Multi-class Sportscar Racing

[joeb]

There has been a lot of talk recently about multi-class racing and how many classes make sense. Some races have a ton of classes (N24) and that works for them. Others have 2 classes, or 4 classes, or even 1 type of car with multiple sub categories.

So what do you think is the right number of classes to have in multi-class sportscar racing? Should there be multiple prototype and gt classes? Should there be one Proto and GT class in a series?

In the IMSA series there are 2 proto and 2 gt classes. Some team owners and drivers have complained that the format reduces interest in the series from fans and sponsors because it takes to long to explain. As fans we clearly get the distinction, but the mythical "casual fan" may not.

Marshall Pruett had some interesting thoughts on this subject on todays MWM. He said in previous 4 class iterations of IMSA that the "lower classes" new their place and would get out of the way of the top GT or Proto class cars, but today this seems to not be the case. Instead each class wants to protect its battles.

I personally enjoy the WEC format we currently have with 2 distinct prototype classes and one GT class that is separated into two bits. Although I wouldn't make GTE Pro and Am different classes rather just hand out separate points for the Am's within the class.

[deggis]

Less is more, so 2-3... two isn't possible because the current class structure is such a mess especially in TUSC. In WEC three classes would be realistic. I can't stand artificial separation into subclasses i.e. GT-Am just to placate few rich gentlemen.

[miatanut]

I think 3 is probably the ideal number, but 4 definitely works for me, and I think the status of racing these days is the "casual fan" watches NASCAR, or V8 Supercars, maybe F1, and the fanbase for sportscar racing is more knowledgable racing fans, who can handle 4 classes just fine.

[Spyderman]

3 would be ideal. 2 proto and 1 GT

[deggis]

Originally Posted by miatanut

and the fanbase for sportscar racing is more knowledgable racing fans, who can handle 4 classes just fine.

Knowledge is kind of negated by the (low) standard of broadcasting

[Ephaeton]

The right amount of classes for a series is the amount their average viewer can comprehend.
And each series gets the fan(s ?) it deserves.

Sometimes, e.g., when series merge, the comprehension of the average viewer changes, leading to complaints.

I say don't discuss the amount of classes in multi-class sportscar racing.
Do discuss how to get rid of the people who damaged your average viewer's comprehension.
Two, three and four classes aren't enough to keep my brain too busy for it to relax.
If you decide to cater to someone who cannot count to two or three, you get the customers you deserve, and a crowd I likely wouldn't want to be a part of.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

The right amount of classes for a series is the amount their average viewer can comprehend.
And each series gets the fan(s ?) it deserves.

Sometimes, e.g., when series merge, the comprehension of the average viewer changes, leading to complaints.

First of all, that's the most arrogant and condescending BS-argument I've come around here in a long time.

That being said: Understanding it really isn't the problem. Following it is. How often do we hear complaints about the TV coverage missing decisive events in the lower classes and only focussing on the front runners? (Rhetorical question). And that problem gets worse with each class that you add and it also is a problem for people at the track. I don't go to VLN races as often as I did in the past, but usually I give up on following class battles rather early on and simply focus on what's going on on top, with the lower classes simply turning into a part of the back drop for the battles of the leaders.

So for me it should be a two class structure... hand out an amateur trophy in each if you have to.

[Ephaeton]

I wasn't contesting the intellectual capability of the viewership to grasp the concept of what is happening on track, Speed-King.

[Deleted]

STRONGLY agree about saying big NO for artificial class separations, but as I've said before, I'm all in for as many classes as possible if they aid to decrease the amount of BoP and are for models that don't fit any other category.

For a GT-only series two class system is fine (Super GT, old FIA GT) and infinitely better than single class.

For multi P/GT series - which I do prefer - if I have to describe perfection it was
LMP1/900
LMP2/675
LMGT1/GTS
LMGT2/GT

Where
A) All categories were in every race
B) No artificial sub class separations
C) No restrictions for factories (okay P2 was sort of exception (outside NA) but it was still rather relaxed until the new cost cap pro-am formula)) and privateers run together with them for same trophies
D) No pro-am
E) Above all real differences between GT classes (high performance and medium performance) and there was a real GT 'ladder'.

For current situation I think my preference would still be this or something in that direction

[TzeiTzei]

For me the key question is can the tv broadcast tell the story of the race in each class. For example in TUSC, and mainly in the shorter races, I sometimes have difficult time following what's going on in each class. With four classes and the race being less than three hours and the broadcast being interrupted by a ridiculous amount of commercials, I just can't form a clear picture of what is happening. And quite frankly it leaves me annoyed after the race. Now entertainment shouldn't do that.

[jasonjessica09]

Good DSC column that pertains to the issue in this thread:

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2014/0...ng-at-vir.html

[Deleted]

Are there any SRO series left where you have more than one category (the artificial proam cups don't count)? British GT has GT4 yes but with them potentially separating it from GT3 it would go to single category races too.

Spa 24's change has been the most notable in the last five years

2014 - GT3*
2013 - GT3* & GT3 Cup
2012 - GT3* & GT3 Cup
2011 - GT3* & GT3 Cup & GT4
2010 - GT2 & GT3 & GT3 Cup & GT4
2009 - GT1 & GT2 & GT3 & GT3 Cup/NAT

*with artificial sub classes

[Fogelhund]

WEC really is five classes.

Under ideal circumstances, you would have two classes, one Proto, one GT, with Pro and Pro/Am so that everybody can win a trophy. I appreciate that it isn't feasible to do this.

There are two things that are truth in the history of North American Sportscar Racing.

1. Factory(Manufacturer) backed PRO racing, with factory brands has always been more popular than eras without. Can Am, IMSA GTP, IMSA GT, early Trans Am, ALMS vs Can Am II, WSC/PSCR, Grand Am.

2. Factory Prototypes have been more popular than Factory GT.


----------------------

Manufacturers are currently only interested in GT racing in North America. Unfortunately, it is that simple.

I wrote this in 2010 on the topic, very similar to what Horrocks wrote.

http://lastturnclub.com/index.php?op...=716&Itemid=51

[Deleted]

I love that quote from Voltaire.

[Maelochs]

I need to read more and think more about this before I go off on some wordy rant but: The Issues:

TV coverage is a big one. When joeb mentions Marshall Pruett talking about classes knowing their places ... That is how multi-multi-class racing works. No one much knows or cares about the 1-liter sedan class, unless something really exciting is happening, like the two leading cars catching fire and still going door-t--door for the lead around seven corners. Otherwise, they are merely mentioned in the hourly update.

In TUSC (and ALMS) even the slowest backmarker in the slowest spec Porsche class wanted TV time---and I can understand that it was impossible to get sponsorship without something to show the sponsor, like a chance of getting on TV for something other than crashing.

There is simply no way to Adequately and Fairly cover four classes in a sprint race unless it is a Really dull race (which is another issue and a problem.)

Even if a director has 18 screens and the ability of an NFL director to instantly select the best shot, and if the announcers were quick enough to follow every cut, in most races there are times when three important things are happening. Note---the NFL director can pick from 18 or so cameras because s/he really only has to follow the ball. If there were four balls on the field no one would be able to follow and NFL game.

With TV being an important revenue source (in that it attracts sponsors) a series' first priority should be putting out a good TV product. Bad TV, no fans, no money, not racing---talk to ALMS about that.

BoP: Another separate issue. BoP is like an invisible cancer which is eating competition from within and the really terrible effects aren't noticed until things reach a crisis---like racing no longer being a worthwhile sport.

This ties in to the Everyone Wants TV Time issue: Everybody wants a chance to win. This means uncompetitive cars and teams expect the rules to be rewritten to compensate for bad machinery and bad preparation.

On its face this sounds ridiculous, but in fact, it is exactly where we are.

I understand that factories cannot build street cars to be good bases for race cars any more, and that it is ever harder to justify the cost of racing to Board of Directors, but really, every car which wins is the latest car to get too big a BoP break. Development and practice mean nothing--lobbying is all we are really seeing.

I love Risi, but why are they winning two in a row all of a sudden? Why is Viper suddenly up front? What happened to Corvette? Unfortunately none of it has anything to do with the cars or teams.

Can more classes fix this? NO. If a Viper and a Vette aren't in the same class, what cars would be? All the same make just different colors?

The only way BoP works is if it is set by multiple independent drivers in multiple tests on multiple tracks once a year, and then teams can gain or lose by developing and practicing, or failing to. Thing is, that would be really time-consuming and expensive, and after all racing is just another reality show with a bigger set. All that really matters to the series is revenue, not racing.

Finally, what fan is the series trying to reach? IndyCar has one class, (in fact, one car) and is struggling (upwards, but still struggling.) NASCAR has one cart, and is flourishing. WEC seems to be doing okay, and it has essentially three proto and two GT classes--but longer races.

It would seem there are many types of motorsports fans out there. Maybe the only reasonably accurate generalization would be that none of them want to see a race presented badly---like say, most TUSC races have been.

I seems to me that if a "casual" viewer cannot see Some value in a broadcast just turning it on and watching, the broadcast really isn't very good. I know I have watched a lot of sports for the first time--rugby, Aussie football, European handball, Lots of sports---and had to figure out the rules and even the point of the game as I went along (and I still don't know most of them.) If there was enough action on screen and the announcers could explain why I was watching that action, I didn't need to read the rulebook to watch the sport.

I didn't even need a Dumb Beginner's Guide to explain the scoring--in time I can pick up on (or research) that stuff----IF the action is sufficiently compelling to keep me watching in the first place.

Part of the action being compelling is Context. Most sports don't feature jump cuts to different parts of the field---there is some longer narrative which links the individual scenes and guides the direction.

Racing directors seem to be clueless---I can point out so many examples when the poor announcers are describing a tense battle, only to have the director cut away just before the climax, because the was no overtake: i.e "No Action."

I can point out many instances where the announcers are scrambling trying to describe what's on screen because the director cut away at a stupid time (does s/he even have an audio feed?) and the announcers Cannot simple Describe what's on screen---they need to establish Context, i.e. Why we are seeing this shot and how does it fit into the race overall. Before the announcers can even figure out all that, the director has cut away to something else worthless.

Basically, the announcers cannot give a fan enough information to understand the sport enough to want to understand it better because the director is too busy following a cue sheet of commercials, infomercials, and has no understanding of racing as a sport or race fans as viewers.

Fans can understand ridiculously complicated sports If the sport is presented so that it is interesting enough to be worth understanding. And a four-class race isn't that hard to follow---given either enough time (more than 100 minutes of airtime in a 2:45 race) Or given a director who is free to say "The real race is the overall race" or "Let's follow the best battle on track for a few minutes and see what happens."

If the director is constrained to show X minutes of each class, plus XX minutes of filler, and is afraid to show two cars which aren't either overtaking or colliding ... then one class is too much.

With the commercial pressures which drive BoP, infomercials, and spastic coverage to ensure that everyone gets enough TV time regardless of what the race is doing, the question isn't "How many classes is best" but rather "How can Hyper-Managed Compe-tainment appeal to fans of real racing" and the answer is, "It cannot."

What we really want is racing. What we are getting is "race-based entertainment product"--the "pink slime" of sports TV.

Okay, I need to think about this for a while before I have anything to say.

[Skemer]

I can instantly give you my definitive answer to this question.The sole reason i got hooked to this type of racing (Le Mans,ALMS,ELMS and WEC and TUSCC) is the multiple classes.This would translate to at least 4 in my opinion,given there are enough entries ofcourse.If you ditch any classes i start to loose interest because of the simple fact that it will be less demanding for the teams to manage the race and for the drivers to put in a decent stint.It is absolutely enthralling to watch the cars in all classes manage the traffic and trying to be as fast and efficient as possible.

And btw,this is the only racing i watch and enjoy the rest gives me no satisfaction whatsoever.

[andy97]

I suspect the truth of the matter is that Sportscar racing in general needs multiple classes for economic reasons. No one class seems to be able to fill a grid on its own therefore you need as many classes as you think you can get away with to provide sufficient entry for the series/ race to be viable.

[seanyb505]

Maelochs I think you hit the nail on the head by calling out the director as one of the main contributing factors of multi class racing perceived as hard to follow. It's a tough position to be in, and the performance we get is the result of enough people lobbying for their own best interest, not the series.

For example, if you took to vote whether we should pay taxes or not, the majority would vote no taxes, and the minority would realize why we need them and vote yes. Unfortunately the majority wins, and society crumbles with no infrastructure.

I can't help but read Shank interview in this perspective. Less classes (therefore less battles for the lead position) so he has more TV time. Great for him, great for sponsors, easier for Mr. Director to follow the Shank car. Fans become disinterested (see Grand AM) and the series runs on life support for years to come and Shank wonders why 2014 had such an increase in fan attendance but then plummeted.

Unfortunately we've passed the point where we can tell teams that if they want more TV time, be a better team. Improve your car, team, tires, driver, whatever. They shouldn't enjoy the same viewership as the teams that do well. I believe we're not likely to see this environment for many, many years.

Multi class racing for me puts into perspective the engineering present in the top class of proto/GT. Sure, R18 is a fast car, I didn't need to see it be faster than a 911 to know that. Having it blow past a P2 at any place on the track really emphasizes how quick it really is.

ALMS five classes was too many because they were trying to fit PC in a small hole to bolster grid sizes. ALMS + ILMC 47 classes was too many. Four classes should allow manufacturers and privateers to race whichever category they want. As the WEC is pointing out, even the top privateer team has no hope of competing against factories for either proto or GT class wins at every race. Why would we expect a GTD back marker privateer to go up against Fehan and crew? See LG Motorsports for an example.

Reducing to 2 classes effectively tells manufacturers or privateers to go suck an egg. If you're directing this egg sucking request at factories, series loses interest among fans, and again, Shank will wonder what's the deal with attendance. Failure of Grand AM proportions. If alienating the privateers is the aim, costs go crazy to remain competitive, grid sizes shrink, and Shank complains he has to spend more money to be a player in the top class. Failure of ALMS proportions.

Four classes done well allows everybody to play in which ever kind of car they want to play in.

We've seen a series that
A.) Has two classes
B.) Decided what the rest of the world was doing wasn't the American way and came up with their own classes.
C.) Built off a race commonly viewed as the pinnacle of sports cars and flourished because of it.
D.) Run into the ground despite it's globally respected status.

If all you care about is sports car racing in NA and screw everyone else, you'll lose interest. TUSC and friends need to take the good from both ways of thinking (Mostly ACO based classes for factories and privateers, marketing and media buying power IMO) to make something decent. The Shank interviews strike me as incredibly ignorant. I probably am too, but this guy continually complains and lobbies against the very things that are causing the increase in attendance he praises so much.

[jasonjessica09]

I predict by 2017 that IMSA will cut it to three classes. LMP2, GTLM, and GT3. One thing there does not need to be is a pro-am prototype category. There was not one before LMPC came around in 2010.

TV is driving a lot of this. No doubt in my mind it drove the 2015 schedule. The LMPC team owners whined that they were not on TV so they wanted IMSA to make the schedule for 2015 changed of course. Funny they were the only class of team owners who were complaining. Acting that its their right to be on broadcast TV. Perhaps it is because a race with just DP/LMP2, GTLM, and GTD cars still can attract an audience but LMPC can't. What did Fox sports decide to broadcast live: the GT race.

I liked the all GT race but I don't agree with EVERY race being that. 3-4 of them a year? Yes for sure. I liked the P/GTLM format as well. And the NAEC races obviously can have everybody together.

[Speed-King]

The Shank interviews strike me as incredibly ignorant.

It's hard to see the big picture when you're up to your neck in trouble...

I don't think Shank is ignorant, the problem - should it be one - is that he isn't your classic millionaire owner, but rather a businessman whose only business is his racing team. That means that unless there is a big plus under his bottom line, he (and everybody who is working for him) are in deep trouble. Now Mike knows how much he can ask a pay-driver to pay for a seat in a P-car, and he knows that all additional expenses will have to be passed on to those pay-drivers for Mike's bottom line to make sense. If he has to spend more money than paydrivers are willing to pay, he's in hot water real quick.

And BTW, Shank was just fine with being a small fish in a big pond during the heyday of the DP-class back in 2006/07 with 25+ cars showing up for every race. Back then they rarely managed to take the fight to Ganassi, Gainsco, Taylor, Krohn or AJR, but his bottom line worked out, because the money he had to spend and the ammount that he could ask paydrivers to pay were in some state of balance. And that's really all he's asking for while IMSA just keeps on piling up the additional cost. I'd be beefed off too, if I was him.

[seanyb505]

There's no doubt I don't know the whole picture. In my professional spectator opinion, his suggestions may help him financially short term, but spell disaster for the series long term.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

ALMS + ILMC 47 classes was too many.

No.

If we talk purely about the integration part:

ALMS+ILMC was well executed!
1) LMP1
2) LMP2
3) LMPC
4) GT
5) LMGTE-AM
6) GTC (with pre-quali for Petit ie grid capped for capacity reasons = wise)

ALMS+WEC was when they got selfish and it went crap
1) LMP1 WEC
2) LMP1 ALMS
3) LMP2 WEC
4) LMP2 ALMS
5) LMPC
6) LMGTE-PRO
7) LMGTE-AM
8) GT
9) GTC
10) LMP1 WEC privateers sub class (If you count it)

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by jasonjessica09

One thing there does not need to be is a pro-am prototype category. There was not one before LMPC came around in 2010.

P-2, since it's inception was the defacto pro/am prototype class (until P-1 went away in/for the ALMS .... TUSC) with a few exceptions.








L.P.

[Deleted]

Now while mr Shank might bit of I found this old article from 2007 where no other than Penske is calling four classes far too confusing
http://www.crash.net/alms/news/13401...re-a-pain.html

His "logic" is like carbon copy of Shank's NASCAR-minded ideology

"-- We're in America and people want to see racing. I'm not sure people understand all these classes"

"-- I'm of the mind that we need to have one pure prototype class and one for coupes like the Corvettes and Porsches and Aston Martins"

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

P-2, since it's inception was the defacto pro/am prototype class (until P-1 went away in/for the ALMS .... TUSC) with a few exceptions.

L.P.

No it wasn't, there were no driver restrictions in old LMP2.

And certainly in old ALMS no team/manufacturer restrictions...

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

There's no doubt I don't know the whole picture. In my professional spectator opinion, his suggestions may help him financially short term, but spell disaster for the series long term.

I don't necessarily disagree, though at the same time I think of Shank and Baron (i.e. the guys for whom racing is their livelihood, not just another tax write-off) as the canary in the coal mine... if racing in the P-class doesn't make sense for them financially, something is seriously wrong with the cost structure of the class. Which is also detrimental to the growth potential of the class as a whole. After all, how many Mr. Browns and Nicolet's are there? Surely not as many as entrepreneurs like Shank and Baron.

Also, to tie in with my earlier post and the topic of this thread: There are (IMHO) two reasons why Shank is advocating a two-class structure and both are related to his chances of selling rides:
1) more potential TV-time (duh)
2) Fewer classes means bigger classes and that's good for the rent-a-ride-guys like Shank and Baron. Right now Shank is one of very few small fish in a shark tank. Back in the good Grand Am days, the sharks were slightly smaller and there were plenty of small fish. To translate that: Right now, all that Shank can offer his renters is a top 5 finish on a good day. In a class with 10 cars, that's not very attractive. Make it a 20 car class and suddenly a top-5 or even a top-10 doesn't sound all that bad anymore... Sharks at the top or not.