Interesting article on future sportscar racecar

[paul-collins]

Nah, Bob's just upset that they don't let the Protos go 350 mph down les Hunadières!

[EspritS3]

I don't think it makes much sense to talk about slowing down the GTs - if any class has suffered performance restrictions, its the LMPs, what with the excessively restricted engines, and smaller wings year on year. In '99 the top protos were all doing 215mph+, in '02 the RfH Dome was fastest at ~210, and I seem to recall top speed this year being not much more than 200 (haven't seen any speed trap data for this year).

At the same time, the GTs have much improved, as anyone who has seen LMP struggle to overtake a Ferrari 550 will agree! I know its not all in the top speed, but it illustrates how the protos are being held back, to bring the GTs to the fore. Lets hope the new regs and restrictor rules let the LMPs have their head again.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by eddsc
NASCARisation? What on earth are you on about?
It seems perfectly logical to me: cars get faster and faster over time, so at some point they need to be slowed down. 3:48 for GTS this year was faster than almost everyone predicted - and the ACO reacted, very sensibly, in my view.
I'm all for managing the speeds of the different classes to create clear differentiation. In FIA GTs, the GT and N-GT cars are too close for comfort. The ACO rightly comes in for some stick over the ridiculous Dallara entry this year, for example, but I was acknowledging something that they do well.
Hardly NASCARisation.
MC

Good Sir:
It is about managed-competition, now that is an oxymoron.
Formula Vee, Formula Ford, heck Legends cars are about managed competition, now what is supposed to be road racing's top series, tells manufacturers and owner how much horsep power then the are ALLOWED to have.
Smells like, sounds like NASCAR to me.

I have a tempered attitude towards the FIA but compared to the ACO, they are liberal folks.

IF the lmps cannot go faster than the GTs without special rules, so be it. It gives the GTs something to aim for and the LMPs something to leave in their dust.
Bob

[kdr]

Originally posted by paul-collins
Nah, Bob's just upset that they don't let the Protos go 350 mph down les Hunadières!

you mean they've put a stop to that..?

[SALEEN S7R]

Hmm, did the GTS cars do a 3:48 lap time? I thought it was a 3:49.438 - not a 3:48 to me. By the way, what are these new rules that are being introduced by the ACO to slow the cars down by 7 seconds a lap? The DSC story said that they want a 3:56 lap time for GT1. Ive not seen anything to confirm this, and find it quite hard to beleive.

[Spyder_Monkey]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
Good Sir:
It is about managed-competition, now that is an oxymoron.
Formula Vee, Formula Ford, heck Legends cars are about managed competition, now what is supposed to be road racing's top series, tells manufacturers and owner how much horsep power then the are ALLOWED to have.
Smells like, sounds like NASCAR to me.

Smells like Champcar, F1, IRL, WRC...just about any series on the planet save Bonneville speed record cars. These new regulations were created in order to slow all the cars down in the name of safety.

Refusing to make changes because of safety, now that smells like NASCAR.

[LouisTheShark]

Ever since restrictors, weight restrictions, aero rules, etc. have been used in any from of racing it has been MANAGED competition. If you think the current and recent past rules of the ACO or FIA were not managed competition, you are living in an alternate universe.

That would be the same alternate universe the three remaining CART fans in the U.S. reside in when they tell us that the IRL is much more managed competition than CART/ChampCar/OWRS, ignoring the fact that all CART cars use the same engine and the only way to pass in a CART/ChampCar/OWRS car is to use a push-to-pass button.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally posted by Spyder_Monkey
Smells like Champcar, F1, IRL, WRC...just about any series on the planet save Bonneville speed record cars. These new regulations were created in order to slow all the cars down in the name of safety.

But safety is "macho"...

[Mal]

Ever since restrictors, weight restrictions, aero rules, etc. have been used in any from of racing it has been MANAGED competition. If you think the current and recent past rules of the ACO or FIA were not managed competition, you are living in an alternate universe

Spot on. LeMans cars were faster down the Mulsanne in 1970 than they are. You may say that is down to the chicanes, but they to are a form of managed competition.

It is also right to keep speed diferentials between the classes. This is totally different to the NASCAR formula / IRL formula which evectively manages the competition within the class and makes all the cars run virtually on the same piece of tarmac

All my humble opinion of course

[MulsanneMike]

Originally posted by MulsanneMike
But safety is "macho"...

Oh shazbot...of course that should read, "But safety isn't 'macho'"

[Cadete]

Rob, I think this has been discussed hundreds of times: managed competition is when you give different rules to cars in the same class to keep their performances the same.

In here you have the same rules to everyone in the same class, it's as much a managed competition as the weight-to-displacement rules of some years ago, in order to make a field with different displacement engines. They have less horsepower because of the restricors, yes, but they are not there to restrict inside classes, they are there to restrict speeds as a wholle, in the name of security. About every racing series has done the same thing, be it by lowering maximum boost allowed or by reducing maximum displacement. Due to the varied nature of sportscars, you could not simply fix a maximum displacement, limiting the kinds of engines you have, or the boost, simply because you have N.A. engines.
But still, be it with restrictors or not, the ones who are more skillfull with engines will allways get to shine (provided they have money, of course, but that is another discussion).

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Spyder_Monkey
Smells like Champcar, F1, IRL, WRC...just about any series on the planet save Bonneville speed record cars. These new regulations were created in order to slow all the cars down in the name of safety.

Refusing to make changes because of safety, now that smells like NASCAR.

NASCAR started the "safety" excuse to manage what once were basic minimul rules.

IF they want to put safety first, work for OSHA, anything else but get out of racing. NO one forces them to drive the cars.

Racing can never be about safety first and still be competitive racing. The main reason safety is used as an ****ant excuse now is because, trial layers, crawl around like maggots and leeches living off of the blodd andflesh of the dead and dying.

Bob

[paul-collins]

Tone it down, guys. I'd hate to have to shut it down entirely.

[Regis]

sacre bleu, Bob! a managed forum! Whatever happened to the good ole dayz, when a car off the circuit could wipe out a dozen or more fans as well as the driver? hrug:

Originally posted by paul-collins
Tone it down, guys. I'd hate to have to shut it down entirely.

[MulsanneMike]

I still fail to see the conflict between safety and competition. They are two separate and unrelated issues.

[sportscarsRULE]

How can one enjoy racing when you know there's a good chance a driver could die? And why would you go to a race where a car could easily rip through the barriers and kill you?

[Javi]

Safety systems developed for racing cars can be used in the future for road cars, and safety of road cars is everyone´s interest.
Racing developed disc brakes, carbon fiber structures, active suspensions, stability systems....

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Regis
sacre bleu, Bob! a managed forum! Whatever happened to the good ole dayz, when a car off the circuit could wipe out a dozen or more fans as well as the driver? hrug:

Regis:
This twice on this thread you responded to me with mindless gibberish.
If you don't like my posts don't read them, otherwise, run along.

Bob

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by sportscarsRULE
How can one enjoy racing when you know there's a good chance a driver could die? And why would you go to a race where a car could easily rip through the barriers and kill you?

There is not a good chance.

Perhaps most of you gents, for what ever reason have no idea of how fleeting the concept of life, much less not being injured, is, but I would advise most to toughen up, or reality will be more of a shock to you than you ever conceived.

Bob

[Graham Goodwin]

So your point is Bob that you can't have truly competitive racing unless there are no restrictions at all forced by safety considerations?

Now whether you take that position because of idealism, some form of sentimentality or any other factor that just ain't so.

If you have a set of rules (for whatever reason) and everyone has to comply you arrive back at a level playing field - How you succeed or fail thereafter is surely down to a combination of factors including budget, driver skill and reliability.

Speed, whether ultimate or comparative is NOT the only determining factor in endurance racing - If it were we would have seen the RFH Domes celebrate a run of LM success in the last few years.

As for Regis's posts - You say gibberish, I say its a perfectly fair comment - In the real world you have to deal with the consequences of your actions and decisions. You think not? Ask any Swiss motorsport fan how they see it!

[jhansen]

There is no such thing as a "level playing field" in racing. You can try it all you want, but it does not exist. It's just perceived competition, and that's the catch.

As for safety in racing, well I'm all for that. Although I did like Bob's point (in another thread) of speeding the cars up in a straight line, but take away their cornering ability. This would definitely encourage overtaking and slow them down in the turns, where cornering speeds can be quite dangerous. The Audis have proved at Le Mans that a quick lap time comes from performance in the corners, not a blistering trap speed.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Graham Goodwin
So your point is Bob that you can't have truly competitive racing unless there are no restrictions at all forced by safety considerations?

Now whether you take that position because of idealism, some form of sentimentality or any other factor that just ain't so.

If you have a set of rules (for whatever reason) and everyone has to comply you arrive back at a level playing field - How you succeed or fail thereafter is surely down to a combination of factors including budget, driver skill and reliability.

Speed, whether ultimate or comparative is NOT the only determining factor in endurance racing - If it were we would have seen the RFH Domes celebrate a run of LM success in the last few years.

As for Regis's posts - You say gibberish, I say its a perfectly fair comment - In the real world you have to deal with the consequences of your actions and decisions. You think not? Ask any Swiss motorsport fan how they see it!

\

Graham:
For the sake that you seem to be a good fellow; what does a managed forum have to do with the Swiss? :confused:
---------------------------------------------------------
Safety is a self-serving concept that does not need outside concerns to turn what was once a mode for proving concepts into a deviced to merely meet the restictions placed on the engineers to detune a car so it is legal.

If the "horror" of a car flying into the crowd is a concept just waiting to happen then what the Swiss did should be done world-wide.
There is no "safe" speed where one can absolutely guarantee that spectators will not be injured.
The paranoid attitude that seems to infest many, at least of those who respond, posters here is odd at best.

As I said before the only real reason that safety is aggresively addressed now is because of trial lawyers which makes the whole point absurd, as it is driven by fear and greed.

Bob

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
The paranoid attitude that seems to infest many, at least of those who respond, posters here is odd at best.

As I said before the only real reason that safety is aggresively addressed now is because of trial lawyers which makes the whole point absurd, as it is driven by fear and greed.

I'm sure Jackie Stewart would say otherwise.

You talk about motorsport being a proving ground. Could it not also be that it is a proving ground for automotive safety?

Time was when drivers wouldn't want to buckle in for safety; it's now known that safety belts prevent far more injury than they promote. Similarly for HANS and such devices.

[Graham Goodwin]

Bob

Your point appears to be based on the assertion that speed is all and anything that gets in the way of that is unnecessary, unreasonable and - in particular is only part of the picture for one reason (because of trial lawyers)

I just don't buy it - neither do I buy what would become the ultimate conclusion that you allow the cars to develop to the point (and beyond it) that they teeter on the edge of controlability in the pursuit of pure speed.

If you did have such a policy you'd end up with what we had in F1 some years ago - cars which were fantastically fast but which were all but undriveable without technological aids which removed much of the input of the drivers. If that's the price of ever faster laptimes then I'm not buying.

The current F1 circus is the closest we get to that ideal in world motorsport need I say more..... Duller than a dull thing in dullshire - fast yes but omigosh its entertainment level is right down there with dressage.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Graham Goodwin
So your point is Bob that you can't have truly competitive racing unless there are no restrictions at all forced by safety considerations?

Now whether you take that position because of idealism, some form of sentimentality or any other factor that just ain't so.

If you have a set of rules (for whatever reason) and everyone has to comply you arrive back at a level playing field - How you succeed or fail thereafter is surely down to a combination of factors including budget, driver skill and reliability.

Speed, whether ultimate or comparative is NOT the only determining factor in endurance racing - If it were we would have seen the RFH Domes celebrate a run of LM success in the last few years.

As for Regis's posts - You say gibberish, I say its a perfectly fair comment - In the real world you have to deal with the consequences of your actions and decisions. You think not? Ask any Swiss motorsport fan how they see it!

Graham:
I will say this slowly so you will understand.
The quote of Regis:
"sacre bleu, Bob! a managed forum! Whatever happened to the good ole dayz, when a car off the circuit could wipe out a dozen or more fans as well as the driver."

The subject is "forum", the predicate is "managed", after this is a question, which is in no way related to the suject of the predicate, which only you say is about some Swiss item but such is not identified in the sentence.

If you want to defend this as having a point, fine.
About what?

So your point is Bob that you can't have truly competitive racing unless there are no restrictions at all forced by safety considerations?

Show me where I said this.

Now whether you take that position because of idealism, some form of sentimentality or any other factor that just ain't so.

You are insinuating that I said or proclaimed something I did not, so do not proclaimed that I am doing anything for any reason, when your proclamation is with out a basis and therefore, false.

Speed, whether ultimate or comparative is NOT the only determining factor in endurance racing - If it were we would have seen the RFH Domes celebrate a run of LM success in the last few years.

I have never said so.
I said artificial equalization, using safety as an excuse, at the whim of the sanctioning body, goes against what made the majority of any racing what it was up to, and into, the eighties.

Many, seem, to back ground effects which increases cornering speed, an area in which an accident has a greater probability for injury, due to a greater number of objects to be struck, but they protest loudly about speed on straights where a chance of injury is less.
That is hypocrisy.

Que sera sera.
Bob