And so, as A1GP begins its fourth season, it is a shame that things are coming apart at the seams. The new, F1-derived Ferrari car was financially delayed to the point that many teams (including A1 Team GBR) are not prepared for the season opener at Zandvort this weekend. Rather than a catastrophic cancellation, the opening round is set to become a non-points scoring round with a less than capacity field.

Suggesting the demise of A1GP, however, is almost certainly premature. CEO Tony Texiera and 52% share-holders RAB Capital plc appear to have deep pockets, after all, A1GP can’t possibly be forecasting a profit anytime soon.

So I wonder: was it sensible for A1GP to introduce its new car? And was there ever a need, anyway? With manufacturer-backed series, continuity between the showroom and the race track is important. But A1GP, surely, is about spectacle? And what difference, really, does the car make to the spectacle, to the show?

What parallels can we draw from history? What other series have risked financial stability for the sake of a new car and ultimately later, paid the price?

Champ Car World Series, immeadiately springs to mind. In 2008, following just one season with their new Panoz chassis, Champ Car filed bankruptcy and prompted the reunification of open-wheel racing in the US.

Closer to home, in 2006, the SEAT Cupra Cup (UK) introduced its “new” shape Leon. Arguably necessary in order to maintain brand continuity, it struggled to attract grids comparable with previous seasons. Inevitably, the series will no longer be run in the UK.

What other examples can you think of?

Related posts:

1. Where does all the money go?
2. How is A1GP really doing?
3. Weekly Training Journal: 06/02/09

His comments are a question of interpretation. If by young drivers he actually means new drivers, then I agree, that is exactly what the sport needs.

When you think about it, Surtees has actually highlighted two separate problems. First, how does a young driver get to Formula One in the first place? I applaud him for raising the question and to an extent, his contribution is keeping Robbie Kerr in A1 Team Great Britain. I think that I covered the problems associated with this reasonably well previously (Where does all the money go?) and so I wont do so again. However, the second question Surtees has unknowingly raised, and the topic of this article is: how can we make progression to Formula One sustainable for the future? To answer that, let us look at what exactly is the problem.

F1 drivers are around for too long. When the 2007 World Championship begins in Melbourne next month, six drivers will continue long past their 10th season in Formula One. At the same time, the youngest World Champion in history, Fernando Alonso, enters his sixth season and both Jenson Button and Nick Heidfeld are to begin their seventh. What will surely please Surtees is the sight of four debutees: Lewis Hamilton (22), Heikki Kovalinen (26), Robert Kubica (22) and Adrian Sutil (24).

When Fernando Alonso made his F1 debut, he was 20 years old. Jenson Button and Kimi Rƒ¤ikkƒ¶nen were both 21. Sebastian Vettel, who is yet to make his race debut has already become the youngest driver ever to take part in a Grand Prix meeting aged just 19 years and 53 days. When you consider that, it’s hard to conclude that we need more young drivers in Formula One.

The last time Formula One suffered a fatality was the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. During that weekend, Austrian Roland Ratzenberger and three-times World Champion Aryton Senna were both killed in separate accidents. Since then, almost 13 years have passed and an increased emphasis on driver safety has seen significantly fewer injuries than ever before.

Yet for all its merits, the inadvertent consequence is that Formula One has lost an unpleasant contributor to its driver turnover.

When Michael Schumacher retired he was 38 years old. Mika Hƒ¤kkinen retired when he was 33. Great Britain’s last World Champion, Damon Hill, hung up his overalls at 39. Should David Coulthard retire at the end of 2007, he will have spent 13 of his 37 years racing in Formula One. The point here is: without reason, drivers don’t necessarily need to retire until well into their 30s.

In 2006, Formula One had 11 teams each providing two cars. 12 of the 22 seats were occupied by career drivers, that is, drivers which have had more than two full seasons of racing and who are contractually secure. Other drivers realistically faced little threat but did not satisfy this criteria.

The point is, in my opinion, by introducing more young drivers into Formula One it will in fact reduce the number of opportunities for future talent. If our goal is to ultimately see a greater number of drivers (or talent) reach the pinnacle of the sport we should either be increasing driver turn-over or reducing costs to allow more teams. Otherwise, the two are mutually exclusive.

By increasing the number of drivers of the age of Hamilton, Vettal or even Alonso (in 2001 he was just 19), it is only limiting the number of serious opportunities for new drivers in the future through occupying the limited number of seats for longer.

Correspondingly, by reducing the entry age into Formula One, it is also accelerating the financial prerequisites for national competition. If a driver makes his F1 debut aged 20 or 21, an ideal (and mostly typical) career path suggests at least one year of GP2 (aged 19), probably two years of Formula Three (aged 18 and 17), two years of Formula Renault or similar (aged 17 and 16) and largely, a childhood of karting. Furthermore, encouragement of younger drivers in Formula One, leads to drivers starting earlier and to compete in such highly expensive series at such young ages requires either the support of a generous patron or the benefit of a particularly wealthy upbringing.

In the end, all that happens is that those who needed opportunity, are still without, but instead this time for longer. What we really need is for motor sport to cease its obsession with adolescence and slow down. There is nothing wrong with entering Formula One at 25 or 26. In actual fact, it’s probably better for the sport.

Related posts:

1. In an alternate reality, would we still have Lewis Hamilton?
2. Where does all the money go?
3. The Racing Steps Foundation… almost.

It is first necessary to outline the criteria for the comparisons. Only nations which have scored a World Championship point are eligible. This means wins and podiums can be taken into account but I have explicitly not looked for nations which may have held pole positions or achieved fastest laps yet failed to score any points. This is for practicality’s sake.

I also recognise that the system of awarding points has changed many times over the history of Formula One. Nevertheless, statistics are statistics and considering the majority of points in this era have been scored by just one man (Michael Schumacher, Germany) and that points is just one comparisons, it should even itself out.

So let us get started. This first table shows the total number of World Championship’s won by each nation.

	Nation	World Championships
	Great Britain	11
	Brazil	9
	Germany	7
	Argentina	5
	Austria	4
	Austrailia	4
	France	4
	Finland	3
	Italy	3
	Spain	2
	USA	2
	Canada	1
	New Zealand	1
	South Africa	1

That’s all well and good, but it’s hardly conclusive. Next, we will look at the total number of World Championship points scored by each nation.

	Nation	Total Points
	Great Britain	3818.4
	France	2128.9
	Brazil	2056.5
	Germany	2004
	Italy	1412.5
	Finland	929.5
	Austria	911.5
	USA	640
	Argentina	542.5
	Australia	521
	New Zealand	519.5
	Spain	381
	Canada	335
	Belguim	313
	Columbia	307
	Sweden	294
	Switzerland	277
	South Africa	246
	Mexico	143.2

This provides a little more weight. However, there is the aforementioned problem – over the years the Formula One points system has changed and so it favors drivers in the modern era. Also, points are achieved through consistency and it follows that we look at outright wins.

	Nation	Wins
	Great Britain	186
	Germany	103
	Brazil	90
	France	77
	Austria	41
	Italy	37
	Argentina	36
	Finland	34
	Australia	26
	USA	22
	Canada	17
	Spain	15
	New Zealand	12
	Belguim	11
	South Africa	10
	Sweden	10
	Columbia	7
	Switzerland	7
	Mexico	4

Likewise, a win doesn’t necessarily imply outright speed. The following shows the total number of pole positions.

	Nation	Pole Positions
	Great Britain	168
	Brazil	112
	Germany	77
	France	69
	Austria	46
	Finland	43
	Italy	40
	Argentina	31
	USA	28
	Australia	17
	Canada	15
	Spain	15
	Belguim	14
	Sweden	14
	Columbia	12
	Switzerland	7
	New Zealand	6
	Mexico	3
	South Africa	3

Staying on the subject of outright speed, this shows the total number of fastest laps.

	Nation	Fastest Laps
	Great Britain	170
	Germany	92
	France	80
	Brazil	70
	Austria	48
	Finland	47
	Italy	41
	Argentina	28
	Australia	24
	USA	24
	Switzerland	18
	Canada	17
	Belguim	15
	New Zealand	13
	Columbia	12
	Sweden	9
	Spain	8
	Mexico	5
	South Africa	5

And finally, as a more general measure of success, let us compare the total number of podiums achieved.

	Nation	Podiums
	Great Britain	452
	France	279
	Brazil	249
	Germany	218
	Italy	151
	Austria	115
	Finland	104
	USA	85
	Argentina	80
	New Zealand	71
	Australia	56
	Belguim	40
	Sweden	38
	Spain	37
	Canada	36
	Switzerland	34
	South Africa	33
	Columbia	30
	Mexico	22

Now, to bring some kind of conclusion and amalgamate all of the separate comparisons into one I have weighted each nations position in each of the above tables by awarding a score from 19 to 1 (there are 19 points scoring nations). This, therefore, gives us the final positions.

		Nation
1.		Great Britain
2.		Brazil
3.		Germany
4.		France
5.		Austria
6.		Italy
7.		Argentina
8.		Finland
9.		USA
10.		Australia
11.		Canada
12.		Spain
13.		New Zealand
14.		Belgium
15.		Sweden
16.		Switzerland
17.		Columbia
18.		South Africa
19.		Mexico

So there you have it – Rule Britannia! In each comparison made, statistically, Great Britain has been most successful. It is then followed closely by Brazil, Germany and France. Some nations, such as Germany, are largely being carried by the statistics of one driver (Schumacher). Some, like Argentina, haven’t won a World Championship since 1957 (Fangio) and have only ever had two Grand Prix participants (Fangio and Reutemann). Others, Great Britain, for example, have an even distribution amongst eight world champions and 15 points scoring drivers.

Isn’t it interesting that people always refer to Scandinavians or South Americans as being the most naturally gifted drivers when statistically they are eclipsed by the British? Why is it so often overlooked?

Also worth noting is that no Asian or Middle Eastern nation has ever scored a World Championship point. I anticipate that this will change during the next decade.

And so to conclude, I thought I would preempt the criticisms that I expect. Yes, this isn’t perfect but it does illustrate some interesting points. Motorsport is unfair and especially in Formula One, drivers never have the opportunity to compete in equal equipment. Does that make drawing comparisons irrelevant? Probably not, but it does demonstrate the need for A1GP to control the technology in its own series.

You could also argue that the success of a nation’s motorsport should include construction too. Perhaps, but overall, I would not expect the outcome to be significantly different.

And what about GNP? Isn’t Great Britain’s dominance proportional to the socio-economic opportunities within our country and just another example of the unfortunate economics of motor sport? Again, perhaps. However, the same applies to the motorsport heritage in smaller nations – Brazil or Argentina, for example. Senna, Piquet and Barrichello were all born into large amounts of money.

In some ways I wish the A1GP World Cup of Motorsport was based on Formula One. That way, at least we would have won something.…

If you would like to validate my statistics, feel free. I have provided the script used to generate them here.

Related posts:

1. How is A1GP really doing?
2. Formula Three’s biggest threat
3. How much travelling is in your motorsport season?

Answer 1: A1GP is experiencing more growth than any other international race series in the world. In under two seasons of racing, the series has expanded into more than 150 countries where an estimated 12 million people watch each championship round. It has a healthy grid of 23 cars, each racing for the individual pride of their nation and its unique business model has allowed future stars the opportunity to demonstrate their ability in equal equipment, a concept previously non-existent in motorsport at this level.

Answer 2: A1GP is financially struggling. To date, the series has lost over US$270 million against an income of just US$58 million, according to its published reports. It has largely failed to secure free-to-air broadcasters and in many regions this is inhibiting growth. Whilst it has enjoyed sell-out crowds at Brands Hatch and Zandvoort, the majority of the 2005/06 rounds were met with an embarrassingly poor attendance due, largely, to a failure to appropriately advertise each event. The first season was dominated by just one nation, France, who were engineered by DAMS, who also ran series runner-up Switzerland. Whilst it provided some entertaining racing along the way, all too often the overall result was easily predicted.

Personally, I think the real answer lies somewhere in between. There is, however, one thing which worries me deeply about A1GP at the moment and that is: Where are all the sponsors?

It’s important to understand why the A1 business model is discretely unique. A1GP operates a capacity of 25 franchises, sold as commercial entities which represent international teams. The initial sale price of each franchise is proportional to each country’s economy thus allowing smaller nations such as Singapore or Indonesia to be financially competitive with Germany or say, the USA.

Refreshingly, A1 franchises are not allowed to accept money in return for drives. In theory, therefore, personal wealth no longer guarantees a driver a race seat. However, this isn’t always the case and if you take A1 Team Indonesia for example – the family just bought the entire franchise instead!

The money which cannot be asked of a driver is therefore supplemented by private investment and an equally unique prize fund of USD$1,000,000 at each round. As a further incentive, A1 maintains ownership of the cars and provides the necessary worldwide transportation. The result is that after an initial investment, most franchises are expected to operate on or around USD$3 million per annum.

To illustrate my concerns, I have compiled the following table which demonstrates the extent to which each nation has or has not gained sponsorship. In addition, it also shows the total prize money earned in 2005/06 and also if that nation has played host to the championship, highlighting another possible source of revenue. The final column contains who the franchise seatholder is and any other relevant information. It is sorted first by the number of sponsors and then by the total prize money. (skip table)

So let’s look at the facts. Out of 23 national teams I would say seven have acquired serious sponsorship. A further three run with decals on the car, although I have chosen to ignore these as they as either insignificant in terms of impact or in A1 Team India’s case (Sahara) are the previous franchise owners.

Those seven teams, collectively, took 32% of the overall prize fund (excluding driver winnings) and all but one (Ireland) have played host to a round of the championship. Could you, therefore, conclude that the remaining six nations which too have hosted rounds of the championship have missed a major opportunity to get commercial partners involved?

Interestingly, those teams which display the most proficiency in finding sponsors overwhelmingly are either owned-by or have a significant involvement from an established sports marketing company. Czech Republic and BPA Sports Marketing, New Zealand and ROAR Group Ltd, Ireland with Eden Rock Sports and now India with Nimbus Sport. Others such as A1 Team South Africa have television coverage which far surpasses that of any other country.

So what is it that makes it so hard for the 70% of A1 nations which currently have no commercial sponsors at all? Ironically, I guess you could argue that it’s the unique nations concept which makes A1GP so special, that is also why it’s difficult to sell. A1 Teams need global brands which benefit from a national association. For instance: Skoda (Czech Republic), Czech Airlines (Czech Republic), Telkom (South Africa), Telmex (Mexico), Proton (Malasyia) and perhaps the best example – Fosters (Austrailia).

If I were Stewart Bain, A1 Team Great Britain Commercial Director, I’d pursue a similar strategy. For example, British Airways had an annual spend of almost USD$70 million in 2005 and were amongst the UKs Top 50 advertisers. I would find it extremely supprising if no dialogue had been initiated.

Jan 19: A1 Team Great Britain have today announced a commercial partnership with Quintessentially, the world’s leading private members club and concierge service. Stewart Bain is confident of the “global brands Quintessentially can introduce us to” suggesting further possible business to business agreements in the future.

Or could it be something else? A more fundamental problem with the ownership and management of the majority of franchises? Could it be that there are too many engineers where there need to be business people, a problem Flavio Briatore has remarked on in Formula One? A1 Team Ireland principal Mark Gallagher concurs when he says, “the established racing teams…typically rely on drivers to bring money whilst other people pay the bills”. Could it be that the majority of A1 Teams and their management have little real understanding of what is global marketing?

This is A1GP’s biggest problem and the A1 management needs to make its franchise holders aware. All franchises need to be profitable. For whatever reason anonymous consortiums of investors have bought into their national teams, they will not be around for long if they continue to lose millions. Tax advantages or not, it’s simply not sustainable.

In April, A1GP intends to offset much of its startup debt by an Initial Public Offering, supposedly somewhat forced by the banks. Even if, centrally, the books can be creatively balanced it will ultimately remain academic because without careful attention, soon, incompetence could lose the majority of its core franchises. Without them, A1GP is finished.

Related posts:

1. A1GP: The Curse of a New Car
2. Who is the most successful country in motorsport and F1?
3. Where does all the money go?