|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
9 Oct 2014, 00:45 (Ref:3462364) | #126 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Expense is relative. If the prototype class in TUSC could attract fans, it could attract sponsors, which provide money. Spec cars are not going to attract fans--see: Rolex Sports car Series.
A product so shoddy no one will buy it always costs too much to make. I have said TUSC's "One Chance to Get it Right" would come in 2017. Apparently they will blow that chance, too. |
|
|
9 Oct 2014, 01:06 (Ref:3462369) | #127 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
|||
|
9 Oct 2014, 03:00 (Ref:3462397) | #128 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
||
|
9 Oct 2014, 08:18 (Ref:3462455) | #129 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,560
|
DTM seems to get on fine with that formula. Slightly less the case in GT500, but they are very popular as well with the manufacturers. I dont want those to be the lmp2's. I just want their own series. On the future p2's, an evolution of the current rules would be best imo.
|
|
|
9 Oct 2014, 10:59 (Ref:3462489) | #130 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Quote:
Ford and Chevy can stick an engine in a car and get all the publicity they can hope for--and by putting branded bodywork on a spec chassis, they get around the problem of sharing the spotlight with the chassis manufacturer. Dallara won at Petit, but Coyote definitely won the constructors;' title—but no one anywhere is or ever will talk about that. Chevy won with its "Corvette DP." The dream of the future for manufacturers is of a huge mass of stupid people glued to their TVs for several hours talking about Chevy and Ford while Riley and Coyote actually fight it out on track. Quote:
I agree 100 percent: P2 is great now (for what it is) and simply needs a little evolution. Actually, all it really needs is to carry on undisturbed, and in the U.S. where it is the top class, to be opened up a little bit for development in a few limited areas. The main reason I don't get all excited about those series Clone cars. Same thing that limited Rolex. But the TUSC? |
|||
|
9 Oct 2014, 12:29 (Ref:3462527) | #131 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
I agree that the prototype needs some evolution in 2017. However, I'm worried about the operation and maintenance costs.
DTM doesn't have any privateers because of those costs thanks to the involvement of the manufacturers. |
|
|
9 Oct 2014, 12:58 (Ref:3462536) | #132 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
9 Oct 2014, 13:20 (Ref:3462546) | #133 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 273
|
Manufacturers would be fine in P2 if there was a requirement to make customer cars available. I'm OK with a common tub for P2, as long as the rest of the car isn't spec. The original Delta Wing used a tub from a failed Aston Martin P1 car, IIRC and the DW couldn't look more different than the AM car if it started from a clean sheet of paper.
If big manufacturers want to build a P2, they should have to make a customer car. If they want distinctive bodywork, I'm OK with that as long as the responsibility for making the car competitive aerodynamically falls SOLELY on said manufacturer. If Ford wants to make a Mustang P2, that's great, but Ligier or HPD shouldn't have to dumb down their aero just so Ford can make a silhouette Mustang. Create a rule set, get the car approved in low and high drag co figs, limit BoP adjustments to twice a season. |
||
__________________
It never got weird enough for me. |
9 Oct 2014, 13:25 (Ref:3462547) | #134 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
Quote:
Also I would like to add the success ballast as well. |
||
|
9 Oct 2014, 15:34 (Ref:3462581) | #135 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
I hate to be negative but ...
I strongly object to either BoP or success ballast for any prototype class. The whole point of a prototype is that the designer/constructor builds the best possible cars withing the rules, and then the car goes and competes. BoP is understandable when one team has a Ferrari and the other an Bentley--obviously no one could make those cars equally competitive with a single rule set. But in prototypes, everyone can build a Ferrari--you fail, you lose, or you build an upgrade. No excuses, no "everyone gets a medal for showing up," no hobbling the best to save the self-esteem of the less good. And success ballast? How does it make sense to penalize the people who are successful? if your car is not as fast, make it faster. I can see if the engine equivalency formula is off--particularly with stock-based engines--where that might need some tinkering. Maybe the turbo-to-NA displacement ratio should be 1.5 instead of 1.4, or maybe the boost needs to be adjusted ... but that should be established in pre-season testing. Put the cars on a rolling dyno and if there is a huge discrepancy then adjust it--once. |
|
|
9 Oct 2014, 15:41 (Ref:3462585) | #136 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
It doesn't make sense in itself, but it's infinitely better than constant performance balancing based on random politically influenced backroom decisions. It cannot be altered or ridiculed, it's just what it is and everybody knows what they're gonna get. The lesser of two evils as I always say.
|
|
|
9 Oct 2014, 20:48 (Ref:3462694) | #137 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
|||
|
9 Oct 2014, 21:05 (Ref:3462701) | #138 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
How is that worse from say 7-year Bobby demanding and ultimately receiving less weight and bigger restrictors and bigger RPM boost value and more fuel and better aero for 9 o clock maths test - only to get penalized for 10 o clock lesson after Sarah started handing even bigger cash bribes under the table? And then for post- lunch break lesson they both get screwed as the teacher decides it's Frankie's time to be the best scorer of the test as he had been crying in the corner all along just because he hadn't done his homework due to his parents divorcing, "or something like that" as Frankie had added.
|
|
|
9 Oct 2014, 21:49 (Ref:3462713) | #139 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,560
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Oct 2014, 01:24 (Ref:3462772) | #140 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
It also seems you do not know anything about NASCAR either as your description of the bodies is completely wrong. Many of the body parts are now bought from the manufacturers and not fabricated in the shops. They have different body templates for each manufacturer. The Gen 6 Chevrolet has 31 body pieces that come from GM compared to only 6 in the COT. Not coounting the Carbon fiber hoods and trunk lids. You have succeeded in repeating almost every false talking point ever posted online. http://www.circletrack.com/*********.../photo_30.html Last edited by mimi1969; 10 Oct 2014 at 01:44. |
||
|
10 Oct 2014, 03:28 (Ref:3462800) | #141 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Oct 2014, 03:37 (Ref:3462803) | #142 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
As was done for decades, weight to displacement worked well. No bop bs, if you weren't fast enough it was up to you to get faster, everyone had the same minimum/maximum rules to work with. |
|||
|
10 Oct 2014, 06:25 (Ref:3462836) | #143 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
So I heard the ACO may go to small pure bread racing 2Liter engines in p2 and phase out stock blocks in 2017
I'm not a fan of this. Just have both types in the field. The more different engines the better. And stock block are already cheap, reliable, and strong. And yes I do like the GT1 cars of the late 90s but why not have both types in separate classes. Have the GT1 evo whatever cars as top class in TUDOR And leave P2 as is... And retired PC for P3(which is supposed to be the low cost platform anyway) |
|
|
10 Oct 2014, 07:42 (Ref:3462851) | #144 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
||
|
10 Oct 2014, 07:52 (Ref:3462855) | #145 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,891
|
For those in the UK the new to free view station Motors tv (channel 71) is about to show the latest round of USC at 9.00am GMT
|
||
|
10 Oct 2014, 15:41 (Ref:3463005) | #146 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 409
|
Quote:
Ford wants to run their production base V6tt. Chevy wants to run their production base NA V8. Nissan wants to run their production base NA V8. Honda wants to run their production base V6tt Most others will use the GRE. |
||
|
10 Oct 2014, 17:05 (Ref:3463029) | #147 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 266
|
The other thread is closed but I posted how nascar giving up control of the AMA and realizing they had screwed up gave me hope for TUSC.
But it turns out nascar is very bitter and will not let the new AMA series run at Daytona. There goes any hope I had. http://www.daytonainternationalspeed...ode=DPROMO2499 |
|
|
10 Oct 2014, 18:50 (Ref:3463066) | #148 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 99
|
Quote:
Of course, I don't want a spec series with styling cues. Try to keep the regulations as open as possible without the costs exploding. |
||
|
10 Oct 2014, 20:56 (Ref:3463111) | #149 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
Quote:
There's no way Chevy and Ford would still be racing here if they just go with 2L racing engines. |
||
|
10 Oct 2014, 23:17 (Ref:3463153) | #150 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Quote:
Manufacturers want another NASCAR--low-cost cars, minimal development costs, buy them and forget them ... brand them as whatever to get the max promo value for the absolute lowest investment. Good business. Crappy for the fans, but good for the businessmen. I don't mind about the "branding exercises" if they don't interfere with the important stuff. Thing is to American manufacturers in particular, seeing NASCAR's popularity in particular ... the branding is the important stuff, and the racing merely an inconvenient but unavoidable expense. The folks making the calls on racing programs are bean-counters, not rabid sports car fanatics. And the folks at NASCAR are purveyors of race-based entertainment--it's all about the money. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2016 Moto GP | macca | Bike Racing | 4 | 17 Mar 2016 22:36 |
IndyCar + LMP1 + Formula E -> IMSA CanAm 2017 | NaBUru38 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 26 Apr 2013 15:58 |
2013-2017 V8SA Tyre Tender | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 6 | 23 Mar 2011 20:39 |