "dangerous" for f1 is if the drivers market is open for pay drivers. fia should now this by now! if you change the drivers every other year you will have a low class series where drivers only remembered for being in f1 for a year or so. choose quality drivers and PAY THEM!
pit stops etc is obvious aswell, that it should be all inclusive kind of.
broadcasting? let bbc or someone with quality production broadcast it. why not have the former top gear jc,jm,rh lead it to and international plattform?
cheers/k
F1 will improve