Audi Participation in the ALMS/Contrived comp (merged)

[cptkablamo]

I just read this artilce http://feedmesportscars.com/node/909

which says basically that Audi are not happy with the comparative restrictions on them and Dyson. Is this just a case of scaring the ALMS into giving Audi their own way (cause, lets face it Audi are hugely important to the LMP1 championship in ALMS) or do they have a legitimate case here???

It seems to me that Audi seem to want the rules to protect their domination.

[ger80]

Who is realy missing Audi in LMS this year?
The fans want close racing, nothing else. Its hard enough for the fans that the audi is allowed to drive ALMS without making sportscar sound
Its a budget problem for teams like Dyson. So IMSA can choose if they want 2 Audis or 4 Lola on the track in LMP1 in the future

[Nordic]

I think Audi just want the existing regs kept the same don't they?

This is just the type of thing that destabilises championships and causes them to fall apart.

Audi built a car to the regs, the same ones Lola built there car to, and now they are being messed with because they did a better job. I don't like any one team to dominate but it to my old fashonioned mind its up to the others to speed up.

If the Dyson's win the next two races at a canter what happens then? do they get a handicap, then what once you start down this road they is no turning back?

Will Porsche face the same type of penalty on there P2 car which is just as quick?

Its crazy and shortsighted, any win against someone hobbled does not count as strongly as a win against an equal.

[Adam43]

Here is a general thread on diesel performance adjustements: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84878
and it has been a common theme in other threads too.

I must admit this bores me and I want to just see the racing (between cars built to the same regs). I guess the reply to that is that is there is no racing unless they even these cars up. And you can apply that to Audi and its participation.

[TheNewBob]

I didn't mind Audi in the LMS last year - they weren't dominant and there was some great racing (last hour at Silverstone, anyone?). This year's LMS is great on paper but Pescarolo have turned out to be more dominant than Audi were in '04...

As much as they've merited their performance, to me this sounds just a little like sad moaning from Audi. Yes they've spent a lot of money and careful research on this, and they've worked hard to achieve what they have, but isn't ALMS trying to increase interest and entry numbers (and audience numbers)? If two Audis are allowed to go wandering off at the front at their own will then interest will surely wane, not rise.

Or perhaps they wish to keep their pace up because they're genuinely scared of Peugeot?

[JAG]

IMSA have introduced too much 'performance balancing' recently.

Dyson have recieve a performance boost, but the Lola/AER is also improving as time goes by.

I'd expect the Dyson performance breaks to be rained in after the next few races because the Lolas now getting upto speed.

[Bob Riebe]

Audi speaks:

Full press release:

On 20 August, the Audi Sport squad is busy on "two fronts” once again: While the second-half of the DTM season starts at the Nürburgring, the American Le Mans Series at Road America (USA) already enters its crucial phase at the seventh round of the ten race championship. Dindo Capello and Allan McNish have a 39-point lead before the race in Wisconsin. The two Audi drivers could actually make a decisive early step towards clinching the title there.

However, this will be tough challenge: The American Le Mans Series organisers are attempting to stop the revolutionary Audi R10 TDI prototype’s winning streak by making the competition even more new concessions. At Road America the LM P1 Lolas entered by the Dyson team can race with 65 kilograms less than the Audi R10 TDI. Furthermore, from the following race at Mosport, the Dyson Lolas will be granted a five-litre larger fuel tank. That’s why Audi’s further participation in the American Le Mans Series is under discussion.

The Audi Sport engineers have calculated with computer simulation that ten kilograms at Road America is worth at least two-tenths-of-a-second per lap. Despite being deeply disappointed about the random decisions of the IMSA organisation, the Audi Sport North America team would nevertheless like do everything in its power to achieve a good result also at Road America. The layout of the 4.048-mile circuit approximately 60 miles north of Milwaukee should suit the R10 TDI. It is one of the most fluid and fastest on the calendar.

The predecessor of the R10 TDI, the R8, was in a class of its own at Road America and remained unbeaten at every race there between 2002 and 2005. Last year’s winners Frank Biela and Emanuele Pirro are only two-points behind third placed driver Andy Wallace (Dyson Lola) in the overall standings despite having sat out three races. Dindo Capello won in 2002 at Road America, while the circuit in Wisconsin is new territory for Allan McNish. The race starts at on Sunday, 20 August at 2:00 p.m. local time (9:00 p.m. in Germany) and runs over the classic distance of 2:45 hours.

Quotes before the race at Road America

Dr Wolfgang Ullrich (Head of Audi Motorsport): "To us, the recent regulation changes made by IMSA appear to have been made at random and are unjustified. A year ago hardly anybody could believe that it would be possible to win a race with a diesel powered sportscar. We demonstrated that it is feasible, and thanks to ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ we produced the world’s most state-of-the-art LM P1. We can not accept that our life will now be made artificially difficult. Audi, the manufacturer, which has supported and promoted the ALMS for years and helped to make it what it is today, will only continue its American Le Mans Series programme if there are again stable and consistent rules, like at Le Mans, which also contribute towards justifying manufacturer’s involvement and expenditure.”

When small fish were driven out by contrived rules, ACO/IMSA could care less, well now the big boys are getting their just reward and are threating to take their toys and go home.

Time to make rules that governed racing for first ninety years, best man wins.
Bob

[canam]

Seeing one make of car dominate for year in year out bores me. How do you equalise hard cash. I want good looking, noisy cars dicing regularly for the lead. The regs were pretty much right for petrol-engined cars in 2005 (but it took several years to get there) but the manufacturer diesels have driven right through any balance. It does take time to get the correct equivalents.

the best way is to set a cash limit per year on spending, say $4m per car per season involving one championship and Le Mans. Impossible to police but reducing testing to, say, three days per year might help. In the present circumstannces, it is the team with the largest budget that wins with no exception (unless equivalents are made).

How about 3mm on the restrictor for the first $5m overspend, a further 2mm for the next $5m and 1mm for each further $5m overspend ( all compared to $4m). On that basis the R10 would have about 100 horsepower.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Time to make rules that governed racing for first ninety years, best man wins.
Bob

Not right and you know it.

Those who can outspend other teams by a factor of 10 times generally win--not always--but generally succeed.

Maybe the solution is to ban manufacturers or to limit budgets/testing. Audi need ALMS more than ALMS need Audi. They want to market their diesel product by outspending every other team collectively in order to 'buy' victory and PR. I would not have sleepless night if they threw their toys out of the pram and left. The ACO also needs more the than 2 or 4 P1 cars.

Tell the Dr to get into F1 'cos that's where the spending competition really starts or consider himself lucky that these R10 'specials' are allowed to run at all.

[Adam43]

It is the same old same old.

I prefer no penalties. At all. Then if it is close it is naturally close and if someone dominates we know that they have a better car. Now we have people getting breaks when they aren't as good and we get wins which are prinicpally down to the penalties rather than the abilities of those competing.

This is endurance racing it isn't meant to be easy, things shouldn't be given to you on a plate.

The money thing obviously grates with some, but I've never been a fully blown socialist. Some of these teams want to spend the money on motorsport development - I hope we don't stop them.

It can't be close all the time, but let it be real when it is.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canam

Not right and you know it.

Those who can outspend other teams by a factor of 10 times generally win--not always--but generally succeed.

It is right, Bob said nothing about the best getting there with or without (extra) money.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by canam

Not right and you know it.

Those who can outspend other teams by a factor of 10 times generally win--not always--but generally succeed.

Maybe the solution is to ban manufacturers or to limit budgets/testing. Audi need ALMS more than ALMS need Audi. They want to market their diesel product by outspending every other team collectively in order to 'buy' victory and PR. I would not have sleepless night if they threw their toys out of the pram and left. The ACO also needs more the than 2 or 4 P1 cars.

Tell the Dr to get into F1 'cos that's where the spending competition really starts or consider himself lucky that these R10 'specials' are allowed to run at all.

Would you have written the same essay if Audi for the same budget as they are spending now, had come up with a state of the art petrol engine and would have wiped away the competition in the same way as the R8 did?...

[SALEEN S7R]

IMO it is time to stop all this differnt performance balancing for differnt cars in differnt categories. If you want close exciting racing in the ALMS I personally would introduce sucess ballast like we have in the FIA GT Championship, have the same formula over all 4 classes. Technically leave the rules alone, unless of course you had extreme examples of say one car racing with 50kg heavier than the other cars in its class and still lapping 1 - 2 seconds a lap faster than everyone else, then and only then think about introducing new penalties like a smaller air restrictor or slightly smaller diamater rear wing etc.

[Adam43]

I don't like that at all. It is sort of the same, especially the "then and only then" bit. However I see your point, the other method relys on getting it right before the event. This just accepts that it is difficult to guess the penalties beore the race and lets the results decide how much people should be punished for being better. At least it doesn't pretend it is doing something else.

However I am for no penalties or equalisations whatsoever. My FIA GT interest has waned because of it.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

IMO it is time to stop all this differnt performance balancing for differnt cars in differnt categories. If you want close exciting racing in the ALMS I personally would introduce sucess ballast like we have in the FIA GT Championship, have the same formula over all 4 classes. Technically leave the rules alone, unless of course you had extreme examples of say one car racing with 50kg heavier than the other cars in its class and still lapping 1 - 2 seconds a lap faster than everyone else, then and only then think about introducing new penalties like a smaller air restrictor or slightly smaller diamater rear wing etc.

In all these discussions the fact that there is a driver seems to be overlooked. Drivers tend to be human and are therefore different and have different capabilities. Do we want to punish the fastest driver? Even in exactly the same car driver performances differ.
As an example: Do we punish the Creation because Minassian is very fast or do we punish the Pescarolo because Bouillon is so much faster than Ortelli in the Creation????

[thebear]

Originally Posted by canam

Tell the Dr to get into F1 'cos that's where the spending competition really starts or consider himself lucky that these R10 'specials' are allowed to run at all.

Perhaps the best reply of all?

[canam]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I prefer no penalties. At all. It can't be close all the time, but let it be real when it is.

It isn't real right now. The ACO did not contemplate the potential impact of the regs for diesels if developed by a maufacturer with unlimited quantities of Cash. They were following on from the disastrous Taurus programme.

The regs are mis-guided and, therefore, it isn't real right now. These R10 'victories' are hollow and IMSA is just trying to balance things out to reflect the defiiciencies of the regs to make it truly reflective.

With mis-guided regs (get real --Audi: 750 bhp and Judd 640bhp): without penalties you won't have racing.

If you are going to have restrictions, make them balanced. If not, I agree with 'old' Bob: Go unrestricted in every sense.

I guess those arguing in favour of no penalties believe that it is easy to get 700bhp + under the current regs for a petrol engine.

[isynge]

To my eyes, which were always pleased by the sight of Audis on the grid, this is a disappointing sign of sour grapes. Most rational people, from the ACO on down, have said that the rules for diesels were a first stab at things. For Audi it's fantastic, they got to build a great car to those rules, they won Le Mans, they're going to win the ALMS, and I think most would say the rules do, as they stand, somewhat favour an oil burner.

Okay the ALMS is perhaps being a touch precipitate in intorducing swingeing penalties (and I remember Dyson were dead set against sucess ballast when it was floated as an idea last year), and certainly could do with a touch of consistency in their approach, but the tone of the Audi press release depressed me in a way reminiscent of my response to Red Bull's infantile offering before the French F1 thing this year.

Come on Audi - don't end up being like the "nah, it's not for me" stockbroker you lampooned in your breakthrough ad campaign in the late 90s. Take it on the chin, and win anyway - you did last year in the LMES, being hobbled and running it close reflects on you so much better than thumping all comers and ending up doing demonstration runs.

[Bob Riebe]

One problem I see from some viewers points is, the "fans" have become unrealistic in expecting all racing to have the close racing, regardless as to whether it is natural, or artificially caused by the sanction.

One can thank Bill France Sr. for this state of affairs; whereas, at this point, one can still hope, in none France related road racing, that if a car does take a naturally induced large lead, phantom cautions do not start popping up.

The best races I ever saw, were drivers throwing caution to the wind, to make up lost ground.

Racing is supposed to be best effort, gives best results, and when, before santions started affecting the results, if a close race did happen, it was something special, as was a race if some one was laps back, and due to race strategy, regained ground, without a yellow flag.

The "expecting" of rules to make close racing, is as logical as expecting a game of Three Card Monte, to be "fair".
Bob

[jimclark]

^^^What he says,^^^ absolutely!!!

[canam]

When there is utter dominance, throwing caution to the wind is 1) not necessary for the dominant team and 2) a waste of time (and money) for the team(s) trying catch up (why risk wrecking the car when there is absolutely no chance of victory). I stopped reading fairytales/modern romances some time ago. Nice idea though.

Instead, maybe we should shower the tracks heavily with water periodically (and randomly) to take some of the edge off the R10.

[Nordic]

Agree with Bob Riebe.

To expect a close race every time is unrealistic when you are talking about long distace races. They are few and far between no matter what era you are talking about, when you are lucky enough to see one you now its worth it rather the the contrived nonense that will be servered up changing rules mid season.

How can Dyson be happy knowing that if he does win his inferior cars have only won because the better ones where held back.

Would you expect the better funded football teams to only play with 9 men? Tiger Woods to have half his clubs taken from his bag before the start? Maybe the Aussie Cricket team should have to play with blindfolds on (last years freak ashes win aside!)
No you want to see the best team do they best.

If you really want a rule that would cap spending and also may even things up if thats your wish. Then it should be mandetory that after maxium of one season then any constructor must offer for sale at a capped price a car of equal spec to any other team that want to buy one to run as they wish.

You could play around with the numbers and cap the number of cars available etc.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Nordic

Would you expect the better funded football teams to only play with 9 men?

Audi plays with eleven but uses different (and improved) doping...

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by henk4

Audi plays with eleven but uses different (and improved) doping...

That would imply they are cheating, are they?

[Mal]

Reading the Audi press release it seams that Audi main problem is that the penalties appear to be Random and in consistant.

I would agree. The same is true of the Aston Corvette situation where they appear to be adjusting things based on the results of almost each and every race -this is just wrong.

They need to agree a set of rules and stick by them for the season. If one team dominates it has done a better job.

However, Audi were given a number of unfair advantages by rhe ACO to encourage them to produce the R10. These should be corrected next year and the ACO's approach in measuring and equalising the 'Energy' produced by the fuel has to be the fairest approach - after that it should be down to the team who does the best job.