Maserati Confirmation - Page 3

rdjones · 26 Feb 2005, 08:34 (Ref:1236413)

As I have said before I am getting rather fed up of the whole Maserati MC12 saga. Why didn't they build a car that meet the rules straight away, if Corvette, Saleen and Aston can surely Maserati can..........

Nordic · 26 Feb 2005, 08:59 (Ref:1236421)

Good question Rob. In my mind I am sure that the FIAT group will knew exactly what they where doing and it did not happen by accident.

As I said above, I would like to know what either Corvette, Saleen or Prodrive Aston have to say regarding the MC12? At the end of the day if they are happy to allow it to race then it maybe it should, on the clear understanding it needs to be revised before next season or sooner. If any object what will IMSA do then?

kdr · 26 Feb 2005, 11:21 (Ref:1236490)

am i right in thinking the car fits FIA GT specs with no issues? if so the only benefit of doubt we can give fiat is that this was the series they originally intended it to race...and they've been caught out by the emergence of lmes, dealers in the usa asking for some visibilty, and their own financial political problems.

vandijk · 26 Feb 2005, 11:33 (Ref:1236498)

Good article by DC williams on Crash here: http://www.crash.net/uk/en/feature_v...fid=6697&apn=1

Fab · 26 Feb 2005, 12:05 (Ref:1236525)

Hey, they've a radio live !

Oohh, if we could be three weeks older

This waiting is too long...

Fab · 26 Feb 2005, 12:41 (Ref:1236540)

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandijk

Good article by DC williams on Crash here: http://www.crash.net/uk/en/feature_v...fid=6697&apn=1

Quite frightening too for the future of IMSA/ACO relationships...

SALEEN S7R · 26 Feb 2005, 15:15 (Ref:1236641)

I think a lot will depend on what happens at Sebring. If the car comes into the race and kicks everyone's ass in a big big way then I think we can safely say that IMSA has indeed slipped up. If however, like what I think will happen is that the MC12's will be competitve, but not overly, and providing the C6R's with some stiff competition which has been sadly lacking in 04 then IMSA could well have made the right choice IMO. The crash.net article exaggerates the situation IMO, the MC12 most likely will not run rings around the other GT1 cars, especially the C6R's, look at their performance in FIA GT, sure they were fast but they werent exactly lapping everyone on the grid now were they. The crash.net article makes it sound like IMSA are inviting along the 2003 Bentley EXP Speed 8 to race in the GT1 class against the C6R's which isnt the case.

**Bentley03** · 26 Feb 2005, 15:29 (Ref:1236648)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

.....The crash.net article makes it sound like IMSA are inviting along the 2003 Bentley EXP Speed 8 to race in the GT1 class against the C6R's which isnt the case.

But I love that idea!!

Nordic · 26 Feb 2005, 15:57 (Ref:1236666)

Saleen, I think you are missing the point. You may be right, the MC12 won't be a huge amount faster than the C6R if its faster at all.

The point is the fact that the next company that want to build a car for the GT1 class may as well write the rule book themselves. If IMSA 'feel' the series will benefit, the car will race, if not, it won't. Teams that have gone to the extra amount of trouble to read the rules will have to build new cars to compete in the A**S or not bother.

One of the main factors cited by a manufactor for not racing in GT's is the lack of a stable rule book that allows cars to race in different series over the world. Hopefully the FIA, JGTS, & E/ALMS where working towards that and in a couple of years it may have even happened.

Allowing a car that does not fit the rule book drives a coach & horses thu that plan and has the potential to pull the govening bodies apart again. So where will that lead? 3 versions of every car? one for the FIA GT another for IMSA and a 3rd for LMES. Not the most cost effective plan I have ever seen.

paul-collins · 26 Feb 2005, 16:01 (Ref:1236671)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdr

am i right in thinking the car fits FIA GT specs with no issues? if so the only benefit of doubt we can give fiat is that this was the series they originally intended it to race...and they've been caught out by the emergence of lmes, dealers in the usa asking for some visibilty, and their own financial political problems.

The old FIA-GT rules had a 2100mm width, I understand (I don't have the rules available). That is apparently changed as of 2005, but the car has been homologated under 2004 rules, and this homologation is good until 2009.

tblincoe · 26 Feb 2005, 17:19 (Ref:1236722)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul-collins

The old FIA-GT rules had a 2100mm width, I understand (I don't have the rules available). That is apparently changed as of 2005, but the car has been homologated under 2004 rules, and this homologation is good until 2009.

this is the issue at hand... the MC-12 was built in 2004 to the 2004 regulations. these regs were changed in 2005 and the car was then made illegal. maserati was caught out in the wind on this one and its not that they purposely made an illegal car. i say just put some ballast on the car (don't make the wing smaller, it looks ridiculous) and let it race... it wont blow the vettes away and if it does increase the restrictors and add more ballast for the next race. simple as that end of story.

SALEEN S7R · 26 Feb 2005, 19:03 (Ref:1236759)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nordic

Allowing a car that does not fit the rule book drives a coach & horses thu that plan and has the potential to pull the govening bodies apart again. So where will that lead? 3 versions of every car? one for the FIA GT another for IMSA and a 3rd for LMES. Not the most cost effective plan I have ever seen.

No, u are missing the point. The ALMS needs all the support it can get at the moment, and the MC12 is a welcome addition to the grid even in its current form. Sometime soon though there will be a new spec MC12 I am sure that complies with the ACO/FIA regulations and the car will therefore be 100% legal. The car we will see racing in this years ALMS is essentially the same as what we will see in FIA GT this season in terms of dimensions, the only series thats putting up barriers is the LMES at the moment, despite Maserati's promises of a revised car in the near future. Give Mazza a year to produce a revised car fitting the regulations, if after that time they have failed to do so, ban it. Simple soultion.

SALEEN S7R · 26 Feb 2005, 19:04 (Ref:1236761)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tblincoe

this is the issue at hand... the MC-12 was built in 2004 to the 2004 regulations. these regs were changed in 2005 and the car was then made illegal. maserati was caught out in the wind on this one and its not that they purposely made an illegal car. i say just put some ballast on the car (don't make the wing smaller, it looks ridiculous) and let it race... it wont blow the vettes away and if it does increase the restrictors and add more ballast for the next race. simple as that end of story.

I agree 100%.

fangio · 27 Feb 2005, 11:07 (Ref:1237132)

Maserati (ic. Ferrari) tried to bully the system by building a car that clearly didn't fit the regulations nor the spirit of the regulations.
It was built as a racing car (prototype...) at the same time as the homologation specials for the road; this is not the system for GT Racing.

The ACO didn't fall for that, but Ratel (FIA GT) did.....
If this car is allowed in it's current form it will kill the GT1 class, period.

Thus, this car is not allowed to take part in events run under the ‘Le Mans’ label.

This part of the ACO press release shows that the sh.t has hit the fan. We haven't heard the last of this.

A good source tells me that the ACO senior officials have all cancelled their trip to Sebring, only one technical guy will be there, nobody else.........

I can understand the ACO and I support their reactions.

paul-collins · 27 Feb 2005, 12:31 (Ref:1237230)

That's a shame. It's sad that, after all the consultation that did happen (press statements notwithstanding) the ACO would so quickly and unilaterally act.

I guess it proves that IMSA needs to take responsibility for their technical regs after all.

Fab · 27 Feb 2005, 12:45 (Ref:1237251)

Quote:

Originally Posted by fangio

A good source tells me that the ACO senior officials have all cancelled their trip to Sebring, only one technical guy will be there, nobody else.

... not good for bring back peace in the ACO/ALMS relationships

Not surprising from ACO's board, though ; each time such a problem arised, ACO went back in a self-fold position, estimating that "L'endurance, c'est Le Mans", and that LM is - and will always be - the main annual event.

On the other hand, the Mazza's affair is not good/clear/easy to rule (IMHO).

I don't know what to think about the whole thing ; I'm just sad that, in those uneasy days for sportscars' sponsorship, things are gone so bad between the main actors themselves... they could be more die-hard than fans sometimes !

I think we'll never know who's right and who's wrong, depending of our own opinion...

paul-collins · 27 Feb 2005, 13:12 (Ref:1237278)

Whatever happens, I sure hope that the ACO is consistent about the "automatic entries" rules. I could see PLM losing them, but the series champions ought to retain them (after all, FIA-GT champions retained theirs).

tblincoe · 27 Feb 2005, 15:56 (Ref:1237338)

Maserati did build the car to the 2004 regs, and it is no more of a homologation special than the Saleen S7R, but nobody seems to complain about that car... i love how this car hasn't even turned a wheel under ACO competition and people are absolutely freaking out about this.

Fab · 27 Feb 2005, 16:10 (Ref:1237350)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Whatever happens, I sure hope that the ACO is consistent about the "automatic entries" rules. I could see PLM losing them, but the series champions ought to retain them (after all, FIA-GT champions retained theirs).

Yes, it's not ACO's interrest to spoil the whole thing. I'm not pessimistic even for PLM.

Nordic · 27 Feb 2005, 16:30 (Ref:1237358)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul-collins

That's a shame. It's sad that, after all the consultation that did happen (press statements notwithstanding) the ACO would so quickly and unilaterally act.

Not sure I 100% agree with that. The ACO have never said the MC12 could race under the rule as they stand. IMSA on the other hand have wavered under the pressure from FIAT. Should Corvette and others apply pressure to IMSA will the car be re banned?

No one is going to win on this subject, except maybe GrandAm and the FIA. It has weakend, maybe destroyed a rival series from presenting a worthy world stage for sportscars.

paul-collins · 27 Feb 2005, 16:50 (Ref:1237364)

Not sure you can say they wavered under FIAT's pressure. Perhaps it's more market pressure.

Let's face it: Risi were gone - there were not going to be any GT2 Ferraris in the field (although I'm working on that

). GT1 was looking at no Prodrive cars again (for the season, that is) which left 3 'vettes and a Saleen. And there are still no new P1s, while the natural market for P2 was busy buying DPs.

My understanding is that the strongest complaints are coming from Aston / Prodrive. I can certainly understand their position on this - they need to sell (a lot of) cars to recoup their investment, and it won't do to be pasted by an illegal car. (Too bad the same car is already going to be racing head-to-head with them in FIA-GT)

Unfortunately, AM isn't an IMSA competitor. They're a Sebring competitor (and maybe not even that

).

There's an easy way to get the IMSA to listen to AM's point of view, here. Promise to run the AMs for a full season.

I'd be interested in seeing how that might affect the outcome...

Bob Riebe · 27 Feb 2005, 19:30 (Ref:1237452)

US and Euro racing may be going there own ways, that is not neccessaryly bad.

There used to be four races where Euros came over, now it is sadly just one, but all is not lost yet.

Bob

SALEEN S7R · 27 Feb 2005, 21:09 (Ref:1237561)

This is not the end of the ALMS/ACO relationship, sure its taken a knock but the ACO arent fools, they know that any rash decisions regarding the ALMS would lose them a lot, especially in the way of entrants, not least manufacturer involvement. I say give the Mazza's a dispensation to run this year, but make sure they have sufficent revised cars for 2006, if in 2006 they still dont meet the ACO's technical regulations, ban them from FIA GT/ALMS/LMES.

fangio · 27 Feb 2005, 21:10 (Ref:1237563)

I am convinced that, when th ACO says they have not been consulted about the Maser invitation, this must be true.
The Astons are a factory entry for this year at Sebring and from August/September the customer cars will appear, to run in all series, including ALMS.
Now, do we think it's a good idea to have the MC12 run without points but taking the podium and taking the risk of not having any competitive Maranello's and Astons any more?
IMHO I think the MC12 is not a GT1 car to the spirit of the rules.

**Dani Filth** · 27 Feb 2005, 23:05 (Ref:1237649)

i still don't understand how will this car kill the GTs .. ??
is it a too good a car ??

don't mention FIA GT .the car is 100% legal . so if it;s better than the other cars so be it
in ALMS is not 100% legal . but they will not let it be the best car(not saying it is) . they will make sure it can be beaten . even in this .. illegal form . so for the benefit of the race and fans(and marketing but that's another story

) .. it will run alongside the legal cars . probably winning a race or two . nothing to fancy .

.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Confirmation for Kiwis	TKR#1	Australasian Touring Cars.	25	4 Oct 2004 10:48
[LM24] Confirmation of tickets for Le Mans 2003	FG1	24 Heures du Mans	2	30 Aug 2002 18:33
Plato to be dropped, confirmation.[As good as]	pink69	Touring Car Racing	30	12 Nov 2001 20:19
Alesi Confirmation....	Sauber_16	Formula One	22	9 Aug 2001 18:06