|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
14 Dec 2009, 10:39 (Ref:2599347) | #76 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,099
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Dec 2009, 10:58 (Ref:2599358) | #77 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,762
|
Disappointing..... for the fans, anyway.....
|
||
__________________
357 days...... sigh....... |
14 Dec 2009, 11:52 (Ref:2599375) | #78 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
Why should Audi have special treatment, just because they messed up with the R15? |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
14 Dec 2009, 12:17 (Ref:2599388) | #79 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
||
|
14 Dec 2009, 12:30 (Ref:2599394) | #80 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
The rules are the same for both Audi and Peugeot. They received the rules at the same time. So i can't really se why Peugeot is the bad guys?. If any one should be pointed out as the bad guys then it's ACO. Peugeot can't be help responsible for Audi making a bad decision with the R15, and ACO releasing the rules late!. It's very simple! |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
14 Dec 2009, 12:43 (Ref:2599400) | #81 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,487
|
I agree, it is not Peugeot's problem, and Audi should not be given special treatment, if Audi were that bothered about giving the fans a good show, they would turn up with a pair of R10's, but Audi don't give a damn about the fans and neither to Peugeot.
|
||
|
14 Dec 2009, 12:55 (Ref:2599407) | #82 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 73
|
How does this help? Unless run by Privateers with no factory drivers, the R10 would need similar upgrades to be permitted to run at Sebring (run to ACO rules).
|
|
|
14 Dec 2009, 12:57 (Ref:2599408) | #83 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Do you really believe that Audi showing up with the old R10 will provide good show for the fans? The car will be seriously slow. Moreover, the rear fenders of the R10 has to be redesigned, unless the car is run by a non-works team with non-works drivers (again not really good show).
|
|
|
14 Dec 2009, 13:02 (Ref:2599415) | #84 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,487
|
My point is the big Factory teams don't give a crap about putting on a show for the fans, all they care about is the money, so don't start with all this "for the fans" BS.
|
||
|
14 Dec 2009, 13:56 (Ref:2599448) | #85 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,099
|
I disagree. I think the big factory teams do like to put on a show for the fans. Unfortunately, they are subject to the budgetry constraints imposed on them at boardroom level.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2009, 14:08 (Ref:2599452) | #86 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
But, my argument is still valid. Audi and Peugeot had the same Terms for this year, so why should we feel bad for Audi not doing there work properly?. In a way we should be annoyed at Audi for not doing there job in time for Sebring as Peugeot has done! |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
14 Dec 2009, 14:11 (Ref:2599453) | #87 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,835
|
Like everyone else factory teams have budgets to work with, they have to ensure the money gets them as good an exposure as possible, it is another form of advertising to them and it is the fans of motor racing (you and I) that this type of advertising is directed at, therefore those fans are important to them.
|
||
|
14 Dec 2009, 14:51 (Ref:2599470) | #88 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,099
|
Erm......I wasn't actually referring to your argument.
Your argument is most certainly valid, absolutely, as is the fact that from a fan's point of view, it's disappointing that Peugeot have chosen to veto Audi's demand to participate at Sebring with a non 2010 compliant car. |
|
|
14 Dec 2009, 14:58 (Ref:2599473) | #89 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
But i have to disagree! Because, it's wrong, especially for a fan, to thing it's Peugeots fault not being at Sebring! 1. Audi could have filed for a waiver!. 2. The correct placement of "disappointing" is that it's disappointing from Audi not making the R15 complaint in time!. Audi is twisting the facts to push the blame from themselfs (as any one would do), not to disappoint the fans |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
14 Dec 2009, 16:22 (Ref:2599514) | #90 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,618
|
Quote:
that would mean Audi asked ACO/IMSA .. and ACO/IMSA asked Pug for permission .. but why would ACO/IMSA ask Pug before taking a decision? |
|||
__________________
Apocalypse becomes creation / Gor-Gor shall erase the nation Before you leap into his gizzard / Fall and worship Tyrant lizard Ciao Marco |
14 Dec 2009, 16:23 (Ref:2599516) | #91 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,099
|
||
|
14 Dec 2009, 16:29 (Ref:2599521) | #92 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,762
|
|||
__________________
357 days...... sigh....... |
14 Dec 2009, 16:32 (Ref:2599525) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,618
|
they could've crippled the Audi in some non costly way .. a much smaller restrictor .. but the whole story sounds a bit fishy to me ..
|
||
__________________
Apocalypse becomes creation / Gor-Gor shall erase the nation Before you leap into his gizzard / Fall and worship Tyrant lizard Ciao Marco |
14 Dec 2009, 17:08 (Ref:2599547) | #94 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
ACO knows that the only real competition for Audi next year is Peugeot.
Peugeot and Audi is the only one who hasn't filed for a Waiver. If Audi was to get a advantage (of not having to race under 2010 regulation, as they have promised, by not filing for a waiver), Then ACO has to talk with Peugeot about it!. You put out regulations, where 2 says, ok, we can do it. Then later, one of them says, we can't make our car to the regulations in time, but the other one has made their car. How do you justify between the 2? |
||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
14 Dec 2009, 17:31 (Ref:2599564) | #95 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,353
|
Quote:
You will note from my first post - that you ridiculed - that I said they hadnt ruled out Sebring and that they still had one race to announce - there was no reference to other races - just speculation of the possibility that the matter wasn't closed - both were facts as I saw them at the time and both were mentioned in the same post - both perfectly reasonable comments that didn't warrant your reaction. What then is it you were and still are trying to say that I didn't understand?? Last edited by Mal; 14 Dec 2009 at 17:42. |
|||
|
15 Dec 2009, 00:22 (Ref:2599805) | #96 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 243
|
why dos this noy surprise me? I guess they want to give the Pugs one last year of "glory" before Audi hands them their asses again...
|
||
|
15 Dec 2009, 02:38 (Ref:2599868) | #97 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
|
Yes, thats why Audi was allowed to race a potentially illegal car this year and still get "their asses handed to them" to use your lingo. Makes sense...
|
|
|
15 Dec 2009, 03:21 (Ref:2599887) | #98 | |
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
The EI article mentions Suzuka as one of the Asian LMS races - has this been confirmed anywhere?
|
|
|
15 Dec 2009, 07:53 (Ref:2599966) | #99 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,099
|
||
|
15 Dec 2009, 07:54 (Ref:2599967) | #100 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,353
|
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2010 Camaro Cup car revealed | rustyfan | NASCAR & Stock Car Racing | 45 | 4 Feb 2012 16:51 |
Donington Plans Revealed | ScotsBrutesFan | Formula One | 49 | 14 Sep 2008 00:19 |
Embassy's Prototype Plans Revealed | Bentley03 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 44 | 3 Apr 2007 19:43 |
PI Future plans revealed | inpitlane | Australasian Touring Cars. | 14 | 26 Nov 2005 06:54 |
Hampton Downs circuit plans revealed | nicko | Australasian Touring Cars. | 4 | 19 Sep 2004 12:30 |