I detect a fundamental contradiction in Richards' statement.
David Richards wrote:"I think it's very appropriate that Jean Todt has taken over the reins of F1 just at this turning point (...) where we talk about relevance of motorsport technology and yet, today, I can't think of anything less relevant than aerodynamics to the general automotive industry.
Motorsport technology and
F1 technology aren't one and the same thing. Sure, the latter includes the former, but it never was the role of F1, as one of the various motorsport disciplines, to be the one to relate more closely to roadcar technology, except in a small niche market of high performance machinery, many times, sold race-ready. There's where came from firms like Ferrari and Lotus, going from mere racecar constructors that later started building cars, primarely meant for racing purposes, but street-legal for the GT racing market. But even diversifying for more street-oriented machinery, a Ferrari or a Lotus isn't yet (unfortunately, of course), the kind of car that is representative of what everybody drives (except maybe in some areas of L.A....).
Where those came from:
Real car constructors did motorsport also, and their racing technology was relevant for
real road cars.
I believe that this confusion between "F1" and "Motorsport" originated after Mr. Ecclestone got greedy and, with the help of the World Federation (wait, I'm
not talking about Mr. Mosley, but rather about M. Balestre, head of the FISA on the 80's and held by his
cojones by Mr. Ecclestone since the FIA... sorry
FISA/ FOTA... ups,
FOCA wars. That greediness made F1
dry all other motorsport forms in order to establish itself as the only top-level series and, consequently, the biggest target of spending by sponsors. All major competing championships collapsed under, sometimes, incredibly stupid rule-making, like in the case of Group C, others only by the indifference of the sporting federation (Group A, after the absence of effective ruling to avoid a one-make dominance - what DTM avoided in the late 80's, running the exact same cars used in FISA racing, establishing it as a decades-long case of success).
That strategy has finally bit the foot of its creators, making F1 too expensive for
racecar constructors,
rich playboys and
little-workshop enthusiasts alike, that were the pillars of the discipline for ages. Enter the big car manufacturers, void of most of their traditional forms of racing and that spent happily enough for Mr. Ecclestone's liking. It took little time, though, for him to realize that their vows weren't really "for better or for worse" and that their fidelity to the marriage was questionable.
It's them who have imposed the
road-relevance tag on F1, something that it never was designed to be and never needed to be, also. That tag was needed, as they've probably explained to Mr. Ecclestone, to sell their boards the idea that their investment wasn't all
waste. F1 is a driver-series, the home of the brave, rare few that succeed in a kind of beast that always has had little to do with what everybody drives to work, but excites the public on all other levels. It has always been more the modern equivalent of arena shows like the Roman chariot races, who thrilled the same people in the same way as gladiator fighting. Cigar-tube-like vehicles, later with sidepods and wings, with exposed wheels and double-wishbone suspension? It was far different from what the common citizen drove and he couldn't care less. If he wanted to see his Alfa racing, he would go to see a Touring Car race.
Around the same time big car manufacturers were starting to infest F1, little organisations started having considerable success with some motorsport disciplines raced under "private"
(non-FIA) rules that proved that there was an audience eager to see something else that just formulas racing - BTCC,
BPR Global GT Series; DTM... The FIA couldn't ignore this success and ended absorbing many of these series (the S2000 regulations, the rebirth of the WTCC, FIA-GT World Championship). Others succeeded on their own (the ACO Le Mans Series, Grand-Am...). But, finally, we have again strong championships that serve the same purposes and niches that the championships that Mr. Ecclestone destroyed
for the glory of F1.
If I'm surprised that BMW left F1 and decided to invest in ACO GT2 racing and WTCC? Well... no, that's what they've always raced anyway:
I'm still waiting for Toyota's plans, but, if they have any racing programs, they can't be that different from what they've raced in the 60's, 70's or 80's.
Fortunately, we now have again some series that are more road-relevant than F1. Hopefully, F1 will no longer need to be road-relevant and can start being a bit more what it's always been. Look, some
millionaires owning F1 teams? Maybe it has already started to be...
