|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
14 Oct 2011, 19:31 (Ref:2971285) | #76 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
Imagine yourself as a team owner ..... and an enrty in the biggest race which you intended on entering is refused . How would you feel . Many teams depend on a Le Mans entry to bring in the nessessary dosh . |
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 19:32 (Ref:2971286) | #77 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
|
Quote:
Where would you want to house another 5-10 entries? |
||
|
14 Oct 2011, 19:34 (Ref:2971287) | #78 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
I think the Am class is great . Gives them a chance to shine , like Krohn racing this year , who wouldnt stand a chance against top teams . |
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 19:40 (Ref:2971291) | #79 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,335
|
Krohn had some pretty decent results against pro-teams at LM as well as in Grand Am long before there ever was a specific Amateur-class...
The point is not to do away with amateurs, but with dedicated amateur classes. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen and all of that... |
||
|
14 Oct 2011, 19:45 (Ref:2971292) | #80 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
The problem also is that you have some people who are going to get entries even if they are not full-time teams and such. For example, what do you do with Patrick Dempsey? Surely he'll get in, right? Is that fair though? David Hallyday? It's a shame though when legitimate contenders for wins in some classes (again, mainly LMP2 and GTE-Pro) are left in the dark even if they are full-time teams in the LMS and ALMS. |
||
|
14 Oct 2011, 19:46 (Ref:2971293) | #81 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
I get your point but you didn't my which was that rich amateurs are always there waiting and they will come back quickly "when needed". Unlike manufacturers and pro teams. They have to be preferred when they are available. You must hate 1990-1991 when TWR brought four Jaguars?
|
|
|
14 Oct 2011, 19:53 (Ref:2971295) | #82 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
|
Quote:
Although, to be fair, cars #1, #2 and #3 were entered by the British arm of the team under a British license, and #21 and #22 by the American arm of TWR... Last edited by Victor_RO; 14 Oct 2011 at 19:58. |
|||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
14 Oct 2011, 19:59 (Ref:2971299) | #83 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
How many Jags were there in 1991 including the 3.5s? Yikes. But, anyway, those were all pre-GT years so it is different in a way.
|
|
|
14 Oct 2011, 20:01 (Ref:2971300) | #84 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
|
Apparently 6, 2 3.5s and 4 V12s, although one of the 3.5s never even left the pitlane, and the other one, as we know, was pulled after qualifying.
|
||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
14 Oct 2011, 20:16 (Ref:2971312) | #85 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
I grew up on Group C ..... so dont bring that crap on , and you know it . |
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 20:40 (Ref:2971319) | #86 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,335
|
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 20:59 (Ref:2971326) | #87 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
How to define a privateer? Believing that Abt will have a R18 in 2012, do you define them as privateers? If most of the engineers are from Audi, and the mechanics, what will distinguish them? There are many ways to overcome it. I would do this: For 3 cars at Le Mans, the third car should be a (works, semi-works or privateer) full ALMS or LMS commitment. |
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 21:01 (Ref:2971327) | #88 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 21:03 (Ref:2971329) | #89 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
||
|
14 Oct 2011, 21:06 (Ref:2971330) | #90 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 21:07 (Ref:2971331) | #91 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,335
|
GTE-Am.... a class should be defined by its technical rules, not by the skill level of the drivers involved in it.
Turning GTE-Am into a Cup/Trophy within GTE(-Pro) would allow to recognize outstanding privateer efforts while still opening the possibility to reduce the number of entries from such teams. If it is to be a full on class of its own, it needs at least 8 or 10 cars to even be remotely credible... turn it into an in-class-trophy and you can easily go as low as 4 or 5 cars. The Am-class has neither history nor justification and IMHO it is actually a bit of a travesty... I am not against privateer efforts, but if they don't want to race against pro-teams they should stay in club racing, not at the World's greatest motor race! |
||
|
14 Oct 2011, 21:10 (Ref:2971333) | #92 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
The only flaw with that is that Peugeot would go to the LMS and crush everyone and Audi would go to the ALMS and crush everyone there. I suppose maybe Porsche and Toyota could go to the ALMS (or LMS) and make it a good battle. I don't know. The privateers may not like it, but I think it is an idea that has some potential.
|
|
|
14 Oct 2011, 21:13 (Ref:2971334) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
Did you skip this/the previous page totally? Last edited by deggis; 14 Oct 2011 at 21:20. |
||
|
14 Oct 2011, 21:18 (Ref:2971337) | #94 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
You could follow the F1 route: only two cars per team and no custumer chassis - bad for independent manufacturers like Lola, Zytek, Oreca, OAK... You could define what is and what is not a big manufacturer or a independent manufacturer (having road production cars?) and limit the big manufacturers to 2 chassis — bad for big manufacturers with custumer program like Honda, who could only sell two chassis... So much more... Let's be honest, we are allways complaining about the ACO for this and for that, but their job is f****** hard! |
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 21:21 (Ref:2971340) | #95 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 23:03 (Ref:2971371) | #96 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Not to mention it's factories that fund the sport and give it sufficient profile for privateers to find sponsorship. Without that sponsorship the sport becomes overly reliant on rich individuals bankrolling a team. Quote:
The DW is a technically innovative entry (some doubt it will even turn, how can it be classed as anything but radical!) and will attract media coverage from places that otherwise wouldn't know what Le Mans was, therefore it will fullfill it's remit. The fact it's a conduit for some ALMS fans to put forth their frustrations about the series is neither here nor there, it will either be a success or failure, next year someone else will take up the 56th car challenge, and again it will be an interesting sideshow to the main event. Last edited by JAG; 14 Oct 2011 at 23:28. |
|||
|
15 Oct 2011, 00:10 (Ref:2971393) | #97 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
Anyway, the cars going for the overall win will be far more technologically innovative from an energy standpoint than the Deltawing. If you let Audi, Peugeot, and Toyota build lightweight cars, they would probably would do so in a very impressive fashion. Just seeing if something can turn is not a good reason to take up a spot that could have gone to a very loyal and competitive GTE or LMP2 team. Giving the loins of Don Panoz' potential spec cash cow a shot to sell isn't a sufficient reason either I don't think. |
||
|
15 Oct 2011, 00:30 (Ref:2971398) | #98 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
DSC said it best - Quote:
|
|||
|
15 Oct 2011, 01:57 (Ref:2971414) | #99 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
Quote:
C'mon Goodwin, get with the program. Do you believe LMPCs and GTC Porsches encompass the great spirit of sports car racing too? Yes, I don't like the DeltaWing because it is ugly. You're spot on about that. The thing is a prick on wheels. This simply can't be ignored. The stupidity of the DW goes way beyond appearance though. Whether it turns or not is just nonsense. That isn't important either. I don't see how you can say with a straight face that this thing is the antithesis of spec racing. This thing is the definition of spec racing where spec racing has no business being. If you want to see reduced power and weight, fine, allow it in the rules and let the competitors come up with the best solutions. That's worked for over 100 years in racing, hasn't it? Hell, it's not even that new of an idea within ACO racing. Remember LMP675? The DW is nothing more than an attempted money grab by Panoz and others. Panoz is hoping to make the DW a spec subclass of LMP1 so that he can profit off of this thing by selling his products and services. It's nothing but a concocted idea by the DW pimps to make money off of spec rules. LMPCs are one thing. Ok, we know they are field fillers. The attempted hijacking of LMP1 (or any serious class) just so the series boss can make money on the side is down right hideous. We should never stand for it. There may be a good idea or two behind the project, but ultimately it is not even the closest thing to the principles of Garage 56 that will be on the grid next year at Le Mans. The technology Toyota, Audi, and Peugeot will bring will display cutting edge technological innovation designed through the natural flow of auto racing that we all love. If you want to include weight and size reduction, fine, put it in the rules for everyone so we can see what the great teams bring to the track in order to strive for victories. The Green GT and the Courage have feature unique propulsion technology that may legitimately fit the spirit of Garage 56 and perhaps arguments could be made that those efforts are worthy of replacing a regular Le Mans effort. Even that is questionable with the likelihood that a good, competitive team that has been loyal to either the LMS or ALMS will be left out in the cold. Finally, when fans wake up in the early dawn at Le Mans, they want to see which cars are still racing for the win. They don't want to see morning wood on wheels d!cking around the track aimlessly anymore than they want to see the morning wood of their campmates! |
|||
|
15 Oct 2011, 02:17 (Ref:2971417) | #100 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,016
|
You people seem to actually think this will do more than 2 laps at Le Mans next year. Perfect parade lap debut/Panoscam material, good to see many of the AMR One/Prodrive defenders support the Delta Wing.
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[LM24 Race] Le Mans 2012 entries . | The Badger | 24 Heures du Mans | 116 | 2 Feb 2012 14:50 |
Dream WEC Calendar | GT3.14 | ACO Regulated Series | 38 | 29 Nov 2011 08:22 |
2012 yr of the hybrid in LMP1 for WEC/LeMans? | Canada ALMS fan | ACO Regulated Series | 27 | 19 Oct 2011 13:25 |
2008 WEC Formula Renault... | gomick | National & International Single Seaters | 31 | 21 Oct 2008 08:25 |