So what can be done to save racing as we know it?

The recent announcement by Honda that it is pulling out of F1 came as a shock to probably every racing fan, myself included. Furthermore, Audi, the defending champs of both the Le Mans Series and ALMS, is downsizing its program to focus on Sebring and Le Mans. To see major factory teams cutting their losses is pretty big. While much of the press about the auto slump at least here in the good old U.S. of A the extremely precarious positions of GM, Ford, and Chrysler, it is also affecting foreign makes too.

It makes me concern about the position of motorsports and if it can survive and still retain what makes it so great. The talk of the much-ballyhooed standard Formula One engine has returned, and people seem more willing to listen a few weeks later.

NASCAR faces a similar problem with the fact 3/4 of its automakers are dying without government assistance, with the ultimate possibility of having one or more makes gone by the green flag at Daytona. Several teams have merged (DEI-Ganassi) or closing up shop to make matters worse. For the first time in NASCAR history, a car owned by a Petty won't be in the field, since Petty Enterprises, the last original team, is basically done.

What can be done to save racing as we know it? I want to look at some ways the major racing series can significantly cut costs while retaining their identities. For example, I won't talk about a standard F1 engine, since it would radicially alter F1's identity. What can we do to prevent that from happening, while achieving the same effect? Likewise, how to save NASCAR from the slump as well?

The best thing NASCAR can do to save itself it to shorten itself, both in schedule length and race length.

It is a very easy way to reduce costs by simply running less events. Less weeks racing means less money is needed to run the team, thus a lesser burden on big sponsor dollars. Even if you don't extend the winter break and just take more break weeks in the season, that would have the added effect of more sponsor appearances opportunities for drivers, which could keep sponsors from fleeing the sport.

So what gets the ax? I would cut one of the Pocono races, as well as some of the weaker attended 2 race tracks, Fontana topping my list. Promoters will probably see attendance go up, since fans who previous attending the second race only will buy tickets to the single event instead. One well attended event has the added advantage of looking better on TV.

Shortening the races can also help save a bit of green for NASCAR teams. Less laps = less opportunities to wreck and spend costly dollars and man hours fixing the cars. Cuts tire costs, since there are less pit stops. I'm not too knowledgeable about the tech aspects of NASCAR engines, but something tells me a shorter race could stretch an engine's lifespan just a tad bit longer.

I am not advocating making it the Daytona 300 though. I'm talking about the 500 milers at tracks like Texas. All races would be limited to 300 miles, except for the ones the superspeedways (Daytona, Talladega), the Coca-Cola 600 and the Southern 500.

As for Formula One, there are many avenues to cut costs other than standardization. I've just read a story by Martin Brundle detailing how to cut costs. That article has a lot of solid solutions and is worth the read. I won't repeat any of his ideas, but I have one of my own.

Brundle's article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article5298985.ece

The schedule, for instance, poses a problem. The focus on expanding the season towards Asia with high fees has hurt the sport in retaining traditional venues like France and Canada, and perhaps even Germany in the near future. Most if not all that money is going into Bernie Ecclestone's pockets, and not into any assistance for teams. European GPs are certainly less expensive on the teams in transportation costs, since cars can be trucked to Hungary but have to be flown to Malaysia.

I understand the desire for Asian GPs, but the scheduling that exists is a hinderance to F1. In 2009, three separate trips must be made to the Asian continent: the post-Australia trip of Malaysia, China, and Bahrain, the late season trip to Singapore and Japan, and a one-off trip after Brazil to Abu Dhabi. This is a ridiculous idea. Attempt two trips instead, with an emphasis on putting nearby GPs together better.

For example, why are Malaysia and Singapore, with tracks separated by 210 miles, not together on the schedule when that could save the teams on transportation? Teams could fly into one country, run the grand prix, then take everything by truck to the other site, before driving it back after the race and flying back to Europe or onto a different Asian site. They did not run the US and Canadian races apart most of the time, so why do the same with these two races?