The Indianapolis Grand Farce

It is not in the nature of this blog that I write of topical matters, at least until they have been consigned to the collective memory we call history. But over the weekend an event occurred that affects one of my minor passions. I speak of the farce that was the Formula 1 Indianapolis Grand Prix.

To recap quickly, one of the tire suppliers, Michelin, had problems with the tires they had brought for the race. There were a couple of accidents in practice resulting from major tire failure in a very high speed, banked corner. Michelin advised that they could not guarantee the safety of their tires for the race and proposed several solutions to the problem, none of which was accepted by the governing body of the sport, the FIA. The net result was that all the cars on Michelin tires withdrew after the warm up lap, leaving just six cars on Bridgestone tires to participate in a meaningless race.

Not surprisingly, this has sparked an enormous amount of controversy, with race fans understandably indignant at the ruination of a long-anticipated event, talking head experts discussing at great length the pros and cons of each participant's actions and general confusion that such a thing should happen at all. My first reaction was shame that this happened in the States and that the Americans should be witnesses to the worst behavior of which F1 is capable. Before the institution of the Indy race, there was no American Grand Prix for many years, an omission that the FIA struggled to rectify, only too aware of the huge market they were missing out on. There is some irony in the fact that, having managed to arrange the Indy GP and see it grow in popularity over the last few years, the FIA has now shot itself in the foot in such a spectacular manner. I would not blame the Americans one bit if they ignored F1 from this moment, just as they have done in previous years.

But it seems I may be overly pessimistic in this. Last night I watched a two-hour television program reflecting on the events of the day and with the usual experts pronouncing wisely on what effects might result. Several American fans phoned in to give their opinions and I was struck by two things. Firstly, the knowledge of the fans impressed me - it was obvious that they understood and were enthusiastic about F1. And, secondly, it appeared that, although angry that their race had been ruined, they were not put off and hoped that the event would remain on the calendar for next year.

Nobody seems to remember that this is not the first time that politics and money have interfered with a F1 race, however. In the early eighties, as the turbo-charged era dawned with full force, there was a San Marino Grand Prix that became a similar disaster. I forget now what the dispute was about but the majority of constructors withdrew from that race, too, leaving Ferrari, Renault and (if memory serves me correctly) one of the smaller teams to circulate in a pointless display of Ferrari's ability to win if the competition is disposed of.

So why do such things happen in the richest and most popular sport of all (with the possible exception of soccer)? I think the answer must lie in that wealth and popularity.

I first started following F1 in the early sixties. It was a time when tiny British companies based in backyard garages were beginning to overcome the might of motor racing giants like Ferrari and Maserati. At the time the amount of money required to run a team seemed a lot but it would not have bought you a racing tire today. Even so, the costs continued to mount throughout the decade and eventually the constructors had to turn to advertising to be able to keep on racing.

We said goodbye to national racing colors (although British Racing Green will always be known as just that) and became accustomed to watching races involving multi-colored cars plastered in advertisers' names. Throughout the seventies the teams that managed to snare the richest sponsorship deals gravitated towards the front as the money spurred multiple technical advances.

In the eighties the car manufacturers began to enter the game as they realized the marketing potential available. Once again, costs spiraled upwards as the giants struggled to have their cars at the front of the grid. Even the drivers had to be a new breed specifically designed to handle the pressure of driving these new marvels of technology. It was only just over twenty years ago that Nelson Piquet had to be lifted out of his car after winning a particularly hot Argentine Grand Prix. These days super-fit machines like Michael Schumacher do not even raise a sweat during the race.

The net result is that the sport is now an arena for huge corporations pouring fortunes into winning at any cost. Add the complexities of the FIA's interests and you have a recipe for disaster.

The FIA is a mass of conflicting intentions. One of their prime considerations is supposed to be safety and so they are always trying to slow the cars down (while the engineers do their best to circumvent their every attempt). So they get rid of supposedly dangerous old circuits and bring in chicanes everywhere to force the cars to slow down. The fact that this makes it impossible for cars to pass each other on modern circuits means that the races become boring processions, another factor that concerns the FIA - the public must be entertained because that's where the FIA gets its money. Their solution is to have the cars making pit stops to refuel, thereby introducing the possibility that cars can pass each other while in the pits. The fact that this adds to the dangers inherent in racing no longer seems to matter.

The FIA also maintain that they are concerned about the rising costs of F1 racing. This is the alleged reason for limiting the teams to one set of tires per race and one engine for two races. The fact that they change the rules every year, thereby forcing the teams to undertake extensive re-designs and yet more costs as a result, achieves the exact opposite of their stated intention. The confusion caused the poor race fan by all these constant rule changes is yet another factor quietly ignored.

Formula 1 has become a battleground for enormous and conflicting interests; that is the real reason for the farcical race at Indianapolis. It is probably impossible that everything can be sorted out to everyone's satisfaction and the likelihood is that costs will continue to spiral upwards until the whole thing becomes just too expensive for anyone to take part. At that point, we might even have an instance of history repeating itself.

In the late 1950s, the FIA found that there were no teams wanting to participate in F1 under their current formula. So they scrapped it and instituted a new one. It was actually just the previous year's Formula 2 and so they knew that cars were readily available to take part.

Anyone reckon that go-karts will be the new F1 formula for 2010?