Down with "equalizer racing"

[Bob Riebe]

Here is a post I put at T-Ts a day ago which is about a similar point.
Mark, I do not want unlimited rules, and if a Can-Am type show were to return it would have more rules to eliminate the aero and ground effects that have turned road racing, into a quasi slot-car racing. (I think mimimum ride height would eliminate a good deal of ground effects type devices.)

I would love to see IMSA AAGT - SCCA Cat.II type cars return only with no displacement limits.
In those days they used tires up to 21 inches wide; I think they can make them bigger :0
----------------------------------------------------

As I sit here in not cold enough foggy weather(this is what winter is supposed to be like in the UK, not Minnesota) a thought of future passed, came to mind:

As many here are the last generation who will have experienced the great tracks before they were codified to fit the vision of lessor men, how will ye one's of the last generation, that spans the change, relate the tales of days gone by to what the future seems to be bringing in the form of conforming to a lessor challenge.

Just as when I was a youth - to hellion - to college graduate, I read of the great Auto Union verses Mercedes confrontation at Avus; Fangio, Nuvolari, Clark, Brabham etc. taking on the challenge of man and machine at Spa, Monza, Nurburgring, right into the last days of outright track and speed records at Spa, LeMans, Daytona etc. ; i.e. Peugot doing 250 at LeMans; Greenwood hitting 236 in practice at Daytona; Rodriguez lapping Spa at over 150, what will ye of the last generation write about?

Will it be he same accomplishements of the past, when men knew the risks and attacked them with a, in your face, attitude towards the risk involved, even as many around them took the stairway to heaven; or todays win by design, without the last lap charges, throwing a deteriorating car around the track in a make or break last stand.

I am curios as those, who experienced the change in how races were run, and racers conducted themselves, will be the one who will still be writing racing history long after I am worm food, (or pickled as people sadly are these days) and I am really wondering how will these gents writing future history contrast, or simply present what was, with what is, and seems to be, in the future?

Second thought, how will those who were not around, in the "days of old" write about something they never experienced, or will they simply not write of it anymore?
Bob

[Peter Olivola]

It's racing. Fifty years from now no one will give a d*mn. Nor should they.

Second thought, how will those who were not around, in the "days of old" write about something they never experienced, or will they simply not write of it anymore?
Bob

[Mark in Oshawa]

Two takes from two of my favourite posters on these boards. Riebe is be-moaning the challenge and derring do of racing is gone, and Olivola rightly points out 60 years from now no one will pay much attention. Maybe not, but I see both sides of this. I have read enough of the good old days and saw the end of that era as a kid, so I know of which Riebe speaks when he talks of the balls out Can-Am's and the way F1 was more a sport up into the 70's, but it isn't the reality.

Technology and money drive the sport today, and if left unchecked, would turn a lot of races into souless affairs. F1 is rarely interesting past the first few laps. Watching teams gain or lose time based on pit stops and no passing on the track bores me to tears. No, ballast and tighter air restrictions to handicap cars may suck, but you now are competing for viewers and attention, and close racing means fender to fender, wheel to wheel racing. THAT makes for passes for position. It means Action, and THAT gets attention. If no one watches the sport, then you just have a soul less engineering exercise.

I think run what you brung with a set of rules worked in the past, but with technology and money being what they are, it just wont work. Not now. I think some might argue that it would be more doable now because the technology is available to everyone and the science means most cars will be very similar solutions to the same problem, but it always will come down to who spends the most money. With a restriction made to a motor, or a ballast penalty, money will not negate in the short term this "disadvantage" That allows the smaller teams, (Dyson as opposed to Audi) to at least have a chance. There is not enough factory support to put a full field out there, so ALMS rightly figures they must make the rules to allow Rob Dyson's limited budget to have a chance. It didn't change the outcome of the races, but it allowed the Dyson boys to have a shot. That was the show because no one else really put a prototype out there that could run with the Audi's. Watching Audi run around passing slow cars is no show. For it to be a sport, the outcome has to be in some doubt.

[LeonBrooke]

I think cars should be equalised but not with success ballast. I think the cars should be equalised with ballast before the event and then only for that event, to equalise lap times.

I also think this should apply only for touring and GT cars. Prototypes and open-wheel cars shouldn't be equalised, but racing cars based on production cars should be. But you shouldn't be punished for winning.

[BobbyC]

When you can still win consistently after all such penalties of weight and performance, it shows you can build a better mousetrap.

It does have the old NFL scheduling mentality in it. (Prior to 2002, the NFL schedule was weighted this way - based on a 30 team format:

1. 8 Games - vs Your Own Division
2. 5 Games - vs One Division in Opposite Conference
3. 3 Games - vs Respective Placed Teams in other divisions from previous year (except for one marked).

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am not a big fan of success ballast, nor am I a big fan of changing the rules midseason to right some wrong. As much as I would love to see close racing, teams shouldn't be punished for success unduly. I think ALMS has done a pretty good job over the years balancing off the ability of a team to dominate vs the rights of the lesser teams.

Bobby C has it right. When you win despite them sandbagging you, it proves more engineering prowess than the other guy.

Riebe's take on what is wrong with racing and what he wishes it would be are not bad thoughts, I just don't see how pandora's box will ever be closed to the gadgets and tricks of today's race cars.