USCC 2014 Entry List & Schedule ONLY

[Mechanic Z]

Nice list.
Dagys was reporting that BMW probably has Edwards, Mueller, Auberlen and Priaulx for the full season.
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/tusc/se...test-notebook/

[joeb]

That list has 85 cars on it. There are only around 60 spots available. Most likely all these teams won't put an entry in, but I would hate to be the series official that has to turn teams away.

Speaking of entries, Does the window for submitting full season entries end at the end of the month?

[Mechanic Z]

Level 5 submits 2 PC entries:
http://sportscar365.com/imsa/tusc/le...lenge-entries/

Tucker may or may not drive.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

There's two classes to separate factory-supported teams from privateers.

Factory supported teams and privateers got along just fine for the first 90 years of sportscar racing...

GT4 doesn't belong to United SportsCar, that kind of production-near cars are better suited for Conti Challenge and SCCA World Challenge.

I am not talking about GT4, I am talking about GT3 or GTE-style regs applied to entry level performance cars....

And to the person who said, people don't cross-shop Z4s and Mustangs: Maybe so, but people cross-shop even less between Ferraris and Z4s. A GTE-U class would be the perfect place for the Z4 and other cars in the $30.000 - $60.000 price range.

Oh well, I rest my case, it is what it is. At least for the time being.

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by joeb

Speaking of entries, Does the window for submitting full season entries end at the end of the month?

Full-season entry requests close on Friday.

Last sentence.

http://sportscar365.com/imsa/tusc/le...lenge-entries/

[Danske]

Originally Posted by joeb

Speaking of entries, Does the window for submitting full season entries end at the end of the month?

The deadline for both Premium and Standard memberships is technically the 22nd, but somehow I think if they're not full for all races they'll still accept applications after that.

[AFC-911]

Count me as one of the fans that DON'T want to see entry level performance cars in USCC.

Leave that stuff for the support races like the Mazda Cup or whatever it's called.

[HORNDAWG]

L.P.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

Count me as one of the fans that DON'T want to see entry level performance cars in USCC.

Leave that stuff for the support races like the Mazda Cup or whatever it's called.

Newsflash! They are there already!! Giving them their own class would actually clean things up!

[AFC-911]

Pssh. I actually prefer seeing the Z4 to the old M3 that stood out like a sore thumb.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

Pssh. I actually prefer seeing the Z4 to the old M3 that stood out like a sore thumb.

There will always be cars that stick out unless there are classes that differ in terms of elegible production models. There's a Camaro in GT3, used to be a Mustang and there were plans for a 350Z...

[FstrthnU]

http://sportscar365.com/imsa/tusc/ms...ntry-for-2014/
Mike Shank Racing to scale down to one-car entry.

12 full-season prototypes expected, 6 DPs and 6 P2s (2 of the P2s not announced yet)

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Birddog07

I don't think they belong. Mustangs and Camaros are muscle cars, not GT cars. If you took street legal Audi R8s, GTRs, Corvettes, Vipers, F458s, 911s; the Mustangs and Camaros could just not compete. All they have is a V8 that makes them quick in a straight line. The bodies don't even try to be aerodynamically efficient. They weigh more and definatley don't handle nearly as well.

If the street cars aren't in the same ball park, then the race cars shouldn't be.

That is your opinion but unless you give some stats that prove that, that is all it is.

You should do some reading of how well pony cars actually perform on a skid pad.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

GT = Grand Touring. There is nothing grand about a Camaro or Mustang.

There is nothing touring about any two-seat car either, if you are going to go down that road.

[Accident]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Mustangs and Camaros are far, far below either the M3 or Z4, though. These are cars which are in no way performance cars. They are (even in their latest, much more hi-tech versions) crude and primitive (though Mustang now gets IRS, which steps it up several notches.)

I usually don't find much that I disagree with in your posts but this is pretty off.

Let's look at the times around VIR:

2:57.5 - Camaro ZL1
3:00.6 - Shelby GT500
3:01.5 - Camaro SS 1LE
3:02.8 - Mustang Laguna Seca
3:04.7 - BMW M6
3:05.6 - BMW M3 Coupe
3:10.4 - BMW Z4

I only included the ZL1 and GT500 because you mentioned even the latest high tech versions (of which the ZL1 has magnetorheological dampers, not exactly primitive) were below them.

I'm not arguing that the Camaro and Mustang are really high-tech or the most refined vehicles out there, but to say they are "far, far below" the M3 is off unless you are speaking purely in terms of refinement (which is becoming debatable) or how many points they will earn you with the guys with yellow sweaters tied across their shoulders at the local country club, and to say that they aren't performance cars is just flat wrong.

I don't want to see them in GTE though as they would have to get the same ridiculous treatment that the M3 got to be competitive. They, along with the M3, belong racing with other sports coupes, like in the CTSCC where they are now.

Disregard this post if you were being sarcastic.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Sorry to reopen the wound but ... Likely BMW withdrew its connection with Dinan because TUSC pushed its "Pay to Play" rule, and asked BMW to either step up with some promo cash or step back from the easy, low-cost publicity it was getting.

Re: where Mustang/Camaro belong---The M3 did Not belong where it was. Moving the engine radically, relocating the transmission, made it a different car. it is flat ridiculous that an M3 coupe could readily beat Corvettes and Ferraris.

That said, those were the rules and those were some good races.

Z4? Should never have been allowed on track with another car's V8. But ... those are the rules and the racing has been good.

Mustangs and Camaros are far, far below either the M3 or Z4, though. These are cars which are in no way performance cars. They are (even in their latest, much more hi-tech versions) crude and primitive (though Mustang now gets IRS, which steps it up several notches.)

And yes, In The Past (funny how the fact that something used to be done justified doing it always ... maybe other factors are involved?) radically modified Camaros and Mustangs used to race Porsches and BMWs ...

The question is, at what level does BoP become too extreme? Switching front-wheel-drive to rear-wheel-drive, completely different engines from production ... wehy not just race tube-framed, open-engine funny cars ... everyone has the same mechanicals, with different bodywork pasted on?

After all, plenty of successful series, from NASCAR to DTM to Aussie V8 make that formula work.

To me, the answer is "Brand Identity." I don't want someone p[assing off a generic tube-framed whatever as a "Mazda" or a "Pontiac" unless the whole class is racing generic tube-framed whatevers.

If some of the cars have to be based on production cars, all the cars should be based on production cars, and the regulations should be limited so that there is some actual relation between the cars on track and the cars in the showroom.

Sure, a Mazda Miata could be BoP'd to beat a Ferari 458 .... but the two cars are most obviously Not in the same class, and neither car would be representative of the brand or model. So, thwe whole thing is just a PR exercise, and like most advertisements it would be aimed at people who don't think or care too much.

Thing is, sports car fans tend to think and care a Lot. And we think well enough to realize that if a Camaro or Mustang can beat a 458 it is because of commercial, not competition decisions.

Thing is ... I don't watch commercials in the middle of shows, and at some point I won't watch a show if it is nothing but a commercial. There should be some measure of honesty in racing: the competition should be more important than the commercial interests. If Chevy wants to compete in GTLM, it should use the Corvette; if Ford wants to, it should continue to upgrade the Mustang until it is capable.

Will it ever work that way? Highly unlikely. Money is what matters nowadays. Thing is, if that mindset continues to spread, pretty soon all we will have will be clones of NASCAR. NASCAR might be the bull's balls for most folk, and good for them. I like sports cars.

All these discussions are pointless, ultimately. The M3 and Z4 prove that. Money wins in the end. But there is no reason for me to shut up and take it. I have to take it, but I can explain my thoughts here, and you folks can read them or skip them.

Maelochs, your posts are fine with me.

However, I have one question. After losing multiple F1 world championships now to a RENAULT (talk about the ultimate Infiniti "branding" exercise) would Ferrari really mind being beaten by a Chevy Camaro (or a Ford Mustang) in GT competition?

It certainly didn't stop Ferrari from contesting the Rolex GT series this year and celebrating a championship. Perhaps the Italians aren't nearly as concerned as you think they are.

Andy Flinn

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

Pssh. I actually prefer seeing the Z4 to the old M3 that stood out like a sore thumb.

Actually, this year we saw TWO of those M3's race.

They stood out the best in Victory Lane at COTA and Mid-Ohio where they beat the Ferraris, Porsches, Audis, the Corvette and, yes, the Stevenson Camaro.

I hope Turner can match that success with their Z4.

Andy Flinn

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

There is nothing touring about any two-seat car either, if you are going to go down that road.

True GT sportscars ARE two seaters. Look at the cars that raced at Sebring and Le Mans in the past. Touring cars have no place in sportscar racing.

On another note, it looks with the upgrade costs required for DP, evolution will take care of things for us in the top class within a season or so. Things are looking up! Downside is less P cars means more PC cars. No prep 2 GTs either so all the mediocrity of GA may soon be gone. Now if only management could get their act together…

[Lagunaseca_4life]

I don't see how losing cars=things are looking up? Only good thing about losing the Shank car is we won't see that over aggressive driver.
And what's wrong with more pcs?I think cars and class wise this is looking good, management just needs to get their **** together but I have no problems with the cars I'm seeing.and the gt America gtd Porsche looks soo much better than the gtc and gt Porsches.the Magnus porshe always annoyed me I don't know why but their new Porsche looks goood.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by ACFlinn

Actually, this year we saw TWO of those M3's race.

They stood out the best in Victory Lane at COTA and Mid-Ohio where they beat the Ferraris, Porsches, Audis, the Corvette and, yes, the Stevenson Camaro.

I hope Turner can match that success with their Z4.

Andy Flinn

The only problem with that is they weren't BMWs. They were just tube frames.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

True GT sportscars ARE two seaters. -- No they are not, you are not even close--Look at the cars that raced at Sebring and Le Mans in the past. Touring cars have no place in sportscar racing.

Sorry son you are shooting blanks here.
A grand touring car is just a more luxurious touring car, i.e. GRAND.


Grand tourers emphasize comfort and handling over straight-out high performance or spartan accommodations. Historically, most GTs have been front-engined with rear-wheel drive, which creates more space for the cabin than mid-mounted engine layouts. Softer suspensions, greater storage, and more luxurious appointments add to their driving appeal.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

True GT sportscars ARE two seaters. Look at the cars that raced at Sebring and Le Mans in the past. Touring cars have no place in sportscar racing.

On another note, it looks with the upgrade costs required for DP, evolution will take care of things for us in the top class within a season or so. Things are looking up! Downside is less P cars means more PC cars. No prep 2 GTs either so all the mediocrity of GA may soon be gone. Now if only management could get their act together…

"GT" stands for grand TOURING. We have GTLM and GTD next year. So reflogging the whole debate about "true" sports cars is irrelevant.

Cars that have raced at Sebring in the past? How about Camaros (lots of them) and Mustangs? The BMW CSL, some of which literally raced in the "Touring" class at Le Mans (because they were touring cars), some in GT and even some in Group 5, also won Sebring OVERALL in 1975.

As far as racing mediocrity goes, what do you think spec class racing (LMPC) is? The Tudor USCC didn't inherit that from Grand-Am. What is your plan to address that?

Finally, please list all the LMP2's confirmed for the full 2014 USCC season.

Andy Flinn

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Sorry son you are shooting blanks here.
A grand touring car is just a more luxurious touring car, i.e. GRAND.


Grand tourers emphasize comfort and handling over straight-out high performance or spartan accommodations. Historically, most GTs have been front-engined with rear-wheel drive, which creates more space for the cabin than mid-mounted engine layouts. Softer suspensions, greater storage, and more luxurious appointments add to their driving appeal.

You can use all the words you like to justify it, even colour them in if you so fancy. But not everyone shares that opinion.

[Maelochs]

Actually, and historically, Bob Riebe’s description is mostly accurate.

Historically, “sports cars” were stripped down to the extent that driving them long distances would be a chore—stiff suspension, no amenities (i.e. seat cushions, sound insulation, heater (pre-AC days) no radio; little or no room for luggage.

“Sports cars” were built for the people who wanted the thrill of actively driving quickly throughout the ride. They were often built to homologate racing models, and while sometimes expensive, were not luxurious—anything that didn’t make the car faster was removed.

“Grand Touring” cars were Not “grander,’ as in more luxurious, touring cars—simple language error there. GTs were made for “grands tours,” that is, long trips.

The idea was to build sports cars with more comfort, more suspension compliance, and a little luggage space, so rich guys could grab the girlfriend or mistress, or wife, ditch the rest of the headaches, and go on a drive from one rich-folks hang-out to another, or from the city wherein the rich guy lived (not to be sexist, but acknowledging the social realities of the day) to whatever vacation spot or rich-person playground (Monaco, Biaritz, whatever) the guy wanted to see.

Perfect example would be the many excellent road-going Ferraris which Enzo Ferrari built and sold to the wealthy to fund his racing cars. He basically took sports cars and civilized them just enough so that a gentleman in a suit could invite a lady in an expensive dress and coiffure to take a long trip without causing undue pain or suffering to the driver or passenger.

Most GT cars were two-seaters, or maybe had “2+2” seats where the golf clubs, or in a necessity, the kids, could be parked, but most were two-seaters. Sedans were for the week, driving around London or Paris or wherever the guy worked, to display wealth there. The GT was for weekends and vacations, to both have an exciting drive and of course, to display wealth at whatever rich-person’s playground was the destination.

None of that in any way addresses the modern situation, but that is all pretty much as accurate and unbiased as I can be about the roots of the terms.

[kingers]

Gee whizz.. You guys sure do have your knickers in a knot about this GT thing. I accept everyone has an opinion and move on. Back to sports car racing please?