RACING IN A VACUUM, PART II.

By Peter M. DeLorenzo

Detroit. I've written about this subject many times in previous columns, but it has taken on new meaning in this season dominated by the pandemic. When I referred to "racing in a vacuum" in the past, it was always in reference to a particular mindset that seems to take over a racing series, from the participants, to the series' leaders and even the media covering it. This happens when the collective series participants listen to the dulcet tones of their own thought balloons for too long. And then their perspectives grow and fester with little input from outside of "the bubble" that they've created.

F1 is a classic example of "racing in a vacuum." Fueled by one man's vision - Bernie Ecclestone - for decades, the series grew more and more out of touch with the real world. Escalating costs accelerated to the point of being out of control, and any rhyme or reason given to the sporting calendar gave way to whichever potentate - or nation state du jour - would pay F1's exorbitant fee. It didn't stop there, however, as F1 began to expand its list of demands to include cookie-cutter "modern" tracks with equally antiseptic pit installations. And the regional diversity that used to be a part of the F1 calendar began to slowly disappear. That F1 finds itself in crisis right now is long overdue. Yes, the pandemic accelerated this burgeoning crisis in F1, but in reality it has been brewing for years. F1 became a "Greed Circus" without the ability to control its worst urges. It was always more, more, more, and the powers that be in F1 didn't listen to outside input because they didn't have to. Now? F1 is reeling and flailing about trying to figure out what to do. The idea of a spending cap for the teams is just the beginning of a good start, but beyond that unless and until F1 figures things out it will suffer a diminished impact in the motorsport world that might easily last for a decade.

The other notable example of "racing in a vacuum" is, of course, NASCAR. I didn't lead with the "stock car" racing series because it's almost too obvious. It could be argued that NASCAR defined the term over the last four decades. No racing series has been more insular and more resistant to outside input than the one governed by the powers that be in Daytona Beach. The mantra of "we've always done things this way" pretty much sums up the NASCAR mindset over the last 40 plus years. That it worked for a long while is very true, but the bust (beginning in 2007 to the present) that followed the boom (2001-2006) for NASCAR has slowly but surely diminished the series to the point that all measurable reference numbers - from in-person attendance to TV ratings - have been on an inexorable downward slide. NASCAR operatives have been struggling to combat this downward spiral for over a decade now, but the consistent negative of too many races and the most tedious schedule in all of sports has never really been dealt with. That is, until the coronavirus upended NASCAR's entire reason for being. Now, we're seeing NASCAR operatives throwing everything they can get their hands on up against the wall to see what sticks, and a reduced schedule, shorter races and a new more modern car (albeit already in the works) are the direct results of this crisis. I would hope that NASCAR's chief enablers - the automobile manufacturers - take this opportunity to demand and extract meaningful long-term changes from NASCAR, because if this pandemic doesn't fundamentally change NASCAR, I can easily see it return to being a regional sport that operates predominately in the southeastern part of the country. (I should point out that all racing series have been racing in a vacuum to varying degrees, INDYCAR included.)

The Part II of "racing in a vacuum" is the new phenomenon of racing without spectators in attendance. Granted, there were some races - INDYCAR in Texas, for instance - that almost raced without spectators as a matter of routine, but now it is a part of the reality of racing, at least for the foreseeable future. The fact that races are now being conducted without spectators - although that is slowly being opened up, at least somewhat - doesn't seem right to me at all. There is something decidedly lacking with the absence of spectators. I understand why it is happening, due to the safety demands in place to stem this dreaded virus, and the fact that TV contracts must be fulfilled, but I must admit it is beyond weird. And it's funny, but I didn't seem to mind the PGA event in Dallas that took place last weekend without spectators. But racing seems to be an entirely different thing altogether.

Racing in a vacuum, no matter how it's defined, isn't a good thing for the sport of motor racing. I hope it is put in the sport's rearview mirror - virus or no virus - as soon as possible.

And that's the High-Octane Truth for this week.

(Photo by Pete Lyons) 
Riverside International Raceway, November 1, 1970. Chris Amon (No. 77 March Engineering Ltd. STP Oil Treatment March 707 Chevrolet) qualified fifth for the Can-Am and finished fourth behind Denny Hulme (No. 5 McLaren M8D Chevrolet), Jackie OIiver (No. 22 Titanium Ti 22 Mk II Chevrolet) and Pedro Rodriguez (No. 1 British Racing Motors BRM P154 Chevrolet).