Level playing field?

[AU N EGL]

Do ppl REALLY think all teams play ( race ) by the rules??

Here is a the 2006 list of violations and the fines for Grand Am. PDF format
http://w3.grandamerican.com/Content/...ionBlotter.pdf

[Alex Toropov]

I reckon, it's not a big list of violations, considering it is for entire year... anyway, I think, people in paddock will notice, if any great cheating is going on, especially they know the history behind the certain team members (like crew chiefs Chad Knaus and Todd Berrier in NASCAR, who were caught many times during tech inspections)

there's nice piece from pitpass.com article regarding rules violations and rules controlling in 70's-80's

MM: There was a much higher level of trust.

BE: We didn't have any scales in those days, so we didn't know whether our cars had been under the weight limit. Frank Williams next door knew that we would run under weight as much as he would.

MM: There was the famous occasion, when Frank's team manager saw the Brabham guys putting some ballast in the car before scrutineering. He told Frank, but Frank was very relaxed. He just told his manager, don't worry that's our lead, Bernie's just borowing it.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=28264

[Danske]

"How much difference is one-sixteenth of an inch going to make!?" -- attributed to Adrian Fernandez

[Svierge]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Do ppl REALLY think all teams play ( race ) by the rules??

Here is a the 2006 list of violations and the fines for Grand Am. PDF format
http://w3.grandamerican.com/Content/...ionBlotter.pdf

I didn't realise GA was so tightly controlled - there are some really minor things in there that wouldn't matter at all in ACO racing.

For a season, though, I'd say that's pretty good really.

[Danske]

Originally Posted by Svierge

I didn't realise GA was so tightly controlled - there are some really minor things in there that wouldn't matter at all in ACO racing.

If you're looking at the GAC listings remember that it's a street-stock series.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Svierge

I didn't realise GA was so tightly controlled - there are some really minor things in there that wouldn't matter at all in ACO racing.

Rember the MC12 could not race under ACO rules two years ago. WHat was it? the legth of the car was 2 cm too long, and the width 1cm to wide ?? some very small numbers ( by our standards) but the ACO said "NO" go fix it. That is when the IMSA allowed them as guest competitors in ALMS.

[The Badger]

The MC-12 ..... that car was never built to the rules . Thats why (imo) Le Mans told them to get lost , and rightly so . It doesnt matter if the car looks nice or that is is a massive manufacturer . If it doesnt comply , it doesnt start .

A very arrogant attitude from MR . Jean Todt who was incharge of the project if you ask me . It almost seemed that his attitude was "they wont tell us our car is illegal cuz of "WHO" we are !!!

The MC-12 was allowed to race in the ALMS cuz they needed the numbers to fill the grid and no other reason . In my mind that was wrong . If ALMS claim to run a championship to Le Mans rules ..... they obviously dont !!! Same thing with the Audi R8 too . But , if the rules are sometimes adjusted , we sometimes have to live with that . The other option is a smaller grid and maybe the end of a championship !!!

[Danske]

IIRC, Aston Martin complained loudy about the Maserati's legality and then the AMs were found to be a couple mm wide themselves (hmm...that's about a 1/16th of an inch). Not a major violation, but ironically amusing.

[HORNDAWG]

The ALMS awarded no points or purse to the MC12. They also send very competitive if not the winning teams to LeMans. So as to the validity of the ALMS as a properly run and ethical(loosely) body, I think they cut the mustard. Should they have let it run??? Maybe not.

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by The Badger

T if the rules are sometimes adjusted , we sometimes have to live with that . The other option is a smaller grid and maybe the end of a championship !!!

TWO years latter and has the MC12 been adjusted to fit into the ACO rules for GT1 ??

Ferrari / Maseratti might sell more MC12s if they did, but what do I know, I am a lowly Corvette AMATURE racer.

[The Badger]

[QUOTE=AU N EGL]TWO years latter and has the MC12 been adjusted to fit into the ACO rules for GT1 ?? QUOTE]

Exactly my point ..... it shouldnt be allowed to race in any Le Mans sanctioned series , and it doesnt anymore either !!!!

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by The Badger

The MC-12 ..... that car was never built to the rules . Thats why (imo) Le Mans told them to get lost , and rightly so . It doesnt matter if the car looks nice or that is is a massive manufacturer . If it doesnt comply , it doesnt start .

A very arrogant attitude from MR . Jean Todt who was incharge of the project if you ask me . It almost seemed that his attitude was "they wont tell us our car is illegal cuz of "WHO" we are !!!

The MC-12 was allowed to race in the ALMS cuz they needed the numbers to fill the grid and no other reason . In my mind that was wrong . If ALMS claim to run a championship to Le Mans rules ..... they obviously dont !!! Same thing with the Audi R8 too . But , if the rules are sometimes adjusted , we sometimes have to live with that . The other option is a smaller grid and maybe the end of a championship !!!

When the MC12 project started it was built to fit rules at that time(this was covered in previous posts), rules changed after they started.

Car companies do not throw money down drains because the ACO thinks they should.
Blame the ACO not any one else.

Bob

[The Badger]

How come all other privateers and manufacturers had thier cars in order , rule changes or not ?

What im saying is that it should not be allowed to race in a Le Mans sanctioned series ..... cuz it does not comply to the rules , regardless of why !!! Mazza were well aware of the changes before the car hit the track . The others were too .

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

When the MC12 project started it was built to fit rules at that time(this was covered in previous posts), rules changed after they started.

Car companies do not throw money down drains because the ACO thinks they should.
Blame the ACO not any one else.

Bob

I don't think thats very clear at all.

There were FIA regs and ACO regs, both with significant differences, Remember the C5-R wasn't allowed to compete in FIA GT for many years.

The ACO/FIA came to some sort of agreement, but Maserati went ahead with the MC12 in it's current state.

If Saleen can cut through the crap and make their 'homologation special' ACO/FIA legal, and don't see why a major manufactuer couldn't.

[TheNewBob]

I have an old copy of Autosport from 2001 which stated that Ratel was prepared to let BMW M3-GTR's in the FIA GT series for 2002 but Saleens and Corvettes were an absolute no-no.

You'd think if Maserati were designing and building the car that they'd have the mind to check if the rules were changing? Or that they'd ask the governing bodies to keep them updated?

The governing bodies make the rules, it's up to the manufacturer to follow them.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

I
The governing bodies make the rules, it's up to the manufacturer to follow them.

Car builders can survive without ANY sanctioning body; Sanctioning bodies are toast without car builders, period.
That is how it was, is and always shall be.
Which do you think is more important or has the upper hand, when push comes to shove?
Bob

[Graham Goodwin]

But that's not the point - The new Bob is absolutely correct, after all the only other alternatives are that a - You have no rukes (which won't work) or b - that you let the manufacturers set the rules (and the thought that they would agree for more than 5 minutes doesn't even begin to occur.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

But that's not the point - The new Bob is absolutely correct, after all the only other alternatives are that a - You have no rukes which won't work (That is a narrow mind set which seems to be ruling the ACO. Homologation rules in the past for GT cars were far tougher than now, and such a problem never came up before. There is a vast area of alternatives.)or b - that you let the manufacturers set the rules (and the thought that they would agree for more than 5 minutes doesn't even begin to occur.

No third scenario: you make the rules flexible enough that there is no chance of any car, road legal, not being homologated; beyond number of vehicles required for homologation, it would be very hard to screw that up, unless the rules maker is an arrogant rube.

[Graham Goodwin]

Which would be a recipe for the same kind of meltdown we saw in GT1 in the late 90s.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Which would be a recipe for the same kind of meltdown we saw in GT1 in the late 90s.

How and why?

[Graham Goodwin]

Because it reaches the same conclusion very quickly - He who spends the most wins the most. You in effect get a position little different to that which we have now.

You can't effectively cap budgets so those who have more money either build a better car (in some cases a much better car) and/or pour money into testing and development in pursuit of an advantage.

There is no golden ticket to an ideal formula and I tend to believe that (with a couple of notable and unfortunate exceptions) the rulemakers do a very good job.

A free for all might be technically interesting for about five minutes flat but it isn't the answer to the question "How do you provide close competitive racing over an extended period?"

So go on Bob, just how does your 'vision' provide something worthwhile and long lasting?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Because it reaches the same conclusion very quickly - He who spends the most wins the most. You in effect get a position little different to that which we have now.

You can't effectively cap budgets so those who have more money either build a better car (in some cases a much better car) and/or pour money into testing and development in pursuit of an advantage.

There is no golden ticket to an ideal formula and I tend to believe that (with a couple of notable and unfortunate exceptions) the rulemakers do a very good job.

A free for all might be technically interesting for about five minutes flat but it isn't the answer to the question "How do you provide close competitive racing over an extended period?"

So go on Bob, just how does your 'vision' provide something worthwhile and long lasting?

Very simple.
Best team, best car, best man wins.
The "free for all" worked extremely well through the eighties, and was more interesting during the early nineties than the format they have now, in which the only way an outsider can upset the cart, is if the santion penalizes someone for doing what racing was about from the very beginning into the nineties.(The brief churning of the waters by the Ferraris, 2003, which some thought was a good sign for the future, for unknown reasons, died a very quick death.)

A winning format, true competition, just as it was done during the eighty plus years before contrived rules were created in the nineties, not artificial equalization.

If you can't pay, you can't play.
Close competitive racing, which was always, a rarity, not the norm, during what most ex-pros call the glory years, comes when two or more teams exploit the rules to create, in different manners, vehicles which at the end of the day leaves two or more cars within striking distance of the other.

The past, whose rules you loath, was far different from today in that singular top classes had dozens of teams trying to make the grid, not less than a dozen on average; also not forgetting that dozens upon dozens of amateur drivers, would fill the grid when the big show came to town, to take a shot at the big boys, and earn some prize money.
Along with the fact that automobile factories spent millions to win amateur prod. class national titles, for which the only thing they were paid was publicity.

The more contrived the rules, the more it costs to run up front. Take away the heart of a team, its engineering expertise, and they have no reason to show up, which is being demonstrated often with todays artificial childish "fairness" doctrines.
The sanctions are trying to imitate what worked for Bill France Sr., in an entirely different format, without paying the decades long dues he paid.
Immitation is the greatest form of flatery, and greatest exposing of lack of original thought.

Road racing suceeded by exploiting the loyalty and love of the automobile in huge portion of the US population, now it is falling flat by imitating what someone else did.
Bob

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Very simple.
Best team, best car, best man wins.
Bob

WOW, Would be nice if it were that simple.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

WOW, Would be nice if it were that simple.

IT IS.
Remember when Roger Penske was up and coming, he did not have the biggest budget, but by being the simply best prepared team, period, he beat teams who had far more money and testing ability than he did.
Sadly money is a prime ingredient, but how that money is applied, is the determining factor, current results from Pro-Drive, verses past results, makes that point quite well.
Bob

[Graham Goodwin]

I don't agree that it did work very well through the eighties. We had half a decade of sportscars rssentially being dominated by one of car - just how is that any different from now? - It was only later in the decade when things got more varied and competitive and then the FIA came along and shafted it.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the "Remember when it was great" idea - It still is great for the most part and the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s had more than their fair share of bad rules, bad cars and boring races too