|
|
Having read what everyone has said, there are a
lot of valid points in here. But the key to
endurance is - IT HAS TO BE ENDURANCE!
6 hours in endurance terms is a sprint! 12
hours? Good distance and makes for a different
set of strategies. But 24 hours is THE classic
distance for an endurance race and, as many
people here have said, the series NEEDS more of
them if it is going to survive.
Oschersleben have shown that a 24 hour race can
be run successfully, if you just get off your
backsides and take a look at how it is done in
other countries. Those guys went off and did
their homework - and the result is a well
attended race that runs smoothy and efficiently,
with no "home bias" in place. They also made
sure the race was well promoted.
But this seems to be the exception. The UK
rounds failed as the promotion was pathetic (this
site aside) - how many people see an advert about
three days before a race and think "Ooh, I'll go
off to that this weekend"? The minority. I know
from personal experience that going to a race is
something that was planned maybe three months in
advance - see which mates wanted to go, booking
up in advance, sorting out where to stay and so
on.
I know it is easy to just bash Octagon, but they
OWN both of the tracks that have been used in the
UK in the last couple of years - and the staff
that run them, so it's fair to say their PR
people should have been pushing these races
hard. But from what I can see, they couldn't
have told anyone anything about them, apart from
MCN the week before.
OK, it is probably a bit late now to try to
change the calendar, but unless 2004 is the end
of the series, Octagon NEED to talk to as many
circuits as they can to find out who can, and
would, put on a 24 hour race. Only when this
series has a number of 24 hour races in place
will the Masters 'problem' die down. If
the 'official' series becomes something like 6
races, three of which are 24 hour, one 12 hour, a
6 hour and Suzuka, then the teams have a real
series to aim at - the Masters would then just
become a domestic series (why race there with all
the "if you're not french, you dont' get treated
the same way" problems if you have a proper
playing field in an official championship.
I can appreciate Octagon might not have masive
resources to put into the series, but they have
to get back to basics, get the race formats
right, drop the 200 milers (fine for Imola, that
was historic, but why have them anywhere else?)
and then the rest shoud, as Twenty Four said,
follow.
|
|
Having read what everyone has said, there are a
lot of valid points in here. But the key to
endurance is - IT HAS TO BE ENDURANCE!
6 hours in endurance terms is a sprint! 12
hours? Good distance and makes for a different
set of strategies. But 24 hours is THE classic
distance for an endurance race and, as many
people here have said, the series NEEDS more of
them if it is going to survive.
Oschersleben have shown that a 24 hour race can
be run successfully, if you just get off your
backsides and take a look at how it is done in
other countries. Those guys went off and did
their homework - and the result is a well
attended race that runs smoothy and efficiently,
with no "home bias" in place. They also made
sure the race was well promoted.
But this seems to be the exception. The UK
rounds failed as the promotion was pathetic (this
site aside) - how many people see an advert about
three days before a race and think "Ooh, I'll go
off to that this weekend"? The minority. I know
from personal experience that going to a race is
something that was planned maybe three months in
advance - see which mates wanted to go, booking
up in advance, sorting out where to stay and so
on.
I know it is easy to just bash Octagon, but they
OWN both of the tracks that have been used in the
UK in the last couple of years - and the staff
that run them, so it's fair to say their PR
people should have been pushing these races
hard. But from what I can see, they couldn't
have told anyone anything about them, apart from
MCN the week before.
OK, it is probably a bit late now to try to
change the calendar, but unless 2004 is the end
of the series, Octagon NEED to talk to as many
circuits as they can to find out who can, and
would, put on a 24 hour race. Only when this
series has a number of 24 hour races in place
will the Masters 'problem' die down. If
the 'official' series becomes something like 6
races, three of which are 24 hour, one 12 hour, a
6 hour and Suzuka, then the teams have a real
series to aim at - the Masters would then just
become a domestic series (why race there with all
the "if you're not french, you dont' get treated
the same way" problems if you have a proper
playing field in an official championship.
I can appreciate Octagon might not have masive
resources to put into the series, but they have
to get back to basics, get the race formats
right, drop the 200 milers (fine for Imola, that
was historic, but why have them anywhere else?)
and then the rest shoud, as Twenty Four said,
follow.
|
|
|
|
|
