GTE Speculation

[FstrthnU]

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...-homologation/
I already posted this on some other ALMS threads, but here's Audi's audi R8 LMS GTE announcement. The car can ONLY race in the ALMS, because of a special rule-exception granted to the IMSA. the car is basically the Grand-Am version with a slightly different restrictor.

Now I'm very curious as to how this thing will perform compared to the existing GTEs. Maybe we should take a look at the Grand-Am test sessions for clues?

[Mt. Lynx]

Originally Posted by AGD

Since when have series bosses cared about what fans think? Have you seen the WEC thread? The series bosses are spineless ninnies who cater to a small group of asskissers instead of building a series around people who could very easily become diehard racing fans if the racing was actually a gearhead-oriented sport. Anyway, look at the series that actually do have success. There is the spec nature to NASCAR and before that there was unofficial BoP, but the biggest gaps in performance in NASCAR is between teams and not between models of cars. NASCAR does not BoP the team difference. At least I don't think they do. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes. F1, well, is there BoP there? I could be wrong, but for the most part, I don't think there is. So long story short, a non-BoP series absolutely could be successful IMO. It's only the idiots in charge who think otherwise.

And exactly how much fun does F1 or NASCAR provide? IMO they´re as dull as watching paint dry. They are successful, no doubt, but how much of that is due to their commercial rights and PR work? And besides, both of these series has so tight rules, they might aswell be spec series.

The fact is this; Not many cars would survive a single race without modifications, especially in the engine area. A FI car would deffo need to get a stronger FI system, it´s road variant would melt from the strain of racing. So either way, you´d need so set up rules to make the constructors not go haywire in the engines. And so you have BoP anyway.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by FstrthnU

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...-homologation/
I already posted this on some other ALMS threads, but here's Audi's audi R8 LMS GTE announcement. The car can ONLY race in the ALMS, because of a special rule-exception granted to the IMSA. the car is basically the Grand-Am version with a slightly different restrictor.

Now I'm very curious as to how this thing will perform compared to the existing GTEs. Maybe we should take a look at the Grand-Am test sessions for clues?

With respect this is not "Audi's ....announcement" It's the result of John Dagys's work. That might be seen as semantic but there is a very important difference.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Mt. Lynx

And exactly how much fun does F1 or NASCAR provide? IMO they´re as dull as watching paint dry.

How is ALMS GT any different from NASCAR? Look at last year. There were a number of races with close finishes, but almost all (perhaps all?) were set up by late full course yellows. How is that different from NASCAR?

As for European GTE-Pro, it's almost hard to say how good the racing was because the class hardly got any coverage. There were a couple of good battles between AF Corse and JMW, but guess what, they have the same car. I'm not sure how BoP helped that any.

Perhaps the most thrilling moments in GT/GTE last year was watching Wolf Henzler drive the Falken car, but that has nothing to do with BoP. Good driving is good driving regardless.

The fact is this; Not many cars would survive a single race without modifications, especially in the engine area. A FI car would deffo need to get a stronger FI system, it´s road variant would melt from the strain of racing. So either way, you´d need so set up rules to make the constructors not go haywire in the engines. And so you have BoP anyway.

So let them beef up what needs to be beefed up. There's a big difference between modified for racing use and the BoP Thursday night bracket racing type formula used in modern GT racing.

[Mt. Lynx]

Originally Posted by AGD

How is ALMS GT any different from NASCAR? Look at last year. There were a number of races with close finishes, but almost all (perhaps all?) were set up by late full course yellows. How is that different from NASCAR?

As for European GTE-Pro, it's almost hard to say how good the racing was because the class hardly got any coverage. There were a couple of good battles between AF Corse and JMW, but guess what, they have the same car. I'm not sure how BoP helped that any.

Perhaps the most thrilling moments in GT/GTE last year was watching Wolf Henzler drive the Falken car, but that has nothing to do with BoP. Good driving is good driving regardless.



So let them beef up what needs to be beefed up. There's a big difference between modified for racing use and the BoP Thursday night bracket racing type formula used in modern GT racing.

I think you misunderstood my intent. If you start giving constructors waivers for different "beefing up" things, others will whine about it, and apply for their own "beefing" Eventually you will need to BoP them anyway.
There are many forms of BoP, and hands down, the one used in GT3 Europe is probably the worst. The BoP in GTE is possibly a much better way forward. I´d like them to BoP the cars once before the season, and then let them be. They should have a huge amont of data from telemetries, so a BoP shouldn´t be that hard to calculate and test.

[Deleted]

This topic is quite depressing to go through, actually. Shows how much is wrong in modern-day motor racing, and most of the people have no idea what happens behind the curtains

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Mt. Lynx

I think you misunderstood my intent. If you start giving constructors waivers for different "beefing up" things, others will whine about it, and apply for their own "beefing" Eventually you will need to BoP them anyway.

Yeah, but I did not mean that the beefing up would be done through waivers. All a series has to do is figure out what needs to be done in a general sense and make a rule for allowable modification for everyone. If there is one special snowflake that needs something more, well, tough break. Not every car is meant to be a GT racing superstar just as not every human is meant to be a basketball superstar.

There are many forms of BoP, and hands down, the one used in GT3 Europe is probably the worst.

That might be the most accurate statement in the history of this forum!

The BoP in GTE is possibly a much better way forward.

GTE may be better than GT3, but that's not saying much and both are cut from the same cloth.

Regardless of how BoP and waivers are applied, it is artificial racing. Laboratory made racing where politics influence the ingredients. It's not the way to go. At least some series make it abundantly clear that their series is BoP'ed and nothing but a circus freak show, but the ones that don't do it are nothing but a bait and switch scam in addition to being a circus freak show.

When a car company releases an uninspired range of automobiles, it is said that the sad state of affairs are the product of a company being led by bean counters and not engineers. I don't know how much truth there is to that statement, but if it is accurate, maybe that principle should be applied to racing series because uninspired pretty much describes the entire world of professional auto racing leadership right now.

[Tim the Grey]

One reason FOR BoP, is that given the 'unchained freedom' demanded by several here, just how fast COULD a GT-E car lap, compared with a Proto?
And just how expensive would it be?
So who could afford to run it?
And after the LMP runners have had it banned, WHERE do you run it?
GT1 was the Big Banger class, and that has pretty much evaporated, due to it's cost. And there were only ever really two manufacturers in it for most of it's LM life!
Once you allow unrestricted developement, costs spiral out of control. It's what happens every time.
Unless you Cost Cap things, which is a crude financial BoP.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

One reason FOR BoP, is that given the 'unchained freedom' demanded by several here, just how fast COULD a GT-E car lap, compared with a Proto?

I'm not suggesting unchained freedom. Not in a GT class. That's what prototypes are for. So you take a base GT car and figure out what needs to be modified for racing purposes and allow that across the board. Safety, tires, suspension, aero, engine management, weight reduction, so forth. The scope of the allowable modifications are defined as clearly as possible and you leave it at that. With that, costs and speed are somewhat controlled. If you want looser control of those, allow for more modifications. May the best man win, not may all men win. The key is one rulebook for all, but one rulebook for each car or each individual team. That's where the problem exists.

[Tim the Grey]

I lose track. Are you a BMW fan, or not???

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

I lose track. Are you a BMW fan, or not???

I am a fan of good racing. Period.

[Tim the Grey]

Ah, OK.
So Waivers to allow folks to compete with a runaway winner, are to your liking then???

[Mt. Lynx]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

One reason FOR BoP, is that given the 'unchained freedom' demanded by several here, just how fast COULD a GT-E car lap, compared with a Proto?
And just how expensive would it be?
So who could afford to run it?
And after the LMP runners have had it banned, WHERE do you run it?
GT1 was the Big Banger class, and that has pretty much evaporated, due to it's cost. And there were only ever really two manufacturers in it for most of it's LM life!
Once you allow unrestricted developement, costs spiral out of control. It's what happens every time.
Unless you Cost Cap things, which is a crude financial BoP.

The discussion hasn´t been about unrestricted development. Basivcally the opposite. As little dev as possible on the cars. Stripped interior, rollcage, Spec rear wing, slicks. The rest goes stock.
Hmmm, remember the Ferrari 360 that raced in N-GT, in the early 00´s? When it first appeared, very little was done to it. Basically a stock car. Slow as heck compared to the Porsches in the class. Is that what we are looking for?
A small comparison; A STCC BMW is faster around Ring Knutstorp than a stock Lamborghini Gallardo. And the Dev on STCC cars aren´t really that much.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Ah, OK.
So Waivers to allow folks to compete with a runaway winner, are to your liking then???

No. They are not. If someone built a better mousetrap within a common rulebook, good for them if they are running away with the win. That's specifically what I am looking for in a racing series.

Originally Posted by Mt. Lynx

The discussion hasn´t been about unrestricted development. Basivcally the opposite. As little dev as possible on the cars. Stripped interior, rollcage, Spec rear wing, slicks. The rest goes stock.
Hmmm, remember the Ferrari 360 that raced in N-GT, in the early 00´s? When it first appeared, very little was done to it. Basically a stock car. Slow as heck compared to the Porsches in the class. Is that what we are looking for?

I'm not saying that is the only formula for GT that I would like to see. There are other options that I think are workable. Still, yes, it is an interesting option. At least it puts truth into what is being raced.

[DistortedSmile]

I think running the cars as close to stock as possible would not only be dull, but would lead to one type of car dominating, this would probably kill the diversity, with manufacturers trying to build something similar to the dominating car, or worse, deciding it's not worth the headache and pull out of the class entirely.

One of the reasons I find GTE a bit underwhelming (despite the great racing the class has provided) is precisely because I think they don't look that far from stock, I like my GTs with crazy aero and bodywork, it also doesn't help that in the case of some cars like the Corvette, the road car actually has a lot more power than the race car.

[Tim the Grey]

I'm Confused. You say you want Good Racing, then advocate something that COULD allow a team, or a car, to run away and hide? That ain't racing, and soon, it's a spec series as other kids take their toys home...
Then say you want a 'spec wing'? Why can't I spend thousands in a wind tunnel? It's been done with E-types, FFS!
I give up...

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

I'm Confused. You say you want Good Racing, then advocate something that COULD allow a team, or a car, to run away and hide? That ain't racing, and soon, it's a spec series as other kids take their toys home...
Then say you want a 'spec wing'? Why can't I spend thousands in a wind tunnel? It's been done with E-types, FFS!
I give up...

Who said anything about a spec wing or spec anything?

As for good racing, good racing does not mean close racing. It can include close racing, but it is so much more than that. A good race is one where the participants and their partners have done years of research and executed it by putting out good products on the track without the aid of politics and artificial boosts/reductions. When that happens, a blow out may occur. In a case like that, you applaud the champion and hope the competition can and will put in the work to get to the top in the future like the champion did. Blow outs aren't a given though. I don't think there is any BoP (that I know of) between the Audi and Peugeot LMP1s and we saw a pretty damn good race at Le Mans between those two cars, don't you think?

Besides, blowouts occur in BoP/spec racing too. Look at Ganassi's domination in Indycar and Grand-Am. Sometimes that occurs because of sandbagging or just because some teams just have the ability to find a little extra when the situation calls for it. BoP taken to the extreme could eliminate that even, but that just makes for a bigger clown show.

[Mt. Lynx]

Personally, I prefer a clown show over a rabbit followed by a train. At least a clown show is fun to watch, artificial as it may be.
A rabbit/train scenario end after it´s first season. Season two, everybody have rabbits, or they´ve all quit.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by Mt. Lynx

The discussion hasn´t been about unrestricted development. Basivcally the opposite. As little dev as possible on the cars. Stripped interior, rollcage, Spec rear wing, slicks. The rest goes stock.

Exactly, the hot laps I pointed out were pretty damn close, and with all cars on slicks would probably be closer still. No expensive development for manufacturers, they could provide rule approved roll cages, fuel cells, fire safety systems for their existing models.

If a car can’t survive a one hour sprint race then it doesn’t deserve to race, and it could be motivation to improve the street model to be more durable; again real track to street tech transfer, not some marketing bovine excretion. I think there would be incredible interest in a series that has real racing of the actual cars that are being sold to customers. The only people that would be against this are the weaklings that would rather hide behind rule adjustments in their favor, and organizers and sanctioning bodies that get their palms greased for the accommodation.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by Mt. Lynx

Personally, I prefer a clown show over a rabbit followed by a train. At least a clown show is fun to watch, artificial as it may be.
A rabbit/train scenario end after it´s first season. Season two, everybody have rabbits, or they´ve all quit.

Until the dominating car starts running ads, so much for the “ultimate driving machine”, or “there is no substitute”. I suspect if the GT-R or Corvette stopped racing because they were getting their arse handed to them there would be a backlash and the only option would be to improve the breed or curl up in a corner and hope someone still buys their product. BoP is that dirty little secret that everyone believes makes their marque suffer and gives an advantage to the other guy’s marque. I say let’s find out, get rid of it, it shouldn’t be up to a sanctioning body to determine the displacement of the next Corvette, or any other car for that matter. Let’s have “real” racing.

[Tim the Grey]

And so we sound the death knell of the series that does this...
Remember IMSA?
Yes, competition improves the breed. COMPETITION.
Whitewash is poisonous...
If you offer a chance of winning, teams will come. If you offer them no hope at all, they won't.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

And so we sound the death knell of the series that does this...
Remember IMSA?
Yes, competition improves the breed. COMPETITION.
Whitewash is poisonous...
If you offer a chance of winning, teams will come. If you offer them no hope at all, they won't.

Do you understand the meaning of competition? You see in my scenario it’s up to the manufacturers to control their own destiny; not some sanctioning body/organizer telling them how to design their car. The cars exist already, job done, your implying before a race is run in my imaginary series that some cars wouldn’t stack up…who, what manufacturer do you think would suffer under my scenario? Who wouldn’t have a chance? Whitewash is exactly what BoP is, making pretenders contenders.

[Speed-King]

You see in my scenario it’s up to the manufacturers to control their own destiny

That's not how thinks work in the 21st century. Car design has become extremely complicated and even small gains in performance take humungous ammounts of research and testing.

Which in turn means, that open competition would also be insanely expensive - and let's face it, what you propose is open competition, only through the detour of producing matching roadcars, which would make things even more expensive.

Add to this the increasingly green mindset of the mainstream and a general apathy (even of car-enthusiasts) towards motorsports and their is no way how a manufacturer could justify a racing program in a series like the one you propose.

The expenses would far outweigh the gains, and good look trying to sell that to the shareholders.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

That's not how thinks work in the 21st century. Car design has become extremely complicated and even small gains in performance take humungous ammounts of research and testing.

Which in turn means, that open competition would also be insanely expensive - and let's face it, what you propose is open competition, only through the detour of producing matching roadcars, which would make things even more expensive.

Add to this the increasingly green mindset of the mainstream and a general apathy (even of car-enthusiasts) towards motorsports and their is no way how a manufacturer could justify a racing program in a series like the one you propose.

The expenses would far outweigh the gains, and good look trying to sell that to the shareholders.

That makes absolutely no sense whatever, they have already designed the cars, and the only difference is that they don’t have to develop another fictitious version for racing. They don’t have to produce matching anything.

Really, the green issue? The only way to go totally green is to stop racing altogether. I have always found this new political correctness in racing more than a little dubious.

The truth is only a weakling would want to protect the status quo and hide behind rules that favor them. Pretenders want to be contenders, its good marketing strategy because your product you actually sell to customers doesn’t have to perform; you can live off the myth perpetuated by BoP. In the simplest way I can explain, No BoP everyone has a chance, With BoP somebody is going to get screwed and usually does.

[Speed-King]

That makes absolutely no sense whatever, they have already designed the cars, and the only difference is that they don’t have to develop another fictitious version for racing. They don’t have to produce matching anything.

Road cars are not race cars. And two comply different mindsets apply when designing the two. A good road car is not automatically a good race car - heck even a good trackday car is not automatically a good race car. The rigors of actual wheel to wheel racing exceed anything most roadcars (even supercars!) can handle.

Therefore, if a company wants to have a successfull racecar, they need to design a car AS A RACE CAR.

If you stipulate that only road cars can be raced in your series that only means, that they have to built a race car for the road, sell the necessary number for homologation for it, and then race it. That does not only add one more 'fictious racing version', but also one more road version, that still has to satisfy the demands of the customers in all non track related categories.

Really, the green issue? The only way to go totally green is to stop racing altogether. I have always found this new political correctness in racing more than a little dubious.

This is what eventually will happen. The Golden Age is never coming back. Forget it. By 2050, cars with internal combustion engines will be far outnumbered by other solutions (at least in the developed world).

The truth is only a weakling would want to protect the status quo and hide behind rules that favor them. Pretenders want to be contenders, its good marketing strategy because your product you actually sell to customers doesn’t have to perform; you can live off the myth perpetuated by BoP. In the simplest way I can explain, No BoP everyone has a chance, With BoP somebody is going to get screwed and usually does.

Only someone who is completely oblivious to the financial realities of car developement could not see that open competition is not sustainble in this day and age - even less so in a niche-sport like GT racing. For the general public, this sport does not exist - and if it doesn't exist for them, it does for all intends and purposes not exist for the manufacturers.

The only reason we have some manufacturer involvement in GT-racing right now is because they can do it on the cheap and the ROI is somewhat on par with the expenses, or the expenses can be recouped by selling race cars to customers.