Land of the free?

Since voicing my candid appraisal on the entire "PSL" ticket debacle, I've spent the better part of 2012 trying to turn a new leaf, trying to approach the USGP in Austin as an optimist.     I freely admit that this is a trait I'm probably not best known for in certain circles . . . LOL.

The closer truth is that at heart I am a realist who does not suffer fools nor arrogant schemers gladly.     However, it is with caution that I want to initiate this thread on this week's release from CoTA regarding "Prohibited Items."

I am currently seeking clarification on a couple of points regarding their somewhat unexpected, highly unusual, and rather vague proclamation.    Key to my interest is learning the criteria entrants will be judged upon and how this process of exclusion will be implemented.     Given that most attendees will be shuttled to the circuit, thus unable to easily return prohibited items to their vehicles, this raises many questions about how CoTA plans to address the challenges this places upon their ticket buying customers.

From the outset, I think it is important to set a proper perspective on this question.  

This is NOT a policy brought upon CoTA from the FIA, FOM, nor any sanctioning or commercial body remotely associated with F1.     (Many will blame Bernie . . . geez, sometimes I really have to feel for him.)

This is NOT consistent with other F1 Grands Prix staged around the world.  

This is NOT consistent with motor sport events . . . road racing and ovals . . . held in the US.

Therefore, this dilemma, the questions it raises, and the discussion which will certainly follow across the internet is of their own making.

Hopefully this coming week will bring some degree of clarity, qualification, and adjustment from CoTA before the real debate begins . . . but I am certain that debate will be fierce.  

For the sake of those who have worked to bring the USGP to Austin I hope that CoTA will pay attention.   No sensible motor sport enthusiast will pay hard earned money only to put up with such nonsense.  

I will not, and I'm certain that I'm not alone.

Monkey Business

I found this interview with Texas Comptroller Susan Combs revealing.  

I've questioned Bernie Ecclestone's agenda and modus operandi many times over the years, but not this time.    To say that I have a pretty clear idea on where the problem actually lies with F1 in Austin would be an understatement.

Although the USGP has proven a tenuous venture since the days when F1 was a gentlemen's pursuit, Tavo Hellmund's vision for this purpose built permanent home was in my mind genius.  

I believe the Austin iteration of the US F1 Grand Prix was destined to become a fixture for many years to come.     F1 would finally have a worthy home on US soil; a circuit which could provide a real challenge to the drivers and allow US F1 fans a chance to see the pinnacle of automotive technology perform on the absolute limit.

The annual F1 GP accompanied by the Moto GP and V8 Supercar series pretty much assured that the Circuit of the Americas would prove a boon to the region's economy.

Business is business, I respect that.     However I'm sensing, much as sports franchises are hustled from city to city with practically no regard for the paying fan, a suspect lack of stewardship.     Mr Hellmund almost pulled off a miracle, and I can't see it succeeding without his continued involvement.

Future for European GP?

As a standalone event, the European Grand Prix has been held 23 times in Formula One history. Held at five different circuits, the event has conjured up some memorable moments which live in the memories of every F1 fan. Ayrton Senna’s classic drive at Donington in 1993, Michael Schumacher’s drive to victory at the Nurburgring in 1995 and the German’s controversial move on Jacques Villeneuve in the title decider of 1997 are amongst the greatest spectacles in Formula One history. The race’s move from the Nurburgring to the newly built street circuit in Valencia in 2008 promised so much for race fans but has instead failed to produce the magic it promised when it was admitted to the calendar. With a 100% record at producing what one can only describe as processional races, and with the event organizers struggling to find the funds to continue holding the race past 2014, question marks hover over the future of the Grand Prix of Europe, and with increased competition from other countries to host Grands Prix it is difficult for Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA to continue to justify the existence of this particular race.

 If you go back 20 years the F1 calendar consisted of 16 races and was kept mostly to the confines of the major car markets in Europe and the Americas. Although Japan and Australia also held races the competition to host a part of the World Championship was not as vast as today and with what was very much a Euro-centric feel to the season the allowance of countries to host a second race under the moniker of the European Grand Prix was much more understandable. However, the world has changed in that time and as the economies of several countries across Asia have grown so has the desire of these nations to showcase themselves to the planet through hosting a Grand Prix. Since 1999 races have been added in Malaysia, Bahrain, China, Turkey, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and South Korea with India holding its first round in October. America will return to the fold next year and Russia is also set to join the party in 2014. In the last week alone there have been mutterings that Argentina, Mexico and France all want to rejoin the sport in the near future and with the schedule for 2012 already oversubscribed it raises questions as to why the powers that be continue to allow Spain (or any other country for that matter) to host a second round.

Although one can argue that the success of Fernando Alonso means that races in both Barcelona and Valencia means that both the Spanish and the European rounds draw large crowds and are commercially successful, the fact remains that over countries throughout the world are capable of replacing one of these races and would take the sport to a new area of the globe which would allow it to become more accessible to a larger demographic. Despite the popularity of the two races amongst Spaniards there is a case to be made that the situation actually splits the potential audience between both rounds, meaning that each could potentially be more successful without the other. Neither circuit exactly sets off a fan’s excitement radar and so it could be said that visiting two dull circuits in the same country represents a case of racing overkill. It can also be argued that drivers such as Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel boost just as large a domestic profile as Alonso and would attract people to a second race in Britain and Germany respectively, yet no much repeat visit awaits either country, and at the same time other countries that want a race are ignored to allow this situation to continue.

If Bernie does not want either Barcelona or Valencia dropped from the sport, then there should be no issue with alternating the Spanish Grand Prix between the two tracks. Such an arrangement works fine in Germany and an identical system with the British Grand Prix worked for over 20 years. Doing this would allow both tracks to spend less whilst retaining some F1 action, would still give Spain a race each year and at the same time would open up a space on the calendar for another country. The fans would still go and Spaniards would be kept happy, as would the nation that happened to benefit from the vacancy. And with the sport continuing to enter new territories and return to old there is no reason why the European Grand Prix should be allowed to stay with F1 as it moves into a new era.

Stephen D'Albiac