What would YOU do?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Panhard

was that more suitable to your delicate disposition Hawndawg?

It should be obvious from the post that I am not the delicate shrinking Violet type!







L.P.

ps. I agree with the sentiment, of most of what you did post, when there was an actual post...

[Panhard]

Bret, I am not sure I agree that there are not enough people interested or that the Courage makes it more accessible.I know several who are interested in running an LMP. However they want LeMans in the frame & as you know that's a tall order & with the Courage impossible.

[Panhard]

thanks






L.P.

ps. I agree with the sentiment, of most of what you did post, when there was an actual post... [/QUOTE]

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Panhard

Bret, I am not sure I agree that there are not enough people interested or that the Courage makes it more accessible.I know several who are interested in running an LMP. However they want LeMans in the frame & as you know that's a tall order & with the Courage impossible.

Andy, I'm not certain you read my original posting.

http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....0&postcount=15

I am talking about ACO categories, and you would assume such cars would be required to run at LM. Know idea what it would take to make the Courage run at LM proper.. you would have a better idea than I.

[Tim the Grey]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

There just aren't enough people interested in the top classes, who have the money to pay for it out of pocket. While we don't have an obsession with making the top classes cheap, we would like to fill the fields with lesser classes that are accessible.

That is what GT is for, isn't it??? Loads of rich good old boys in there, racing with the stars. If you want to run in the top flight, you pay top dollar.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

That is what GT is for, isn't it??? Loads of rich good old boys in there, racing with the stars. If you want to run in the top flight, you pay top dollar.

Not in North America it isn't.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

That is what GT is for, isn't it??? Loads of rich good old boys in there, racing with the stars. If you want to run in the top flight, you pay top dollar.

In the U.S. tin-tops (saloons-GTs) sells cars; sportsracers/prototypes sells Brie and wine.

[JAG]

How about renaming the ALMS the Historic Le Mans Series, there seem to be plenty of rich guys running everything from 962s to RS Spyders in HSR.

[Panhard]

Bret .
As far as conversion just using an LM engine & switching brakes would convert it to the LMP2 the gearbox is a little heavy but still usable but I am not sure if the chassis will be allowed by the ACO. Technically it is the same but the chassis number assigns it to LMP C which would exclude it .Maybe one of the Courage owners needs to ask the ACO that question. After all the car was based on the LC75 LMP2 Courage offered of which some are still running though next year it would have to run LMP1 anyway.

Andy

[6157]

This is long, so pack a lunch. I'd be hesitant to make any major rule changes in the current global economy as well as I would look at how it affects all ACO-based series and not just be concerned with LeMans.

P 1 - Phase in current P 2 engine rules to P 1 within 3-5 years. Take away a half-liter from the engine and 5 liters from the fuel cell for the diesels. Eliminate F1-style noses and try to get back to one continuous plane, which will hopefully improve cooling which can allow us to clean up the sidepods as well. Cleaning up the sidepods, I hope will improve sponsor and car identification. Open or closed top, weight stays at 900kg

P 2: Maintain current P 2 engine rules. However, the major change I would make is mandating several spec parts: Wings, ECUs, tires, etc, hopefully this will encourage privateers to enter and discourage factories from entering. No alternative fuels or hybrid systems in P2 either. If I could get away with it, a aero development freeze throughout the season. The car you present to scrutineering at the first race is the car you must maintain throughout the year. Again, keeping costly aero improvements down for privateer teams is the idea. I would raise the weight to 1000kg. I'm always hesitant to make rule changes without proper testing, so adding a 100kg would just be a baseline. Ideally at the pre-season test, we can try different weights and setups to maximize a decent speed differential between P1 and P2. Fuel cell increase to 90kgs, they should be slow enough and they don't need to be penalized with more pit stops.

GT 1: Simply GT 2 renamed. This seems to be where all the factories want to be with production cars, so it should be the top production car class. I would treat it much like P1: open aero, alternative fuels, hybrids, and so forth. Maintaining current GT 2 rules all around.

GT 2: I’m split as to whether GT 3 should be brought into the ranks or if GT 2 should be treated as P 2. Similar to GT 1 except with certain spec parts and restricted development. I would be inclined for the latter.

Now, that’s what I would do but what I’d like to see is another matter completely.

In the mid-90s, I believed was a perfect time to move from prototypes to GT 1 supercars, the prototypes were dying and it would not be attractive at all to see the top class continually get beaten by GT cars, which happened often then. Even though we have two solid factory-backed efforts in the prototypes now and continual rumors Porsche will be back at some point, I feel we need to abandon prototypes and move back to a GT-based series. Car companies are reverting back to looking for more and more road going based options for their racing dollars, so I believe it we want to attract factories, give them the options they want. So this is what I believe would completely rejuvenate LeMans racing for factories and privateers.

GT 1: The infamous “EVO” rules. Prototypes with production-based looks. Think exactly like the Corvette representation we saw a few years ago. Open engines, open fuels, hybrids, bring it for approval.

GT 2: Current GT 2. Production-based cars, homologation requirements, and so forth.
GT 3: GT 2 cars with my “spec parts” concept, geared toward privateers.

GT 4: Think Continental Tires Sports Car Series from Grand-Am. With it’s current popularity, I’m hoping it will not overcome the three other classes. Also I would use this as the “experimental” class. If you have a fuel or hybrid system, you’d like to try, but only have a car that fits in the above 3 rule categories, you can run it in this class but expect to be heavily restricted as you can’t let a major factory come in a railroad your lowest class.

I’m sure a lot of my basis around spec parts, I’ll get blasted out of here faster than a Mercedes on the Mulsanne but the key to remember is I’m basing my rule changes to benefit all ACO series, not just LeMans and the LMS. The ALMS and AsLMS do not attract the high-dollar privateers the LMS does, so it’s important to support those two series as well as your foundation race and series.

[I Rosputnik]

I'm torn over the current situation over GT1. I love the idea of a GT1 world championship -And the racing has been amazing so far-, but as I keep on seeing, everyone prefers GT2 racing. Logically it would be worth ditching GT1 all together, but then what do you do about the new GT1 cars that have been developed? Cancel them, leave them to rot in a garage and the teams suffer major losses. I've got a bit of radical idea on the future...


GT1 – Take the current GT1 and GT2 regulations, and find mid-point between them. Offer upgrade kits to the existing GT2 cars, while at the same give the GT1 downgrade kits. After watching the practice session of Le Mans today, there was not a lot of time separating the GT1's and GT2's. So why not merge them together.


GT2 – The current GT3 regulations are popular, so why not make them the new GT2 class.


However another thing that gets me is the sizes and shapes of GT cars. At times I find it quite hard to tell what is the difference between a GT2 car and a GT3 car. So I would have regulations on what car you can use in the different GT classes.


GT1 – Large Coupés and Grand Tourers. Example cars: Corvette ZR1, Nissan GT-R, BMW M3, Alpina B6, Aston Martin DBS/V8 Vantage, Ford GT, etc.


GT2 – Roadsters and Small Coupés. Example cars: Ford Mustang, BMW Z4/M3, Nissan 370Z, Mazda RX-8, Chevrolet Camaro, Peugeot RCZ, etc.


While this does seem stupid in practice, I think you appeal to different markets with the classes. Engineering groups like Provide and factory entries for GT1, while small privateers and tuning groups for GT2.


Then again, I've not been following GT racing for long, so I can't say this is the best way to do it. Prototypes seem fine to me.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by I Rosputnik

I'm torn over the current situation over GT1. I love the idea of a GT1 world championship -And the racing has been amazing so far-, but as I keep on seeing, everyone prefers GT2 racing. Logically it would be worth ditching GT1 all together, but then what do you do about the new GT1 cars that have been developed? Cancel them, leave them to rot in a garage and the teams suffer major losses. I've got a bit of radical idea on the future...


GT1 – Take the current GT1 and GT2 regulations, and find mid-point between them. Offer upgrade kits to the existing GT2 cars, while at the same give the GT1 downgrade kits. After watching the practice session of Le Mans today, there was not a lot of time separating the GT1's and GT2's. So why not merge them together.


GT2 – The current GT3 regulations are popular, so why not make them the new GT2 class.


However another thing that gets me is the sizes and shapes of GT cars. At times I find it quite hard to tell what is the difference between a GT2 car and a GT3 car. So I would have regulations on what car you can use in the different GT classes.


GT1 – Large Coupés and Grand Tourers. Example cars: Corvette ZR1, Nissan GT-R, BMW M3, Alpina B6, Aston Martin DBS/V8 Vantage, Ford GT, etc.


GT2 – Roadsters and Small Coupés. Example cars: Ford Mustang, BMW Z4/M3, Nissan 370Z, Mazda RX-8, Chevrolet Camaro, Peugeot RCZ, etc.


While this does seem stupid in practice, I think you appeal to different markets with the classes. Engineering groups like Provide and factory entries for GT1, while small privateers and tuning groups for GT2.


Then again, I've not been following GT racing for long, so I can't say this is the best way to do it. Prototypes seem fine to me.

Why not bring back the old Group 4 GT rules.
It would outlaw a lot of the hyper-expensive items in GT1, Trannies, chassis suspension alterations, and make what is legal or illegal quite plain without any contrived, you there, you can do THIS, but you over there, you cannot do THIS type farce bs, that has made too many walk-away.

The type contrived crap that Aston Martin has finally said will stop or we will walk in the P, class, should be eliminated especially in what is supposed to be a production based class.

[I Rosputnik]

I like the idea of keeping GT cars as close as their road going counterparts. The problem with something like the MC12 is that it has more in common with a prototype then a Grand Tourer.

I have to admit, looking at the Group 4 cars, brings a smile to my face.

GT racing needs a complete overhall in the next few years.

[Purist]

That "contrived" stuff is what allows as many models as there are to even be able to compete. I'm not sure who would be left, aside from Porsche and Ferrari, if you did hat to the GT rules. The BMW would be gone. Who knows about the Spyker. I suspect both the Corvette and the Aston would be gone as well.

Basically, you MUST have the current flexibility in the rules, because MOST of the cars that might be eligible under the current system are NOT designed with competition specifically in mind when building up the road cars. If you don't have that leeway, those cars won't be competitive, and nobody will bother racing them at all. And that leaves with quite a boring, homogeneous GT class.

[pn7]

Originally Posted by Holt

The first thing I would do would be to ban wings or spoilers of any type.

The Delta Wing Group has proposed this amazing new design for openwheel Indycars and I think it would work extremely well for sportscars. Not the car itself but the ideas behind it.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/.../deltawing.jpg

Without draggy wings the cars will get much better fuel mileage in these eco sensitive times. Lap times will go way down while at the same time straight line speeds should stay around the same even with much less horsepower. The delta wing group expects 235mph out of the delta wing car at Indianapolis with just 325 horsepower. The cars should become less sticky and the driving should go back more into the hands of the driver.

Last but not least wings etc are useless to the automotive industry. Banning wings/spoilers etc will make manufacturers focus on efficiency in the highest degree.

LMP 1 will combine with LMP2 and form one prototype class, LMP. Engines will be limited to 4 or 6 cylinders, weight limits for LMP cars will be reduced from the 900kg range to around 550 - 600kgs

LMP cars both open and closed must now have a full size replica of the driver's seat in the passenger seat. There must be enough room in the seat for a second full grown man to sit in and buckle up and be comfortable at any time, even under race conditions. This prohibits open top cars from placing any aero devices over the passenger seat during races.

Basically I want LMP sportscars to focus on efficiency, but at a far greater level then what the ACO is doing. The key is the removal of wings. This will dramatically increase fuel mileage at Le Mans and efficiency and will put the driving back more into the hands of drivers.

I would also like to see hybrids dominate the class

Car pictured could only do straight line running...you would never get that around a circuit...

[FstrthnU]

There shouldn't be a maximum noise level for the cars, there should be a MINIMUM noise level so that we get crazy sound! I don't want every LMP to be a ninja like the Audi R18!

[The Badger]

I agree ..... but then we get the people who like to take their kids , and its bad for their ears .

Well , if its bad for their ears , leave them at home . This is a recent green thing ..... what happened in the eons before ?

Would they take their kids shark fishing !!!