Roger Penske's View

[old man]

Do you think he likes just beating Aston Martin then?

[WouterM]

Originally Posted by old man

Do you think he likes just beating Aston Martin then?

He likes winning.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

I don't think Fehan is talking about the same thing at all. And I don't think he's talking about only four cars. All he's talking about is "get back to strict ACO rules in GT1".

Where does he say that?

[WouterM]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Where does he say that?

He has been complaining about that all year.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Where does he say that?

Then next part of the DSC article says:-

'Where the team might be racing can be left up to the interpretation of the reader, but unless there is a firm plan from the ALMS to return to the ACO regulations, upon which the Corvette C6.R was homologated, you might have to expect to see the team racing elsewhere in 2007.'

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by JAG

Then next part of the DSC article says:-

'Where the team might be racing can be left up to the interpretation of the reader, but unless there is a firm plan from the ALMS to return to the ACO regulations, upon which the Corvette C6.R was homologated, you might have to expect to see the team racing elsewhere in 2007.'

That is what I thought, he wants the Vette to run as homologated, not quite the same as All he's talking about is "get back to strict ACO rules in GT1"., but the ghist is similar.

It would be good if they did at least that, but best if they wrote their own set of rules, which does not penalize anyone for building the best car, or exclude anyone because of a decision made in France; but not so different so a car cannot be changed to LeMans config. if so desired.
Bob

[WouterM]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

That is what I thought, he wants the Vette to run as homologated, not quite the same as All he's talking about is "get back to strict ACO rules in GT1"., but the ghist is similar.

It was homologated by the ACO according to their GT1 regulations and that's not how he was allowed to run them in the ALMS because then they'd be too fast for the Astons. So what he wants is to get back to the strict ACO rules instead of the performance balancing that IMSA put in place.

[broadrun96]

It took me all of about 3 races to understand and ANYBODY, in the US, new to the sport would only have to watch one race on CBS and be BOMBARDED with the ctach phrase "4 classes racing on the same track at the same time." I think I heard it a few thousand times in their last broadcast. But why would Penske want to eliminate the split P/GT classes except he is stating his push to get Porsche to step up and re-enforce and contemplate blowing the car to go up a class. He HAS to want to win it all and not be relegated to hoping for an Audi breakdown or another Mid-Ohio push to win a race outright. And from Porsche's side, why would they want to compete with a family company and have to burn the same resources twice to make competitive cars against the newer protoypes claimed to be in the pipelines? (yes i'm being hopeful here but there is a chance the Riley or Radical could do it and then the Peugeot) I can understand the "new" fan being confused for a few races but it's not that hard to understand within a decent amount of time.

[veeten]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I agree with you.
I probably should have put in the post that Roger's moves have also left a rather sour history at times.

Still it is good to have a major player stating the fact that the IMSA had better worry more about its home turf, rather than something thousands of miles away.

I think a three class system, would be nice, one sport/proto class; one mod. prod. big bore class; and a mod. prod. GTU class, only this time make it under three liters, in the old Mazda-Datsun battle arena.

The bottom field filling sport/proto cars have never really made much sense, or been very popular.
Bob

must be nice to have 'selective amnesia', Bob. I wish I could do that, but the past just keeps coming back, reminding me just why the GTP/GTO/GTU classes died the way they did.

Bring back the old rules and you bring back the old problems, with domination of the classes by the same manufacturers that were doing it then, only with better technology. It wasn't until the introduction of the WSC class that an american chassis builder was winning an american sportscar championship again, with the Riley & Scott Mk III, as during the Camel GT series the Ford Mustang/Probe GTP, Chevrolet Corvette GTP, or Chevrolet Intrepid never got close enough to unseat the Porsches, Nissans, or Toyotas.

Whistful thinking is nice, until you remember how it got to that point in the first place. Leave it alone, Roger. It could be worse.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by veeten

must be nice to have 'selective amnesia', Bob. I wish I could do that, but the past just keeps coming back, reminding me just why the GTP/GTO/GTU classes died the way they did.

Bring back the old rules and you bring back the old problems, with domination of the classes by the same manufacturers that were doing it then, only with better technology. It wasn't until the introduction of the WSC class that an american chassis builder was winning an american sportscar championship again, with the Riley & Scott Mk III, as during the Camel GT series the Ford Mustang/Probe GTP, Chevrolet Corvette GTP, or Chevrolet Intrepid never got close enough to unseat the Porsches, Nissans, or Toyotas.

because paranoia, after a chick, who should not have been driving in the first place, wrecked a car, caused a rule change that made NA push-rod engines uncompetitve, Chevrolet saw the blown six-banger as pointless, and the blown four cyl. Ford engine was a hand grenade at competitive power levels.
But they WERE THERE, and had won.

Whistful thinking is nice, until you remember how it got to that point in the first place. Leave it alone, Roger. It could be worse.

Selective amnesia, hmm, back to which time during that period are you referring to?
Domination NOW, or domination then differ in one big way, they used to large fields in all classes then; now they have shrinking fields in the premium classes, Porsche domination in the secondary GT class, and p2 remains as irrelevant as any secondary full racer class has ever been.

The p class is now little different, from the day when Japanese companies, used meddling IMSA rule improvements to dominate.
It is sad that the IMSA is blind to the fact that narrow selective type of rules that killed the original series is having the same effect now, only they at least had mostly large fields the first time.

The classes are not the real problem as this"...domination of the classes by the ... manufacturers that were doing it then, only with better technology." has already happened, only with same poo, from different piles.

So it is either get rid of rules that do not work, or the end result will be the same.
As I said, the classes are not the problem, but new ones would at least be a diversion that would generate curiosity for a time.
Bob

[ger80]

My class system:

class a) super gt gt 300
class b) open top lmp2, privatier teams only
class c) closed top lmp1 with 600bhp or super gt gt500 with 700bhp
class d) diesel class, safety car only. we need the real noise

[old man]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

It took me all of about 3 races to understand and ANYBODY, in the US, new to the sport would only have to watch one race on CBS and be BOMBARDED with the ctach phrase "4 classes racing on the same track at the same time." I think I heard it a few thousand times in their last broadcast. But why would Penske want to eliminate the split P/GT classes except he is stating his push to get Porsche to step up and re-enforce and contemplate blowing the car to go up a class. He HAS to want to win it all and not be relegated to hoping for an Audi breakdown or another Mid-Ohio push to win a race outright. And from Porsche's side, why would they want to compete with a family company and have to burn the same resources twice to make competitive cars against the newer protoypes claimed to be in the pipelines? (yes i'm being hopeful here but there is a chance the Riley or Radical could do it and then the Peugeot) I can understand the "new" fan being confused for a few races but it's not that hard to understand within a decent amount of time.

Pardon?

[veeten]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

because paranoia, after a chick, who should not have been driving in the first place, wrecked a car, caused a rule change that made NA push-rod engines uncompetitve, Chevrolet saw the blown six-banger as pointless, and the blown four cyl. Ford engine was a hand grenade at competitive power levels.
But they WERE THERE, and had won.

... sporadically. While they were a nice diversion off track, the on track performance never quite equalled those of the German & Japanese counterparts, even when they were built by teams here in the USA.

but, I guess we have to blame someone & draw conspiricy theories as much as possible instead of just building a better racecar, eh?...

Selective amnesia, hmm, back to which time during that period are you referring to?
Domination NOW, or domination then differ in one big way, they used to large fields in all classes then; now they have shrinking fields in the premium classes, Porsche domination in the secondary GT class, and p2 remains as irrelevant as any secondary full racer class has ever been.

yup, large fields... which were rolling Porsche commercials, since the 962 was basically a mass produced GTPs, along with the odd Intrepid, Group 44 Jags, and the offerings from Ford & GM(Chevrolet).

... and don't forget those teams from Nissan & Toyota.

The majority of that 'large' field for prototypes were IMSA Lights, sort of the predecessor to today's LMP2/LM2. Essentially the same premise: get a chassis (Spice, Tiga, etc.), stick an engine behind it, and go racing. Not that it was taken seriously by anyone, but it did fill out the grid.

GTO had gotten interesting because of the interest by Nissan and Toyota, otherwise it would've been a carbon copy of AAGT... you know, where old Trans Am cars go to retire.

The p class is now little different, from the day when Japanese companies, used meddling IMSA rule improvements to dominate.
It is sad that the IMSA is blind to the fact that narrow selective type of rules that killed the original series is having the same effect now, only they at least had mostly large fields the first time.

The classes are not the real problem as this"...domination of the classes by the ... manufacturers that were doing it then, only with better technology." has already happened, only with same poo, from different piles.

... or is it that you have a problem with the type of manufacturers that either are competitive or dominate in the face of inferior output from others. It's not their fault, especially when they only work within those changes, and produce better results.

It seems the attitude is... " I like competition, I just don't want to have to compete..."

So it is either get rid of rules that do not work, or the end result will be the same.
As I said, the classes are not the problem, but new ones would at least be a diversion that would generate curiosity for a time.
Bob

Club racing does that too.. it's just that, outside of the teams & drivers, fanbase, and well-wishers, no one cares enough for it to build a large, marketable base. SCCA's smaller classes & Grand Am are exceptional cases in this...

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by veeten

... sporadically. While they were a nice diversion off track, the on track performance never quite equalled those of the German & Japanese counterparts, even when they were built by teams here in the USA.

but, I guess we have to blame someone & draw conspiricy theories as much as possible instead of just building a better racecar, eh?...

No one said anything about conspiracies, except you
The road race rags at that time plainly said that new rules were implemented for safety sake, because of the accident at Donnybrooke.

yup, large fields... which were rolling Porsche commercials, since the 962 was basically a mass produced GTPs, along with the odd Intrepid, Group 44 Jags, and the offerings from Ford & GM(Chevrolet).

You prefer small to tiny fields being dominated, to large fields?

As an aside, John Bishop had a plan, worked out with the ACO after the Porsche 935 fiasco, when without even telling him, the ACO backed out and left him hanging.
His involvement in GARRA probably had a lot to do with GARRA avoidance of anything ACO at the time.
His distaste for Porsche also has a lot to do with Porsche merely being there, and not much more.

The majority of that 'large' field for prototypes were IMSA Lights, sort of the predecessor to today's LMP2/LM2. Essentially the same premise: get a chassis (Spice, Tiga, etc.), stick an engine behind it, and go racing. Not that it was taken seriously by anyone, but it did fill out the grid.

The P fields varied, and while not huge, they were larger than now, and one single team did not clean house regularily, until the final "rule improvements" gave the series to the Japanese engines. Even at that, at least the teams were not hogtied by contrived power and speed controlling rules at the time.

GTO had gotten interesting because of the interest by Nissan and Toyota, otherwise it would've been a carbon copy of AAGT... you know, where old Trans Am cars go to retire.

You are changing history, the Japanese tube cars came after Chevy and Ford had been going head to head for quite some time, not to mention Jaguar and Audi.The fact that the Trans-Am and IMSA GTO cars ran to similar rules was neither an accident, nor a planned event.
With one or maybe two exceptions I can think of, all front running GT cars were new build from 83 on.
Not surprising it was GT cars carrying over from several old series, when everything went to pot, that kept the races in US headlines, not the maybe yes, maybe no way the P cars were run.
Ford verses Chevy, revitalized by Dodge verses Chevy got plenty of page space , even in non-road race mags, which probably put a not small number of fans in the track.

... or is it that you have a problem with the type of manufacturers that either are competitive or dominate in the face of inferior output from others. It's not their fault, especially when they only work within those changes, and produce better results.

It is obvious, that the only thing I really dislike is when a team dominates due to contrived rules, that take away the ability to build a better, faster car to overcome the opposition.
If audi were dominating in mostly open rules, with limits put at extremes to define classes, with weight to displacement to allow more types of car, I would not care, but it is rules that kill all but the most wealthy, or influential, that makes the series a sad shadow of what it could be.
The more rules that are created, the more it cost to be competitive.

It is time for fewer, more basic rules, controlling classes that are not difficult to differentiate from each other, no matter how many there are.
Bob

[Spiteful]

I am allergic to this type of political discussions. So here is my class system, totally undemocratic and without regard to practicality.

At the top, a prototype class, with cars designed from the ground up to be radical, technology pushing racing machines. With a roof. All significant manufacturers will be competing in this class and it would effectively replace F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport
There will be no engine restrictions of any kind except max displacement and the requirement to last at least 24h... These upside-down aeroplanes could do with a lot more power. Turbo engines are allowed but have a max displacement of 500 cc (they aren't loud enough). The same rules apply for diesel-, steam- and other types of ridiculous engines. The tub is wide enough to realistically seat two people, so that the cars will still look a bit like real cars and I can go along for a ride. There will be no stupid anti-aerodynamics rules either, cause a race car is a body that moves trough air rapidly and anyone in the right mind tries to optimize it to do so efficiently. Except high, large, ugly rear wings aren't allowed, to make oversteer a real possibility. Wings are for chavs and 80's-afficionados. I can live with a regulated underbody, to allow some room for different engine and gearbox configurations. You can carry around as much fuel as you want added to the minimum dry weight.

Second a smaller prototype class for people who don't like overall wins.

The next classes are a bit more difficult, since they are reserved for road-based cars. These will actually be competing in a sideshow series, since there are already sixty-something protos in the main event
Two classes, one for the outrageous supercars with huge engines, and one for the 911s.
So, prod. car-based, as opposed to the current roadcar-ish tube frames with a bit of original bodyshell welded to it. Homologation is done for a car with it's marketed engine, so you can't just build a completely new racing engine to the same dimensions as your biggest, most racy stock block. You definitely aren't allowed to mount that engine to a four-door saloon and pass it off as a GT. I can't really figure out an homologation system that's fair to both small, three-cars-a-year shack manufacturers, and Porsche. I suggest homologation is done by a vote among ten-tenths users with 130 or more posts
Again, no wings make for sliding fun.
Have I forgotten something? Anyone disagree? Anyone who hates me now?