FIA/ACO to create universal GT class

[Maelochs]

Yes, very hard--but that is the job the series officials have signed up for. Heart surgery is hard too, but my doctor didn't use that as an excuse to do a shoddy job. FIA officials need to step up or step down.

Probably there needs to be three general levels of BOP--sort of supercar, sports car, and sports economy--with only very tiny adjustments made once the basics are met---sort of, the Lambo and R8 get so much ballast, skinny tires, small restrictors, the Vette and Porsche a little more tire and bigger restrictor, and the Camaro gets the lowest weight, most rubber, and most power.

Build to a sub-class limit and then run what you brung, with what we now call "BOP"--the sort of between-race fine-tuning--kept to a minimum.

Who knows? I am not an FIA official, but the people who are need to do the job they are paid to do and make this work.

[urdragon]

Sorry I though both of you talk about a spec platform of regulations PRE-Built for such a huge quantity of different cars, i support the idea that the BoP should be more transparent so unfair modifications can't take place, the idea of a more complex but accurate BoP its a good idea for me.

[Mr Pink]

I meant they way you thought at first. I think with stats from recent years and enough time for a lot of competent people, it's possible to write regulations where you don't have to have a lot of BoP.

I think these regs would have to be quite open in order to allow a slower base car to be modified enough too keep up with faster base cars. Also I would evaluate the impact by weight, power and tire width on lap times and then set minimum weights for different engine sizes etc.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Probably there needs to be three general levels of BOP--sort of supercar, sports car, and sports economy--with only very tiny adjustments made once the basics are met---sort of, the Lambo and R8 get so much ballast, skinny tires, small restrictors, the Vette and Porsche a little more tire and bigger restrictor, and the Camaro gets the lowest weight, most rubber, and most power.

I like the idea of loosely based on supercar, sports car, and sports economy, but why try to equalize them? Why not just let them run to their natural speed and have three different levels? The Porsche 911 & 914 weren't competing with each other. No reason for the Porsche 911 and Miata to compete with each other.

Yeah, the closing speed between a prototype and a Miata would be staggering, but the solution to that is to not let drivers who shouldn't be driving prototypes drive prototypes.

Maybe the sports economies are just too slow and shouldn't be a part of that formula, but supercar and sports car should be.

[TF110]

Give them set rules. Car based on a production model. Max width. Minimum height etc. Production based engine with limited upgrades. Minimum 1200kg. Set aero pieces like diveplanes at a max dimension. Its not rocket science.

[Maelochs]

Couple of things--shouldn't be more than two pages ...

First off, creating three or four different classes just in GT3 makes the race impossible to follow. Five classes is bad enough.

When there was a GTO and GTU class, there was just those two GT classes (yes, I know Ler Mans used to have cars down to a liter and below, but the concept of learning and improvement took over. Cars don’t have wooden-spoke wheels any more, either.)

I’d say four is the max number of classes that a fan can follow (except for diehards) and also possibly more than the max that the TV crew can report on—particularly in a three-hour race. On Huge advantage Rolex has on TV is that the director only has to explain two classes of competition; s/he doesn’t have to try to find, follow and explain four or five classes in what amounts to 10 to 20 minutes of screen time per class.

One thing that helped kill ALMS’ TV product was the disjointed nature of the coverage—dozens of unconnected vignettes with no overarching narrative. “Here’s these two cars. Here’s these three other completely unrelated cars in a different class. Here’s your race leader all alone. Here’s our contracted time with the different GTC cars, all of which need screen time for sponsorship. Here’s our next infomercial, and there’s the checkered flag, What a race!”

Also, BOP isn’t rocket science but it is very complex. (What’s so big about rocket science anyway? Didn’t you ever shoot off any Estes rockets as a kid? Bottle rockets?)

Naturally better racing designs like the R8 and 458 would win all the time without BOP, which would mean either a dull two-make class or a broke and out-of-business class. Would we really want to see Corvette, Viper, Aston Martin, Mercedes pull out because they have no chance to win without BOP? And forget the Camaros.

Every car which enters wants a chance to win. But some cars are simply not built to compete with each other on a racetrack, or even in the marketplace.

As for giving them max dimensions and min weight, the problem gets to be cost. Getting a 458 to 1200 kg might not be a stretch, but how much carbon fiber is needed to get the Aston there? And what does “Car based on a production model.” even mean?

The old 935s were “based on production models;” they even used the stock floor and roof, thought the floor was cut out so the frame could be dropped and the roof was underneath a more aerodynamic second roof.

How much suspension rebuilding is allowed? I really don’t see a Camaro keeping up with a Corvette without a lot of help (or hindrance for the Vette) and as far as dive planes and wings, great, but again cars that were slipperier with less drag right out of the showroom would have a gigantic advantage.

What I’d like to see is regs designed to keep different classes of cars within certain performance limits, which could be fine-tuned (hopefully) more easily and with less heavy-handedness (maybe twice-a-year test sessions with a pair of drivers provided by the series to establish baselines, and twice-a-year updates if needed, or something.)

The idea (well, My idea) is that as wide a variety of cars as possible should be able to reach the podium without the rules completely squelching the efforts of individual teams to make their cars better. Even if one team just does a better job every time and wins every race, ift all the cars are within a tenth at the baseline tests, for instance, then that would be success.

Dang, barely 600 words ... I am losing it in my old age.

[miatanut]

As it is now, the winner is the one who plays politics the best. Why not just let the cars that leave the showroom as better race cars win? In the old days that meant a slew of 911's, which was just fine.

[TF110]

Car based on production model... Corvette is a Corvette, Z4 is a Z4?... If you write the rules to allow makers to use the car but say things like production based engine, its close to gt3 currently. About the weight, it must not be too much to get Aston Martin's at 1200kg when you see Bentleys under 1300kg which is almost half the street car! GT3 has a decent structure, but they could go a little further in allowing things like Carbon brakes and a little more technical freedom.

[gucom]

I've proposed this a long time ago in an earlier thread, but I'll repeat myself here: how about starting with full balance of performance, but then award those manufacturers whose base cars are just sportier / more suited for racing.

This would be done by having a list of parts that may be changed from the road car (engine mounts, other engine parts, suspension parts, whatever is typically changed on a GT3 car), and give each car a 5kg weight break for each part on the list that they keep in road car spec. Then all the cars would be in the same ballpark, but the manufacturers who build better road cars are still rewarded.

[Simmi]

There we go then - FIA Council announces creation of new GT and GT+ classes for 2016 replacing the current GTE and GT3 cars.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Simmi

There we go then - FIA Council announces creation of new GT and GT+ classes for 2016 replacing the current GTE and GT3 cars.

Yep.

"GT
The principles of the convergence between the current GTE cars (Le Mans) and the FIA GT3 have been commonly defined by the FIA and ACO and agreed by all the GT manufacturers. The aim is to present the new GT Technical Regulations, based on new categories (GT+ and GT), at the WMSC in June 2014 for implementation in 2016."

http://www.fia.com/news/world-motor-sport-council-2





L.P.

[Beetle]

Originally Posted by Simmi

There we go then - FIA Council announces creation of new GT and GT+ classes for 2016 replacing the current GTE and GT3 cars.

Excellent! Merging is almost always a good idea. The only danger is putting all of your eggs in one basket, and if that basket... breaks?... it could pose a dire situation for everyone involved.

Another worry that is quite a nice one to have: the entry count. With the combination of WEC manufacturers Chevrolet, Ferrari, Aston Martin, Acura, (in 2015/2016) and Porsche merging with GT3 manufacturers BMW, Audi, Bentley, McLaren, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Lamborghini, Jaguar, Ford, SRT, etc, will the priority systems to get into events like Le Mans have to become more strict? Because surely this announcement is the catalyst for USCC (and AsLMS) teams to prepare their GT3 equipment for the move in 2016. Essentially, looking through my crystal ball, I see this: up to 100 entries in GT+ and GT. The entry count we're seeing in FIA GT, Blancpain Endurance, GT Open, etc prove that. Of course, this is over two years away, so perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself.

[Mt. Lynx]

Le Mans is really a non-issue. Teams earn their spots there, with following invitations.

I think the idea is quite good, but I do feel the need to raise a warning finger. The proposed GT+ has an initial risk of being over crowded, at the expense of the GT class, wich may go the same way GT4 did. That would in turn mean that GT+ will go down ye olde well trodden GT1 path, and perish under its own costs.

Of course there is always hope that they actually thought this one through (and I think they did), and have GT as a customer class, and GT+ as a pure factory driven class.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Simmi

There we go then - FIA Council announces creation of new GT and GT+ classes for 2016 replacing the current GTE and GT3 cars.

How much thought was put into the names? Specifically GT+?

[Simmi]

Originally Posted by Beetle

Excellent! Merging is almost always a good idea. The only danger is putting all of your eggs in one basket, and if that basket... breaks?... it could pose a dire situation for everyone involved.

Another worry that is quite a nice one to have: the entry count. With the combination of WEC manufacturers Chevrolet, Ferrari, Aston Martin, Acura, (in 2015/2016) and Porsche merging with GT3 manufacturers BMW, Audi, Bentley, McLaren, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Lamborghini, Jaguar, Ford, SRT, etc, will the priority systems to get into events like Le Mans have to become more strict? Because surely this announcement is the catalyst for USCC (and AsLMS) teams to prepare their GT3 equipment for the move in 2016. Essentially, looking through my crystal ball, I see this: up to 100 entries in GT+ and GT. The entry count we're seeing in FIA GT, Blancpain Endurance, GT Open, etc prove that. Of course, this is over two years away, so perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself.

Will be interesting to see when the times comes what different series do in terms of running which classes. It might not be that much different than now.

Fundamentally a race like Le Mans will still only let the elite GT+ cars in. Will every manufacturer offer to up their car specs from GT to GT+?

It would appear to open up a whole host of options, but I'm still not 100% sure how it will work.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Simmi

Will be interesting to see when the times comes what different series do in terms of running which classes. It might not be that much different than now.

Fundamentally a race like Le Mans will still only let the elite GT+ cars in. Will every manufacturer offer to up their car specs from GT to GT+?

It would appear to open up a whole host of options, but I'm still not 100% sure how it will work.

GT+ for Pro, GT for Am?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Simmi

Will be interesting to see when the times comes what different series do in terms of running which classes. It might not be that much different than now.

Fundamentally a race like Le Mans will still only let the elite GT+ cars in. Will every manufacturer offer to up their car specs from GT to GT+?

It would appear to open up a whole host of options, but I'm still not 100% sure how it will work.

Why would they only let in the top class of GT+? They have and still allow both GTE PRO and PRO/AM class before that GT1 & GT2........




L.P.

[Mt. Lynx]

I suspect that the PRO, PRO/AM, AM stuff will remain as is in both GT+ and GT. I also suspect that the names are only working titles...

[Simmi]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Why would they only let in the top class of GT+? They have and still allow both GTE PRO and PRO/AM class before that GT1 & GT2........

Why do they only let in the top class now?

It could be that GT-Am houses the older GTE cars for a final year before effectively doing the same thing as it does now with year-old GT+ machinery.

I have no idea what will happen, but seen as next to nothing has been announced it's not right to just assume you'll have GT+ and GT at LM and WEC level.

[TF110]

Im more interested in the technical side. This should be good to let the cars gain a little more freedom I hope. Things like the GTE Z4 with the engine from another bmw and excessive width compared to the road car. Just hope things like that are gone. I'm sure some gt3 style ruling in that sense wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[Pandamasque]

I hope they open up the engine regulations to allow more variety. Current GTE engine restrictions are nothing but a rudiment from GT2 regs that implied co-existence with GT1.

[deggis]

The class names make perfect sense if the GT+ is really what it says, GT 'plus something'. I am also thinking some kind of a Am/Pro-factory split, still the base regulations being the same for both, but GT (non-plus) being the more stripped down version. Lots of things that do not need different car design (a la GT3 => GTE now) can be regulated to lower costs.

[Koenigsegg]

I expect that GT+ will allow hybrids, so the Acura NSX can join. Won't surprise me if we will already see the NSX in USCC in 2015. GT+ will probably be the pro class at Le Mans and in other sports car racing and GT the pro-am class.

[Danske]

Somewhere I read that GT+ was intended for the factories. (Presumably to give them the developmental freedom they want and then to complain that freedom costs too much.)

[Mechanic Z]

Originally Posted by Koenigsegg

I expect that GT+ will allow hybrids, so the Acura NSX can join. Won't surprise me if we will already see the NSX in USCC in 2015. GT+ will probably be the pro class at Le Mans and in other sports car racing and GT the pro-am class.

GT+ being Pro, and GT being Pro/Am must happen, in order to protect GT+ from losing the Pro team entries, and to protect GT from factory teams dropping a class and dominating.