Home Forum News Cookbook F1 Predictions FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising IRC Chat  
Site Partners: Rally Ads Racing24 SpotterGuides Downforce Radio MotorsportAds MotorsTV (Sky 447) » 25-10 12:00 : V8 SUPERCARS RD 12 : GOLD COAST - RACE 1  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing


View Poll Results: What do you think?
Yes, we need a second GT class for higher/lower performance cars and engines 19 30.65%
No, LMGTE just needs some serious fixing; change engine regulations, loose things up, reduce BoP etc 30 48.39%
No, LMGTE is fine as it is and there are no underlying problems (or fery few of them) 7 11.29%
I don't really care as long as the racing is good 6 9.68%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27 Jul 2012, 17:47   #1
Chiana
Veteran
 
Chiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Finland
Hämeenlinna
Posts: 4,265
Chiana has a real shot at the championship!Chiana has a real shot at the championship!Chiana has a real shot at the championship!Chiana has a real shot at the championship!Chiana has a real shot at the championship!Chiana has a real shot at the championship!
Re-introduction of multi-class GT structure in ACO-style racing?

Basically, there has been some discussion about this and other things over at the GTE Speculation thread, as well as over at RLM forum. Here's my original message from that other thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiana
I've been suggesting on the RLM forum that the lack of GT1 is actually hurting GTE pretty badly, as every car needs to be fitted into one category and therefore more performance balancing is needed (or not needed but you know what I mean) to keep everybody happy and fit everybodys needs. Now you have just one class to put your car into if you wanna enter the biggest sportscar race in the world

We need a class for higher performance models with higher displacement, and one for slightly slower. Not this stupid Pro/Am crap we have now but let professional teams and makes race in the category their car fits the best, like in the past.

I seriously think this is one of the (many) issues why the class has slowly begun to go downhill
What do you think, should we just stay at where we are or re-introduce LMGT1? Not necessarily to resurrect the old format, but in some shape of form?

Note: this thread isn't about bringing GT3 to ACO style racing, that wouldn't help the situation at all...
Note II: GTE-PRO and GTE-AM doesn't count as multi-class

Last edited by Chiana; 27 Jul 2012 at 18:08.
Chiana is offline  
__________________
V. Beaumesnil 2013: "If you look at the [LMGTE] regulations, we can change [BoP] whenever we want. You have no other way to do it." /// LMGT1 & LMGT2 2009 regs: " It is out of the question to make adjustments after or in accordance to each race"
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 17:51   #2
I Rosputnik
Veteran
 
I Rosputnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
United Kingdom
Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 1,530
I Rosputnik should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridI Rosputnik should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
The problem with more classes is when they begin to nip at the heels of LMP2. The higher GT class would be pegged back and in turn the lower class would suffer as a result.

LMP2 could become some thing as a mid way between road car and full prototype, like the Ferrari FXX?

(In regards to GT3, I agree that bringing them into Le Mans would have adverse effects due to the way it operates (BoP), but I'll agree with what was mentioned in Midweek Motorsport and say they could race at Le Mans as a support race.)
I Rosputnik is offline  
__________________
Entire team is babies.
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 17:56   #3
MitchZ06
Veteran
 
MitchZ06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
New Zealand
Australia
Posts: 1,983
MitchZ06 is heading for a stewards' enquiry!
I'd just improve the performance of the current GTE cars, remove the displacement restriction, allow things like carbon brakes and larger aero on the Pro cars and leave the Am cars with the current regs. It's not that simple I know but it'd be a start.
MitchZ06 is offline  
__________________
Mitchell Legg
NRG Racing
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 17:57   #4
busdegnao
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Switzerland
Lugano
Posts: 61
busdegnao should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
the only form that i think (not taking gt3 cars) is:
LMGTE1: most evolved GTE model with only pro line-up, only for work/official teams.
LMGTE2: previous years GTE model (or purposely detuned) with only pro-am line-up and only for private teams.
Is hard to image that a manufacter will be happy to produce a GTE with a larger engine for "GTE1" class and the same GTE with a smaller engine. GTE cars are already able to run close to 2010 GT1 timelaps, will be enough give them a lower min. weight and restrictors brakes with a free formula engine.
busdegnao is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 18:03   #5
joeb
Race Official
Veteran
 
joeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
United States
Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 6,037
joeb is going for a new world record!joeb is going for a new world record!joeb is going for a new world record!joeb is going for a new world record!joeb is going for a new world record!joeb is going for a new world record!joeb is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchZ06 View Post
I'd just improve the performance of the current GTE cars, remove the displacement restriction, allow things like carbon brakes and larger aero on the Pro cars and leave the Am cars with the current regs. It's not that simple I know but it'd be a start.
Fix the engine regs- I think this is already planned with the introduction of hybrids in the next couple years.

Carbon brakes in gtepro sounds good to me. Would be easy enough to remove those as the cars trickle down to gteam.
joeb is online now  
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 18:08   #6
MitchZ06
Veteran
 
MitchZ06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
New Zealand
Australia
Posts: 1,983
MitchZ06 is heading for a stewards' enquiry!
Forgot to mention remove some weight too. Swapping carbon brakes for steel and adding weight to go from Pro to Am would be rather simple.
MitchZ06 is offline  
__________________
Mitchell Legg
NRG Racing
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 18:54   #7
lms
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 676
lms should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiana View Post
What do you think, should we just stay at where we are or re-introduce LMGT1?
for one car? (viper) No. The solution is pretty simple, just dont dont let these gt1 cars to race at lm and wec to keep (almost) everyone happy for the moment. When there is more interest in more powerful "lmgt1" cars and all the manufacturers support this and if it wont theraten the existance of the old gte, then it would be okay. On the other hand these machines would be at the back of the lmp2 cars, so I think 4 classes may be a bit too much. with a pure gt grid it would be okay, but not with the lmp cars.
lms is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 18:56   #8
lms
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 676
lms should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by busdegnao View Post
the only form that i think (not taking gt3 cars) is:
LMGTE1: most evolved GTE model with only pro line-up, only for work/official teams.
LMGTE2: previous years GTE model (or purposely detuned) with only pro-am line-up and only for private teams.
these are pretty much equivalent to the current gte pro and gte am categories.
lms is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 19:16   #9
RacingSportsCars
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 31
RacingSportsCars should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Return to the roots

Personally I would prefer something like in the 60s and 70s when there were simply unified rules as how a team or manufacturer can modify street GT model for racing. There was a required minimum production over the 12 and 24 month to classify such road-going car as a GT, thus avoid prototypes like Dauer 962 racing as a GT car, and that was all.

Back then there may not have been such variety like in current GT3 or ALMS GT but there was a real sense in racing for manufacturers titles as the speed of the cars was derived from their real production models. Today with all that stupid balancing, the race results does say nothing about the GT car performances. It just reflects how they were balanced or handicapped.

Than the cars could be divided into several classes by some criteria. Engine size (FIA GT Group 3 and Group 4) or general performance (SCCA Production Classes) was used in the past.

Today's GT racing is nice but so much artificial that there is almost no point in any kind of manufacturers championships at all. I know my idea is not realistic these days but if I could dream of something, I would return to the GT and racing roots in general .
RacingSportsCars is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 19:20   #10
Purist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
United States
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 5,152
Purist has a real shot at the podium!Purist has a real shot at the podium!Purist has a real shot at the podium!Purist has a real shot at the podium!Purist has a real shot at the podium!
LMS, it also holds true for the Corvette, which technically has a 6.2-litre engine, but was told to run a 5.5-litre lump for their full program beginning in 2010. If we want Mercedes to be able to run their GT at Le Mans, they would also need allowances to run their 6.2-litre V8 in the SLS AMG. If Aston decides it's simpler to run their GT programs just using the V12, that engine too is above the current 5.5-litre allowance.

Also, did they drop the maximum displacement for forced induction engines when they did it for atmospheric engines? If so, I would imagine the new McLaren is ineligible for GT2 now.
Purist is online now  
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 19:45   #11
Mt. Lynx
Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Sweden
Stockholm
Posts: 182
Mt. Lynx should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I think we only need one class of cars. The Pro/Am idea works fine as a divider.

My own take on a GT class goes something like this:
Chassis: anything goes. The entire chassis from the homologation model must be retained though. The differences will be mountingpoints of engine and suspension. An all carbon chassis would have to retain all points as original f ex.
Drivetrain: engine and gearbox layout must be retained as original. Rear wheel drive only. Gearbox could actually be a spec unit (well... It'd have to fit a wide range of engines) Max power 450 kW. Spec ECU wich limits acceleration to 0-100kph in 3s and then matches the rest of the powerband to the torquecurve. Top speed limited to 300kph.
Due to the ECU, there is no real need for a traction control system. No ABS.
I would also like to control downforce. Something like 1000 kg at 250kph. Hard to control, but sensors in the suspension could do the trick.
Minimum weight 1250kg.

Looking at what P2 will become, I don't think they will be competitors on track. P2 cars ate much more efficient in every way. They only lack in power comparatively.
Mt. Lynx is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 19:52   #12
I Rosputnik
Veteran
 
I Rosputnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
United Kingdom
Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 1,530
I Rosputnik should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridI Rosputnik should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Just to be a little random, would a new take on the GT4 regs work as a lower class in ACO racing, with an emphasis on entry level cars such as the 370z, Camaro, GT86 and Boxster?

Then in turn open up GTE a little more?
I Rosputnik is offline  
__________________
Entire team is babies.
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 20:46   #13
busdegnao
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Switzerland
Lugano
Posts: 61
busdegnao should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mt. Lynx View Post
I think we only need one class of cars. The Pro/Am idea works fine as a divider.

My own take on a GT class goes something like this:
Chassis: anything goes. The entire chassis from the homologation model must be retained though. The differences will be mountingpoints of engine and suspension. An all carbon chassis would have to retain all points as original f ex.
Drivetrain: engine and gearbox layout must be retained as original. Rear wheel drive only. Gearbox could actually be a spec unit (well... It'd have to fit a wide range of engines) Max power 450 kW. Spec ECU wich limits acceleration to 0-100kph in 3s and then matches the rest of the powerband to the torquecurve. Top speed limited to 300kph.
Due to the ECU, there is no real need for a traction control system. No ABS.
I would also like to control downforce. Something like 1000 kg at 250kph. Hard to control, but sensors in the suspension could do the trick.
Minimum weight 1250kg.

Looking at what P2 will become, I don't think they will be competitors on track. P2 cars ate much more efficient in every way. They only lack in power comparatively.
in early 2000 an electronic device to keep under control the power has been tested on 550 maranello GT, but didn't obtain good result. An electronic control of downforce via suspension sensors is a good idea, a little bit hard to make right because these sensors on suspensions in an uphill section will detect a downforce higher than what the bodywork really generates.
I've read about carbon brakes too, the use of c.brakes will increase costs and cars won't obtain so high benefits that justifies the cost; but because their longer lifetime and heat resistence, should be mandatory in 12/24H races so won't be necessary anymore all those repairs that have been necessary during the le mans race.
busdegnao is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 21:17   #14
Speed-King
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Wuerzburg,Germany
Posts: 5,646
Speed-King should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridSpeed-King should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridSpeed-King should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
I'd actually go for three classes:

GTX: Start with a production shell, then go nuts. Any engine from a manufacturers range is good, reposition it however you like and do whatever you want with your suspension pick up points. I.e. built RACECARS and no whatsoever BoP.

GTO: Closer to production, no waivers of any kind, for cars over 4 litres of displacement

GTU: The counterpart to GTO, for cars under 4 liters.

With a X-class format, guys like BMW can compete for top-GT honors, but everybody will know that these cars have very little in common with the street cars. The O and U classes would be a real test for roadcars.
Speed-King is offline  
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam.
Quote
Old 27 Jul 2012, 21:32   #15
Purist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
United States
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Posts: 5,152
Purist has a real shot at the podium!Purist has a real shot at the podium!Purist has a real shot at the podium!Purist has a real shot at the podium!Purist has a real shot at the podium!
Mt. Lynx, I can't get behind the standardized acceleration thing, or mandated uniform top speed. Such limits will make passing within the class EXTREMELY difficult, and at Le Mans, it will be worse, because the slipstream will become far less effective. At the end of those 5 long straights, you'll just hit a brick wall trying to pass anybody.

The cars are similar enough in their various performance characteristics already, in no small part because the weight differential between the heaviest and lightest cars in class is a fraction of what it once was in GT racing. At one time, you could have had a variation of something like 900-3000lb between all the various production cars running at Le Mans.

Also, that 4.0-litre Porsche, I think, you'd have a hard time balancing that against the Corvette with the sort of system you're talking about, because that 5.5-litre V8 (or what should be a superchargeed, 6.2-litre lump coming from the C6 ZR1) has so much more torque than the Porsche Flat-6, and makes both its power and torque at much lower revs. In addition, if everyone is making roughly 600hp, any existing BMW model is sunk. The Aston Martin Vantage might be in some difficulties too. The Porsche 911 isn't bad aerodynamically, but if you take away other advantages it might have, that car may well be fundamentally uncompetitive in your system. If you try to be equitable to keep the smaller engines in the game, I think you'll choke off the Viper, and possibly the Corvette, too much for there to be a point in running those cars. The Viper presents the difficulty of dealing with immense torque and balancing that as well.

BoP seems about the only way to really cover the wide range of vehicles we have in this single GT class. As much as I might not like the tinkering, what we're getting, in the ALMS at least, has so far been incredible. So, practically speaking, I'd rather not screw with a good thing.

Last edited by Purist; 27 Jul 2012 at 21:37.
Purist is online now  
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BTRDA Class Structure jimmynova Rallying & Rallycross 4 30 Oct 2010 18:04
Safety car & multi class racing ger80 Sportscar & GT Racing 47 30 Mar 2010 21:20
Multi-Class-Racing: Good, bad or ugly? Speed-King WTCC & European Touring Car Series 16 29 Apr 2009 09:37
FF1600 Class Structure? mattray Club Level Single Seaters 45 10 Jul 2004 19:44
Seqential Tranny in ACO GT class? RacingManiac Sportscar & GT Racing 12 4 Jul 2003 02:27


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 23:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2014 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.