USCC (leave your axe outside)

[Mike Hedlund]

Btw, it costs $750k USD to get a new McLaren GT3 on track (add more to make it GTD spec).

Compared to a 997 Cup which costs $220k new including delivery from Germany or a 991 GT America which costs $280k new including delivery from Germany... it's simply a different league of car. Basically the real GT3 cars are GTE cars with cheaper running costs (many more shared components w/ the street cars and larger market leads to cost savings).

The only non 2013 Rolex GT cars in the field that I'm aware of are Ben's SRT Viper (being supported by the factory, which is awesome), the Turner Z4 (being funded by someone also racing in GTLM which gives an idea of budget resources), and the GT Americas. Hopefully there will be more, but you're getting very close to GTLM budget to run a non-Rolex GT car in GTD.

And as I've said before, the Rolex GT cars are STUPID fast in a straight line. We did a test of the Rolex GT spec Patron Ferrari at Sebring earlier in 2013 while a bunch of ALMS teams were there testing for the 12 hour. I drove around the GTLM cars on the back straight entering T17. If history is any indication, there's no way IMSA is going to allow them to be so fast, especially at a track like Daytona. That's why the GTD and GTLM times are so similar at a track where only one thing matters.. top speed.

-mike

[chernaudi]

From what I've read, the Audi R8 LMS Ultra in TUSCC spec is as for the GT3 car aside from the rear wing, deletion of traction control and ABS, and the de-rated engine. Same for the BMW Z4 GT3 from what I can tell. Hell, the R8 is allowed to run the rear diffuser that the FIA didn't want them to run the FIA GT.

Here's how I call it--they're allowing FIA spec roll cages and carbon tubs, as allowed in FIA GT competition. IMO, there's no way that just by changing rear wings and deleting ECUs that allow for ASR traction control and ABS and remapping the engine for reduced power is going to cost $100K, though I could be wrong.

If this is being done to keep GT3's from hammering away at the GTLM cars, then one can say "speed up the GTLM"s, but we as fans preached forever to keep GTLM to ACO specs, and IMSA obliged, partly to us, and partly to appease the FIA and ACO. And ACO specs are to keep them from running down LMP2 cars down the straights at Le Mans, and LMP2s under ACO specs only make about 450bhp, which is still a bit less than what the GTE/GTLM cars can do.

Even then, the LMP1 cars, for comparison, are supposed to make 550bhp, but we all know that Audi and Toyota were making more like 600bhp last year.

The fastest trap speed from Le Mans last year was 331km/h by the #1 Audi R18 e-tron quattro, and in spite of how fast the lap times were in the dry, that's only 205 mph. The other R18's were only going about 202-203mph.

This worry that top speed is the biggest factor in serious accidents at LM is what drives this, though most accidents in all of motorsport happens in corners.

I understand the reasoning, but if the cutting of power to slow speeds leads to increased emphasis on cornering and braking, the lap times will come, but so to will accidents. After all, it's easier to pass down a straight than in a corner.

[Mike Hedlund]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

though I could be wrong.

For all the GT3/GTD stuff you said, this.

-mike

[chernaudi]

I'm just going by what the rules "claim" to allow. Of course, with all I've said as criticisms of the prototype situation, I should've applied such skepticism for the GT rules.

But I do question where the Audi R8's came from. I don't believe that very many R8 Grand Am's were ever built. And Audi themselves bill the cars as R8 LMS Ultras, which is what they call the GT3 car. So who's lying: Audi Sport, or TUSCC officials? Also, the BMW Z4 never raced as a GT3 car in the US until Turner bought one.

All I'm saying is that the rules "should" allow for GT3 cars, provided that the teams agree to modify them to suit the rules--no TC or ABS, cut down on power out put, and run a spec rear wing. If this is to keep the GT3 cars "far enough" off the tails of the GTE/GTLM cars, that's fine, but TUSCC already has some serious credibility issues with people to varying degrees.

Us as fans wanted TUSCC to leave the class alone, as apparently did the ACO/FIA, and TUSCC wanted a link up with the FIA/ACO. Maybe this is a case where we all should've been careful what we wished for...

[BullMan]

I've said it before, but I don't understand why they didn't allow straight-up GT3 cars for GTD, and just put them on the crappy Conti tires. Sure, they would be just as fast, or faster in a straight line, but combine amatuer drivers with the crap tires and I would think the gap would be sufficient. Daytona is an outlier and an abberation as far as circuits go. The rest of the circuits actually have orners that require braking.

[skycafe]

Originally Posted by BullMan

Daytona is an outlier and an abberation as far as circuits go. The rest of the circuits actually have orners that require braking.

I am going to "B" a little bit-Turn One of Daytona (road course) requires you to brake from top speed or nearly so, going from a banked section to a flat section, braking while turning, bleeding off a huge amount of speed while also navigating slower traffic, or allowing faster traffic to pass. All wrong g forces in low downforce. The kink on the infield is another challenge, a high speed kink with low downforce and the same traffic challenge. The chicane also presents a big braking moment with plenty to get wrong. I love the place, it is not a trivial track, and it is a place of sportscar history and tradition. It is a worthy contest, the trimming of downforce to gain on the banked track makes the road section a challenge, over 24 hour and wildly changing conditions demands attention and respect. It may not seem like it at a glance, but it demands talent of the drivers and engineers, and usually rewards those attributes.

[joeb]

Car counts are upped to 68 for NAEC rounds. Sharing pit boxes is the means.
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/tusc/im...r-naec-rounds/

[Lanky Turtle]

Originally Posted by joeb

Car counts are upped to 68 for NAEC rounds. Sharing pit boxes is the means.
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/tusc/im...r-naec-rounds/

Glad to see this officially addressed since it was never really clarified when the series entry list came out.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by joeb

Car counts are upped to 68 for NAEC rounds. Sharing pit boxes is the means.
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/tusc/im...r-naec-rounds/

As much as I support as many racing cars on the grid as possible I believe this number may cause some 'difficulties', especially in pitlane but also on track, Road Atlanta (the esses spring to mind) for instance...

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

As much as I support as many racing cars on the grid as possible I believe this number may cause some 'difficulties', especially in pitlane but also on track, Road Atlanta (the esses spring to mind) for instance...

My thoughts exactly. Not worried too much about Daytona or Sebring, or even Watkins, but 68 cars at Road Atlanta is going to be a caution fest.

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by BullMan

I've said it before, but I don't understand why they didn't allow straight-up GT3 cars for GTD, and just put them on the crappy Conti tires. Sure, they would be just as fast, or faster in a straight line, but combine amatuer drivers with the crap tires and I would think the gap would be sufficient. Daytona is an outlier and an abberation as far as circuits go. The rest of the circuits actually have orners that require braking.

The reason was to make them comparable to the GAGT cars which carry over as GTD, they, the existing entry base, make no changes, much as GTLM transfers intact, in their case even with free tires.

[jeast]

Originally Posted by joeb

My thoughts exactly. Not worried too much about Daytona or Sebring, or even Watkins, but 68 cars at Road Atlanta is going to be a caution fest.

Isn't that what nascar wants/likes?

[chernaudi]

WEC/ALMS had 62 cars at Sebring in '12. That race had a record or near record number of full course yellows because of a mix of traffic congestion and pro-am drivers, but mostly it was that Sebring in fact barely had room on track for 60+ cars, and Sebring is over 3.5 miles long.

And as for the GTE vs GT3/GTLM vs GTD argument, yes, over the course of a race pro-am driver lineups and the Continental vs Michelin tire deal will cause a separation, but an unfettled GT3 on those same GTE spec Michelin tires will easily be almost as fast as a GTE car, especially at power tracks like Daytona, sections of Sebring and Road America, and parts of Road Atlanta.

As I've mentioned, GT3s were designed to be the top class or only class where they raced most of the time, while GTE cars have to be BOP'd to keep their top speed below that of LMP2 cars, which make less power than most GTE cars. It's all because of top speed separation, a situation that got bad when LMP1s went from running big capacity engines (6 liter NA, 7 liter stock block NA, 4 liter turbo, 5.5 liter turbodiesel) to basically souped up LMP2 engines (3.4 NA, proposed 4.0 liter stock block NA, 2.0 turbo, and 3.7 liter turbodiesel).

At LM 2010, the Peugeot 908s were hitting almost 215 mph into the speed trap, 2011, the new generation 908s were hitting over 210, but due to drag reduction measures, weren't as fast over a lap as the Audi R18s were, which were "only" getting about 205-207mph. 2013, the fastest trap speed was 205mph by an Audi R18 eq, and that was running lap times in race trim that rivaled what the Peugeot 905s did in qualifying in '92 and '93, and even those Pugs were faster in a straight line.

GT3 cars have more power in an attempt by the FIA to steer them away from a lot of the special aero that GTE cars have. Aero is one of the reasons why GTE cars are down by 100hp but can go as fast around most tracks, as well as having better tires (probably wider, and for sure tailor made by Michelin and Falken to suit each teams' cars, while GT3 is usually a spec tire deal). But that does make them devilishly fast down the straights.

I'd expect for IMSA to either cut air restrictors to the GTD cars by the end of the Roar. Personally, I'm wondering why IMSA didn't pull a page from the ACO/FIA play book for Le Mans and make the teams run fixed gurney flaps on the wings to induce drag and lower top speeds? Also, that seems to be a lot cheaper and simpler than air restrictor changes, which that's cheaper than something like a wing span reduction.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by wdave0

The reason was to make them comparable to the GAGT cars which carry over as GTD, they, the existing entry base, make no changes, much as GTLM transfers intact, in their case even with free tires.

So then they accept GT3 cars, bar ALL old Porsche 911s, which was a third of the combined ALMS GTC/GAGT field, and have Porsche develop a 911 just for this series.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by joeb

My thoughts exactly. Not worried too much about Daytona or Sebring, or even Watkins, but 68 cars at Road Atlanta is going to be a caution fest.

I think Watkins Glen will be interesting as well. I'm sure there will be some casualties by the time we get to PLM, but I don't know if it will be 10-15.

[JLGarcia]

Originally Posted by BullMan

So then they accept GT3 cars, bar ALL old Porsche 911s, which was a third of the combined ALMS GTC/GAGT field, and have Porsche develop a 911 just for this series.

I think it was pretty clear that some sort of 991-based car would be in play this year. Had they also tried to incorporate the 997s and balance the two vastly different specs, someone would have taken a nice financial hit. Either the GAGT guys would be tossing aside the costly GA-specific upgrades or the GTC guys would have been buying some (all?) of those same upgrades. How long do you keep pumping 5 or 6 figures into a car with limited lifespan? For most of those teams, it would have make far better financial sense to buy the new 991, especially given the price point.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by JLGarcia

I think it was pretty clear that some sort of 991-based car would be in play this year. Had they also tried to incorporate the 997s and balance the two vastly different specs, someone would have taken a nice financial hit. Either the GAGT guys would be tossing aside the costly GA-specific upgrades or the GTC guys would have been buying some (all?) of those same upgrades. How long do you keep pumping 5 or 6 figures into a car with limited lifespan? For most of those teams, it would have make far better financial sense to buy the new 991, especially given the price point.

In sportscar racing, old cars are generally grandfathered in for at least a year. Combining the GTC/GT fields at Daytona and Sebring, 31 of 98 cars were Porsche 911s. At Road America the two classes were 7/10ths of a second apart. There is no reason the two 997 911s couldn't be matched together and run in the GTD class. They slowed down GAGT to ALMS GTC speeds to boot. That should have taken care of it.

[juki]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Personally, I'm wondering why IMSA didn't pull a page from the ACO/FIA play book for Le Mans and make the teams run fixed gurney flaps on the wings to induce drag and lower top speeds? Also, that seems to be a lot cheaper and simpler than air restrictor changes, which that's cheaper than something like a wing span reduction.

It seems they have!

Per Jeff Braun's twitter, GTD cars will be running a 25mm Gurney flap, as stipulated in the just released GTD rulebook.

https://twitter.com/jvbraun/statuses/418486991203090432
https://twitter.com/jvbraun/statuses/418487240441233408

[chernaudi]

And at that, this article claims that the GTD R8 is much faster in terms of top speed than the FIA GT spec car, to the tune of 10-15mph in top speed due to the reduced drag in GTD spec:

http://audi-motorsport-blog.blogspot...s-fia-gt3.html

So maybe IMSA can be blamed to some degree for the GTD cars being so fast in terms of top speed by trying to reduce aero, and I think that this applies to all the GTD machinery, not just Audi with the R8.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And at that, this article claims that the GTD R8 is much faster in terms of top speed than the FIA GT spec car, to the tune of 10-15mph in top speed due to the reduced drag in GTD spec:

http://audi-motorsport-blog.blogspot...s-fia-gt3.html

So maybe IMSA can be blamed to some degree for the GTD cars being so fast in terms of top speed by trying to reduce aero, and I think that this applies to all the GTD machinery, not just Audi with the R8.

Despite twice as many full-season GTD entries (as compared to GTLM's), I'm sure IMSA will be blamed no matter what the outcome is.

Andy Flinn

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And at that, this article claims that the GTD R8 is much faster in terms of top speed than the FIA GT spec car, to the tune of 10-15mph in top speed due to the reduced drag in GTD spec:

http://audi-motorsport-blog.blogspot...s-fia-gt3.html

So maybe IMSA can be blamed to some degree for the GTD cars being so fast in terms of top speed by trying to reduce aero, and I think that this applies to all the GTD machinery, not just Audi with the R8.

Interest findings, never though GTD R8 can be faster than GT3 in the straight line, with their power reduced(likely?).

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And at that, this article claims that the GTD R8 is much faster in terms of top speed than the FIA GT spec car, to the tune of 10-15mph in top speed due to the reduced drag in GTD spec:

http://audi-motorsport-blog.blogspot...s-fia-gt3.html

So maybe IMSA can be blamed to some degree for the GTD cars being so fast in terms of top speed by trying to reduce aero, and I think that this applies to all the GTD machinery, not just Audi with the R8.

I think this would fall under the heading of unintended consequences - lots of factor to consider.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

this article claims that the GTD R8 is much faster in terms of top speed than the FIA GT spec car, to the tune of 10-15mph in top speed due to the reduced drag in GTD spec:

In the post just above yours it says Jeff Braun twittered that a Gurney Flap had been added. So does that discount this flap?

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

In the post just above yours it says Jeff Braun twittered that a Gurney Flap had been added. So does that discount this flap?

The top speeds refered to by Mies and Haase are from the fall tests, so before the gurney was added. Since no sessions were run with the gurney so far, we have yet to see what effects it will have on top speed.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by ACFlinn

Despite twice as many full-season GTD entries (as compared to GTLM's), I'm sure IMSA will be blamed no matter what the outcome is.

Andy Flinn

Originally Posted by wdave0

I think this would fall under the heading of unintended consequences - lots of factor to consider.

That's what happens when you take a class of car, that already typically has 100 hp more than a GTE car, and you take downforce/drag off the car, which is the only thing holding it's top speed down.

This is a consequence of the old FIA GT hierarchy: GT1 was supposed to be faster than GT2, and GT2 was supposed to be faster than GT3, et al.

FIA GT2 evolved into ACO GT2, which evolved into FIA/ACO GTE when GT1 was killed off and there was no GT2 based series outside of the ACO rules set, and some regs in GT3, especially in regards to engine power and homogation, were relaxed to drum up manufacturer interest.

Like the whole ordeal with the problems with the DP and LMP2 cars, this, as mentioned, is an example of the ordeals of unintended consequences. IMSA gave into both fan and international sanctioning body pressure to keep the GTLM cars to ACO regs, so they barely make 480bhp because of the ACO's obsession with speed separation. GT3 cars were never meant to comply with such regs, and in order to keep them relatively cheap, took some aero away and only slightly downgraded engine power.

Now the GTD cars will be hit with a 1 inch/25mm gurney on the rear wing, and probably other BOP changes to slow them down.

This is what Mike was mentioning about when he said that the GTD cars aren't really GT3 cars by the time teams get done with modifying them to IMSA regs. They may be GT3 cars at heart, but not in execution.

Even worse, IMSA did get rid of a lot of the downforce induing parts (switch out for a spec wing, and changes made to balance that out), and every time you lose downforce, you lose drag, which means increased speeds. That IMO is IMSA's fault for not compensating with increasing drag to hold speeds down, or reducing air restrictor sizes to compensate.

That's almost as laughable as the WEC's loophole what allowed LMP1 cars last season (and in 2012 for Toyota) to claim that a pair of outer rear wing endplates and the bridge wings between the outer and main endplates was rules compliance for covering up a hole in the rear wheel arches.

For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's Laws haven't changed in principal since the day they were conjured up. There's always consequences for any action. Good/bad, plus/minus, gain/loss. giving something to get something. Easy to assume that when you reduce downforce, you're likely reducing drag. Might have made the GTD's harder to drive on the limit at twister tracks, but at power tracks, reduced drag and more power equals top speed.

Only way I see this working out is if indeed the ACO and FIA push though their proposal for merged GT3/GTE regs as soon as 2015, hence, they may be watching this and the GTE classes in the WEC and the FIA GT WC in earnest this year to see if the regs merger is a go or no-go, and how they'll go about if such a merger is put into action.