Caddy makes the World Challenge rumors official

[vwpilot]

I dont know if all the comments about it becoming too expensive are really all that much of an issues. Fact is, next year will be one of the most populated seasons in recent times in the GT category.

Remember, nothing said that racing had to be affordable. There is a new factory team in Caddy, there is the Champion team, two PTG cars were sold to other teams so they will be back, 3R is adding a second Vette to go along with McLure's and two Porsches, Leighton Reese and Lou Gigliotti have come down from Trans Am to field Vettes, Lou feilding at least two, Farmer will be back on a race by race basis, Young should be back with the Saleen, we should see a couple Vipers that showed to be competitive last season, rookie of the year Tom Oates will return and probably with a two car team, and there is one not yet announced factory team still to come.

By my math, that looks like a pretty good field of top end cars. If its getting too expensive, it doesnt seem to be completely driving teams away.

You guys forget, the beauty of WC is that the factories should not be able to completely dominate. When a car gets too good, they adjust the rules to bring them back in line. Its a good system, and though some have issue with it, I think it keeps the racing great. If the Caddies come out a little too fast, they will be slowed down.

Look at it this way, if GM wants to put all that money and work into a car, just to have it brought back in line, let them. PTG got upset at this because they were used to being able to be fastest by spending whatever it took. It doesnt work that way in WC and they didnt like it.

In the end the fast teams are gonna be the ones with the money, but you cant just buy a championship which some of you make it sound like Caddy is doing.

[Bob Riebe]

---"Because IMO, they are butt-ugly..."---

The Cadillac, although the general styling on the new ones is putrid, suffer the same style lacking that 99 percent of American cars have since the midseventies, they are far too narrow.
One method they used to jack-up feul milage was to make the cars narrower for better CD. Fine, (no it is not fine) if you do not care that the car looks like someone chopped 3-4 inches off of each side, but disgusting if one truly cares about aethestics.
European cars have had a good deal of the same styling shortfall, but it is not as pronounced in a smaller size car.(The Mercedes, Audis etc. all look like they tried to drive a five-feet wide car through a four-feet wide hole.)
It is amazing, as Americans get fatter,the cars have less room inside.
It is also one of the reasons the so called suvs became so popular, you had a hard time carrying passengers much less cargo in the front-wheel drive econoboxes, passed off as a family sedans.
Bob

[Bob Riebe]

---"You guys forget, the beauty of WC is that the factories should not be able to completely dominate. When a car gets too good, they adjust the rules to bring them back in line. Its a good system, and though some have issue with it, I think it keeps the racing great. If the Caddies come out a little too fast, they will be slowed down."---

Ahh, forced mediocrity. Do not waste time to produce a superior product, because they will bring you down to the level of the rest of slow people. I think it is called dumming-down.
The worst thing is some of you think it is great. "Oh wow, did you see how they made the fast cars slow. I love it!

George Follmer once complained after Ford pulled out of racing "Last years cars, last years speed."
Gee, now it is " I don't want last years cars, the are too fast, give me the ones from the year before!"

It kind of brings racing down to the level of- used toilet paper.
Bob

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by vwpilot
I dont know if all the comments about it becoming too expensive are really all that much of an issues.

No they aren't now but they will be a year or two down the line.

[FIRE]

This is a 3 year programme:

After the 2004 season, they'll get rid of that faux radiator grille. After the 2005 season, they'll set up a facility in England where they'll build a new car that will look something like this:

http://www.opel-performance.de/imag...news_172_03.jpg

No it will look like this: http://www.racing1.de/web/_img//dtm/...a_studie_o.jpg

[vwpilot]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe

Ahh, forced mediocrity. Do not waste time to produce a superior product, because they will bring you down to the level of the rest of slow people. I think it is called dumming-down. Bob [/B]

You could look at it that way, but after all, look how many people are complaining about the ALMS and how dominant the Audis have been. They say its not fair because Audi just decided to build a faster car by spending the money.

Which do people want?

What is wrong with keeping cars equal so that the racing is good?

There is a place for both. In the high end, high money prototype racing that is the ALMS I don mind seeing the Audi keep winning because that is what that kind of racing is all about.

But in a class like WC I dont mind seeing the cars equaled up because it provides really good and close racing. It is some of the best racing in the world right now and if you havent had the chance to see it your really owe it to yourself before you pass it off as half-assed and mediocre.

My point though was in regards to the Caddy, people are complaining the car is not stock anymore so it shouldnt be fair. Well, if it were just left to be stock cars out there it would be a parade of Corvettes because they are by far the best cars off the showroom floor, just look at SCCA T1 racing. They are the most stock cars out there and are competitive doing it. However, even they are not that stock. Ever seen a Vette with coilover shocks off the showroom floor? I havent, they all use leaf springs.

So the stock car argument doesnt really hold all that much water. SCCA wants a series with a lot of different makes and models. In order to do that you have to equalize them. Some cars get less mods, some get more, its the only way. Being these cars are actually based on real cars, means that is the only way to make them competitive.

When you have a series like the DTM or BTCC and the cars are all basically the same under the skin, then competiion is a little more straightforward. But if you want to have a luxury car be able to be competitive with a Corvette or a Porshce, you got to give it a little something.

Sometimes that goes a little too far and then you have to take back away, like with PTG this past season, but in the end the goal is that any make can go out and win on any given day. And though it doesnt meet all the definitions of racing, (Le Mans has its place for unlimited spending buying your victory) it certainly doesnt hurt.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by vwpilot
What is wrong with keeping cars equal so that the racing is good?

If you want to equalise the racing, do you allow such factory teams in, and let the cars turn into silhouette Specials? And then you try and slow them down? You will tick off the privateers for allowing them in, and then the factories for slowing them down.

There is a place for both.

In the same series?
Isn't SWC supposed to be privateer-based, and production-based? Don't such all-out works cars (regardless of how many doors they have?) really belong in the ALMS?

[Bob Riebe]

---"But in a class like WC I dont mind seeing the cars equaled up because it provides really good and close racing. It is some of the best racing in the world right now and if you havent had the chance to see it your really owe it to yourself before you pass it off as half-assed and mediocre."---

This is how NASCAR functions. Since the cars mean nothing (Road racing does not have this problem in the WC, but the Trans-Am functions in the same forced equality) artificial close racing is created by making how good a car is or is not totally meaningless. Race on Sunday, sell on Monday does not apply because the racing proved zilch about the auto product on the track.(I personally care zero about who is or is not driving a car. I have had drivers I liked but often it was because of the make they supported.)

---"My point though was in regards to the Caddy, people are complaining the car is not stock anymore so it shouldnt be fair. Well, if it were just left to be stock cars out there it would be a parade of Corvettes because they are by far the best cars off the showroom floor, just look at SCCA T1 racing. They are the most stock cars out there and are competitive doing it. However, even they are not that stock. Ever seen a Vette with coilover shocks off the showroom floor? I havent, they all use leaf springs."---

True production stock racing--is boring. Modified production, or prodified racing as they said out west thirty years ago, has been the rule since the 1967 Trans-Am when Ford put the Mustang against the Cougar, followed by the late entry of Camaro with Penske. The mods, within homologation rules, were opened up in steps and then bounds until in Trans-Am(and IMSA) the Cat.II (AAGT)cars were as radical as one could get and still have to use available homologated parts(This was also one reason the Camaros and Corvettes were hobbeled. GM had no transmission that could take the torque of the big-block Chevy for long).
You said have you ever seen a Corvette with coil-springs? Well the last year Greenwood ran a true leaf-spring rear was 1974, the next year, he kept the leaf, a single leaf spring, but put coil-overs on the shocks. Technically he obeyed the rules of having to have a stock rear spring. This is what makes racing interesting, how one can obey the rules and still innovate.
Racing is not supposed to be fair, you either, lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. The ones, competitors, who worry about being fair are the ones who end up getting out of the way.
Still you do not equalize by giving and taking to different makes. As I said, that makes the car, and make, a farce.
You set one general set of rules(weight to displacement is still the best) and let the racers, and factory homologation pundits, follow them in the way that serves each best.
Bob

[vwpilot]

I have to say that I just dont agree with you. I dont think the WC is about creating a parade. If you really let the factories go for it within the rules you would end up with no competitors because GM would wipe the field up with the Corvette.

You compare WC to NASCAR in the sense of forced equalization, well, what happens to be the most popular racing series in the States, and almost the world? NASCAR.

I got to say that very few racing fans actually care about what the car truly is and how they are winning. They like to see racing and what is under the skin doesnt mean that much. If it did then NASCAR and Trans Am would be nothing. The difference is that those series allow for the whole car to be developed under the skin, while in WC you at least start with the real car. In the end, all three series are competitive.

Its just a way of thinking, if you dont like the idea then its fine. I happen to watch WC to see great racing. I watch the ALMS to see the latest and most sophisticated sportscars and for the endurance drama that goes along with it, its rarely for the competitive racing on track.

Also, if forced mediocrety doesnt lend itself to race on Sunday and sell on Monday, then you better tell the big three, because they have been doing pretty well selling Grand Prixs and Monte Carlos based on that exact idea.

Plus, the fact that the factories cannot buy a win in the series I think attracts the privateer, he has just as much a chance as the big guy does. As a privateer I would feel much more welcome in a class like WC knowing that they cant spend millions of dollars to take the win.

But that is just my opinion, nothing wrong with anyone elses.

[Bob Riebe]

---"Also, if forced mediocrety doesnt lend itself to race on Sunday and sell on Monday, then you better tell the big three, because they have been doing pretty well selling Grand Prixs and Monte Carlos based on that exact idea"---

Apparently the prospective Camaro and Firebird owner disagreed with you.

---"I got to say that very few racing fans actually care about what the car truly is and how they are winning. They like to see racing and what is under the skin doesnt mean that much. If it did then NASCAR and Trans Am would be nothing...."---

IF this is true then it says much about how pathetically naive and gullible the US general populace has become concerning automobiles.
In NASCAR you are absolutely correct and France engages in manipulating his audience by propogating hero worship. (Racers are highly paid entertainers(in NASCAR)and the fact that TV personalities call them heroes is an abomination.) The less important the cars become the greater he can control his audience by exploiting, and getting rich off of selling items connect to, driver fan clubs. (He is becoming a sort-of super pimp except that he is now at the mercy of his sponsors. If they say **** he better drop his pants and squat or he has no show. )

If road racing has sank to the level of no one knows why they are there, such being they do not have a solid idea of what the vehicles represent, or now are there to simply "root" for their favorite driver, then they have become so gullible they do not know they are being suckered, and the reason for the current slump is self-explanitory.

(I do not believe this is true if for no other reason than the 30 percent market drop G.M took starting in the seventies when they tried to NACARize their product line. Same **** different piles.
The farce was futher propogated when they entered IMSA with a semi-factory Monza, whilst abadonning the Camaro and Corvette supporters.
Their success can only be shown by the overwhelming number of Monzas on U.S. highways, or coverage of vintage models in U.S. high-performance magazines.)

You are correct in writing that anything written here is an opinion, and there is nothing wrong with, actually it is a good thing, stating totally opposite expression of attitudes. It prevents mediocrity.
Bob
PS--To the Earnhardt fans, AutoWeek wrote twenty years ago, that he would probably the last of the old guard racers. He showed qualities generally present in the racers that proceeded him and which they could not find in any of the other racers in the new generation that Earnhard represented.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
---"Because IMO, they are butt-ugly..."---

The Cadillac, although the general styling on the new ones is putrid, suffer the same style lacking that 99 percent of American cars have since the midseventies, they are far too narrow.
One method they used to jack-up feul milage was to make the cars narrower for better CD. Fine, (no it is not fine) if you do not care that the car looks like someone chopped 3-4 inches off of each side, but disgusting if one truly cares about aethestics.
European cars have had a good deal of the same styling shortfall, but it is not as pronounced in a smaller size car.(The Mercedes, Audis etc. all look like they tried to drive a five-feet wide car through a four-feet wide hole.)
It is amazing, as Americans get fatter,the cars have less room inside.
It is also one of the reasons the so called suvs became so popular, you had a hard time carrying passengers much less cargo in the front-wheel drive econoboxes, passed off as a family sedans.
Bob

Boy...do I ever agree with you on this one Bob Reibe...

I will say though that the US makers have realized this, and some of their 2004s plus future concept cars are at least trying to adress these issues...

[skycafe]

Hey Bob Riebe, since you brought up the Greenwood Corvettes, and you would know the answer, Greenwood always based the car around the stock chassis? It was embellished with roll cage, etc., but I think always the stock chassis.

Also, he eventually went to fabricated front suspension instead of stock?

By the way, as much as I have always been a fan of them funny little furin cars, the Greenwood Corvette was something to see! Coming out of corners it would start to make a lot of noise, seemingly without effect, and then would suddenly leap forward. Breathtaking.

He always ran a high line through the Daytona East Banking, with the car cocked a little bit, and roaring like the cauldrons of hades.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by skycafe
Hey Bob Riebe, since you brought up the Greenwood Corvettes, and you would know the answer, Greenwood always based the car around the stock chassis? It was embellished with roll cage, etc., but I think always the stock chassis.

Also, he eventually went to fabricated front suspension instead of stock?
By the way, as much as I have always been a fan of them funny little furin cars, the Greenwood Corvette was something to see! Coming out of corners it would start to make a lot of noise, seemingly without effect, and then would suddenly leap forward. Breathtaking.
He always ran a high line through the Daytona East Banking, with the car cocked a little bit, and roaring like the cauldrons of hades.

Sky:
The last totally production Corvette from Greenwood was the 1974 version, even here the suspension parts were heavyduty versions of the original.
The 1975 car had his own version of the front suspension and coil-overs on the rear, whilst maintaining a single leaf spring to meet the rules. the pig (or center-section of the car, firewall back to rear-window including doors was modified stock) was production based, although the supspension on both ends had to meet production pick-up points, measured from the firewall. The firewall could not be penetrated or altered in any way.
The rules for IMSA and SCCA differed in degrees, weight for one. The IMSA cars were lighter, also by the end of the seventies one could eliminate the center section of frame but the firewall, windshield and doors had to remain. The frame replacement had to mimic the stock components,so pick-up points could be where they belonged.
The last Greenwood car was built to the last rules, although he never called it a tube-frame car because the parts were designed to be adapted to a stock Corvette(He intended to buid a genuine Greenwood GT, which is why Picketts Trans-Am car was called that)so the race car had to meet the rules and be a mule for production cars. It was just a mule and lighter version of the still-born production car.

One racer I have spoken to J. Chamberlain from Oregon, built a car with the production center section but minus the stock frame, one way to save weight, but by the time he was done IMSA had added extra weight so he had to add lead.
He ran Trans-Am and IMSA and said the SCCA were extremely fussy about suspension location and things such as wheelbase. they gave one a leeway of a few thousandths of an inch.
Having spoken with people who raced or worked on cars back then, because the rules changed almost day-to-day. Ask ten people and you get, at least, five answers. It seems there either was no, or no one kept them, simple rule book, so getting an old rule book seems to be impossible.
I remember thirty years ago, when I was trying some freelance work, asking a racer what the rule book said, and he laughed and said which version, yesterdays, todays or tomorrows.
John Greenwood was known for his flat out style of driving, but he hated driving unless the car was set-up perfectly for him. He had great respect for Milt Minter who would get into a car he himself would not want to drive and go out and go flat out in it. Minter won, one race for Greenwood,in a car Greenwood refused to drive as he considered it unfit for the track.
The greatest enemy of any big-block Chevy was that the transmission simply was not up to the level of the engine, and this included hand picking, what were supposed to be the best of, the gears. Had GM had a transmission to match the Porsche one, things would have been very different.
The ex-Greenwood car used by Picket to win the 1978 Trans-Am title was detuned until they found a level that was still able to run with or away from the Porsches and destroy the fewest trannies.
Bob

[gttouring]

isn't that why we love T/A
gear munching tranny destroying V8's in a tube frame car.
Paul Gentilozzi is missing the point isn't he.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by gttouring
isn't that why we love T/A
gear munching tranny destroying V8's in a tube frame car.
Paul Gentilozzi is missing the point isn't he.

When the first tubies, in the Cat.I class (1983) still had to use a partial pig,(they had real doors) even I still thought they were great.
Now if who ever has the Trans-Am would use something similar to the old Group A, Group 2 or Group 4 rules, the cars would represent a real car but be incredibly exciting as such nasty things as restrictors or weight penalties would be history, and working within stock pick-up points and wheel-base, it would be the best innovator wins.
We would return to the days of yore with engines putting out 750 plus HP on average.(I love to see pictures of cars from the seventies and early eighties and look at the big honker tires they used. Who needs ground effects when you have 18 inch wide tires in back.
I would even be happy with just stock wheelbase and real functioning doors.
I might even give in to, current type frames,IF,they used a weight to displacement scale and allowed the cars to run any engine in the parts books.
It would be a whole new world for Dodge, Ford and Chevy lovers.(The offspring of the Boss 429 was still in the parts book last time I checked.)

You could not be more right "Paul Gentilozzi is missing the point isn't he".

[skycafe]

Greenwood always ran the high line on Daytona banks, what is still called the Petty line. The car would have a slight set with the tail out just a bit, and just be thundering along. Probably ran the high line so he didn't flat run over everything else out there on the back straight and banking. The other cars almost looked like they were drifting down to hide.

Having seen 917's, 512's and GT40's, and all the different variations of sports cars since, the 74,75,76 Greenwood vettes were the most impressive on the run around the banking. Speed and the thunder sound.

This is what gets people to reach into their pockets and pay admission.

[muggle not]

Farmer will be back driving his Vette in 2004. There is a disparity when the manufacturers finance certain teams as it makes it very difficult, to say the least, for the other teams to compete.

Instead of financing certain teams it would be better if the manufacturers put up more contingency money. Then all the teams could benefit and the racing would be even better.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by gttouring
isn't that why we love T/A
gear munching tranny destroying V8's in a tube frame car.

I'm sorry but that sounds like a display of engineering incompetence. Just an engine (carburetted ) and not much else isn't enough anymore these days.