[ffracer]

Good thread, really got me thinking, but the result is another long post - so apologies for that.

Can anyone convincingly explain why it’s so important that we define single seater racing categories within a “career ladder”? It seems to me that very few drivers actually become true professionals, and a tiny proportion become F1 drivers, but a very large number race basically for their own enjoyment and do not think they are going to become F1 drivers or even professionals. So why isn’t the sport thought of as a range of categories with different price points aimed at attracting people with different racing tastes, and different budgets: like any other consumer service proposition (eg holidays). Some of these categories would be attractive to spectators, some wouldn’t; and some would be supported by professional teams, some wouldn’t. It seems to me that the ladder idea has one immediate downside – all the “lower” categories which are defined as “low” are automatically of lower “value”. This is a bit like in holiday terms saying that we should all aspire to going on holiday to the moon, so merely having a holiday on the beach is a poor substitute. It isn’t of interest and it’s not worth even bothering to provide proper facilities for the beach - you would only go on a beach holiday if it lets you gain points for the moon ride.

As I understand it the argument in favour of the “ladder” structure – to which the MSA seems to subscribe, partly I think to justify their Elite Driver approach – is that getting British drivers into F1 generates massive media interest in the sport, which in turn attracts spectators to events and more participants and sponsors, and so creates benefits at all levels. My observation is that the first part of this explanation holds water, but not the second. That is – there is a lot of media interest created, but this doesn’t create any significant benefits for the majority of people engaged in the sport. For example: it seems to me that, Silverstone apart, all the circuit improvements that we have seen in the last few years (and they have got better I think) have been funded principally by investment justified on the back of income from the corporate, trackday, club and national participants. There isn’t much corporate sponsorship, TV income or any other form of finance drip-through from F1 or the interest that it generates: not that I can see. Would the big crowds at BTCC (whatever I think about that…) and superbikes have been less if we didn’t have any British F1 drivers? Does the F1 driver halo effect explain why there are a lot of big teams based in the UK? This certainly does generate real value. Is it because we have many British drivers in F1, or is it because in the 70s, 80s, 90s Britain build up a world lead in (some key parts of) motorsport technology and expertise? And we achieved this by designing cars and engines and gearboxes etc, not by running F3 teams.

Come to that, would we anyway have more British F1 drivers if we had now the sort of breadth and level of participation that we had in single seaters in the the UK in the 70s and 80s. A few posts back Ivanalesi asked “How many people do you think were involved in motor sport back in the 70s-80s compared to now?” In answering this I’m not sure how to define “motor sport” or “involved”. I guess there are more people now making their living by supplying parts, equipment and services into motor sport than there were then. But if we look at single seater racing: as an impoverished graduate in a new job, in 1976 I could afford to do 30+ Formula Ford races each year with a three year old FF1600 (bought for £1250 with a bank loan - no money left to actually buy any food it’s true), and when you arrived at a Brush Fusegear round there would likely be an entry of 60+ FF1600s. You had to be in the first 10 of the heat just to get into the Final: and that would be only one of two or three heavily supported FF1600 championships racing that week. I suspect Barnettracing would have loved it. I did.

In that era I can recall racing in the same events as people like Mansell, Daly, Warwick, etc etc, who were driving the same category of car as me (albeit they were going a hell of a lot quicker) using much the same level of equipment. Where is the evidence that that sort of financially accessible “broad participation” base is less effective in bringing real talent to the fore, rather than the current career ladder in which even the first rungs are financially unattainable for most people? The current structure often to me seems more designed to respond to the needs of the professional service providers rather than the drivers. This thread has already seen some subtle and not-so-subtle inserts from members of that interest-group.

Another related thought: what if F1 were to fall apart tomorrow? Say BE leaves the F1 stage for some reason; and the teams ripped it all apart in a power struggle (just a “what if” example…) Given the mess that much of the single seater ladder is in now anyway, do you think that the F1-driven ladder structure such as we now have would have any coherence or value at all left in it? I think we would be left with a complete shambles, and a lot of good people servicing the present ladder might be out of a job fairly quickly, as it fragmented. How likely is that?