Bob Barnard Track Engineering

Can't keep Texas out of the news these days. The State should be pleased with the publicity, but I'm not sure this is the type they were looking for.

http://jalopnik.com/5970719/austins-circuit-of-the-americas-cancels-track-days-screws-over-racing-fans-everywhere?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_twitter&utm_source=jalopnik_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

So what gives? Is COTA going to follow India, Korea and Shanghai, and Turkey before it lost the F1 race, as F1 tracks that cannot afford to be kept open for other than the GP? The track says it is still staging major events, and is changing direction. Whatever that means. I cannot imagine that here in the US there are not enough people wanting to rent the track not to be worth taking their money. And it seems they have taken the money, cashed the check! This is becoming a pattern. First they fall out with Tavo over the F1 race, then Kevin Schwantz over the MotoGP, and now track renters.

Perhaps the noise complaints have forced this, but they did not put up much of a fight if that is so, and most of this type of use is road cars anyway.

Perhaps they are going to manage the track days etc themselves, but if so why not say so. This is creating bad feeling with the grass roots, and doubts about the viability of the track. And I can't imagine the politicians who are forking out millions to back this are going to be too happy if their constituents can't use it. Watch this space I guess. As readers know I have never understood the economics of this track.

Over to soccer, and after my blog the other day about the use of arms these days, there on Sky Sports is a discussion on "grappling." Glad I am not the only one who thinks this is a problem.

Today's news seems all about money. Max Mosley accused Red Bull of exceeding the Resource Restriction Agreement, i.e. overspending, in 2010. Red Bull denies this, but this agreement is so full of get out clauses it will be hard to tell. The boys cannot agree on what is "Restricted" in 2011, and presumably they have committed most of their spending already. The RRA was a way for the teams to do what Max wanted and reduce spending without him unilaterally decreeing it, so of course it is full of loopholes on what is restricted and what is not.

Then there is the great article by Dieter Rencken in this weeks Autosport on the problems F1 tracks have making money. It is really a case of restricting the losses, and reflects what I have been saying here since I started the blog. All fans of motorsport need to read this to see the mess it is in, and how it is unsustainable. As we saw with manufacturers, as soon as Governments wake up there will be no more billion dollar race tracks, and we will need all those great tracks that have been cast aside in the name of CVC's wealth generation.

Dun and Bradstreet have just released a report card on when F1 teams pay their bills. Red Bull pay promptly, which may be why they are over the RRA. If you delay paying, like Lotus which is the worst offender with 180 days late, then presumably you can delay recording the expenditure? The bottom line seems to be suppliers know they are going to get paid. One supplier commented that "if Yijay Mallya sold his yacht he could pay the team bills for the next two years." Now paying bills late is not unusual, it is "good business" for lots of companies, including the one I worked for back in the eighties. I was running a State Branch of a construction company in a small town and would meet my subs and suppliers every day, and be asked when they are going to get paid. Now they knew they would be paid, but it got wearing, so I complained to our accountant, who was also a co-owner, who just told me the money was better in our bank than theirs, and putting up with the whining was what he paid me for. Touche.


And of course there is the ongoing "Banker Bribery" scandal to fully unfold, and the situation with "pay for ride" drivers, but we all knew F1 was really about money didn't we?