FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Hammer278]

if Austin no longer happens, what Bernie has basically done is got austin to start building a track, then figured out he can have another street race in New Joyzee, decided he'd prefer that and told Austin not to bother anymore


<---Bernie

LOL

[andrew]

if Austin no longer happens, what Bernie has basically done is got austin to start building a track, then figured out he can have another street race in New Joyzee, decided he'd prefer that and told Austin not to bother anymore


<---Bernie

What MrE is done is make endeavours to secure a US GP and the track builders/race organisers have ballsed it up. NJ was a very well timed back-up so that the US GP isn't so much cancelled, more relocated and still secures the potentially huge US audience..

[myownalias]

This situation was made by Ecclestone because he didn't get payment/funding proof upfront; his insistence on tracks being built from scratch also contributed to this debacle. I have said before that a GP should not be added to the calendar until the track and facilities had been built and any sanctioning fees paid, which would avoid this sort of situation. We have seen many new tracks barely finished when the event happened, I believe the track should be tested before the World's premier motorsport takes to the track. The funding fell away because Austin City decided that it wasn't worthwhile using their major events fund to fund the Austin GP after the announcement of the NJ GP; and they are probably right given that Texas in the backbone of the NASCAR belt!

[LewEngBridewell]

It's a ballache... the plans for the circuit layout actually looked good.

[andrew]

I don't think he has an insistance on tracks being built from scratch. It's more that this has been the only viable option open to them given the venues that F1 has started visited in the past few years.

The race organisers signed a contract with MrE and agreed to all of his terms and conditions. If they were not happy then they should not have signed. If the race organisers cannot keep to the terms that they themselves agreed then that is their fault and no one elses.

[myownalias]

I don't think he has an insistance on tracks being built from scratch. It's more that this has been the only viable option open to them given the venues that F1 has started visited in the past few years.

How do you explain every track in the last ten years being built from scratch and designed by Hermann Tilke? Yes he has been moving into new markets, moving away from traditional countries and tracks but when you plan a new US GP; there is no need for a new circuit, the USA has plenty of great tracks, it would be more cost effective and easier on timescale to upgrade an existing track!

The race organisers signed a contract with MrE and agreed to all of his terms and conditions. If they were not happy then they should not have signed. If the race organisers cannot keep to the terms that they themselves agreed then that is their fault and no one elses.

That's my point, no contracts should be signed until the infrastructure is in place, e.g the track is completed and ready to be raced on... then sanctioning fees should be paid before being added to the F1 calendar. This avoids any issues with races being added to calendars only to be removed later because of failing on either side!

[andrew]

I don't think he has an insistance on tracks being built from scratch. It's more that this has been the only viable option open to them given the venues that F1 has started visited in the past few years.

How do you explain every track in the last ten years being built from scratch and designed by Hermann Tilke? Yes he has been moving into new markets, moving away from traditional countries and tracks but when you plan a new US GP; there is no need for a new circuit, the USA has plenty of great tracks, it would be more cost effective and easier on timescale to upgrade an existing track!

You've kind of answered your own question there with F1 moving to new countries. As for the US/Austin, my understanding is that in the chosen location there were no F1 suitable tracks unless F1 was to go for an oval. Also having a nice shiney new circuit with "state of the art" facilities is more likely to attract the punters. I wouldn't say it would be more cost effective to upgrade an existing track though I would say it may be more cost effective. Likely all the possible alternatives will have been looked at and ruled out for various good reasons.

The race organisers signed a contract with MrE and agreed to all of his terms and conditions. If they were not happy then they should not have signed. If the race organisers cannot keep to the terms that they themselves agreed then that is their fault and no one elses.

That's my point, no contracts should be signed until the infrastructure is in place, e.g the track is completed and ready to be raced on... then sanctioning fees should be paid before being added to the F1 calendar. This avoids any issues with races being added to calendars only to be removed later because of failing on either side!

Yep, true that. I wonder how much of MrE's strategy is to keep the timescales as tight as possible so that he can in some way keep the pressure on the organisers to keep to the agreed timescale ensuring that the track is completed on time?

[myownalias]

I don't think he has an insistance on tracks being built from scratch. It's more that this has been the only viable option open to them given the venues that F1 has started visited in the past few years.

How do you explain every track in the last ten years being built from scratch and designed by Hermann Tilke? Yes he has been moving into new markets, moving away from traditional countries and tracks but when you plan a new US GP; there is no need for a new circuit, the USA has plenty of great tracks, it would be more cost effective and easier on timescale to upgrade an existing track!

You've kind of answered your own question there with F1 moving to new countries. As for the US/Austin, my understanding is that in the chosen location there were no F1 suitable tracks unless F1 was to go for an oval. Also having a nice shiney new circuit with "state of the art" facilities is more likely to attract the punters. I wouldn't say it would be more cost effective to upgrade an existing track though I would say it may be more cost effective. Likely all the possible alternatives will have been looked at and ruled out for various good reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_au ... ad_courses <- A list of non-oval tracks in the US; surely one of these could be modified to F1 standards!

[bud]

Watkins Glen or Road America for my liking.

[Matt_1222]

if Austin no longer happens, what Bernie has basically done is got austin to start building a track, then figured out he can have another street race in New Joyzee, decided he'd prefer that and told Austin not to bother anymore


<---Bernie

What MrE is done is make endeavours to secure a US GP and the track builders/race organisers have ballsed it up. NJ was a very well timed back-up so that the US GP isn't so much cancelled, more relocated and still secures the potentially huge US audience..

That isn't really what's happened though is it? I don't think Bernie would have been so quick to say 'oh don't bother then' if he hadn't gotten NJ, and we'd still be having a nice purpose built track. It is fairly obvious something is gonna have to go off the calender... didn't the teams say that they didn't want any more than 19/20 races? It just so happens that the seemingly good American track went for Bernie's bonerific NJ street race

[andrew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_auto_racing_tracks_in_the_United_States#Road_courses <- A list of non-oval tracks in the US; surely one of these could be modified to F1 standards!

I'm aware that there are several tracks that are not ovals but it's about the location. Not far off being in the middle of the US (ok, it's a bit to the south of the centre). I have a problem with existing tracks being upgraded as this can ruin a perfectly good track which is fantastic for other motorsports. The there are the infrastructure requirements to think of. Better to start from scratch most of the time I reckon.

That isn't really what's happened though is it? I don't think Bernie would have been so quick to say 'oh don't bother then' if he hadn't gotten NJ, and we'd still be having a nice purpose built track. It is fairly obvious something is gonna have to go off the calender... didn't the teams say that they didn't want any more than 19/20 races? It just so happens that the seemingly good American track went for Bernie's bonerific NJ street race

Isn't it? I know what has been written in various media as much as the next person. I think you are wrong in saying that if NJ wasn't going to happen Austin would not have been dropped. It was widely reported that 2 US GPs were what was wanted and what was going to be produced. Given the population mass and spread of the US, 2 races makes a degree of sense if the demand is there. It now seems that the Austin organisers agreed to something which ultimately isn't going to happen due to what seems to be infighting, which has caused this latest delay. Like I've said, can't really blame MrE for this seeing as the organisers agreed to his terms (realistic or not, that doesn't matter) so it's them that shoulder the responsibility of this balls-up.

[Matt_1222]

Isn't it? I know what has been written in various media as much as the next person. I think you are wrong in saying that if NJ wasn't going to happen Austin would not have been dropped. It was widely reported that 2 US GPs were what was wanted and what was going to be produced. Given the population mass and spread of the US, 2 races makes a degree of sense if the demand is there. It now seems that the Austin organisers agreed to something which ultimately isn't going to happen due to what seems to be infighting, which has caused this latest delay. Like I've said, can't really blame MrE for this seeing as the organisers agreed to his terms (realistic or not, that doesn't matter) so it's them that shoulder the responsibility of this balls-up.

Hmm well, i am just going by what i read and that was the Austin decided to drop funding for the GP as a result of there being another race in NJ. This is something i blame Bernie for because i have a feeling that his attitude was that he'll go for Austin and then if NJ decide they want one then we can forget about Austin. However i am predisposed to hate the bloke.

[andrew]

Hmm well, i am just going by what i read and that was the Austin decided to drop funding for the GP as a result of there being another race in NJ. This is something i blame Bernie for because i have a feeling that his attitude was that he'll go for Austin and then if NJ decide they want one then we can forget about Austin. However i am predisposed to hate the bloke.

The track at Austin has been plauged by trouble since long before NJ came on the scene. Being predisposed to hate MrE will cloud your judgement.

[Matt_1222]

Hmm well, i am just going by what i read and that was the Austin decided to drop funding for the GP as a result of there being another race in NJ. This is something i blame Bernie for because i have a feeling that his attitude was that he'll go for Austin and then if NJ decide they want one then we can forget about Austin. However i am predisposed to hate the bloke.

The track at Austin has been plauged by trouble since long before NJ came on the scene. Being predisposed to hate MrE will cloud your judgement.

Fear is the path to the dark side... fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

[myownalias]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_auto_racing_tracks_in_the_United_States#Road_courses <- A list of non-oval tracks in the US; surely one of these could be modified to F1 standards!

I'm aware that there are several tracks that are not ovals but it's about the location. Not far off being in the middle of the US (ok, it's a bit to the south of the centre). I have a problem with existing tracks being upgraded as this can ruin a perfectly good track which is fantastic for other motorsports. The there are the infrastructure requirements to think of. Better to start from scratch most of the time I reckon.

We'll have to agree to disagree on new tracks versus upgraded tracks... but Austin is far from the middle of the country, infact it's only 350 miles from the Mexican border, whereas it's over 2200 miles to the Canadian border... If you want the middle of the country, you need Kansas or Nebraska, which both have oodles of space to build a track!!!