does anyone else feel its a shame that a lot of former F1 curcuits no longer hold races? In todays day and age it seems that in a lot of countries one circuit gets the contract for F1 and thats that no other circuit gets a look in. back in the 80's and 90's they sometimes held a race called The European Grand Prix. Brands hatch had a few races, Donnington Park had one in 1993 (anyone remember Sennas drive that day ?) then Bernie spoiled it all by basically giving the race to germany so they could hold 2 gp's a year every year. i was just thinking how good it would be to reintroduce the "roving grand prix" to allow some of these hidden gems to reassurte themselves as genuine F1 venues especially as some of the newer circuits are seriously boring.
I believe many tracks no longer meet FIA F1 standards nor do they have the infrastructure or money to pay for a race.
The European Grand Prix is back on the calendar of 2008: Valencia Personally I don't like the idea of two GPs in one country. It bothered me in Germany and (as a Swiss) I hated the Swiss GP on French soil. Also I don't think the Imola GP should exist, because technically it is in Italy, not in San Marino. Just a scheme. There also used to be a Pacific GP, just another lame excuse to circumvent the one GP/country rule.
Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez in Mexico City, Mexico 2007 Busch series qualifying pole sitter: 103.647 mph average 1991 lap record set by Nigel in the Williams: 128.789 mph average
these FIA standards whats killing good racing these days imo. come on, if Donnington Park (for example) was deemed good enough in 1993 then why isnt it ok today ? Motor racing isnt a safe sport, the risk element is a big part of what brings fans and drivers alike to the sport. Making the cars safer and safer using modern materiels yes is a good thing, but making the circuits more and more boring is not and really shouldnt be encouraged. As for money - i cant see many banks turning down a short term loan if a circuit says "we have secured an F1 race next year which is gonna bring in millions an millions of £/$ but we need some cash to sort a few things out"
these events were welcomed with open arms back when they were needed to help complete the calendar - is it right to say thanks but pi$$ off we dont need you now because a few other countries want a GP these days, do you really think Imola deserves that ? anyways what i meant was a true roving grand prix - using some of the historic grand prix circuits that arent on the calendar anymore.
I think the big problem is that Bernie the greedy pygmy demands some rididulous amount for a sanctioning fee, retains trackside signage, hpospitality,a nd TV rights for himself and leaves the host track virtually nothing other than ticket sales to recoup. F1 races are simply not viable for most tracks without significant government support. Blame that greedy little runt, not the track owners. By the way, Donington holds a special place in the heart of Senna fans
Speeds have increased so F1 needs to make the track safer with more runoff room. example: 1991 Brazilian GP fastest lap Nigel Mansell 1'20.436 1992 Brazilian GP fastest lap Riccardo Patrese 1'19.490 1993 Brazilian GP fastest lap Michael Schumacher 1'20.024 2004 Brazilian GP fastest lap Juan Pablo Montoya 1'11.473 (lap record) 2005 Brazilian GP fastest lap Kimi Räikkönen 1'12.268 (1 tire rule) 2006 Brazilian GP fastest lap Michael Schumacher 1:12.162 (V8 engines) That's ~9 seconds (12%) faster, which is a huge amount of time. Just count to 9 and see how long that is in a racer's (and FIA safety manager's) head. Keep in mind I don't know the race conditions for each of these times since it does rain there often...
+1 again! However, I'll say it again, it is the "greedy pygmy" (love the term btw!) who's made all involved very wealthy. Not by simply being greedy, but by giving the masses (TV) what they want - Damn, he's got *countries* lining up to spend their $ with him - "Supply & demand" is a wonderful thing. [At least when you're, eg, Ferrari of course.] Cheers, Ian
the safety cell of the car has improved massively in that time period. an accident like kubicas would probably have killed the driver back then, these days he misses one grand prix b4 he's back racing again. 9 seconds is a long time, but not that long - thats over a distance of 2.68 miles remember. average speed 2006 = 133.7 mph (roughly) average speed 1991 = 120 mph (roughly) personally id rather make the cars slower rather than the circuits boring.
totally agree on the Bernie thing, i just dont understand it. hes reached the point of having more money than anyone could possibly ever spend.
They should build a golf course, a bar with topless waitresses, and a steakhouse inside them and market them as resorts.
The 94 deaths of Ratzenberger and Senna caused a rethinking and reprioritization towards more driver safety. Tamburello was rebuilt after the accident so that the cars wouldn't reach those speeds anymore (since they couldn't move the concrete barrier further out due to the river behind it). I would assume similar considerations then applied to places like Donington Park. Whether these high safety standards are actually a good thing is another question: You're right, IMHO the standards are one of the reasons why the tracks all look alike and lack character. The new Nuerburgring (instigated after Lauda's accident on the old Nordschleife in 76) is an extreme example of overdone safety: The run off areas are so wide that the spectators basically need binoculars to watch the cars.
Bernie sells a complete grid to the organizers. The money he makes (between 8 and 30 millions depending on location) is then redistributed to the teams. Income doesn't equal profit. Hello!
I hear you! [Brings to mind a GV quote when he was asked how they should go about increasing the overtaking in F1: "Put 'em on F3 tires and you increase braking distances substantially - Ergo, more overtaking....." [This quote is from the "turbo era" btw... I love Gilles ] However, "making the cars slower" - You can't do that! Simply wouldn't be F1 then old chap!..... I do agree that the "Tilkedromes" we're now seeing are here to stay, but hopefully we'll also have a (night) street race in Singapore as well...... The sport is evolving like everything else - Maybe in the wrong direction, but its never been as popular. As usual, just my 02c, Cheers, Ian
I selected Brazil because I don't believe the track was changed much since then if I recall correctly. I of course didn't select San Marino because of the chicanes put in because of 1994. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
i know what you mean, but as i said before id rather they concentrated on making the cars slower or safer as opposed to changing the circuits. Imola was often falling foul of the PC brigade with their rants about safety, but iirc it was always one of the drivers favourite venues. as of this year Bernies assetts are estimated at £2250 million (uk sterling) that sounds like hes made quite a profit out of his strangelhold on F1 to me
It is a shame that we are loosing historic tracks...but for the sport to continue moving forward F1 needs new venues. Keeping an older track up to date is as expensive as building a new one.
Are you sure about that redistribution? My understanding was that the teams (and manufacturers) were dissatisfied with the percentage of revenues flowing to the teams. I know the pygmy needs to keep Slavica (who must be a foot taller than the runt) in the style to which she's grown accustomed but Jesus Christ, how much is enough?!?
The mere fact that they were dissatisfied tells you that they are getting something indeed. The percentages are all secret and actually there are two different money pots to distinguish: The fee we're talking about here and then the TV money, which is a lot bigger. I have no idea how much of either is given back/passed on to the teams, but as you say they are not happy with that amount. Also Bernie pays for instance for the travel on the fly away GPs. That money again comes out of these pots. My point is, that while I agree with you all that Bernie made himself filthy rich, it is not true that he just bags all the money.
I don't think people like Bernie work for the money because they need it. It has become a measure to keep score, but not much else. Nobody on here ever thought that MS kept racing because he needed more cash, but because he was a "maniac" who wanted to race and win. I think the same holds true for Bernie. He wants the power, the action and to win in negotiations. And besides all that I actually believe that he loves his version of F1 and wants it to prosper and grow (which is why he doesn't want to give it to somebody else). His version of F1 might be too glitzy for a lot of us (me included) and too business like and not sporting enough, but it is his vision of F1. The guy is a nut, but give me an alternative. I haven't seen one, but many floundering racing series that eventually collapsed.
