When The Saints Go Merging In

2012 saw some extraordinary changes in motorsports. Some series thought it was time to put the racing slicks up on the shelf, while others thought it was a good idea to occupy the neighbour's backyard with eventually moving in under a common roof. Whether it's good or bad, it is happening now with some very intriguing results. Let's see what the year of the London Olympics had up its sleeves for the motor racing fan not associated with.

Whoever thought the credit crunch was all bad was either an estate agent, a CEO of a major company, some millions of average citizens, or an F1 fan. It all started with the IRL/ChampCar merge back in 2008. While the unification had nothing to do with the credit crunch, as it happened almost a year before that, it set the template for the year of thin calves to come, and outlined some of the DOs and DON'Ts to be considered, which were thrown out of the window in this example. Rewinding the clock, IndyCar split to CART and the Indy Racing League back in the mid-'90s with CART having all the teams, all the media coverage, all the know-how and sponsorship, leaving the IRL with some souped-up go-karts, a calendar with about four dates among which, though, one was the Indianapolis 500. I am sure all of you played those car card games where you have a single car that is unbeatable by almost any parameter (older packs: usually a Ferrari of some sort, newer ones: a Veyron) and you can turn around the game and win from only having three cards left with this Joker in hand. Well, the Indy 500 is something very similar. CART (later ChampCar) was very impressive, fast and exciting, but it lacked the heart the clumsy IRL had. This, combined with the lack of interest caused by the split with fans wandering off to NASCAR, ChampCar had to bow out as neither the teams, the manufacturers or the sponsors slowly realised it was a series of lost values and drifted to the one that still had some. Thus, ChampCar went out of business, and all of the assets were acquired by IRL with the promise to appeal to the fans of both series.

Unfortunately they got it all wrong. The first time at least.

They took the worst of two worlds and boiled it down in a tub to make a mash no one was particularly in favour of. The one-make cars that were designed to go fast around ovals while being raced mostly on street circuits was not something that went through without major question marks, but - cutting to the chase - the now unified IndyCar heard those criticisms and added some more ovals eventually, encouraged manufacturers to take part, new chassis developed with parts to be self-developed later on. It all seems to be recalling the glory days of Indy racing. But it is too late, the damage was done, after almost 20 years. NASCAR is king in the US.

So out of all this, what the ALMS and GrandAm have to learn? Before I would get into that, let's sum up another similar, although potentially lot more successful story.

The Intercontinental Rally Challenge was conceived by EuroSport as a made-for-TV alternative to the WRC. It all seemed to be working, however, there were a few problems. Apart from the fact that it wasn't really intercontinental. Nor it came with a too prestigious title at the end of the year. Still, the exposure it granted was enough to attract teams and make a spectacle. However, as an old, forgotten brother in the closet, there hang the FIA European Rally Championship, challenged for the same spot. So the question was rather obvious: why shouldn't the privileges of media pass on to the series that had the history, making a unified European challenge. And this is exactly what happened. Or at least what should be happening from 2013.

Cutting back to American sportscar racing - there is a bad example and a rater positive example to follow here: how to incorporate the best of both worlds without all the setbacks.

Givens are: one series that baldly embraces its European ancestry, and another one - sanctioned by the country's largest body, owning the biggest motoring spectacle, the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series - creating something of their own and recalling some of the atmosphere of the Carrera Panamericana ,where European sportscars were put alongside American stock cars for an epic challenge through Northern Mexico, all these manifested in the Daytona Prototype cars running at the Daytona road course.
This time the situation is a lot more complicated: how to keep those values at a balance? What to  throw out and what to keep?

Especially that NASCAR is going to be the sanctioning body, it's easy to assume with a told-you-so attitude that it would go down as the longer, slower and uncut version of NASCAR, however this seems not to be the case. They are even crowd sourcing a name for the new series.

Push comes to shove, some things have to be eliminated. Tracks, teams, even categories. The single biggest question is that whether DPs (top GrandAm category) or LMP2s (same for ALMS) should go. It has already been decided that the GT class would come from ALMS, which would strongly suggest that DPs  take the top step, ditching P2s. Or maybe not. Just think about it: the link missing between full-blown prototypes (as P1s) and GTs are the cars with production-DNA. Which are the P2s and DPs (with production-derived engine blocks). In that order. Why not have P2s AND DPs, with DPs renamed "P3"s, or P2s as "SP"s as in "Sebring Prototype". Of course FIA and ACO would have a say or two about this, but it would be the logical step to do as their power output, technology and rice would suggest. Or taking the matter even one step further, DPs have a slight stock car DNA with their attempted mimicry of actual production cars, even they are very subtle touches as the headlight-decals or some vague attempt to resemble the basic silhouette of the "donor" car.

There is something primarily engaging with racing cars that - at least in part - look like production models. That is partly why NASCAR is successful ("everyday" cars running around 200mph, "I have one of those"), that is why the V8 Supercars, DTM or the SuperGT evokes some sort of instinctively tribal phenomenon.
Funnily enough, DTM and SuperGT announced the unification of their specifications, which creates an almost WWII-grandeur alliance in motorsports, the "Axis of Silhouette". Did I mention that Daytona Prototypes are welcome in the GT300 category in SuperGT? Did someone just say there's an intercontinental thread of stock cars, sport prototypes and silhouette touring cars, making perhaps one, worldwide-spread, unified series somewhere down the line? If this is not destined for epic greatness or miserable failure, I don't know what could touch this anyway. Talking about credit crunch and necessity: creativity cannot be bought.

There are marriages in times of need where romance is left outside the building with surviving being the keyword. These never go down without bitterness (as no marriage does), but that doesn't mean there can't be really extraordinary children out of them.

My Crush On FWD Four-Door Saloons

"So what is this thing with you and front wheel-drive four-door saloons?" asked Tiff Needell almost pinning me against the wall at this party at a Goodwood lounge. I had a waverly look at him as my goatie hairs gently pulsed under his cider-flavoured breath and threw an arm towards Chris Harris to help me out. "Well..." I started with a croaking voice and an uncomfortable look in my eyes, trying to kill time until Chris was willing to come over. "The thing is with these cars is that they are not BMWs... or Astons...or Mercs, *ahem* but something that... you know... you can buy... for real." That didn't seem to convince Tiff and I was ready to threw new arguments into our Pythonesque conversation, but just as I opened my mouth, he indulged himself into a monologue concerning the new BMW M5, rear-wheel drive, chassis setup, and all those sorts of things while spilling cider on his shoes and the floor. Luckily enough, Harris finally came around with a pint of Löwenbrau in his hand, listened to Tiff's tech-talk and just as the grey-haired presenter stopped for a minute, he dropped the final words to end the conversation. "The sandwiches are really good, you should try them." and with that, he passed his beer over to me and made his way over the loo.

Of yourse, you wouldn't read any of this if I didn't try to come up with a point to start this post, attempting to put words into famous road-testers' mouth upon why I love front-wheel drive saloons. Because there is no real argument in this topic, there are no pros or cons, just personal affection, my personal crush on these cars without a single logical piece of objective explanation.

Or is there one? Let's find out.

Personally, I never owned a four-door saloon, but I really feel I should. And to get to the point, four-door saloons are one of the most impractical practical cars as of 2012, yet one of the most sold ones around the world.

With the massive spread of hatchbacks, saloons got stuck as something obsolete between the hatchback and the estate category. Because, first of all, why would you want a saloon?

You would say it's the big boot space, for example. But no, it is not that much bigger as the car itself is compared an ordinary hatchback, but it is the same length as its estate counterpart that has virtually endless amount of boot space. You then could say there's enough room for your family to sit in the car, with comfortable legroom at the back seats, but again, it loses the point contrary to the estate, which has the same amount of legroom, plus the afore-mentioned boot space. Then you could mention the price that is slightly lower than of an estate, but when it comes to fitting the dog or the childrens' small bicycles in the car, your regular interior cleaning bill comes quickly into even terms with the price difference between the two.

So again, why would you buy a saloon?

Well, the simple answer is because they look great. Of course I'm not talking about saloons that were converted from hatchbacks, but proper, ground-up saloons - limousines if you like. They just have this sinister look on the street, especially in dark colours, preferably dark blue, grey or black. With some chrome trimming here and there, they really look like something of class compared to the rest of the usual cars on the roads.

Now the real petrolhead could say "Yes, you got a point there, but why front-wheel drive? It is the worst thing ever happened to the car, closely followed by large cupholders and automatic transmission."

First things first, cupholders are great when you are stuck in a traffic jam, and automatic transmission is just wonderful when... you are stuck in a traffic jam. But they really don't have much to do with actual driving, so let's get back to our original point. Front-wheel drive does have practical advantages over RWD, especially with saloons and estates - meaning of course the prop-shaft and the rear axle occupying valuable room from the backseats and the boot in an FR-layout car - but let's not cite this fact here when I just proved superiority of saloons over everything else by means of single affection, but the other, most important practical argument is FWD's price. Because, as you may noticed, we live in a world where RWD is now the toy of higher-class manufacturers, meaning of course BMW and Mercedes in the first place being the cheapest of these. Looking back, perhaps the Ford Sierra and the Opel Omega/Vauxhall Carlton were the last affordable FR-layout cars and that piece of the market is simply missing now.

Yes, RWD is more fun, yes, enjoyable to drive, but even when you have the money to buy and maintain a BMW or a Mercedes, you cannot avoid the terms "hoon" and "posh" tagged onto you, respectively.

Also, this doesn't mean FWD four-door saloons should be boring. Let's just take motorsports pedigree. Touring car racing loves FWD saloons. Maybe not as much as hatchbacks, but still, they still can be good use in a contact-motorsport like BTCC. And if you just look at the podium at the end of each WTCC race, you'll notice that it is covered with one factory team with four-door saloons from race to race. Germany of course is the European heaven of RWD, so if you look at DTM, two out of three saloons represented are RWD with Audi still being 4WD or FWD, with the actual, purpose-built racecars all being RWD of course. Or just have a look at NASCAR. The most widely viewed motorsport right after F1. Its top series, the Sprint Cup features four four-door saloons, out of which three are front-wheel drive in real life with the Dodge Charger basically being a plain muscle car with two further doors attached, rather than a high-performance saloon. Of course, none of these make the actual cars more exciting, but their sheer layout and balance make them capable to perform probably the most spectacular motoring guilty pleasure on Earth, the "arab drift".

But this is not the purpose of a FWD four-door saloon. The point of the whole car should be to give you a sort of down-to-earth class - or rather dignity - for good money, without the negative preconceptions attached to the luxurious RWD counterparts. It should tell other people, you are an ordinary person with a sinister life. You have a proper house you worked for, a proper car you earned and you just simply have the right to drive a slightly big car that is not a 100% workhorse as an estate would be.

In other words, a front-wheel drive four-door saloon makes you feel and look like a capital-letter CITIZEN, as all of us want to be. And for a strange reason, that is my crush.

Well, Tiff seems to have fallen asleep, I should give him a ride home in this Peugeot 605.

An introduction to #NASCAR

LIVE guide to weekend's motor racing; June 22nd - 26th

UPDATED! *WARNING!* This page contains live webcams, twitter feeds and further links. It may take a while to load. Races covered in this post: Pikes Peak International Hillclimb, NASCAR, IndyCar, Intercontinental Rally Challenge, GP3, GP2, Formula 1, Seat Leon Cup, Porche Carrera World Cup, ADAC 24 Hours Classics, ADAC Nürburgring 24 Hours and Climb to the Clouds. Click at your own responsibility. ;)

Embracing Oval-Track Racing

Oval-track racing is one of the most controversial form of automobile competition. Some adore it, some hate it with disgust, yet it just won't go out of fashion, because - guess what - ovals are the oldest purpose-built tracks in the world. Want to argue with tradition?

The need for racetracks came very early on, as cars were still fresh and new, but people would want to watch head-to-head competition. Surely, there were already Grand Prix races on closed roads, but that didn't really satisfy the needs of the audience and drivers at the time. There were a few problems: roads were bumpy, and a car would quickly dissolve into the vanishing point on an open road.

Since people were pioneering land-speed record attempts, the faster the competition, the more exciting races were. So, if you take a long-long stretch of flawless piece of road, you can push the hell out of the car, and if you take both ends of it and form a circle, it goes infinitely. Plus, the audience can get a great view on ALL the happenings, ALL the time.

Thus, Brooklands and Indianapolis Motor Speedway was born in 1907 and 1909 respectively, and while the former had to close down only after 32 years of activity, the latter is still an living course. hosting - among many others - one of the most prestigeous races in the world.

Americans love ovals, most of their biggest IndyCar, NASCAR and other races are running on the banked turns.

And yes, everything has flaws.

First of all, you just can't race in the rain on an oval. That would be a direct act of suicide. It is just not possible to create a race under such circumstances with cars sliding around, hitting the walls. There would be simply no survivors of such an event after only 20 laps.

Secondly, the problems detailed above do exist anyway, would just be amplified by the rain tremendously. The other direct problem is the great chance of collision. Cars running around in packs at 200mph do open the door for a huge per cent of possibility of contacts, concluding in crashes. The happening that's being exciting for the eye, ruining the pace. Most of the races are series of racing 5 laps, then pacing 5 laps under yellow flag.

The diffenerces in the structure of the races (and hence the mentality of the two worlds) between of ovals and "road cources" are very similar to the ones of American and European football. American football is a fast-pace, full action combat for a few seconds, then strategic mind-game for long minutes. While as European football is more of a "timer has started, just go out and win" sort of attitude in this recpect. Most of the action that's been done on a road course can be squeezed into a few minutes of racing on an oval. People governing NASCAR know this and push the politics of the game into this direction

All this lead up to our most crucial point. Is it fun to watch races like these and is it fun to participate in them?

Referring back to the beginning, attending such an event you get a view like nowhere else. You see all the action, you hear all the roar, you smell everythig. Literally, it is a 360 degree surrounding sense-bombing. Whereas going on TV, it may not be so exciting. Especially when cars are completing their pace laps most of the duration of the races. So, if I had to be at a race and watch all the fun and circus, I would vote for an oval, but would fall asleep watching something like it on TV for four straight hours.

For the drivers? Since ovals are not that demanding for the body, drivers can spend a longer career in motor racing. While Schumacher and Barrichello are old lads in F1, they still may have at least 20 good years in any NASCAR series, and 10-12 in IndyCar.

I do watch oval racing, despite falling asleep eventually, and I still think we need more tracks like these, or similar. The Lausitzring was one great chance that ended up in tragedy, but a European can still watch e.g. the European Late Model Series for a gist of 'merican racing.

In fact, I believe the key in these is their live-audience drawing factor. We managed to find one great solution to get the action. the first one-on-one race of DTM in Munich Olympic Stadium will be held between July 16 and 17. There's an arena, there are the cars, there are turns, it seems all perfect. Two thumbs up.

We might not embrace oval tracks fully, but we will surely get the gist of it sooner or later.

(Watch the webcams on the right and see the track on the Olympic Stadium building. Hopefully we will get a great coverage through it, too.)

NOTE: Silhouette Racing

Get larger image here.

Strictly Stock Mileage

A few weeks ago we were to learn that NASCAR driver Carl Edwards had driven his Ford Fusion Hybrid to a distance of 1445.7 miles that covers an 81.5 mpg. Which is great. Then VW’s SEAT repeated the success reaching 970.6 miles with one tank of diesel (i.e. 12.03 gallons) in an Ibiza model, which suggests a very similar outcome: 81.1 mpg. Though neither of them could beat the Honda Insight’s 106.2 mpg I started thinking… Hey, actually it would make a great race! Thus I started working out the details.

Ford asking Mr. Edwards for this eco-run twisted up my imagination because NASCAR is known for its budget-economy (compared to other series with the same success) but mileage is measured by great races i.e. Daytona 500, for example. Well, to be honest racing in general is not about being conscious about the vehicle’s fuel consumption but has affecting roles sometimes. In addition, Ford has the Fusion in the NASCAR league but ironically it doesn’t have anything to do with the one Mr. Edwards was driving the other day. Actually neither of the cars in the top ’stock’ class does. Even the Chevrolet Impala SS is now a FWD along with the Fusion and the Toyota Camry although the SS has a V8 engine at least. It is the Dodge Charger that has the most to relate to its racing ’variant’ for it is a RWD and has a V8 under the hood. Also, note that the motors all NASCAR racecars run with are based on the ones MOPAR developed many-many years ago for the series, so again it’s one credit plus for the Charger’s validity. But still, let’s face it: the current ’Sprint Cup Series’ is just a blatant parody of the spirit of the late ’Simply Stock’ category despite the fact that the ’Sprint’ is the direct legal descendant of it. Now here comes the idea: why not bring the ’Stock’ category back with actual stock cars combining the race with eco-factors?

OK, here’s the deal: yet the whole hybrid-fever is just a flash in the consumption race. It has a lot more to develop, still. People in America relax their consciousness by believing that they can save the industry and the Earth by converting the cars to hybrid. Unfortunately not up to the point when it is relevant. You see you can convert ANY car to an eco-ride by not travelling in it alone but filling it up with people. Also, proper shifting, clutching, braking, pre-planning can save you literally GALLONS of fuel while all the flashy engine upgrades like start-stop automatics can save just a few onuces. People just need to be aware that it is DRIVING and ATTITUDE that makes the ride ECONOMIC to the most percents, NOT the CAR itself. That is what Mr. Edwars had proved the audience with his ride, but Ford tends to attribute it to their achievement with the Fusion itself. Disproof: the SEAT Ibiza diesel that has been just mentioned above.

So the greatest advertisement for eco-driving would ironically be a race running with stock cars. Just imagine: running the street equivalents of the NASCAR-representatives on the same tracks, like Daytona, Bristol, Talladega, Martinsville. Amount of fuel teams could use during a race weekend (or more likely in the final run itself) would be limited below the level the race could have been achieved by putting the pedal to the metal. Also, while pitting, just a maximum limited amount of fuel should be filled into the tank along with a much smaller tank inserted into the cars than they actually have thus forcing teams to work out strategy much carefully concerning fast/eco driving and periods of pitting making the day more exciting.

Of course the cars should have all necessary safety equipments (like rollcages, electricity-disengagement system, racing tires and maybe suspension as well, etc.) to avoid drivers’ injuries to the most with the extension that the car should weigh the same as the ’street’ version (so some stock equipments, like backseats or A/C system could be removed) along with they being street legal in all states in America. And finally: DON’T TOUCH THE ENGINE! Although there is a lot more to consumption than the engine itself most prominently – weight, that is why the stock weight of the car should be retained and like I said, driving that is the core of the whole race, the stock engine is a key in reliability as well. Also, drivers saving fuel during the weekend could get extra points for their economic driving, the more saved the more scored.

Would people be interested in such a thing? Sure! The interesting thing is that despite the fact everybody is aware of the fact that NASCAR cars do not have a bit to do with the ones running outside the track, they are still highly popular because of their stock looks. However the big question today is not how fast the average street car can run but rather it is expensive to maintain, or not. Thus making up a series like that (highly expressing the fact that economy is in the feet) would be more true to the original spirit of Stock Car Racing.

Please vote on the right if you like the idea!