ALMS List of Waivers/non compliant specs

sil350 · 15 Jul 2011, 17:57 (Ref:2927158)

Hi all. I've been a huge ALMS fan since my first race in 2001 at Sears Point. I have been a long time reader of these forums. thanks for all the info and help. My question is does anyone know where to find a listing of all the waivers granted to each team, mainly GT?? I know every car is running with waivers from IMSA but I just wanted to read over them and see what cars are running out of "class spec" and by how much. thanks!!

Fogelhund · 15 Jul 2011, 18:05 (Ref:2927159)

Enjoy

http://www.imsaracing.net/newpage2a....xnewalms-c.cfm

Duff_44 · 15 Jul 2011, 22:09 (Ref:2927236)

I think sil350 meant the GT homologation waivers, which would be contained on the ACO homologation form itself. Those aren't public information AFAIK... although I'm willing to be proven wrong.

That said, the IMSA BOP adjustments are still interesting to poke through even if they don't give the full picture.

broadrun96 · 16 Jul 2011, 01:28 (Ref:2927288)

I though the ACO was gong to release the list of waivers before LM this year gut i never heard anything last month. Did they back off releasing them?

Audi Racer · 16 Jul 2011, 04:50 (Ref:2927314)

unfortunately unless you are close with someon in the ACO we will never know the homologation waivers......those are classified as technical secretss i think...which is why we the public don't have access.

DistortedSmile · 16 Jul 2011, 09:33 (Ref:2927351)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sil350

Hi all. I've been a huge ALMS fan since my first race in 2001 at Sears Point. I have been a long time reader of these forums. thanks for all the info and help. My question is does anyone know where to find a listing of all the waivers granted to each team, mainly GT?? I know every car is running with waivers from IMSA but I just wanted to read over them and see what cars are running out of "class spec" and by how much. thanks!!

As has been said, I don't believe this is public knowledge, there are some obvious cases though, like when Maserati brought the MC12, that car was BOP'd to hell and back IIRC, as people everywhere panicked at the sight of it and seemed to think it was Maserati's attempt to pull a 911 GT1 and start a new ''Are you sure that's a road car?'' era in GT1.

Going a bit off-topic here, but looking back: Would it really have been so bad to go with the homologation specials route in GT1? I mean the class ended up dying anyway and the homologation specials resulted in IMHO, some of the best looking cars to run in Le Mans.

sil350 · 16 Jul 2011, 18:02 (Ref:2927462)

thanks everyone. It seems the information Im looking for is NOT public knowledge. It just seems totally unfair for the BMW M3 GT to be able to get a waiver after having its engine moved back over a foot and its transmission relocated to the back. The M3 street car and race car are totally different. This as well as other changes are in the face of the "spirit" of was GT racing is supposed to be. right? anyone else know major discrepancies between the road and race versions of any other GT cars. thanks!! btw, im not flaming BMW just using it as an example

Audi Racer · 16 Jul 2011, 19:34 (Ref:2927478)

Does this matter? If the car was illegal the ACO wouldnt let it race. Doesnt matter what we think.Its the ACO that lets it race.They can do whatever they want. Theirs no "spir"Badger vs Brielga"......"frontsplitter/diffuser". EVreyone lieks to talk like they are in the know...All the cars a rumoured to have waivers and not have waivers its all hearsay..because that information is confidential..

BMw is the only one that has made their waivers pretty public(from the specs on bmw motorsport website)compared to the M3 roadcar specs....

Theres no hiding that the M3 is not the ideal GT racer...BMW's knows that...If mario theissen ran the place their would be no such thing as a 4 door BMW or a hatchback...itd be all supercars...but he doesnt run the place.

This is hardly an issue considering the discrepancy between Diesel and Petrol in the proto class.

NightStalk3r · 16 Jul 2011, 20:51 (Ref:2927509)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Does this matter? If the car was illegal the ACO wouldnt let it race.

Thats the thing, acording to the regulations it is illegal, but the ACO dont seem to stick to there own regulations, they just give everyone waivers.

Audi Racer · 16 Jul 2011, 23:39 (Ref:2927544)

And what is our business in what the ACO decides is illegal and legal?

in addition the "Rules" say WAivers can be granted........so actually the rules say the car is legal....

thats not even the point...it races so it's legal..done deal lol

dont you think that if the "illegalness" of the M3 was as big as you think it is that the other teams wouldnt complain about that publically as to the reason the M3 has won the first 3 rounds??

You guys seem to be more against the M3 than FLying lizard motors or corvette motrosport lol...

seriously..its good racing....thats the only thing a viewer should care about...if your watching the race and mumbling about the illegal things on an M3 your not enjoying the race....You can have your thoughts but putting it out in forums constantly just seems like flaming considering the car is legal by the ACO. Bmw doesnt care if you think their car is illegal...lets face it.

Peoepl only complain about a car being illegal becasue it is winning.

Pandamasque · 17 Jul 2011, 05:54 (Ref:2927580)

@Audi Racer
Close racing is nice, I agree. But then manufacturers look at how illegal cars are not only allowed to take part but even dominate, and and don't bother developing the next car to the GTE regs. Just get a waiver and BoP will do the rest. As a result the series becomes completely regulated by BoP and then any success is devalued.

I'm not against waivers, but any car that's not 100% compliant should be slowed down to be on pace with the slowest reg-compliant car in the class or slower. No BoP should be applied to reg-compliant cars.

Spyderman · 17 Jul 2011, 06:35 (Ref:2927593)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

@Audi Racer
Close racing is nice, I agree. But then manufacturers look at how illegal cars are not only allowed to take part but even dominate, and and don't bother developing the next car to the GTE regs. Just get a waiver and BoP will do the rest. As a result the series becomes completely regulated by BoP and then any success is devalued.

I'm not against waivers, but any car that's not 100% compliant should be slowed down to be on pace with the slowest reg-compliant car in the class or slower. No BoP should be applied to reg-compliant cars.

sil350 · 17 Jul 2011, 08:02 (Ref:2927614)

Audi Racer: i think this went wrong. I only called out the M3 because it is an easy target(everyone knows the engine is nowhere near its stock location- just look at the relocated dash and driver seat of the GT car) i could have just as easily called out Corvette Racing for running a 5.5L engine when no 5.5L engine exists at GM and only 6.2L engines are offered in the Corvettes. i was simply looking for this type of information. Major infractions of the rule book that had to be "Waivered" before a car could claim compliance. thx

Audi Racer · 17 Jul 2011, 10:41 (Ref:2927681)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sil350

Audi Racer: i think this went wrong. I only called out the M3 because it is an easy target(everyone knows the engine is nowhere near its stock location- just look at the relocated dash and driver seat of the GT car) i could have just as easily called out Corvette Racing for running a 5.5L engine when no 5.5L engine exists at GM and only 6.2L engines are offered in the Corvettes. i was simply looking for this type of information. Major infractions of the rule book that had to be "Waivered" before a car could claim compliance. thx

The chassis has not been alter to move the engine...They moved the the engine....and as of 2011 the engine movement is perfectly legal for cars porduce in volume of over 2500. (like the M3)

The relocated dash and driver seat have arent related where the engine is mounted.....The firewall is still in the same place..meaning the engine didnt not breach the cockpit area...

in addition,GT2 rules says 5.5litre displacement or less...Thats why the Vettes had to switch to the 5.5liter.

Calling out an easy target. thats low

MitchZ06 · 17 Jul 2011, 10:51 (Ref:2927683)

You sure they didn't have to modify the chassis? In a normal car moving the engine back would require moving the firewall and cutting the transmission housing to move it backwards, moving the firewall would require the dash and seat be moved backwards too kinda like a domino effect...

arakis · 17 Jul 2011, 20:44 (Ref:2927817)

enough with the BMW bs, the car is gonne next year, and the only thing it will have won is 2 ALMS...... who bloody cares, they will forever be known as the cheaters they are and were even with the e46 M3 when they used M5 engine in it..... as long as Ferrari and Porsche and Corvette stay in we are gonna get real excitin close action.... actualy Ferrari and Porsche can carry the class as they built it anyways..

PS. Audi Racer there is something known as, but rearly mentioned, it is the Spirit of the rules, and the BMW simply does not honer it. and it will always have a huge negative when they try to pass their M3 in the same class as ferrari porsche or corvette, let them built a real portscar like Audi did with the r8 and everyone will be more then happy to welcome them.

Audi Racer · 17 Jul 2011, 22:17 (Ref:2927853)

Quote:

Originally Posted by arakis

PS. Audi Racer there is something known as, but rearly mentioned, it is the Spirit of the rules, and the BMW simply does not honer it.

i agree to end the BMW banter. The BMW isn't spirity. But if your talking about "spirit of the rules"....then BMW is the least of your problems....Look at Audi and Peugeot in P1....The old Porsche RS Spyder and the Acura Arx-01b as well...weren't very spirity either. lol. spirity is definetly not a word.

MitchZ06 · 18 Jul 2011, 00:20 (Ref:2927890)

He didn't say spirity did he?

How is what Audi and Peugeot doing against the spirit of the rules? They've built a new car every few years to the letter of the rules and they really only win because they can spend more on R&D than the privateer teams.

chernaudi · 18 Jul 2011, 18:35 (Ref:2928206)

It's like what they used to say in NASCAR and other forms of racing, "if you're not cheatin', you're not tryin'".

Basically, if you're not bending the rules to were they start to break, you're not trying as hard as maybe you should.

How many times have we seen teams try something that ends up being banned/restricted after a race or season's end that was legal at the time because it was in a gray area? Penske and Hendrick in NASCAR at Dover a few years ago ran some trick shocks that took advantage of a NASCAR gray area, that NASCAR said were legal at the time of the race, but were declared to be illegal for the following race.

And the original Audi R15 had its front end designed to take advantage of an ACO gray area, which the ACO tightened up for 2010.

Waivers are balance of performance tools to allow production based cars of all price and spec to compete on equal terms: A base Corvette cost about $50 grand, a base Porsche 911, about $65-70k, and a Ferrari 458, about $170+. The Corvette ZR-1 is about $80-90 thousand, if not more, a Porsche 911 GT3, about as much depending on the version of that car, and a track day 458 (if one is even out), will cost more than the road car for sure.

Waivers/BoP are intended to keep factory teams (or anyone with the money and will) from building prototypes for the road that have little relevance to the road car from which their supposidly derrived (read: homogation specials), and save private teams some money. Those are the main motivations behind these waivers, as well as the fact that for safety and competitive reasons, the rules makers do allow for some leeway, again for BoP reasons.

Audi Racer · 18 Jul 2011, 20:48 (Ref:2928258)

exactly.....and if your sticking to the "spirit of the rules" your not doing your job as a designer and deserve to be fired. Gray areas are your friend. Your job as a designer is to do anything it takes to win. Thats why they race....to win....you dont intentionally build a slow car...you build a fast one and win.(thats exactly what BMW have done......it would be pure stupidity to race an M3).......you guys should stop seeing things in black and white....that doesnt get you very far....although it might keep you out of jail...

Pandamasque · 19 Jul 2011, 06:35 (Ref:2928404)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

exactly.....and if your sticking to the "spirit of the rules" your not doing your job as a designer and deserve to be fired. Gray areas are your friend.

Waivers have nothing to do with grey areas and ingenuity of design. It's all about politics. It's about negotiating to complete a homologation of a blatantly illegal car. Exploiting grey areas wouldn't require any waivers.

sil350 · 6 Aug 2011, 15:58 (Ref:2936465)

Does anyone know the current weight and restrictor size of each GT car? I know the Porsche runs at 1235kg. the BMW runs twin 29.4mm inlets.(last IMSA posting) But what about other cars? Ford? Ferrari? Jaguar? Corvette? Also i remember a few years ago Ferrari ran the F430 with smaller tires but lighter weight only to run the car in its last year with the large tires but more weight. Are any cars running this "smaller" GT setup this year. Thanks guys/gals

Deleted · 6 Aug 2011, 16:13 (Ref:2936471)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sil350

Does anyone know the current weight and restrictor size of each GT car? I know the Porsche runs at 1235kg. the BMW runs twin 29.4mm inlets.(last IMSA posting) But what about other cars? Ford? Ferrari? Jaguar? Corvette? Also i remember a few years ago Ferrari ran the F430 with smaller tires but lighter weight only to run the car in its last year with the large tires but more weight. Are any cars running this "smaller" GT setup this year. Thanks guys/gals

ACO BoP (LMP+GT2) as of May 2011

IMSA's one is pretty much the same but with some tweaks, like with the Porkie etc. Gallardo is not on the list but I believe they are/were running with -45kg(ish) ballast off and restrictor equal to Jaguar

arakis · 6 Aug 2011, 16:13 (Ref:2936472)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sil350

Does anyone know the current weight and restrictor size of each GT car? I know the Porsche runs at 1235kg. the BMW runs twin 29.4mm inlets.(last IMSA posting) But what about other cars? Ford? Ferrari? Jaguar? Corvette? Also i remember a few years ago Ferrari ran the F430 with smaller tires but lighter weight only to run the car in its last year with the large tires but more weight. Are any cars running this "smaller" GT setup this year. Thanks guys/gals

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...=1#post2936470

here are the restrictor sizes, the weights are 1245kg for Ferrari, BMW and corvette, I am unsure about aston, jag and ford

Nick6 · 6 Aug 2011, 17:38 (Ref:2936495)

What? When did BMW ever race a M5 engined M3 in ALMS?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[LM24] Waivers	The Badger	24 Heures du Mans	73	13 Sep 2010 16:03
ALMS Radio Frequency list?	Mindspin13B	North American Racing	3	17 Sep 2009 11:35
LRP ALMS Entry list up	Tim Northcutt	North American Racing	5	24 May 2004 20:23
Is Toca 2 XP, Me, Win2000 compliant?	kmchow	Virtual Racers	8	9 Feb 2003 22:00
Mosport ALMS entry list	paul-collins	North American Racing	11	15 Aug 2002 16:00