[WEC] Is the future Doom and Gloom?

[AndrewF31]

If doom and gloom you mean this cycle of life of Endurance racing, then I'd say we'll get there eventually. Life is a cycle. Just look around you. The economy is crumbling all over yet the richest continue to suck onto anything they can until it's all dry. Same thing happens everywhere, so despite being slightly ****ed off at how badly American sportscar is looking, and especially the first step of the handover is conning me out of maybe being able to follow Daytona next week, and having lost the chance of seeing decent Le Mans racing at Estoril and Portimão the past 2 years, I know that if the crapper hits the pan at some point, it'll suck, but it will ressurrect itself.

On my side, in 2013, I'm going to enjoy watching (more listen since I don't have motorstv here, and don't expect much from Eurosport) Le Mans, WEC, for all it's categories, ALMS (still gotta love those GT battles, and even the insane racing in PC, and just hoping Rebellion won't run away with it and Muscle Milk being able to keep up even if Dyson cannot), Blancpain, hell even FIA GT Series, just drooling about watching countryman Alvaro Parente getting it on with Sebastien Loeb, and hoping away that RLM will get British GT this year, which looks like a cracker. Oh ya, and the race of all races along with Le Mans, the N24. That's one place that should inspire optimism. As much crap the guys behind the circuit can do, they won't ever manage to destroy Nurburgring, because it's bigger then them, just like Nature beats us in the end, and everything starts again so we can screw it up one more time. Insanity: repeating the same thing, expecting something different!

And to end the season, hop on over to Montmelo in November and watch the GT Open guys bust a move.

Surely there has to be some kind of racing out there for you guys to smile about this year

[Dodge_Swinger]

I wish WEC would institute a mandatory customer car rule and set a price ceiling on the customer cars. Then the manufacturers can spend all the money they want to develop an LMP1 car, but still have to make at least two cars available for sale at say 500,000-750,00 EUROS each.

Further, if a customer wanted to buy one of the mandatory customer cars, they would be able to take deliver of it AS IS at the conclusion of a race. So, at the end of any race, ANY car on the grid is available for sale, as is, at a rules-capped price. (Part of the rule would be that a car can't be bought in this manner more than once per season. If a privateer claimed a car, it couldn't then be claimed by some other team after the next race.)

As an example, Audi wins Le Mans. The rules say that Audi has to make available at least two customer cars. A team could claim the winning Le Mans car for the capped price as soon as the winning car pulls into the garage. Other than custom seats, Audi could not remove any part of the car before the customer takes it away.

Staying with Audi as an example, say they are fielding two R18 factory cars and two other teams have one customer car each (Four cars total.). Audi would be required to bring at least six engines to the race. Prior to technical inspection and under supervision of the race steward, each team would draw an engine with ECU at random. This would ensure all teams would get the same level of engine.

If someone buys a car, they would have to race it or forfeit an "entry deposit" to the series which would be payable at the same time the car is purchased.

This would ensure that privateer teams have access to top level equipment at a reasonable price, which I think is the real problem with sports car racing. It might not reduce development costs if a manufacturer wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, but it might make them think twice if they know they have to make two cars available.

Another interesting proposal I read somewhere is that any manufacturer that wanted to enter WEC would have to pay a fee to support the series. I think the proposal was for around two million dollars a year in three to five year increments, to be paid up front. Again, sticking with the Audi example, Audi would pay two million per year for the next five years for a total of ten million, paid in full before the season starts. Then, if they decide to drop out of WEC, they have already paid 10 million to support the series for five years, even if they drop out after one season.

Two mil a year for Audi, Toyota or Porsche would be a drop in the bucket and would go a long way to stabilize the series.

Those two rules couldn't be any worse than what's going on now.

[Maelochs]

One problem with the Customer Car plan is, what if no one buys the cars? All these manufacturers build extra cars and no one buys them?

Also, a lot of times factories take a loss on the cars and make it up in parts. A team might buy an Audi and then find out they can't afford to race it, and have to pay non-appearance penalties.

I like the customer-car idea, but I can see some issues that need to be worked out.

I also like the "claims-race" idea, where anyone can claim the winning (or nay other) car, but what happens if Audi has both its cars purchased a few weeks before Le Mans? It might have to rush two untested chassis through production and lose out in the one race which Really matters all year.

I like the idea that overspending is limited by the knowledge that any one can claim the car for a fair price, but the little kinks do need to be worked out.

[Purist]

For reference, from what I understand, a Ferrari 333SP (back in the '90s here), with a spares package, could be purchased for $1 million.

And those of you with inflation calculators can figure this other one out. Preston Henn said, during the coverage of the 1986 Grand Prix of West Palm Beach, that a new Porsche 962 was $350,000.

The specific figures may not matter all that much, but with inflation factored in, it would be VERY interesting to know what the actual value of customer-purchasable cars is/has been, and whether that has markedly changed over the last few decades.

[Dodge_Swinger]

Well, the rule would be you had to claim the car within 72 hours of the last race. Hopefully, that would keep the "hey, we've been at this happy hour for almost 12 hours, I love you, let's buy a race car" crowd at bay.

The "spirit" of the "claim race" idea would be that a. a manufacturer would limit cost because they have to sell two cars at a cost controlled price, kind of like the salary cap in the NFL and b. because that manufacturer would have to sell a car at any time, they would make a car somewhat "user friendly" in that the car would be as "repeatable" as possible. I understand that the bespoke nature of these cars means that each one has a distinct "personality", but with todays computer aided design, I don't think it would necessarily put a manufacturer back to square one if a privateer claimed a car. In other words, make a car just like the one you sold. Returning to Audi as an example, if they intended to race two mythical R19s this year, they would have to have at least four complete cars before the first race. That way, if the two entered cars are claimed, then they have two other chassis that, knowing the possibility of two cars getting claimed, the other "spare" chassis have also had development time.

I think knowing in advance that your winning car can be bought as is, will reign in the manufacturers and force them to make a car that can be managed by a privateer team.

I think this idea would not stifle technical innovation in any way. It would just impose another constraint (selling your hard work for an agreed upon price, regardless of the cost of development) to work around. If Audi or Toyota says cost be damned, then they would be allowed to go ahead. It would just mean that at least three Toyota LMP1s would be on the grid, assuming someone could buy the car.

[Dodge_Swinger]

Originally Posted by Purist

For reference, from what I understand, a Ferrari 333SP (back in the '90s here), with a spares package, could be purchased for $1 million.

And those of you with inflation calculators can figure this other one out. Preston Henn said, during the coverage of the 1986 Grand Prix of West Palm Beach, that a new Porsche 962 was $350,000.

The specific figures may not matter all that much, but with inflation factored in, it would be VERY interesting to know what the actual value of customer-purchasable cars is/has been, and whether that has markedly changed over the last few decades.

The 333 is exactly what I'm talking about. It was a competitive car and anyone with a million bucks could buy one.

Sports car racing needs direct manufacturer involvement. Rather than create what is essentially a spec class, let the manufacturers spend what they want with the understanding that they have to sell two examples of the finished product at an agreed upon price.

[joeb]

I seem to remember hearing that Pickett's current HPD cost $1 million last season. So pretty cheap compared to a 333 when inflation is taken into effect. A 333 would cost about 1.5 million today after inflation adjustments.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by joeb

I seem to remember hearing that Pickett's current HPD cost $1 million last season. So pretty cheap compared to a 333 when inflation is taken into effect. A 333 would cost about 1.5 million today after inflation adjustments.

Also considering the escalation in materials and development which goes into the cars!

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by CTD

Also considering the escalation in materials and development which goes into the cars!

Eh, wasn't the HDP a lot more than one million? I seem to remember something around 1.8 or even 2 mill?

[Simmi]

Not as many flames out the back though.

[aneesh99]

In recent times, my biggest problem is starting to become the rulebook, more specifically, the GTE rulebook. I know a lot of us like to get on the proverbial high horse about GT3 but GTE is slowly going down the same road. Graham Goodwin and Hindy said it all on MWM, the Z4 doesn't have a V8, the Viper, well.... yeah 8.4, and Porsche can't even homologate the GT3 RSR.

What on earth is the point of having rules and regulations in place when manufactures can just get a waiver at the drop of a hat? It's more than distasteful when others built their cars to the established order, only to see their rivals get a free pass......

[Rodger Davies]

you're spot on, the GTE rules are gradually becoming more and more like GT3 - that said, the manufacturers themselves are the ones promoting the existance of 2 rulesets. Well, I think it's split, but some of them definitely seem to want to keep the GTE rules instead of merging the two for some reason. Wouldn't mind seeing them open up the restrictors on some of the GTEs to create a bit more of differentiation but I don't see that happening or they'll be quicker than the beloved P2 class very soon.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Eh, wasn't the HDP a lot more than one million? I seem to remember something around 1.8 or even 2 mill?

Could be, I couldn't find the link for the $1mil price I quoted.

[Starfish Primer]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

In recent times, my biggest problem is starting to become the rulebook, more specifically, the GTE rulebook. I know a lot of us like to get on the proverbial high horse about GT3 but GTE is slowly going down the same road. Graham Goodwin and Hindy said it all on MWM, the Z4 doesn't have a V8, the Viper, well.... yeah 8.4, and Porsche can't even homologate the GT3 RSR.

What the feck is the point of having rules and regulations in place when manufactures can just get a waiver at the drop of a hat? It's more than distasteful when others built their cars to the established order, only to see their rivals get a free pass......

What are the problems in homologating the new 911 GT3 RSR?

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Starfish Primer

What are the problems in homologating the new 911 GT3 RSR?

The fact that there isn't any roadgoing GT3 yet. I suppose they could homologate it off the regular 911, but there must be a reason why they always used the GT3 before.

Regarding the Viper, I don't mind the fact that the engine is big. The 5.5l limit was a stupid idea in the first place - if there is such a limit there should be a class where cars that don't fit can go, and that doesn't exist anymore since the demise of GT1. I think they should just drop the engine size limit from the rulebook and be done with it.

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

The fact that there isn't any roadgoing GT3 yet. I suppose they could homologate it off the regular 911, but there must be a reason why they always used the GT3 before.

Regarding the Viper, I don't mind the fact that the engine is big. The 5.5l limit was a stupid idea in the first place - if there is such a limit there should be a class where cars that don't fit can go, and that doesn't exist anymore since the demise of GT1. I think they should just drop the engine size limit from the rulebook and be done with it.

It is a stupid rule so they should admit that and dump it instead of handing out waivers. It's not a good image to thrown your own rule book under the bus.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

It is a stupid rule so they should admit that and dump it instead of handing out waivers. It's not a good image to thrown your own rule book under the bus.

Hmm, and you don't suppose that the mfgs in GTE have any input on which waivers are granted?







L.P.