The RS Spyder "Gentleman" story

[Spyderman]

[The Badger]

[QUOTE=JAG]Why do you and others throw a fit at this proposal, yet the guy actually running the team have accepted this move?QUOTE]

Because it is wrong to try to enforce a rule that does not exist . You obviously like the idea of people making new rules that dont exist .

Teams are there to try their best to win ..... As for the man himself excepting the rule , i suggest that he is not happy but does not seem to have a choice in the matter .

Another reason for "throwing a fit" as you call it ..... because it is my opinion and I am allowed to voice my opinion ..... just like you do !!! Or am I not ?

29 votes to 4 votes looks like your in the minority that seem to agree ..... enjoy your day .

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by JAG

This has zero to do with P1 (IMO), but a need to protect a thriving P2 class from a potential manufactuer backed, 2 pro car, which is not the ACO's idealistic view of P2.

Then idealy the ACO should have gotten their rules correct in the first place and not try to handycap privateers .

[Purist]

And the whole "factories belong in LMP1" is BS. That rule does NOT exist! I don't care if there is supposed to be some implied intent. If it isn't expressly written in the rules, it is null and void.

If I had the resources for a team, I'd sign up early (and for as many years as I could), before any of these things are brought up. I'd fulfill my obligations, and if they tried to pull a stunt like this on me, I'd tell Mr. Peter, Mr. Ratel, and Mr. Balastre, "No! You're in breach of contract. Sod off!". Word of mouth isn't good enough for court; if it's not on paper, give it a rest.

[isynge]

Amidst all of this, and to be honest I can see arguments and evidence on both sides, does anyone know what Porsche thinks of this? Are they happy to have cars circulating or are they disappointed that their customers are being hobbled?

Clearly they're not so annoyed as to not actively market the cars in Europe and Verschuur etc are clearly reasonably comfortable with the "guidance" (I think restriction is going too far, given the difficulty of defining who a professional and amateur driver might be) given their purchase and entry so are we in fact conjuring a mountain out of what really is only a molehill?

[WouterM]

So 88% of you think that the likes of Newton and Barazi should get the hell out of prototype racing?

[canam]

Originally Posted by Purist

And the whole "factories belong in LMP1" is BS. That rule does NOT exist! I don't care if there is supposed to be some implied intent. If it isn't expressly written in the rules, it is null and void.

If I had the resources for a team, I'd sign up early (and for as many years as I could), before any of these things are brought up. I'd fulfill my obligations, and if they tried to pull a stunt like this on me, I'd tell Mr. Peter, Mr. Ratel, and Mr. Balastre, "No! You're in breach of contract. Sod off!". Word of mouth isn't good enough for court; if it's not on paper, give it a rest.

Gosh, this sounds a bit like F1!! The rules vs the spirit of the rules. Hopefully, sportcar racing is a bit different.

It must be remembered that, like Le Mans, the LMS is an invitation-only series that is over-subscribed and those entries are viewed on a yearly basis (or even more frequently in the case of teams that signed up to less than a full season). Should they wish to give guidance on what they would like to see, it is up to the team owner to 'agree/comply' or run the risk of not getting an entry. If the team does something completely different than what was agreed, then an entry the following year will be under threat.

Naturally, this is completely different to what happens in the ALMS as they need to get the grid levels up. Although a difficult decision, it would not surprise me if a Penske entry were to be turned down in P2. The value of their franchise is much more than the value of a single entry.

[Hugewally]

Originally Posted by isynge

Amidst all of this, and to be honest I can see arguments and evidence on both sides, does anyone know what Porsche thinks of this? Are they happy to have cars circulating or are they disappointed that their customers are being hobbled?

Clearly they're not so annoyed as to not actively market the cars in Europe and Verschuur etc are clearly reasonably comfortable with the "guidance" (I think restriction is going too far, given the difficulty of defining who a professional and amateur driver might be) given their purchase and entry so are we in fact conjuring a mountain out of what really is only a molehill?

It doesn't matter that it is Porsche as it could be against any of the other chassis makers. "Please, you made a good car within the written rules, but we don't want you to run too fast, less we haven't a chance to compete!"

Bloody stupid all of these 'unwritten rules and intent'... It's not in the rule book, so it doesn't carry any weight in ANY argument or discussion, no matter what anyone thinks!

[SebringMG]

Originally Posted by WouterM

So 88% of you think that the likes of Newton and Barazi should get the hell out of prototype racing?

Don't be daft! That is NOT what this is about! Nobody would mind too much if there was a written rule to say that P2 had to have a pro-am line up - however to enforce this new rule on a new Porsche team while ignoring teams like Embassy is the problem!

So what if they have bought a Porsche ? it is still a privateer entry - not their problem if other competitors are using outdated machinery (Luccini & Pilbeam mainly).

Newton & Barazi are a credit to the series as they run very professional teams, it is some of the other less professional teams that will likely suffer.....

[Hugewally]

Originally Posted by canam

Gosh, this sounds a bit like F1!! The rules vs the spirit of the rules. Hopefully, sportcar racing is a bit different.

It must be remembered that, like Le Mans, the LMS is an invitation-only series that is over-subscribed and those entries are viewed on a yearly basis (or even more frequently in the case of teams that signed up to less than a full season). Should they wish to give guidance on what they would like to see, it is up to the team owner to 'agree/comply' or run the risk of not getting an entry. If the team does something completely different than what was agreed, then an entry the following year will be under threat.

Naturally, this is completely different to what happens in the ALMS as they need to get the grid levels up. Although a difficult decision, it would not surprise me if a Penske entry were to be turned down in P2. The value of their franchise is much more than the value of a single entry.

This has nothing to do with the ALMS, or the spirit of the rules, or the 'invitation only' status of the LMS (which I don't believe one iota). This has to do with written rules and nothing more. All this talk about the intent of the ACO rules is crap. If it was meant to be a rule, then it should be written as such. If it isn't explicitly written, then I agree, sod off. Unwritten rules and intent are completely unenforceable... (and i suspect that most of you already know that). If the series doesn't like it, then change the WRITTEN rules, because nothing else matters.

[canam]

It is in the de facto rulebook. The discussion could go as follows: 'We (the ACO and co) are the owners of the LMS and do not view an all-pro entry at the LMP2 level as falling within the spirit of racing within the LMS. Should you wish to pursue an all-pro entry application, we will have to evaluate it within the context of other competitors for this over-subscribed class that are in-line with the LMS's spirit of competition. Should you decide, however, to re-cast the driver line-up to one that is more in line with the spirit of the LMS, we will give your application careful consideration.'

One doesn't need to read through between the lines too much to guess what happens. It don't need to be written to happen. They control the series absolutely and invite who they want.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Hugewally

If the series doesn't like it, then change the WRITTEN rules, because nothing else matters.

Do you know that the United Kingdom has no written constitution? Yet, somehow, we stumble from pillar to post.

There are different ways of doing business without employing litigators.

Why bother changing the written rules. They don't need to.

[Justin Moran]

This still smaks of PP wanting to be the FIA! IF a team can afford two pro's then why not? It still doesnt make them a factory team, does it?

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by WouterM

So 88% of you think that the likes of Newton and Barazi should get the hell out of prototype racing?

Not a bit of it ..... They choose to run with the drivers they want to , and others should be able to choose that too and not be dictated to like it is with respect to the RS teams . And your above comment is not relevant because the topic is only about Porsche RS teams .

Why do you think that Embassy choose to go the route their going . So they can have who they want and not be second best. And that is a fact .

If im forking out a shed full of wedge for staff , facilities , transport and catering , I should at least have the right to put into my car who the hell i want to .

Question : If I had a sponsor who was interested in my team , would they still be interested in my team if they are told that they have to have a "gentleman" driver in my car ?

What happens to a company who wants to buy a RS Spyder and let a team do the running of it ..... with "their" sponsored drivers , and are told no ?

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by canam

Why bother changing the written rules

Why bother having rules at all if you can make them up as you go along ?

I would be very interested in hearing what Martin Short & Johnaton France & Rick Pearson have to say about this subject .

[The Badger]

So far ..... there has been 2 potential teams interested in running RS Spyder's , Embassy and SPS .

Embassy went their own way and it wouldnt surprise me if the deal with SPS/Alzen doesnt happen cuz of this **** rule !!!

Please explain how this "is" good for the LMS Jag ?

[Dani Filth]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Not a bit of it ..... They choose to run with the drivers they want to , and others should be able to choose that too and not be dictated to like it is with respect to the RS teams . And your above comment is not relevant because the topic is only about Porsche RS teams .

and ACO wants not to invite them

Why do you think that Embassy choose to go the route their going . So they can have who they want and not be second best. And that is a fact .

if they're gonna be competitive .. next year we will have a great embassy vs RS Spyder teams battle

If im forking out a shed full of wedge for staff , facilities , transport and catering , I should at least have the right to put into my car who the hell i want to .

they can put who ever they want in their car ,, just as ACO can invite whoever they want

What happens to a company who wants to buy a RS Spyder and let a team do the running of it ..... with "their" sponsored drivers , and are told no ?

nobody's telling them no .. they're just not invited

[The Badger]

So , we can safely say that if Dyson , Penske and Consus want to race at Le Mans , they need a "gentleman" driver in the car ? Absolute ****e !!!

Ok ..... have it your way . Its wrong and im finished commenting on this BS !!!

[canam]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Why bother having rules at all if you can make them up as you go along ?

...like every year when they put out the revised regulations for the year ahead.

[The Badger]

Mr Graham Goodwin ..... could you please offer your opinion on this topic . It would be nice to have an insiders response . Thank you in advance .

[Spyderman]

In the "bad old days" the Russians used to "employ" all their athletes in the Army (they were all colonels and captains) so that they qualified for armature status for the Olympics; Maybe the teams running the Spyders could set up offshore companies and employ their "professional" drivers as janitors, accountants, secretaries or consultants. ;-)

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Hugewally

I believe so, because it's telling them not to be the best they can be.

Is that any different from cutting the restrictors on the RS Spyders/Acura's, while helping the AER engined privcateers, or cutting the wweight of petrol P1 privateers?

P2 has a different purpose on both sides of the Atlantic, at least at this stage.

The ALMS needs competitive RS Spyders and Acura P2's for another year or two, before they build P1's, in Europe loyal privateers like RML etc. need to be protected from a 'potential' Penske like operation from a major manufactuer, at least until we see each cars respective pace.

The 50kg weight increase already handicaps P2's against P1's, so this is all about protecting the P2 field.

[JAG]

[QUOTE=The Badger]

Originally Posted by JAG

Why do you and others throw a fit at this proposal, yet the guy actually running the team have accepted this move?QUOTE]

Because it is wrong to try to enforce a rule that does not exist . You obviously like the idea of people making new rules that dont exist .

Teams are there to try their best to win ..... As for the man himself excepting the rule , i suggest that he is not happy but does not seem to have a choice in the matter .

Another reason for "throwing a fit" as you call it ..... because it is my opinion and I am allowed to voice my opinion ..... just like you do !!! Or am I not ?

29 votes to 4 votes looks like your in the minority that seem to agree ..... enjoy your day .

I don't need to follow the crowd to justify my point of view, too many people make inaccurate, knee jerk, reactions.

The ALMS introduced performance balancing a few years back, despite the fuss, it's been accepted.

In fact the very same people complaining about forcing a Porsche team to run one pro, one amateur pilot, like current, competitive, teams like RML, Bruichladdich Radical etc. welcome the performance balancing that enables these very same RS Spyders to dominate in the ALMS, against genuine, factory, P1 cars.

Performance balancing also helps AER P2's and competitors to GM in GT1 etc.

Porsche have had it all there own way in the US.

Running a full house, unrestricted RS Spyder, with the 'disadvantage' of only one pro driver, which is in the spirit of the class, doesn't appear, in the slightest, grounds for Porsche to threaten to pull out.

Then idealy the ACO should have gotten their rules correct in the first place and not try to handycap privateers

They have done, with the 50kg weight increase, another ACO reg the RS Spyders will not have to implement in the US. This is about protecting the P2 field.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Purist

And the whole "factories belong in LMP1" is BS. That rule does NOT exist! I don't care if there is supposed to be some implied intent. If it isn't expressly written in the rules, it is null and void.

If I had the resources for a team, I'd sign up early (and for as many years as I could), before any of these things are brought up. I'd fulfill my obligations, and if they tried to pull a stunt like this on me, I'd tell Mr. Peter, Mr. Ratel, and Mr. Balastre, "No! You're in breach of contract. Sod off!". Word of mouth isn't good enough for court; if it's not on paper, give it a rest.

You call it BS, I call it sensbile.

We've seen what a factory squad can do to the GT1 class, two cars in the No.1 ACO sportscar series in the world!

I'd understand your anger if P2 was a class that enabled manufactuers to compete with the big boys on a budget, but Porsche are spending as much as a P1 program. It's only a matter of time before a Porsche P1 car hits the tracks, in the meantime I don't want to see the philosophy before P2, in the LMS, destroyed for short term gain.

The last time Porsche circumvented the regs/philosohpy of a series, they introduced the 911 GT1 in a thriving BPR GT series.......it was dead two years later.

[SebringMG]

Originally Posted by JAG

In fact the very same people complaining about forcing a Porsche team to run one pro, one amateur pilot, like current, competitive, teams like RML, Bruichladdich Radical etc. welcome the performance balancing that enables these very same RS Spyders to dominate in the ALMS, against genuine, factory, P1 cars.

Not strictly speaking relevant - the only dominant RS Spyders in the ALMS are the Penske (factory) ones, the Dyson privateers do NOT dominate in any way shape or form in fact a decent crewed Zytek was shown to be faster than them at PLM for the most part! The RS Spyders in the LMS are also all due to be privateers, albeit pretty well funded ones!

If the RS Spyder chassis is really that much more dominant than any other P2 chassis (see above) then the customers of the 'inferior' chassis should be forcing their manufacturers to pull their finger out and re-design their own products NOT wait for the ACO to sort it for them.

I would have no problem if the ACO/LMS came out and said all teams in P2 to be pro-am in nature (like GT3 i suppose), what annoys me is hindering one particular chassis over another with this requirement. Either blanket pro-am for ALL teams or allow teams to choose for themselves......