3:55 rule...

tblincoe · 14 Jun 2005, 16:06 (Ref:1328420)

ok, so after reading the comments of the ACO at dailysportscar.com its now clear to me what the ACO is doing with it's 3:55 rule... the C5-R and 550 have recieved weight penalties this year because they both turned at least 30 laps under 3:55 last year.

the official from ACO then went on to say that the cars that complete the same number of laps under 3:55 this year will recieve similar penalties at the beginning of the season next year for ALL ACO events...

which means that next year the DBR-9 and C6.R could be heavily restricted, with the DBR-9 recieving more restrictions due to it being WAY under 3:55... so, maybe the Corvette boys are being smart here and considering that a couple seconds slower at LM this year could go a long way towards being much more competitive against the DBR-9 next year.

too bad ACO has introduced this rule because it totally wipes out the spectacle of flat out racing in what is one of, if not the best class in ACO competition... ACO is really f*cking this class up aren't they?

paul-collins · 14 Jun 2005, 16:09 (Ref:1328425)

Yeah, I would say that Poissenot's statement makes things worse, not better.

pink69 · 14 Jun 2005, 16:53 (Ref:1328469)

I agree with the idea of trying to equalise the performance of the cars, but I don't think this is the way. If the C6 isn't as quick as the DB9 at the minute, its upto Chevvy to make that right. If the DB9 was miles quicker than the C6 I would agree but the ALMS Sebrng event showed the two cars are pretty evenly matched.

Fogelhund · 14 Jun 2005, 17:24 (Ref:1328507)

Stupid rule really, by confused thinking.

JAG · 14 Jun 2005, 17:43 (Ref:1328533)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pink69

I agree with the idea of trying to equalise the performance of the cars, but I don't think this is the way. If the C6 isn't as quick as the DB9 at the minute, its upto Chevvy to make that right. If the DB9 was miles quicker than the C6 I would agree but the ALMS Sebrng event showed the two cars are pretty evenly matched.

The C6 is every bit as quick as the DBR9.

I'm sure this rule is the final nail in the coffin for the class as a factory playground.

Why build the quickest car if its going to be restricted. You may as well leave the privateers to it.

You wouldn't expect GM to stop their factory team, but then again would they wish to continue trouncing privateers year in, year out.

Time for P&M/GM to step upto to the prototype ranks and leave the C6 to customers, IMO

Fogelhund · 14 Jun 2005, 18:03 (Ref:1328558)

..and I suppose if GM doesn't see the same corporate benefit to racing a Prototype, then you'd prefer they just leave? Or maybe Audi should go to F1 instead of trouncing the competition?

I'm sorry, but I don't share this viewpoint at all. It isn't their fault that they haven't had competition. It is up to the competition to raise the bar, and nobody has done it. Hopefully next year some well funded Aston teams show up in the ALMS on a regular basis, along with privateer C6.R's and hopefully new Vipers.

Assuming P&M did build a proto, you can count out Corvette from the ranks of GT in the future, which IMHO would be a waste.

I'm not certain where P&M and Corvette went wrong with C5-R sales, as they were available. Certainly Prodrive sold 550's, and Oreca et al sold Vipers, despite factory competition.

I wanted to add that this does far more to penalize privateers then it does the factories. The C5-R and 550 are penalized this year. Let's assume that the C6.R and DBR9 are for next year....

Then P&M comes out with C6.R B Spec... a "new" car. No penalty, but the privateers who have an A Spec are penalized.

Or suppose DC does build a New Viper. Then realizes that if they don't race LM, they will never be penalized... then proceed to humble all the penalized cars in the LMES and ALMS...

Really, a stupid rule, easy to get around, and no thought to the consequences beyond their little race.

JAG · 14 Jun 2005, 18:15 (Ref:1328566)

The problem is Aston will not compete as a works team after this year.

If we saw 2 or 3 C6 privateers vs a couple of Astons, bring it on.

But a factory GM walkover, whats the point?

I've said it before, why build , and try to sell, hugely expensive GT1 cars, only to see them pegged back HUGELY from their true performance.

Why not just enter GT2 and have the potential to sell dozens of C6's, Aston V8s etc.

You still get the road car linked benefits, if protoytpes are out of the question.

GT1 development at the moment is money down the drain if the ACO continue with this policy.

**Aysedasi** · 14 Jun 2005, 18:24 (Ref:1328576)

IMO, all attempts at enforced equalisation are thoroughly bad for the sport.

SALEEN S7R · 14 Jun 2005, 18:37 (Ref:1328596)

Personally I dont think this will be enforced, and I havent read anywhere, including DSC where the ACO have said that cars lapping under 3:55 will be penalised for next year. Yes the 550's and C5R's have additional ballast but the ACO know and so do a lot of people here that the Labre 550 and Cirtek 550 will still probably be running under the 3:55 bracket. The additional ballast IMO is to encourage teams to enter new cars rather than the same old 550's and C5R's, the C5R is in its 6th year of racing dont forget.

The ACO know that the cars will become faster over time, and the ACO also know the importance of the GT1 cars and the manufacturers, they dont want to scare Corvette or Aston Martin or Lambourgini away, it isnt in their interests to do so. Providing the GT1 cars arent lapping faster than the lead LMP 2 runners I doubt the GT1 cars will be penalised additionally. If the ACO does enforce artifical penalties on the GT1 cars though for me at least LM will have lost a lot of its interest for me, at least at races like the Spa 24hrs they dont introduce draconian penalties.

Fab · 14 Jun 2005, 19:07 (Ref:1328622)

It would be laughable, if it wasn't to spoil the races we all appreciate...

Ridiculous ? Stupid ? Discouraging ?

*sigh*

... and what next ?

JAG · 14 Jun 2005, 19:08 (Ref:1328625)

Its on DSC right now.

The problem is the targets are so much slower than the cars actual potential. Either this rule should be scrapped or the GT1 regs changed.

'The ACO know that the cars will become faster over time, and the ACO also know the importance of the GT1 cars and the manufacturers, they dont want to scare Corvette or Aston Martin or Lambourgini away, it isnt in their interests to do so.'

They want manufactuers in LMP1 and privateers/customers in GT1/2.

JAG · 14 Jun 2005, 19:10 (Ref:1328628)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fab

It would be laughable, if it wasn't to spoil the races we all appreciate...

Ridiculous ? Stupid ? Discouraging ?

*sigh*

... and what next ?

Depends whether you think GTs have a place at Le mans

SALEEN S7R · 14 Jun 2005, 19:11 (Ref:1328630)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Its on DSC right now.

I dont see it, perhaps you could tell me the title of the news article?

JAG · 14 Jun 2005, 19:19 (Ref:1328645)

Scrutineering 4 - 'Assorted news and comment'

Fab · 14 Jun 2005, 19:22 (Ref:1328653)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Depends whether you think GTs have a place at Le mans

Sometime, I even wonder if the attendance has a place at Le Mans... I mean for ACO, of course...

Oh well, a bit depressing thoughts tonight, he ?

Sorry for that...

SALEEN S7R · 14 Jun 2005, 19:29 (Ref:1328657)

Ah yes I see, but do the ACO really beleive that this 35kg will stop the 550s lapping under the 3:55 mark? I just cant see the 35kg making the differnce. Ah well.

Fab · 14 Jun 2005, 19:39 (Ref:1328665)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

I just cant see the 35kg making the differnce.

Let's hope so...

tblincoe · 14 Jun 2005, 19:40 (Ref:1328666)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

Ah yes I see, but do the ACO really beleive that this 35kg will stop the 550s lapping under the 3:55 mark? I just cant see the 35kg making the differnce. Ah well.

one of the 550 teams, i believe it was the Larbre guys, said it was slowing lap times by about 1 and a half seconds

SALEEN S7R · 14 Jun 2005, 19:49 (Ref:1328678)

What they say tblincoe and what it is actually doing is 2 differnt things.

JAG · 14 Jun 2005, 20:12 (Ref:1328695)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

Ah yes I see, but do the ACO really beleive that this 35kg will stop the 550s lapping under the 3:55 mark? I just cant see the 35kg making the differnce. Ah well.

Then next year it will be 70kg.

Thats how the rules work.

SALEEN S7R · 14 Jun 2005, 20:20 (Ref:1328702)

Thats if 550's are still racing next year, as you have been saying JAG 550s wont be competitve next year, remmeber?

Bob Riebe · 14 Jun 2005, 20:52 (Ref:1328731)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

IMO, all attempts at enforced equalisation are thoroughly bad for the sport.

YES-YES-Clear honest rhetoric, it is so rare nowadays!

I would buy you a case of good, really cheap, beer, but the brewery that made it went out of business when they whacked it with a tax-oops-"user fee" to pay for some brain-dead, social cure, for all evil.

When beer goes from 4.00 bucks, a returnable case to 3.00 bucks, for a disposable six-pack, does the word excessive seem proper?

Perhaps the ACO has more reach than I thought.

Bob

JAG · 14 Jun 2005, 21:18 (Ref:1328759)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

Thats if 550's are still racing next year, as you have been saying JAG 550s wont be competitve next year, remmeber?

You get my point.

With the new regs a Viper could be competitive!

GT1s will not be allowed to lap under 3.55.

A supped up GT2 could lap in the region of 3.55 so why spend millions building a GT1 that is theorectically capable of 3.45?

Wasted development and money down the drain.

**Adam43** · 14 Jun 2005, 21:52 (Ref:1328788)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

IMO, all attempts at enforced equalisation are thoroughly bad for the sport.

Agreed.

**skycafe** · 15 Jun 2005, 00:51 (Ref:1328881)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

IMO, all attempts at enforced equalisation are thoroughly bad for the sport.

Agree with every fibre in my being!

robert

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is that all about? (SC rule)	Knowlesy	Formula One	51	15 Jun 2005 10:04
107% rule	roys1	Formula One	5	20 Mar 2005 12:59
7% rule	expert	Formula One	33	1 Nov 2002 08:54
107% Rule	Yoong Montoya	Formula One	33	20 Apr 2002 04:50
GP rule changes	OVERSTEER	Bike Racing	2	12 Nov 2001 10:54