[WEC] LMP Future Regulations (was Le Mans EVO rules - now hypercar rules)

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Apparently not, Lola have today unveiled the coupe version - link - stating that new car will be available at the same price as the 2010 P2 coupe. I'm now very confused........should this car not be subject to the price cap? Or does this not qualify as a new car? Or have I fundamentally misunderstood something?

I may be wrong in this suggestion but the coupe with the fin could be a stop gap of sorts or more than likely the LMP1 machine. Apart from the fin I can't really notice any changes from the 2010 Lola Coupe. If the coupe is based off the new 2011 Lola then it's open to suggestion whether or not it's a new car, personally I feel if a car shares the base with another car then that other car is not a new car if youg et what I mean.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

So there is a price cap, but the organizers offer the teams ways to get around it??

I think it's meant to accommodate older and higher-tech/costlier equipment so the grids don't rely solely on new equipment. I don't think it means there's a provision for new cars over the price cap. Either way the fast P2s should become P1s as it would cost a lot to butcher them to accommodate production engines and be slower. I don't think we'll see current Zyteks or HPDs going to 2011 P2.

But once again, what looks more interesting to me is older perfectly good cars available for very little money with extensive spare packages that can be upgraded/degraded to current rules. A lot of good cars have been built around the LC70-75 tub... But what will probably be missing is teams to run all these possible and existing solutions.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

Can a mod please clean this thread or do something about HCLs incessant waffling, it's starting to irritate not just myself but probably a lot of other people as well.

Oh! yes, perhaps starting with you ?... what do you say?... Constant crying posts about what ever, not discussing rules and neither presenting technical arguments( hybrid is in the evo rules) its what is really off topic and annoying. And absence of any politeness, rude arguments and apparent hatred, seems kind of personal (against ppl that never acquainted)... i never posted anything personal either in favor or against anyone... nothing to inflate super egos or ask to delete posts or ban anyone.

My stance, as an opinion, its very easy to be summarized. Ditch "most" rules concerning fuel discrimination, augment hybrid potential, allow in the hybrid section the inclusion of hydraulic power.

Where is it off topic, in a "evo" rule discussion topic ??

[CTD]

The 2011 P2 field is really going to be interesting with all these manufactures, both Coupes and Spyder cars!

It's quite clever of Lola to build both a Coupe and a Spyder, as the Coupe will speak to all teams with Le Mans as a major goal, and the Spyder will speak to the teams with the championships as goal.

Originally Posted by hcl123

Oh! yes, perhaps starting with you ?... what do you say?... Constant crying posts about what ever, not discussing rules and neither presenting technical arguments( hybrid is in the evo rules) its what is really off topic and annoying. And absence of any politeness, rude arguments and apparent hatred, seems kind of personal (against ppl that never acquainted)... i never posted anything personal either in favor or against anyone... nothing to inflate super egos or ask to delete posts or ban anyone.

My stance, as an opinion, its very easy to be summarized. Ditch "most" rules concerning fuel discrimination, augment hybrid potential, allow in the hybrid section the inclusion of hydraulic power.

Where is it off topic, in a "evo" rule discussion topic ??

I've stayed of all this before, but i will not risk that this thread is going to be ruined once again, when there finally is something new!.
Please Hcl123, drop the subject and step out of the person aimed mud throwing (not blaming any, and don't care who started), and just join the forum in a normal way and discuss the news and subjects at hand. If there's any subjects you want a deeper discussion about, then simply open a new thread (contact a mod or admin if you are confused, if it's worth a new thread or not) instead of "hi-jacking" the thread, which might be seen as going off-topic.
Thank You

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Félix

I think it's meant to accommodate older and higher-tech/costlier equipment so the grids don't rely solely on new equipment. I don't think it means there's a provision for new cars over the price cap. Either way the fast P2s should become P1s as it would cost a lot to butcher them to accommodate production engines and be slower. I don't think we'll see current Zyteks or HPDs going to 2011 P2.

But once again, what looks more interesting to me is older perfectly good cars available for very little money with extensive spare packages that can be upgraded/degraded to current rules. A lot of good cars have been built around the LC70-75 tub... But what will probably be missing is teams to run all these possible and existing solutions.

Yes, I believe it as a grandfathering of sorts also.
The interesting part will be how the conversion to using an engine cradle will be done. I would suspect on the Lolas it will bolt to the bulkhead where the engine used to, and maybe use the P-1 bodywork, as it is longer than the P-2 bodywork to accommodate the added length of using a cradle.




L.P.

[CTD]

It's interesting that Lola mentions the possibility to mount a Toyota engine in the Lola Coupe!?.

Toyota's name is being mentioned more and more often.

[JAG]

It could be a Judd-Toyota.

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by JAG

It could be a Judd-Toyota.

Is this Judd preparing a Toyota say V6 with Twin Turbo? Judd hasn't built a turbo engine since its CART days (largely uncompetitive).

With HPD crushing LMP2, I expect the request line to be long. Not for just the new V6 but also the now illegal in LMP2 3.4L Racing V8.

Other engines will be considered based on team budgets, loyalty overtures and I'm sure limited technical assistance offered by HPD. Surely 5.0L American V8's will largely be affordable as well.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by CTD

Please Hcl123, drop the subject and step out of the person aimed mud throwing (not blaming any, and don't care who started), and just join the forum in a normal way and discuss the news and subjects at hand. If there's any subjects you want a deeper discussion about, then simply open a new thread (contact a mod or admin if you are confused, if it's worth a new thread or not) instead of "hi-jacking" the thread, which might be seen as going off-topic.
Thank You

"hi-jacking" ???

If there is a thread that i've been more on topic is this... why would i begin a new thread discussing new rules for 2011 forward ( discussing => means what might be wrong what can be improved ) ??

Isn't the name "EVO" in the tittle meaning that the draft presented by ACO is not yet final... not the kind take it or leave it... but that they are open to suggestions ??

What was so bad, and staying on topic means TECHNICAL REASONS, in my opinions that made ppl go berserk ??... where am i wrong ?... i wasn't supposed to present any "suggestion" about changing the present draft ?... is that it ?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by hcl123

"hi-jacking" ???

If there is a thread that i've been more on topic is this... why would i begin a new thread discussing new rules for 2011 forward ( discussing => means what might be wrong what can be improved ) ??

Isn't the name "EVO" in the tittle meaning that the draft presented by ACO is not yet final... not the kind take it or leave it... but that they are open to suggestions ??

What was so bad, and staying on topic means TECHNICAL REASONS, in my opinions that made ppl go berserk ??... where am i wrong ?... i wasn't supposed to present any "suggestion" about changing the present draft ?... is that it ?

Hi-jacking, as you take control over the thread, by keeping the same discussion over and over again, killing any news or new subjects which is being presented to the thread.

The "EVO" in the title has no reference to the subject of the thread any longer, as i started the thread to get a clarification on the subject of what was the "EVO rules". As the "EVO rules" where abandoned in the form it was originally intended, the thread name was changed to "LMP Future regulation", but kept the "EVO rules" name, as it was a continuation of the old thread, even though it had nothing to do with it.

What i think, made people go "berserk" (very wrong term), is the fact that you stubbornly discuss a subject like a sophist, ei. until people have enough of you or until your "right", even though there might be evidence of the opposite. (Not saying this is the case, and that you are wrong, but the way you discus it, make it seem like it).

The fact that you respond in the way you do, to my neutral post, proves this, as i offered a peaceful easy way to let the "mud-throwing" die. Instead you decide to almost attack every single thing in my post, instead of just accepting that the subject you discussed is dead.
I hope you will understand and accept this, so 10-tenths can continue in it's glorious ways.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by CTD

Hi-jacking, as you take control over the thread, by keeping the same discussion over and over again, killing any news or new subjects which is being presented to the thread.

The "EVO" in the title has no reference to the subject of the thread any longer, as i started the thread to get a clarification on the subject of what was the "EVO rules". As the "EVO rules" where abandoned in the form it was originally intended, the thread name was changed to "LMP Future regulation", but kept the "EVO rules" name, as it was a continuation of the old thread, even though it had nothing to do with it.

What i think, made people go "berserk" (very wrong term), is the fact that you stubbornly discuss a subject like a sophist, ei. until people have enough of you or until your "right", even though there might be evidence of the opposite. (Not saying this is the case, and that you are wrong, but the way you discus it, make it seem like it).

The fact that you respond in the way you do, to my neutral post, proves this, as i offered a peaceful easy way to let the "mud-throwing" die. Instead you decide to almost attack every single thing in my post, instead of just accepting that the subject you discussed is dead.
I hope you will understand and accept this, so 10-tenths can continue in it's glorious ways.

Ok, don't worry about me... i only discuss with ppl that want to discuss, my intention was/is honest... though you made quite a bold wrong assumptions about me, let me tell you.

Please, since is your thread, maybe it would be wise to change the title then(evo "abandoned" rules...)... and as an informative stance i tank you for the reference about Evo being abandoned, it was news for me, and since i googled for it, it seems to have generated more polemic than anything that we have thrown at it here.

[hcl123]

Wait a minute!... i entered very late in this discussion, i need help then...

What are then those regulations ?
http://www.lemans.org/en/news/2011-L...TIONS_628.html

Are those the so called Evo rules that were abandoned, or is it the final draft for 2011, that only add to the 2010 regulations ?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Wait a minute!... i entered very late in this discussion, i need help then...

What are then those regulations ?
http://www.lemans.org/en/news/2011-L...TIONS_628.html

Are those the so called Evo rules that were abandoned, or is it the final draft for 2011, that only add to the 2010 regulations ?

The "Evo Rules" was proposed rule set, which proposed to go back the the advanced GT1 cars of '97, '98 and '99. And was to have started in 2010.
The "Evo Rules" then got abandoned thru a lot of changes, and is what we have today, know as the "2011 draft rule set".

Just for clarification (as it's off topic), it's not "my thread", i just started it. If you are unhappy with the name, then suggest to a mod/admin that it should be changed. Though i do not see a need for a change as there hasn't been any confusion about it before, and it states pretty clear that it's the former "EVO rules" thread (meaning it's no longer).

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by CTD

The "Evo Rules" was proposed rule set, which proposed to go back the the advanced GT1 cars of '97, '98 and '99. And was to have started in 2010.
The "Evo Rules" then got abandoned thru a lot of changes, and is what we have today, know as the "2011 draft rule set".

Let see if i can situate myself

The draft for which i presented the official site link, is pretty much then the rules for 2011, but not yet final, missing to be determined then, among other things, what penalties about weight and air restrictors the 2010 cars will have in order to compete in 2011 ? ... well summarized i believe in this article http://green.autoblog.com/2010/06/14...ions-now-with/

This draft rules was what resulted from the last TWG on past 30th of June...
from http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...php?f=5&t=8732

Over a month after the 24 Hours of Le Mans and we are still lacking definitive regulations for 2011. The Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings are held quarterly in order to discuss amongst the manufacturers and suppliers the direction of future regulations. The last TWG meeting was held June 30th. In the mean time, while we wait, this came our way. The minutes of the last Technical Working Group meeting. There seems to be precious little discussed regarding 2011 which leads one to believe that the Version 4 regulations will ultimately be released little changed.

One does wonder why the Renault F1 Team was one of the participants...

Discuss...


MINUTES OF THE LMP CONSTRUCTORS MEETING JUNE, 30th 2010

Participants:

Julian SOLE (Lola) / DUNLOP MOTORSPORT EU / Jean Felix BAZELIN (Dunlop) / Martin MUEHLMEIER (Audi) / Axel LOEFFLER (Audi) / Norbert SANTOS (Norma) / Guillem ROUX (Norma) / Alwin SPRINGER (Porsche) / Juergen KLAUKE (Porsche) / Adam CARTER (Wirth Research) / Christophe CHAPELAIN (NISMO?) / David FLOURY (Oreca) / Mike BLANCHET (Formula Le Mans) / Stan HALL (Judd) / Roger GRIFFITHS (HPD) / Aoki NORIO (?) / Mark ELLIS (AER) / George Howard CHAPPELL (AMR) / Jason HILL (AMR) / Bruno FAMIN (Peugeot) / Tim HOLLOWAY (Zytek) / Ian LOVETTE (Zytek) / RENAULT F1 TEAM / François SICARD (OAK Racing) / Serge GRISIN (Michelin)/ PESCAROLO SPORT / Scot E. ELKINS (ALMS).

Vincent BEAUMESNIL / Daniel PERDRIX / Denis CHEVRIER / Thierry BOUVET / Aurore LARDON.

Improvement of energy efficiency:

Is intended to be the base of future regulations (for at least 3 years)
The energy counted is the one externally supplied to the car.

• Weight of the car: only one minimum weight. This weight can be obtained with a car using a gasoline engine and without energy recovery system. Minimum weight proposed: 775 kg. General agreement for 775kg.
Could be reduced in relationship with evolutions of technologies.

• Power: limited by a maximum instantaneous amount of energy that can be used. The control will be made with a mandatory common box that will drive the injectors.
Precision and application of such equipment raised as being very challenging.

Other proposal: control could be achieved by allocation of fuel quantity. Such quantity for race refueling being directly linked to the amount of laps done and policed by ACO.

For electrical energy, instead of allocation, the control of the used energy seems presently the only possibility. It must be policed by ACO. They could lead to a particular category: experimental

Still need to find a solution for qualifying conditions.

• Type of engine: All types of engine apart from turbines, reactors and engines using Stirling cycle.
Confirmed

• Energies valid: these the potential energy of which can be clearly defined and usable. These fuels will be supplied always by the ACO to ensure the calorific power. Safety for the use of these energies should be guaranteed and necessary approvals should be obtained (hydrogen, gas, etc.). Regarding electric energy, it will be necessary also to quantify and control the potential energy. As a base: the maximum allocation would be equivalent to the energy of 1500 liters of petrol for 24H in Le Mans.

Present intention would be to decrease the quantity by 2% per year.

GPL or other particular gas or substances would be subject to the approval from administrations of the countries. They could also lead to the particular category: experimental

• Energy Recovery Systems: The number and the use are free. Possibility for using the 4 wheels to recover and release the energy, but the propulsion of the front wheels must be done only with the energy recovery systems. The driving aids are permitted. The amount of energy recovered, stored and used is free. Safety rules should be defined for each new system.
Confirmed / Safety will be treated as a crucial point.

• Efficiency of energy recovery systems: The System should be efficient enough to allow at least equal performance with a car without hybrid system.
Confirmed

• Transmission: free, but the combustion engine must only be connected to the rear wheels. Other proposal: Conventional engine should not be connected to the front wheels


Maintaining the level of performance over 3'30''on a lap at Le Mans:

Possibility to reduce the performance by:

• Changing the amount of energy allocated, Agreed as being efficient

• Modifying the aerodynamic of the cars. These modifications should not increase the drag in order to maintain a good efficiency.

Considering the orientation of the regulation (reduction of global energy), the trend will automatically go towards
this direction (ratio Load/Drag).

ACO could reinforce some aspects of regulations (bodywork at the front …)

• Reducing the size of the tires and increasing their lifetime. To be reevaluated after 2011 with a target which could reduce the size. In such objective, Tires manufactures emphasize the need to have from competitors some figures of reduction of down force to calibrate their researches.

Increase of lifetime is a lot more supported (cost, image and potential reduction of performance).

Agreement of tires manufacturers to produce tires with internal chip to allow automatic knowledge of the tyre used (operating at the exit of the pit lane).


Maintain open and closed cars :

Considering the orientation of the regulation (reduction of global energy), the trend will automatically go towards closed cars.

ACO could reinforce some aspects of regulations to make it mandatory.

Cockpit temperature could be decreased for safety reasons.


LMP2 2014

Improvement of energy efficiency:

• Weight of the car: 850 kg
More interest in maintaining 900 kg.

• Power: limited by a maximum instantaneous amount of energy that can be used. The control will be made with a mandatory common box that will drive the injectors. The amount of energy will be defined according to the engine capacity. Precision and application of such equipment raised as being very challenging. Other proposal: control could be achieved by allocation of fuel quantity. Such quantity for race refueling being directly linked to the amount of laps done and policed by ACO.

• Type of engine: production petrol engine.
Confirmed
Stability of regulations mentioned, and taken in account, as efficient to achieve cost reduction.

• Energy valid: one fuel only supplied by the organizer.
Confirmed

• Energy Recovery Systems: Forbidden.
Confirmed

• Transmission: on the rear wheels only, 6 gears maximum.
Confirmed


Level of Performance:

• Possibility to reduce the performance by changing the amount of energy allocated, Agreed as being efficient


Cost reduction:

• Engine operation: minimum 50 hours between 2 rebuilds (from 2013 included)
Confirmed

Proposed approach: 1 engine for complete LMS season (5 events) + 1 engine for Le Mans 24Hours.
Intended to apply specific bonus points for reliable engines.

• Limiting the number and type of tires. Agreement of tires manufacturers to produce tires with internal chip to allow automatic knowledge of the tyre
used (operating at the exit of the pit lane). Tests are on schedule by both manufacturers for LMGT2 cars at Silverstone event. General agreement to introduce next year a restriction of number of tyres per car and per race.

Quantities to be given in October meeting.


Maintain open and closed cars:

No intention of changes.

ACO could reinforce some aspects of regulations to make open cars mandatory for new models


LMP1 and LMP2 : Limitation of testing :

Idea from ACO to force competitors to participate to the series instead of doing ‘some pickings’. Many aspects make this limitation difficult to introduce (different countries (USA-Europe), different competitors, interest of test for financial aspect for some gentlemen drivers, cost of parts more important than circuit rent, number of red flags…).

The only proper way to achieve a rule could be from control of tyre usage. Tyres manufacturer should be
involved.

ACO expects some proposals to be done for next October meeting.


Others: 2011

Le Mans test day:

Must be mandatory for new teams, new cars and new drivers.

Must be mandatory for at least one car per brand.

Additional entry will be granted by the ACO in accordance with criteria of quality, history, …

Extension to 2 days has been discussed but not possible

Relationship Diesel/Petrol for next year:

Present situation taken into account by ACO with intention to introduce a sporting rule to limit difference of performance during a complete season (2% ?)

Engine oil recirculation:

ACO wait for some results of studies from competitors for next October meeting.

Engine air restrictors:

Should be communicated shortly

LMP2 prices:

ACO agrees to mandate 345.000€ as proper base for a complete car without engine

Article 5.5.3

Considered by some competitors as not being under proper control by ACO.

ACO takes into account with intention to reinforce this subject.

Hybrids:

The definition of possible recovery conditions will be defined shortly (level of lateral acceleration…)

Safety for future:

FIA studies for side intrusion resistance could be integrated in the future

It for sure had many interesting proposals, specially in engines ( 'all' kinds of ICE ?) and fuels (LPG/GPL !?) and transmissions (free!!?.. awesome) ... to be praised... only missing hydraulic power as an hybrid mode(IMO)... and yet by the draft, it was too much discussed for too little to came out.

If the TWG is supposed to meat in quarterly order, it means that by the 30th of October, then everything must be clarified... set in stone for 2011 !?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Let see if i can situate myself

The draft for which i presented the official site link, is pretty much then the rules for 2011, but not yet final, missing to be determined then, among other things, what penalties about weight and air restrictors the 2010 cars will have in order to compete in 2011 ? ... well summarized i believe in this article http://green.autoblog.com/2010/06/14...ions-now-with/

This draft rules was what resulted from the last TWG on past 30th of June...
from http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...php?f=5&t=8732

It for sure had many interesting proposals, specially in engines ( 'all' kinds of ICE ?) and fuels (LPG/GPL !?) and transmissions (free!!?.. awesome) ... to be praised... only missing hydraulic power as an hybrid mode(IMO)... and yet by the draft, it was too much discussed for too little to came out.

If the TWG is supposed to meat in quarterly order, it means that by the 30th of October, then everything must be clarified... set in stone for 2011 !?

No, but yes.

Draft 4 has been summarily released and believed by many to be the defacto final set with a few minor tweeks coming to them. As evidenced by the context of TWG minutes of June 30.

TWG minutes form that meeting are already moving on to a rulset for 2014 and beyond.



L.P.

[gwyllion]

@hcl123: If you want to learn about the now dead LMP Evo rules, just read the first posts of this thread, run http://www.endurance-info.com/article.php?sid=3767 through your favorite translation site, or look at this artistic impression of what a LMP Evo prototype were supposed to look like:

Draft 4 of the real 2011 rules is available on http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2011ACOLMP12Version4.pdf

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

@hcl123:
Draft 4 of the real 2011 rules is available on http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2011ACOLMP12Version4.pdf

Thanks for the link.

Though concerning hybrids, i still see many reasons for criticism in the whole picture of the idea.

"" The ACO wants to give to the manufacturers the greatest possible
freedom to develop and use such systems while taking a certain
number of measures to control them.

o petrol: 73 75 l.
o diesel: 63 65 l.

The amount of energy used between 2 braking must not
exceed + 0.5 MJ. Braking lasting under 1 second will not
be taken into account.

- The current, voltage and the time of charge and discharge
will be measured continuously between the energy
storage system and the inverter(s).

- Equivalent sensors will be defined for the inertial systems.

- Sensors for monitoring the use of the brakes and the
wheel speed will equip the car.

- Safety rules that will be imposed by the ACO

The use of such a system must not be aimed at obtaining additional
power but at reducing fuel consumption. ""

Reminds of a story with a friend of mine: ... -me: i what to modify my car, how fast do you think it can go -friend: tell me how much money do you have, and i tell you how fast!..

The same goes for hybrid prototypes, tell me how much money do you got, and i'll tell you if you can have an hybrid system... tell ACO how much money an hybrid system costs, and perhaps they will think twice about stratospherically exploding the costs, to the point that it will cost twice or triple or more to run the same 24h distance with 63-73 Liters tanks than with 81-90 liters.

Translating to the point that you got to be rich, from an exploitative and environment destroyer business kind, and or stupid in order to be "green" or a "three hugger".

And the real irony is in all those controller devices that ACO wants to implement, and others devices for permitting to take good advantages of electric power. Already an advanced control for an electric motor can be more expensive then the motor itself... i'm sure that all control devices, specially including the rule policement ones that ACO wants to impose, will cost way more than the rest of the whole hybrid system including the electric motor.

So perhaps ACO can support the costs in its entirety for hybrid control... to avoid redundancies:

You don't have to exclude LPM2 from having hybrid systems, and then cap the maximum price of a LPM2 car, and reserve this category mostly for privateers, because even if hybrid systems were free in all categories the privateers couldn't afford them... ELECTRIC MOTORING ONES I MEAN... including in GT endurance classes...

With 63-73 Liters tanks obtaining real additional power its out of the question, specially imposing 500KJ between brakes = equivalent to 80HP for 7-8 seconds =, i demonstrated in another post that even 2 liters difference for hydrid vs non-hybrid, non-hydrid systems with 2 liters more will have "up to 149x" (yes 149x) theoretically MORE additional power between 2 brake zones compared with hybrids, according with the energy of "diesel" fuel.

This draft version 4 doesn't have yet the fuel tank capacity for non-hybrid LMP1s, but its clear that its reserved for the big houses with deep pockets, not by rule but by cost, and most of them will avoid it considering that without it they will have a much smaller expense and will have a performance advantage.

So, if the difference is only 2 liters, that tells a ugly joke about fuel economy mantra, if its more then non-hybrid cars will have a tremendous amount of advantage... not "mud-trowing" a reality... what is ACO thinking ?...

[johntt]

Originally Posted by JAG

It could be a Judd-Toyota.

Or it could be the 3.5l Toyota V6 as featured in the Lotus Evora

[6157]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

@hcl123: If you want to learn about the now dead LMP Evo rules, just read the first posts of this thread, run http://www.endurance-info.com/article.php?sid=3767 through your favorite translation site, or look at this artistic impression of what a LMP Evo prototype were supposed to look like:

Considering the interest in GT racing these days, the ACO made a major mistake moving away from this concept. EVO probably would have doubled the number of entries versus P 1 remaining the top class, in the first year alone.

[Mike_Wooshy]

Originally Posted by johntt

Or it could be the 3.5l Toyota V6 as featured in the Lotus Evora

I doubt that as the block itself is not good for racing, It has Siamesed bores and it has a 60 degree V which from my understanding is not as good for a LMP car compared to a 90 degree V engine..... BUT I could be wrong I have been wrong on these things before.

[Aysedasi]

As a mod who has passed through this thread and has noticed, ahem, some difficulties between posters, I don't want anyone to think I'm not aware of the calls for involvement. As it stands, I can see where everyone is coming from, but editing the posts is really quite difficult (apart from one which was completely off-topic which has now gone). hcl123 - if you'll forgive me for addressing this openly in the thread, I'm not sure your posts are generally sufficiently off-topic for me to randomly delete them, but I do understand why others find them rather stifling. Perhaps it's time to lighten up a little , step away from this thread and come back when we have a few more views?

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by 6157

Considering the interest in GT racing these days, the ACO made a major mistake moving away from this concept. EVO probably would have doubled the number of entries versus P 1 remaining the top class, in the first year alone.

I agree with you in one thing, GT racing has cars that ppl identify with cars that they can see on the streets everyday... and EVO could had been a great factor in that promotion... the MAJOR factor from where GT racing develops interest.

OTOH, its not reasonable as a race spectacle, that GT are nothing more than moving chicanes... so easy to pass that they don't pose any inconvenient now( or very little).

EVO could have leveled the playing field, to the point i'm apologist of making GT endurance like a super-GT class, like those in Japan... or since the EVO prototypes would have many resemblances with GTs... make separated races with separated International Championships... prototypes and GTs...

In the end its a "flame" bait in any case, because its so hard to please everybody... to the point that a "noise" reduction measure would be indeed to make separated championships, with a few classic races where the circuits allow, like La Sarthe(maybe Spa, Suzuka...), to have both races at the same time(overlap).

I'm convinced that would attract more players either in prototypes and GTs. In terms of promotion that could give twice the publicity, and in terms of spectacle the races would be more attractives... many ppl that don't know nothing about endurance, seem amazed why some cars are so fast and others are so slow... confusion and uninterest i've seem quite a lot of times among those...

In the end that is what happening not by rules or organization, but by spontaneous evolution... ALMS is the more penalized and the best example... The best P1 only go for Sebring and or Petit Le Mans, ant its confusing for a newbie that starts interest, to see the performance differential and get to be a fun of any other team or car in the other races of the ALMS championship.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

hcl123 - if you'll forgive me for addressing this openly in the thread, I'm not sure your posts are generally sufficiently off-topic for me to randomly delete them, but I do understand why others find them rather stifling. Perhaps it's time to lighten up a little , step away from this thread and come back when we have a few more views?

I don't know what you mean !?... its only opinions... i've seen a little particular car fin being discussed on this thread... and that was on topic??... never insulted no-one, and institutions are not above criticism, "au contraire" as the Athenian law maker so well prescribed, democratically they should be under constant scrutiny... but if its for everybody having the same opinions, that some acts of force are to be applied, don't worry about me, i will run from that... like a lover from death.

[6157]

Originally Posted by hcl123

I agree with you in one thing, GT racing has cars that ppl identify with cars that they can see on the streets everyday... and EVO could had been a great factor in that promotion... the MAJOR factor from where GT racing develops interest.

OTOH, its not reasonable as a race spectacle, that GT are nothing more than moving chicanes... so easy to pass that they don't pose any inconvenient now( or very little).

EVO could have leveled the playing field, to the point i'm apologist of making GT endurance like a super-GT class, like those in Japan... or since the EVO prototypes would have many resemblances with GTs... make separated races with separated International Championships... prototypes and GTs...

I should note, for a top class, I'm talking about EVO cars with prototype engines. Yes, it would be imperative for the top class to maintain reasonable speed.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by 6157

I should note, for a top class, I'm talking about EVO cars with prototype engines. Yes, it would be imperative for the top class to maintain reasonable speed.

Not only that. Its imperative that GT are allowed to "innovate" and improve much their top and average speeds... or since that is much harder to do since GTs are production derived cars, make separated championships.