The reason behind night racing

[Steven Roy]

I sat and watched the Moto GP race last night and by the end of the first lap it was obvious why Bernie is so keen on it.  5.4 million Watts of electric lighting and most of it seemed to be aimed at trackside adverts.  The bikes and track didn't come close to looking like daylight but the ads looked like dayglo.  Of course because it was dark the crowd (if there was one) didn't take up vital TV time so more time for adverts.

The interesting point is Qatar had lighting on both sides of the track and it didn't interfere with the picture so I don't know why Singapore are only lighting one side.

If Max thinks he is not going to be pulled up for the environmental impact of night races he is in for a shock.  Before the race started Charlie Cox said that there was enough lighting power being used to light a street from Doha to Moscow.  That is in Moto GP where they have never made any pretence of being especially environmentally friendly.

[Monty]

I watched the Moto GP live on Eurosport and of course it is the ability to access a Worldwide audience of potential consumers that has got Berni to introduce night racing.
For the bikes, TV coverage was fine and I assume the trackside spectators also got a good view. The obvious downside of all night racing will be the environmental costs but on a more practical note I dread to think how dangerous the racing will be if it rains.
Even in good dry conditions the track seemed to reflect a lot of light and there was a  horrible accident during qualifying when one of the Hondas ran into the back of Rossi's Yamaha. I'm sure this would not have happened in normal lighting. If it rains during a night race surely the visibility will be dreadful?