GT3 manufactures...

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by Matt

No it doesn't. The big GT3 cars are the most fun to watch.

I'll agree with that but it is easier to make them more competitive if they are smaller. NASCAR Cup cars are great fun to watch on a road course - big and sloppy, tidy little cars are a bit bland but fast.

[Rodger Davies]

Personally I love the mixture; little V large - always fun watching Bentleys V 911s to me.

Great news that there will be a new Nissan; I feared Nissan might be done with GTs.

[Bcarr6]

Originally Posted by Matt

No it doesn't. The big GT3 cars are the most fun to watch.

On the Conrod straight...

Honestly GT3 to me is variety and I'm happy to see the tanks take on the little McLarens etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Koenigsegg]

Shame that there's no Morgan GT3 and Lotus GT3 anymore. Then it truly would have been little vs. large.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Matt

No it doesn't. The big GT3 cars are the most fun to watch.

That's your opinion . The next street GTR won't be a big sedan like coupe according to most of the stories about it. I think it's obvious the car loses out because it's size and the bop on it won't be enough to stay competitive vs the cars like the new AMG GT3 etc.

[TRspitfirefan]

Originally Posted by Rodger Davies

Personally I love the mixture; little V large - always fun watching Bentleys V 911s to me.

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

Honestly GT3 to me is variety and I'm happy to see the tanks take on the little McLarens etc.

Totally agree.

[Mechanic Z]

Add another vote for a mixture of vehicles.

Love watching the McLarens and Porsches fighting the Cadillacs, Nissans and Bentleys. The best thing GT3 has to offer is it's fantastic diversity of cars, IMO.

[TF110]

A car doesn't have to be huge to be unique. The GTR is a great car, but it's getting long in the tooth and Nissan knows it. From the results of the recent races, it's becoming apparent that the cars based more on sportscars with the lower profile are doing better than the big body coupes.

[Bcarr6]

Originally Posted by TF110

A car doesn't have to be huge to be unique. The GTR is a great car, but it's getting long in the tooth and Nissan knows it. From the results of the recent races, it's becoming apparent that the cars based more on sportscars with the lower profile are doing better than the big body coupes.

Well, BMW don't seem to think so, they were looking incredibly fast in quail in Bathurst.

Bentley are building a new gen GT3 probably little smaller than the current continental

I'd say the reason the Nissan is long in the tooth is it's probably the oldest car on the grid. That's a toss up between the Nissan and The Aston and I confess I'm not sure which it is

Anyway, there's no reason a new GTR can't be super competitive, and hey if it's smaller, fine. If not, it's still another new car to enjoy on the grid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

A car doesn't have to be huge to be unique. The GTR is a great car, but it's getting long in the tooth and Nissan knows it. From the results of the recent races, it's becoming apparent that the cars based more on sportscars with the lower profile are doing better than the big body coupes.

Bentley almost won the Blancpain title last year, and could've won Bathurst was it not for poor strategy calls (the usual for M-Sport). The BMW was also ultra fast until they messed up the sand bagging in VLN.

Nissans problem is the car is old and the drivers, whilst great, are hitting their limits.

[TF110]

A lot of these cars rely on bop for their engine being positive to be really competitive. And it's usually the best squad (factory drivers) for those guys who are the competitive ones. They have a lot of different gt3 teams, but if you really want to be able to win without having factory drivers, you go to the Audi, Mercedes, Ferrari or Porsche. Even then, the Porsche wasn't doing so good for a while until they put out the new model. It's obvious to me that bop tries to equal the cars, but things like the Ferrari 458 and now 488 are going to do better than something like a GTR.

I'm not sure if people are thinking I'm against variety, but that's not what I'm getting at. Just that the cars are seemingly converging to a common formula.

[Matt]

I mean GT3 in itself is an entirely BoP category, so I don't know why you're saying they "rely" on it, as the entire category is driven by BoP...

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Matt

I mean GT3 in itself is an entirely BoP category, so I don't know why you're saying they "rely" on it, as the entire category is driven by BoP...

And so may it continue PLEASE!

GT3 is probably providing the most interesting racing in the world at the moment. Mixed cars, mixed drivers, mix of endurance and sprint racing, mixed circuit types.
Bop sure beats any known spec series.

[Ephaeton]

BoP sadly only gets you so far. This has been quite apparent at e.g. Bathurst. with cars clocking similar lap times, but with wildly different characteristics of how they achieve this time. Think last year, where the Audi was strong in the downforce section, but lost out on the straight; this year the same applied to the AMG. I think this is a general problem with trying to balance out cars that "don't belong" IMO: too big/too heavy cars for making the cornering that others get to. To balance these, they have to be given more straight line speed. Then it's all USCC DP vs. P2 again, racing-wise the generally handicapped models get a bonus. It's what I don't like about the GT4 in PWC as well. If you BoP these american style muscle cars (Mustang, e.g., or the Ford F250 super-duty I'm expecting to take part any time soon) they will, with competent teams, sniff up the small cars on the straights and not have them get past in the corners. I'd prefer if manufacturers brought more similar cars to the table so that BoP wouldn't split them into fast cornerers and fast straighters. Despite the parity achieved, IMO, they are not actually within the same class. There should be a "brick muscle car" category (within "GT3") and an "actually sports car" one (sorry for mirroring my opinion on these titles).

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

BoP sadly only gets you so far. This has been quite apparent at e.g. Bathurst. with cars clocking similar lap times, but with wildly different characteristics of how they achieve this time. .

You have just described almost exactly why the racing is so interesting. Different cars are dominant at different circuits, and different parts of the same circuit. It really great circuit, like Bathurst, thus produces racing that provides the best possible challenge.

I go back to my comment about spec. series racing, It may be tight wheel to wheel stuff but in the end it is not technically or strategically interesting.

Maybe I've just been fed too much V8 Taxis!

[Mechanic Z]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

It's what I don't like about the GT4 in PWC as well. If you BoP these american style muscle cars (Mustang, e.g., or the Ford F250 super-duty I'm expecting to take part any time soon) they will, with competent teams, sniff up the small cars on the straights and not have them get past in the corners.

For what it's worth, PWC will be running GTS to full GT4 specs this year (with exceptions like the Panoz which hasn't completed it's GT4 homologation yet). There will probably still be differences, but the BoP should be a bit easier. Also worth noting that a small car, Brett Sandberg's XBow took the GTS championship in '16.

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

You have just described almost exactly why the racing is so interesting. Different cars are dominant at different circuits, and different parts of the same circuit.

I get where you're coming from, but IMO it's inherently unfair: Consider Bathurst 2016: the Audi just cannot pass on the top of the mountain, but it can be easily passed along conrod. How is that good racing? The gods somehow have to put the Audi in front of the field so it can build a buffer along the mountain and lose it again on the bottom and up again. This did indeed happen for a whee few minutes during the race, but the majority was seeing a car that couldn't play its strength atop the mountain and had to let a gap evolve in the bottom.

It all boils down to where you're able to pass. I'd prefer things to be fairer.

[wdave0]

Another disadvantage the huge cars have is in tire and brake wear. Sure - extra power gets them lap times but for how long? This seems to slip under the BOP wire. Adds to the show though, more strategy is better at least in enduros (someone tell IMSA).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

I get where you're coming from, but IMO it's inherently unfair: Consider Bathurst 2016: the Audi just cannot pass on the top of the mountain, but it can be easily passed along conrod. How is that good racing? The gods somehow have to put the Audi in front of the field so it can build a buffer along the mountain and lose it again on the bottom and up again. This did indeed happen for a whee few minutes during the race, but the majority was seeing a car that couldn't play its strength atop the mountain and had to let a gap evolve in the bottom.

It all boils down to where you're able to pass. I'd prefer things to be fairer.

Funny, because ten years ago people ate this stuff up in racing. You'd go to a track and knew a certain car had the advantage, and you'd go to another and a different car would.

[Bcarr6]

So they reckon this will be running with a factory effort by the end of the year

Can't see it happening but never say never, apparently they have orders...



http://www.endurance-info.com/en/arr...before-racing/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

So they reckon this will be running with a factory effort by the end of the year

Can't see it happening but never say never, apparently they have orders...

Ah - things are becoming a bit clearer now. A while ago there was an Instagramm post from International GT-Open stating that they would have a factory team on the grid this year. I guess this is it, seeing how they can't race in any of the SRO-series due to a lack of proper GT3-homologation.

And actually, I can see this happening. It's actually a tube-frame car powered by a Chevy V8. Building something like that isn't massively complicated, cf. the Vortex from the 24h Series and other such creations.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

And actually, I can see this happening. It's actually a tube-frame car powered by a Chevy V8. Building something like that isn't massively complicated, cf. the Vortex from the 24h Series and other such creations.

Sounds like the return of Mosler

[StueyB83]

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

So they reckon this will be running with a factory effort by the end of the year

Can't see it happening but never say never, apparently they have orders...



http://www.endurance-info.com/en/arr...before-racing/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By the looks and sounds of things, it will be no different to the factory GT3 programs from the Ginetta G55, Chevron GR8 or Radical RXC GT3 before it. They are all tube framed race cars - and all Nationally Homologated as I would expect for this.

Leaves it with a fair amount of eligibility for national championships, although Blancpain is highly unlikely (GT Open and Creventic however, would accept).

[StueyB83]

Originally Posted by TF110

A lot of these cars rely on bop for their engine being positive to be really competitive.

I'm not sure if people are thinking I'm against variety, but that's not what I'm getting at. Just that the cars are seemingly converging to a common formula.

Your last point is a good reflection of the state of play in GT3. It has been around for more than 10 years now and wether it be from a guiding (read: influencing) hand from the FIA GT committee via regulation or just because lots of things have been tried and tested in GT3, a common pattern is emerging of Aero-reliance and high-level construction.

For instance - the SARENI Camaro is the most extreme example of putting all of your eggs in the engine power basket for making the lap time. It is quite heavy for a GT3, and only minor aerodynamics (has no flat floor) for turns. As a result, rubber life is limited (Tyre life is not BOP'ed) and makes the car uncompetitive over longer races because few operators managed to find a set-up that brought adequate tire life. I have spoken to one operator who found the car... disappointing.

During the early stages of GT3 and up until Blancpain took over GT1, many of the cars were built for true Gentleman drivers who had limited aerodynamic experience and just wanted an easy to set-up, drivable car.

The Aston Martin Vantage GT3 also has no flat floor but is notably very well balanced and easy to drive, but notice over time how unpopular they have become. You can still squeeze a great lap time out of one - even today - but over an endurance race the reliance on tyre life starts to hurt. Same for the Reiter Gallardo R-EX - no fully flat floor but a great steer in the right hands (and BOP for Power is more favorable than others.)
　
On the other end of the scale, the Audi R8 LMS has always been about aero and high speed turns, which appears to be the way forward as pretty much all new GT3 cars seemed to have focussed on having more extreme aero.

The GT-R sits in a bit of a mid ground in terms of Aero vs Power, I expect the next R35 GT3 evolution to be alot more extreme in either Aero, or modification of the chassis (notably the greater use of subframes and changes to the suspension layout) or both.

Bathurst is a bit of a bogey track with the same BOP set used at Monza and Macau, the latter of which Audi and Merc dominates. To be fair I think Bathurst requires its own BOP tweak where aero reliant cars get a bit of a higher ride height and extra weight, but also a bit more opening in the air restrictor for more power.
　

[Speed-King]

On the other end of the scale, the Audi R8 LMS has always been about aero and high speed turns, which appears to be the way forward as pretty much all new GT3 cars seemed to have focussed on having more extreme aero.

Didn't BMW just go in the completely opposite direction with the switch from the nimble Z4 to the humongous M6?