Vitaphone invitation, should the Mazza be at LM?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Adam, I say ... Oh damn the torpedos -- let um race. ANd the Best / fastest car wins.

But your right the Pug does make the MC12 look conservative, and Grand AM DP cars very very conservative.

I wonder what LG thinks about illegal cars??

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I wonder what LG thinks about illegal cars??

L.P.

whoaaa. Dont get his Texas Italain dander up.

He will let you and everyone else know. BUT that is a different thread.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Adam, I say ... Oh damn the torpedos -- let um race. ANd the Best / fastest car wins.

Are you suggesting that there should not be any regs to comply with and teams can build whatever they want? Maybe the regs should be a guide only, and if your car comes out a bit bigger or smaller no worries. Maybe if your wings are maybe.... 5% larger? no one should mind.

Perhaps Aston should slip in a slighty bigger engine, what the hell, no one will care as long as it turns up.

Sounds expensive.

I can't understand the 908/MC12 comparison, they both have roofs and engines at the back with wheels at each corner and that is about where it ends.

Saleen, you say the 908 makes the MC12 look like a road going super car, can you explain what you mean? The Macca F1, F40, koniggissssggggsiggi(wtf), Enzo etc are road going super cars, and the MC12 does not look a whole lot like them, but is based however, on a slightly shorter one.

The MC12 belongs with the Porsche GT1, Toyota GTone and the various flying mercs. Cars built to race with a few token road going ones knocked up.

Various deluded people seem to be saying that because the MC12 exists, then it should race in the 24hrs and we as fans are being denied the chance by the ACO to see the most wonderous car race.

Utter rubbish, if anyone is preventing that its the FIAT group, instead of having a go at the evil ACO empire for wanting to stick to the regs, that other teams have manged to do, give Maserati a ring and ask them when they intend to build the ACO compliant car that was promised. then we would all be happy.

[Adam43]

I don't think everyone was being entirely serious with extreme suggestions. I am sure that AU N EGL was not suggesting exactly what you put into words!

When I compared the Pug and the Mazza my intention was not to suggest that this proved it was a road car now that the Pug had been revealed. However it is clear that there is quite a difference between the Mazza and a full blown prototype. Although my main point was just to post a little aside, and I think the response was also along that vein.

Originally Posted by Nordic

The MC12 belongs with the Porsche GT1, Toyota GTone and the various flying mercs. Cars built to race with a few token road going ones knocked up.

*eyes glaze over*

[Satorian]

Originally Posted by Nordic

[the truth]

Word. I agree with every word, even though I also believe some people here weren't completely serious in their demands to let it race.

And the group of cars you classed the MC12 with, as iconic as they might be, is indeed fitting and gives another hint that the MC12 should not mix with the other GT1s.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I don't think everyone was being entirely serious with extreme suggestions. I am sure that AU N EGL was not suggesting exactly what you put into words!


*eyes glaze over*

Geeezzzzz, No Wonder I could not sleep and my ears were buring. You guys were talking about me or my wording.

If I ment no rules, or minimal rules as back in the Can-AM racing days that is differnt.

IMHO or egotistical opnion, ( what ever ) the MC12 is a bit of an old car now, and enough of the cars performance is known. Let the car race. There are fewer and fewer GT1 cars to fill GT1 grids. We all seem to be talking about the end of GT1 in the very new future anyway. Or major changes to GT1/2 rules.

Yes I believe in race rules, ( and I stretch those rules as far as I can too) for so called performance balancing.

On the manufactures side, why should the manufacture build a super car to fit FIA or any race orgainzations rules? They build super cars to sell to the very wealthy public. If the super car can happen to fit into some orgainzations racing rules, or minor modifications, then great it can race.

Yes Ferrari is building the 430 GTC and Porsche builds the 996 RS & RSR, now the 997 and does adapt them to FIA, ACO or Grand am rules to race and for marketing to sell more OTHER cars.

If you want to be extra picky on rules, go watch a NASCAR scrutineering, OUCH they get teams if a spoiler is off 1/4 degree.

[Satorian]

Hmmm, rule breaks are slopes slippery enough to make glaciers look like sandpaper slides.

The less restrictive the rules, the higher the costs. And GT racing has had its fair share of binge and purge cycling, so sticking to the rules, no matter how unpopular it may be, gets a thumbs up from me.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Geeezzzzz, No Wonder I could not sleep and my ears were buring. You guys were talking about me or my wording.

Yes I believe in race rules, ( and I stretch those rules as far as I can too) for so called performance balancing.

On the manufactures side, why should the manufacture build a super car to fit FIA or any race orgainzations rules? They build super cars to sell to the very wealthy public. If the super car can happen to fit into some orgainzations racing rules, or minor modifications, then great it can race.

Yes Ferrari is building the 430 GTC and Porsche builds the 996 RS & RSR, now the 997 and does adapt them to FIA, ACO or Grand am rules to race and for marketing to sell more OTHER cars.

If you want to be extra picky on rules, go watch a NASCAR scrutineering, OUCH they get teams if a spoiler is off 1/4 degree.

Sorry to have kept you awake!

I would dispute your defination that rules are set goven performace. I hate any form of performace balancing.
The reason for regs is to create a level playing field from which teams can start their designs and evalute, in GT terms, if they have a car with which to compete.

Where they go within those set peramiters is up to them, so the teams that do a better job will have cars that will go faster, last longer and win. Thats their reward. To then create new rules designed to slow them is wrong and IMHO far removed from the ideals of motorsport.

Too allow cars to race that have been designed from the onset with a differnet agenda would be a slap in the face for those that took the trouble to adapt cars and turn them into race cars, rather than the other way round like Maserati who took a race car, found it was a bit to big and tried to strong arm the ACO and lost, then insulted the fan base by refusing to make the changes that where promised.

You mentioned NASCAR and their strict enforcement of regs, it would be the same in F1. Like it or not these are the two most well supported branches of motorsport.

The ALMs on the other hand is forever tinkering and giving performace breaks and the two class this was most often seen are now maybe the two weakest classes in what could otherwise be a strong series. The LMs on the other hand has less messing about and both GT1 and P1 are pretty well supported and growing. Does anyone else see a connection?

I agree the later days of the orignial GT1 saw some very impressive cars, and IMHO the MC12 would have fitted in very well with them. But in hindsight those cars where the downfall of a fantastic series that started with the Macca F1, F40 and could have progressed well. But it ended in the trees when costs grew and the series became the playground of two very strong teams who called the shots.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Nordic

Sorry to have kept you awake!

I would dispute your defination that rules are set goven performace. I hate any form of performace balancing.
The reason for regs is to create a level playing field from which teams can start their designs and evalute, in GT terms, if they have a car with which to compete.

Where they go within those set peramiters is up to them, so the teams that do a better job will have cars that will go faster, last longer and win. Thats their reward. To then create new rules designed to slow them is wrong and IMHO far removed from the ideals of motorsport.

I like this your idea and agree. Unfortunitly we see in GT1 that Corvette has or would dominate the ALMS and LM24 if there were no performance balancing.

Dont get me wrong, I love corvettes, I race one and have a second as a street car, plus co-promote corvette high performance driving events for Chevy. So any time a Corvette wins I am estatic.

However, teams would love to run in GT1, if they believed they had a real chance for a podium place. BUT TWO corvettes with a $50+ million dollar annual budget, AM with a big budget as well. Both run by Racing Business, Pratt& Miller and Pro-Drive, with extreemly rich and winning history. Hard to compete with that.

Look at Saleen their cars are on the aution block. His budget was only $5 million per year and he said he could not compete.

Unrestricted rules for cars, puts the race series in jepordy of extinction. the old Can-Am series of the late 70s, early 80s is a good example. That Porsche 917-30( or what ever number) with the flat 12, twin ( bi) turbo and 1200 HP killed the competition and eventully the series.
But damn I loved the Can-Am races, and the history CanAM cars on track now are just music to my ears.

I think the rules, and performance balancing is a very fine dance, between manufacutres, teams, sponsors money, race promotoers, results and spectator attendance.

Some times to win the war, one must loose a battle.

[Adam43]

There has to be a winner, although that appears to be almost unacceptable nowadays

Whether you allow road to race or race to road there can still be a dominant force. The Corvette is that at the moment. If the Mazza was allowed, it may become that.

As we stand though the rule makers then take the best car and drag it down to the second best car (or try to). In some ways they might as well do that with the Mazza too!

After all I don't beleive the road to race or race to road is as clear cut as suggested above.

It is all very tricky.

I don't like performance balancing, but it seems I am never going to get that. I also wouldn't mind a more ace to road, that philosophy doesn't bother me either. Although I accept that problems arise from different interpretations. The arguments between race series and teams bores me though!

Overall should the Mazza race? I don't know. However allowing the Mazza to claim a team a spot at Le Mans, but not allowing the Mazza a spot seems odd to me. Perhaps the Grand Am champion should earn a place too

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Overall should the Mazza race? I don't know. However allowing the Mazza to claim a team a spot at Le Mans, but not allowing the Mazza a spot seems odd to me. Perhaps the Grand Am champion should earn a place too

I think it was an olive branch from the ACO, it may have been a clumsy one, but with the ACO could it have been otherwise?

Whatever the reasons for the offer, and lets not forget the other teams that gained from it, the ball has been firmly passed to Vitaphone and its up to them, or Maserati to make the next move, which as we all know has been done, but yet to be revelled

For a sportscar team to turn down a offer, for what is still the most prestigious race cannot be easy, but without a suitable car I think that is what must have happened, but I live in hope we will see the team with a suitable car maybe as a joint effort with another.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Nordic

I think it was an olive branch from the ACO, it may have been a clumsy one, but with the ACO could it have been otherwise?

Whatever the reasons for the offer, and lets not forget the other teams that gained from it, the ball has been firmly passed to Vitaphone and its up to them, or Maserati to make the next move, which as we all know has been done, but yet to be revelled

For a sportscar team to turn down a offer, for what is still the most prestigious race cannot be easy, but without a suitable car I think that is what must have happened, but I live in hope we will see the team with a suitable car maybe as a joint effort with another.

I agree!

L.P.

[The359]

Why do I have bad images of Vitaphone Racing showing up with a modified MC12, only to have the ACO exclude it at tech inspection....

[duke_toaster]

If FIA GT allows LM GT cars, surely the reverse could happen feasably.

[TheNewBob]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

If FIA GT allows LM GT cars, surely the reverse could happen feasably.

Nobody's saying it won't happen, it's the ACO's initial protest and rejection of the car which would make it pretty controversial.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by The359

Why do I have bad images of Vitaphone Racing showing up with a modified MC12, only to have the ACO exclude it at tech inspection....

Well it should not get past the paddock gate as there is no such thing as an homologated MC12 in the ACO! Much less make it to scrutineering!! And I dare say that Vitaphone does not want to set that precedent with the ACO. I think every Vitaphone entry in the future( if the ACO ever allowed it) would have its stones examined with a electro-micron microscope! I believe that only a minimum of Impertanance(pc word) will be tolerated by the ACO! And Vitaphone knows what the ACO expects in the way of an entrant.

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Perhaps the Grand Am champion should earn a place too

I am all for that too. Oh wait, there are minimum lap times and minium lapping differences between cars in that class. The Top DP cars lap a sec or two faster then GT2 cars on the same tracks.

Well that shoots that Ideal.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

If FIA GT allows LM GT cars, surely the reverse could happen feasably.

The square peg does not fit in the round hole.
But the round peg fits in the square hole!

L.P.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

I am all for that too. Oh wait, there are minimum lap times and minium lapping differences between cars in that class. The Top DP cars lap a sec or two faster then GT2 cars on the same tracks.

Well that shoots that Ideal.

My point was just that the Grand Am champions will have won a championship with an ACO ineligible car, but as long as they find a Saleen they'll be could be alright to enter the 24. It was not my intent to cause a dig.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

My point was just that the Grand Am champions will have won a championship with an ACO ineligible car, but as long as they find a Saleen they'll be could be alright to enter the 24. It was not my intent to cause a dig.

We know, that is why I did. Just Kidding.

When you look at the DP entry list there are many many names that cross from one serires and car to another. Pro Drivers have to pay the bills too.

and these are just the Pontiac ( Corvette ) powered cars
Pontiac Powered Grand-Am Teams for the Rolex 24 At Daytona:
#06 GT, Banner Racing, Pontiac GXP.R, Leighton Reese, Tim Lewis, Johnny O'Connell
#07 GT, Banner Racing, Pontiac GXP.R, Paul Edwards, Andy Pilgrim, Kelly Collins
#7 DP, SAMAX, Tom Kimber-Smith, Thomas Enge, Jeff Bucknum
#10 DP, SunTrust, Wayne Taylor; Max Angelelli, Jeff Gordon
#11 DP, SAMAX, TBA
#12 DP, RVO Motorsports, Jack Baldwin, Bill Lester, Roger Schramm
#16 DP, Howard Motorsports, Chris Dyson, Rob Dyson, Guy Smith, Oliver Gavin
#20 DP, Howard Motorsports, Andy Wallace, Butch Leitziner, Tony Stewart
#75 DP, Krohn Racing, Tracy Krohn, Nic Jonsson, Boris Said
#76 DP, Krohn Racing, Colin Braun, JJ Lehto, Max Papis

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

My point was just that the Grand Am champions will have won a championship with an ACO ineligible car, but as long as they find a Saleen they'll be could be alright to enter the 24. It was not my intent to cause a dig.

But FIA GT and ACO legal GT are compatible with each other and co-mingle on occasion, Grand Am is Far removed from it. There is no merit to the argument!! The MC12 is an exception to the equation.

L.P.

[B24]

Well I vote for the MC12 simply from a spectator point of view.
I'm Australian, love watching motoracing.I have been to the LM2004 which was an excellent event, but there were not enough variety in GT1. Bring on the spectical of supercars!!
Is there really a big $$ difference in running a C6/F575 sports sedan or a true sports car(saleen,MC12,Lambo,Enzo,430,Carerra GT,Molser)?
50mil for a C6 or 5mil for a saleen?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

But FIA GT and ACO legal GT are compatible with each other and co-mingle on occasion, Grand Am is Far removed from it.

I know. Although the non-occassion car beat all the occassion cars!

There is no merit to the argument!!

Except to illustrate a point, I have also used the WTCC to illustrate this. The championship was still won by a non-compliant car. Maybe the problem here is that we are not dealing in absolutes - no merit, seems a little harsh. I thought it was clear that I am not actually suggesting this, but just to highlight an oddity!

The MC12 is an exception to the equation.

It is an imperfect equation then! It isn't absolute then and there is some merit.

These things about Grand Am being different to ACO and FIA GT being almost like the ACO are the starting points, the obvious things that we all know before moving on to consider the odd situation thrown up here.

My point was never to seriously suggest having the winners of Grand Am, nor to say that the FIA GT rules were nothing like the ACO rules. It was done to highlight an odd situation. I think it is an odd situation so am highlighting a similar concept, but more extreme, to emphasis it - in a way I am trying to emphasis the lack of merit! Instead of trying to find the (easy) flaws in a clearly tongue-in-cheek suggestion, please try and see my meaning.

Vitaphone will have to change their team/entry significantly from what they used to win the FIA to be eligible for Le Mans. The argument that they can still enter, but with a different car, must then be that they have demonstrated competency by winning this championship. Well the winners of the WTCC, Grand Am, Super GT have all done this too. Perhaps the ACO could extend these guaranteed entries to include all these winners (and runner-ups) - although that may upset some LMS and ALMS regulars, who might not win the title, but hope that regular appearances in the LM series will help them to the 24.

What I am saying is that the ACO should either allow the actual winner (and car) of the FIA GT to race at Le Mans or not offer a place at all if they feel that this may allow a car outside their rules. It can only truly work if all the cars in the FIA GT are eligible for Le Mans. So do it and allow the Mazza, or don't do it. I guess that means I am not directly answering the question of the thread, but instead answering the question "Should the ACO accept the winner of the FIA GT if the rules are different?".

[Adam43]

Before I throw something else into the pot, I must also point out that I may not actually mean this either. It is just (slightly) interesting.

In the past the ACO have occassionally allowed a car to race at Le Mans that is slightly outside the rules but inventing another class. e.g. IMSA. Why not have an FIA GT class to allow the Mazza! he he. Then the Corvette will still win its class even if the Mazza finishes ahead.

Although what is the point of any of this when you have a surfeit of entries?

[The Badger]

Thats a good idea , but i also feel that 5 classes at le mans might just be a little too much ?