Why has GT1 Died in America?

[wbcobrar]

Trans Am , dead , GT1 in ALMS , dead(after the big French race). What gives ? With mustangs , challengers , and camaros with bigger horsepower than ever on showroom floors across America why have we no intrest in fully race bred vertions of these cars beating on each other on the track ? I know there is the Speed World Challange , and dont get me wrong , I love that series . In fact I'll be attending the August Road America event , but this isnt a big budget primere series like the old Camel GT , or Trans Am of the past . Anyone else think this is wierd ?

[Oli_M]

It seems GT1 has also dies in Europe too, just a few cars entered in Le Mans ans the Le Mans series. I don't think its anything to do with the manufacturers in particular, just that the current rule set means competing in the class has become expensive with smaller returns on the investment - hence Corvette is looking at running in GT2 very soon.

There are new GT rules on the way, I'm hoping these will create a 'new' GT1 class somewhere between the current GT1&2 classes, and a 'new' GT2 class slightly 'lower' than the current GT2. That would hopefully encourage more established teams to move up to GT1 whilst making GT2 more appealing to new comers to the series (both in the US and Europe).

[wedge]

FIA GT4 is quite tasty for 'stock car' racing. Mustangs alongside BMWs, Aston Martins and Corvettes

[Mark in Oshawa]

There never should have been 2 classes of GT's. Make one and let the manufacturers find a way to compete and do what the ALMS and LeMans organizers have always done to try and equalize things. The way it was, no one could beat the Corvettes so they went to GT2 and left them to themselves....

[dj4monie]

How ridiculous is your post Mark? I didn't even bother reading beyond the first line it was so out of line.

GT1 was created for factories back in the BPR days, while GT2 was for privateers.

Even as the old GT1 got major backing from BMW, Benz, Toyota, Nissan and Porsche. Benz dominated, BMW and Toyota took their teams and toys to F1, effectively ending GT1 as it was currently known.

GT1 was YOU currently know it was a return to basics by the SRO which are the same people that started BPR.

The reason why GT1 has died because of the expense.

It cost just as much to run a GT1 Aston Martin or Corvette as it does to run a LMP1 car.

Corvette with about 1/4 of the budget to run say Jimmy Johnson's Cup effort for one season, many of the people that buy GT1 cars of the ones available, buy them as collector's items and sometime allow them to be used by a team to give the car the creditable racing history to add to its value.

Many of these Rich Men will NOT spend the money it takes to be competitive with Corvette Racing just to give their car some history. You saw this last season with the guy that owned the Aston Martin that ran GT1. He spent just enough to put the car on track, it was completely destroyed twice...

There are no new cars and no manufacturers willing to put up the funding to do it.

Aston abandoned their GT1 program since they have won it two years in a row to go after the brass ring in GT1. That was Corvette's main competition. The Saleens from Accemco have been sold and will be ran in the FIA GT Championship by a few teams.

The only other GT1 to appear the last couple of seasons was Freddy Lindhert's (sp?) who owns Lista Office Systems was the MC12 from his personal collection.

So with no new cars on the horizon and nobody ponying up to run a competitive effort, you have no cars. Add to that the Economic downturn that started much earlier than even last season, nobody is willing to put the money up either.

In GT2, buy a car, tires and drivers. If you buy a new car and put together a serious effort, you usually get factory support. For example take a look at Flash in the Pan Tafel Racing, they came out of the box with support from Porsche in 2007, switched to Ferrari in 2008 and was fully supported as much as Risi was and the lead car sported many of the same updates that the Risi car had at Le Mans.

You run Racing as much as a business as you do just for s and giggles. The fun part is actually racing. The business comes from paying for it....

If you don't want to race completely on your own dime, you are going to run GT2 or LMP2 (with support from either Mazda or Acura).

Over in FIA GT they are just playing Used Car and Musical Cars in that series no freshly built cars since Orcea showed up in 2007 with brand new Saleen S7's. Labre has those cars currently. They will get mothballed when the series goes World Championship in 2010, along with ACO (Le Mans) dropping GT1 as well, you will see a completely different GT1 car but it will most likely be the FIA that runs these cars and nobody else.

Thus far Matech will build and run Ford GT's and Nissan just announced they will run their GTR in up to four races with Gigawave running the car to showcase it for 2010 and potential sales.

The landscape of Sportscar Racing is changing, as it always does every 10 years or so.

[wedge]

How ridiculous is your post Mark? I didn't even bother reading beyond the first line it was so out of line.

GT1 was created for factories back in the BPR days, while GT2 was for privateers.

Even as the old GT1 got major backing from BMW, Benz, Toyota, Nissan and Porsche. Benz dominated, BMW and Toyota took their teams and toys to F1, effectively ending GT1 as it was currently known.

GT1 was YOU currently know it was a return to basics by the SRO which are the same people that started BPR.

The reason why GT1 has died because of the expense....

Funny, I could say the same about you post except I read it all and the rest was really good.

GT1 was turning into a joke because of the afternath of the 911 GT1 and the crazy homologation rules. To counter it the ACO created GTP. By that time BMW stopped supporting factory McLarens and ran a prototype and won LM.

That is another example of the point you making and wholeheartedly agree but its not unique to endurance racing - WRC, touring cars has been suffering the 'build and destroy' mentality. Manufacturers will always come in and move the goal posts and then the need to readdress the equilibrium.

[Bob Riebe]

I think a more serious question now is will the IMSA survive.

[wbcobrar]

Scary post Bob Riebe , ALMS is my favorite series to watch at the track. I've heard rumors that NASCAR is on the move to make ( its puppet ) Grand Am into the priemier , or the only , sports car / endurance racing series in america. That would seriously stink .

[Bob Riebe]

Scary post Bob Riebe , ALMS is my favorite series to watch at the track. I've heard rumors that NASCAR is on the move to make ( its puppet ) Grand Am into the priemier , or the only , sports car / endurance racing series in america. That would seriously stink .
Don't forget NASCAR (the France family) has lost millions if not billions like everybody else.

[Mark in Oshawa]

How ridiculous is your post Mark? I didn't even bother reading beyond the first line it was so out of line.

GT1 was created for factories back in the BPR days, while GT2 was for privateers.

Even as the old GT1 got major backing from BMW, Benz, Toyota, Nissan and Porsche. Benz dominated, BMW and Toyota took their teams and toys to F1, effectively ending GT1 as it was currently known.

GT1 was YOU currently know it was a return to basics by the SRO which are the same people that started BPR.

The reason why GT1 has died because of the expense.

It cost just as much to run a GT1 Aston Martin or Corvette as it does to run a LMP1 car.

Corvette with about 1/4 of the budget to run say Jimmy Johnson's Cup effort for one season, many of the people that buy GT1 cars of the ones available, buy them as collector's items and sometime allow them to be used by a team to give the car the creditable racing history to add to its value.

Many of these Rich Men will NOT spend the money it takes to be competitive with Corvette Racing just to give their car some history. You saw this last season with the guy that owned the Aston Martin that ran GT1. He spent just enough to put the car on track, it was completely destroyed twice...

There are no new cars and no manufacturers willing to put up the funding to do it.

Aston abandoned their GT1 program since they have won it two years in a row to go after the brass ring in GT1. That was Corvette's main competition. The Saleens from Accemco have been sold and will be ran in the FIA GT Championship by a few teams.

The only other GT1 to appear the last couple of seasons was Freddy Lindhert's (sp?) who owns Lista Office Systems was the MC12 from his personal collection.

So with no new cars on the horizon and nobody ponying up to run a competitive effort, you have no cars. Add to that the Economic downturn that started much earlier than even last season, nobody is willing to put the money up either.

In GT2, buy a car, tires and drivers. If you buy a new car and put together a serious effort, you usually get factory support. For example take a look at Flash in the Pan Tafel Racing, they came out of the box with support from Porsche in 2007, switched to Ferrari in 2008 and was fully supported as much as Risi was and the lead car sported many of the same updates that the Risi car had at Le Mans.

You run Racing as much as a business as you do just for s and giggles. The fun part is actually racing. The business comes from paying for it....

If you don't want to race completely on your own dime, you are going to run GT2 or LMP2 (with support from either Mazda or Acura).

Over in FIA GT they are just playing Used Car and Musical Cars in that series no freshly built cars since Orcea showed up in 2007 with brand new Saleen S7's. Labre has those cars currently. They will get mothballed when the series goes World Championship in 2010, along with ACO (Le Mans) dropping GT1 as well, you will see a completely different GT1 car but it will most likely be the FIA that runs these cars and nobody else.

Thus far Matech will build and run Ford GT's and Nissan just announced they will run their GTR in up to four races with Gigawave running the car to showcase it for 2010 and potential sales.

The landscape of Sportscar Racing is changing, as it always does every 10 years or so.

I said what I said because if the rules makers make the rules in such a way that there are restrictions, the automakers either spend less to compete in GT or go up to LMP and spend that money. The fan, the guy paying the freight, the one WATCHING doesn't care about 2 GT categories. US really hard core fans might a little, and god knows I love the Vettes but I love a race. Seeing 4 cars race in a class for bragging rights does NOTHING in the long run.

You can ridicule my statement all you like but the point remains that 95% of the people watching don't know there are two classes of GT's until you tell them. The manufacturers should be encouraged to go to LMP if they want to spend money and look really good. IF you run GT, let the manufacturers help fund private teams and not spend money on a factory effort. When the factory teams enter a class, they eventually kill it one way or the other. The business model you want is for the factories to have programs where privateer teams (even Penske was that with their Porsche LMP program) are supported by the factory.

[rob01]

well its all about GT3 now it seems.
its entry list is 40 strong with 12 different manufactures!

[Bob Riebe]

well its all about GT3 now it seems.
its entry list is 40 strong with 12 different manufactures!
Not in the U.S.; GT3 for money or not is nothing more, and actually less than many in the past, an SCCA amateur class.

[SportscarBruce]

GT1 has been priced out of the market through the rulebook in order to ensure a car priced $45-$110k routinely defeats exotics priced $200k and up. The C5 and C6 should have been GT2 cars from day 1.

[Bob Riebe]

GT1 has been priced out of the market through the rulebook in order to ensure a car priced $45-$110k routinely defeats exotics priced $200k and up. The C5 and C6 should have been GT2 cars from day 1.
That makes no sense, the logic?

[SportscarBruce]

That makes no sense, the logic?

There are two cost involved, one is tangible ($) and the other is less easily weighed, but pertinent nonetheless (prestige).

By allowing the Corvette to morph from converted street car into a dedicated racing prototype with a few stock bones within its skeleton, the other GT1 contenders must either reengineer their entries at an extremely high cost or compete under a handicap. Placed next to a stock Corvette the C6R is practically a different car with a somewhat similar profile. The track is wider (very important difference), the body parts are different, i.e. the street car diffuser is far smaller and less functional (the exhaust placement ruins the flow) nor is the hood on the street model a flow-through design.

For a stock-based category the GT1 has strayed too far from its intended place on the grid, from stock-based racecar to stock-appearing prototype, with an accompanying increase in price of admission. In short that covers the price quotent.

The other prohibitive cost is simply this; the risk of losing to a practically scratch-build racecar bearing the nameplate of a admittedly high performing but mass produced vehicle sold for a fraction of the price ruins the motovation factor for the likes of Ferrari, Pagani, and Lambo. It's why we'll never see an Enzo in race clothing on track, why the ALMS Zonda and Saleen are no more.

In order to revive GT1 this decreasing radius rulebook needs to be reset back to the late 90's and its original intent; a stock-based supercar category.

Perhaps my reliance on years of observation vs hours of research preceeding this post means I have some of the facts wrong, but undoubtedly someone will correct them. ;)

PS: If the Corvette C6 GT2 version doesn't automatically clean up in the category that pretty much cements the thesis...

[Bob Riebe]

There are two cost involved, one is tangible ($) and the other is less easily weighed, but pertinent nonetheless (prestige).

By allowing the Corvette to morph from converted street car into a dedicated racing prototype with a few stock bones within its skeleton, the other GT1 contenders must either reengineer their entries at an extremely high cost or compete under a handicap. Placed next to a stock Corvette the C6R is practically a different car with a somewhat similar profile. The track is wider (very important difference), the body parts are different, i.e. the street car diffuser is far smaller and less functional (the exhaust placement ruins the flow) nor is the hood on the street model a flow-through design.

For a stock-based category the GT1 has strayed too far from its intended place on the grid, from stock-based racecar to stock-appearing prototype, with an accompanying increase in price of admission. In short that covers the price quotent.

The other prohibitive cost is simply this; the risk of losing to a practically scratch-build racecar bearing the nameplate of a admittedly high performing but mass produced vehicle sold for a fraction of the price ruins the motovation factor for the likes of Ferrari, Pagani, and Lambo. It's why we'll never see an Enzo in race clothing on track, why the ALMS Zonda and Saleen are no more.

In order to revive GT1 this decreasing radius rulebook needs to be reset back to the late 90's and its original intent; a stock-based supercar category.

Perhaps my reliance on years of observation vs hours of research preceeding this post means I have some of the facts wrong, but undoubtedly someone will correct them. ;)

PS: If the Corvette C6 GT2 version doesn't automatically clean up in the category that pretty much cements the thesis...
THe rules have ALWAYS been that loose.
When Chevy started they did the norm of modifying a street car; a gent involved with ACO GTs told them that, like it or not, does not work with the ACO formula; they had to, more or less, design a racing chassis and make make required prod. components fit, to be able to win.
ALL GTs use the same rules, so NOTHING has it worse than another.
Sadly, the GT1s are and always have been, even with tire limites, more liberal in critical areas, than the old IMSA AAGT cars.

The money Chevy put into special cylinder heads designed to work with the restrictors made the difference.

[SportscarBruce]

THe rules have ALWAYS been that loose.

IIRC following the 1999 season GM lobbied for, and received, modification to the rulebook that allowed a wider track and non-stock suspension (geometry, dimension, and pick-up points). Basically the out-of-the-mold C5 Corvette design was inferior to the GTS Viper.

Alas my search for information on this topic has been unsuccessful, i.e. Mulsanne Mike's site has a great deal of info concerning the prototype classes, but not GTS.

Perhaps Mr. Robinson can chime in? :)

Robinson joined IMSA in 1996 after spending two years as Director of Technical Services for SCCA Pro Racing. He became Managing Director and partner in 2000, and was named Executive Director in early 2002 when Dr. Don Panoz purchased IMSA. Robinson has been involved in the development of technical rules and specifications for race production sports cars for more than 10 years.

Much of his 31-year career at General Motors was spent in the Delco Products Division, primarily in the design and production of automotive suspension components. During his last 11 years at GM, he served as Corvette Development Manager including overseeing the showroom stock racing program and creating the Corvette Challenge series and the World Challenge series. He also directed the development of the 1990 Corvette ZR-1 program and was the "vehicle architect" for the ground breaking, fifth generation Corvette C5 project which began production in 1997.

http://motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=320269&FS=ALMS-LEMANS

Sensitive questions for important people are, or should be, the responsibility of journalist. You know, like on the TV show I'm watching now - MSNBC's Hardball. But in the absence of such investigative journalism this message board stuff will have to suffice.

[SportscarBruce]

I think a more serious question now is will the IMSA survive.

You mean, like reach the bankruptcy cliff and sell off to the stock car series, like Grand-Am (quoting TV talking head; "the few-cha of sports car racing in Amerika")???

Sebring 12 hour tickets are $100 at the gate, which is a 25% gain over 2003. It's the only series I know of that's able to raise ticket prices in this economy.

big :)

[Bob Riebe]

IIRC following the 1999 season GM lobbied for, and received, modification to the rulebook that allowed a wider track and non-stock suspension (geometry, dimension, and pick-up points). Basically the out-of-the-mold C5 Corvette design was inferior to the GTS Viper.
NO they finally REALLY read the rule book after speaking with some others, and the longer than stock suspension arms were always legal.
They just started exploiting the rules to the fullest.
Pick-up points on the chassis did not change.

THe ACO rules have always been a contrived scam.

[Bob Riebe]

You mean, like reach the bankruptcy cliff and sell off to the stock car series, like Grand-Am (quoting TV talking head; "the few-cha of sports car racing in Amerika")???

Sebring 12 hour tickets are $100 at the gate, which is a 25% gain over 2003. It's the only series I know of that's able to raise ticket prices in this economy.

big :)
With 25 cars for the BIGGEST race of the year, and some dropping out after this race, I don't think too many beyond the loyal are going to really pay more for less.
The best thing that happened to Sebring was the France family concern going insane and starting GARRA.
The 24 hrs of Daytona is a pathetic shadow of what it once was.

[SportscarBruce]

With 25 cars for the BIGGEST race of the year, and some dropping out after this race, I don't think too many beyond the loyal are going to really pay more for less.

But enough will pay the difference to offset the people who can't make it. For all the talk of fan loyalty there is no series that has a monopoly on it. In fact the strength of events like Sebring and the Indy 500, especially in the absence of a multimedia marketing machine, makes a strong statement on its own.


The best thing that happened to Sebring was the France family concern going insane and starting GARRA.
The 24 hrs of Daytona is a pathetic shadow of what it once was.

I agree with the conclusion but disagree with the premise GARRA helps anyone other than the participants, organizers, and financial backers who hold a deep seated resentment towards ACO and Le Mans racing. Those who's agenda of a motorsport monopoly is clearly transparent in every facet of business activity.

[SportscarBruce]

NO they finally REALLY read the rule book after speaking with some others, and the longer than stock suspension arms were always legal.
They just started exploiting the rules to the fullest.
Pick-up points on the chassis did not change.

I do clearly recall a reporters column suggesting if not an exemption or rule rewrite, then a clarification by the ACO was issued before P&M widened the Corvette's track and modified its suspension geometry. I'll see if any of my magazine and technical journal back issues make reference to the topic.


THe ACO rules have always been a contrived scam.

A contrived scam? As compared to what, NASCAR or open wheel (both pre and post split), or F1? While sometimes skewed to favor a certain direction in engineering or excessively loose in the case of GTS/GT1, calling ACO rules a scam is way off-base.

Spec racing advertised as prototype racing, or a rulebook that necessitates removing horsepower from stock levels (Pontiac GTO in G/A Cup), now THAT is a scam. Who ever heard of a race car detuned from stock? Ridiculous!

[Bob Riebe]

QUOTE=SportscarBruce;603770]

A contrived scam? As compared to what, NASCAR or open wheel (both pre and post split), or F1? While sometimes skewed to favor a certain direction in engineering or excessively loose in the case of GTS/GT1, calling ACO rules a scam is way off-base.-- ACO rules work on the same base principle as NASCAR, same crap different pile.


Spec racing advertised as prototype racing, or a rulebook that necessitates removing horsepower from stock levels (Pontiac GTO in G/A Cup), now THAT is a scam. Who ever heard of a race car detuned from stock? Ridiculous--
ACO IS SPEC. racing.
Without Daytona, GARRA would be gone.
Just like NASCAR, GARRA is living off of the history of something created by Big Bill.
GARRA has Daytona and money that goes with it. Sebring never has been and never will be bigger than Daytona unless Daytona quits running sports cars.
Until the IMSA makes road racing about which company builds the best car again, and not how to meet and defeat, contrived rules, it will be no better off and no worse off than GARRA.

[SportscarBruce]

SHOUTING IN BOLD IS NO MORE EFFECTIVE IN SUPPORTING A POSITION THAN TYPING IN CAPS.

And besides, despite the lack of GT1 entries ALMS is in far better health than GARRA, so quit saying it's in the same shape.

[SportscarBruce]

ACO IS SPEC. racing.

Gee, I didn't realize the ACO prohibits engine, chassis, and aero development after entry approval.



Without Daytona, GARRA would be gone.
Just like NASCAR, GARRA is living off of the history of something created by Big Bill.
GARRA has Daytona and money that goes with it.

So it exist in spite of itself.


Sebring never has been and never will be bigger than Daytona unless Daytona quits running sports cars.

Since Don Panoz saved sports car racing Sebring has drawn crowds and quality of competition far FAR in excess of Daytona. You do go to the races, or watch on TV?


Until the IMSA makes road racing about which company builds the best car again, and not how to meet and defeat, contrived rules, it will be no better off and no worse off than GARRA.[/b]

There was a neat special last night on Speed Channel. Did you see it?

:)

[Mark in Oshawa]

The question that begs answers Bruce isn't that ALMS is dead or alive, but just what kind of racing would Bob Riebe have if he was in charge?

Bob, If I mispeak you would tell me but I think you would have no rules for anything but safety and let the chips fall where they may. Am I right?

I can honestly say I am not a big fan of this since I think it would be out of sight in costs in no time and the racing would suck...but that too is just an opinion.

[Bob Riebe]

SHOUTING IN BOLD IS NO MORE EFFECTIVE IN SUPPORTING A POSITION THAN TYPING IN CAPS.

And besides, despite the lack of GT1 entries ALMS is in far better health than GARRA, so quit saying it's in the same shape.
It is not shouting gomer, it is separating my typing from your quote.

The France family can spend more in tips, than the IMSA entire budget.

[Bob Riebe]

Bob, If I mispeak you would tell me but I think you would have no rules for anything but safety and let the chips fall where they may. Am I right? Same /similar rules as used when the IMSA allowed FIA sports/prototypes in the seventies.
Worked then, and would work now.


I can honestly say I am not a big fan of this since I think it would be out of sight in costs in no time and the racing would suck...but that too is just an opinion.
As compared to the Audi and Peugot diesel budgets?
------
Bruce:
You can count the number of hours I watch speed channel a year, on one hand and come up with change.

[SportscarBruce]

Last night was worth watching, Acura is really pushing the envelope in every respect. Advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics has practically eliminated the need for costly windtunnel R&D, that alone has OEM crossover potential.

[SportscarBruce]

Bob, if you're discussing the sport from a position of privateer/gentleman racer perhaps we can find some common ground. It seems to me in a perfect world there would be one major sports car world championship that included Daytona, Sebring, and Le Mans. The Prototype categories would be the providence of manufacturers and racing industry heavy hitters like Prodrive or Pratt & Miller. Organizations that have the motovation and budget to push the technology envelope for the benefit of both marketing objectives and automotive progress. The GT1 and GT2 categories are left to stock based vehicles that can compete with ancillary aero development and suspension tuning, but stock in vehicle template, engine location, and wheelbase. The factories really have no place in GT racing other than provider of the basic model.

Sound reasonable?

What happened in GT1 also happened in SWC GT, GM came in, blurred the lines while outspending the private teams (with assistance through rulebook authorship). They should have stayed in the big league LMP category with Cadillac instead.

[Bob Riebe]

Sound reasonable?

What happened in GT1 also happened in SWC GT, GM came in, blurred the lines while outspending the private teams (with assistance through rulebook authorship). They should have stayed in the big league LMP category with Cadillac instead.
Here you have a good point and one cannot blame the car companies. It was the sanctions that allowed things that had NEVER been allowed before.
The Cadillac with the relocated fire-wall, made prod. based a farce.

The fact the ACO allowed suspension mods that had never been allowed before, equals a prod. based farce.

I spoke with Mr. Chamberlain who campaigned a SCCA Cat.II Corvette.
Even when tube replacement frames were allowed to replace the stock frame, half-way through 1977, all pick-up points had to be less than a small fraction of an inch within original location.
How did they know locations?
Every car had to use a stock firewall, including door hinges and windshield mount.
THe fire-wall could not be modified or pierced and every critical item on the car was measured from that firewall.
So if pick-up points were x and y from point a and b on the firew wall, and the string used to measure stock distances did not end exactly the same spot on the race car tube or prod. frame, it was not going to race.
He found out the hard way and had to rebuild the car.

[dj4monie]

I love Bruce and Bob!

IMSA may not have the deep pockets but NASCAR's pockets are thinning because they have alienated their original fan base in the Southeastern US.

I like the fact that the Acura has been proven with CLD because it puts further starch in the USGPE coming to life. They already have a Wind Tunnel but most of the car can be developed on the PC without actually molding anything.

GT1 in its current guise has run its course. Corvette Racing's model is built around winning Le Mans and secondary winning ALMS GT1. If the model was to build a competitive car for profit (Like Porsche) and the works team only ran in America, while a European based team ran cars in Europe (Split the drivers for Le Mans) would have spread the cost and maybe GT1 would have lived longer.

The only way GT racing works is when you basically have it like FIA GT, where on paper you don't have "Works" teams but in reality you do, everybody has the same car otherwise and private teams can compete with factory supported efforts because they are using the same parts.

You see this most in GT2 and while GT1 has shrank since 2002, GT2 has just gotten bigger and bigger, here and in the Europe. That's the model Ratel is using for the next generation of GT1 cars and ACO is on board but not in total agreement *yet.

ACO is moving closer to a single GT class, while FIA has already given WC approval to SRO and is on course for Argentina at the start of the 2010 season. Funny, WTCC is in Brazil around the same time, I wonder how that works???

Looks like a trip to South America is in order for 2010...

[Bob Riebe]

GT1 in its current guise has run its course. Corvette Racing's model is built around winning Le Mans and secondary winning ALMS GT1....
The Chevy GT1 program came into being to beat Dodge at Daytona, back when they were exposing the Corvette to be the boulevard cruiser it was.

Dodge left but Chevy stayed around and in 2003 had some real competition from Ferrari boys. They came very close to losing the title to Enzo's horses.

THAT was the high-point and beginning of the end.

After that the only place they had any assured competition was LeMans.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just think if you allow anything goes, the costs sky rocket. If you restrict the cars to stock configurations, you risk manufacturers backing out when they realize their baby wont compete. Bob, I know you hate manipulating and massaging of the rules but it is what has made economic sense in the latter years of sportscar racing. The manufacturers all want a seat at the table and all want to be able to compete for wins and that leads us down the road of spec formulae....

[Bob Riebe]

I just think if you allow anything goes, the costs sky rocket. If you restrict the cars to stock configurations, you risk manufacturers backing out when they realize their baby wont compete. Bob, I know you hate manipulating and massaging of the rules but it is what has made economic sense in the latter years of sportscar racing. The manufacturers all want a seat at the table and all want to be able to compete for wins and that leads us down the road of spec formulae....THe problem is from the mid-ninties to 2003 (apprx.) the rules stayed fairly stable, outside sources with enough money could be competitive (until the ACO/IMSA crapped on them) from the early 2000s rules started becoming more and more restrictive and the manufacturers, and bucks-up privateers started saying bye-bye.
Now tell me how U.S racing is better from 2005-2008 than it was from 1999-2002.

One problem is Mr. Panoz is infatuated with LeMans and kisses the Frogs buttocks instead of simply making a series that gets U.S.companies and gear-head fans involved.
Sebring is a throw-back to the old SCCA/FIA days; Atlanta was always a top track in IMSA, it used to run several races every year.
That is the only two strong points the IMSA really has; if it did not have them it would be toast already.

Only factory bucks can afford to develope -special cylinder heads, diesel engines, exotic diesel fuel blends, rent wind-tunnels, etc.
I.e. only factories can afford to beat the "equalizer" rules and THEY HAVE and WILL.
GT road racing in the U.S. lived by the privateers from big-bucks ,to garage owners and short track racers, who only ran races in their region or even track.
The number of front running cars has rarely ever been more than two to four, in ANY class, but the privateers and track specialists filled the fields and some times won, making it worth the price of admission for many fans.

THe GARRA GT classes and GT-2-3-4-5-6-7-8... till it get really nauseating are boring.
Had the SCCA not killed amateur class racing in the eighties, they could be cleaning up now.
A-B-C prod. and A-B-C sedan, under the old rules would be incredibly exciting now.

The GT and prototype classes were NEVER- I repeat- NEVER- anything goes.
GTs had to homologate anything that ran (even the tube frame GTs only slowly morphed to being pointless jokes, but they still had limits).
Can-Am was Can-Am, prototypes have never really been in the same class. Lack of team dollars was the ONLY reason big-buck factory FIA prototype teams could run with, or ahead of, most private Can-Am teams.

[dj4monie]

The Chevy GT1 program came into being to beat Dodge at Daytona, back when they were exposing the Corvette to be the boulevard cruiser it was.

Dodge left but Chevy stayed around and in 2003 had some real competition from Ferrari boys. They came very close to losing the title to Enzo's horses.

THAT was the high-point and beginning of the end.

After that the only place they had any assured competition was LeMans.

Very true, of course your talking about the results of the fallout from Benz and BMW leaving the FIA GT series for Formula 1. Leaving road racing diehard Porsche (having been burned by Bernie in F1 before this and little success in CART) was left holding the bag with the EVO version of the 911-GT1.

So Ratel blew it apart and returned the FIA series back to its BPR roots. But yes it got out of control by allowing the original Porsche 911-GT1 to compete in the BPR Series.

When Dodge balked at racing a Porsche with basically an extension of the Viper road car. They dropped down to GT2 and rendered the 911 GT2 turbo meaningless.

The story of the Viper's rise to sports car supremacy is one for the ages actually, much more fun to read than the Corvette's, where they had the goal post moved to allow them to be competitive, typical GM.

[dj4monie]

THe problem is from the mid-ninties to 2003 (apprx.) the rules stayed fairly stable, outside sources with enough money could be competitive (until the ACO/IMSA crapped on them) from the early 2000s rules started becoming more and more restrictive and the manufacturers, and bucks-up privateers started saying bye-bye.
Now tell me how U.S racing is better from 2005-2008 than it was from 1999-2002.

One problem is Mr. Panoz is infatuated with LeMans and kisses the Frogs buttocks instead of simply making a series that gets U.S.companies and gear-head fans involved.
Sebring is a throw-back to the old SCCA/FIA days; Atlanta was always a top track in IMSA, it used to run several races every year.
That is the only two strong points the IMSA really has; if it did not have them it would be toast already.

Only factory bucks can afford to develope -special cylinder heads, diesel engines, exotic diesel fuel blends, rent wind-tunnels, etc.
I.e. only factories can afford to beat the "equalizer" rules and THEY HAVE and WILL.
GT road racing in the U.S. lived by the privateers from big-bucks ,to garage owners and short track racers, who only ran races in their region or even track.
The number of front running cars has rarely ever been more than two to four, in ANY class, but the privateers and track specialists filled the fields and some times won, making it worth the price of admission for many fans.

THe GARRA GT classes and GT-2-3-4-5-6-7-8... till it get really nauseating are boring.
Had the SCCA not killed amateur class racing in the eighties, they could be cleaning up now.
A-B-C prod. and A-B-C sedan, under the old rules would be incredibly exciting now.

The GT and prototype classes were NEVER- I repeat- NEVER- anything goes.
GTs had to homologate anything that ran (even the tube frame GTs only slowly morphed to being pointless jokes, but they still had limits).
Can-Am was Can-Am, prototypes have never really been in the same class. Lack of team dollars was the ONLY reason big-buck factory FIA prototype teams could run with, or ahead of, most private Can-Am teams.

I know you don't like the ACO much Bob and neither do I, they operate outside the realm of reality too often for my taste (ie: a very expensive rear aero change, combined with banning of tire warmers and using only one gun for pit stops...)

Porsche and the 917 and cubic dollars killed Cam Am. It was already bad when everybody knew McClaren was going to win, when you combine a dominate driver with a dominate car, racing gets pretty boring when the only race is for 2nd on back.

The SCCA got tripped up by not sticking with what they knew best which was grassroots racing, why did you thin a bunch of them left to start IMSA???

IMSA was a victim at first of the Porsche 935, but then the factory backed Dekon Chevy Monzas (http://alex62.typepad.com/imsablog/2008/04/driving-al-holb.html)that had decent success and Chevy kinda treaded water for awhile after that.

We don't really need the IMSA history lesson though do we?

GT cars should be customer cars period. If the factory wants to bless somebody with its factory drivers, fine. They get to carry extra weight, but all you have to do is look at how AF Corsa has dominated FIA GT2 to know that doesn't quite work.

I don't think rules are bad, how they are enforced is the problem...