I just watched the final Space Shuttle launch. Along with the tears and a clear sense of lost youth, there was a good deal of anger directed at the current White House tenant, and how he has handled NASA and the space program in general, since he ascended to the throne. On the same day that Atlantis blasted off for the last time, we also got new national unemployment numbers articulating 9.2% after holding at 9.1% for some time; so much for “shovel ready”; so how about “shovel this.”

As one of those people who has been in, and around, aviation my entire life, (figure it this way, I got my initial fixed-wing ticket in 1967, so you do the math), the concept of an active American space program has always been part of my flying career, along with being central to the American culture as a whole. However, barely a year after coming into office, Obama and his moronic cadre of socialist bean-counters, managed to calculate and announce that America’s space program was no longer relevant, too expensive, and not worthy of “investment” in the Keynesian sense. No matter that Obama immediately added $2.2 trillion to the national debt based on a host of holistically stupid economic policies, and followed those up by actively selling the United States down the river by sucking up to the Chinese, OPEC, the Iranians, Venezuela, and virtually every other country that hates us. But worst of all, and particularly in the context of our now-dead space program, was to force this country to be beholding to the Russians for future NASA program transportation. The Russians of all people!

Perhaps Obama doesn’t read any history other than the writings of Bill Ayers or Che Guevara. As a result, he apparently doesn’t like America or Americans, and seems to be more interested in just about anything and anyone other than the United States, and its long tradition of technical innovation, vision and pure guts. However, just in case he does wake up some night after finally being struck by a coherent thought, here’s some news. Short of publicly asking the Queen to give her new IPod back, nothing could be more insulting, damaging or demoralizing to those of us who grew up before Facebook and Twitter, than to see the United States bumming Russian rides to and from our own space station. Merde!

Granted, there are citizens of this country who have long harbored irritation about monies spent on “expensive scientific toys” when they believed that earth-borne programs could have done with additional support, and I will accept the point, even if its entirely wrong. There should always be somewhere on this planet where “everything is possible,” and that place used to reside in America, as amply illustrated by our space program. However, no more. Obama stuck the knife below our ribs, and has now managed to gut us. As my colleague Marc Rauch says, “what a putz.” So, see ya at the polls Barry. I’ll be there pulling the lever for anyone else but you, and I bet that the legions of former NASA, Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed, and affiliate company employees you just laid-off will be there too.

Shuttle program began to emerge, and the raw numbers are going to be terrible beyond belief. For example, just in the Cape Canaveral/Coco Beach areas, finally bringing Atlantis home will mean that, in extended terms, up to 30,000+ folks will lose their jobs. Now, that will be a real “change we can live with” don’t you think?

Further Editors Note: Initial lost job numbers are firming up and growing, based on the shut Shuttle program when considering sub-contractor downsizing, various out of state space-oriented job losses, cancelled programs, and commercial business losses associated with space-oriented employees and their families. Here are just some of the projections (all numbers based on local/regional/national business news reports):

<2,000> – Prior jobs lost due to Shuttle program spool-down
<8000> – Current direct Shuttle flight program support
<12,500 to 13,800> – Extended “Space Coast” sub-contracting
<600> – NASA Management/Administration
<1,300 to 1,900> – Michoud Main Tank Assembly Facility at New Orleans, Louisiana
<6,000> – Johnson Space Center at Houston, Texas re: Shuttle/Constellation contract cancellation
<3,000> – Ball Aerospace at Denver Colorado, re: Hubble Space Telescope support program cancellation
<950> – Marshall Spaceflight Center at Huntsville, Ala re: Shuttle rocket support cancellation

And the “Big One”:

<100,000+> – Based on jobs lost due to local/regional hospitality, tourism, housing, consumer business etc.

Current running job loss projection: <133,050>

Automotive Commentary by Rick Carlton

The 22nd of June 2011 was a bad day for the green car business. That morning, Norwegian-owned Think Global AS, executed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy after first surrendering its corporate assets to a court-assigned trustee. The trustee in turn was tasked with either finding a new buyer for the company as a whole, or liquidate all assets on a piece-by-piece basis. Given the fact that part of the “all assets” question involves Think’s wholly-owned domestic subsidiary Think Cars US, one can assume that there are a lot of unhappy folks in and around the company’s manufacturing plant in Elkhart, Indiana. However, the business failure begs a larger question, since if a well-established 20 year-old EV producer can’t attract enough interest to capitalize its operations after two decades, what other business failures lie in wait for the EV segment as a whole?

We have already watched as Tesla offered itself up to Toyota as a way to fend off its own near-failure (ultimately managing to pull off an after-the-fact, and somewhat blue-sky IPO, that made a lot of near-term cash, while at the same time creating an enormous cost furball for the Japanese car maker down the road). But other than the San Carlos operation, everything is ominously quiet within the domestic EV segment, and when I say quiet, I mean dead.

When weighing ROI in the case of the electric car value proposition, the sad truth is that the concept is simply all hat no cattle. Blathering on about tree-hugging, carbon-free, cheap-to-own, everyone-can-buy-one, Star Trek, Federation of Planets whoo ha, won’t change the essential math associated with cost versus selling price. The fact is that EVs are expensive to engineer, develop, manufacture, distribute, sell, buy and maintain, and as a result the entire EV premise is a bad bet in the context of hard-nosed business investment.

Further, and beyond the aforementioned limitations, in an economic era where more people are signing up for food stamps, than considering the purchase of cute enclosed golf carts, successful capitalization should encompass reasonable profit. But, in the case of EV companies, this notion flies on the face of conventional investment wisdom, since they continue to offer little in terms of the bottom line by creating product values that cost a pretty Penney, while offering nothing much more than the satisfaction of driving a carbon-free vehicle, along with 100 miles worth of range, and the 12 hours of downtime necessary to complete a full-power battery charge.

Of course, there is always the Federal Government. But, of course, bureaucrats seem to like to talk about the idea of investing in electric cars, much more than they like doing something about it. As a result, politicians don’t appreciate direct business capitalization much, and prefer tax credits as a typical half-empty approach. This is mainly because of the pesky little business responsbility called risk-management.

In this case, if the tax dodge works out, and a company makes a go of it, politicians get the credit for free, and at virtually no risk other than having to deliver huge volumes of hot air. But, on the other hand, if the government has money in an enterprise and it goes south (sort of like the Chevy Volt), politicans would quickly find themselves standing beside closed manufacturing plants while the news cameras rolled at six, nine and eleven. So, instead of doing something meaningful like developing honest public sector investment in electric car technologies, they instead deliver cash grants for more weighty issues like University studies based on measuring the viscosity of ketchup, or how many drunk co-eds it takes to change an EPA-certified florescent light bulb.

In mythic times in a host of countries, people believed in an animal that offered total purity and complete emotional sustenance to the human soul, and these creatures came to be referred to as Unicorns. However, throughout recorded history, no human being ever encountered the animal in the temporal world, only in the mind’s eye. Subsequently, and throughout the ages, the Unicorn myth has come to represent the quntessential illustration of a “good idea never seen in the real world,” and the EV as a business premise, offers about as much practical value as the beautiful equine with a horn in the center of its forehead.

Ventura, June 19, 2011: The Markus Niemela Experience posted another strong performance at last night’s VRA Pro Sprint round at Ventura Raceway. The Finnish flash, driving his signature electric blue #69 Steve Watt Enterprises/Maxwell Industries 360, delivered a P3 heat finish, then finished up P4 in the main.

“The car was good again, since the Watt/Maxwell guys really put a lot of effort into building great stuff. As a result, the car may have been the fastest car on the track in the main, and I was able to move up in both sessions.

“Unfortunately, the track surface was very fast for everyone, which made overtaking difficult. But, as I said, the car worked great thoughout, and this fact allowed me to run a couple of different lines that allowed me to get around the other guys. Although 4th isn’t winning, it’s pretty good, and it’s nice to know that we are a very consistent top 5 team these days.”

Last night’s result moved Markus to 9th in the 2011 VRA Pro Sprint Championship with a total of 1400 points (unofficial). This showcases his obviously consistent pace and P3 finishing average to date, even though hampered by a series of conflicting 2011 event dates.

Next up, Markus will campaign at Ventura’s Pro Sprint All Coast Construction Challenge next week. Following that, he will be returning to Finland to begin taping for the second season of reality TV’s Markus Niemela Experience.

To learn more about Markus, his US on and off-track companies, and how you can become a commercial partner, contact business@prracewire.com.

Ventura California, June 5, 2011: The Markus Niemela Experience rolled into Ventura Raceway last evening to produce a series of strong performances in the #69 Steve Watt Enterprises/Maxwell Industries car, netting a second in the ten lap heat, and a fourth in the main.

Niemela, who is currently the only Finnish driver in the US non-winged sprint car ranks, now unofficially stands 10th in the 2011 VRA Championship, with an average finish of 5th based on six events.

“The car was fast out of the box and I posted a second in practice, then followed that up with a second in the heat, creating a direct transfer to the main. There, I was gridded sixth, and it looked like the race was going to be fast and trouble-free until I started to lose the brakes at lap five.

This changed my style considerably, and as a result fell back to ninth until I could get a handle on the driving limitation. Luckily the track was so fast that the brake issue wasn’t a disaster, but it was indeed hard to drive in traffic.

In the end, the car was so good otherwise that I was probably the fastest car on the track whenever I’d get a lap without traffic. Once I worked that problem out, I started moving up again, and finished fourth, although I almost got third at the end,” he said with a smile.

Niemela is slated to run his next VRA Sprint Car event in two weeks, again in the Pro Sprint division.

FULLERTON, Feb. 25, 2011: Yokohama Tire Corporation’s new iPad app – the Yokohama Tire Explorer – introduced at the recent LA Auto Show, is now available free on iTunes.

“iPad apps are a new and unique way for consumers to get information,” said Alan Holtschneider, Yokohama manager, advertising, promotions & events. “Yokohama’s app takes advantage of the iPad’s touch gesture technology and provides consumers an interactive, graphically-appealing way to learn about our tires.”

Holtschneider said the app features videos and information on the technology behind Yokohama’s consumer tires. ADVAN®, GEOLANDAR®, AVID® ENVigor™, S.drive® and the orange oil-infused dB Super E-spec™ all have their respective sections for users to explore. “There’s information on tire compounds, tread design and construction, along with a ‘Tireology’ section and fun facts about tires. We hope consumers will find the Yokohama app an engaging tool, especially as they begin to consider replacement tires for their vehicle.”

Yokohama Tire Corporation is the North American manufacturing and marketing arm of Tokyo, Japan-based The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd., a global manufacturing and sales company of premium tires since 1917. Servicing a network of more than 4,500 points of sale in the U.S., Yokohama Tire Corporation is a leader in technology and innovation. The company’s complete product line includes the dB Super E-spec™ – the world’s first tire to use orange oil to reduce petroleum – as well as tires for high-performance, light truck, passenger car, commercial truck and bus, and off-the-road mining and construction applications. For more information on Yokohama’s extensive product line, visit www.yokohamatire.com.

Yokohama is a strong supporter of the tire care and safety guidelines established by the Rubber Manufacturers Association and the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration. Details can be found at the “Tire Safety” section at www.yokohamatire.com.

FLRacing Karts recently introduced their electric kart, noticing the rise in demand for electric karts which has increased as the concept of indoor karting has become more popular. While a look at Indoor Kart Tracks.Com shows that there are 94 indoor kart tracks in the U.S. this is a small number in comparison to the nearly 500 tracks that are in Europe and the  almost 1500 electric kart tracks Worldwide.

The FLRacing electric kart requires about 50% less maintenance and labor than traditional gas karts and tracks. An electric kart’s efficient, robust motor means fewer moving parts and a lower chance of failure. A lower failure rate leads to   less down time and less labor costs. A better, more efficient go-kart leads  to lower needs for parts inventory and labor to maintain. New track owners  are realizing two concepts, the lower operational costs of electric racing karts and the exceptance by the general public customer and corporate clients. The exhilaration and consistency of the ride that an electric kart provides will enhance satisfaction of the driver, which will lead to repeat customers, and a more enjoyable experience. Electric karts provide a low maintenance motor, which allows longer running times . Noise or air pollution is not an issue, a recent Db test showed the FLRacing kart to be a Db rating of 58 at a distance of three feet, this is very close to the household microwave.

WHY AN FLRACING ELECTRIC KART?

Zero Emissions = Clean Air and Lower Operating Costs:

Gas powered indoor karting facilities must bear the initial cost of an expensive air handling system that attempts to eliminate noxious and deadly gasses emitted by internal combustion engines. Beyond the initial costs, there are continuous increased operational expenses. The very system designed to refresh and replenish the inside air, is in fact removing seasonal climate controls. Track operators must balance these opposing efforts and the results are that the air in these facilities is still contaminated! Electric karts emit no air pollution whatsoever. City codes and inspectors meet the approval of electric go-kart tracks or facilities, however, with gas karts, they have previously denied or not passed the rigorous standards of city codes.

Whisper Quiet Operation = Longer Operating Hours:

When you first enter a conventional karting facility, the roar of the karts fills you with excitement – for about five minutes. After that, the loud, incessant droning is more likely to give you a headache. Customers there to enjoy the facility are driven away. There is no way to bring the noise level of gas engine karts down to an acceptable level. Electric karts on the other hand create almost no noise, except a pleasant high-pitched whine like an F-1 racecar. This translates to longer operating hours and fewer complaints from your crew, customers and neighbors.

Electrical Power = Reduced

Costs and Elimination of Hazards:

The operation of internal combustion karts requires fuels such as gasoline, propane, or methanol. The fuel must be purchased, delivered, stored, dispensed, and handled on-site. In many instances, local or state authorities will not allow this indoors. In addition, oils and lubricants must be properly handled and legally disposed. Electric karts use no gas or oil. This means no fumes, no spills, no air pollution, and none of the hazards or related costs associated with toxic liquids. Electric karts need no “re-fueling”, translating to fewer man-hours and fewer hazards. Electric kart batteries are UL rated and fully recyclable. The next generation in FLRacing Karts is already in progress, testing of Lithium batteries and a Patent on a “Quick Change Solution” in Lithium will keep the track owner from having to purchase extra karts to charge. The “Quick Change Solution”
allows the kart to pull in when a re-charge is needed and to have a plug in Lithium battery pack pulled out and a new one put in within 20 seconds.

Fewer Moving Parts = Lower Maintenance Costs:

Electric motors have lower maintenance costs than gasoline engines. This translates into savings for the track operator, as fewer repairs are needed. Motors need no maintenance and run for years before needing a simple brush and bearing replacement. Combined with superior chassis, design, and strength, FLRacing karts will give years of service. The use of dry lead acid batteries means there is no need to deal with messy, toxic acid.. Extremely long lasting, and the available power stays constant to provide thousands of exciting races. New and exciting advances in the Lithium battery which is now being tested in FLRacing Karts are sure to make for quicker charges and longer kart runs.

Low End Torque = Faster Acceleration:

Electric karts cannot only match gas karts for top speed on straight-a-ways, their low-end power and quickness provide head-snapping acceleration throughout the entire range of speeds. Instead of a “live solid axle”, electric karts have unique, custom-built differential that amplifies the kart’s turning response, improves handling, engine performance and battery life. The resulting performance makes for a truly exhilarating racing experience.

Remote controlled, Safer, Saner and more Fun!:

Our electric karts feature state-of-the-art radio controlled emergency shut-off and pit speed reduction. The radio control allows track personnel to control the track speeds before, during, and after a race. The pit lane speed allows the customers to enter and exit the pit lane grid safely. The system can also be used to penalize individual drivers who have made intentional infractions of track rules, by remotely cutting their kart’s power in half. Speeds are fully adjustable to suit your track design.

FLRacing Kart Specs

CHASSIS

Tubular  frame utilizing square, rectangular and round DOM tubing provides exceptional strength and durability
Frame is assembled in a clamp down jig for increased accuracy and MIG welded for durability
Powdered coated for a strong scratch resistant finish

BODY

Body panels are vacuum formed high density polyethylene to reduce damage from impacts
Panels are easily removed for inspection or maintenance with ¼ turn fasteners
Standard XL seat accommodates most drivers
Powered seat and pedals adjust with the push of a button

BUMPERS

Impact resistance high density polyethylene bumpers front and rear are reversible for longer life
Additional shock absorption is provided by rubber “D” section extrusions at the front, rear and sides

BRAKES

Hydraulic system with master cylinder and rear wheel calipers
Fully adjustable pads provide more control when adjusting the brake disk location
Stainless steel braided brake lines for durability

DRIVELINE

Steel primary and secondary sprockets
Number 40 roller-chain
Chain tensioning easy and simple to do

REAR AXLE

Dual 30mm axle shafts
Dual supports for each axle reduce deflection
Aluminum differential with steel bevel gearing

BATTERIES

Maintenance free 12 volt 50 amp/hr
Spiral wound cells with gas recombination technology
Sealed valve regulated battery means no leaks to worry about

MOTOR

SEP (separately exited) DC motor provides instant power
Powered by 48 Volt system

CONTROLLER

Programmable
Reverse direction with the push of a button
Potentiometer provides smooth control of speed
500 amp rated

OTHER PHYSICAL INFORMATION

Four point seat belts system
Tire sizes are 10 x 4.50-5 front and 11 x 7.10-5 rear
Overall width and length approximately 58” x 81”
Inside turning radius approximately 8.5 feet

A recent article by Susan Harris at Automotive News got me thinking about the processes necessary to market, promote and create a car sales transaction in today’s virtual environment. While Ms. Harris rightly asserts that “…the volume of Internet traffic and sales seems to be outpacing the growth of the Internet sales force, (and) somebody had better be minding the virtual store,” just growing a dealer’s Internet staff, doesn’t mean that sales are going to go up based on simple volume.

When I was beginning to roll The Global Racing Network out in the early 90′s, I had a somewhat stiff conversation with the then Director of Communications at the Indianapolis Motors Speedway. The dialogue went something like this, “….who the hell are you? You’re just a guy with a computer, phone and modem, so how do I know you’re a real journalist?” Well as it happened, I also wrote for several print magazines at the time and my byline was easily vetted, so the situation resolved itself accordingly. But, I never forgot the experience, and with today’s interest in virtual sales processes that offer the promise of delivering more units at lower cost, the original questions posed by my Indy respondent are just as relevant today, as they were back then.

Lets think about it logically for a minute. Literally anyone in the world can mount a web site, produce some clever promotional verbiage, integrate attractive imagery and simply “go into business.” Granted the reach of the web and affiliate social networking platforms DO suggest this capability globally every day. But behind these processes there is one question that lurks in the background of each customer’s mind; “who IS the guy on the other end of the web site? Is he/she just a person with “a computer and a phone,” and am I about to get screwed?”

Part of the downside associated with attempting to leverage the net as a auto business value is the clear lack of understanding between the difference between “marketing” and “sales,” whether when talking with dealers or customers. So, before I go on, here are the formal definitions for each:

Marketing is strategically defined by the American Marketing Association as: “…the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and offering (showcasing) products for customers,clients, and society at large.”

Sales is defined by Management Org as: “…cultivating prospective buyers (or leads)…conveying the features, advantages and benefits of a product or service to the lead; and closing the sale (or coming to agreement on pricing and services).”

Now. Why is this important? Because, “displaying and communicating” are not the same processes on the net when working to “…close the sale.” Frankly, many auto dealers miss this point entirely when leveraging online processes. As a result, they end up being lousy at it, and leave money on the table every day.

Again, online “marketing” is perfect for extending brand and showcasing product value. And, its fairly easy to validate marketing cost-efficiencies internally, if one’s offer messages are clearly defined, persistent and integrated with a range of metric measurements.

But “closing the deal” is, and always will be hard, and without understanding the differences between these two concepts, and with today’s increasing density of what amounts to electronic white noise, its getting harder. So, as a dealer you might want to consider what does, or doesn’t happen, once a lead hits your email box.

First, when you get an online lead response contact the customer immediately and personally. This does not mean tomorrow or next week – that day. If you are being hammered at the office and can’t call right then, contact the lead by email, show interest in the customer’s need, and set up a telephone conference to discuss the opportunity at a later time. Then, put the lead in an “3 day schedule lead” file.

Second, when you have a telephone meeting scheduled, be on time for the call. Then respond as necessary, but above all, attempt to schedule a walk-in for a demo. On the other hand, if the lead is interested in information only, respond appropriately then put the lead in a “7 day short sale” file for re-contact.

Third, if a customer has made his/her way to the dealership and a potential sale remains unclosed, follow up the day after the visit via phone, then follow up again via email after an additional 7 days. This keeps your relationship fresh without becoming overbearing. If you still don’t get a response, move the lead to a “30 day medium sale” file and follow up again, but in the meantime continue to push any new offers the customer’s way via email.

Fourth, if you still don’t have any lead action, and depending on the customer’s response, move the lead to a “90 day long sale” file, and move on, But, insure that the customer is receiving fresh dealer offers and at the appointed re-contact point start the process again.

The goals of these processes are oriented to personal relationship-building and persistence over time. But to make them work effectively one must exert significant discipline in order to overcome the intrinsic objections created by the virtual environment.

Its Still No Bucks No Buck Rogers.

I have been working in and around the auto/motorsports business since dinosaurs walked the earth, and have come to a couple of essential conclusions. First, one needs money to make money, and second, one can’t make money unless one offers a legitimate business value over time. For some, these pearls of wisdom may appear obvious, but in the case of today’s motorsports economic climate, and particularly in the context of an increasingly virtual and socially-driven sponsor marketplace, I believe that much of what is passing for business value is being lost in the translation.

Recently, I had an opportunity to read some comments from social-networking pundit Peter Shankman on what he saw as the need for more effective sponsor messaging for that industry’s conference events, and it occurred to me that his thinking played equally in the case of commercial messaging for motorsports. As a result, I am going to offer one of Shankman’s central points skewed to accommodate a motorsports business focus. He offered the following, “What do you mean ‘I’d better be sponsorable?’ It’s a real word, with real world repercussions. Want sponsors? You’d better be sponsorable.”

Prior to the web, and before television became an essential tool for the motorsports marketeer, the commercial value derived from event/team sponsorship was primarily based on word of mouth commercial messages, supported by various forms of static display advertising. The central goal then, was to attract race fans to the track then hype branded offers, thereby converting fans into customers, who would presumably drive to the local auto store and buy products. The advantage of this approach was that there was a direct and measurable relationship between the value of the advertising, and any additional sales volumes.

With the advent of motorsports on TV, however, and with its consequent increased volume of video-based advertising, value propositions began to be altered to measure “brand impressions” rather than direct sales metrics. Between the mid-80s and today, derived revenues based on the value of motorsports sponsorships dropped, but marketeers and constituent commercial partners somehow missed the fact that pinning value measurements on the dubious attraction of impression-driven “soft dollars,” was not the same thing as cold cash.

Then, in 1991 web 1.0 rolled out, and things got even more fuzzy. The internet appeared to offer cheap commercial promotion everywhere, all the time. Before long, “everyone” had a web site, and “everyone” thought that the new technology would be a great way to make “cubic bucks” by leveraging sponsorship marketing. However, although motorsports marketeers have made some progress in terms of ramping sponsor brand persistence up, along with extended reach for commercial partners, after 21 years, most sponsor direct sales offers are typically lost in today’s technological tendency to trumpet more, while creating less sales value on the bottom line.

Now; this does not mean that there are no opportunities associated with emergent smart TV, or virtual marketing, in the case of motorsports sponsor programs. But the era of simply “pushing” enormous volumes of brand information out, without offering to direct-sell a sponsor’s products today are as silly, as they are wasteful. Frankly, direct virtual marketing/sales processes are perfect tools since they offer the ability to display, offer and transact, and are technologically intrinsic to today’s host of electronic devices.

However, to produce value, one has to commit to more formal coordination and managment in order to get the entire system moving. And, on the motorsports side, no one seems to be willing to take the first step to get the job done. For motorsports organizations looking to secure and validate sponsorship going forward, this means that the concept of “partnership” between racer and commercial supporter needs to take on new and more critical meaning. It is not enough to place signage on a race car anymore. It is not enough to put a web site up. It is not enough to open a Facebook or Twitter account. It is not enough to show up at a local sponsor showroom or office. It is not even enough to attend regular weekend B2B meet and greets at the racetrack. It is all the above – and more.

In a word it means effective business “collaboration,” where race organizations work directly with a sponsor partner’s marketing folks on a regular basis, to create clear and evocative multichannel product messages, virtually promote those offers, then leverage eCommerce to sell the sponsor’s products direct to the customer, in order to secure revenue loyalty over time. As Tom Wolfe wrote, “No Bucks No Buck Rogers,” and in the context of developing reciprocal business value as a result of today’s motorsports sponsorships, nothing could be more plainly spoken.

By Rick Carlton

According to the National Women In Racing Directory, at the end of Q4 there were 1,819 drivers actively participating in sanctioned events at all levels of motorsport. However, in investigating the database, the number of recurrent top or development level drivers, i.e. those who are branded athletes racing in Sprint Cup, Nationwide, Camping World Trucks, Firestone Indy Lights, Grand Am’s Continental Tire Sports Car Challenge, and ALMS’ GT Challenge, the number drops to a paltry total of 17, in comparison with several hundred male entrants.

To some degree, the lack of substantive consumer automotive, financial, technology, supply-chain and healthcare firms who are represented by female athletes may be a legacy event, since motorsports continues to be largely perceived as a male endeavor. Regardless, some women have generated increased commercial attention in the last several years, but in general, advertising agencies, marketeers and sponsors continue to be slow to leverage female motorsports personalities.

One the face of it, there are some indicators that may relate to what is going on. In an obvious example of positive marketing gone wrong, consider the value proposition based on Danica Patrick’s Go Daddy branding. When Patrick came through the lower motorsports ranks, her reputation was that of a hard-charging racer who was entirely capable of beating male competitors corner for corner. At the same time, she efficiently portrayed herself as being talented, smart and clearly confident off the racetrack, and that image held her in good stead as she grew in prominence as an emergent promotional partner.

However, somewhere between her original market messaging, and today’s exceedingly crass Go Daddy packaging, Danica allowed herself to be perceived as a bikini model who races, as opposed to a professional race driver who happens to be a model. As a result, her value has been diminished commercially by continually promoting messages that defeat the value of a woman’s intelligence, credibility, consistency and performance. While that may be fine for Patrick’s pocketbook, her notoriety as a model/racer has clearly not attracted commercial opportunities for other talented women on the racetrack, or when making the larger case for additional and substantive sponsorship interest by making the challenges easier, rather than controversial.

In the end of the day, it appears that the unintended consequence is that advertising agencies have tended to stay away from female motorsports athletes out of hand, or if they have already signed athletes, can’t figure out how to resolve the conflicting perspectives of “bikini model versus professional athlete” in order to validate credible and extendable advertising value. As a cautionary tale then, and in the context of today’s business risk-averse environment, any personal brand that can be perceived as being more sensational than the sponsor brand itself weakens, rather supports value.

With gasoline point of sale prices averaging $3 per gallon nationally, and with spot oil costs remaining between $88 – $93 per barrel (based on 1/7/2011 Bloomberg energy metrics) the question becomes, at what point do we get serious about alternative fuels? Granted, there’s considerable hoopla about electric power these days, but EVs are not practical solutions for the average consumer. There is no nationally-recognized charging infrastructure on the horizon, nor are EVs logical in terms of cost or utility for the typical buyer.

For example, at the top of the electric consumer mountain the Tesla stands alone at an MSRP of $140,000. For that price, you get loads of style and blazing speed, just as long as you only want to go fast for 200 miles. At that point, the Tesla’s elegant automobile ‘du art turns into a monument to the hubris of technology. On the other hand, there are other more affordable options, including the Think City, Phoenix Light Truck or Aptera Typ-1, where MSRPs are a bit more reasonable ranging from $27,000 to $45,000, but these vehicles provide their own challenges in the form of even more imited ranges of 100 to 130 miles.

Then, once these vehicles are fully discharged, in order to re-energize them it takes an average of 7 hours. So, unless you live in a highly-urban area, where the goal is to go a mile or so and back for a gallon of milk, (averaging $2.65 nationally by the way), you are going to be spending a lot of time plugging in and out. Finally, there is a “gotcha” operating cost in the mix, since regularly charging your EV on the local electric grid, will ultimately come back to haunt the consumer downstream based on higher localized electric utility costs.

However, although it is obvious that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, there are more reasonably priced and readily-available solutions to the dual issues of cost and energy security in this country. Perhaps the most important of all of these opportunities, is a national commitment to the development of compressed natural gas (CNG) solutions for consumer cars.

For example, according to Q4 2010 prices, the base cost of a gasoline gallon equivalent (gge) of CNG is $0.85, where the national average of a gallon of refined gasoline is currently $2.97 for 87 Octane. Obviously the cost variance is clear, but additional development cost economies can be easily leveraged by the CNG industry’s long-history with the conversion of gasoline to Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), or Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) engines for fleet vehicle use. Further, the EPA is already embedded within the gas industry, and any cost burdens are already included as part of daily gge averages, so any follow-in regulatory price impacts will be limited to some degree. Finally, there is the fact that the North American continent harbors perhaps the greatest concentration of natural gas in the world, so supply will be plentiful and domestically controlled for the foreseeable future. All in all then, the question comes down to “why haven’t we done something about this?”

Frankly, ’tis a puzzlement. However, along with the already-proven cost efficiencies of CNG offered by the fleet vehicle industry, there are several well-known energy evangelists trying to dent the illogic of the “electric-first” auto solution now, including Boone Pickens, although to date CNG’s value still needs more marketing/promotion push. Nonetheless, all one really needs to do is to take a long, honest look at the economic burden necessary to develop “whole-cloth” national high-rate electric car production, and perhaps the differences between the hiss of CNG, versus the buzz of electric power will become more obvious.