GTE/GTLM 2016 discussion

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

Cars don't need to be a year old anymore.

Yes, the cars still need to be a year old!



L.P.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

Cars don't need to be a year old anymore. Essentially what it boils down to is where the money comes from. If an amateur can afford for Aston to run the team, and can afford a Lamy... you're going to see a different looking effort than Team AAI. Really the class shouldn't have non amateurs in it.

I like what PWC does, if an amateur finishes on the pro podium, they get promoted to the pro class. The 98 has dominated this year to the point where you wonder if they're in the right class.

Wasn't the year old rule reinstated again?

[Hawkwood]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Wasn't the year old rule reinstated again?

As far as I'm aware the year-old rule is still with us.
If I remember correctly Larbre couldn't run the Corvette C7 in 2014 as they wanted because the car was in its first year and so obviously there wasn't a year old version for them to use.

[Salamus]

No, the "one-year" rule was ditched a couple years ago. It is being re-implemented in 2016.

[seanyb505]

My interpretation was that AM would be 1 year behind only in the implementation of the GTE rule set. Unless I'm reading an old set of Tech Regs from the website.

[Hawkwood]

Originally Posted by Salamus

No, the "one-year" rule was ditched a couple years ago. It is being re-implemented in 2016.

Just done a bit of searching, the year-old rule is alive and well, and was why Larbre ran an LMP2 last year.
They tried to run the C7, but weren't allowed.
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/l...-c7-r-in-2014/

[Coach Ep]

"year-old model rule" ditched for this year, back for next year and then outta the window again for 2017 - there's the ACO for you...

My point for getting rid of the Am class is to prevent the real amateurs mixing it with the Pro's and talented gentlemen drivers. With all respect to guys like Goethe and a couple of AAI's guys (they will always be much faster than I would ever be!) but they simply lack the necessary driving skills (and hardly improve over the years) to compete in such a prestigious and important race. A points qualification system would be best imo where drivers can collect a certain minimum amount of points by participating in lower categories series and 'feeder series' like ELMS, AsLMS, TUSC, BES, etc. Also, the ACO should introduce a minimum qualifying time for those amateur drivers (and not only for the GT-Pro drivers like they do now).

Point system + minimum quali time = higher level of amateur drivers.

Saves a lot of incidents and delays - and some injuries as well!

[Salamus]

Originally Posted by Hawkwood

Just done a bit of searching, the year-old rule is alive and well, and was why Larbre ran an LMP2 last year.
They tried to run the C7, but weren't allowed.
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/l...-c7-r-in-2014/

From what I remember, the "one-year" rule didn't apply in 2014 or 2015. The Larbre Corvette didn't get approved because it wasn't homologated early enough or something like that. I remember there being a big fuss about Larbre not being able to run the Corvette but other teams were able to run brand new cars.

[mariantic]

Originally Posted by Salamus

From what I remember, the "one-year" rule didn't apply in 2014 or 2015. The Larbre Corvette didn't get approved because it wasn't homologated early enough or something like that. I remember there being a big fuss about Larbre not being able to run the Corvette but other teams were able to run brand new cars.

I think there is some confusion here. Anyone got any links to confirm the change in year-old car rules?

This from the 2015 Le Mans Rule guide:

"The only difference is that the cars must be at least one year old so they cannot take advantage of the latest tweaks."

http://www.24h-lemans.com/en/race/ca..._2_2_1742.html

From Wikipedia:
"GTE-Am cars must be at least one year old or be built to the previous year's spec,"

Be good to get the definitive story here.


Mariantic

[tux]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Well the car kinda does too doesn't it? Does it not need to be a year old car again? And the argument of counting the team should not go unnoticed. If we truly want to reward amateur drivers and teams at Le Mans, then allowing teams like Aston Martin to enter full factory efforts with an ex-F1 driver/P1 podium finisher should be questioned.

It isnt a full factory effort in the sense that Dalla Lana is paying alot of money for the pleasure of racing with AMR.

Maybe the issue is allowing 1 Gold/Platinum driver into the class.

For me i dont see an issue with the split classes, it happens in Blancpain Endurance and doesn't take anything away from the PRO class. Keeps some pro drivers in a job and lets be honest 95% of all motorsport relies on wealthy men spending their money.

I think if you have some issues with the AMR #98 line up then this one is in the same category. AF Corse (defacto factory Ferrari team) running this lineup.
François Perrodo, Emmanuel Collard, Rui Águas

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by mariantic

I think there is some confusion here. Anyone got any links to confirm the change in year-old car rules?

This from the 2015 Le Mans Rule guide:

"The only difference is that the cars must be at least one year old so they cannot take advantage of the latest tweaks."

http://www.24h-lemans.com/en/race/ca..._2_2_1742.html

From Wikipedia:
"GTE-Am cars must be at least one year old or be built to the previous year's spec,"

Be good to get the definitive story here.


Mariantic

I believe it to be pretty definitive, the car (as to it's homologation) must have been in competition the prior year. It can be a 'newly constructed' chassis but it must be to the previous years spec if there is one. Sometimes the cars are the same spec as there is a 2 year period of only 1 evolution being allowed by rule. So, the cars latest version must be run in GTE Pro a year before it is allowed in AM.




L.P.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

So once there is a truly separate class with a differing speed for GTE or GTP, will GT3 be allowed to race at LeMans and in the WEC?

Shoudn't be read like that, GT3 is just there to give a baseline for the speed difference, now that ACO apparently had an issue with GTE not being the undisputed number one GT class.

The convergence talks stopped long time ago (last year), and it is definitely not happening now.

Unfortunately these new regs will probably make it harder to do GT3 -> GTE conversions.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

A comment on one of the Radio Le Mans podcasts about some of the new GTE cars being further along in development than you might think has gotten me wondering. Obviously Ford have the car running, but who else has tires on tarmac? Fiorano seems as leaky as a colander so I think we'd have seen the 488GTB if they'd been testing it out in the open.

Just yesterday I saw it mentioned in some news story that 488 had been already testing. Unfortunately forgot which site and news story.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Salamus

From what I remember, the "one-year" rule didn't apply in 2014 or 2015. The Larbre Corvette didn't get approved because it wasn't homologated early enough or something like that. I remember there being a big fuss about Larbre not being able to run the Corvette but other teams were able to run brand new cars.

The 'fuss' was about the Porsche (2014 spec) and how it on ran at Dubai just before the end of the year in 2013, so it was considered by the letter of the rules to have been ran the previous season. Proton and Dempsey/Proton both in GTE-AM ran the 2014 cars in 2014 which is why there was such a FUSS!

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2013/1...e-911-rsr.html






L.P.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by deggis

Just yesterday I saw it mentioned in some news story that 488 had been already testing. Unfortunately forgot which site and news story.

http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/l...race-notebook/

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by deggis

Unfortunately these new regs will probably make it harder to do GT3 -> GTE conversions.

This is interesting, because in TUSCC next year BMW want to run the new GT3 M6 in GTE class, which is belived to be easily converted to GTE spec because its a turbo engine. Remember, in GT3 they are also allowed bigger modifications to bodywork then they have been in GTE up till next year. So maybe the new GTE regs and GT3 will be very similar in the way the bodywork is allowed to be modified. So in reality, GTE might very well be taking a step closer to GT3, allowing GT3 cars to be easier modified to fit GTE regs.

[Mike E]

Has there been any news on engine regs?

[Brake dust]

Originally Posted by BullMan

I wonder that too, but since ACO didn't invent GT3 and they can't control it, they probably don't want it there.

Now that WEC and Le Mans is governed by the ACO/FIA, maybe that will change? Not sure what SRO thinks about it!

[Brake dust]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I hear people talking about a new Porsche V8 twin turbo to take on Fords new challange .

Any truth in the rumour ?

There's been rumor that Porsche will be introducing a car that will compete directly in the marketplace with Ferrari. Porsche AG also has indicated that they will be introducing a new model line. Now that the 918 is sold out, it's the perfect time to introduce the 960. The 911 will the flat 6 is just not as competitive these days.

[deggis]

http://sportscar365.com/industry/201...ons-finalized/

“The idea with the performance window is to bring the cars in the same performance behaviors,” ACO Sporting Director Vincent Beaumesnil told Sportscar365.

“Today when we balance different cars like an Aston Martin and Ferrari, these cars are so different that you need to give more power and downforce to [one car] in order to do the same lap time.

“Then if you have more power and more downforce, the car would be easier to drive for a second-level driver, so it would create some differences.

“Also when the weather changes and the temperature is different, having cars with different weights, power and aero means that [the performance] can change very quickly from one condition or track to another.

“We want to bring all of them in a very short range of power, weight and aerodynamics.

“All of the discussion on BoP will never end; I’m sure of that. But we’ll see that the car will be very equal in [most] circumstances.”

The relaxed bodywork rules could result in some cars adopting a more aggressive appearance, potentially similar to the old GT1 era, although Beaumesnil downplayed such a possibility.

“It’s not necessary to go too far [on aero] because they have to be in the performance window,” he said. “If they bring too much performance we’ll remove.”

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Brake dust

There's been rumor that Porsche will be introducing a car that will compete directly in the marketplace with Ferrari. Porsche AG also has indicated that they will be introducing a new model line. Now that the 918 is sold out, it's the perfect time to introduce the 960. The 911 will the flat 6 is just not as competitive these days.

There are a lot of conflicting reports/rumors on this, however, from the various sources I have researched, the introduction of the "960" seems unlikely (much to my chagrin).

[Accident]

How about the rumored 928 successor? Would be more of a "proper GT" than the 911 is.

[Rodger Davies]

On the driver ratings thing, it's not an 'Am' class we don't need, it's a 'Pro' class that isn't needed, in my opinion. There should be an overall GT class with all GT cars and one for GT-Am within this. So the 'am' cars are effectively entered in two categories, the overall GT one AND their own.

There's nothing wrong with recognising their achievements, but the problem is that we're NOT recognising their achievements when they're beating full Pro cars, instead pretending that the #71 AF Corse car came second in class (or first, in the case of WEC points - another home rule), when in reality it got beaten by SMP's car.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by Rodger Davies

On the driver ratings thing, it's not an 'Am' class we don't need, it's a 'Pro' class that isn't needed, in my opinion. There should be an overall GT class with all GT cars and one for GT-Am within this. So the 'am' cars are effectively entered in two categories, the overall GT one AND their own.

There's nothing wrong with recognising their achievements, but the problem is that we're NOT recognising their achievements when they're beating full Pro cars, instead pretending that the #71 AF Corse car came second in class (or first, in the case of WEC points - another home rule), when in reality it got beaten by SMP's car.

Same way as privateers trophy in LMP1 then? Wouldnt have anything against that

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by Mike E

Has there been any news on engine regs?

Same here, I wonder if ACO will only allow piston-based engines, either petrol or diesel?