|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
15 Sep 2006, 09:15 (Ref:1710817) | #1 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,102
|
Changing The Rules of Engagement (Le Mans)
It was with great interest that I read this editorial on DSC. My thanks to 'eddsc' who has given me permission to post the article on 10 Tenths in order to make it available to a much wider audience.
Quote:
|
||
|
15 Sep 2006, 11:06 (Ref:1710900) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,982
|
I read the article first time round and found it thought provoking. My only hesitation with it, is when attempts have been made to fold Le Mans into a championship the results seem to have been patchy.
Where the nail is very much hit on the head is that getting some entries sorted early, so a team knows it's got a run in June, would be very advantageous. I imagine Pescarolo's task in sorting out next year has been eased by the knowledge that he's got two entries in the bag. Similarly teams like LNT probably find the commercial challenge of sorting next year out quite a lot easier. |
||
|
15 Sep 2006, 12:07 (Ref:1710968) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
The ACO and the FIA have always been a bit at odds with each other. Dr, Panoz ( ALMS ) has done wonders in smoothing things out between the two.
Isn't the LMS based of the ACO rules now ?? Then there is the other thing, IMHO, If you want to Bark with the Big Dogs, you have to play by their rules. |
||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
15 Sep 2006, 12:28 (Ref:1710991) | #4 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,102
|
Quote:
|
||
|
15 Sep 2006, 14:03 (Ref:1711099) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
As for Le Mans selection, you'll always have dissaponted teams. |
||
|
15 Sep 2006, 16:18 (Ref:1711199) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
I tend to disagree - for every team that gets nine months to raise funds for a two car guaranteed entry, there are probably 5 or 6 who no longer have any desire to raise funds, since the likelihood of getting an invitation becomes infinitessimal. Which means you're going to decimate the field, ultimately, for the season, and reduce the number of teams who could reasonably be counted upon to act as reserves.
The only thing this does is try to take the decision out of the ACO's hands - which, given the past, may be a good thing . Perhaps the single Racing for Holland entry is a good example of why this would be reasonable. Or Spinnaker Clandesteam. But if a strict regimen were followed of choosing entrants for Le Mans based purely upon merit, where would the fundraisers have difficulty? Perhaps the evaluation of merit could be codified - but I wouldn't go as far as locking in entries 9 months in advance - and especially not as many as contemplated here. |
||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
15 Sep 2006, 16:54 (Ref:1711229) | #7 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
Professional teams take BIG money to run. Multi millions of dollars / euros / Stering per year. These sponsors what results NOW, not planning in the future. Some manufactures dont want to sponsor GT racing do the competion from other teams. Chrysler/ MB and the Viper or BMW and the New 6 serires car which was FIA hologized two years ago. These manufactures dont want to compete as they my loose. Loosing a race means loosing sales. If the manufacture does not compete they dont loose. Event promotions ( races ) are the same way, it takes lots of money to promot the event. Yes winning teams from diffent classes should get invitations, and for the most part they do. Event sponosors may also get team invetations, even if their team sucks. It pays to smooze with the big shots of differnt events. and the event promotor, ACO, has there own choices so French teams ( sorry guys) get in no matter how bad they may be. Do you think Peugot will get an invitation to the 24 hour?? even if they dont do one race prior to June?? Of course they will. Nature of poltics . Racing is not only between the Green and Checkard flags, it is 24/7/365. The ACO has the biggest race, 24 h LeMans, so THEY get to set the rules. We may not like it, but that IMHO is the way it is. Tom Last edited by AU N EGL; 15 Sep 2006 at 16:57. |
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
15 Sep 2006, 17:31 (Ref:1711252) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Add LM24 to the championship, and maybe merge ALMS with LMES, getting each team to do the ones in it's continent plus two in the other.
And in an ideal world, I would like to see a merger between FIA GT and LMS. That would mean 4 class racing @ Spa. That would be legendary. This invite junk should go totally. Just run it as part of a championship. Last edited by duke_toaster; 15 Sep 2006 at 17:39. |
||
|
15 Sep 2006, 20:22 (Ref:1711364) | #9 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
The reply that part of this quote was interesting, but out of curiosity, how do you feel, at this point in time, does racing work. Racing as a whole fell apart in the nineties, with the odd exception of drag racing and LEMANS, as LeMans went from a regional "gentleman's" race to a quasi-international elitist event. If one bases how racing works on the power plays of the nineties, things will be, at best, tenuous. (the 2000s have been, catch as catch can, power doing as the old cliché says) There is no whammy poster trashing awaiting your reply, just curiosity. Bob |
|||
|
15 Sep 2006, 21:48 (Ref:1711431) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Bob
Personally I dont like it. But unfortunitly that is the way it is for now. Dr. Panoz is working very hard with the ACO to change the rules. Without Dr. Panoz and ALMS the ACO might be history. The Manufactures want to dispaly their high tech goods, but the indpendent teams fill the fields. Which is a Good thing. Some ppl compalin that IMSA ( ALMS) rules are differnt the ACO. Yes to a small point. Every rule change or ( cough) competition adjustment IMSA made the ACO followed. Scott A. ( ALMS President) spends a lot of his time working with the ACO. Yes the ACO ( French ) wants to do things their own way. ( Heck that is what I do to ) but Race promotors need and must work with manufacutres and big sponsors or race partners to get the funding for the teams and races. Spectators and TV rights cant pay all the bills. If some race orginzation says ' MANUFACTURE ABC" you WILL give us X amount of mony and provide 10 cars. That manufacutre will say go jump in the lake. Take their money and leave. Only King Burnie can do that with F1. Does that mean P1 is for Audi?? NO, even though AUDI is screeming up and down that Peugot is coming out with a dissel. Heck my Dissel Chevy pick up has more HP & torque then the R10. But that is part of working with the manufactures. It is not an easy thing to do. So if a race promotor has to allow some sponsors choices or natioanl choices to fill the fields, so be it. They also provide the MONEY to fund the event. Racing is NOT socializium. Racing is pure capitalisium at its best. Money pays the bills. PPL like Dr. Panoz ( which he put in severl hundred million dollars of his own money ) and Scott A. do all the hard work to keep the races going. Manufacures dont have the money. Today Ford anounced severl thouand ppl will be layed off here in the States. Ford will sell AM and Jag. Look at GMs problems. MB is loosing money big time on Chrysler. BMW is too far involde with F1 to pull out. Ferrari is F1. Toyota is hevealy invovled with F1 and now NASCAR. Big Manufactures dont have the money too support racing in too many differnt venues. They must pick and choose based on who they sell cars too and what races potential customers watch. Indpednet teams fill the field but dont have the big budgets. Limit budgets and the manufactures leave. Fully indpendent teams and racing is minor leage profession and amature. Too have any type of racing there needs to have comprmise between the big and small manufactures, small indpendent teams, and the ever shrinking advertsing money of race sponsors. Racing is not cheap, no matter how you look at it. |
||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
15 Sep 2006, 23:07 (Ref:1711467) | #11 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Personally, I spend far less time worrying about Le Mans than the LMS and ALMS.
Le Mans is so huge it will take care of itself, even when the sport hits rock bottom, i.e. 1992/1993/1994. The ACO seem to have at last figured you need a strong European Le Mans reg series, hence the intoruction of the LMS, a US series with regs flexibilty, and finally a Japanease series. If the ACO manage these series, they'll have a pool of 70-90 quality cars from which to choose from. A Le Mans entry should be a bonus, not a necesssity to keep a team going. The ALMS has served Dyson well, hopefully the LMS will become prestigous enough itself to enable European teams to put together a sportscar program, independent of a Le Mans entry. Last edited by JAG; 15 Sep 2006 at 23:10. |
|
|
15 Sep 2006, 16:20 (Ref:1711204) | #12 | |
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 247
|
I really like the idea of tweaking the way entires are handed out. But I'm not so sure about making the 24 hours part of the LMS. Then you are basically guaranteeing any full season LMS entrant a trip to LM? Either that, or you are asking a team to enter a race series where they might not be allowed to compete in one of the races (and one that might carry more points than the others).
I am all for handing out some early entries, but not now before the season is over. Wait until the season is over, and then give out some entries based on the seasons' performance. Stick with the basic formula, you would just have to have an early entry deadline (say November sometime). The ACO would love this, because they can collect money even earlier. Now you give out entries to these full season competitors in both the LMS and the ALMS who have proved their worth (and submitted and early entry). Now, instead of announcing additional entries just before Sebring, you can wait. Extend the standard entry deadline a bit, give teams a chance to prove their worth at Mila Milhaus and/or Sebring before you decide on the final Entries. I think that this could really work well. Teams that have performed well can submit their entry early, get there confirmation on say December 1st. and then secure their funding. Teams that feel they still have something to prove to the ACO could submit for standard selection and could use early season races to show their worth. You could have an FIA-GT race (Brazil), and ALMS race (Sebring), and an LMS race (late March, early April race) all in the bag before final selections are announced. what do you think? |
|
|
16 Sep 2006, 16:52 (Ref:1711910) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,400
|
Fair point but I still think that 20 in 2007 will be pushing it a bit!
|
||
|
16 Sep 2006, 17:22 (Ref:1711922) | #14 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
Quote:
Based on this seasons ALMS teams, with their suggested car entries next year, you'd come up with 11. Intersport x 2, Audi x 2, Corvette x 2, AMR x 2 (not really an ALMS team next year), Panoz x1 (or 2?), FLM, PWL. Then we have the unknowns, rumours and otherwise. Dyson x2 (not likely but...) Courage Cosworths x2 (???) Porsche LMP2 x2 (apparently no sales until post LM. Why? Why not post Mid Ohio? Is there plans?) Acura LMP2 x3 (were they planning on an assault?) VDS Radical x1? I don't think Risi is interested but.... How many new Porsche 997's? Can we discount than none of them will want to go? Is Kinetic really buying Spykers? Would they want to go? Krohn expressed interest, in what who knows.... On the other hand, 35 from LMS is also stretching things a wee bit right now. LMP1 is the problem area, unless it gets shrunk at the expense of an expanded LMP2. Creation and Lister "seem" to have nothing to run in 07' for LM. Zytek? I don't think we'll know until January (or later) next year, what is going on for next season. |
|||
|
16 Sep 2006, 17:50 (Ref:1711939) | #15 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,102
|
Quote:
|
||
|
16 Sep 2006, 18:22 (Ref:1711951) | #16 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
Quote:
If we gave out entries to every team that needed nurturing and work, there wouldn't be any spots left for newcomers that have yet to announce. How does this help and nurture their programs? Have the brand new Creation and Zytek cars for next year proven to be fast, and reliable? We have no idea what the P1 grids will be next year across the globe, and locking into current teams has the potential to lock out some very good teams. Isn't Creation's car supposed to be for late 07' or 08' anyway? This is an interesting exercise, but you'll never find a perfect solution. |
|||
|
16 Sep 2006, 20:03 (Ref:1711992) | #17 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,102
|
Quote:
Quote:
2007 is the first year for the full new regs. Is it unreasonable for the ACO to assist it's 'headline' LMP1 teams to make the transition when they are perilously close to being unable to support the ACO's series next year? |
|||
|
16 Sep 2006, 19:08 (Ref:1711967) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Is a team who's very survival is depenent on a Le Mans entry even worthy of that entry? Can't think of too many teams who race only at Le Mans, let alone competitive ones. |
||
|
16 Sep 2006, 20:25 (Ref:1711996) | #19 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,102
|
Quote:
|
||
|
17 Sep 2006, 23:37 (Ref:1712555) | #20 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Quote:
I'd answer in the negative, myself. |
|||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
16 Sep 2006, 19:20 (Ref:1711971) | #21 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,878
|
Interesting editorial and discussion.
|
|
|
18 Sep 2006, 06:25 (Ref:1712632) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,400
|
I'd say first up that it wasn't the gist of malc's editorial
It is however important to realise the part that Le mans holds in supporting the wider health of sportscar racing and yes, in that regard, there is some 'duty of care' on the ACO to support efforts that will take the whole scene forward rather than back. My view on this narrow point is that I'd much rather see an entry from a team with real intent to go forward in the sport (Creation, LNT, Zytek, Rollcentre, being supported than a 'wildcard' heart before head entry along the lines of Durango, Norma etc The issue isn't that the job that's been done lately has been unbelievably awful - It hasn't, but rather that any system needs a close look from time to time, if only to prevent some of the real howlers. In this regard a degree of structure is a good thing - and there is some structure, i think malc is arguing, and I agree with him, that more structrure still in the LM selection would be a massive boost to stability in the wider sportscar arena. |
||
|
18 Sep 2006, 14:17 (Ref:1712942) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
I'd be happy to answer the question.
Le Mans should be taking the best teams available. Period. There are currently two series that provide opportunities for the teams to prove their mettle. The best will surely rise to the top, and Le Mans invites will flow accordingly (or, at least, ought to). Not because of automatic entries, but because of merit. A team that survives only on Le Mans is not going to rise to the top of the corresponding series; neither are they going to add to the quality of the field, if all others are there on merit. Therefore, those dependent on the automatic entry for survival are not the ones who will improve the Le Mans grid. I think Brett has hit on a valid point - perhaps the real problem is the LMS and its lack of commercial viability on its own. But giving them LM entries is not the way to strengthen the series. Proper marketing of the series itself (TV, local promoters) is what is needed. Graham, given the capricious nature of the ACO selection process, more structure is probably a good thing. It ought to be significantly weighted toward merit, but has not been. I think it's a valid issue to tackle - but I think it's independent of the issue of LMS commercial viability. Let me just add: Eddie the Eagle was a heartwarming story at the Calgary Olympics. By Lillehammer, he could not qualify. I enjoyed the storyline but I think the Olympics are better for having their standards set. Last edited by paul-collins; 18 Sep 2006 at 14:28. |
||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
18 Sep 2006, 14:44 (Ref:1712957) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,400
|
I think for the most part selection has been based on merit, it's just that it would benefit further from bveing more so!
|
||
|
18 Sep 2006, 16:18 (Ref:1713012) | #25 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,102
|
Quote:
Stand back and watch the b*stards struggle, eh........... |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RML MG Lola for 1000km Le Mans, LMES and Le Mans 24 hour 2004 | Wout | ACO Regulated Series | 21 | 27 Sep 2003 15:26 |
[LM24] 2004 Le Mans Rules | pirenzo | 24 Heures du Mans | 6 | 16 Dec 2002 19:35 |
[LM24] Entry Rules for le Mans? | Liz | 24 Heures du Mans | 5 | 5 Nov 2000 23:41 |