The GT1s

[sssssssss]

I'd start a GT1 thread with expressing the nostalgy I feel about the 1995-1998 generations, when cars comparable to the prototypes were allowed to race in that category. They actually were more like race prototypes that were also produced in a modified (significantly slower) form, in very small numbers, for road use. And that really attracted LOTS of high-end manufacturers to join endurance competition.

Could it be that regulations for the next several years would lead again to such a GT1 class? Because the so-called "evo" prototypes tend to go somewhat in that direction, and the goal ultimately is to bring more manufacturers to the Le Mans 24 Hours and endurance racing in general. I'd bring, I think, absolutely tremendous competition, to raise the performance of the GT1s and slightly bring the protorypes down from where they are now, so that they'd be equally matched (maybe again like in 1996-1997, with prototypes a bit faster and GT1s a bit less fuel-consuming).

[GTfour]

Mmmmmh ,if this could only be real....

To me,the '95 to '99 era is still the most beautifull and competitive time I've seen at Le Mans. So many really stunningly looking cars(993 GT1,Panoz Esperante GT1,McF1 LT,Merc CLM etc.) and indeed,fierce competition.

It would be very interesting to see the current proto's morf with the top running current GT1's. Wether it'll go in that direction remains to be seen...

[isynge]

It's funny how distance changes our perspective. The GT1 'prototypes', starting with the 911 GT1 in 1996, had a huge backlash against them, being seen as 'destroying' the spirit of the road going GTs that basically saved sportscar racing after 1992 - I distinctly remember the pages of Autosport and Motorsport roundly denouncing it, and a lot of schadenfreude at the works Porsches leading to pleasure at Joest's wins in '96 and '97.

I think the perspective then was that there was a perfectly valid proper prototype route that could be taken, and the 911 GT1 smacked of the Dauer 962 from '94.

It just shows how unintended consequences can take effect, because the brief flurry up to 1999 with spectacular GT1s really was a good period for sportscar racing overall.

[sssssssss]

Yup, but then that 1999 race - the first that had only one class with true chances to overall victory - the LMPs (well, actually divided in LMGTP and LMP) looked like it would be the better way to attract manufacturers (Audi was added to the long list). But to me, it seems to have been only the last consequence of that supreme GT1 class of '94-'98, which was the true "manufacturer magnet".
I think only Audi and BMW were truly interested in pure prototypes at the time.

[GTfour]

If all them "ney-sayers" would've had their way,we'd never had great racecars like the Porsche 917,911 GT1's or Toyota GT-One...

The row triggered over the Toyota TS-020 was allmost funny to follow. Especially a certain manufacturer from a german village called Zuffenhausen allmost threw a fit when the first pics of the UFO like GT-One were released .

[isynge]

Absolutely agree GTfour, although I would say that the nay-sayers who were unconvinced by 3.5 litre atmospherics for Group C might have had a point...

It does however bear looking back at what Janos Wimpffen has to say about the uber-GT1s...

Originally Posted by Janos Wimpffen, Time and Two Seats, p.1894

For Le Mans they unveiled the 911 GT1. It was very much the successor to the 962, or more directly, another iteration of the theme developed by the Dauer 962 ... The 911 GT1 did for the three year old Grand Touring Championship what the Dauer had done to Le Mans; it completely reversed the concept of converting road cars to the race circuit. The BPR series would never be the same again.

Then obviously the CLK GTR was another game changing entrant - silver lining undeniably was the spectacle of these cars, and they led, indirectly perhaps, to the brilliance of 1999, but the seeds of the demise of GT racing were sown. A price worth paying? Perhaps. And would the 'old school' GTs have disappeared anyway given the economic downturn in the early years of this decade? Again perhaps.

Either way, it was a profound level of change and I guess there'll always be a debate over whether it represented a good or bad thing.

[Aysedasi]

The problem was, whatever the good and the bad about it, the GT1s were sensational cars to watch......

[The Badger]

Those cars were amazing . Judgeing by what the artists impression of the Corvette looked like , it certainly looks like that era revisited .

One thing springs to mind ..... when the "authorities" are dreaming up new rules ..... do they ever consult with currant series "experianced" drivers ?

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Those cars were amazing . Judgeing by what the artists impression of the Corvette looked like , it certainly looks like that era revisited .

One thing springs to mind ..... when the "authorities" are dreaming up new rules ..... do they ever consult with currant series "experianced" drivers ?

Drivers? I dought it. Manufactures, yes this time around the ACO, FIA is working with the World Motorsports Council which is made up mostly of Manufatures that are currently involved with ACO and FIA racing.

[Subaru_WRX_STi]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

...
Could it be that regulations for the next several years would lead again to such a GT1 class? Because the so-called "evo" prototypes tend to go somewhat in that direction,

it will never happen again, and about these GT1s of the 90s, they are "prototypes", thay were very expensive and faster than the "true" prototypes !
next year regulations will have to reduce the costs of the current GT1 era in which a DBR9 or a C6.R is much more expensive than a Lola or a Radical !!!

[johntt]

My first two LM24s were '98 and '99 so i have fond memories of such cars. The early 2000s with the LMP900s vs LMGTPs were good as well (even though LMGTP was just Bentley). The EVO rules seem to combine both elements of that period so i'm looking forward to 2010.

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by Subaru_WRX_STi

it will never happen again, and about these GT1s of the 90s, they are "prototypes", thay were very expensive and faster than the "true" prototypes !
next year regulations will have to reduce the costs of the current GT1 era in which a DBR9 or a C6.R is much more expensive than a Lola or a Radical !!!

Maybe it isn't that sure. I'm not saying it will happen until 2010, but the regulations tend to evolve again in a direction that might in time lead to such a case. Reducing the costs for current GT1s might be seen as the beginning of them becoming GT2s again...of course, this is a bit far-fetched, but ultimately nothing is impossible.
I really don't say that we'll have that very same situation, but something somewhat similar to that might happen after 2010, especially if we think that the people at ACO probably noticed, if we do, that that was the chemistry that brought the largest number of manufacturers ever in the 24 Hours and in endurance in general.

(DREAMINGAnd what FIA GT seasons we had in '97 and '98...DREAMING)

[JAG]

GT1 of the 90's was always the spiritual successor to Group C. The Bentley kept the closed car route going for a couple more years, and now the 908 and Lola Coupe are carrying it forward.

LMP1 EVO is going full circle, only the road car homologation has been ditched from the start, rather than a last minute panic move as in the 90's, when it looked like the class was, and indeed did, implode.

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by GTfour

If all them "ney-sayers" would've had their way,we'd never had great racecars like the Porsche 917,911 GT1's or Toyota GT-One...

The row triggered over the Toyota TS-020 was allmost funny to follow. Especially a certain manufacturer from a german village called Zuffenhausen allmost threw a fit when the first pics of the UFO like GT-One were released .

You meant Porsche? What exactly were they crossed about?


The only thing I recalled of the other manufacturers' (Nissan included, not just the Germans who were complaining if that was the case) criticism of Toyota's GT-One was the way the rules were "intepreted." ACO rules mandated that a "boot/trunk" must be made big enough to accomodate a certain size luggage - don't know why, maybe the ACO thought at the time people would love to travel to a "bed and breakfast" over the weekend in a GT-prototype - and Nissan literally made a boot area for that. Whereas Toyota just simply said the little space behind the driver seat is where the luggage can go.

The reason why Toyota got away with that? The designer of the GT-One is a French dude (Cortenz), hence the saying "to understand the French rules, you need to hire a French guy."

[supermario21]

Toyota didn't even do that. They used the fuel tank as the trunk, on the basis that the fuel tank is empty during scrutineering. Mercedes used a little space under the rear body-work for their trunk.

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by supermario21

Toyota didn't even do that. They used the fuel tank as the trunk, on the basis that the fuel tank is empty during scrutineering. Mercedes used a little space under the rear body-work for their trunk.

Well, something along that line. Either way my point was the way the rules were interpreted by different manufacturers that resulted in voices of criticism.

[supermario21]

Some quite rediculous intrepretations of the rules there. Anyone think if de Cortanze wasn't French Toyota wouldv'e been thrown out of tech?

[908-HDI]

Originally Posted by supermario21

Some quite rediculous intrepretations of the rules there. Anyone think if de Cortanze wasn't French Toyota wouldv'e been thrown out of tech?

Good question!! I reckon that French people look after the interests of French people

[The Badger]

Much like the rest of the world then , look after themselves .

[Le Vieux]

This goes back further than the late nineties - what about the mid-seventies when Porsche simultaneously entered the 935 (=911 silhouette of sorts) and the 936 (=prototype).

If I were a manufacturer, I'd prefer to race a car which looked something like my road car rather than a prototype - provided it had a chance of overall, not class, victory.

[GT6]

I have fond memories of the amazing GT1's from that period and am looking forward to the time when perhaps the support race for the main event will be these glorious cars, but ever period has cars that at the time you are not sure about but after a few years you remember them in a more fond way.

Would it not be nice to see a old GT support race rather for a change rather than Prototypes, or perhaps two races instead of one, I certainly remember there being two support races twenty years ago.

[sssssssss]

Maybe the ACO will realise someday that it was the most viable variant of bringing top manufacturers to endurance - 1998-1999 were the richest LM races ever in that respect. This is really what I hope, because the spectacle was absolutely tremendous with the two equally matched classes.

[JAG]

You do realise '98-'99 were the years when GT1 was on the brink of collapse?

Porsche and Mercedes' cars were the begining of the end, Toyota and Nissan took it a step further.

The cars were great, but homologation requirements meant costs went out of control.

It's took a decade for things to settle down, we've now reached the stage were we realise we need prototypes, but with roadcar DNA.

[GTfour]

So them GT1's were really expensive. Weren't the Group C's in their late years really expensive too? And what about cars like the Pug 908,Audi R8 and R10? Also stellar projects,financially wise..

My point is that's it's allright to try and lower the cost for such classes as LMP2 and GT2,but the big car giants will allways spend a couple of hundred million to try and win the race in the topclasses.
Just wait and see what Aston Martin,Corvette,Acura and Toyota will come up with. My geuss is,that they'll be cars in the same league as the Pugs and Audi's now...

(I can't wait to see... )

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by GTfour

So them GT1's were really expensive. Weren't the Group C's in their late years really expensive too? And what about cars like the Pug 908,Audi R8 and R10? Also stellar projects,financially wise..

My point is that's it's allright to try and lower the cost for such classes as LMP2 and GT2,but the big car giants will allways spend a couple of hundred million to try and win the race in the topclasses.
Just wait and see what Aston Martin,Corvette,Acura and Toyota will come up with. My geuss is,that they'll be cars in the same league as the Pugs and Audi's now...

(I can't wait to see... )

Seems to me that anything thats "good", "fast" and "reliable" is expensive. I think it's just a fact of racing. If given the opportunity to spend money in an unlimited way, it usually causes spiraling costs that seem to go out of control.

DK