GP Masters to wind up

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62536

Quote:

---

Winding up order served on GPM

Tuesday, September 18th 2007, 15:02 GMT


A petition to wind up the company behind the Grand Prix Masters series will be presented at London's High Court in November.

The action is being taken by GPM's chassis supplier Delta Special Projects. It will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on 28 November this year.

No GPM races have taken place since the series' third event at Silverstone in August 2006, and plans for a full season this year did not come to fruition.

Former world champions Nigel Mansell and Emerson Fittipaldi had been among the participants in the three races that took place in 2005/6.

Mansell won the inaugural event at Kyalami, and the first 2006 race in Qatar, with Eddie Cheever taking victory at Silverstone.

---

Damn shame. The series had real potential which, for whatever reasons, was never realised.

There'll probably be a few drivers - given their taste for racing back by GPM - who will be looking for somewhere else to race now.

Darn shame. ;(

Would've been great with the right kind of promotion.

Oh, well... :(

Indeed. The lack of knowledge of the fact that it's no more rather sums up the problem.

I'm not surprised. The idea was never going to work. I've said all along it would fail.

No one has any real interest in watching a bunch of very slow cars not pass each other. We do enough of that already with F1.

I can't help but think that, from a public point of view, Martin Brundle was probably right when he said that he would have preferred something like the Procar series, in which drivers could lean on each other and have a good scrap. The problem was that a lot of the drivers involved in GP Masters were only interested in competing in an open-wheel series.

good. It was a meaningless series

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

good. It was a meaningless series

---

Why exactly? Did you see any of the races? If you had you might have understood, and seen, the enjoyment on the faces of the drivers taking part. It was not "meaningless" for them. Far from it.

This comes from Autosport's report of the first event in Kyalami:

Quote:

---

There they were, all in one big garage, all talking to each other, winding each other up, some working with telemetry for the first time, and all having a ball.

---

Quote:

---

Derek Warwick, in the first press conference of the weekend, said: "It really is a thrill to be here with all these great drivers..." Then, turning to Mansell, "No, not you!"
Then Del Boy did his PR bit: "Actually, we really do have to thank Altech for getting behind us all. Sponsorship is a very different market for us these days. It's all BUPA and Viagra, although I gather Stirling [Moss] has got that one sewn up."
Then a question to Andrea de Cesaris: "When was the last time that you drove competitively?"
Response: "I'm not sure that I ever did!"
Eddie Cheever: "Hell, nothing's changed. The last time I was in South Africa, Nigel was quick and I was pissed off!"
Slightly more seriously, Cheever didn't reckon much had altered in the manner of driving either.
"I'm kind of annoyed with myself for not doing the Silverstone test," he said. "I wasn't really that interested until Stefan [Johansson] got on the phone and said I'd really got to do it because the cars were a lot of fun. I was intrigued, and there's a lot of camaraderie until you get out onto the track, where it's the same thing all over again. It's like going back in time - the same people in the way when they're slowing down. I thought, 'Oh fcuk! Not you again!'"
Mr Arnoux, perhaps?
"I'm not naming any names, but, yes, he's small."

---

By Silverstone things hadn't changed:

Quote:

---

It was a great show but it was also, crucially, a great race.

"Thank you to all the guys from GP Masters," grinned Stuck. "They had 16 totally crazy drivers to get organised. This shows how racing can be - no traction control, no tactics. I want more and I think you want the same!"

---

The cars were great to race with, and watch and the emphasis was on close & even competition and entertainment.

The concept was a good one, and the organisers showed it could work. Unfortunately it seems that sufficient financial backing was not available to continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

good. It was a meaningless series

---

I agree.

Why?

Because: although the competitive spark is still there, otherwise a driver wouldn't be entering, the degree of commitment from various individuals will varyas will the degree to which age has taken the edge off their ability.

The drivers might enjoy themselves and we may enjoy seeing them but the bottom line is that the result is meaningless.

the only way this would work was as a support race at F1 GPs in the UK, Italy, and other historically "traditional" F1 countries were older f1 fans that already were at the track would enjoy watching the past idols race once again.

The series on its own doesn't have the power to get people to the circuits, add to that the fact they tried to race in non traditional F1 countries and failure is certain.

Anyone has any idea what the spectator attendance was at Qatar in 2006?

MotoGP that gets attendance from 50k up to 130k in most races only manages about 3k in Qatar

I expect attendance at Qatar for GP Masters were the safety marshals, the engineers and a camel that wondered into the circuit from the desert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

good. It was a meaningless series

---

Forgive me for asking here, but do you actually enjoy anything about motorsport?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Why exactly? Did you see any of the races?

---

Yes, I did see the very first GPM race and thought it was bordering on embarrasing

Quote:

---

If you had you might have understood, and seen, the enjoyment on the faces of the drivers taking part. It was not "meaningless" for them. Far from it.

---

Whether it mattered to them or not, whether it made them happy or not, is irrelevant to me. I am not their son/daughter/wife/mother/girlfriend.
I care only about racing and seeing out of shape 60 year old guys compete in racing, with almost comedic results at times, is not my idea of serious racing.
I would prefer that money be directed towards young racers who are lacking money, but have loads of talent and potential.
Those GPM guys should compete in who has the smallest beer belly and who has gone the least senile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

The drivers might enjoy themselves and we may enjoy seeing them but the bottom line is that the result is meaningless.

---

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. The Goodwood Revival proves that races in which the result is essentially meaningless can be immensely entertaining and hard-fought.

However, I don't think how much fun the drivers had is much of an argument as to why the demise of GP Masters is a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Forgive me for asking here, but do you actually enjoy anything about motorsport?

---

Yes. I love motorsport. I watch many series, starting from DTM and moto GP, to F1. Hell, I love go-karting. I have even myself taken part in rallys.
But what I dont like is comedy racing.

Please cite the comedic moments in that first GPM race, then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Please cite the comedic moments in that first GPM race, then.

---

I suppose it depends on your defintion of comedic, but, well, Rene Arnoux and Patrick Tambay weren't exactly serious about the event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Please cite the comedic moments in that first GPM race, then.

---

Alan Jones pulling out due to lack of fitness and being 10 seconds slower in practise was a good one. The whole event was more a circus, than real racing. And I dont want to see money invested in circus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Alan Jones pulling out due to lack of fitness and being 10 seconds slower in practise was a good one.

---

That was pretty silly, but it didn't affect the race, which I thought was perfectly good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

I dont want to see money invested in circus.

---

Was any of it yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

That was pretty silly, but it didn't affect the race, which I thought was perfectly good.

---

The race was a showcase of low-level driver, which I had no respect for.

Was any of it yours?[/QUOTE]
That money could be used on young drivers with potential to go places, not on never-beens like danner and stuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

The race was a showcase of low-level driver, which I had no respect for.

---

Do you consider the Goodwood Revival — considered by many to be one of the finest motorsport events in the world — to be a similar example, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Do you consider the Goodwood Revival — considered by many to be one of the finest motorsport events in the world — to be a similar example, then?

---

Jesus, how can you compare those 2? Goodwood has nothing to do with GPM and is in no way similar. It doesnt pretend to be a serious racing series.
The logic of some people is amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Jesus, how can you compare those 2? Goodwood has nothing to do with GPM and is in no way similar. It doesnt pretend to be a serious racing series.
The logic of some people is amazing.

---

I was referring to the fact that it involves a lot of old drivers who would not be competitive in the modern arena, something you seem to take as a personal insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I was referring to the fact that it involves a lot of old drivers who would not be competitive in the modern arena, something you seem to take as a personal insult.

---

The aim of the 2 series differs by a huge magnitude.

Personal insult?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

The aim of the 2 series differs by a huge magnitude.

Personal insult?

---

You seem so worked up about it, that's all. Never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Why?

Because: although the competitive spark is still there, otherwise a driver wouldn't be entering, the degree of commitment from various individuals will varyas will the degree to which age has taken the edge off their ability.

The drivers might enjoy themselves and we may enjoy seeing them but the bottom line is that the result is meaningless.

---

The end result may have been meaningless in that this was not a step on the motorsport ladder, but it was never intended to be that. That in itself caused a problem for the series in that it didn't really "fit" anywhere but that didn't devalue it in my eyes. On the contrary, it made a refreshing change!

I do agree that the level of committment varied, and the motivation for taking part may have differed among the different drivers, but none of them saw this as a "career" move. It simply gave them an opportunity to step into a single seater again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisS

The series on its own doesn't have the power to get people to the circuits, add to that the fact they tried to race in non traditional F1 countries and failure is certain.

---

I think the aim was to race on "traditional" circuits but it seems that proved difficult, and the likes of Qatar were more than willing to pay to host races. Unfortunately that took GPM away from those who were most likely to go and watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Those GPM guys should compete in who has the smallest beer belly and who has gone the least senile.

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Alan Jones pulling out due to lack of fitness and being 10 seconds slower in practise was a good one.

---

Alan Jones did not take part in the initial GPM test at Silverstone. Had he done so he would have realised the demands the car placed on the drivers and the level of fitness that was needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Goodwood has nothing to do with GPM and is in no way similar.

---

A large part of GPM was the "nostalgia" factor of seeing ex-drivers racing and competing with their peers. A large part of Goodwood is the nostalgia of seeing ex-drivers in the cars they are associated with. These events are certainly not the same, but they are not as different as you would like to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

A large part of GPM was the "nostalgia" factor of seeing ex-drivers racing and competing with their peers. A large part of Goodwood is the nostalgia of seeing ex-drivers in the cars they are associated with. These events are certainly not the same, but they are not as different as you would like to believe.

---

There is a big difference between watching Rene Arnoux drive an 1979 Renault RS01 around Goodwood and watching him drive a second-hand ex-ChampCar chassis that means nothing to nobody around Qatar.

One is nostalgia, the other is an irrelevance.

That is a big difference. That is the why Goodwood is a success and GPM has gone belly up.

But, since you don't think that's a big difference, how about giving me £30 for a ticket to watch an ex F2 driver mowing his lawn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

But, since you don't think that's a big difference, how about giving me £30 for a ticket to watch an ex F2 driver mowing his lawn?

---

Will he be using the original lawnmower from his F2 days or a second-hand John Deere lawnmower :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisS

Will he be using the original lawnmower from his F2 days or a second-hand John Deere lawnmower :p :

---

A second hand John Deere one. The original mower he had when he was in F2 won't be used....Flymo only demo the 1979 model at their World Series by Flymo events

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

There is a big difference between watching Rene Arnoux drive an 1979 Renault RS01 around Goodwood and watching him drive a second-hand ex-ChampCar chassis that means nothing to nobody around Qatar.

One is nostalgia, the other is an irrelevance.

That is a big difference. That is the why Goodwood is a success and GPM has gone belly up.

---

You might be right, but then I've already made the point that a venue such as Qatar took GPM away from those who were most likely to go and watch. Had races been able to take place at more "traditional" venues - Brands Hatch, Monza, Zandvoort for example - then the series may have had an opportunity to succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

You might be right, but then I've already made the point that a venue such as Qatar took GPM away from those who were most likely to go and watch. Had races been able to take place at more "traditional" venues - Brands Hatch, Monza, Zandvoort for example - then the series may have had an opportunity to succeed.

---

Exactly. I must say that I never really liked GPM, but couldn't put my finger on why. Maybe it seemed rather 'sterile', unlike seeing, for instance, Mansell trying his hand at the BTCC. But I'm glad that someone tried to do it.

There's news in this week's Autosport that the series is being relaunched. Delta Motorsports head the group working on "the Masters Concept" and they are in final negotiations with investors. The original chassis will be used with a new engine, perhaps a 600bhp turbo.

A quick trip to the old GPM website shows the new series could well be called 'F1 Masters', which suggests it may have the approval of Bernie.

Autosport's news item highlights the fact that Jacques Villeneuve has "put himself forward to race" in the revived series, which will be dropping the minimum age limit of 45.

IMO I liked the GPM series and I am unhappy that they failed. I hope that they come back.

I'm a supporter of GPM as well. I think Villeneuve's idea of handicapping younger drivers is a good one.

For those who said the series is meaningless, would they still say that if it involved M Schumacher, Hakkinen, Alesi, Berger, Irvine, Brundle, etc as well?

It could be a great series and there could be lots of different race winners :)

Riccardo has now confirmed he's been in contact with the series organisers and is "very happy to race again" :s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woody2goody

I'm a supporter of GPM as well. I think Villeneuve's idea of handicapping younger drivers is a good one.

For those who said the series is meaningless, would they still say that if it involved M Schumacher, Hakkinen, Alesi, Berger, Irvine, Brundle, etc as well?

It could be a great series and there could be lots of different race winners :)

---

If these guys are around 40, then go for it. But if you start taking on 50+ year old drivers who never achieved much, then I still think its better if it doesn`t exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

If these guys are around 40, then go for it. But if you start taking on 50+ year old drivers who never achieved much, then I still think its better if it doesn`t exist.

---

Rather ageist don't you think ;)

As for "never achieving much", a look at the grid for the 2006 Silverstone race will tell you that the drivers combined had 1751 races, 60 wins, 70 poles, 196 podiums, and 3 WDC's.

I'm sure you'll point out that 5 drivers alone account for most of those stats - Arnoux, Fittipaldi, Mansell, Patrese, Tambay - but to get that caliber of driver to compete in the original GPM series was a superb achievement in the first place. Most of them hadn't raced for years, and had nothing to prove and no need to race again but it showed that, as Villeneuve says, "Masters is a great idea and if it's done properly it could be massive."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Rather ageist don't you think ;)

---

Garry has a point... I'd rather see somewhat recently retired F1 drivers driving in the series than guys who were backmarkers in their prime, such as Caffi, van der Poele, Lammers, Danner, etc...

His earlier comments describing the series as "meaningless", "bordering on embarrasing", and "comedy racing" led me to believe Garry was not a fan of GP Masters at all :) but it now seems as long as the drivers competing are " around 40" his objections are reduced somewhat. Something to do with a certain Schumacher approaching that age bracket perhaps ;)

Obviously the likes of Caffi, van der Poele, Lammers, and Danner could hardly be described as GP/F1 "Masters", but if the series enabled them to race then why shouldn't they take part?

I suspect that as the age limit is apparently being reduced the revived series may generate interest from more recently ex-F1 drivers - JV's comments suggest that is already the case - and perhaps that may provide Garry with drivers he is more likely to approve of.

A new Masters series, if it can establish itself, may eventually provide drivers with an enjoyable and competitive series once their F1 careers have come to an end. If that happens I think it has a real chance of succeeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malllen

Garry has a point... I'd rather see somewhat recently retired F1 drivers driving in the series than guys who were backmarkers in their prime, such as Caffi, van der Poele, Lammers, Danner, etc...

---

Thing is we never got the chance to see how they were in good cars, and in equal machinery some may surprise regardless of their age.

However I would love to see M/R Schumacher, Villeneuve, Panis, McNish, Frentzen, Alesi involved.

It should come down to those who have held a super-licence , regardless of age . If there are enough applicants with serious cred (ie-WDCs and high profile drivers ), it will filter out the fluff by itself .

Then give them all weight belts that make them Mansell's weight .