2012 FIA GT3 European Championship

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by kyoung

Well let me take a lesson out of your book; YOU’RE WRONG!

There is only 25 pounds or 11.3KG difference between the two engines; the external dimensions are virtually the same. The FIA/SRO pulled 80KG ballast from the car because of the engine switch. The reason for the switch was to loosen the choke hold of ballast and restrictors the FIA/SRO put on the LS7 powered car. The larger displacement LS7 engine produces more horsepower and more torque in a package with nearly the same dimensions and weight as the LS3. A recent test with a race driver (Randy Pobst) had a 505hp Z06 beat a 570hp 458 by 2 seconds at Laguna Seca; that sounds like a pretty good engine to me. All racing cars have race modified engines. They got a bigger restrictor break/less ballast because of the smaller displacement; end of story.

i noticed some basic mistakes in what you said (a more displaced engine in theory develops more torque than a less one, this is true, but power/performance is about restrictor size used). Well know that you pretend to know the reason of removing the ballast, i inform you that corvette Z06 GT3 only recently received that extra ballast in FIA GT3 champ (blancpain and ADAC GT uses a diffent bop)... until half of 2010 callaway corvette Z06 wasn't pursued by FIA bop, in your huge knowledge () can you tell me why was added the extra ballest in 2010 and kept in 2011 ?
just a tip: isn't because of the engine.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

i noticed some basic mistakes in what you said (a more displaced engine in theory develops more torque than a less one, this is true,

This makes no sense, if what I said is true it is not a mistake.

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

but power/performance is about restrictor size used).

Yes I know; that’s why the FIA changed the Z06’s restrictor size numerous times throughout the season. They started somewhere around 55mm and were choked down to 48 or 49 by season’s end, but FIA/SRO continually added ballast in addition to the smaller restrictor until the car was no longer competitive.

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

Well know that you pretend to know the reason of removing the ballast, i inform you that corvette Z06 GT3 only recently received that extra ballast in FIA GT3 champ

You’re wrong; they received extra ballast throughout the 2010 season and other series used the same or very close to the same adjustments.

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

(blancpain and ADAC GT uses a diffent bop)...

They use pretty much the same BoP as GT3, but in a couple cases they did change ballast or restrictor size ever so slightly, not enough to make a difference though.

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

until half of 2010 callaway corvette Z06 wasn't pursued by FIA bop,

You’re splitting hairs here, they restricted after other teams complained. I don’t have access to those files any more but it was all downhill for Callaway/Graff after Silverstone and Brno.

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

in your huge knowledge () can you tell me why was added the extra ballest in 2010 and kept in 2011 ?

Ah, to slow the car down, affect the handling?

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

just a tip: isn't because of the engine.

Thank you Sherlock.

[alexkiller8]

the car in 2010 showed too much performance after silverstone racing, this is true and received a decreased restrictor size in next races, but the car remained too much competitive for FIA, so the real cause of increase of weight ballast was because FIA (maybe pressured by porsche) aimed to help prospeed to win team champs as it happened! in 2011 FIA bop remained unfair for corvette, so callaway team focused exclusively on ADAC GT that uses the SRO bop that is different than FIA bop (nobody can say how much close/different is because values are not publicly released). So if you think that the reason of that ridiculous ballast was the engine displacement you're terribly wrong (if the engine was the problem, a decreased restrictor size was an easy solution).
Your insistence talking about unfair bop caused by LS7 and your idea that SRO bop is the same of FIA, can be opinionable for the others, but for me is just sign of motorsport ignorance. Thank you Watson.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

in 2011 FIA bop remained unfair for corvette, so callaway team focused exclusively on ADAC GT that uses the SRO bop that is different than FIA bop (nobody can say how much close/different is because values are not publicly released).

You’re wrong again; if you look on the ADAC website the BoP is there…

Bulletin Nr. 10 (28.09.2010)

If you look you will notice the Vette has the same restrictor size but the ballast is 50KG instead of 80KG.

Now who is motorsport ignorant?

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by kyoung

You’re wrong again; if you look on the ADAC website the BoP is there…

Bulletin Nr. 10 (28.09.2010)

If you look you will notice the Vette has the same restrictor size but the ballast is 50KG instead of 80KG.

Now who is motorsport ignorant?

well again you if FIA gave 80kg of restriction and SRO 50kg it means that bop ARE DIFFERENT, is a thing that has been confirmed by the pdf that has been posted by you. However giving an eye to that sheet, it seems that some values are wrong, about one i'm absolutely sure, in the sheet the r8 lms is given 1320 as dry weight when in the reality r8 lms (2009-2011) dry weight was 1300-1295kg.
However coming back to the main issue, if you still think that extra ballast weight was given because the engine (is a nonsense however, because callaway corvette used the LS7 since the creation of GT3 class and only in 2010 was penalized....) i can't say more that you're wrong, for sure i won't lose my sleep tonight if you still think that.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

well again you if FIA gave 80kg of restriction and SRO 50kg it means that bop ARE DIFFERENT, is a thing that has been confirmed by the pdf that has been posted by you. However giving an eye to that sheet, it seems that some values are wrong, about one i'm absolutely sure, in the sheet the r8 lms is given 1320 as dry weight when in the reality r8 lms (2009-2011) dry weight was 1300-1295kg.
However coming back to the main issue, if you still think that extra ballast weight was given because the engine (is a nonsense however, because callaway corvette used the LS7 since the creation of GT3 class and only in 2010 was penalized....) i can't say more that you're wrong, for sure i won't lose my sleep tonight if you still think that.

You mean the bulletin you didn’t know existed or more to the point were ignorant of? I supplied one bulletin to enlighten you (just so you know, there are more bulletins available), so next time you want to show your (expertise?) you can pretend like you knew all along. Ballast and restrictors are added to slow a car, yes in different ways (you see I have to point this out to you because even the most obvious seems to be a point of contention with you). Callaway went with a smaller displacement engine to get a more favorable BoP, this seems pretty obvious to me, but for you not so much. It’s hard to lose sleep when you’re never awake in the first place, we’ll just have to agree to disagree and leave it that.

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by kyoung

Callaway went with a smaller displacement engine to get a more favorable BoP, this seems pretty obvious to me.

Infact is just a speculation of yours that sincerly i don't care so much, you have written your opinions, so i did too, in my opinion is useless to continue with these off-topic replies if each of us will remain with own opinions.

[Jameson]

Sorry to interrupt your arguing, but wanted to tell my opinion on the Corvette and BoP in general.

First, GT Masters follows FIA GT3 BoP. Blancpain on the other hand, is handling their own BoP. BES BoP test was in Paul Ricard last week, after FIA/ADAC tests had already been done. For sure there are similarities with FIA (as there should be when we speak about the same cars...), but there are also clear differences, at least there was in 2011.

Second, there are always people supporting passionately the Vettes and it might be true that their BoP in the end of 2010 was too harsh, but it is also true that the car was much too fast in the beginning of that season. If you let some car win, some might say with unfair performance advantage, then I don't see a big problem if few races later that car would be "overly" limited. Problem started when they let the Vettes run a too fast configuration in the beginning making all the other teams look stupid. In any case, they took the European title with the early season success. Of course, not to "kill" the car, they could have adjusted it a bit for 2011.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

in my opinion is useless to continue with these off-topic replies if each of us will remain with own opinions.

Agreed.

[alexkiller8]

beyond corvette issue i want to clearize a thing: FIA in last years organized the paul ricard test to make (a provisional sometimes) the BOP for FIA GT1 and FIA GT3 cars. Well, until 2011 SRO in some never specified way did a own version of BOP that was used as referment for all other SRO promoted not-FIA competition (FFSA GT, Itaipava GT, ADAC GT masters, Blancpain etc...). Well as said this BOP is taken as reference, but the national organizations that run these championships (ADAC in germany, the association who run itaipava GT that now i don't remember the name in brazil etc...) can choise to litteraly follow this BoP or to apply it with some value modification (ex. in itaipava GT each car has a different full season extra weight ballast according to the ranking of drivers). It seems that ADAC orientation is to follow a simil FIA GT3 bop (the same will happen for GT3 cars in GT300 this year).
Just to do a pratical example, in brazil the viper comp coupè because of a generous bop is still a competitive car, able to be faster than gallardo LP600+ in some races! a thing like that in european champs is pure fantasy

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by Jameson

Second, there are always people supporting passionately the Vettes and it might be true that their BoP in the end of 2010 was too harsh, but it is also true that the car was much too fast in the beginning of that season. If you let some car win, some might say with unfair performance advantage, then I don't see a big problem if few races later that car would be "overly" limited. Problem started when they let the Vettes run a too fast configuration in the beginning making all the other teams look stupid. In any case, they took the European title with the early season success. Of course, not to "kill" the car, they could have adjusted it a bit for 2011.

Jameson, I agree with your assessment for the most part, the problem was that they continued to restrict the Corvette even when it was about seven down on straight line speed. It wasn’t Callaway’s fault when a 430 who was leading a race left the pits early and was penalized, or when a race leading 911 spun handing the victory to an already slower Corvette. At Zolder 2010, the Corvette was so grossly overweight it used up it tires and brakes in no time. They had zero chance at a fair fight for the team championship at that race. Graff and Callaway pretty much showed it wasn’t worth the effort in 2011, Graff dumped the Z06 for the SLS and Callaway only raced in the ADAC.

[Jameson]

Originally Posted by kyoung

Jameson, I agree with your assessment for the most part, the problem was that they continued to restrict the Corvette even when it was about seven down on straight line speed. It wasn’t Callaway’s fault when a 430 who was leading a race left the pits early and was penalized, or when a race leading 911 spun handing the victory to an already slower Corvette. At Zolder 2010, the Corvette was so grossly overweight it used up it tires and brakes in no time. They had zero chance at a fair fight for the team championship at that race. Graff and Callaway pretty much showed it wasn’t worth the effort in 2011, Graff dumped the Z06 for the SLS and Callaway only raced in the ADAC.

I fully agree.

[Nic_O]

Just found a provisional entry list for this weekend : http://www.actumecanique.fr/IMG/pdf/...gages_GT3_.pdf

A bit dissapointing, only 17 cars...

[Deleted]

At least it makes the GT3... oh sorry GT1 grid look slightly less unimpressive. But just slightly.

It wasn't a big surprise that they didn't integrate the GT3 Europe grid with GT3 World, it would've been far too logical thing to happen. I guess they don't wanna confuse the fans that may or may not be still sticking around

[Prometheus]

Today's FIA list has only 14 cars...

http://private.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/vchp/302/$FILE/FIA%20GT3%20Entry%20List_Nogaro.pdf

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Today's FIA list has only 14 cars...

http://private.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/vchp/302/$FILE/FIA%20GT3%20Entry%20List_Nogaro.pdf

Merge ELMS and FIA GT, and you've got a decent series.....

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Merge LMES and FIA GT, and you've got a decent series.....

Only if that message of yours had been posted several years ago.

[urdragon]

Sprints Rules have more maket, endurance races allways have the BES and wec. Or abolish fia GT3 and make BES AM champion entry go to FIA GT.

[AndrewF31]

shame there will be no Camaro.

The Valmon team is the one managing the Vantage in GT World, a Ratel team.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by Nic_O

Just found a provisional entry list for this weekend : http://www.actumecanique.fr/IMG/pdf/...gages_GT3_.pdf

A bit dissapointing, only 17 cars...

A fair number of tbc drivers in that list. Interestingly I notice that Gunnar Jeanette is racing for Luxury.

[Marcel ten Caat]

And a couple of those cars are only doing Nogaro if the reports from France are correct.

[Acid09]

Well no surprise, SR has cannibalized that series with the addition of Blancpain.

[Rodger Davies]

In fairness, given the choice two years ago between "shall we keep GT3 as it is or shall we extend the two one-hour races on random circuits into three hour races on classic circuits and one historic 24 hour race at Spa", I know which I'd have chosen.

The real travesty for me is that the entries have clearly been shifted to the World GT category where possible and this series abandoned as a result.

My fear is mandatory driver classifications in the BES (/FIA GT as I think I'm going to start calling it) if there's no mandated Pro-Am GT3 cup.

[kurski]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Today's FIA list has only 14 cars...

http://private.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/vchp/302/$FILE/FIA%20GT3%20Entry%20List_Nogaro.pdf

Valmon Racing Team Russia drivers are Tom Kimber-Smith and Natalia Freidina.

[kurski]

Thanks to EI, we've got the full entry list: http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...nce-10104.html

Heico Gravity-Charouz Team (Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG GT3):
Dominik Baumann/Maximilian Buhk
Mika Vähämäki/Max Nilsson

Russian Bear Motorsport (Ferrari 458 Italia):
Sergey Ryabov/Miguel Toril
Kirill Ladygin/Vyacheslav Maleev

Valmon Racing Russia Team (Aston Martin DBRS9):
Tom Kimber-Smith/Natalia Freidina

Lexury Racing (Ferrari 458 Italia):
David Halliday/Anthony Baltoise
Frank Montecalvo/Gunnar Jeannette

rhino's Leipert Motorsport (Lamborghini Gallardo LP600):
Jesse Laine/Gilles Vannelet
Filip Sladecka/Gerhard Tweraser

Team Novadriver (Audi R8 LMS):
Cesar Campanico/Ni Amorim

Sainteloc Racing (Audi R8 LMS):
Jerome Demay/Dino Lunardi
Gregory Guilvert/Marc Sourd

AF Corse (Ferrari 458 Italia):
Gaetano Ardagna/Giuseppe Giro
Stefano Gai/Michael Lyons