[FIA GT] GT1 FIA = GT1 ACO according to Stephane Ratel

[Hugewally]

Hood emblem?

[pitviper]

You know Huge, after posting all these years on various common forums, I don't think I ever realized you lived so close, lol...

pit

[Hugewally]

Over in Orlando area aren't you?

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by Purist

And we always come back to this. The reason you have a GT1 class is for the truly top-tier cars, but also because you can't really have that full displacement range work in one GT class. You either hamstring the 8.0-litre Viper, 7.0-litre Corvette and Saleen, or leave the 4.0-litre Porsche gasping on the straights. If the LG Corvette's top-end is any indication, the 911, F430, M3, and others at the smaller end in terms of displacement could be in real trouble. And it's a double wammy to boot. It's clear that the LG Corvette has no lack of torque either, so it can pull off the corners on short circuits, AND pull the straights on larger ones.

I'm not sure why you say this. If you look at history, the smaller displacement Porsches and Ferraris have never been completely dominated by the larger displacement GTs. Ferrari GTOs and Porsche 911s have always done a decent job of holding their own against Cobras and Vettes. Just look at the final results at Sebring and Le Mans over the years.

DK

[JAG]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Do the 911 and 430 really belong in a GT 'top class'??

Porsche doesn't have a big banger model basis at the moment but surely a Ferrari 599 or 612 variant truly belongs in the 'top class?

If only Ferrari could be bothered to knock something together, it would be dead easy for them to do that!!

The supercar market has changed significantly in recent years, the top of the range 911's, 430's, Gallardo's etc. would run rings around 'big bangers' and luxory tourers.

Small, light, powerful sportscars are the future, not gas guzzelling, lumbering dinosaurs.

The top GT class must have a place for the most popular, mainstream, manufacturer models, not least because these manufacturer's can fund and support top level GT racing, unlike the Pagani's, Koenigseggs and Matech's of this world.

[geeteeone]

Originally Posted by JAG

The top GT class must have a place for the most popular, mainstream, manufacturer models, not least because these manufacturer's can fund and support top level GT racing, unlike the Pagani's, Koenigseggs and Matech's of this world.

I still really don't see what the objection is. GT2 as a secondary GT class is fine, the racing is good and there are plenty of entrants. But as the main attraction in a World Championship GT category? Really???

The GT Open series that exists at the moment gives some sort of indication as to what this approach might look like. For me it's about as exciting as watching paint dry. It amounts to nothing more than a Ferrari-Porsche challenge, with a few other oddball entrants and a smattering of GT3s. Yes the grids are thriving in that series, but that just means even more Ferraris and Porsches.

The reason I want GT1 to continue in whatever form is simple - they are exciting to watch. Even if you have a poor race, you are still left with the enjoyment of watching the cars themselves. That has always been a key element for me. If you happen to get a good race, all the better.

[Dead-Eye]

Interesting article: http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=19701
Nissan will support teams taking the car to Le Mans

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

I know nothing of the project, does the Nissan GTR share anything with the JGTC Skyline?

from the above mentioned Pistonhead article
"Like the GT500, the new Nissan GT-R GT1 puts its power down via a six-speed Ricardo racing transaxle but the similarities beyond that are limited. "

[Purist]

Dxk1, the Ferrari 250s and Porsche 911s were generally much lighter (2,300-2,600lb vs. ~3,000+lb), better balanced, and better suited to road racing. They also tended to have very good reliability. The Shelby Daytona Coupe was better on weight than the other big American competitors, but still really needed a power circuits to give its best.

JAG, the clinical precision of an F430 isn't as outwardly awe-inspiring or exotic as those "gas-guzzling dinosaurs" you mentioned. And for a premier class, prototype or GT, you NEED spectacular machinery, and F430s and 911s don't provide those sights, sounds, or belching flames. Also, at a point, popular becomes mundane to some extent. Not to mention, this GT1 class is to be the top class in FIA GT, so they need some real spice since they don't have the LMPs. Finally, isn't it the crazy sights, sounds, and variety of sportscar racing that drew so many of us in in the first place?

[pitviper]

Amen...

(Huge: even closer; Tampa)

pit

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Purist

JAG, the clinical precision of an F430 isn't as outwardly awe-inspiring or exotic as those "gas-guzzling dinosaurs" you mentioned. And for a premier class, prototype or GT, you NEED spectacular machinery, and F430s and 911s don't provide those sights, sounds, or belching flames. Also, at a point, popular becomes mundane to some extent. Not to mention, this GT1 class is to be the top class in FIA GT, so they need some real spice since they don't have the LMPs. Finally, isn't it the crazy sights, sounds, and variety of sportscar racing that drew so many of us in in the first place?

The most spectacular GT car I've ever seen (outside of the 90's GT1's) was the M3 GTR V8, big flames, rasping engine, everything you would want, meanwhile the new M3 is arguably the best sounding car out there. Engine noise, flames etc. are no different in either class, the only major difference is you rarely find a V12 in GT2, the Esperante rumbles like the old GTR/LMP, same case for the Corvette etc.

That goes for the looks too, the basic technical regulations for GT1 and GT2 are very similar, again the current 911 looks closer to the old 911 GT2 Turbo, even some resemblance to the 911 GT1.

The criticism of GT2 looking like a Porsche/Ferrari challenge could also apply to the GT1 Viper/Corvette or Corvette/Aston days, but thats changing with BMW, Corvette, Lamborghini and Aston coming.

All that could be thrown away for kit car 'GT1's' that are little quicker than what we have now, I'm sure BMW and GM will be overjoyed to see a Matech Ford GT and silhouette Nissan beating their new GT2's.

[geeteeone]

Originally Posted by JAG

The most spectacular GT car I've ever seen (outside of the 90's GT1's) was the M3 GTR V8, big flames, rasping engine, everything you would want, meanwhile the new M3 is arguably the best sounding car out there. Engine noise, flames etc. are no different in either class, the only major difference is you rarely find a V12 in GT2, the Esperante rumbles like the old GTR/LMP, same case for the Corvette etc.

I've seen the M3 GTR V8 race too, but I have to say it really didn't have the same effect on me. I just don't think GT2s are quick enough to really register on my radar, particularly horsepower-wise.

Yes, the GT2 Panoz is noisy, but in no way compares to the old GTR-1 - I've seen and heard both on many occasions. The original Roush engined GTR-1 was simply the loudest car I have ever heard. And felt - my ribcage was vibrating! This is the sort of thing we need in top class GT racing. The first time it went past, everyone in the stands just looked at each other and grinned. Show me the GT2 that does that!

As for the most spectacular GT car that I've ever seen - it was Cor Euser's Marcos LM600 running in the Kumho EuroGT series without any air restrictors. 700hp anyone??!! Visibly faster on the straight than any GT I'd ever seen before, 1990s GT1s included!

This is the stuff that legends are made of, not a field of GT2 Porsches and Ferraris.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by geeteeone

I've seen the M3 GTR V8 race too, but I have to say it really didn't have the same effect on me. I just don't think GT2s are quick enough to really register on my radar, particularly horsepower-wise.

Yes, the GT2 Panoz is noisy, but in no way compares to the old GTR-1 - I've seen and heard both on many occasions. The original Roush engined GTR-1 was simply the loudest car I have ever heard. And felt - my ribcage was vibrating! This is the sort of thing we need in top class GT racing. The first time it went past, everyone in the stands just looked at each other and grinned. Show me the GT2 that does that!

As for the most spectacular GT car that I've ever seen - it was Cor Euser's Marcos LM600 running in the Kumho EuroGT series without any air restrictors. 700hp anyone??!! Visibly faster on the straight than any GT I'd ever seen before, 1990s GT1s included!

This is the stuff that legends are made of, not a field of GT2 Porsches and Ferraris.

Question:
The proposed GT1 that some think could cause troubles, is basically the same , and I mean in abstract form, thing Bishop did with the GTs before he got tired of Porsche beng one step ahead of him and created the P class. (Porsche was ready for that but it worked for quiete some time).

Would you rather see, prod. based cars with any engine, within reason, from the same manufacturer; or tube frames with homologated prod., and I mean the same engines architechture that is in the prod. car, engines.

The latter IS NOT being proposed, but I am curious as to which you would rather see.

[geeteeone]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Would you rather see, prod. based cars with any engine, within reason, from the same manufacturer; or tube frames with homologated prod., and I mean the same engines architechture that is in the prod. car, engines.

The production-based aspect is very important to the GT concept, in my opinion. Less so for the engines to match the road car, I think it's acceptable for an alternative engine from the same manufacturer to be used, as long as it conforms to the technical regulations, and as long as it too is production based and not a purebred racing engine.

This is basically like the old GT1 - the Panoz GTR-1 used to use a pushrod Roush Ford V8, the homologated GTR-1 road car used the 4.6 Ford Modular engine - no pushrods there!

I think what Nissan have done is acceptable - they've obviously decided that it would take too much time and money to tune the V6 twin-turbo to the regulations (are turbos even allowed in the proposed GT1-2010???) so they have gone for the N/A V8 instead, which as far as I am aware is also based on a production engine and not the Super GT engine.

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by geeteeone

The production-based aspect is very important to the GT concept, in my opinion. Less so for the engines to match the road car, I think it's acceptable for an alternative engine from the same manufacturer to be used, as long as it conforms to the technical regulations, and as long as it too is production based and not a purebred racing engine.

This is basically like the old GT1 - the Panoz GTR-1 used to use a pushrod Roush Ford V8, the homologated GTR-1 road car used the 4.6 Ford Modular engine - no pushrods there!

I think what Nissan have done is acceptable - they've obviously decided that it would take too much time and money to tune the V6 twin-turbo to the regulations (are turbos even allowed in the proposed GT1-2010???) so they have gone for the N/A V8 instead, which as far as I am aware is also based on a production engine and not the Super GT engine.

Agree 100%

[Splendid Cat]

[QUOTE=geeteeone;2438201]I've seen the M3 GTR V8 race too, but I have to say it really didn't have the same effect on me. I just don't think GT2s are quick enough to really register on my radar, particularly horsepower-wise.
QUOTE]


I was thinking JAG was off the mark. Then I remembered - Spa 24 2004, dusk. Eau Rouge. M3 GTR. Never have I seen anything as spectacular outside of prototypes.

[JAG]

[QUOTE=Splendid Cat;2438299]

Originally Posted by geeteeone

I've seen the M3 GTR V8 race too, but I have to say it really didn't have the same effect on me. I just don't think GT2s are quick enough to really register on my radar, particularly horsepower-wise.
QUOTE]


I was thinking JAG was off the mark. Then I remembered - Spa 24 2004, dusk. Eau Rouge. M3 GTR. Never have I seen anything as spectacular outside of prototypes.

The furthest I'd go with a GT1 concept is to retain a single GT class but allow the larger tyres the 911 RSR uses while retaining the regular GT2 minimum weight (the RSR is approx 100kg heavier than the narrower tyred opposition).

I'd also give the cars 5% bigger restrictors (10% may give the big V8's/V10's too big an advantage) which would see them top 550bhp, and cut back much of the electronics and exotic materials.

550bhp - 1150kg - 14in tyres = quicker than the proposed GT1 class, everyone in a single class, no need for entirely new cars.

[geeteeone]

Originally Posted by JAG

The furthest I'd go with a GT1 concept is to retain a single GT class but allow the larger tyres the 911 RSR uses while retaining the regular GT2 minimum weight (the RSR is approx 100kg heavier than the narrower tyred opposition).

I'd also give the cars 5% bigger restrictors (10% may give the big V8's/V10's too big an advantage) which would see them top 550bhp, and cut back much of the electronics and exotic materials.

550bhp - 1150kg - 14in tyres = quicker than the proposed GT1 class, everyone in a single class, no need for entirely new cars.

A few problems with this, the first being that the lighter you make the cars, the more expense is involved in converting a road car to meet the formula. In road form most of these cars are topping 1500kgs, it's not easy at all to pair them down to the minimum weight as it is. Ratel's suggestion calls for a slightly heavier minimum weight as less changes from the road car are required to get down to the limit.

The second - trying to push the current GT2 engine formula up to 550hp is going to cause problems for the smaller engined cars such as the Porsche. I'm sure they could do it, but the engine development required to do this would surely push up the costs. The only way the current 911 GT3 RSR engine would get anywhere near this figure is to remove the air restrictors altogether!

Of course, if they were to slap a turbo on it...

[Speed-King]

The Porsche Flat-6s in the Daytona Prototypes make close to 550 bhp, so it should be possible.

[geeteeone]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

The Porsche Flat-6s in the Daytona Prototypes make close to 550 bhp, so it should be possible.

Is it really that much? I was always under the impression that the DPs were rev-limited to around 500-510 bhp. And they don't run air restrictors either.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by JAG

The supercar market has changed significantly in recent years, the top of the range 911's, 430's, Gallardo's etc. would run rings around 'big bangers' and luxory tourers.

Small, light, powerful sportscars are the future, not gas guzzelling, lumbering dinosaurs.

The top GT class must have a place for the most popular, mainstream, manufacturer models, not least because these manufacturer's can fund and support top level GT racing, unlike the Pagani's, Koenigseggs and Matech's of this world.

Sorry to break the flow briefly but i'm not so sure about this. I agree with you about bad business to push gas guzzlers etc but all the makes who built big bangers for current GT1 have similar size cars in their range and still turn out concept cars to the same kind of spec, for the road at least.

It's only Porsche out of the 'big' firms who don't have a bigger car and they're more interested in prototype racing anyway aren't they?

Ferrari and/or Maserati, Aston, Jag, Corvette, BMW, Merc (i bet there's more besides) plus the smaller firms like K-segg, Saleen, Pagani etc all have big cars ready and available to adapt to big class GT racing which suits Ratel down to the ground I reckon?

[pitviper]

Out of curiosity, has there been made any mention of homologation numbers for the new GT1? I hadn't seen any. Is that where they would use "performance balancing" if a manufacturer or tuner wanted to enter a car that didn't have the minimum number of road versions?

Obviously this might now be such a problem for the GT1WC itself, since there can only be 6 manufacturers max anyway (at this point at least).

With all this discussion going on, I have been going back and rewatching the races from the 1997 and 1998 FIA GT series... good grief, what awesome racing... and the CARS, oh the cars...

pit

[broadrun96]

Some of what makes the old GT idea kinda obsolete is the success of that idea. In making better, faster cars everybody learned how to make it better all around. The clean polished cars we have now are evolution of the firebreathing cars of the past. Don't think we can ever see them again because a polished racer can always beat that monster now, even the GTs have become prototype clinical in their efficiency. We may have to have rules that REALLY limit how far you can modify the car from the street version, but then only Porsche and Ferrari may apply. Possibly AM, Merc, BMW or GM may show up occasionally but those 2 have learned so much it's hard to beat them all the time.
As for the ACO GT and SRO GT beinng the same rules, nice idea but think the SRO GTs should be a LOT wilder. If they're to be the headliner, they should be the wild, big power, low traction(skinnier or harder tires) sliding and harder to drive. But with prototypes on the grid too the GTs for the ACO may need to be a little more polished and controllable, need to have the control to not take out the passing prototype.

But I never got to see the "glory days" of the GT1s so this is more what I'd like to see and think could work than a connection to the old ideas and cars.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chunterer

It's only Porsche out of the 'big' firms who don't have a bigger car and they're more interested in prototype racing anyway aren't they?

No! The 911 continues to be Porsche's top priority.

[pitviper]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

As for the ACO GT and SRO GT beinng the same rules, nice idea but think the SRO GTs should be a LOT wilder...
But I never got to see the "glory days" of the GT1s so this is more what I'd like to see and think could work than a connection to the old ideas and cars.

I do agree actually that they could be even a bit more wild looking and be plenty fine with me. I love the way the Super GT cars look and would love to see the Super GT "treatment" that we see on the GTR, Z, Supra, SC430, and NSX applied to a Viper, Aston, or F599... sheesh... gives me chills just thinking about it...

On that thought, I would be interested to see the results of an ALMS or LMS race if the Super GT cars (GT500) were allowed to run one race in the LMP2 class, and keep their same spec. Just a few years back, the GT500 NSX ran a faster qualifying time than the Goh Audi R8 at one particular track... it would be interesting, that's all I'm saying... ;-)

pit