It's often salutary to ask if we can learn anything from the past and I couldn't help but reflect on that question as I enjoyed myself amid the old cars and drivers at Road America. First of all, the great enthusiasm of the participants and a tidy turnout of fans proves that there remains a healthy base of road racing enthusiasts. Beyond that point, the old Can-Am series provides the perfect example of how not to manage a racing series both technically and promotionally. The Can-Am had great appeal because it comprised abnormally fast, spectacular cars that set track record after track record as new technology was unleashed and exciting new cars appeared every year. But, in the end, Porsche and Penske out-spent, out-engineered and out-horsepowered the rest of the field, driving out the McLarens, Chaparrals and many hopeful privateers.
More importantly, however, the SCCA had no technical vision or capability when it came to writing rules that would both encourage innovation and manufacturer participation and, at the same time, be more cost-effective. This conundrum killed the Can-Am in 1974 and also killed IMSA's GTP series twenty years later - as well as CART's once-great Indy Car World Series another ten years on. And it remains today as the greatest challenge facing any auto racing organisation - the
FIA with
Formula One and, most certainly, Champ Car, IRL, ALMS and Grand-Am.
Looking around the paddock at Road America's historic weekend a few weeks ago the message was clear to me that independent thinking and innovation have always been the fuel for motor racing. People like to do their own thing in their own way. That's what drives competitors and fans alike. As I've written before, if the sport is to regain the lofty stature it enjoyed during the best days of CART ten and twenty years ago, and the great days of the Can-Am thirty-five years ago, much more enlightened thinking than currently exists must be brought to bear on the subject.
