Is it time change? If so, what change?

I've been following sportscar racing since the early 80's, and researched it another 10 years prior to that. Stepping back from it all from the past 35 some odd years shows a distinct rise and fall, in a 10-12 year cycle..

early 70's -early 80's Group 4/5/6
early 80's-early/mid 90's Group B/C
mid 90's-present LMP/GT (with some mods along the way)

Has the current formula lived long enough? Is it time for change? The interest is certainly still there, at least from a Le Mans perspective (more entries than grid spots year after year). FIA GT is stable, and the LMES looked good in 2006 as well. ALMS is facing 2007 grids in the low 20's (or less, perhaps), but the quality is strong...

What's your thoughts? Propose a new structure if you have ideas....

I honestly think we should have stuck with the early 90s class identification, ie GT2, GT1, and Le Mans Prototypes. Perhaps the prototype class would have to be split into LMP1 and LMP2 classes, but aside from that, that classification did me fine.

Although with the progressions in cars we are seeing now, we would probably have to end up with about 6 different classes., although Im not sure how it would work

I've just had a marathon session on another forum concerning the ACO's alterations to the rules for 2007.
As far as I am concerned, this new contrived racing (not allowing the smaller prototype classes to even try for overall wins) is mind boggling.(at least to mine)
If you limit classes from competing against eachother, then you cannot have overall winners. "Overall" implies winning against all. If you are limited to competeing in your class, then the best you can acheive is a Class win. Even if you are in the top class! If , in theory, you are not really competing with any other class, then you cant be an "overall" winner.
I have no problem with a split in the Prototype classes, as long as they only reflect different philosophies (ie. big engined, heavier cars in one class and smaller engined, lighter cars in another) to obtaining the same goal; an Overall win!!
I was stunned to discover that most peolple on the other forum thought this to be outrageous!
If I outrage anyone on this forum, please accept my apologies in anticipation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS Spyder

I've just had a marathon session on another forum concerning the ACO's alterations to the rules for 2007.
As far as I am concerned, this new contrived racing (not allowing the smaller prototype classes to even try for overall wins) is mind boggling.(at least to mine)
If you limit classes from competing against eachother, then you cannot have overall winners. "Overall" implies winning against all. If you are limited to competeing in your class, then the best you can acheive is a Class win. Even if you are in the top class! If , in theory, you are not really competing with any other class, then you cant be an "overall" winner.
I have no problem with a split in the Prototype classes, as long as they only reflect different philosophies (ie. big engined, heavier cars in one class and smaller engined, lighter cars in another) to obtaining the same goal; an Overall win!!
I was stunned to discover that most peolple on the other forum thought this to be outrageous!
If I outrage anyone on this forum, please accept my apologies in anticipation.

---

But the ACO does want the LMP1 class to be the top one. I think it's because it's too difficult to find a right balance between two classes with such a difference in minimal weight rule.
I think the ACO limits the performance of LMP2 cars in order to persuade manufacturers to enter LMP1 class.

Regarding Porsche for instance, they have to enter LMP1 class if they want to win overall classification. I mean, the opportunity exists. It's up to them.

If they choose to enter LMP2, they have to suffer consequences of this choice.

I agree that they should enter LMP1 if they want to be consitantly winning the overall classification.
The problem is that the LMP1 rule heavely favors deisel engines, and no non-diesel manufacturer is going invest the kind of money required to develop a P1 car.
I have no problems with determining one class to be the top class. Just make it attractive to all, and don't artificially prevent other prototype classes from winning under certain circumstance.
This has almost always been the case in sportcar racing.

But with the new fuel tank capacity for diesel cars, it's not so sure that the rule favors diesel anymore.

It would be interesting to see what a MANUFACTURER could do with a LMP1 petrol car.
If a very talented but very little team with very few money (Pescarolo) is behind Audi, that's not so surprising.

From what I've read, the new fuel tank capacity measures are not enough to wipe out the rather substantial advantage.
I think it was Dyson's chief engineer that explained that even with the new fuel tank restrictions, the diesels would have such an advantage, that it was preferable for them to go to P2.

But what Dyson's chief engineer said is not so fair I think.

It seems to me that Dyson would like to have the right to be faster than Audi. They forget that they have less money than Audi and that Lola had a lot less money when they created the B06/10. Audi's talent and the money spent by them explain maybe something.

Don't you think that Audi would have dominate Dyson if they had chosen to create a petrol car instead of a diesel one ?

Pescarolo says the same thing than Dyson but Yves Courage says different. He says that the rules are fair.
The two opinions exist.

I don't know who is right yet.

I did'nt interpret his explanation as wanting to have the right to be faster than Audi, but rather a simple explanation on their choice to move down to P2.
Yes, I agree that would not be able to compete (sustainably) with Audi. Very few private teams are able to compete over a long period of time , with major manufacturers.
Let's hope Courage is right.

Yes let's hope the rules are fair. I fully agree.
But I think it will be difficult to really know if it's the case or not before a manufacturer enter LMP1 with a petrol car. That's a problem.

I have the feeling that Porsche would do better than Pescarolo if they entered LMP1 with a petrol car.
I think the Porsche would be a lot faster than the Pescarolo. Maybe I am wrong but that's what I think right now.

I completly agree with you.
I think that the problem is that due to the almost 30% stake that Porsche owns in VAG, I don't think they will develop a car to compete against Audi whilst the deisel regulations are favorable. Unfortunately, I think that board room politics has determined that Porsche will not go into P1 with a petrol engine until Audi has no chance of winning it (due to less favourable diesel rules).
As you can tell I am a rabid Porsche supporter, but I don't agree with this strategy (if its true). This might make sense from a manufacturers group point of view, but it really does nothing for Porsche's racing image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS Spyder

I've just had a marathon session on another forum concerning the ACO's alterations to the rules for 2007.
As far as I am concerned, this new contrived racing (not allowing the smaller prototype classes to even try for overall wins) is mind boggling.(at least to mine)
If you limit classes from competing against eachother, then you cannot have overall winners. "Overall" implies winning against all. If you are limited to competeing in your class, then the best you can acheive is a Class win. Even if you are in the top class! If , in theory, you are not really competing with any other class, then you cant be an "overall" winner.
I have no problem with a split in the Prototype classes, as long as they only reflect different philosophies (ie. big engined, heavier cars in one class and smaller engined, lighter cars in another) to obtaining the same goal; an Overall win!!
I was stunned to discover that most peolple on the other forum thought this to be outrageous!
If I outrage anyone on this forum, please accept my apologies in anticipation.

---

The problem is, it seems, most people have been indoctirnated into some form of socialist mind think that makes genuine competition,where racing proves who has the biggest, fastest, baddest on the road anti-social, or vulgar.

Asinine rules that make developement of a better design, pointless, as rules will reduce it to the level that the little Mussolinis running the show, want it to be at. Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.
There was a time when a new hot shoe would get into some **** box, and work with it, till it went faster than it had ever gone before.
Was that "fair" ?
Hell no, that was racing.
People weren't handed a competitive edge, they earned one.

The worst point of all, the more rules there are controlling a class, the more it will cost to run up front, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Most factories see it as a waste of time, producing a product that performs far below capabilities, and most privateers are neither stupid enough or rich enough to waste money there.

In the US, unless the IMSA dumps the ACO connection, I doubt it will survine too much longer.
Bob

I could not have said it better, Bob.

Unfortunately, it seems we are but a few that are willing to go against this "lemming" type behaviour.

Sportscar racing has a chance for a complete world wide revival (partly due to the complete pigs ear they've made of F1), but with the current ACO's mania for "pushing" diesel engines (and an almost pathalogical obsession with regulating), I'm not sure that this opportunity is being fully utilized.

I think part of the problem is most of the classes now are so hard to compete in due to restrictions that it takes a lot of money and engineering to beat the existing class winners, at least in prototypes 1 and 2, plus GT-1. I would like to see a reform. I would make one class of prototypes, one class of GT's, and I would reform the rules to allow more variety and just use penalty weights if you are bent on "equalizing" everyone. I know that is just a horrible solution, but it allows for a variety of approachs to make a car fast, while keeping some sort of control.

The problem sports car racing faces now that the few manufacturers who want to spend the coin have done so, are running away for the most part, and the privateers cant hope to compete. In the glory days, Ferrari would have 4 cars, Porsche would have 4 cars, Ford would have 4 cars, and they would all sell to privateers very similar cars. Now Audi controls even the one private team they allow to have their cars, and the fields are shrinking. No one can compete without a factory effort, and not as many factories seem to care. Sports Car racing either has to go back to a more stock formula (something like SCCA World Challenge) or adapt their rules to force everyone to adjust with new machinery. Not sure if any solution works long term...

What would result in the demise of ALMS/IMSA? Yes, the entries will be much the same as last year (partly due to more LMP2 entries to make up for the lack of GTS entries), but they really have to be happy with ANYTHING they get, as long as the 24 hours of Le Mans is doing well (and they are, with again, too many entries for this year's race).

Put another way, ALMS/IMSA is suffering because of the rules, yet it's entire raison d'etre is the ACO rules.

Personally, I hope things turn around, as all those years in the 70's, 80's, and 90's with IMSA specific classes was a bit silly. Standardization is a good thing, but perhaps some guys in a little village in France need to make some changes...

Tannat

its sort of odd, that the P1 and GT1 teams aren't running to AlMS, as they have a very simple shot at getting an Automatic Entry into Lemans. other than competing with a very avid crowd in the LMES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tannat

Standardization is a good thing, but perhaps some guys in a little village in France need to make some changes...Tannat

---

Variety is the spice of life; standardization is the anti-thesis of variety.

I used to go to races often just to see what would show up; I do not go now because I know what is there, and it ain't pretty.
Bob