This is the 21st century. Has auto racing entered the 21st century? I don't think so. It seems to me that auto racing is still in the 20th century and nobody has recognized that things need to change. The big problem here is that the races themselves are organized by people with huge egos and that means that they know everything about everything -- at least everything about auto racing.
Today auto racing is divided among "open wheel", sports car, stock car, and rally categories. Open wheel racing is best known in the U.S. by Indianapolis. Worldwide, it is dominated by Formula 1. Anyone for egos? Formula 1 is run by Bernie Ecclestone and Indy racing is run by Tony George -- and of course NASCAR is run by the France family. This means that any logic involved in organizing or changing these series is impeded by egos.
The question I would ask any racing series manager is: "What is your racing series trying to do?" Of course, the obvious answer is "Make money!" Okay, that is reasonable, but how are you going to do that? If the point of racing is to determine which driver is best, how can that be done if the vehicles they are driving aren't equal. And that is the big problem facing all racing series these days.
The people who make the rules are always trying to make racing less expensive for the entrants. That means that there is less technology involved, but there always are entrants who are willing to spend all it takes to win. Oops. There is a problem here.
The reality of today is that a production car is more complicated than any racing car is allowed to be -- at least in terms of electronics. There is little chance today of racing technology being adapted into a street car. The last time that happened really was at the end of the 20th century when some cars started getting the automated manual transmissions that were first seen in Formula 1 cars. And when that first happened, they were pretty unacceptable for real use on the street.
Ah, Formula 1 cars. That's where cost is no object and quite a few manufacturers are willing to spend that amount of money ($500 million a year isn't uncommon) to field cars. That clearly means that the cars are not equal. But money isn't all that is involved here when technical regulations are written. Speed is another consideration. When speed increases, safety decreases. So that means that there needs to be some compromise. The audience likes fast cars, but what is too fast when it comes to safety? Of course this varies depending on the kind of car involved.
Since the race organizers want to make money and the audience wants to be entertained, who cares really about the cars? Some organizers seem to look at the situation this way. I would nominate NASCAR as the race series that seems to make the actual cars and racing secondary to entertainment. The original NASCAR was true to its roots with the "SC" in NASCAR meaning "Stock Car". Not today. There is really nothing in any of the NASCAR cars (at least in their premier series) that is common with the car it is "supposed" to be. The organizers really are trying to make all the cars equal. Then why are manufacturers interested in sponsoring/entering cars here? One would have to ask Ford, Dodge, Chevrolet, and now Toyota for answers. I can't find one other than the executives of the car manufacturers wanting to socialize at race tracks.
One very clear area where ego runs rampant is sports car racing in the U.S. The France ego owns Daytona, and they didn't want to have to submit to the French and their premier Le Mans series. What to do? Invent our own series! It is the "Grand American" series with ugly NASCAR-like sports cars running the legendary 24-hours of Daytona and at other U.S. tracks. With far less ego, the "American Le Mans" series has grown up as competition at other legendary tracks like Sebring. The competition does nothing for the enthusiast and confuses the less enthusiastic audience.
This is also exactly what happened to open-wheel racing in the U.S. when Mr. Ego, Tony George, created his own racing series to race at his family's race track, Indianapolis. If you look at all his goals -- less expensive, American drivers, manufacturer interest -- all have been cast aside. This really has made the popularity of open-wheel racing sink into the sunset in the U.S.
Briefly looking back at history, it was fine to promote new technology and get manufacturers to be interested in racing when it was a sport. But it has become a business where not just manufacturers but advertisers as well are willing to spend huge amounts of money. This has turned what was a sport into a money machine. So now "entertainment" is created instead of racing.
Okay, now for my view of the future. What can be done, given the facts and the reality of today's world? I propose a three event race series to be hosted at tracks around the world. I will suggest these three events in no particular order:
First we have an equal-car race that showcases the drivers. I cite as an example, the A1 Grand Prix of Nations. This series is uses equal open-wheel cars and has teams from 26 countries competing for a driver's championship as well as a team championship. Sounds a bit like the Olympics, doesn't it? But this really does showcase driving, not the technical wizardry of manufacturers. [Note that a U.S. race is being held at Laguna Seca, near Monterey, CA, on 10-12 March.] The money comes from TV and non-car manufacturer advertising. That works for me.
I would add that perhaps several races over a weekend could be done with different kinds of cars. How about a race off-road using rally cars on Saturday, and then the same drivers compete on Sunday in open-wheel cars? And maybe even really-close-to-stock cars from a given manufacturer could be mixed in there somewhere.
Second, is the next event to be held with equal billing to the driver's championship, is a race that showcases manufacturer technology. This would be held on the same track as the driver's championship, and would feature driverless cars racing against each other. The DOD proved that this is possible. Technically, this would be a challenge for the organizers because the rules would have to be written so that it would be certain that there would be no hidden control done during the racing. Also a consideration would be that if cars collided, an immediate disqualification would be done to avoid a destruction derby.
This concept would or could influence future production cars. On expensive cars today, an adaptive cruise control is available that will automatically keep a speed set, but when a car in front slows, your car will slow, and if necessary stop. This is a tentative first step to the automated car. Who amongst us wouldn't like an automated car to drive us to work in the morning in rush hour traffic?
The third event to be run the same weekend would be more difficult to do with entertainment of the masses in mind. That would be a video game competition done with equal "cars" on the same virtual track as the real cars compete on. Somehow a limited number of "drivers" would qualify -- say a thousand -- and then would compete during the weekend for a win.
It seems to me that this demonstrates the technology of the 21st century -- at least the early part of the century and avoids the mess that current racing series are involved in. Of course just one series like this wouldn't be enough. Older series like NASCAR would continue because free competition dictates that. I think my idea would be successful, though.
