The two things that Grand Am did right...

[H16]

In the last year, Grand Am has lost the majority of its top teams to ALMS after a "suprise!" announcement of the new DP, outlawed AGT and merged, with restrictions into GTS, which has been re-written to discourage Corvette (factory style) or Viper type cars with an engine limit. Then making your SRPII class, a class that one year ago had the "full support" of Grand Am totally redo the car to make them the slowest in the field and then virtually making it clear those cars weren't "the future", these are things that haven't been too smart, and along with comments that attacked traditional sports car fans and the bad reaction to the DP and GT winning, it is easy to hear rumors that France is growing very impatient.

The above was not meant to attack Grand Am automatically, but when you do these things in the course of a year, it doesn't sound great. Having said that, there are a couple of issues that I do agree that Grand Am has done and I would like to get your thoughts on those.

1. Adding the roll bars to the SRPII cars. From the time the BMW LMR came out with its single roll hoop, I have questioned it's saftey. Even cars with full roll hoops, such as sadly Jeff Clinton's accident, have shown that they lack enough strenght. The collision between one of the Lola's and the 67 Racers Group Porsche justified a move that I felt ALMS/ACO should adopt as well (before coups come into force in 2004 anyway), and that is increasing the stength of the rool hoop with extra support bars. It may not look pretty, but I think it should be done.

2. Spec tires. First off, I hate the word "spec" in any series. But with the tires and the way they are distributed to the teams, its sometimes discouraging to hear "well we could have done this lap time but we don't have Michelin's". Do you honestly think that Dyson and Intersport will share the same rubber with Dyson's connections to Goodyear. Maybe they will, but I doubt it.

Michelin have a hold on prototype racing at the moment, in my opinion. Even the all American JMR (engine chassis, formerally tires) R&S will run this year on French rubber. How good could the car have been had they been running on them all the time.

How close could Knighthawk have gotten to the factory MGs without their Avons? Is the Viper really that bad from AVR or is it the Pirellis? I seem to remember similar Vipers on Michelins still being quite competitive with the Goodyear shod Corvettes at Sebring and Le Mans.

To me, seeing a car that is faster than another is fair. Boris Said shouldn't complain about his three year old M3 when it hasn't seen development since the year 2000, thats racing and it takes development. But seeing a team seconds off the pace simply because Michelin (who are the big guns with the exception of the Goodyear/Corvette connection and the Dyson in 675, a class Michelin has shown little interest in outside factory MGs at Le Mans or French teams) won't supply them. How is it that WR got Michelins last year at Le Mans but Knighthawk didn't?

Grand Am has done so much wrong in so many ways, but I do agree with these rules, but it should be noted, ONLY these and it sure isn't enough to get me to start being a G/A fan, but it is something to think about, in the name of saftey and fair competition.

[pirenzo]

Personally a huge frame like roll hoop doesn't seem as strong as a single hoop to me.

[paul-collins]

Actually, on roll protection, I like the new 2004 FIA regs - at least, in the drawings, they suggest a twin hoop rather than a single full-size hoop. You'd get full width protection, with the additional strength pirenzo's thinking of (smaller structure means less torque or bending problems), plus redundancy - if one fails, it's not as catastrophic.

Of course, there's also the secondary structure...

[C_g]

i think the secondary structure at the level of the driver's head is an excellent move by the FIA. It won't affect aerodynamics too much, and it won't affect the look of the cars either. They'll just be safer. On the other hand, I don't know how a symmetric structure will enhance safety.

I'm split on the tire issue. I like having different brands, but I think there should be an "equal opportunity" clause in the rules that say if you're going to supply one team, then you have to supply any team that wants your tire. That way, teams that have development deals with suppliers (Dyson/Goodyear, PGT/Yokohama, AVR/Pirelli) can still continue these deals. Remember, tires are very expensive, and a tire deal can make a huge difference for a team in terms of cost and competitiveness.

I do agree with all of Grand-Am's blunders you pointed out above.

[Tim Northcutt]

I agree with CQ on the tire issue....

If you're going to prepare tires for a series, teams that want them should be able to get them...this "cherry pick & choose" method is not as fair....

But teams should be able to choose from different brands or set up a development agreement with a specific maker...

[pirenzo]

You'd get full width protection, with the additional strength pirenzo's thinking of (smaller structure means less torque or bending problems)

I thought i was gonna get nonsensed for what i said, but i'm glad my gut feeling has real implications. Apart from the obvious safety considerations, which are great, they do look bloody ugly.

[nsxr]

i perfer the single hoop to the double. the double just dont look right. its that most of the single hooped cars dont go far enough. both the audi and the dome use the single but also use a full wrap around cockpit surronded thata the way to go. i didn't like the way the dallaras drivers had there head and most of there neck exposed at le man

[Fogelhund]

Someone fairly well placed has suggested that there were not enough tires for all of teams that were interested in running. That is some teams were turned away.

I cannot verify the truth of this, but the person is placed well enough that I tend to believe them. Having said that, you think some of this information would have leeked out somewhere by now, some disgruntled team would have said something.

For teams running the full season, I think it is a decent idea, those who just choose to run Daytona, it presents some issues.

[dretceterini]

Grand Am's idea of cost controls is s good one; their execution of the concept sucks..