How would you organise sportscar racing?

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by isynge

Before we get too dewy eyed about Group C and the 1980s it's worth thinking about how it was considered at the time.

You'll forgive me for not having precise quotes related to this at hand, being at work, but if you trawl through some of the rapportage from the period it's a long way from the ringing endorsement the benefit of hindsight has granted us. In particular headlines like "Porsche economy run" (from GPI if I remember rightly) and a series of editorials in Motor Sport demonstrate some of the disaffection that these spectacular cars weren't let off the leash.

It is perhaps telling though that in bored hours it's the footage from the '80s that seem to find their way onto the television...

Yeah , but there is always complaining in sportscar racing , whats new about that ?

But , Just look at who was racing in the championship , Porsche , Jaguar , Benz , Mazda , Aston Martin ,Toyota , Nissan and Peugeot ..... If Porsche dominated Group C ..... that was purely the fault of the other manufacturers because they were not interested in supplying customer chassis , and should have been made to imo !!!

They did supply some in the early 90's , but at that stage Group C was already around 8 years running , and was too late for the series as it had become a 3.5 litre farce and was becomeing way too expensive for the privateer ..... and that is quoteing what Hugh Chamberlain said to me at the time .

There was only 1 privateer Jaguar for example , and that was raced in Japan with Suntec , and LM .

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by zac510

History doesn't seem to show sudden rule changes causing mass influxes of competitors in any racing category.

Mass influxes?
I do not know about Europe as I did not check grid size or have to follow it that closely when the IMSA was still strong; in the US, grid sizes were more often than not large enough. It was having a field that was not a one make race that was getting harder to have, at least in the top GT class.

When they replaced the GT class as top class for lack of support from Detroit in the way of homologated parts, they created the GTP class,and for the first five years, while the grid (or entries) was not really much more full than it had been, the variety returned once again that the Porsche Panzer had decimated.

With each rule change that more closely controlled what the car builders could do, the return in field filling and variety was diminished, in the p class.
The remaining GT classes had a similar happening but for the most part, a different reason.
Bob

[The Real DMN]

Ok here goes;

LMP1:
Based on current GT1 rules. Manufactures only (yearly production of over 1000 units), spyders and coupes allowed. Any new technologies being given a years grace before regulation (and reigning in if needed.), to encourage technological development. Le Mans lap times to be in the 3.25 region. Manufactures may out-source their cars, to allow the likes of Creation, Pesca, Oreca to stay in the top class; ie Creation-Ford or Oreca-Renault. In such a case the engine must be made by the manufacturer, they may not employ the likes of AER or Judd to do it.


LMP2:
Spyders only, no works teams, manufactures with less than 1000 units produced a year allowed (to allow the likes of Radical, Pilbeam etc). Class reserved for privateers and gentlemen drivers.




GT1:
Current GT2 cars with slightly better aero and engines. Performance around that of current GT1 cars, but designed to be cheaper.




GT2:
Based on Current GT3 cars with reduction in weight (minus 100kg). No works or factory supported teams.
All cars subject to equalisation tests as per the FIA GT3 series.

[chewymonster]

Not many changes from the current system.

Prototypes
Category 1 (highest level of performance) 700 horsepower and 900 kgs of weight.

Category 2 (lower performance than level 1) 525 horsepower and 825 kgs

GT

Category 1: 600 horsepower and 1,050 kg

Category 2: 500 horsepower and 1,100 kg. (emphasis on keeping the engine really close to stock)

[juicy sushi]

i'd actually like to see some major changes, just because i feel the technical and racing spectacles could be much better than they are.

i'd like to see things pared down to 2 classes, just to create deeper competition in each particular category. plus, i think the class divisions are pretty artificial in many respects.

prototypes/sports racers:

coupes or roadsters, using current chassis rules, with no rear wings. also, a maximum rear bodywork height would be instituted so people didn't try and work around that issue. current underbody rules to remain. weight would be 850kg for all cars, with LMP2 engine rules, and fuel tank sizes equalized around the potential energy of the fuel in the tank. kinetic energy return systems would be welcomed, albeit with a penalty in fuel tank size (how much would depend on the judged efficiency of the systems).

GT's:

essentially Super GT with more conservative aero and a spec rear wing, weight at 1050kg. engine rules would be the same as prototypes, but stock derived engines could be homologated for use, however with air restrictors based on the current formula to regulate power.


both classes would run the same tire rules, with tires having to be treaded, rather than slick construction...

[dj4monie]

I think Bob might remember my length post on Speed TV's web site...

Given the State of the ALMS, LMS and FIA GT, there are some squeaky wheels but no need throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I personally think the people that would enjoy GT cars only outnumber those that like Prototypes mostly with a mix of GT cars.

I don't think you need a complete re-think, I just don't know how you fix GT1 and to a lesser degree LMP-1.

The problem of course is no matter how you limit budgets, money will find its way to improve the car/team in ways you can not regulate unless you wanna find yourself in US Anti-Trust court.

The additional problem is its a bunch rich people and rich engineers/marketing people fighting over something that is not generally that important compared to NASCAR in North America and F1 in the rest of the world.

Given the new push towards Green, I do believe the Group C formula does need to be re-visited. It wasn't a complete failure fans enjoyed it for the most part and while Porsche dominated overall, others did have a chance to shine.

So that means the formula does work, it just needed to be tweaked and Bernie Ecclestone was the wrong person to ask about rules tweaking obviously.

So let's go back to Group C's initial groundwork and put a limit on Factory Participation. When "The Lion" showed up to the party, they threw a bunch of money at it, came up largely empty and scared all the Private Teams away.

Of course that was after Bernie came into the series and of course the 3.5L engine rule.

In any case, when you look at the Golden Age, it was the 60's but you had massive factory participation.

You don't need a rocket scientist to tell you factory money makes the series go, just as it does in F1 and NASCAR. When you ask a bunch of rich people, remember rich people are rich because they are largely fugal to start with; to spend money to keep up, very few hands will be raised to say "I'll Take That Challenge!"

So in lies the rub....

You need OEM money to make it work, but in turn, its looks very unpolished if you have a bunch of rich guys show up that should actually be playing golf...

Then you have manufactures like Porsche that read the rulebook backwards, forwards and upside-down...

You can't write rules specifically for them or can you???

They saw a hole the size of a pen and drove a Panzer tank through it. Now you have other companies and a few fans that feel that's its unfair. I personally think that's BS,they read the rule book, like Kunisich read the Patriot Act...

Acura jumped through the same hole, but to keep the ACO from saying "No" they added it was a jumping point to LMP-1 and they let that pass.

2007 was some of the best racing in the top class since the series started, that can not be debated!

As much as the FIA would like to tell you, there are no factory teams in their series, less me remind them, that AF Course repeating their championship run was no fluke and very intentional. They simpled crushed the competition and it wasn't even close. Are you really trying to tell me with added ballast for the entire season they still WON more than anybody else and they aren't a factory supported (not run) team?

The LMS is what the ALMS used to look like before Porsche and Acura showed up and to prevent "The Lion" from roaring, they told Spyder purchasers they couldn't run dual professional drivers in their cars. This allows Martin Short to run for poduim finishes vs Peca, not sure how that will make the series "better"...

So personally there is no grand fix, I say let it shake out a bit more and then make some suggestions. Total upheaval is not the answer...

[Jonerz]

Le Mans:

P1: Technically the same as P1, closed tops. Road manufacturers only. Works, semi-works and privateer teams allowed. Would be allowed to work with ground effects technology. 900bhp/900kilos

P2: Use rules similar to those currently in P2. Ideally, Porsche, Acura, Mazda, Zytek, AER, Judd and whichever engines I'm forgetting would run in the class. Would be allowed LMP1 type tires. 500bhp/675kilos

GT1: Similar to current GT1 class. MC12 would be legal. ECU not standard, aids allowed, slightly smaller tires than current GT1. 650bhp/1100kilos.

GT2: Similar to current GT2 regulations. Standard ECU for the class, no driver aids. Tires similar to current GT2 type. 500bhp/1250kilos.

Daytona 24:

DP: Essentially the same regulations as current DP. Slightly larger tire, flat bottom, rear diffuser. Big gumballs underneath. 600bhp/1250kilos

DP Lite: Smaller in dimensions to the DP class. Cars like Diasio D962R as base. Current GARRA GT class tires. 400bhp/1000kilos

Chris

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

Not many changes from the current system.

Prototypes
Category 1 (highest level of performance) 700 horsepower and 900 kgs of weight.

Category 2 (lower performance than level 1) 525 horsepower and 825 kgs

GT

Category 1: 600 horsepower and 1,050 kg

Category 2: 500 horsepower and 1,100 kg. (emphasis on keeping the engine really close to stock)

Simple, I like that Chewy

[Bob Riebe]

[/GT

Category 1: 600 horsepower and 1,050 kg

That is extremely close to what a 1966 A production Cobra ran at.

Backward to he future, now if the p class ran at the regs. as 1966 we might have a series.
Bob

[dj choc ice]

not much change to the current cars, aero kept the same as are engine regs apart from bringing diesel displacement down from 5.5 and 12 cylinders to 4.5 and 10 cylinders.

LMP1 and LMP2 run as one, in essence the same as kind of 2004/2005 were LMP900 and LMP675 cars ran with one another.

GT1 and GT2 to run similarly

LMP heavy-875kg, 700bhp max engine size, 7.0 litres 12 cylinders N/A, 5.0 litres 10 cylinders (universal for diesel and petrol cars) F/I

LMP lite-675kg, 580bhp max engine size, 4.5 litres 10 cylinders N/A, 3.0 litres 6 cylinders F/I (diesel not allowed)

LMGT heavy-1,150kg, 600bhp max engie size, 8.0 litres 12 cylinders N/A, 5.0 litres 8 cylinders F/I
LMGT lite-1,000kg, 520bhp max engine size, 7.0 litres 10 cylinders N/A, 4.0 litres 8 cylinders F/I

aero regs kept the same for the cars, same with tyres, brakes and chassis etc etc.

[The Badger]

There aint enough room for LMP lites ..... which should be a national series . If you cant play with the big boys , go national !!!

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by The Badger

There aint enough room for LMP lites ..... which should be a national series . If you cant play with the big boys , go national !!!

LMP heavy would be current 900kg LMP1 cars and LMP lite would be LMP2 cars running at 675 with an extra 50-70bhp, two different ways of baking the same cake if you will.

[The Badger]

Ok .... gotcha now .

[chewymonster]

Look at your power to weight ratings, you gave LMP light a better power to weight rating than LMP heavy. You would have to have LMP heavy to be about 815 kg for both to be equal. The ACO at least knows how to do math.

Bob, modern cars are much quicker in a lap because of greatly improved technology than old race cars with the same power to weight ratio.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

Bob, modern cars are much quicker in a lap because of greatly improved technology than old race cars with the same power to weight ratio.

So what?

Gee, since the ACO is so paranoid about cars going faster than they want them to, make them use old tire compounds, that is one hell of a lot better than the mickey-mouse spec. crap they have now.

[Hugewally]

I think it'd be great to see them go back to race tires with tread that actually means something (unlike the treads in F1). Square block Dunlops anyone?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Hugewally

I think it'd be great to see them go back to race tires with tread that actually means something (unlike the treads in F1). Square block Dunlops anyone?

THat is not a bad idea and it would drop speeds by at least two to three seconds a lap, whilst greatly reducing corner speeds due to flex.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

So what?

Gee, since the ACO is so paranoid about cars going faster than they want them to, make them use old tire compounds, that is one hell of a lot better than the mickey-mouse spec. crap they have now.

Not sure what you mean by this. The ACO rules allow you to run almost any engine that you want to. The thing is that you generally get the most performance by running the biggest engine you can in your category. The teams probably test all of the weight/engine size and corresponding restrictor size combinations and pick the one that is the best. That's why you end up with a few combinations.

There is nothing wrong with using technology to make a 400 horsepower car just as quick as a 500 horsepower car in your category. In endurance racing this means less stops and more track time. It means you win.

Improvements in tire technology are great, street cars stop from 70 mph in almost 100 feet fewer than they did in the old days. Nothing wrong with that.

[Mal]

To me the rules should be kept largley as they are. All the series are growing nicely at the moment with new manufacturers sniffing round to showcase new green technologies. This is a great future for sportscars and should be encouraged.

I also like the ALMS style formula of LMP1 & 2 competing from different angles, one nimble, light and less powerful, one heavier with lots of grunt. It is this that creates such fabulous racing as we had in ALMS last year as each type of car is quick in different conditions, use different strategies and have different strengths and weaknesses. This leads to the regular lead changes and proper racing that we saw for much of last year.

[eddsc]

Rather than jiggle with the cars (prototypes are fast and safe, coupes add more variety, there are four classes and GT1 will sort itself out or fade away), I feel the emphasis should be on making the events into big ones, so that manufacturers (with the carrot of new technologies and fuels) just cannot keep away.
And the ALMS variety at the front is, as Mal says, the recipe for fabulous racing... and they know all about big events, which seem to get bigger every year. Meanwhile, in Europe, let's carry on discouraging entrants..

[Fogelhund]

I don't get why people always feel some need to reinvent the wheel. The LMS is overly subscribed, Le Mans is likely massively oversubscribed, and the ALMS is likely to have experienced over a 50% growth in entries over 2006.

Every class but GT1 is growing, and has increased interest as we move along. That doesn't scream change the rules to me. If GT1 dies, so be it... there are enough cars in the other three classes to continue to run the series and LM, with pretty good success. Please keep the rules consistent, we have momentum.

[AU N EGL]

Maybe this thread should be:

"How would you Market / Promote the curruent sports car racing ( LMS & ALMS )? "

[Jonerz]

Maybe that should be a new thread. Maybe this is a nice little fantasy thread. What kind of cars do you dream about seeing at the pinnacle of racing?

Chris

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

Maybe that should be a new thread. Maybe this is a nice little fantasy thread. What kind of cars do you dream about seeing at the pinnacle of racing?

Chris

You mean like...

How to take the ALMS to the next level?

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102033

[Nick6]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

I don't get why people always feel some need to reinvent the wheel. The LMS is overly subscribed, Le Mans is likely massively oversubscribed, and the ALMS is likely to have experienced over a 50% growth in entries over 2006.

The ACO does it every year.