Where's Franklin?

[Crash Test]

I just stole this from Motorsport.com, and i can't stop laughing!!

The case for NO spectators

Kristian Steenstrup (2000-05-18)

In the last couple of months I have noticed that the allowance
of spectators at tracks is becoming more of a hindrance than a
help. There is a terrible overhead in having all these people
catered to and maybe the revenue gained does not justify the
expense of giving them somewhere to park and sit. Grandstands
have to be built, food needs to be prepared and served, toilets
need to be provided for and the list goes on. All this so that the
cameras can show the stands full and the newspapers and
journals can breathlessly report any increase in attendance from
the previous year to confirm the event's popularity.

I think international racing may be better served by not catering
to spectators at all. I am sure the folks running the Silverstone
track would agree so after the last Grand prix. If you missed the
reports on the rain, it turns out that the weather at Easter in
England is a lot more likely to be wet than the race's traditional
time in July. The FIA organised a nicely laid out championship
scheduled because of the move but the spectators were left out
in the cold, literally. With all the rain during the week leading up
to the race the parking areas turned into a muddy bog and the
organisers actually had to cancel the use of car parks on the
Saturday practice and qualifying day. The end result of all this
was that the BRDC, which owns the Silverstone track, has
announced that they may have losses of up to $5 million
because of refunds and rehabilitation of the car parks, which will
more than wipe out their expected profit of around $4 million. It
stands to reason then that if they hadn't sold any tickets in the
first place they might have been better off. Just think of the
millions that all circuit owners spend so that they can
accommodate paying customers in the tens of thousands. There
is the construction of a grandstand, and the security and fences
that need to be provided to ensure that only paying spectators
can use the facilities. Then bars, the hamburger franchises etc.
Now think of the alternative wherein the cars run around a bare
circuit. Not only would there be a much reduced setup cost for
the tracks but there would be a convenient increase on runoff
areas at all circuits. No longer would there be complaints of not
being able to widen this corner or that. And no complaints of
having to extend the sand traps an extra 50 metres.

This approach would also avert the pesky complaints from
spectators about not having a good view or the hours it takes
to get into and out of a circuit. And it would also avert the
embarrassing turn of events that the U.S.-based open wheel
series experience with regularity. The empty stadiums that we
see at most of the oval tracks. The street circuits in CART have
enough filled seats, it appears, but the oval tracks always seem
to have plenty of seats to spare, built as they are for the
NASCAR series in a lot of cases. I think they may be better off
not having any seats at all and then they won't seem so oddly
under-populated when the cameras pan across the barren
stands. Although the oval races do have a natural advantage, in
that the banking becomes the grandstand with the addition of a
few benches, and there is, of course, no runoff area on an oval.

In the last ten years the major series of NASCAR, Formula One
and CART have all focused on television coverage and revenue
as the major economic factor for success. So if the television
contracts are the major goal then why not concentrate just on
that and save the money spent on facilities which I am sure
they must only break even on.

So maybe in a few years time we will all be sitting at home or in
our favourite bar watching the race on a big screen TV and
enjoying the passing scenery without the images of rows of
empty seats.

[Liz]

If Franklin is not married, we should introduce him to this monster raving loonie woman immediately. Right, get rid of all spectators! Lets make it even cheaper and get rid of the cars, too. Since it's going to be on TV, why not simply run animated cars?

Hey, it's the Wacky Races! Feh.

[Crash Test]

Well carrying on from this global warming topic in the GT, and getting rid of cars for environmental reasons, animating cartoons surely can't be good for the environment. Emissions from animators crayons are tearing a huge hole in the zone layer!!
The best solution to all of this ruckus is for us to abandon society and live in a tree. This would have several big things going for it:
1. Much safer for competitors, not longer will they be crashing their cars and getting injured.
2. Much cheaper, for there wont be any cars.
3. Good for the environment.

[KC]

By the staterment above we can deduce several things about this person....

1. They are not a race fan,
2. or they have never been to a race,
3. if neither of these apply, then they are either stupid or insane.

[slicktoast]

Isn't that the BOZOne layer?

So the 'getting rid of...' syndrome has hit again! This seems to be a pesky little virus that attacks the brain. I wonder if anything can be done about it?

[Franklin]

Words and phrases NOT in the vocabulary of more than one person on this board.

Forward thinking.
Progressive.
Open minded.
Visionary.
"Thinking outside the box."
Cutting edge.
Nonconformist.
Defiant.
Inventive.
Creative.

[Liz]

Also not in our vocabularies:

"Abandoning, destroying and getting rid of what WE LIKE about motor racing, for reasons we don't think are compelling."

"Being called names by people who persist in believing that there is only one point of view - their own - and that when their point of view is proven not in the majority, cannot retire gracefully from the field of battle and CHANGE THE SUBJECT."

Things that are in our vocabularies:

Discussing Non-F1 open wheel racing as it exists today with a spirit of:.

Friendship

Sense of humour

Competition including good-natured jabs at others' pilotes and cars.

Consolation for a bad drive, comfort in times of injury and death.

In other words, we're friends having fun and we like our sport as it is now. What's so hard to understand about that?

P.S. to Crash - I think if you live in a tree you will probably disturb the ecosystem of the tree and displace some insects or birds. Better live in a cave instead.

[KC]

I have no problem with "thinking outside the box" or playing the devil's advocate in an argument, but I refuse to throw out the box just for the sake of arguing. If you have driven a car, ridden a bicycle on the street, or just walked down a street then you have placed yourself at more risk than anyone on a race track or in the grand stands arond it. You have placed your life in the hands of the people who must chat on the phone or read the newspaper or eat something instead of concentrate on their driving. Most have had some sort of rudimentary training they promptly forget.

How does banning attending fans at an auto race get termed "forward thinking", "progressive", "visionary", and "open minded"? It looks more like "reactionary thinking", "regressive", "delusional", and "close minded" to me.

[Crash Test]

For some reason, i always love it when Franklin posts way to go champ!

Ok, heres my go at it: Forward thinking.
"Get out of your box Franklin."
Forward thinking.
-Yes, getting rid of spectators is a good idea.
Progressive.
-Yes, getting rid of spectators is a good idea.
Open minded.
-I think it would be great if the racetrack didn't spend any money on catering and merchandise. Hangon, don't the race tracks or the associated people MAKE MONEY from them? Do you think if they were running at a horrible cost, would they still be open?
Visionary.
-Yes, getting rid of spectators is a good idea.
Cutting edge.
-Yes, getting rid of spectators is a good idea.
Nonconformist.
-Yes, getting rid of spectators is a good idea.
Defiant.
-Yes, getting rid of spectators is a good idea.
Inventive.
-HAhAHHAHAHAH
Creative.
-HAHAHAHAHHAHA

"P.S. to Crash - I think if you live in a tree you will probably disturb the ecosystem of the tree and displace some insects or birds. Better live in a cave instead."
-Where will the cave men go now?

[Lizzerd]

I think the this article was one of two things.

1) Very good. An interesting, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek humorous piece.

2) Written by "Franlin", under a pseudonym or alternate personality.

[Liz]

If that's his "alternate personality" he needs to try again.

Lizzerd, I think you are right with choice no. 1, though - it looks to be a marvelously sarcastic swipe at people trying to change things that don't need changing.

If they want more spectators visible on TV, can't they put them in electronically? They do that in the movies. Then nobody sitting at home would know whether there were any spectators or not. They could even put in Formula One pilotes or the Queen or Bernie Ecclestone, and give away prizes for people who spotted them in the crowd. This would encourage people to stay home, as they could not win prizes while at the track; this way the people who actually wanted to see racing would come to the track, and the sissies and fussbudgets could stay home, and everybody would be happy.

[Hyacinth]

Great idea, Liz! Sort of "Formula 1 Meets 'Where's Waldo?'"

Which completes the mandala-like symmetry of this post and brings us right back to the original topic - "Where's Franklin". Maybe we could dress Franklin up just like Waldo and electronically superimpose HIS face into the digitally- enhanced crowd.

[Liz]

Maybe there could be a whole section of him. With a sign that says THIS SECTION RESERVED FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ACTUALLY HERE....

WALDO! Parfaitment! i love it!!!