Keith Collantine has written a post about the Indy GP's chances of returning to F1 - and this has sparked the inevitable discussion of other feasible venues for a USGP. As the heart of American motor sport, Indianapolis is the place for F1 to be, but it is also true that the circuit is not one of the best. It may even have been made worse by recent alterations.
Indycar race, Watkins Glen
Whenever alternative USGP sites are suggested, I see two conflicting problems brought up by the more practical of F1 fans: circuits in or close to cities tend to be too narrow and tight for GP racing and other circuits are miles away from anywhere. This is always mentioned as soon as anyone breathes the names "Laguna Seca" or "Watkins Glen", for instance.
Yet, in the changing world of F1, is this really something that should be taken into consideration? The vast majority of F1 watchers do so through the television these days; in fact, gate receipts cannot begin to cover the cost of staging a GP. Which is why Bernie is so concerned about TV rights - this is where the big money is made.
So why do we always insist that circuits be close to civilization? It's not as if the majority of those who attend races come from the nearest city - many fans travel huge distances to be present for the occasion. It may even be seen as part of the whole experience - the getting there and then wending one's way homeward after the race. Perhaps we should not worry too much about the difficulties involved in reaching remote tracks and instead we should be thinking in terms of the setting as seen through the TV lens.
Personally, I like street circuits, mainly because buildings and tight surroundings give a circuit atmosphere. But it has to be admitted that cities with potentially great street circuits (Long Beach springs to mind but I believe they have neutered that one since F1 left) are few and far between. The remote tracks are the more likely option if we're thinking in terms of TV audience, therefore.
The dedicated fans will attend wherever the GP is held. That has always been true and it will continue to be so. Why not choose circuits for their visual appeal and for the racing drama they can povide? Theoretically, there is no reason why a race should not be held in Alaska or Montana, provided the necessary facilities are provided for good television coverage. Of course, the conservationists might be stirred to action if we attempted something like that but places like Laguna Seca and the Glen are suitable sites as well.
There remains only the expense of bringing such older tracks up to F1 standards. That is going to cost a bit and would have to be offset by allowing a percentage of TV receipts to go to the organizers. Bernie probably would not hear of such an idea but he won't last forever. And I have a feeling he won't be around for long once his sidekick, Max, leaves the scene.
That Mosley business is an excellent opportunity for new blood and bold ideas to enter the sport, in fact. It is certainly about time we learned that motor racing is not only a money-spinner - it is fun as well. Looking again at venues for GPs that have been disqualified as uneconomic might be a part of balancing out the forces currently working on F1.
And maybe, just maybe, we should be forward-thinking enough to see "televisability" as more important than accesibilty in the modern world. If I can sit in my living room and watch David Attenborough fooling about with gorillas in the the forests of Africa or see some crazed athlete assault Everest without the benefit of oxygen tanks, surely we can have GPs wherever we want them?