Future of British motorsport

[Chris Y]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I personally have not been over happy for years with some ways the way the MSA is seen to conduct business, the transponder issue is just one that makes them be seen in a bad light although in fairness to them in many ways I feel they do a sound job but at a price.

Al, the transponder issue is nothing to do with the MSA. It's between MST and the clubs.

[Al Weyman]

Really I thought they had influence in that field of what is fitted or not, if not maybe this is an issue that they should be involved in resolving, one which a lot of people are clearly unhappy about and would help in justifing the need for such a body.

[ss_collins]

exactly what chezza says I have a vested interest - so if I were to lead such a revolution I'd be seen as making a power play - and quite simply I'm not (give me 10 years). I'll push for them using the tools I have - contacts, and pages to fill with ink, but there would be better more organised and perhaps saner people needed to head this up.

I'm not the best man for the job in other words. I can produce ideas and debate and move things forward that way but to lead it? not me.

On an aside the MSA are not the only body capable of organising motorsport. I look to the ovals for inspiration - there is nowt stopping spedeworth taking over a track for a day in fact RDC do a Lydden and Spedeworth/Incarace do a Mallory.

[Woolley]

I see Sam's point there. I'd also suggest that another sanctioning body can only mean additional meetings and more diversification plus the inevitable politics that would go on between the two (I believe there is a similar issue in Australia with CAMS). Better to try to change what we've got than set up a rival. The current difficulties are, IMO the result of too much motorsport of poor quality. Adding anything could only be disasterous.

Ideally the clubs need to become self regulating, and I wonder if the move to circuit based clubs (Castle Combe, Brands) could provide the starting point anyway. On the basis of 'We'll organise the meetings for series which we believe will attract sufficient competitors/spectators to make a profit" you gain a sort of survival of the fittest mentaility in which you could only introduce something new if it is already proven to be sufficiently well supported. I rarely see the need for a new series, anyway, most of them could evolve from something already in existence. The catalyst usually seems to be money, or at least, who wants to get it.

[Al Weyman]

I would add that the MSA surely must have some influence on timekeeping methods and timekeepers who are presumably MSA sanctioned/trained and also was it not them or FIA that decreed a rise in pitwall height which I have seen sited as one reason that transponders were introduced because the timekeepers lightbeam was not effective with the new height. So if this is the case I would say they did have influence on the situation.

[johnw]

Al
The directive for transponders came from the BARC (for the series I ran in).

Try a search, I'm sure that somwehere in these pages it is stated that the chair of the MSA timing committee (sic) is also the head honcho of MST. So no conflict there then.

If you are a BARC member, you can visit the RAC Club in Pall Mall by attending the BARC AGM in March and sample the opulence yourself. (Providing you can get there by 7 pm on a weekday). I rather assume that the RAC let the BARC have the room foc, otherwise it seems an expensive place to meet.

[Al Weyman]

I'm sure that somwehere in these pages it is stated that the chair of the MSA timing committee (sic) is also the head honcho of MST. So no conflict there then.

I assume that was tounge in cheek sarcasim John

[johnw]

No

[johnw]

More time today Al,
This extract from Post #121 on the Transponders thread.

Originally Posted by jimbomit

...........However if you were to Write to the MSA, (Mr E Cowcill chairman of the timing council), and inform him that in order for the MSA to be in charge of how cars are timed rather than the companies that produce the equipment, perhaps the MSA would like to rule on the specifications and operating limits transponders and receivers MUST work within to be ratified for use in UK motorsport. That and to rule where on the car the transponders must be sited.

For some reason the matter is never included for discussion at timing council meetings, in fact it's been removed from the advance topic of conversation documents before now. . . .

(Oh you may be best asking Mr Cowcill to look at this matter from his role within the MSA rather than his role as Director of MST timing ltd, wouldn't want any conflicts of interest would we??)........................

[Al Weyman]

Well in that case then surely there must be a conflict of interest which must back up my observation that the MSA have some influence on the situation however opaque that influence is, it also backs up a lot of the points Sam makes about how officials are selected/elected.

[R59]

I still wonder that *IF* you refuse to fit a transponder, win the race, and then are excluded from the results because MST didn't time you, that you should appeal to the MSA, who would HAVE to re-instate you into the results as it was the club/MST that acted in contravention to the blue book which dictates how events shall be timed.
Regardless of what any club may say.

However, who is willing to risk it, taking the fact into consideration that the chairman of the MSA Timing Committee is a director of MST.

Rob.

[Tracey]

Another problem with stopping a series/championship due to low numbers is that this may be seen as stopping a business opportunity. I believe a series can lose a licence if there are not enough competitors registered for it, but being registered does not mean they actually race! One example of this is the MGCC Total Butler championship - a large number of registered competitors, but grids under 20 cars except for the big Silverstone meeting, where the field was split and there was still reserves!

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by SkyRedButton

Another problem with stopping a series/championship due to low numbers is that this may be seen as stopping a business opportunity.

"Business Opportunity". I think that puts into two words exactly what is wrong with most of british motorsport.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Woolley

"Business Opportunity". I think that puts into two words exactly what is wrong with most of british motorsport.

I must say that I agree to a certain extent with Wooley. The term Business Opportunity brings shivers to the spine. However without the cash where would British Motor Sport be?

I believe that there must not only be a good business case for granting a license to a series but there must also be the penalty of withdrawl of license if the series does not match the business plan. Maybe what is needed is the cash to run each series being paid up front. Maybe there would be less opportunistic series springing up if that was the case.

[JimW]

We need to distinguish between "Championship" and "Series". MSA control the former but the latter is almost a free-for-all.

The MSA have a real thing about the danger that they act "in restraint of trade" (or words to that effect) if they try to close down or control some things which then affect somebody's commercial interests. See the latest issue of Motor Sports Now, p 7. where Colin Hilton sets out the MSA view.

So if the Never Seen So Few Entries Racing Club puts together a series for 10 cars of which only six ever appear, that is a matter for them and whoever they pay to have time in a race day.

Regards

Jim

[Al Weyman]

So if the Never Seen So Few Entries Racing Club puts together a series for 10 cars of which only six ever appear, that is a matter for them and whoever they pay to have time in a race day

I am sure that is a fact Jim but for 'The Future of British Motorsport' surely fielding exciting and interesting races and trying to get the public to attend would or should be one of the fundemental goals of the clubs, MSA and circuit owners because that little kid watching open eyed at the track with their dad could be tommorow's competitor. So (a) You have to get them there in the first place and (B) They have to go away with a good lasting impression of what a good motor race is all about not see 6 cars strung out because it suits some vested financial interest.

[Chris Y]

Originally Posted by JimW

So if the Never Seen So Few Entries Racing Club puts together a series for 10 cars of which only six ever appear, that is a matter for them and whoever they pay to have time in a race day.

In that case, you make 'em pay by the grid slot, with 'bulk discounts' available. I.e. the more entries you have, the cheaper your race entry fee.

This is the way it should be. For years the well supported championships have been paying for the smaller grids. I used to run with the BRSCC, and it used to irritate me that some other 'bigger' championships (in name only) got more track time than we did, and paid about the same in entry fees, and yet there were fewer drivers.

There should be a set cost for a race - then that cost can be divided up between the number competitors - this will encourage larger grids.

[Al Weyman]

Trouble with that scheme you would have to go back after closing date and ask competitors for more money, I know what I would say. Poke it!

[R59]

Simple, you set the fee high enough to cover your costs based on 6 cars. If 20 enter, you then have a prize fund / purse for that meeting, and pay start money/finish money.

That way you refund your supporters.

Better still, you don't run races on your card as you are the circuit owner, now in charge of your own destiny, that only have 10 cars, and provide boring (lack of) racing.

They'll soon get the message!!

Rob.

[johnw]

I think that if six people want to race each other, that's fine. I just don't want them to be at the same meeting as I'm at, as it is intensely boring to watch, robs the rest of us of track time, drives the marshals away and gives what's left of the "sport" a bad name.

The organising clubs ought to take it upon themselves to get their own houses in order and insist on series merging to provide full grids. In the absence of that, I believe that it's incumbent on us competitors to organise ourselves into interesting series and championships.

As has been said many times on these boards, I wouldn't pay to watch some of the meetings I'm at, so why would I expect the public to do so?

Agree with the concept of time pricing - in fact suggested the same to my club three years ago, but the wheels grind exceedingly slow. The larger grids subsidising the smaller is unjust.

Trouble is, there is commercial funding available to encourage the organisers to take the six car races. They seem not to look at the picture in totality.

[Al Weyman]

I think the delay between races has always been unacceptably long and should be addressed as well. If Lydden can do it why cant everyone else and do we really need a warm up lap? Whats wrong with coming out of the marshalling area, one lap round the track, line up then go. You would then squeeze another race in could mean a drop in fees if the whole meeting was based on the price of the track hire and expenses divided by the number of entrants. Everyone would win and the public would get some quick fire entertainment.

[Ian Sowman]

The delay between races is now minimal with most clubs, in my experience. Most do not use green flag laps except where necessary (e.g. races which may include cars on slicks; races in different conditions to qualifying), and/or use the the lap out of assembly (if it is a lap) as the green flag lap. Generally the delays are down to circuit configuration and the time taken to clear up incidents, in my experience.

As for reducing fees - yes, good idea. A fee reduction should be calculated retrospectively if a grid exceeds x cars, and either paid as start money, or preferably in championships as a reduction in entry fees in subsequent rounds (ensures loyalty).

[greenamex2]

All the BARC races have a green flag lap.

[Ian Sowman]

I did say *most* clubs, and BARC was one I had excluded in my mind. I'd be interested to know why BARC stick to this.

[Al Weyman]

I have only ever raced with BARC, no tell a lie I did Road Saloons in the 80's.