This was said in a different thread on the same subject
"This is obviously an extreme example in a country that is nearing the end game in terms of the decline of karting, but it illustrates the problem and the need for proper solutions"
The country is by no means near the end game in terms of karting. Indeed, as I keep pointing out, there are more karters today than there have ever been before.
Even the Green Paper admits this, though it is couched in a very oblique way.
The fact is that the majority of karters are involved in corporate karting and corporate karting leagues. These institutions have huge advantages for the karters, they don't have to have a licence, they can easily hire the equipment when they want, they don't have to have a commitment and training and the equipment is largely equal...and if you get a bad engine this race, then there's a chance that the next kart you get allocated will have the good one. (the exception of course is the 'owners' team who always get the good ones, karts which get swapped out for another with the same number when it isn't the favored drivers' mount) And, of course, you can get three heats and a final in the space of two hours rather than eight.
The Green Paper is more about how to capture this market, to persuade those drivers to make the transition, than it is about doing anything for those currently in the sport.
Indeed, read with a certain cynical viewpoint, one might see the rest of the paper as a justification for exactly those barriers that are believed to stop people from 'moving up'. For example, prior to the Arks test I was told that there wasn't serious money in 'training' because there wasn't the motivation, there weren't enough customers to warrant the expense of a training staff paid a realistic wage on a regular basis. The Arks test could have been designed to direct a flow of money into the pockets of those running Arks training, justified under the title of "insurance litigation" though my insure friends assure me that if they were so inclined they could drive a coach and horses through "the test". The question that is difficult to quantify is whether the standard of driving has improved from the days when the CoC assessed new drivers on the strength of their own observation and the advice of trusted others, often traders, and a verbal test to today when they asess new drivers on the basis of personal observation, the word of trusted observers, often traders, and a paper test.
At the same time, I have watched the number of potential customers who have enthused over karts in the pit on a weekend, who have got cold feet in the cooling off period and comparitive expense that the Arks Pack, medical and licence entails.
There's another problem too, there is almost nothing in it for a track owner who isn't keen on losing money. One club tells me that they have to have 120 drivers over a weekend to break-even, while the trackowners point out that on they can make more money from two or three corporate events on a Saturday morning than from the whole pack of pre-race drivers practicing all day for the price of a half-hour hire of a corporate kart.
There is certainly no incentive for them to encourage any large number of their wealthier customers to spend their 5 times a month corp-kart budget on a once-a-month race meeting with the chance that they will join a series that takes them to another track for three out of every 5 meetings.
So, exactly what is it that MSA style karting offers to the majority of karters, and how does that benefit those in the non-MSA part of the industry?
One suggestion, again slightly oblique, is that we have prestige on our side, we are the elite of karting and by competing in our events, on our terms they could somehow hold their heads up higher. But to attract them, we have to be even more prestigious.
Is 'increasing the prestige' going to do much for the sport if that is just shorthand for 'more celebrity'?
More celebrity equates to an increase in race fees for more publicity, more glitz and possibly a greater incentive for some people to pay any cost, risk any penalty to win. Not entirely useful if one's aim is to reduce costs, improve driving standards and attract more of the less wealthy into the sport.
Bernie Ecclestone on the other hand made a lot of money out of reducing the accessible Formula 1, where Graham Hill used to turn up to Thruxton with his car on a trailer and race in grids of 20 plus from Southern England, into a very prestigious event where they can no longer get 20 cars from the entire world.
So perhaps one needs to define exactly what 'prestigious' might mean. After all, can we really increase the prestige of claiming to be the best driver in the country for any formula, except by extending it to cover other countries? One might claim that increasing the number of drivers in any one class increased the competition, that obviously a driver in a class with 1000 drivers was better than a driver with 500 drivers and that to achieve this concentration of drivers one should reduce the number of classes, reduce the number of championships. But again, one might notice that restrictions of time on track and in karting that equates to budget, have hampered even Mr Schumacher, who does have some claim to talent after all.
PS
Don't just read the thread and forget it. Participate in the thread, but also WRITE in reply to the Green Paper whatever your age, experience and involvement. In particular, if you do regularly drive corporate karts....what would make you try MSA style karting?
|
|
Green Paper 2 by 'SimonS' << You are here!
