Have The ACO Got It Wrong?

[Cerbera Speed12]

First we have the exclusion from the invites of key teams.

Then we have the weight penalties.

We have the 3.55 rule in GT1

During the race we have also had a farce with the pace car and heavy
handed stop go and timed penalties that seem to be randomly applied.

Is it only bothering me?

[awegrzyn]

There should be someone overseeing regulators.

[pirenzo]

I think they've slowed the LMPs, perhaps legitimately (read on safety grounds) but now they have the problem that the GT1s are almost as fast - so they need a way of slowing them by the same amount to (hence the 3:55 rule).

Now, IMO, a prototype should be fundamentally faster than a GT (no matter how much money has been thrown at it, provided it is a 'proper' GT, like the Astons and 'Vettes and 550s etc) and the GTs should be allowed to go as fast as they can.
Future manufacture involvement IMO is in GTs, but the ACO will be shooting themselves in the foot if the manufacturers think that they won't be allowed to flex any muscle anyway.

The ACO have very probably been a little too conservative with their proto safety efforts. I don't think it was necessary to reduce power for instance to prevent flips. But then there are other valid points to consider; like the fact that prototypes are inherently stiffer in their construction - so if you were to allow them to become as fast as F1 then comparable accidents in F1 and sportscars (speed, angle of impact, type of impact etc) then the results would probably be more serious for the driver in the prototype case. I think Martin Brundle made that point quite well in 'working the wheel'.

I personally think that the protos need more power, more grip, but retaining features such as the deep endplates, undertray rules etc which presumable prevent flips and things. A few seconds a lap faster than current cars, around the 2002 pace is probably fast enough to allow them to place much fewer silly laptime restrictions on the lower classes.

[SALEEN S7R]

Originally Posted by Cerbera Speed12

First we have the exclusion from the invites of key teams.

Then we have the weight penalties.

We have the 3.55 rule in GT1

During the race we have also had a farce with the pace car and heavy
handed stop go and timed penalties that seem to be randomly applied.

Is it only bothering me?

I agree completly, the GT1 battle IMO is somewhat of a farce. There is no doubt in my mind that if the lead GT1 cars wanted they could run consistantly at 3:49/3:50 - particulary when you bear in mind that the 3:48 qualifying laps the DBR9's set was with a full tank of fuel and race tyres.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Cerbera Speed12

First we have the exclusion from the invites of key teams.

Then we have the weight penalties.

We have the 3.55 rule in GT1

During the race we have also had a farce with the pace car and heavy
handed stop go and timed penalties that seem to be randomly applied.

Is it only bothering me?

The other point of view is that the ACO have rescued European prototype racing with the LMES, and encouraged the factories back with the new LMP regs and embracing of alternative fuels.

If a team wants a guaranteed entry, win one of the qualification races/series.

GT1 3.55 ruling, undoubtedly stupid, and IMO will not be implemented.

Then again I personally believe GT1 should be left to customers, and next year GM will be the only factory GT1 team competing in any series!

[JAG]

Originally Posted by pirenzo

I think they've slowed the LMPs, perhaps legitimately (read on safety grounds) but now they have the problem that the GT1s are almost as fast - so they need a way of slowing them by the same amount to (hence the 3:55 rule).

Now, IMO, a prototype should be fundamentally faster than a GT (no matter how much money has been thrown at it, provided it is a 'proper' GT, like the Astons and 'Vettes and 550s etc) and the GTs should be allowed to go as fast as they can.
Future manufacture involvement IMO is in GTs, but the ACO will be shooting themselves in the foot if the manufacturers think that they won't be allowed to flex any muscle anyway.

The ACO have very probably been a little too conservative with their proto safety efforts. I don't think it was necessary to reduce power for instance to prevent flips. But then there are other valid points to consider; like the fact that prototypes are inherently stiffer in their construction - so if you were to allow them to become as fast as F1 then comparable accidents in F1 and sportscars (speed, angle of impact, type of impact etc) then the results would probably be more serious for the driver in the prototype case. I think Martin Brundle made that point quite well in 'working the wheel'.

I personally think that the protos need more power, more grip, but retaining features such as the deep endplates, undertray rules etc which presumable prevent flips and things. A few seconds a lap faster than current cars, around the 2002 pace is probably fast enough to allow them to place much fewer silly laptime restrictions on the lower classes.

I think your getting a little confused between the old and new prototypes.

Sure the old LMP900s have been slowed (although still way quicker than GT1), but the new reg LMP1s will be as quick as any prototypes seen at Le Mans since the Peugout 905 Group C cars.

The new LMP1s have the same restrictors as the 2002 cars, probably more power infact thanks to development. They also corner as quick.

The Pescarolos did 3.32s in the test day, the works LMP1s will be quicker than that next year, which is 2002 pace.

I also believe you are wrong when you say GT is the future. The GT boom is over, its been won by Aston and GM.Expect these two marks to dominate the customer market, with no other manufactuers on the horizon.

Prototypes will see Audi, Peugeot, Porsche, Mazda, possibly Nissan and others in the coming years.