Changing The Rules of Engagement (Le Mans)

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

But let me put this to you, 12 entries per class based on championship positions and 7 'wildcard' entries to be decided by the ACO. They then have a get out clause should some of their friends (WR, Debora, Peugeot) not qualify...........

Now that is COMPRIMISE Most of the enteries by qualifing and few wildcards as ACO choice.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

And that, surely, is the reason why 'headline' teams such as Creation and Zytek should be told NOW by the ACO if they will be granted entries for Le Mans next year, and if so, whether they will be granted one or two. With a 'sensible' amount of time to accrue the necessary funds and build the cars, both teams would have two cars built and ready for competition in time for the start of next season. It's the uncertainty and incredibly short lead time of the current system which causes such problems for these teams. It is not just Le Mans which would benefit from their presence, it's the LMS aswell. The ACO really does need to nurture and work with teams like Creation and Zytek, not against them.

The answer is to nuture the LMS into a strong series, which teams can build their season around, without the need for a Le Mans entry, just as the ALMS provides for Dyson.

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.

[FIRE]

Interesting editorial and discussion.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Why grant entries nine months in advance, to teams without cars currently, with no funding currently to build? Too much risk on the ACO. You assume that such funding would indeed be found, and the cars built in time. You assume that the cars will be worthwhile, sorted and reliable. Neither team has ever factored at LM, so why even take that stretch for these teams?

I'm simply a fan of this type of racing. I've never had any involvement with any teams nor been privy to the business of raising funds to go racing. But I look at the current generation of LMP1 teams in the LMS and regularly see well documented budgetry problems for most, including the current top (privateer) team, Pescarolo. The stark reality is that without guaranteed Le Mans invites these teams will find it extremely hard to generate enough funds to go racing next year. Now, you may be aware of other teams waiting in the wings with a full season budget in place and raring to go, but I'm not. Sure, these teams may not have yet factored at Le Mans, but let's be honest, apart from Audi, Bentley and Pescarolo in recent times, who has?

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

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?

Again, you may be aware of 'newcomers that have yet to announce', but I'm not. We're talking about teams who both led at Donington last time out, Creation filling the two lower steps of the podium and debuting one of it's two cars. There was no RFH (budgetry) and they were only beaten by Pescarolo (who nearly didn't make it for budgetry reasons). These are not Mickey Mouse teams, they are two of the jewels in ACO rules racing. If you're in any doubt about that, look at the reaction of the fans in the USA when Zytek and Creation come over to play!!

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?

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by JAG

The answer is to nuture the LMS into a strong series, which teams can build their season around, without the need for a Le Mans entry, just as the ALMS provides for Dyson.

Agreed, and it's the thinking behind my suggestion that the season should run from July to the following June with Le Mans as the Season Finale. The LMS seems to lose it's way post Le Mans.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Creation filling the two lower steps of the podium and debuting one of it's two cars. There was no RFH (budgetry) and they were only beaten by Pescarolo (who nearly didn't make it for budgetry reasons). These are not Mickey Mouse teams, they are two of the jewels in ACO rules racing. If you're in any doubt about that, look at the reaction of the fans in the USA when Zytek and Creation come over to play!!

The cars that Zytek and Creation have, are excellent cars, particularly on tighter tracks, that require great handling and maintaining speed in corners. I've seen the Zytek in person, and it was pretty good.

That said, we aren't talking about Donington, Road Atlanta or Laguna Seca, we are talking about Le Mans. We are talking about cars about 6-9 seconds off the pace here. Have either ever finished? They are great cars, but they aren't Le Mans cars.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Have either ever finished? They are great cars, but they aren't Le Mans cars.

The car in DBA, Zytek or Creation form has had 6 starts since 2003 and 4 finishes.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

The car in DBA, Zytek or Creation form has had 6 starts since 2003 and 4 finishes.

Thanks for the correction, though it would appear that it was 3 finishes.

2006 Zytek -111 laps (269 laps covered)
2006 Creation DNF (240 laps covered)
2005 Creation 14th overall - 48 laps (322 laps covered)
2005 Jota DNF - Gearbox 325 laps covered.
2004 Zytek DNF - total 167 laps covered
2003 RN Motorsports - 89 laps (288 laps covered)

2006 - Hour 3 - 6th (1 lap down) and 47th overall. (Zytek and Creation)
By hour 6, 29th and 42nd overall. (Zytek and Creation)

2005 Hour 3 10th & 37th (Jota and Creation)

I'm not certain that this changes my thesis any, that these cars may be great at many places, but just aren't really Le Mans packages.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

I'm not certain that this changes my thesis any, that these cars may be great at many places, but just aren't really Le Mans packages.

Brett, you are completely missing the point in all of this. You need to look at the bigger picture instead of leafing through the reference books to find justification for your 'thesis'. I haven't checked (my memories crap and I can't be bothered) but I think you'll find Courage's record at Le Mans has been little better in recent times. Courage is a manufacturer, just like Zytek and Creation (and don't hit me with a KWM technicality), yet he knows that he can go ahead and build two cars in the sure knowledge that he will have the ability to attract sponsors/funding because he has two places guaranteed at Le Mans if he asks for them. Zytek and Creation don't have that assurance therefore their risk is massively increased.

Anyway, back to the bigger picture. This is not just about Le Mans. It's not just about the LMS either. It's about the fragility of 'our' sport, the lack of money, the lack of teams in LMP1 leading up to 2010, and the blind reluctance of the ACO to step in and help teams who have given their series fantastic support and the fans great entertainment for the last three years. Creation and Zytek deserve better from the ACO!

[racerkeke]

Bentley, I don't see why the ALMS would have to stop racing over the winter. Not that I'd suggest replacing some of the best SCCA racing ever with pro, but both Phoenix and Fontana host road races in January. North Americans are starved for racing at that time of year -- look at all the hoop-la over Daytona. By staying in the sun belt ALMS could run as late as early December, take a five-week layoff, and be back with a race in late January-early February to set up for Sebring in March. There'd have to be some fancy footwork to avoid the Daytona 24 (which some GT teams participate in) and Super Bowl weekend, but I don't see why they couldn't.

Trying hard to extend my personal racing season to 12 months,
keke

[canam]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Thanks for the correction, though it would appear that it was 3 finishes.

2006 Zytek -111 laps (269 laps covered)
2006 Creation DNF (240 laps covered)
2005 Creation 14th overall - 48 laps (322 laps covered)
2005 Jota DNF - Gearbox 325 laps covered.
2004 Zytek DNF - total 167 laps covered
2003 RN Motorsports - 89 laps (288 laps covered)

2006 - Hour 3 - 6th (1 lap down) and 47th overall. (Zytek and Creation)
By hour 6, 29th and 42nd overall. (Zytek and Creation)

2005 Hour 3 10th & 37th (Jota and Creation)

I'm not certain that this changes my thesis any, that these cars may be great at many places, but just aren't really Le Mans packages.

BTW, Creation in 2005 were back up to fifth or sixth by the morning before the shunt that JCW had (which lost them nearly 2 hours to repair). The shunt put them back, not the car.

In 2006, engine problems put them out of the race after about 18 hours. Without this problem, (it is the same unit used by pescarolo!), creation would have finished within the top six or seven--even with their blend of drivers.

This year in LMS, of the races which they started (three races), they had two seconds and one third.

Outside of the diesels, these cars could be the best of the 'petrol set' if their LM entries were know well in advance. They would be more able to put together the financial packages that would provide for more testing and--more realiability (Although in Creation's case, that is not really the issue. For budgetary reasons,, they decided to stay with the narrower 675 wheel and have suffered all season.)

I do hope they appear at PLM. It will be interesting to see how truly quick they are against Dyson and the R10. In Creation's case, perhaps the weight reduction will help their tyre wear problem and take them to a podium.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Brett, you are completely missing the point in all of this. You need to look at the bigger picture instead of leafing through the reference books to find justification for your 'thesis'.

While you may be believe that I am missing the bigger picture, I think we just disagree.

I haven't checked (my memories crap and I can't be bothered) but I think you'll find Courage's record at Le Mans has been little better in recent times. Courage is a manufacturer, just like Zytek and Creation (and don't hit me with a KWM technicality), yet he knows that he can go ahead and build two cars in the sure knowledge that he will have the ability to attract sponsors/funding because he has two places guaranteed at Le Mans if he asks for them. Zytek and Creation don't have that assurance therefore their risk is massively increased.

Well, that is a problem into itself, the pecularities of the ACO selection committee. Perhaps a Le Creation would have better luck nes pas?

You'll see in my first post, I addressed this issue somewhat, in my requirement that if you wish to race two cars at LM, they need to be raced prior in an ACO sanction race.

Anyway, back to the bigger picture. This is not just about Le Mans. It's not just about the LMS either. It's about the fragility of 'our' sport, the lack of money, the lack of teams in LMP1 leading up to 2010, and the blind reluctance of the ACO to step in and help teams who have given their series fantastic support and the fans great entertainment for the last three years. Creation and Zytek deserve better from the ACO!

My belief is that it isn't up to the ACO to gift entries for the LM24, to stengthen those teams. It is up to the ACO to ensure that the best 24 grid is put together, and nothing more, when it comes the LM 24.

However, what is being said here, in a round about way, is that there isn't a great deal of value in the LMS. That is what I believe the problem is. Spectator counts are too low, and the marketability of the series is too low. If you ultimately want to make teams viable, you need to make the series itself viable from a marketing perspective. That it seems would be the real problem, and what ACO really needs to address. If they stenghten their series, they'll strengthen the teams, and ultimately strengthen their race.

But, this thread wasn't about the series themselves, it was about selecting cars for LM24.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

But, this thread wasn't about the series themselves, it was about selecting cars for LM24.

Forgive me for beginning at the end but I think it's important to establish my belief (and I'm sure I'll get a dressing down if I'm wrong ) that the motives for Malcolm's editorial encompassed not only his desire for a better system for determining who does and who does not get an antry for Le Mans, but the consequences of that system for the ACO related series. I therefore feel any references to those series are completely within the context of this thread.

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

While you may be believe that I am missing the bigger picture, I think we just disagree.

I actually believe we agree on the majority of topics dicussed on this forum. In this particular instance we agree that the system currently adopted by the ACO for gaining entry to Le Mans could be improved and both have a desire to see that happen. We do seem to be struggling on how best to achieve this however!

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Well, that is a problem into itself, the pecularities of the ACO selection committee. Perhaps a Le Creation would have better luck nes pas?

The name of the Team is in fact Creation Autosportif. Someone clearly didn't pay attention in French classes, did they Brett?

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

You'll see in my first post, I addressed this issue somewhat, in my requirement that if you wish to race two cars at LM, they need to be raced prior in an ACO sanction race.

I do in fact agree with you on this point.

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

My belief is that it isn't up to the ACO to gift entries for the LM24, to stengthen those teams. It is up to the ACO to ensure that the best 24 grid is put together, and nothing more, when it comes the LM 24.

Whilst I agree that it is the responsibility of the ACO to put together the best 24 hour grid possible, I doubt we will ever agree on how best to achieve this.

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

However, what is being said here, in a round about way, is that there isn't a great deal of value in the LMS. That is what I believe the problem is. Spectator counts are too low, and the marketability of the series is too low. If you ultimately want to make teams viable, you need to make the series itself viable from a marketing perspective. That it seems would be the real problem, and what ACO really needs to address. If they stenghten their series, they'll strengthen the teams, and ultimately strengthen their race.

Once again, we are in complete agreement and I have already documented elsewhere on this thread how I personally would tackle this issue.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

However, what is being said here, in a round about way, is that there isn't a great deal of value in the LMS. That is what I believe the problem is. Spectator counts are too low, and the marketability of the series is too low. If you ultimately want to make teams viable, you need to make the series itself viable from a marketing perspective.

That is part of the point The proposal is trying to give support to the teams that support the LMS. It is unnerving when one of the promoters of the LMS has apparently indicated that is up to the teams to do the marketing and not the responsibility of the promoter. This is a very short-sighted view but not surprising as everyone is looking at eachother to provide the majic dollop of cash to make it grow. (again off topic).

In all, if the proposal provides added financial stability (for those taking the risk of constructing/developing cars), then I am all for it. As for new entrants, so what if they don't get an entry. Let them do their apprenticeship and show their commitment. These new teams may be well-funded and great; however, what will they be after, say, a couple of seasons of hard work, an odd podium place (hopefully) and regulations that, at times, blast your team out of the water.

'If it was easy,....' (fill in the blank); however, it also needs to work to ensure development at the privateer level.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by canam

That is part of the point The proposal is trying to give support to the teams that support the LMS. It is unnerving when one of the promoters of the LMS has apparently indicated that is up to the teams to do the marketing and not the responsibility of the promoter.

This may be fine for large and some small manufactures, but most small manufactures and the Indpendnet Teams normally dont have the resources to do the marketing as well.

This is a very short-sighted view but not surprising as everyone is looking at eachother to provide the majic dollop of cash to make it grow. (again off topic).

This not off topic at all. This just demonstrates how intertwined racing teams, sponsors and race partnerships plus the promotors are soo related to each other.

In all, if the proposal provides added financial stability (for those taking the risk of constructing/developing cars), then I am all for it. As for new entrants, so what if they don't get an entry.

Let them do their apprenticeship and show their commitment. These new teams may be well-funded and great; however, what will they be after, say, a couple of seasons of hard work, an odd podium place (hopefully) and regulations that, at times, blast your team out of the water.

EXCATLY.

'If it was easy,....' (fill in the blank); however, it also needs to work to ensure development at the privateer level.

Wealthy ppl who want get into LMS racing can purchase prebuilt cars, Lolas and the New Crawfords for example, and differnt engine packages, AER, Judd or ???

No need to fully devleop a brand new car for P1 or P2 or pleanty of GT2 customer cars availbe. GT1 is for manufactures and a few year old GT1 cars with Indpendent teams.

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by JAG

Is a team who's very survival is depenent on a Le Mans entry even worthy of that entry?

Just thought I'd highlight this question, because it seems to be the gist of the editorial.

I'd answer in the negative, myself.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by JAG
Is a team who's very survival is depenent on a Le Mans entry even worthy of that entry?

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Just thought I'd highlight this question, because it seems to be the gist of the editorial.

I'd answer in the negative, myself.

For heaven sakes, what kind of an elitist doo-pile has road racing become?

They are not worthy .

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

For heaven sakes, what kind of an elitist doo-pile has road racing become?

They are not worthy .

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who cringed when I read that, Bob!

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Just thought I'd highlight this question, because it seems to be the gist of the editorial.

I'd answer in the negative, myself.

Having picked myself up off the floor, I now feel ready to respond.......


Paul, whilst you're sitting up there priming your thunderbolts, I wonder if you could explain to me the thinking behind your last post?

I find your stance extraordinary in the context of this thread, to say the least!

[Graham Goodwin]

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.

[paul-collins]

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.

[Graham Goodwin]

I think for the most part selection has been based on merit, it's just that it would benefit further from bveing more so!

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Originally Posted by JAG
Is a team who's very survival is depenent on a Le Mans entry even worthy of that entry?



For heaven sakes, what kind of an elitist doo-pile has road racing become?

They are not worthy .

I agree. But a multi million dollar sponsor would not. Not only do they want the team they sponsor in the DANCE but podium places too.

Many teams run on contigancey money from a sponsor. Some money now, some money before the event and DEPENDING on how you finsihs depends on how much more you get. These teams wind up finaicng the oporation as the sponsors money is not fully fundeing the team until after the high place in the big dance.

Sponosrs just dont though 100 of thousands of dollars at teams without some gaurentees of places or TV exposure.

[AU N EGL]

Money doesn't grow on trees ( unless your in the lumber or paper business). SPonsors want TOP RESULTS, marketing exposure ( lots of TV time) and a fun place to bring business associates and partners.

So teams may get sponsorship money IF they are in the LM24, other races are just the frosting on the cake. There has been more then one team cut off by their sponsor when the did not make the selection or qualifing to the LM 24. Leaving team owners 10s of not 100s of thousands in debt.

We may not feel this is right, nor like it. But guess what ?? That is life in big time racing.

Go ask your boss or company owner to give you several 100,000 for your idea of a sports car team. See what their response is??

[isynge]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

I agree. But a multi million dollar sponsor would not. Not only do they want the team they sponsor in the DANCE but podium places too.

Many teams run on contigancey money from a sponsor. Some money now, some money before the event and DEPENDING on how you finsihs depends on how much more you get. These teams wind up finaicng the oporation as the sponsors money is not fully fundeing the team until after the high place in the big dance.

Sponosrs just dont though 100 of thousands of dollars at teams without some gaurentees of places or TV exposure.

This probably holds true in a lot of cases, and is almost certainly the case in F1, however in sportscars I think it's much more a case of a sponsor liking the event as a corporate hospitality event. If you look at the sort of companies that are written on the side of cars in the LMS there's not that many fast moving consumer goods, and conversely an awful lot of business to business suppliers (Deutsche Bank, Dassault Systemes, NetVue, Asset Backed Securities) for whom the consideration is less how many eyeballs will see it, but how many of the right eyeballs will get to see it what is one of the most recognised brands in the sporting world.

Most businesses will be doing the marketing planning now, scheduling where people will be, what events they'll promote things at, and crucially how much they spend on things. If part of their campaign is going to involve sportscars knowing inherently that the car they sponsor is going to be at Le Mans is going to make a huge difference - if for no other reason that they'll want to book a plush hotel.