What is the Right Stuff anyway ? Bill Oursler on the past season… Why do we as a civilization strive so hard to build things, only to destroy them and then lay the blame on what we call “inevitability?” Most likely it has a great deal to do with agendas and short sightedness, or at least that’s about the most reasonable explanation I can find. Clearly there has to be some rational, no matter how off the wall it might be for the often dumb decisions we make during our lives, other than “it seemed like a good idea at the time.” The trouble is that when I look back on the course of professional road racing in North America during the latter part of the 20th century, rationality appears to be priority number twelve on a list of ten. Moreover, that trend, as far as I can see, continues to flourish to this day. And, that’s just fine with me. Well, perhaps not fine, but at least I’ve come to accept it. What I can’t accept, however, is the notion that those in charge are unable to so anything about their problems. To me far too often the motorsport community drills its head, neck and shoulders into the sand so that it won’t have to review its history, much less try and learn from it. In short, excuses many times take the place of action. “Just say no” somehow overcomes, “just do it.” And, frankly that’s a tragedy. As a journalist I cover both the American Le Mans Series and the Rolex Grand Am. I try, although I’m accused of failing more times than I care to admit, to be balanced. However, as a fan of sports car racing, I am biased. Got any Beeman's ? In truth I prefer the ALMS template over that of the Grand Am. I grew up in a time when people strove for excellence just because they felt it was the right thing to do. Imagine if you will, someone telling Chuck Yeager it was “too costly” to attempt to break the sound barrier, that it was far more important to reign in technology and feed the world’s starving instead. A noble thought no doubt, but one that runs counter to mankind’s thirst for knowledge. Throughout motorsport there has been a constant battle between the rulesmakers and the community of designers and builders whose creations were, and are forged by the parameters they set. What gives me unease with the Grand Am, and why I prefer the ALMS’ philosophical sandbox is the fact that in the past once those parameters were proscribed, it was up to the engineers to use their imagination in how to deal with them. The Grand Am’s approach has been to so tightly construct its regulations that little or no such imagination is needed. And, while I am sure that many in the Grand Am will disagree, one only needs to look at the cars racing in the Daytona prototype category to see the results on enforced “similarity.” Leads with a left, a right to the body… Yet, as been the case with NASCAR, one can’t deny that this restrictive environment has produced exciting racing where “leaning” on one’s competition is more the norm than the exception. If the Rolex Grand American folks can solve their television problems and produce coverage of their events that will clearly highlight the strengths of what they’re trying to sell, then the future of the sport may well be found with them. For me, though, this “hot house” approach is not what I grew up with, and therefore being older, and more set in my ways, I prefer the path of innovation, the one that the ALMS has supported during its rather brief time on stage. However, I wonder sometimes about my friends in the ALMS whom I perceive occasionally as being a bit too passive in their business approach. When IMSA founder John Bishop wanted to make changes, whether those were the creation of the All American GT category, which resulted in an influx of American-bred muscle sedans to fight the Porsches and BMWs that dominated his Camel GT during the mid-1970’s, or the development of the GT Prototypes themselves a half a decade further on, he took the active approach. Bishop takes pawn… Bishop has a way of “encouraging” people to look at things differently. Indeed, in the late 1960’s, he forced the Sports Car Club of America to go professional with the United States Road Racing Championship, then created the original Can-Am, and finally followed that with the Trans-Am, which burst upon the scene as a haven for factory muscle car competition. One would have thought that this success would have insured Bishop’s future at the SCCA, but, that proved not to be the case, as political in-fighting forced him from his executive directors job at the beginning of 1969, an onto the open market where, with the help of NASCAR’s Bill France, Sr, he founded the International Motor Sports Association later that year. One can make an excellent argument that the decision by the SCCA, made largely because of personal agendas and egos, is what eventually cost the club its position as the leading road racing sanctioning body in North America. Likewise the tailspin that IMSA found itself in under the controversial Andy Evans 25 years later can be attributed to many of those same flaws. Now people are asking if road racing in America is strong enough to survive with a divided house; a question that no one seemingly wants to answer. Ask the two sides involved the sport at the moment, and what you get is the vague response that neither is commenting against the other. In essence, they say, “We’re just doing our ‘own thing.’” Of course they are. And, of course they have every right to do that. Still, the fact is that the Grand Am and the ALMS are playing to what is essentially the same audience, both in terms of their competitor bases and those spectators and television viewers who watch them. So is that base large enough? Only if the sport is willing to struggle on at its current subsistence levels. Time Fades Away Will that happen any time soon? Most likely not. I know many of the people who run both organizations, and I can tell you that they are good at what they. In fact, a number of the key players learned much of what they know from working with Bishop himself. Yet each group is seemingly entrenched in their positions, much the same way the Germans and the Allies were during World War One in the fields of Flanders. Happily, the differences between Grand Am and the ALMS won’t cost a generation of lives as did WWI. Still, like that costly war, no one is ready to compromise, and compromise is what is going to be necessary if professional road racing in America is to break out of its present small universe and expand to a healthy and prosperous future. Clearly, both camps need to give up something in order to achieve that goal. Just as clearly what we’ve been treated to are the reasons why that can’t happen. Perhaps it is time for us to stop making excuses and start building. AS unlikely as that might seem, it would make for one hell of a present to those of us who care. |
|
