Race Lengths

[Edmonton]

For privateer which is better,the endurance races or sprint events? It just seems like the longer races bring in bigger feilds.

[tblincoe]

each has its strengths and weaknesses, and it really depends on the cars too. but economically, the 4 1000km race LMES schedule is less demanding financially than than the 10 shorter race ALMS schedule. BUT, the ALMS races are supposedly better for TV.

[jhansen]

In my opinion the longer races play into the hands of the manufacturer built cars and manufacturer backed teams. Once sorted out the manufacturer backed cars become very reliable. Case in point Audi. That car is taylor made for endurance racing and has proved in the ALMS, it aint bad at sprint racing either. But at least in the shorter races, the more delicate privateer cars like the MG-Lola and Zytek stand a chance.

I'm sure the four-race LMES schedule is attractive to privateers, but it doesn't favor their finishing chances. Although, you can argue that there are many more variables involved in endurance racing that can even bite the big boys on occassion. We saw that at Le Mans this year when oil on the track took out two Audi R8's.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Edmonton
For privateer which is better,the endurance races or sprint events? It just seems like the longer races bring in bigger feilds.

For decades, the long races were the odd-man, which although being expensive were where everyone would gather to give the "big one" a shot.
In the past I spoke with a fair amount of drivers who at least once in their live wanted to drive in the Daytona 24 hrs, or dream of dreams, the LeMans 24 hrs.

For a sprint race, one needs, minimum: one driver, one race set of tires, one qualifiying set of tires, and depending if driver is also a mechanic, two to three other crew members(some did it with driver and one mechanic), plus various ancilliary items a car cannot function without.

For endurance racing you already need another driver, several sets of tires, a full crew to perform pit stops, and the list goes on and on.
So which do you think is better for a privateer, whose name is not Penske?
Bob

[Adam43]

I am uncomfortable that the length of the race should be discussed, albeit realistically, in terms of who it allows to win. The events should be long, hard and gruelling. IMHO.

tblincoe pretty much has it. The longer races are more value for money in track time, they are more of an event, more difficult and more what endurance racing is about. This is why we generally get bigger fields, I think. Of course these type of events tend also to be at the better circuits, for similar reasons.

The shorter races. Well these are designed to be TV friendly, but how necessary for the privateers is this. Not many are funded by international sponsors. It is more a bonus. In many ways sportscar racing seemed to attract more interest when there was no TV.

A variety is always best in these cases, I feel.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
For endurance racing you already need another driver, several sets of tires, a full crew to perform pit stops, and the list goes on and on.
So which do you think is better for a privateer, whose name is not Penske?
Bob

It depends on what kind of privateer you are. If you are the most private of privateers then yes you only have one of everything. However if you factor in track time, the extra funding from the additional drivers, the prestige of the longer race, the single cost of transportation, I think you make the longer events more favourable.

[jhansen]

I agree with you Adam. The schedule should not be decided based on who might win the races. But to answer the question, I think it's fair to say that the sprint race can favor the privateer.

I also prefer variety, especially when sportscar racing is concerned. A healthy mix of sprints, mid and long distance enduros is ideal. As for why they draw bigger fields, most of the enduros are marque events. Laguna received the benefit due to its close scheduling proximity to Petit.

[pirenzo]

I doubt the extra cost of running further outweighs the cost of transport to various race tracks. Given the car will probably get a rebuild after every race, the more you do the more this also costs.
The frequent, shorter races get you more sponsership exposure, and also expose you to more companie willing to sponser you, but the 'stage' at each individual race is not as big. In that sense you get more slack for 'off-days' than on the big races.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by jhansen
I agree with you Adam. The schedule should not be decided based on who might win the races. But to answer the question, I think it's fair to say that the sprint race can favor the privateer.

I think you are right. Especially nowadays. Previously it was possible for a privateer to out-do a works team with reliability (if lucky), but the change to more bullet proof cars has reduced this possibility in terms of the overall field. The privateers numbers don't have as much weight now as it is unlikely all the (smaller number) of works will fail.

(off topic) I just worry that all we care about is the result and not how we get there.

[jhansen]

I would agree. Many thought the results in the ALMS, LMES and Le Mans were too predictable this season. Unfortunately I believe some of those folks missed some brilliant racing action this year.

Staying OT...brilliant signature line Adam!

[Adam43]

Thanks and yours is apt for the thread!

I guess privateers are in it for the romance, so they will be attracted to the big events. So I guess this is why the grids are full. (The works teams are attracted by the romance and the prestige and/or are doing all the events anyway). So we end up with big grids.

Is this the logic behind a small, but prestige LMES calendar?

[Bob Riebe]

Here's another thing to consider, not just race length.

IN NASCAR--Talledega had not the longest race, but the biggest and fastest track.

Go back to the first decade or so of the Talledega 500, and look at the winner list.
You will notice some lesser known drivers either winning outright or finishing in the top five.

All the new spurt and squirt tracks are more harmful to racing than race length.
Bob

[marcush.]

the LMES races ended with audi wins ,sure ,but predictable?
no way .
I won´t count the ifs and whens now,but sure the audis knew about the presence of a blck and a blue car out there.
If one only saw how the Veloqx crew tried everything to get that pole in SPA and how frantic their action was ,everything is clear.
Of course Teams like Zytek or Creation have to rely on their luck to bring the car home,just because they have not tested their cars to the extend Audi has.So in the end
you cannot blame audi for putting forward the funds to make sure their pacckage will last ,but that´s the difference ,not the potential speed of the cars.

[Mal]

Of course if the Audis were truly challenged by another manufacturer you would probably find that their reliability would suffer as they would have to stretch the car a little more.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
It depends on what kind of privateer you are. If you are the most private of privateers then yes you only have one of everything. However if you factor in track time, the extra funding from the additional drivers...

That's a very good point, Adam - many teams bring on third (budgeted) drivers for the longer races, whose job it is to not screw up and stay consistent, allowing the car to still be within a shout by the end. And it dramatically offsets the extra cost incurred by running that much longer.

[PascaLM]

Short and long races could be mixed in the same championship (2, 12, 24 hours, 1000kms). Both fastest and most reliable cars could have chances.

[Hugewally]

Originally posted by PascaLM
Short and long races could be mixed in the same championship (2, 12, 24 hours, 1000kms). Both fastest and most reliable cars could have chances.

No sprints... Nothing under 4 hours would be great as it gives everyone time to move around the circuit...



Martin

[PascaLM]

Originally posted by Hugewally
No sprints... Nothing under 4 hours would be great as it gives everyone time to move around the circuit...

Martin

Done ! at least 4 hours, ok.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by paul-collins
That's a very good point, Adam - many teams bring on third (budgeted) drivers for the longer races, whose job it is to not screw up and stay consistent, allowing the car to still be within a shout by the end. And it dramatically offsets the extra cost incurred by running that much longer.

And it takes control of a private team further from the team founders control.
I assume that you are assuming the third driver is payintg all his costs, other wise he is just another burden not neccessary in a sprint race.
Racing was, and still is, it is not quite a corporate toilet hole yet, for the privateer a combined labour of love, loyalty to their make, and just plain the adventure of the love for speed.
They race to go out and go, just as damn fast as they can as long as they can, if their talents impresses someone, all the better but the SCCA National series does not keep on going because of business rules.

A few truly long enduros are good as they can represent the road racing version of the "big show".
The SCCA and IMSA GT series in the past had many regional drivers who rarely went out of their region; the reason why some areas of the country seemed to always have bigger fields than others, even when the whole series was a bigger show, but when Daytona was still the biggest road race in the county, it was the one place where regional drivers would take aim at.
They could afford the sprint races, especially the 100 mile versions which were the cheapest as no pit crew for changing tires or fuel was needed.
There is no way that this cadre of regional drivers, who drive for love of sport, money drain be damned, could afford to race in a series of enduros of 500 miles or longer.
Without them you have fields the size ALMS now has.

Bob