07 First ALMS(IMSA) Competition Bulletins of the season

[HORNDAWG]

Quote: AU N EGL
IMSA has taken the position that the energy carried on-board the various cars in the series should be (approximately) equal. For the start of the 2007 season, one type of gasoline and one type of diesel fuel similar to premium types available for “highway use” will be provided at each American Le Mans Series event by IMSA for use by all competitors. During the season, a new ethanol based, blended fuel will be developed which will be similar to the “E85” ethanol blends that are becoming more commonly available across North America, and will be available as a third fuel option. End quote:

May I bring your attention to the word similar in the hi-lited areas of the quote!!

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Quote: AU N EGL
IMSA has taken the position that the energy carried on-board the various cars in the series should be (approximately) equal. For the start of the 2007 season, one type of gasoline and one type of diesel fuel similar to premium types available for “highway use” will be provided at each American Le Mans Series event by IMSA for use by all competitors. During the season, a new ethanol based, blended fuel will be developed which will be similar to the “E85” ethanol blends that are becoming more commonly available across North America, and will be available as a third fuel option. End quote:

May I bring your attention to the word similar in the hi-lited areas of the quote!!

L.P.

the term "similar" can me quite a range in chemical content for these fuels.

Sunoco does have a 98 Octcane and a 94 octane ( which I run )and 93 Octane premium petrol. Last year Grand AM and IMSA used the Sunoco 98.
Hopefull Shell will have a good Desiel fuel. So far these low sulfer desiel fuel I put in my pick-up is just OK, not great. Havn't towed the trailer with car yet.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

the term "similar" can me quite a range in chemical content for these fuels.

Sunoco does have a 98 Octcane and a 94 octane ( which I run )and 93 Octane premium petrol. Last year Grand AM and IMSA used the Sunoco 98.
Hopefull Shell will have a good Desiel fuel. So far these low sulfer desiel fuel I put in my pick-up is just OK, not great. Havn't towed the trailer with car yet.

Do you actually think that the fuel in the ALMS this year is any different than the fuel used last year, Performance wise?

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Do you actually think that the fuel in the ALMS this year is any different than the fuel used last year, Performance wise?

L.P.

Nawwww - But it will be interesting to see if some team does use the E85 "similar" fuel and how they perform.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Nawwww - But it will be interesting to see if some team does use the E85 "similar" fuel and how they perform.

Ya I have a suspicion to perform at all it would have to be NitroEthanol85!




L.P.

[Hammerdown]

Well, the Nasamax certainly didn't lack power. And according to Mulsannes' Corner had 135 litres fuel capacity (90 + 45).

[chernaudi]

But that car ran pure E100 bioethanol.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

Well, the Nasamax certainly didn't lack power. And according to Mulsannes' Corner had 135 litres fuel capacity (90 + 45).

Yes I am sure a formulation is possible that produces sufficient power. But the formula that is available to U.S. consumers lacks sufficient power to be considered as a viable candidate!

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yes I am sure a formulation is possible that produces sufficient power. But the formula that is available to U.S. consumers lacks sufficient power to be considered as a viable candidate!

L.P.

The Moonshine around here has more energy then E85.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

The Moonshine around here has more energy then E85.

Now don't start gettin awl NASCAR nostalgic on me!
L.P.

[chewymonster]

Actually, from what I have heard that E85 has higher octane so generally speaking performance should not go down. But yes it lowers your fuel economy dramatically to the tune of around 30%. In the end E85 is way for manufacturers of gas guzzling SUVs to go through loopholes. Read how the Sierra Club rips apart E85.

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/decoder.asp

and more here (loophole use and real world fuel economy comparison)

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...age7.html#flex

[Hammerdown]

OK. it's not perfect, but the technology will improve and it's got to be beter than driving a diesel!

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

OK. it's not perfect, but the technology will improve and it's got to be beter than driving a diesel!

How is that? What is wrong with driving a diesel?

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Now don't start gettin awl NASCAR nostalgic on me!
L.P.

^5s L.P.

I do live in the HEART of shine and NASCAR land

There is an o'l jar stump down the road a bit too.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

And for all those that seem to think that performance balancing is some horrible Euro-socialist plot to spoil the American Dream… get over it! It may be a bit artificial, but motor racing these days can't exist without it.

Give the hard facts that prove this.

All regulations are performance balancing of some kind.

Give the hard facts that prove this.

A rules free-for-all would be the quickest way to kill any series.
You must be living in the past and/or a dream-world to think that it would work.

Please provide the quote from a previous post that says anythng about a "free-for-all".

Your rhetoric in a bunch of vacuous mumbo-jumbo.

[Hammerdown]

Facts don't mean much and prove very little. It's all in the perception and interpretation, and on that front I think maybe we differ a little.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

Facts don't mean much and prove very little. It's all in the perception and interpretation, and on that front I think maybe we differ a little.

That you may!

performance balancing is some horrible Euro-socialist plot to spoil the American Dream… get over it!

I do believe that your remarks should be thought out a little better and not generalized as such!! I do not believe that this is a largely held belief!

L.P.

[Hammerdown]

Well, apologies for any offence caused. In future I promise to wait a few hours after getting up before writing anything!

I just get a little tired of people banging on about the evils of performance balancing and how you should 'just let the best car win' (to paraphrase). I think that is a rather idealised view of a very complex subject. I don't think many volume sportscar manufacturers these days can build a road car specifically with the aim of winning a major sportscar series/race. All things are not equal and lots of different criteria have to be taken into consideration for cars that are often aimed at slightly different market sectors. It's OK for people like Saleen and Mosler, but the big marques are primarilly concerned with selling as many road cars as possible. Racing probably doesn't figure at the top of the list for most. Performance balancing is a way of making sure some fairly diverse machinery can compete on an 'equal' footing. After all, in these corporate, image-conscious times, not many manufacturers are going to want to 'compete' if they feel they're going to get their asses kicked, whereas they might consider it if they feel they have an even chance. It may not be a perfect solution, but in the world we live in today, I think it helps to encourage manufacturers. I think without it, you'll get less manufacturers because fewer will want to take the risk.

You may well still disagree (which is fine), but hopefully this is a little more rational than my previous rant.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

Well, apologies for any offence caused. In future I promise to wait a few hours after getting up before writing anything!

I just get a little tired of people banging on about the evils of performance balancing and how you should 'just let the best car win' (to paraphrase). I think that is a rather idealised view of a very complex subject. I don't think many volume sportscar manufacturers these days can build a road car specifically with the aim of winning a major sportscar series/race. All things are not equal and lots of different criteria have to be taken into consideration for cars that are often aimed at slightly different market sectors. It's OK for people like Saleen and Mosler, but the big marques are primarilly concerned with selling as many road cars as possible. Racing probably doesn't figure at the top of the list for most. Performance balancing is a way of making sure some fairly diverse machinery can compete on an 'equal' footing. After all, in these corporate, image-conscious times, not many manufacturers are going to want to 'compete' if they feel they're going to get their asses kicked, whereas they might consider it if they feel they have an even chance. It may not be a perfect solution, but in the world we live in today, I think it helps to encourage manufacturers. I think without it, you'll get less manufacturers because fewer will want to take the risk.

You may well still disagree (which is fine), but hopefully this is a little more rational than my previous rant.

You're right I disagree.
These are race cars we are talking about. The closest thing to a road going version is a GT-2 and the rules reflect that. The rules are the equalizing factors. The rules should make it so that every car in class has a chance to be a contender. Performance balancing, is when an entity applying the same rules, is either superior or inferior, and a variance of the rules is applied to equalize them, to the rest of the class.Its all about the rules. The subject is not complex at all. There are rules for every class that every manufacturer must comply with to be in that class! If the manufacturer can not build a competitive car they either need to be in a different class or are incapable of building a competitive car. I do not believe that equalizing to the lowest common denominator is the way to determine the best in class!!!

Performance balancing should be a stop gap! Not a way to randomly apply selective rules!!! And should be applied in a minimalistic way!!


L.P.

[Hammerdown]

[QUOTE=HORNDAWG]You're right I disagree.
These are race cars we are talking about. Yep!
The closest thing to a road going version is a GT-2 and the rules reflect that. Yep!
The rules are the equalizing factors. The rules should make it so that every car in class has a chance to be a contender.Yep!
Performance balancing, is when an entity applying the same rules, is either superior or inferior, and a variance of the rules is applied to equalize them, to the rest of the class. sorry, lost you a bit there
Its all about the rules. The subject is not complex at all. There are rules for every class that every manufacturer must comply with to be in that class! If the manufacturer can not build a competitive car they either need to be in a different class or are incapable of building a competitive car. Yep!
I do not believe that equalizing to the lowest common denominator is the way to determine the best in class!!! definitely agree
Performance balancing should be a stop gap! Not a way to randomly apply selective rules!!! And should be applied in a minimalistic way!! agreed. I don't think I ever suggested anything else, just that it was sometimes necessary as you suggest

[chernaudi]

In reality, rules are a preformance balancer, as they tell you what you can/can't do. I do want close racing in the ALMS' sprint races, but it should be done with as little artificalness as possible. And if someone who was given a break is starting to pull ahead, reign 'em back in it the advantage is too much. And besides, to make some cars competitve, it'll take more than what IMSA's bullitin specifies.

[Bob Riebe]

Call it what it is: CONTRIVED competition.

Or better yet a farce, concerning prod. based cars.

Bob

[chewymonster]

Well, I guess no one here (the last few posters) better not complain about one particular race car destroying its competition. You can't go both ways.

[chernaudi]

And that's what I want to say. If you're gonna make a rule change, make it and stick to it for a while, at least. Jeez, IMSA's nearly every race tinkering reminded me of NASCAR of a few years ago! Ya know, how they changed the rules almost every freakin' race. I may be an Audi fan(as some of you can tell by my post and my name), and the R10 destroyed all opposition in the end, but it was the same way with the R8. And if you say that that was why no one complained about it was 'cause everyone knew what they were dealing with, I'd agree with you half way. The reason being that Audi never really fully developed the R8-largely because it didn't need it until the last 1or 2 years of it's competitive life, and even then, it's preformance was equaled, but never really exceeded.

And Audi know that there's a lot more that they can wring out of the R10, but the same is true to one degree or another with all race cars. And it's true that you can't have it both ways, and for one major reason-the IMSA American Le Mans Series LMP categories aren't spec racing! If you want prototype spec racing, go run Grand Am. That's what I like about the ALMS-that it's not spec racing. NASCAR has become more or less a spec racing series, and to a degree always has been. An I think that their Car of Tomorrow is kinda crap! The things are just plain ugly for one! And the wings and the stubby spliter/diffuser(well, spliter, as it has no stakes in it) are rip offs from Grand Am cars. At least put a decent front and rear diffuser on them(like the LMP and GT ALMS cars).

If I offended anyone, I appoligize in advance. But people have different taste. When I watch a Grand Am race, I always think that "an ACO resticted R8 could destroy these things-Imagine what a 2002 spec R8(updated with the recent chassis setups),or for sure the R10 would do to these things!" I'm a traditionalist, in that I feel that sportscar racing shouldn't be spec racing, or run to contrieved, ever changing rules.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

Well, I guess no one here (the last few posters) better not complain about one particular race car destroying its competition. You can't go both ways.

Chewy old boy and you will see that blowouts have never been a problem with me.
I actually wrote in one thread that if the make I favoured was winning, blowouts were nice.

As you seem to be in favour of this contrived crap, maybe you can tell me how come the IMSA did not simply give competitors less restriction in the intake, rather than try to play god by penalizing the fast car?

But then Saleen actually made the mistake of beating the Vettes, heads-up; ditto for Ferrari.

Bob