Sportscar/GT (and Le Mans) Rumours and Repetition

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by joeb

I don't think isc managing the track is a bad thing, it didn't say they are buying it.

Legally speaking they can't buy it unless the property gets rezoned.

That said, it's ISC. They don't go after things unless they want to OWN it. They will fight to get it rezoned and if they can't do it, they'll abandon the plan.

[Coach Ep]

ISC wants to own/run tracks so they can make money - apparently Laguna Seca potentially fit their criteria for that goal.

It almost sounds like it's a done deal already but we'll see, I expect a similar approach as with Sebring and Road Atlanta, still have to see the first major track adjustments on either of those, the only noticeable change is a (slight?) increase in ticket prices and so.

I'm sure we'll see some lower Nascar category series racing there at some point in the future but that's hardly cause for paranoia is it?

[Akrapovic]

Can't say I'm a fan of NASCAR owning basically all of American sportscar racing tbh. But that really is where we're going, which is a bit depressing.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Can't say I'm a fan of NASCAR owning basically all of American sportscar racing tbh. But that really is where we're going, which is a bit depressing.

..and that is the real issue. I don't think ISC has managed their tracks poorly, but it's the defacto control of preventing rival series from being created, by controlling a large number of the tracks.

[Mike E]

Originally Posted by Pontlieue

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...l-to-lmp3.html

Greaves are hoping to move up to LMP1 next year, in a partnership with Kairos Technologies and probably SARD as well. I'd like to see this happen, Rebellion need some real competition. As much as I like how the byKolles team keep trying, they're far from challenging Rebellion, and that's not good for the (sub-)class.

I wonder what chassis they will use.

[Pontlieue]

Originally Posted by Mike E

I wonder what chassis they will use.

More than one chassis under consideration. I think we can rule out the byKolles. One possibility would obviously be a customer R-One, if that would be available. Another one would be the existing Onroak LMP1 design. I could also imagine that they could convert the planned Gibson LMP2 coupé, which was abandoned due to the constructor limit in LMP2, to LMP1.

[Deleted]

I have wondered, if another customer team was to purchase new R-Ones from Oreca, would they still be happy to have the chassis labeled as "Rebellion R-One" in their team... I suspect the customer in question would like different branding, and different development curve for the chassis. "Oreca R-One", which it really is in all honesty of course, would be neutral

[TF110]

Id rather see something else than another Oreca.

[pablocomics]

I'd like to see that concept LMP2 from Gibson transformed on a new LMP1. It wouldn't be very crazy idea, because Greaves has some strong links with Zytek/Gibson.

[Deleted]

Not sure if Zytek would want to commit on such thing if they didn't receive advance chassis orders from more than just single team. There have been many talks from many constructors, but no takers

Also doubt Jota would move in along Greaves because pay person Dolan would bring the shÃ*p down in non-proam-forcefeed

[YZFrider]

Originally Posted by schmidder

So what happens to SCRAMP

I've contacted my supervisor to find out the details, hopefully I will know something, and if I do, I will let you guys know, but as far as I know, SCRAMP is still the organizer for events at the track. Track is on Monterey Count Parks property, so no ownership switching. It appears the article is saying that track management will be under ISC if the deal goes through. For those who don't know, we at SCRAMP are volunteer, and quite possibly the only non-profit race track in the country/world??? As someone mentioned earlier, we did lose MotoGP, due to increasing fees. Seeing as the economy tanked, Monterey County didn't have or want to spend more money to keep it around, the local governements of Texas and Indy did, and that's why you have the events at COTA and Indy. But I'll tell you this, we're still in talks in trying to get them back here, the GP racers absolutely loved Laguna Seca and they hate Indy...according to racers and my friends who work in paddock

[YZFrider]

Ok, got a little info back. My boss unfortunately isn't in every board meeting but here it goes: It appears the County sort of sprung a surprise seeing as the story about Laguna seca was in the Monterey Herald and there was really no comment or response prepared from SCRAMP. ISC and Monterey County have entered in a 90 day Exploratorium. This period is sort of a "put options and ideas on the table". We at SCRAMP and the community do have our concerns thoughts about ISC/NASCAR coming to our track. An interesting note, ISC would not come to a place if they didn't think there would be money to be made. Here's where it gets' interesting,,, ISC is for-profit, SCRAMP is non-profit. There are many groups and organizations that benefit from our donations in the community. You can sure bet that those groups are worried about that. The County has it's rules and procedures about business trying to establish a foothold. It's during these 90 days that people, groups, and organizations will get their say and voice their thoughts about such a move. In these parts of the county, certain communities have fought tooth and nail to prevent Wal-Mart from gaining a footing, you can sure bet they will be here about this. What the future holds for the track and SCRAMP we haven't a clue, still 3 months away

[Japanese Samurai]

SARD announces its lightplane business division will develop amphibious aircraft called SA4N-300.
"S" means SARD. "A" means Aircraft. "4" means 4 seater. "N" means NA. "300" means engine horsepower.
http://www.sard.co.jp/pdf/1506_lightplane_RD.pdf

[GT3.14]

Originally Posted by Japanese Samurai

SARD announces its lightplane business division will develop amphibious aircraft called SA4N-300.
"S" means SARD. "A" means Aircraft. "4" means 4 seater. "N" means NA. "300" means engine horsepower.
http://www.sard.co.jp/pdf/1506_lightplane_RD.pdf

Can we propose this for the 2017 P2 regs?

[MagVanisher]

I rather have SARD making airplanes and other amphibious vehicles than racing...

[Hawkwood]

On the AC Cobra Motorsport Facebook page they have shown some computer generation images of the new GTE/GT3 car they are building.
It's an absolute beauty.

They have also listed the points they needed to pass in order to get the car homologated properly, saying that they've ticked all those boxes.

I hope there ends up being both GT3 and GTE versions racing.

[joeb]

I had forgotten about the AC program. Are they making street versions in enough numbers to meet the class minimums for GTE?

[deggis]

https://www.facebook.com/ACCorbaMoto...e=1&permPage=1

After many months of preparation, calculations and negotiations we are so far to start next Thursday the building process from the first LMGTE chassis at the AC factory plant.

[Deleted]

4. A minimum off build road going cars

AC Automotive GmbH the official AC Cobra builder has achieved these requirements.

Yes but genuinely, or through waivers...

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Chiana

4. A minimum off build road going cars

AC Automotive GmbH the official AC Cobra builder has achieved these requirements.

Yes but genuinely, or through waivers...

I thought the minimum requirement for road cars was much smaller for manufacturers classified as "small-volume"? I seem to remember the minimum production run was about 50 cars in that case, but the only car that fell under that bracket for homologation in the last 7-8 years was the Spyker. So if they are registered with the ACO as a small-volume manufacturer, it's far easier to get the minimum production numbers.

[lms]

Originally Posted by deggis

https://www.facebook.com/ACCorbaMoto...e=1&permPage=1

After many months of preparation, calculations and negotiations we are so far to start next Thursday the building process from the first LMGTE chassis at the AC factory plant.

what the ****!

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

I thought the minimum requirement for road cars was much smaller for manufacturers classified as "small-volume"? I seem to remember the minimum production run was about 50 cars in that case, but the only car that fell under that bracket for homologation in the last 7-8 years was the Spyker. So if they are registered with the ACO as a small-volume manufacturer, it's far easier to get the minimum production numbers.

50 cars is still something Have heard nothing about the road car

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Chiana

50 cars is still something Have heard nothing about the road car

There are lots of Cobra replicas on the road all over the world, a few dozen of those must have been made by this manufacturer.

[Pandamasque]

Replicas? Isn't AC Cars still in business? http://www.ac-automotive.com/en/ac-mkvi.html

[MagVanisher]

I wonder if the AC Cobra GTE/GT3 car will be fitted with Ford engines like its predecessor? It could be weird having that car fitted with a Chevrolet engine, despite being reliable!