Future Grands Prix?

[Guthrie]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Spanish Grand Prix to move from Barcelona to Madrid in 2026

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/68065785

Madrid will replace Barcelona as host of the Spanish Grand Prix from 2026.

The race will run on a new 5.47km (3.399-mile) circuit around the Ifema exhibition centre between the Spanish capital and Barajas airport.

Formula 1, which is aiming to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2030, says it will be "one of the calendar's most accessible races".

A statement said 90% of fans would be able to travel to the race via public transport on metro and train lines.

Not many were expecting a 10-year deal.

[veeten]

Not surprised by it either, as it looks like they want to make a few races more like an event. There's already several street circuits on the calendar, many have been around since the beginning of this century. Lower in cost, but higher in return, its where Liberty is headed with this. Sure, there will be those that have a firm fondness for classic racing venues, but those are slowly receeding in number while the younger generations are more city-minded, not civic minded, when it comes to entertainment.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I couldn't find anything in it about new circuits having to host a race for other categories prior to holding an F1 GP. However, it does say a project study needs to be undertaken, now whether that means holding a race prior to holding an F1 GP, it doesn't say.

The Valencia street circuit had an International GT Open race before the F1 race.

Austin, Baku, Buddh, Miami, Sochi, Yas Marina and Yeongam had no test race. And Las Vegas of course...

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Guthrie

Not many were expecting a 10-year deal.

Knowing what happened to the similar race that was created in Valencia, I wonder whether this race will last to the end of the contract. These type of events do not have a very good record in Spain; local and regional governments like to throw money at them, but when the local population realise that other more important services are possibly being denied cash, the populace certainly know how to make their feelings known.

[veeten]

Also notice, how many purpose-built race courses have been built, basically for F1, and how many street courses have been arranged, over the last two decades. In the present climate, land use and environmental impact are the main things that can put a dead stop to any building of a new race course, at least in the western world. In the Middle East, China, and others that want to build these as a means to attract tourism, trade, and revenue.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Knowing what happened to the similar race that was created in Valencia, I wonder whether this race will last to the end of the contract. These type of events do not have a very good record in Spain; local and regional governments like to throw money at them, but when the local population realise that other more important services are possibly being denied cash, the populace certainly know how to make their feelings known.

basically if Alonso has retired by 2026 no one from Spain will go to the race! lol

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by veeten

Also notice, how many purpose-built race courses have been built, basically for F1, and how many street courses have been arranged, over the last two decades. In the present climate, land use and environmental impact are the main things that can put a dead stop to any building of a new race course, at least in the western world. In the Middle East, China, and others that want to build these as a means to attract tourism, trade, and revenue.

There have been multiple tracks built and opened within the last 5 years in the US. Yes, they aren't all pro level tracks but that's not something that changes the land use. So the building of new tracks isn't dead by any means

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by veeten

Also notice, how many purpose-built race courses have been built, basically for F1, and how many street courses have been arranged, over the last two decades. In the present climate, land use and environmental impact are the main things that can put a dead stop to any building of a new race course, at least in the western world. In the Middle East, China, and others that want to build these as a means to attract tourism, trade, and revenue.

I don't have the data in front of me, but it seems like any Grade 1 purpose built, non-temporary circuit these days are very expensive due to the demands (expectations) from F1/FOM. And those are expensive enough that they probably need governmental funding.

Part of me thinks it must be more expensive to build and tear down F1 level temporary street circuits vs. building a regular circuit over a period of a handle of years? Maybe I am wrong. I think new circuits typically expect income outside of F1 to pay the bills. So this would be done by hosting other series and track days. But a street circuit just can't do that other than to host support series to F1.


And it seems that any permanent circuit might easily be a "halo" project for a government (i.e. middle east tracks). So funds might flow if there is less accountability to the citizens. And this can also go badly wrong (Vietnam and maybe India). That type of significant governmental help generally doesn't happen in the US. You might get some local funding or tax breaks, but new tracks are not built upon the backs of the tax payers.

As broadrun96 calls out there are permanent circuits being built in the US, but I suspect those are targeting wealthy car culture and country club lifestyles? Also not built anywhere close to F1 level (facilities, etc.) I do agree with veeten that "not in my back yard" issues makes it hard to locate new tracks close to established population centers (which racing series want). So some of these circuits might be in the middle of nowhere at times. Even legacy tracks in the US have problems with neighbors. I think Laguna Seca is currently in a court battle with nearby property owners of "noise" and other topics.

Overall, I am puzzled by the economics of permanent vs street circuits and how F1 is able to swing the number of new street circuits as they feel "expensive" to me to host??

Richard

[chillibowl]

What’s the current break down between permanent purpose built tracks, temporary tracks, street circuits, and hybrid street circuits with some permanent bits?

If there is an even mix I suppose this isn’t really a concern, but at what point does the selection of tracks start affecting the build direction/philosophy of car design?

I guess my question is, and more so for teams that perennially filter out to the bottom, is there an incentive now to focus your resources and build a car towards just being really good at specific tracks or rather just optimized for a select few tracks?

Last year p7 to p10 were just separated by 16pts.

[veeten]

And a grand example of maintenance and upgrades is Monza, where both the main track is undergoing a repavement, as well as major upgrading to the pit/paddock facilities. A lot of the cost was taken up by the Italian government, which lends a spotlight from Richard C's comment.

Now, what if instead of the COTA project, all that money and interest was directed to remaking one of the USA's crown jewels into an FIA Class 1 circuit. Namely the one northward, in the state of Wisconsin... and no, I don't mean the Milwaukee Mile. The amount of teardown and redesigning of the main facilities, the pit/paddock area, guest and VIP areas, total reworking of parking and roadway access, major influx of hotel accommodation by "the big boys" (sorry, but Days Inn, Quality, and Super 8 just ain't cutting' it).

Imagine the time and cost to do that, and now end up being an overpriced venue for many of the series that run here. It's the reason why COTA has such a limited card of series racing there outside of the majors and internationals. It's not really worth it.

Then there's two international circuits that test that theory about the 'neighbors' being upset about the noise from racing: Imola and Sao Paolo. Notice that when they do the pull aways with the cameras that there's an interesting number of multi family dwellings in the close background. And many of them have been there for quite some time. How in the world did the provincial governments do such a deal that there isn't so much of a peep out of those folks? Or maybe they keep things so under wraps that no one notices. Just makes one wonder...

[veeten]

Sorry, double posted.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

What’s the current break down between permanent purpose built tracks, temporary tracks, street circuits, and hybrid street circuits with some permanent bits?

If there is an even mix I suppose this isn’t really a concern, but at what point does the selection of tracks start affecting the build direction/philosophy of car design?

I guess my question is, and more so for teams that perennially filter out to the bottom, is there an incentive now to focus your resources and build a car towards just being really good at specific tracks or rather just optimized for a select few tracks?

Last year p7 to p10 were just separated by 16pts.

I think there were multiple examples of that in the early 1980’s transition to turbos and then in the late 1980’s transition away from turbos.Probably more subtle examples in the hybrid era where Mercedes dominance meant Red Bull in particular had to design to maximise their challenge on those circuits where Mercedes weren’t going to be dominant regardless.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

What’s the current break down between permanent purpose built tracks, temporary tracks, street circuits, and hybrid street circuits with some permanent bits?

If there is an even mix I suppose this isn’t really a concern, but at what point does the selection of tracks start affecting the build direction/philosophy of car design?

I guess my question is, and more so for teams that perennially filter out to the bottom, is there an incentive now to focus your resources and build a car towards just being really good at specific tracks or rather just optimized for a select few tracks?

Last year p7 to p10 were just separated by 16pts.

To answer your basic question:
is there an incentive now to focus your resources and build a car towards just being really good at specific tracks or rather just optimized for a select few tracks?

I would say 'No'.
My primary reason is that the real focus of the present and future regulation is to serve the acceptance of F1 by focusing on sustainability which is the current catchphrase of the movement of climate change rhetoric. Everything needs to be 'sustainable' or more sustainable than it is/was.

Power units have become turbo charged and we've seen hybridization come in to enable F1 to get more power from less fuel, implying that F1 is more climate conscious than it was and that 'we're doing our share'.

Chassis design is secondary to the power unit insofar as design constraints have been around keeping the space to ensure everything fits in the space available, that weight is appropriate to safety and strength concerns, and that F1 still desires high cornering speeds so downforce needs to be sustained at a high level.

The present aero underbody enhanced ideas, although abandoned for real reasons in the early 80's, have been allowed back in, and what we have seen are some of the earlier problems raise their heads again.

The idea that you would build a car that would be maximized at some tracks but not be suitable for winning at others is not attractive as long as there is one basic chassis per team across a season. If you were allowed to create specialized cars that could be alternated per circuit then that could be a factor, but the cost would be prohibitive, and probably be regulated out completely.
One chassis that could be altered according to the track is more of a possibility but not desirable when the most important factors of getting as much downforce as possible requires the longest allowable wheelbase.

There is no justification for a short wheelbase slow corner turn-able car at anywhere other than Monaco, and that circuit is more likely to be turfed out as unsuitable, than it is to create multiple suspension/body variations on a common tub.

A short corner car like that might be a little quicker at Monaco but is less likely to be an advantage at say, Azerbaijan where aero plays a bigger part.

You cannot justify the expense and the whole question becomes problematic If a team can't get one design optimized who is going to try getting two or three variations optimized?

[S griffin]

I do feel for Barcelona. While it’s not the most exciting of tracks, it has established itself as a popular GP venue and a mainstay of the calendar. This new event in Madrid will have a lot to live up to. If it happens that is. Things can easily change in the next year or two

[Richard C]

There had been some noise around a potential street circuit for Japanese GP. The implication was that Suzuka was to be dropped from the calendar.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/j...-osaka-suzuka/

But an extension has been signed for the race to remain at Suzuka Circuit through 2029

https://apnews.com/article/f1-japane...062fd826350231

This is good new IMHO. Loss of Suzuka would have been bad.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

But an extension has been signed for the race to remain at Suzuka Circuit through 2029

This is good new IMHO. Loss of Suzuka would have been bad.

Couldn't agree more - Suzuka is a special place and it's great that it has the extension.

[Mike Harte]

Silverstone has agreed and signed a new contract for the GP to continue until 2034; yes, 10 years. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68239171

[chillibowl]

great news!

side note...well maybe an unrelated rant lol. from the above lined article:

Last year's race, won by Max Verstappen, drew a record crowd of 480,000 fans across the weekend - the largest combined attendance for any track during the 2023 season.

a bit of a pet peeve of mine that race attendance numbers are almost always reported as 'across the weekend' numbers as opposed to an actual 'race day' attendance number. always bothers me that they count people multiple of times over the weekend presumably to make certain events seem more well attended than they really are.

i suspect that Silverstone's race day attendance alone would shade several GPs 'across the weekend' numbers.

[Mike Harte]

Sunday's attendance was around 160,000.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Sunday's attendance was around 160,000.

amazing!

although thats just 480K divided by 3...one would expect race day attendance to be even higher?

[Mike Harte]

Thinking about it further, chilli, I find it very difficult to believe that there were 320,000 on the Friday and Saturday. When we went there 7 years ago, it was almost deserted on the Friday with maybe 10 or 15 thousand spectators and probably 50,000 on the Saturday, reducing to many, many less as soon as the F1 qualifying was concluded. Even though it was a lovely day, very few remained to watch the rest of the afternoon's racing of the other categories.

[Greem]

With the concerts (Thursday to Sunday) and all the other attractions in the various fan zones and "villages", the fact that attendees aren't in the stands watching the support categories practice and qualify doesn't mean they've gone home.

The last time I was there (2022) Silverstone was rammed from morning until night. Even walking to post at 7am on Friday we had thousands of spectators to walk through in the fan zone opposite Brooklands. It's quite the four day festival!

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

side note...well maybe an unrelated rant lol.

a bit of a pet peeve of mine that race attendance numbers are almost always reported as 'across the weekend' numbers as opposed to an actual 'race day' attendance number. always bothers me that they count people multiple of times over the weekend presumably to make certain events seem more well attended than they really are.

i suspect that Silverstone's race day attendance alone would shade several GPs 'across the weekend' numbers.

I know what you mean but it is something of an international convention on how multi-day event crowds are counted and reported - the same methodology is used by sports such as Cricket, Golf, Tennis, Soccer tournaments, Olympic & Commonwealth games etc.

It does seem to be different however (at least some of the time) in the US & I guess Canada, where daily counts are what is used. NASCAR always used to separate out the crowd each day across a multi-day weekend, assigning one day to truck series, next to nationwide series (as it was then) and the last & main day to Nextel Cup (as it was then). Don't know if they still do that now.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

It does seem to be different however (at least some of the time) in the US & I guess Canada, where daily counts are what is used. NASCAR always used to separate out the crowd each day across a multi-day weekend, assigning one day to truck series, next to nationwide series (as it was then) and the last & main day to Nextel Cup (as it was then). Don't know if they still do that now.

My experience here in the US is that something like a large high profile multi-day event they will track per day attendance.

Richard

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Silverstone has agreed and signed a new contract for the GP to continue until 2034; yes, 10 years. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68239171

Great for British F1 fans but I am concerned we will continue to miss out on other major International series coming to the venue, or the UK as a whole.