More on-track time?

[Graham]

As a spectator it seems to me that teams or drivers spend days and weeks preparing for a race meeting and spend a lot of money in the process in order to obtain, what, 30 minutes average on-track. It just doesn't seem like you get your money's worth or that the effort is worth it for drivers in lower formulae without big sponsors to make it useful financially.

As drivers, do you think your races should be longer and more meetings should be spread over a weekend to accomodate this?

Or do you see the cost of tyres and fuel, and perhaps tiredness through driving exertion as an overwhelming disadvantage?

Does the thrill of driving in a race outweigh any shortage of racing time?

Oh, and thinking about the spectator's (and perhaps the real racer's) point of view a minute, do you think longer races mean drivers would pace themselves more and therefore lead to a less exciting race?

[This message has been edited by Graham (edited 25 April 2000).]

[Graham]

Well?

Is this a **** topic? Or is there no-one out there in which case why I am bothering to write this sentence?

[Crash Test]

I hear ya, i hear ya. This just yet another one of my conspiracy theories:
When they have 10 classes racing at a meeting, the promoters and others who gain financially from race meetings get more moey from things such as entry fees, shed rental, and even the possibility of gate takings (i'm thinking of friends, family and well wishers of the competitors here) than if say there were 5 classes on the program.
If there were only 5 classes, as opposed to 10, the entry fees could possibly be doubled, which probably would peeve off the competitors.
I know that a local promoter down here was sreeming murder when one of the classes decided to shorten its season to ensure big grids of cars. The promoter was unhappy because it lost out on another 25 possible entry fees.

One thing which a different local racing club did (and this is becoming more popular) was hire out a provincial circuit for the weekend. They had all the time they wanted and then some. As far as spacing out the meetings goes, you can only fit so many races in a day. The more starts you have the slower the day goes, with griding proceedures and clearing the track. Then again, 45 minute races are a snooze fest for spectators, but great for competitors.
It's a hard one really...

[Peter Mallett]

Its hard for the competitors. You need a good balance. I've heard people talk about our ten lappers as pretty damned exciting, but the same cars at the same circuit over fifteen laps and its boring.

From my point of view, and I expect this is shared by many others, the more racing mileage we do the more it costs in rebuilds, so we want reasonable time (10 or 15 laps), good grids and great circuits. NOT BRANDS INDY or, dare I say it, the emasculated Combe.

[Graham]

I used to be against the changes at Combe, but it's better for spectators and drivers now. I'd rather have two chicanes than one of you guys killing yourselves, or killing one of us. After all, you're all bad drivers so protection is necessary

[SNH]

A few years ago the BARC refused to let one driver do an hour race at Pembrey alone. They said he would get 'too tired'. Strange when the same drivers do a 45 mile race at Spa &, (with enough cash), can do a 24 hour race at Spa or Le Mans.

[Peter Mallett]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SNH:
A few years ago the BARC refused to let one driver do an hour race at Pembrey alone. They said he would get 'too tired'. Strange when the same drivers do a 45 mile race at Spa &, (with enough cash), can do a 24 hour race at Spa or Le Mans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon Steve. Even you don't take an hour to do the Spa 10 lapper.

Sorry just couldn't resist it.

[SNH]

I can do a 10 laps of Spa in 58 mins!

[Peter Mallett]