Editor-in-Chief's Note: Given the current state of flux in racing, I was contemplating doing a column this week on the "ghost" races going on without fans, or the inordinate attention given to "sim" racing with its vacuous proximity to "real" racing. But rather than that - for the record, no fans at races isn't a good thing and sim racing remains an excellent training ground, but that's as far as it goes - we're going to leave last week's "Fumes" column up another week. Oh, and one more thing, if Ferrari comes to INDYCAR in 2022 it will be fantastic for the sport. -PMD
By Peter M. DeLorenzo
Detroit. This issue marks the 21st Anniversary of Autoextremist.com. In the two-plus decades of writing about racing in this column, I've seen countless changes as the ebb and flow of the business of motorsports has swirled around and around, some of them good and some bad. But in reality, have things changed all that much? I would say no. As I've pointed out many times over the years, technology swallowed the sport whole by the mid-70s, and this forced racing into a perpetual dance of restrictions and rules designed to contain the speeds, equalize the competition and reduce costs. That philosophy has worked for the most part in containing speeds, but even with so-called "equalized" competition, the cost of racing has gone up exponentially as teams across the globe pursued advantages calculated out to the hundredths of a second, particularly in F1.
Moreover, as for the pursuit of "equalized" competition, the harsh reality of the racing game is that there have always been "the haves" and the "have-nots" in racing. This has been true since the very beginnings of the sport. The deeply financed and talent-rich teams always rise to the drop, whether it be in INDYCAR, IMSA, F1 and, of course, those slaves to "managed" competition, NASCAR. This will never change, unless there's a fundamental shift in the technology used, in which case a "reset" button can be pressed in order to start the inexorable march of technology all over again (although even then the "haves" will reassert their place at the top in short order). This fundamental shift in technology is what I suggested with my proposal for HERF, a concept that was truly far ahead of its time and one that remains valid to this day, even though the interested manufacturers backed away from the concept at the last moment.
One positive thing about this ongoing pandemic - if we can glean any positives at all - is that it has forced racing to evaluate every inch of the sport, and it's long overdue. F1 in particular is on the precipice of collapsing after running a traveling Greed Circus that for years operated like its unchecked spending would never catch up with it, but that modus operandi has come to a screeching halt. Now F1 is gasping for air as it tries to figure out what to do. I am hearing positive rumors as the powers that be in the sport are considering altering literally everything about F1, from the cars to the race weekend formats. And this all sounds good, but I actually think F1 will have to be brought to its knees before any sense can be pounded into the players involved.
A few months ago, I suggested that F1 go back to the future. In particular, I proposed that F1 go back to the V8 formula used 50 years ago in F5000 - with contemporary safety systems, of course - as a way of restoring the opportunity of participation, which means that several teams - not just two or three - would have a real shot at winning, instead of showing up for their weekly dose of finishing twelfth. I believe that as long as F1 isn't willing to go the completely new technology route, this would be the way to reestablish credibility - and interest - in the sport. But that would mean the "have" teams in F1 would have to cede their position for the greater health and well being of the sport, which I still don't see happening. (The rumors that Ferrari is switching some of its F1 engineers to working on an INDYCAR program for 2022 are real. But the reality of the decision is that Ferrari is no longer interested in F1 if it can't be one of the top teams, meaning, if it can't spend unlimited amounts of money, it will take its ball and go play elsewhere.) This would be great for INDYCAR, obviously, but it might be good for F1, too, if it finally gets its shit together and brings meaningful changes to its sport.
Speaking of INDYCAR, I see it becoming the major league open-wheel series of the moment as F1 flounders. I can actually see two manufacturers joining the fray to compete with Chevrolet and Honda, and an expanded schedule and heightened interest in America's premier open-wheel series will follow. As for NASCAR, the less said about it at this juncture the better. Yes, the new car that's coming shows promise, but if NASCAR doesn't institute massive changes, including a drastically reduced and improved schedule that includes more road course races and more 500k events on its ovals, its inexorable slide to oblivion will continue. As for sports car racing, the meaningful steps to bring IMSA and the FIA/ACO together can only help cement the future for major league sports car racing around the world. I do think there are far too many second- and third-tier road racing series for sports cars at the moment, and a rational reduction in the number of series would be tremendously beneficial.
Back to this concept of "managed" competition. Do I like it? No, I don't. I often write about the glory days of the Can-Am, and when I do, people tell me that they would like to see the "unlimited" series return, but the harsh reality of today's racing is that a truly "unlimited" series is simply impossible to achieve with today's technology. One side note on the Can-Am is that people often say that the Penske Turbo Porsches "killed" the Can-Am series, but in reality people forget the fact that the McLaren team utterly dominated the Can-Am series from 1967-1971. But the visceral appeal of the majestic Can-Am cars with their booming V8s and dazzling speeds remain compelling to this day, which is why they are so popular when they appear at vintage racing weekends. And why I still believe a road racing series that updated the concept - within reason - would be successful.
There are many outstanding things about racing when it goes right: the speed, the visceral excitement and the intense competition. In that respect it never gets old. But holding on to the appeal of racing as we go forward will become more and more difficult as the burgeoning environmental imperative picks up speed around the globe. On the one hand, a series like HERF would extend the future of racing almost indefinitely. On the other hand, disconnecting racing from the mundane realities of production car technology would allow for an updated F5000 package to see the light of day in F1, with all the visceral appeal intact.
Some readers think that I dwell too much on the history of racing and that contemporary motorsport holds no interest for me. That simply isn't true. I am a big believer, however, that you must know where you've been before you can know where you want to go. And this applies to racing as much, if not more, than any other endeavor.
I believe racing will continue, but it will take genuine vision in order for it to survive - let alone thrive - in the future.
And that's the High-Octane Truth on this 21st Anniversary of Autoextremist.com.
(Dave Friedman)
Laguna Seca (with the old pit configuration), October 16, 1966. The start of Heat 2 of the Can-Am with road racing's all-stars at the front: Jim Hall (No. 66 Chaparral 2E Chevrolet); Phil Hill (No. 65 Chaparral 2E Chevrolet); Bruce McLaren (No. 4 McLaren Elva Mark II Chevrolet); John Surtees (No. 7 Lola T70 Mk.2 Chevrolet); Denny Hulme (No. 8 Lola T70 Mk.2 Chevrolet); Masten Gregory (No. 88 McLaren Elva Mark II Chevrolet); Mark Donohue (No. 61 Lola T70 Mk.2 Chevrolet); John Cannon (No. 62 McLaren Elva Mark II Chevrolet). Phil Hill won Heat 1 and finished second in Heat 2 for the overall win. Jim Hall finished second in Heat 1 and third in Heat 2. Parnelli Jones (No. 98 Lola T70 Mk.2 DOHC Ford) won Heat 2.