B.O.P. Why is it necessary?

[pach233]

Right I should have been more precise what I meant by formula. i mean you calculate what approximately equal performance characteristics (cylinders, displacement, turbo vs. NA, weights, etc.) and hen publish these regulations. Enforce a minimum number of road cars to avoid homologation specials like the late 90s where costs will skyrocket and then let manufacturers build cars which are competitive in the class. If for example Ferrari dominates so be it. It will be up to Corvette, Porsche, BMW and others to build and develop cars to compete.

To Tim's point, yes you are absolutely correct. What you describe is the biggest danger in a meritocratic class. But then again, if the big fish is forced to swim like a little fish, why would he agree to this in the first. The logic that all the little fish leave is part of what's wrong with society in general. Not everyone can be above average but people on't like to hear that. Why can't the little fish try to be clever and resourceful. They may not win the majority of the time but when they do win, it will mean a lot more as they have done so on merit not on some restrictor break. Why must they leave? Maybe I'm just too idealistic.

[Speed-King]

Why must they leave? Maybe I'm just too idealistic.

There just is no place for idealism when it costs several million euros or dollar to run a car for a year...

[pach233]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

There just is no place for idealism when it costs several million euros or dollar to run a car for a year...

Agreed, unless there is sufficient ROI to merit the millions. In my opinion BoP is a lazy way of keeping (some) grids (somewhat) healthy. If series executives (FIA, ACO, ALMS, SRO etc.) possessed the competence and would put the effort to provide sufficient ROI in the form of marketing/exposure as well as prize money then perhaps it wouldn't be as far-fetched to be idealistic.

[Speed-King]

More exposure makes it even worse when you are constantly losing...

[Purist]

Pach, a big issue with GT cars is the base shape of the car, which is set by the road car to a large degree. There has to be some balancing done for this, or else only a very limited number of manufacturers will ever take part.

A BMW M3 or Z4 can't compete with a Ferrari F458, if they both have exactly the same horsepower. Now, you could redesign the car, but if you make a Ferrari "copy", you've destroyed the whole point of your brand's marketing exercise, because you no longer have a "BMW". So the redesign bit is ineffective for that reason, and is also impractical because redesigning a production model built in any real numbers on that frequent a basis is just too expensive, period.

Also, the frameworks we've had for any one class over the last 30+ years have been too restrictive to allow the really clever stuff to happen. Yeah, ages ago, a little car could compete against the big cars, at least on certain circuits, but then, that little car might be 800-1000 pounds lighter than its heaviest competitors. That sort of variation is NEVER going to be allowed these days; for one, a car that much lighter would probably be declared inherently unsafe.

Finally, even the little fish MUST show results. If they don't, sponsors leave, and they are in turn FORCED to leave, because they no longer have the necessary backing to run any car at all.

[pach233]

Originally Posted by Purist

Pach, a big issue with GT cars is the base shape of the car, which is set by the road car to a large degree. There has to be some balancing done for this, or else only a very limited number of manufacturers will ever take part.

A BMW M3 or Z4 can't compete with a Ferrari F458, if they both have exactly the same horsepower. Now, you could redesign the car, but if you make a Ferrari "copy", you've destroyed the whole point of your brand's marketing exercise, because you no longer have a "BMW". So the redesign bit is ineffective for that reason, and is also impractical because redesigning a production model built in any real numbers on that frequent a basis is just too expensive, period.

Also, the frameworks we've had for any one class over the last 30+ years have been too restrictive to allow the really clever stuff to happen. Yeah, ages ago, a little car could compete against the big cars, at least on certain circuits, but then, that little car might be 800-1000 pounds lighter than its heaviest competitors. That sort of variation is NEVER going to be allowed these days; for one, a car that much lighter would probably be declared inherently unsafe.

Finally, even the little fish MUST show results. If they don't, sponsors leave, and they are in turn FORCED to leave, because they no longer have the necessary backing to run any car at all.

All very fair points. With safety regulations and today's economy it is difficult to open things up. I would only argue that there must be some middle ground that can be found between the ideal open type format and the fully BoP series or close to it we see today.

[Speed-King]

The one middle ground is a class system that recognizes the differences between different cars, i.e. not one catch all GT-category, but something like Belcar or IMSA in its very first years used to have:

GTA/O: purebred high performance GT-cars (i.e. Ferrari)
TA/O: High performance sedans and Grand Turismo-cars in the true sense of the word (i.e. M3 and Aston, and at a level that doesn't necessitate ridiculous amounts of waivers)
GTB/U: performance GT-cars (i.e. Porsche, ideally recognizing that they can't go head to head with supercars with the 911)
TB/U: performance sedans and compromised smaller displacement GT-cars (Audi TT)

Potentially combining the last two classes, but even that would necessitate some amount of BoP again.

The other middle ground is DTM/GT500: Only allowing one basic car layout.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Patch, you seem to want Meritocratic Classes? All well and good, until a big fish swims in your little pond. All the little fish leave, as they cannot compete. So does the big fish, as no-one is now interested in watching it swim on it's own...
Better to confirm right at the start that if a big fish joins in, it can only swim like little fish, and eat like little fish. It helps keep everyone swimming around, keeping the fish watchers happy.

I'm quite pleased there, I kept the analogy going!

It is usually called dumbing down to the lowest common denominator of kissing the rules emporers buttocks.

Has nothing to do with racing or at least who produces the best product, it shows when the rules makers say crap who is best at dropping their pants and squatting.

[Tim the Grey]

OK, Bob, let's try a thought exercise here?
Chevvy get great publicity from the Corvette duffing up Ferraris and 911s. Ford decide THEY want some of that action, and engineer a Limited Edition TBird, or whatever, that wipes the floor with ALL of the above. So after 2 years of getting ass kicked, they leave. You now have a de-facto Spec class, as no-one will run anything else... Oh, and it's not a low price, value for money class, either. So the class dies.

I don't get Yanks, at times... Yes, I want competition, but why should I let a manufacturer build a Homologation special, and stomp over anyone who's played in the game for years?

[Maelochs]

One reason we are where we are with BOP is that so many other methods have been tried and found wanting. Homologations specials were a part of it, in many series—totally distorting the Intent of the rules by liberally interpreting the Letter of the rules, to allow one manufacturer to win just enough to either kick off a spending war which drove all the other makes away, or to straight up drive everyone away by being unbeatable.

It is unrealistic to think that a sanctioning body can design GT rules and that manufacturers will build road cars to be the best within those rules. Factories build cars to sell and make money, not to race and spend money.

Want to see the biggest reason for the current situation? Look at photos of cars up until the late sixties, and you will see paint. After that, you will see sponsors’ decals. Racing is now Big Business.

Racing used to be about racing—now it is about business: promotional value, not just prestige. Wins are only as good as the commercials that can be made from them—and the cars sold because of them. Not many factories are going to build cars just to win races, because those race wins don’t do enough to sell enough of those cars.

Ford spent however much to beat Ferrari (both with the Shelby Cobra and the GT-40 program) and succeeded in pretty much driving Ferrari out of sports cars—and realized it wasn’t worth the investment. Ford dominated Le Mans, but it didn’t dominate domestic sales.

Porsche sells more 911s by racing 911s than it could ever hope to sell with a second-generation RS Spyder. Gone are the days when it would design and build a 917, build (almost) a couple dozen to meet some ridiculous homologation rule, and dominate the sport for several years—because the 917 didn’t sell 911s.

Also, it takes years to design and build a car nowadays, and that car has to be built and sold for years to pay off that investment.

If Chevrolet or BMW builds a two-seat, mid-engined Ferrari beater so that it needs no waivers or weight or restrictor breaks, Ferrari, being a smaller factory, can easily build a better model the next year; thus the new Chevy or BMW is obsolete as a racing platform, but the company is stuck with it as a road car.

Racing’s nature has not changed—it is still all about winning, going as fast as possible or at least faster than as many others as possible; pure competition on the track, and in everything leading up to the race.

Racing’s relationship to money has changed dramatically, and thus racing’s significance to factories. Factories have to build what sells, and sells at the best overall profit margin.

BMW cannot hope to build a Ferrari-beater and outsell Ferrari. BMW’s customer base isn’t looking for that, and most of the Ferrari-beater customer base …. Already own Ferraris (See many BMW M1s around?)

Corvette’s customer base expects a traditional front-engined car, even if they know logically that a mid-engined version would be inherently better balanced with a lower polar moment.

Porsche could easily build the 918 for production—but the demand is for 911s, regardless that the basic design is half-a-century old.

Expecting any of these factories to abandon their customer bases in hopes of stealing the Ferrari market (which is small and already satisfied) is ridiculous, and more so because the ACO would likely completely revamp its rules before any of the new cars had time to create converts, long before enough were sold to amortize the initial investment. Therefore, Ferrari (McLaren, Audi R8) will have the edge in GT racing and every other factory will need BOP in one form or another.

GT racing among pure GT cars was great. Those days are over. Maybe BOP isn’t the best system, but some similar system is needed.

Saying, “Define the box and let manufacturers build the absolute best car they can within the box” used to be a great system—but it was lousy business. It ain’t coming back.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

One reason we are where we are with BOP is that so many other methods have been tried and found wanting.

The other methods worked extreemly well for all but a handful or years of the Twentieth Century so that boat don't float.

Homologations specials were a part of it, in many series—totally distorting the Intent of the rules by liberally interpreting the Letter of the rules, to allow one manufacturer to win just enough to either kick off a spending war which drove all the other makes away, or to straight up drive everyone away by being unbeatable.

The Trans-Am did very well, with highs and lows, till tube frame bs cars were adapted.
They did with those fakemobiles and rules that made the cars what ever the sanction wanted them to be, what some moronic, but serious, moves by Washington failed to do, made it farce that went bye-bye.

It is unrealistic to think that a sanctioning body can design GT rules and that manufacturers will build road cars to be the best within those rules. Factories build cars to sell and make money, not to race and spend money.

Sanctions do not tell car companies what to build, sanctions see what car companies are building and then makes rules that can best incorporate those cars so car companies can show that their product is better than other.
Race on Sunday, sell on Monday is why Detroit and others bothered racing in the U.S. period.
It worked for ninety some years.

Want to see the biggest reason for the current situation? Look at photos of cars up until the late sixties, and you will see paint. After that, you will see sponsors’ decals. Racing is now Big Business.
That statement is silly at best and mostly just plain strange.
Stock cars had sponsors of some sort all through the sixties; Penske made GTs, or sport sedans if you wish, in sports car racing start to do what oval stock cars had done for years.
The sponsor boom came after the seventies.
It has always been big business but till the privateers were dumped by choice, or by accident, it was love of sport and make that kept GT and Sedan road racing going.
Until the death of Big Bill France even NASCAR was still run by love of sport more than love of money.
As long as Big Bill was around if Detroit wanted to race a car, they had to build a certain number of street legal cars to homologate it.

Racing used to be about racing—now it is about business: promotional value, not just prestige. Wins are only as good as the commercials that can be made from them—and the cars sold because of them. Not many factories are going to build cars just to win races, because those race wins don’t do enough to sell enough of those cars.
That statement is just plain non-sense.

Ford spent however much to beat Ferrari (both with the Shelby Cobra and the GT-40 program) and succeeded in pretty much driving Ferrari out of sports cars—and realized it wasn’t worth the investment. Ford dominated Le Mans, but it didn’t dominate domestic sales.
Ford quit before Ferrrari because the twits in France changed the rules to make it not worth the effort,(which killed projects from the USA and Italy already being worked on)- which was not by accident.
Ferrari stayed around to build a large lot of cars to meet NEW production requirements, as did Porsche.
Ford kept winning because they had built enough of the old cars to meet req. probably much to the Frenchies dismay.
So after a couple of years the French changed the rules again so a French car stood a chance of not being embarassed and Ferrari finally got tired of this bs and concentrated of F1 which was what Enzo preferred.
Chevrolet dominated domestic sales during which they made as much of their Chaparral connection as the narrow minds in the GM glass-house allowed.

Porsche sells more 911s by racing 911s than it could ever hope to sell with a second-generation RS Spyder. Gone are the days when it would design and build a 917, build (almost) a couple dozen to meet some ridiculous homologation rule, and dominate the sport for several years—because the 917 didn’t sell 911s.
Do you read what you actually write?
Without those "ridiculous" rules international sports car racing would have gone pffft years before it did, especially as far as the majortiy of US fan were concerned.
It was only brought back by some European makers attraction to Daytona and Big Bill's, plus John Bishop's, appreciation for LeMans.

The Porsche 917 put Porsche on the map, the 911 when boosted to try to keep up with Greenwood's Corvettes (even though by then he was sick of being Chevrolet's least favorite child and all but quit) put the 911 on the US map.
As good as the cars before it were, the blown cars got the attention of US gearheads across the board.

Also, it takes years to design and build a car nowadays, and that car has to be built and sold for years to pay off that investment.
It has always been that way-- good grief.

If Chevrolet or BMW builds a two-seat, mid-engined Ferrari beater so that it needs no waivers or weight or restrictor breaks, Ferrari, being a smaller factory, can easily build a better model the next year; thus the new Chevy or BMW is obsolete as a racing platform, but the company is stuck with it as a road car.
That has never happened but racing proves, or improves, the breed, one either steps-up to match the competion, or one puts ones tail between its legs and runs-away.
Only in spec. racing the former is impossible becausse any manufacturer is only as good as some god wannabe lets it be. If that make is not a sanction favorite, and manages a win, hell will freeze before that make will ever win another race-- by sanction design.
I think Saleen found that out fairly early on.

Racing’s nature has not changed—it is still all about winning, going as fast as possible or at least faster than as many others as possible; pure competition on the track, and in everything leading up to the race.

Production racing; proving who produces, heads-up, the best product, the premise that kept racing going in the US for almost a century, is dead- D-E-A-D dead, period.
When races cars are forced by rules to be less powerful than producion street cars, use engines that are smaller than any offered in production cars , makes the old edict that race cars show what production cars are capable of a farce at best and pretty much a pathetic joke.

Racing’s relationship to money has changed dramatically, and thus racing’s significance to factories. Factories have to build what sells, and sells at the best overall profit margin.

BMW cannot hope to build a Ferrari-beater and outsell Ferrari. BMW’s customer base isn’t looking for that, and most of the Ferrari-beater customer base …. Already own Ferraris (See many BMW M1s around?)

Corvette’s customer base expects a traditional front-engined car, even if they know logically that a mid-engined version would be inherently better balanced with a lower polar moment.

Porsche could easily build the 918 for production—but the demand is for 911s, regardless that the basic design is half-a-century old.

Expecting any of these factories to abandon their customer bases in hopes of stealing the Ferrari market (which is small and already satisfied) is ridiculous, and more so because the ACO would likely completely revamp its rules before any of the new cars had time to create converts, long before enough were sold to amortize the initial investment. Therefore, Ferrari (McLaren, Audi R8) will have the edge in GT racing and every other factory will need BOP in one form or another.

That is your opinion.
You have no idea who, if any, would or would not show up if past group 4 or 5 rules were in force.
Rules as they exist give sanctions the god complex they seem to crave, which they did not have in the past.
In the past car companies built cars, sanctions, sanctioned, promoters, promoted and racers modified and built cars to go as fast and quick as factory parts made possible.
Now sanctions want to be in control of all four.

The fact that sports car racing in the US has become a bad joke, except to those who think dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is good racing, even though it ranks even lower than short track racing's inverted field stunt and claiming rules. (I actually wonder how long it will be before the IMSA tries that.)

GT racing among pure GT cars was great. Those days are over. Maybe BOP isn’t the best system, but some similar system is needed.
For what reason?
To continue to keep it down at the level of SCCA spec. racing?
If the IMSA is trying to imitate what the SCCA did to its professional program, they are succeeding.

Saying, “Define the box and let manufacturers build the absolute best car they can within the box” used to be a great system—but it was lousy business. It ain’t coming back.

Neither is the respect and love US gearheads once had for road racing.
As is, it seems to be vying with open wheel Indy cars for which series goes belly-up first.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Maelochs
GT racing among pure GT cars was great. Those days are over. Maybe BOP isn’t the best system, but some similar system is needed.

Saying, “Define the box and let manufacturers build the absolute best car they can within the box” used to be a great system—but it was lousy business. It ain’t coming back.

I completely agree with you on these claims.
The BoP is simply a necessary evil, without that any series ends, because the costs are unsustainable.
The BPR/FIA GT1 of the late 90's is a clear example of this. In 1996 the Mc Laren F1 GTR was much better than Ferrari F40, Porsche 911 GT2, Lotus Esprit GT1, Venturi 600 LM, Jaguar XJ220 etc.
Then Porsche built the 911 GT1 that liquid to Mc Laren. In the next year arrived new cars such as Mercedes CLK GTR, Mc Laren F1 GTR EVO (Long Tail), Porsche 911 GT1 EVO, Panoz GTR, Lotus Elise GT1 and Nissan R390 GT1, all of that much more expensive and extremes than the last year cars.
Newly in 1998 arrived more expensive and extremes cars (Mercedes CLK GTR EVO, Porsche 911 GT1 98, Toyota GT1) and the class collapse in the end of this year.

[urdragon]

More than that, i would remake the question, in how to make a BOP fair maybe to road car advantages and disadvantages, to give this a little more of credibility.

I think it's Obvius BOP is needed viewing the demise of the most technologically advanced GT racing championship/classes, year by year.

[ptclaus98]

How about not messing with it because this is the best GT3 has ever been? Where's that option?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

How about not messing with it because this is the best GT3 has ever been? Where's that option?

Nowhere because that class wouldn't exist without BoP.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Nowhere because that class wouldn't exist without BoP.

So don't mess around with it and keep the BoP as is.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

So don't mess around with it and keep the BoP as is.

Yes, mediocrity at its most mediocre.

What gearheads world-wide find pathetically inept.

BRILLIANT!

[Maelochs]

Well, we can have the Ferrari/Lamborghini/Audi R8 series where no other can can compete, which will go bankrupt because the grids would be too small and the manufacturers wouldn't be interested ... or we can have the disgusting horrowshow which is Blancpain, where five dozen cars all compete for the win.

Yeah, I sure hate the thought of five dozen competitive entries.

If those gearheads are so smart, why don't they devise, fund, promote, and operate as series? Get enough sponsorship to attract top drivers and top teams, enough cars to fill grids, and enough fan interest that you can get sponsors. Go ahead.

No hypotheticals, no imaginary scenarios ... do it now.

What, can't make it work commercially? Imagine that.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Yes, mediocrity at its most mediocre.

What gearheads world-wide find pathetically inept.

BRILLIANT!

Jesus, you are living in a past that never existed. How is it mediocre? I see more than 5 makes with worldwide recognition, an eclectic mix of makes at that, a championship based on a formula that has it's roots stretched across the world, and, oh yeah, great racing. What the hell are you looking for, and who in the hell is gonna pay for it?

[Nick6]

At one time sports car fans use to take pride in the fact that sportscar racing did not have Nascar like managed competition.

Looks like that has changed...

[Maelochs]

ptClaus98 asks the querstion: "who in the hell is gonna pay for it?"

We'd all love it if manufacturers were building road cars to compete on track ... but it isn't likely to ever happen again.

Decide iof you would rather have nothing or balanced competition---and also---please don't watch the races, including GTE and ALMS GT, because those too are balanced competition. Go watch the wide-open, run-what-you-brung stuff wherever you find it.

Instead of coming here and complaining about what some series are doing ... oh wait. There are no series doing it the old way because the factories found out it didn't pay off.

Guess you folks need to find another sport. Meanwhile the rest of us will enjoy watching what's available. Since it's not good enough for you purists, don't watch. Since you won't be watching, you won't have anything to comment on. Better world for all.

[Spyderman]

Independently of ones position on this topic, the truth is that everyone is entitled to have one, and this being a discussion board, they are entitled to write and voice their opinion.

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

We'd all love it if manufacturers were building road cars to compete on track ... but it isn't likely to ever happen again.

Say What...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbiDoFq10uw

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Guess you folks need to find another sport. Meanwhile the rest of us will enjoy watching what's available. Since it's not good enough for you purists, don't watch. Since you won't be watching, you won't have anything to comment on. Better world for all.

I'm sorry but that's a crap argument, "don't watch/complain it if you don't like it"

GT1 and GT2 were fine classes in the last decade. At times there was some small balancing and tuning here and there sure, but I was fine with that. The manufacturers didn't cry or leave then so why would they do so now if they made the regs more strict and fair, like they used to be?

[pach233]

Maelochs, I agree with most of what you write on the ALMS boards but I'm going to have to disagree on your posts in these threads. I realize that your posts were mostly directed at Bob and while Bob and I don't share exactly the same viewpoints, they are similar enough. I will make two responses to your posts.

1. This is a forum where fans come to discuss, argue, complain, vent and and ask questions about a sport they are interested and passionate about. If we are on the forum it is because we care enough about the sport to comment on it. Just because we want something different to what s currently being offered doesn't mean we have to stop watching. Should you stop watching, caring about and commenting on the ALMS because you disagree with the direction their management is taking the series? This sport needs every fan it can get and telling us to stop watching is both asinine and counter-productive.

2. I'm not naive, I'm an engineer myself and will be working in the automotive industry starting next month. I realize a totally open series is not commercially viable. But there has to exist a middle ground between totally open and the BoP series of today. We can do better than we are and Chiana makes the point of GT1 and GT2 in the previous decade. Full BoP is lazy and yes it keeps manufacturers happy but it isn't the best solution or the one man fans want to see. I love sports car racing because it wasn't spec and it wasn't balanced like Nascar of the 90s. It's going in the other direction now.