[LM24] Could the ACO penalise GT1's at Le Mans?

[Bentley03]

I asked this question on another thread but given it takes the thread too far off it's topic I felt I should start a dedicated one. Apologies to anyone who has answered the other thread in the meantime.

Some time ago (I can't remember where and when) the ACO released a statement which implied that GT1's should lap the Le Mans circuit not quicker than a certain lap time (again, can't remember what it was). The impression I was left with was that the ACO could/would slow them down if thay lapped too quickly. I don't understand the ramifications of what has been implied by the ACO. Can anyone please enlighten me?

[tblincoe]

as i understand it no penalties will be assesed at LM, only post-race, if at all (i think this will be a lot like the "white line" rule of a couple years ago...)

[SALEEN S7R]

The time specifed for ACO LM GT1 cars for 2005 is a 3:52, according to the official statement. I do not beleive however that the ACO really expect the GT1 cars to lap 3 seconds a lap slower than last year, if slower at all. I am aware of the regulation changes for GT1 cars for 2005 intending to slow them down, but with the introduction of the new works cars from Aston Martin and Corvette I really can only see this years pole time for GT1 cars being faster than that of 2004, something in the 3:47/3:48 range is realistic I think. This IMO would be fine too, its getting faster, but nowhere near fast enough to challenge the lead LMP 2 and LMP 1 runners, lets hope the ACO just leave things as they are for now.

[paul-collins]

Chris, I agree with all your post, but I fear for the teams who don't sandbag... This isn't as easy to push the ACO back as the white lines thing was (having everyone do it and show how it was unenforceable). If AM runs full out and Corvette holds back to make the mark, and AM is adjusted prior to the race, it's game over. Either they both go for it or they both hold back... I hope they go for it, myself.

[Fab]

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

Lets hope the ACO just leave things as they are for now.

Agree, definitely.

ACO, please, leave us alone now and focus on the works to improve attendance's comfort.

But you know how's ACO.

I just realised this year, with the "1955" sad anniversary, how they are with the safety question... and "reduce speed" is their motto, I'm afraid.

Fingers crossed.

[Bentley03]

Thanks guys, now my concern has turned to worry.

I was rather hoping things would be as tb said. But subsequent posts, especially PC, imply the opposite.

So I am clearly not alone in being confused by this.

The ambiguity of the statement (I still can't find it again!) seems to create this grey area in which nobody actually knows where they stand, and should the teams circulate faster than the ACO want them to, what the consequences will be.

[Laurent]

Bentley03, here's the article 19 of the LM 2005 GT1 regulations :

ART. 19 – BALANCE OF PERFORMANCE
In order to maximise equality of performance, the ACO reserves the right to adjust the following for each model of car :
• Minimum weight of the car ;
• Air restrictor sizes ;
• Fuel tank capacity ;
• Dimensions of the rear wing ;
• Any other technical restriction that the ACO may deem necessary ;
However, it is out of the question to make adjustments after or in accordance with each race. If adaptations are necessary, they will be imposed by the ACO preferably at the end of the race season. But should a model of car show too high a performance
and notably if it achieves lap times less than 3’55” during the « 24 Heures du Mans » race, immediate measures will be taken by the ACO in order to reduce its performances for the following races.
Performance adjustments are exclusively the responsibility of the ACO.
As from the 1st January 2005, the Chevrolet Corvette C5R and the Ferrari 550 Maranello Prodrive must add 35 kg to their minimum weight.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Laurent

Bentley03, here's the article 19 of the LM 2005 GT1 regulations :

ART. 19 – BALANCE OF PERFORMANCE...........

Laurent, I really appreciate your last post. I believe it is the first time I have read 'Article 19' in full. The wording gives far greater clarity than I remember from the snippets I read some time ago, which were somewhat alarmist.

So, as I understand it, there will be absolutely no action taken by the ACO to limit the Aston's and Corvettes until after Le Mans, even if they lap sub 3:55 during the test day, since they only mention sub 3:55 in the race itself, not testing/qualifying.

They can, however, expect a very heavy gift from the ACO after the race........

[Aysedasi]

Yes, thanks for that Laurent.

Damn, I hate artificial attempts to slow cars down.

Any cars, whether they are protos or GTs.

[Bentley03]

Wonder if the ACO will add a sub clause to Article 19 allowing special dispensation for cars driven by well funded Russians.........

[Laurent]

The main problem with those regulations, is that the officials will slow the old cars (550 especially) and let me the new ones be much much faster ! This kind of rule can be used in a championship when there's two races per month but not in a single annual event...

[Bentley03]

Laurent, you're spot on.

The very nature of the Article leaves the ACO free to manufacture any race scenario they wish. I accepted long ago that trying to understand the thinking behind their decisions was a complete waste of time. For every explanation I read in justification of an ACO ruling, I read equally logical arguments against it.

For that reason, I have kept the focus of my question solely to the Aston's and the Corvettes, and with sole regard to this years Le Mans 24Hrs. The vast majority of race fans accept that (with the withdrawal of Acemco and with no disrespect to the other GT1 competitors) this years GT1 battle is between AM and GM. As a race fan (for whom Le Mans week is the most anticipated of the year) I want these two marques to be left alone by the ACO to do battle on level terms in their current specification. I think we deserve it!

[brielga]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Laurent, you're spot on.

As a race fan (for whom Le Mans week is the most anticipated of the year) I want these two marques to be left alone by the ACO to do battle on level terms in their current specification. I think we deserve it!

I couldn't agree more. All these ballast rules are an attempt to make things more attractive in GT championships whre positions change all the time. As stated before this is a special event and performances change from year to year (not to mention new contenders, etc.) so this does not make a lot of sense (e.g. Prodrive Ferrari this year????). manipulating a result is always VERY bad. Just my 2 cents.

[paul-collins]

Perhaps this is why the Aston Martins chose Silverstone rather than Spa for their European debut - that way they weren't showing any performance cues to the ACO's technical people. It would be ridiculous for the ACO to choose to penalize a car based on a race not part of their own schedule.

A cynical thought occurs - perhaps this line of thinking was part of Aston Martin's campaign to get the ACO to ignore Sebring? Weaken their ability to police/observe the cars prior to this year's race?

[SALEEN S7R]

I agree Paul, and personally I feel the ACO should just leave things the way that they are. Why can they never just let things stay the way that they are? Any rule changes for LM GT1 cars will result in AGAIN the FIA GT and LMES cars running to slightly differnt regulations, and why? Because the ACO are afraid of what someone like Aston Martin or Corvette could do over 24hrs, like, oh no, make it onto the overall winners podium!

[JAG]

Having cars built to different regs in ALMS/LMES and FIA GT is conterproductive for everyone, not least the poor teams.

The ACO only have this target time to keep the GT1s speed relative to the other classes.

If this is the target why not just remove wings and splitters and let the GT1s go flat out. 3.55 would then be a real challenge.

If the worst came to the worst I wouldn't mind changes to the aero etc. but please, please do not add anymore weight to these already overweight cars. We'll get to the point were a DTM car would run rings round them which surely can't be right for the top GT class.

In fact I would prefer the cars to have 500BHP, but weigh only 900-1000KG with no wings.

[PascaLM]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Yes, thanks for that Laurent.

Damn, I hate artificial attempts to slow cars down.

Any cars, whether they are protos or GTs.

I agree, GT1 should have several chances to win overall. Especially if prototypes are not prepared correctly (cf. Daytona 1973, 2000 2001).

[lj79]

Originally Posted by JAG

If this is the target why not just remove wings and splitters and let the GT1s go flat out. 3.55 would then be a real challenge.
.

But what will stick to them floor at high speeds? I aint an aero expert, but surely something will be needed to provide some glue?

[Alistair_Ryder]

This concept of penalising specific car chassis's really cant be productive for the GT1 class on various levels, in my opinion there are two basic examples to consider whereby these rules are counter productive:
a) this will discourage privateer teams to enter one of the named and penalised chassis's. For instance Pacific Coast Motorsport or GLPK-Carsport would be at a dis-advantage to the other competitors even before starting the engine at Le Mans.
b)Factory run teams could surely work around this rule by using weight saving measures such as lighter materials, which in the end cost more money, and once again widens the financial resources between privateer and factory teams.

If this rule were to be affective, then surely a blanket weight penalty on all cars would be the only option, but as i say in point b, this would surely benefit works outfits due to financial backing.
I must however say, I agree with most on this thread that the rule is rediculous, surely with the current performance restrictions in place, there is no possiblity of GT1 cars matching Prototypes in any instance. They weigh more than prototypes, they have to brake earlier than prototypes..etc,
Plus i'm sure one of the main quarrels the ACO has here is the fact GT1 and GT2 cars are now often appearing within the top 10 after 24 hours of racing. Well is it the GT1's/ GT2's fault that reliability with prototypes is an issue??

[JAG]

Originally Posted by lj79

But what will stick to them floor at high speeds? I aint an aero expert, but surely something will be needed to provide some glue?

They still have extensve 'venturies', or whatever you call them, under the car.

You could also fit a very small wing/gurney type flap to keep the cars stable.

I'd still prefer less power and run at 1000KG.

[JAG]

Reading over on the ALMS forum, some guy says the C6.Rs are running with some kind of device to limit full throttle, so as not to show there real pace prior to Le Mans.

If so, doesn't bode well for the other GT1 runners, although I suspect Aston never showed there true pace at Silverstone.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by JAG

They still have extensve 'venturies', or whatever you call them, under the car.

You could also fit a very small wing/gurney type flap to keep the cars stable.

I'd still prefer less power and run at 1000KG.

Then one could call the GARRA spec. 2 or something like that.
I can see absolutely no reason that making them a thousand pounds lighter than stock, and using engines reduced to GARRA levels, would make them more intersesting.
Less of a challenge to the LMPs yes, but that is all.

None of Greenwoods, best know cars ran with wings (the 1974 car ran with a production option wing) so why would making the current cars make them less stable.
Shafers Camaro beat winged Porsche 934s without any wing.

I agree remove the wings, and diffusers, and turn them loose.
Bob

[Splatz the Cow]

Maybe the ACO still hasn't recovered from 1995?

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Then one could call the GARRA spec. 2 or something like that.
I can see absolutely no reason that making them a thousand pounds lighter than stock, and using engines reduced to GARRA levels, would make them more intersesting.
Less of a challenge to the LMPs yes, but that is all.

I agree remove the wings, and diffusers, and turn them loose.
Bob

The DTM cars 'only' have 500BHP but they have much more freedom with aero etc., more like an LMP2 than a GT1 in concept.

DTM cars are now quicker than GT1's (at least FIA GT, GT1s).

After watching 900 kg GT1 cars, 1100kg cars are no comparison.

If you like Bob, keep the 650BHP engine, but reduce aero, maybe even tyre width, but reduce weight.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by JAG

If you like Bob, keep the 650BHP engine, but reduce aero, maybe even tyre width, but reduce weight.

OK Jag, I will bite (and no I do not really think you are trolling), why is it important for car to be so light?.
It does nothing for safety, and makes the cars a true farce concerning being street related.
I cannot see why they allowed carbon fiber bodies, as none are available as street options, as the early IMSA wide fenders were.

Why is losing weight so important to you, especially when the Greenwood type cars, and the Porsche 935s were closer to 3,000lbs than 2,600lbs?

It just makes no sense to limit horsepower and then try to make up for it,they go hundereds of pounds away from prod. stipper weight.

Bob