B.O.P. Why is it necessary?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

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.

I find the thought of five dozen scam-mobiles rather sad and pathetic.

The differnence between old Formula Vee and bop, not inches cubed, not horse power but the number of rules required to force all cars down to the same level of performance.
Formula Vee was exactly what the name said it was, the current GT classes are a contrived competiotion which proves nothing except how good sanctions are at making rules and low regard they have for the intelligence of the audience.

The old GT1, even to a slight degree including the assinine point where one could build one street car to be homologated. Their performance was controlled by contrived rules but at least they were given enough HP to show that this is what can be done with a street car.
Later when what were really old school prototypes had been banned, it had boiled down to Dodge verses Chevrolet. (OH that'w is right, Chevy got BACK in BECAUSE while Dodge was winning races, the Corvette was considered a boulevard cruiser.)

Part of the blame is Panoz's butt kissing love for the ACO and LeMans combined with the Death of Big Bill France resulting in his inept and greedy off-spring controlling the most important US race track back in the inineties when road racing started its not so slow decline

It is odd how- in your opinion Detroit -- (the companies I am most concerned with though Porsche seems to like to play any road racing game Detroit plays) --will not come for a productioh based series, YET THEY STILL spend millions of dollars to develope new push-rod race engines.
Me thinks that does not compute.

Hell, if one accepts contrived cars from contrived rules, Camaros, Mustangs, Corvettes and Vipers running non-plate NASCAR engines would be one hell of a lot more exciting than the current slowmobiles.

Let's see, you also want race fans who pay the money that keeps racing going in the US, to start their own sanciton, rather than tell sanctions to fix the cluster-f that sanctions in the US created in the nineties?
BRILLIANT!

Final note, back when Ford brought out the new old Mustang, they built a modified production car that they loudly hinted would be good for a race series for such production cars.
Does not sound like they will not play, only that the sanctions are too busy stroking their current god wannabe opinions to bring the type of rules that made road racing great for thirty years, or more.

[Purist]

Well, one could argue that BoP is the middle ground between spec and the rules equivalent of Can-Am.

Part of the problem we have with GT racing now is that the seemingly simplest way of splitting the GT categories, by displacement, leaves us with some real issues and a fundamentally unsatisfying product. That is, if you separate the cars out in that manner, some cars can run together, but some would be thrown into another classification.

Here's a rough idea for a GT class breakdown:
GT1- over 5,000cc atmospheric, up to 4,000cc forced induction
GT2- over 3,000cc up to 5,000cc atmospheric, up to 3,000cc forced induction
GT3- up to 3,000cc atmospheric, up to 1,800cc forced induction

I use this to point out the issues involved. So, under this framework, the Porsche 911 (non-turbo) and Ferrari F458 are in GT2, along with the Lotus Evora and BMW M3. However, the Corvette and Viper, as well as the Mercedes SLS and McLaren MP4/12C would have to be in GT1. The aforementioned may not be such a big deal, but what about having the second-tier Lamborghini (Gallardo) running in GT1, while the Ferrari of choice for racing at present is relegated to GT2?

Another complication is that it used to be easier in some ways to have a larger, competitive field of cars in a given class, or more precisely, in a given speed range. What we don't see now is a car with a small engine, that is very lightweight, taking on a car with a significantly larger engine, but that also weights quite a lot more (and I'm not just talking 100-200 pounds, but a difference that can approach 1000 pounds between the heaviest and the lightest cars being looked at). This is in no small part (I'm almost certain) due to safety concerns. Even Lotus, known for its lightweight cars, doesn't offer anything lighter than 1,680lb (1,920lb in the States). Compare that with an original Lotus Super Seven from the late '50s, which weighs in at ~850lb.

Now, it's also trickier with smaller engines, particularly rather small turbo engines, making abundant power. The trouble there is, I don't think Ferrari is going to take too kindly to getting bumped off by some Korean or Japanese pocket rocket, and a lot of fans wouldn't be too happy with that either. And while incredible power figures can be produced with engines now, there is also a certain expectation of an extreme/aggressive look to the cars, which generally means these cars are going to have significant aerodynamics. Therefore, to keep lap speeds in a realm of sanity, some power limit is reasonable. However, I think the limits can be higher than they are now. With GTs being substantially heavier than LMPs, and being less aerodynamically ideal due to being based off of road cars, even if they had the 800hp of an unshackled Audi R10 or Peugeot 908, they would still be markedly slower because of the greater weight and aerodynamic inferiority.

[Fogelhund]

The World has changed. Some people like it, some don't.

GT racing around the world has simply been amongst the best racing we've seen anywhere, at any point in time. If you can't enjoy it due to the rules, I might ask, are you a fan of racing because of the cars, or because of the rules?

Without the knowledge that they will be competitive, due to BoP, waivers, etc. today's manufacturer board of directors are unlikely to approve the budgets required to go racing. The manufacturers and their dollars are what makes this possible.

I understand and respect the desire for the technology and racing to be more pure, but I understand that the realities of the world we live in make that impossible. So, I'll enjoy what we have and continue to adapt to the changes in the world around me.

[pach233]

I think classes can be separated by a couple of different methods.

1. Amount of modification to road cars allowed. Probably the least efficient of the methods but for example GT1 cars are allowed bigger wings, wider fenders, bigger brakes, less weight etc than their GT2 counterparts and than the road cars their based on. I.E. Road Cars 100% of weight, GT2 95% and GT1 90% (just an example, please don't focus on the actual numbers.) This method can get messy because it would still require waivers and some performance balancing between manufacturers.

2. Price of road car counterpart. I.E. $20,000<GT3<$60,000<GT2<$100,00<GT1. Again please don't focus on the numbers just an example. I don't particularly like the method because it excludes efficient manufacturers from competing against more expensive cars but I think most manufacturers would like it as they are racing in the same class against their direct competition. Eliminates the Ferrari 458 vs. Mazda RX8 issue in Grand-Am where Ferrari doesn't want to race against Mazda.

3. Classes derived based on road car performance parameters. Road cars undergo a series of tests (0-62, top speed, max Gs, braking performance, HP/Weight Ratio etc) and are then given a final out of 100. 1<GT33<GT2<66<GT1<100. Manufacturers then build and hopefully sell race versions of these road cars which compete in the given performance class. Manufacturers may not like it if their more expensive cars are being beat by a less expensive car but the onus is on them to be more efficient. Personally, I like this method best as it requires no performance balancing by the sanctioning bodies and it gives manufacturers a direct link from their GT racing cars to their production models. What's the word again? Relevance.

Just my $.02 worth. I'd love to hear everyone's ideas (for or against) some of these methods.

Edited to add, Fogelhund posted between when I started typing and posting. I don't like the direction GT racing is going but will continue to watch and enjoy the racing. Hell I've even enjoyed the "GT1" "World" Championship this year and GT3 previous years which are fully BoPed series. I like racing, I like the smells and sounds of being at the track and the drama that happens on it. I just believe it can be improved.

[Maelochs]

First of all: Fogelhound’s post #103 seems to say what needs to be said.

On to Pach’s ideas about balancing cars without balancing:

Problem is, a BMW (four-passenger, front-engined sports coupe) is Never going to naturally perform as well as a mid-engined two-seater. Low polar moment, better balance—the Ferraris, McLarens, and Lamborghinis are going to be unbeatable. So … BMW builds another M1 or gets out of racing?

There is more to it than weight and displacement. There is more to it than cost. If we only allow cars at similar levels of technology to race (pushrod OHV V8 5+ liters, live-rear-axle class, four-wheel-independent suspension OHC V6 class, etc.) then classes will be small and numerous but no balancing might be necessary. But many manufacturers will never be able to compete in the top class. Would BMW accept being third-rate?

If cars are classed by cost and technology, then the Audi R8 can race the Ferrari 458, the Lambo Gallardo, and the McLaren. What other car fits that class? I’d love it if the Viper and Vette could race in that class and have more displacement to make up for higher polar moment, but what happens if Lamborghini builds a bigger engine? It would be a lot easier for Lambo to put a Murcielago engine in a Gallardo, than for Corvette to design and build, then market to homologate, an entirely new engine larger than the 427. So, where’s balance?

And where would Aston Martin fit in, with its overweight luxury GT cars? Would the company race them if they were relegated to some third class?

This is a very difficult equation to solve.

@ Bob Riebe “It is odd how- in your opinion Detroit -- (the companies I am most concerned with though Porsche seems to like to play any road racing game Detroit plays) --will not come for a productioh based series, YET THEY STILL spend millions of dollars to develope new push-rod race engines.
Me thinks that does not compute.”

What you are leaving out of the equation is the size of the fanbase and the fans’ rabid brand loyalty. Sports car racing doesn’t attract as many fans in a season as NASCAR does for one well-attended race (television included.) When ALMS is as big as NASCAR, we might see Detroit factories willing to develop homologation specials again, or options packages which allow racers to build really trick, but still legal versions of street cars. Any idea on how to get there? Ignoring facts and then failing to offer suggestions doesn’t advance the sport.

By the way—I see zero evidence that most fans hate current GT racing. Maybe a few diehards here, but that is the same fallacy posters on every board fall into. Face it, most fans aren’t purists, aren’t deeply wrapped up in the history of the sport, and just want really entertaining races to watch. The sport cannot alter itself to suit the diehards at the cost of going bankrupt. Racing has to find ways to attract mass appeal, and having half-a-dozen makes represented helps that.

pach233, the reason I suggest that some folks don’t watch is that they come here telling everyone how terrible the situation is, but if it were that terrible, they wouldn’t watch. If it isn’t that terrible then they should tone down the rhetoric and increase the logic. Walk the Talk, as it were. If they hate it don’t support it. If they support it, don’t hate it. As far as “needing every fan,” … if they hate the sport are they fans anyway?

If I want to hear people hating on racing I can go to IndyCar websites, where all kinds of pointless life-and-death battles are commonplace. I expect a bit more here.

Go to a few IndyCar sites, and you will see people calling for a return to front-engines, cars, American drivers only, oval racing only, racing on dirt … all patently ridiculous suggestions.

If people want to call sports car racing worse than NASCAR, go watch NASCAR. If some posters think sports car racing needs changes, those people should suggest reasonable, logical changes.

Suggesting that manufacturers should build street cars to support racing is not going to happen again. “Win on Sunday …” etc has been proven not to work. Maybe when gas was 35 cents a gallon, but nowadays, no. Not enough people are going to watch Corvette race and rush out to buy a new Corvette, they way they might have with a Ford Torino or Plymouth Superbird (of course, part of that was because those cars were relatively much cheaper and the audiences Much larger.)

Nowadays racing is done not to directly sell copies of race cars but to create “brand identities’ and associated “image.” The days when Detroit cranked out new cars or new options packages annually or more often in order to succeed at the track are Not returning. (And of course I could be wrong—but I have seen no evidence offered by anyone to make me think manufacturers are going to start cranking out thinly-veiled race cars and try to market versions for the street.)

Debating with people who deny reality gets frustrating. And discussing with people who seem to be filled with hatred for what I love is not pleasant either. If these people have realistic solutions, let’s hear them. If not, let them take their hatred elsewhere. And if they watch and enjoy the races, maybe they need to temper their words to accurately reflect their actions. If not, they should change their actions to accurately reflect their words. To me that is the only honorable course. (I notice Pach233 admits he likes the racing and watches it … and his rhetoric is a lot more reasonable too. Hmmm ...)

We’d all like to see several manufacturers building street cars specifically to race, but in reality, they build street cars specifically to sell, and race to promote those cars. Therefore BMW will likely not build another M1, Chevrolet will likely not build a mid-engined Vette, and all manufacturers will build cars not to some racing ruleset but to what their research tells them the market wants.

Therefore the commercial offerings will not be equivalent. Therefore to race these cars, adjustments must be made.

I have yet to hear of any realistic suggestion which does not involve balancing performance in some way, whether through waivers, restrictors, whatever.

Pach, you at least take a shot at suggesting improvements that make sense and actually conform to reality. You also point out some of the problems racing sanctioning bodies face. Mazda doesn’t build a car which can beat a Ferrari, but both makes want to race. Ferrari also doesn’t want to get beat by something called a Mazda which is actually a tube-framed prototype. But Mazda also wants to race to win.

We saw that in ALMS with BMW. The M3 couldn’t compete in street form. It needed massive modifications. But what was the alternative? Shut out the factory? They wouldn’t race if they had no chance of winning. But was it really a BMW? Seems most teams thought that so long as they had a chance to beat the pseudo-M3, they were (and are) fine with all the waivers. And fan turnout has been up, live and on TV. So …

Dividing cars by cost assumes performance is equivalent with cost. Because this is not the case, it really doesn’t address the issue.

The best idea is road car performance—but the only way I could see that being done would be the SRO-style independent test driver. 0–60, skidpad and slalom performance, braking performance … first none of these mean anything on racing tires; second, deciding how to weight each statistic would basically be performance balancing again.

Cars would have to be grouped by outright performance around a few different tracks (to allow for cars that needed longer straights or tighter corners for best performance.)

But then, how much modification is allowed? GTE allows full-race suspensions with altered pick-up points, which would make a mockery of road-car performance statistics. Also, once all cars were equipped with racing brakes and tires, differences in braking performance go out the window. The only way to class cars based on street-car performance would be to run with only safety-related modifications, but then attrition would be enormous because street-car parts aren’t designed for the stresses of racing, and no manufacturer would want to see its cars self-destruct on TV.

Even if cars were grouped by road-car performance … some cars would Always win. If no modifications were allowed, a mid-engined two-seat sports car is probably always going to beat a two-seat GT like an Aston Martin. If no modification is permitted, the cars at the top of the class will always be there.

However, as soon as modification is allowed, any relation to street-car performance is destroyed. It is again an artificially limited class, where the performance of the street car has no relations to the race car.

I like the timed-laps around three different courses way to put cars into classes … but how many classes? How big a range of performance would be allowable in one class? Surely two classes wouldn’t be enough—with only two classes the range of performance would be too wide between top and bottom. But how many classes can fans follow (not die-hards such as post here, but the huge number of more casual fans which might want to watch on TV?)

Other issues are prize pools and sponsorship opportunities. If there are too many GT classes, people get confused about who won what, and winning means less. Telling a sponsor you finished 37th out of 40 cars and won … might not be a great sales pitch. Also, purses, while minimal in road racing anyway, would become paltry to the point of insulting if there were half-a-dozen more classes.

I know Bathurst has six or eight classes but only the top class attracts international teams. The Nürburgring has more classes than I can count with my shoes on, but would that work for a mainstream series rather than a one-off event?

The answer is way beyond me, but the question is simple: Howe can cars with huge natural performance disparities race each other fairly?

[Speed-King]

I know Bathurst has six or eight classes but only the top class attracts international teams. The Nürburgring has more classes than I can count with my shoes on, but would that work for a mainstream series rather than a one-off event?

I think having many classes can work. What I would take is a bit of a two series in one approach like IMSA took in the 80s. I.e. race all 4 or 5 or 6 classes together for the big enduros and separate the fields for the other races.

For the big enduros people are okay with the number of classes (I've never heard anyone at the Ring complain about that - and trust me they like to complain a lot up there...

But in the sprint races you'll only ever have 2-3 classes on track at the same time so it is still relatively easy to see what's going on and the cars from the lower cars can get their shot in the limelight.

And be flexible about it. Let's say you have 6 classes - 2 prototype and 4 production. At some tracks it might make sense to have the top GT-class run with the prototypes in a long(er) distance race), at other you venues you might wanna split it into one GT-race and one all-out slugfest for the prototypes. And at a third circuit you split it in three with one prototype race, one race for the top 2 GT-classes and one race for the smallest GTs.

And while you're at it - mix up the formats. Let's say we have a three way split on a street circuit: The protos, of which you hopefully have around 20 get a 2 hour race on Sunday, the top GTs get 90 minutes on Saturday and the lower GT-classes get two 45 minute races before the main show on each Saturday and Sunday.

[Purist]

I don't think you're going to be able to pull TV coverage for all of that (not to mention how busy a schedule on a street circuit that would be), which means the GT teams end up getting shafted, and thus would NOT agree to such an arrangement. Also, as you say, we'd need a bigger prototype field than we have now to do that.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Problem is, a BMW (four-passenger, front-engined sports coupe) is Never going to naturally perform as well as a mid-engined two-seater. Low polar moment, better balance—the Ferraris, McLarens, and Lamborghinis are going to be unbeatable. So … BMW builds another M1 or gets out of racing?

Yes the Saleen and other rear-engined cars cleaned up in the GT1 class so severly didn't they.

There is more to it than weight and displacement. There is more to it than cost. If we only allow cars at similar levels of technology to race (pushrod OHV V8 5+ liters, live-rear-axle class, four-wheel-independent suspension OHC V6 class, etc.) then classes will be small and numerous but no balancing might be necessary. But many manufacturers will never be able to compete in the top class. Would BMW accept being third-rate?
Weight to displacement worked very well in the past.
Especially on todays billiard table the non-existant advantage of an IRS over live-axle become a totally moot point, so what you just said is just the-sky-falling-rhetoric and nothing more.

@ Bob Riebe “It is odd how- in your opinion Detroit -- (the companies I am most concerned with though Porsche seems to like to play any road racing game Detroit plays) --will not come for a productioh based series, YET THEY STILL spend millions of dollars to develope new push-rod race engines.
Me thinks that does not compute.”

What you are leaving out of the equation is the size of the fanbase and the fans’ rabid brand loyalty. Sports car racing doesn’t attract as many fans in a season as NASCAR does for one well-attended race (television included.) When ALMS is as big as NASCAR, we might see Detroit factories willing to develop homologation specials again, or options packages which allow racers to build really trick, but still legal versions of street cars. Any idea on how to get there? Ignoring facts and then failing to offer suggestions doesn’t advance the sport.
Road racing, especially production based modified cars was once BIGGER than NASCAR.
Even through the misery of the seventies the SCCA and IMSA held there own even with AMC and Penske moving to NASCAR but at the same time Big Bill France owned Daytona which was the biggest race track for both NASCAR and road racing. As he was no fool that bit of bias had only one possible end result.
Still the SCCA had enough interest pull to bring Detroit back for a couple of years before SCCA self-destructed by trying to imitate NASCAR.

That road racing lost fans, is road racing's fault by offering a poorly marketed product to a great degree because the machines on the tracks no longer brought fans to see their favorite makes.
For the hard core road racing fans the 2003 Chevy verses Ferrari clash was as good as it got.
The IMSA was either incompetent or just plain stupid to make sure that show was repeated but then why push cars from Detroit verses Modena based on cars people can buy, when you can waste your promotion on another German company walking away with a pointless prototype class.
Mean while the owners of the contrived rules were busy slowing prototypes down,----(as far as top speed any way, but they gave them enough aero tricks to corner faster as they knew the ignorant fans would could not tell the differance anyway)--- and just like GARRA and the France boys, no way in hell were they going to let production based cars go fast enough to challenge the supposely exulted prototypes so the steady march, to making the GT class not only less powerful than the p cars but less than the cars rolling off of the productions line, was steam-rolling foreward.

By the way—I see zero evidence that most fans hate current GT racing. ROFLMAO-- Hate, no one said they hate anything.

A pathetic state of affairs?
OH yes the IMSA is doing SO WELL. Tracks fighting for races because people are buying so many tickets.

If I want to hear people hating on racing I can go to IndyCar websites, where all kinds of pointless life-and-death battles are commonplace. I expect a bit more here.
If you do not like what is written, do not read it.
No one hear hates anything. They are extremely disappointed and annoyed at the sad state of affairs but that is far from hate.
Now what the IMSA fans used to say about GARRA, that was close to hate but even that was more like arrogance but it seems nowadays that GARRA or what ever the official tiltle is now, may have the last laugh.(I do loathe the France boy in control, but that is just me)

Go to a few IndyCar sites, and you will see people calling for a return to front-engines, cars, American drivers only, oval racing only, racing on dirt … all patently ridiculous suggestions.
Ridiculous?
No one calls for American drivers only, they do not like the buy a ride rich boys that have taken over.
There are just as many who want road races only as want ovals only.
Nothing wrong with putting the dirt tracks back on the trail, unless you have a real reason why that is wrong. It was and is a national championship. There are dirt tracks in the nation that used to be on the trail, and such unimportant drivers as Mario Andretti and Al Unser, both fairly accomplished road racers complained till their owner built them cars for those lowly dirt tracks; therefore if they are ridiculous- defend your rhetoric.

So give proof for your "ridiculous" statement.

Suggesting that manufacturers should build street cars to support racing is not going to happen again. “Win on Sunday …” etc has been proven not to work. Maybe when gas was 35 cents a gallon, but nowadays, no. Not enough people are going to watch Corvette race and rush out to buy a new Corvette, they way they might have with a Ford Torino or Plymouth Superbird (of course, part of that was because those cars were relatively much cheaper and the audiences Much larger.)
Give your proof.
Not your opinon, your proof Win on Sunday failed.
Detroit spends millions to build engines for NASCAR. To sell cars. That is the ONLY reason Detroit does anything.
Chevrolet probably spent millions in the IMSA but the contrived rules of the IMSA could not get any competition for them to stick around.
Of course allowing things like special small-port cylinder heads to be used on the factory cars, but not available to anyone else, which was NEVER allowed during GT haydays of the past, probably was one of the reasons.
Win on Sunday did not fail, the contrived spec. rules of the ACO/IMSA failed in the USA.

Nowadays racing is done not to directly sell copies of race cars but to create “brand identities’ and associated “image.”
Oh yeah right.
Let's see Chevrolet who used to be "The Heartbeat of America" is now using "Chevy runs deep" which Business Insider considers the worst slogan ever is just going to use the "image" of it performance cars to sell fwd crap-wagons, hmmm, well a company that creates what business professionals consider the worst slogan ever-- maybe you are right after all.
They could be that stupid.

Debating with people.... Debating?
When have you debated?
You give your opinion and I almost expect the old Cronkite tag "And that's the way it is" as you make your opinion the final word.

Therefore the commercial offerings will not be equivalent. Therefore to race these cars, adjustments must be made.
So what?
It was done for decades very, very successfully.
It has been less than twenty years since that was totally screwed up in the US.

We saw that in ALMS with BMW. The M3 couldn’t compete in street form. It needed massive modifications.
Every GT raced in a top-line professional race since 1968 has needed and HAD "massive modifications".

So what?

``

[Maelochs]

"Every GT raced in a top-line professional race since 1968 has needed and HAD "massive modifications".

So what?"

In other words, performance balancing has been around through all those days you say were the best? (BTW, when road racing qwas bigger than NASCAR, it was because NASCAR was small.)

And your solution is?

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Chiana

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?

So where am I going to see a GT1 category this year?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

So where am I going to see a GT1 category this year?

GT1 didn't die because of this and you know that.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I find the thought of five dozen scam-mobiles rather sad and pathetic.

The differnence between old Formula Vee and bop, not inches cubed, not horse power but the number of rules required to force all cars down to the same level of performance.
Formula Vee was exactly what the name said it was, the current GT classes are a contrived competiotion which proves nothing except how good sanctions are at making rules and low regard they have for the intelligence of the audience.

The old GT1, even to a slight degree including the assinine point where one could build one street car to be homologated. Their performance was controlled by contrived rules but at least they were given enough HP to show that this is what can be done with a street car.
Later when what were really old school prototypes had been banned, it had boiled down to Dodge verses Chevrolet. (OH that'w is right, Chevy got BACK in BECAUSE while Dodge was winning races, the Corvette was considered a boulevard cruiser.)

Part of the blame is Panoz's butt kissing love for the ACO and LeMans combined with the Death of Big Bill France resulting in his inept and greedy off-spring controlling the most important US race track back in the inineties when road racing started its not so slow decline

It is odd how- in your opinion Detroit -- (the companies I am most concerned with though Porsche seems to like to play any road racing game Detroit plays) --will not come for a productioh based series, YET THEY STILL spend millions of dollars to develope new push-rod race engines.
Me thinks that does not compute.

Hell, if one accepts contrived cars from contrived rules, Camaros, Mustangs, Corvettes and Vipers running non-plate NASCAR engines would be one hell of a lot more exciting than the current slowmobiles.

Let's see, you also want race fans who pay the money that keeps racing going in the US, to start their own sanciton, rather than tell sanctions to fix the cluster-f that sanctions in the US created in the nineties?
BRILLIANT!

Final note, back when Ford brought out the new old Mustang, they built a modified production car that they loudly hinted would be good for a race series for such production cars.
Does not sound like they will not play, only that the sanctions are too busy stroking their current god wannabe opinions to bring the type of rules that made road racing great for thirty years, or more.

So what you want is a mix between the old Trans-Am and Can-Am. That's no value to anyone in the US. Except maybe you and a few other. It isn't 1968. NASCAR provides all the marketing the major manufacturers could ever need. They aren't going to waste money on a road racing series who's fans are the biggest niche in all of American road racing. It doesn't sell them any more cars that racing in Grand-Am and CSTCC would, and those series is much cheaper, much more diverse, and much more competitive than your fantasy. Tell me, what would you series bring to any manufacturer?

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Chiana

GT1 didn't die because of this and you know that.

Well the costs got too high, and marques started leaving, then there was no point for the 3 left standing so they quit. It no longer satisfied the needs of the manufacturers. They want to compete. They don't want to be in a 6 car or less class. Without the parity in GT3, I doubt you'd see anyone but Porsche and maybe Ferrari.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

"Every GT raced in a top-line professional race since 1968 has needed and HAD "massive modifications".

So what?"

In other words, performance balancing has been around through all those days you say were the best?
I did not say or imply that in any manner, only you have.

There was no balancing. The cars as long as they fit within the mechanical parameters establishing the minimum and maximums dimensions, they were free to produce as much hp, downforce and grip as they could get the vehicle to do.
No limits, no specs. to be met.


(BTW, when road racing qwas bigger than NASCAR, it was because NASCAR was small.)
Smaller than what?
Your point is?

``

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

So what you want is a mix between the old Trans-Am and Can-Am.

I would prefer the original Trans-Am set-up to going no more radical than the Group 4 style that followed.

[Flyin Ryan]

Read an interesting bit not long ago on balancing of performance from the former technical director of USAC Mike Devin (in the context of the Penske Mercedes Ilmor engine at Indy in '94).

http://forix.autosport.com/8w/penske...ac-reacts.html

First let’s start with engines rules in general at Indianapolis. Historically engine rules have always been based on an equivalency formula. Any time an equivalency formula is used, in a technical arena, it can only be accurate for a short period of time. Technical advances will always move one platform ahead of the others. Additionally the idea that an equivalency formula should remain unchanged totally contradicts the function of an equivalency formula.

The 500 had always embraced an equivalency formula as it sparked innovation. This was a major part of automotive history and diversity always held the spectators interest. At one time there were normally aspirated four valve and stock blocks, supercharged and turbocharged four valve and stock blocks plus diesels, turbines, two-cycles and whatever else somebody could think up. This was a noble position and worked well for many decades.

Bob Riebe: In other words, performance balancing has been around through all those days you say were the best?
I did not say or imply that in any manner, only you have.

There was no balancing. The cars as long as they fit within the mechanical parameters establishing the minimum and maximums dimensions, they were free to produce as much hp, downforce and grip as they could get the vehicle to do.
No limits, no specs. to be met.

What the former USAC technical director has to say about that:

With the rapid advancements in technology, however, it became impossible for an independent or individual to compete with the factories. Factories would come to include car manufacturers and specialty engine companies. The advent of computer aided design, computer aided manufacturing, finite analysis and computer simulations, etc took the amateur out of the picture. This along with the vast and expensive machinery available to the factories changed the landscape forever.

That's even worse today (18 years later) and not only applies to factory vs. independent/privateer, but factory vs. other factory.

So what you want is a mix between the old Trans-Am and Can-Am. That's no value to anyone in the US.

I personally think Trans-Am can work if it's being ran by an organization more professional than the SCCA.

Maelochs: What you are leaving out of the equation is the size of the fanbase and the fans’ rabid brand loyalty. Sports car racing doesn’t attract as many fans in a season as NASCAR does for one well-attended race (television included.)

Correct Maelochs, so how on earth does a race series with Porsches and Lamborghinis and Ferraris ever make sense with little manufacturer support because there are not as many fans unless those cars put ride buyers (rich gentlemen that are usually not quick just wanting a nice Sunday drive) in all the cars just so they can be on the grid?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TF110

I think AJR Lotus may take for pole in GTE- thanks to their extreme weight break.

As ridiculous as that adjustment is (the car is now more than 10% below the GTE base weight!), I don't think the Evora is front running material even with those gifts. At least I would hope so.

I can already hear O'Connell saying "how wonderful development have they done since Long Beach, this is truly amazing"


**************************************
this post was moved from another thread

[Purist]

Okay, when exactly did base weight for GT2 change from 1100kg?

[Deleted]

I can't believe I'm even suggesting this but:

LMGTE: Why not change constant, often totally random performance balancing to success ballast? I mean, it basically does the same excact things, better cars are punished and weaker awarded for no reason whatsoever. It's unfair and very unsportsmanship, but so is BoP. So let's just use mandatory weight penalties according to finishing positions in races instead, use the FIA GT model or whatever. There are number of "advantages" with this system:

* Success ballast is not random or favourable, and is not dictated behind the closed doors
* Everybody immediately knows what they and opposition are going to get for next race
* You cannot lobby for more BoP - except waivers but that's another thing
* Simply heavier cars still have a fairer shot at the championship than those with massive BoP penalties and/or opposition with bigger breaks
* Air restrictors, fuel flow, wings etc are left untouched
* If you only penalise those who succeed, in ideal situation the weaker cars would get no weight reductions and would therefore run without any breaks
* You will see the TRUE pace of the cars on the very first race of the season which is always Sebring for me (preferably at Le Mans all the weights would be ignored too)

Again, all these methods are wrong and idiotic and I'd rather see cars battling it out without any ridiculous WWE-rules and handicaps, but if I had to choose between regular BoP and success ballast... well I see this as the lesser evil

This same could probably be applied to LMP2 if they insist on having BoP there too

[urdragon]

The difference between BOP and succes ballast is BOP prevents the increase of the cost issues automatically because made it useless to spend money, the SB hides or attenuates the best cars performance so it will take further time to dominate a championship until the weight will fade in succesive rounds but after it vanishes, the most performant cars will win again, or made more points.

SB only attenuates results and makes the mass audience not understand why a car is punished for winning, and for example why a car suitable for fast corners, even does not win at tracks like Monza, cause SB (Cause won in round before).

For me BOP should reflect the road car weakness, and strong points, that should be heavily studied before homologation of racing cars, if it is not done, but that's other question.

[Deleted]

The most performant cars are supposed to win.

Mass audience doesn't know / care about balancing or success weights so it doesn't matter a bit, you just have to look at the comments on some of the, umm, "less sophicated motorsport forums" and you see that people don't really know much about these cars. And BoP already punishes cars that are winning (*cough Ferrari*) and awarding those who have spent 250 dollars and 10 man-hours to product development (*cough Evora*).

So success ballast for me.

[urdragon]

Originally Posted by Chiana

The most performant cars are supposed to win.

Remember that will shorten the variety of the cars battling, cause not all brands can afford such spend, so it degenerates the classes till they dissapear as we have seen with GT1 and before.

Originally Posted by Chiana

Mass audience doesn't know / care about balancing or success weights so it doesn't matter a bit, you just have to look at the comments on some of the, umm, "less sophicated motorsport forums" and you see that people don't really know much about these cars.

Yes but, success ballast hides cars perfoming abilities regarding to circuit layout, conditionated by previous results, that's not really beautiful.

Originally Posted by Chiana

And BoP already punishes cars that are winning (*cough Ferrari*) and awarding those who have spent 250 dollars and 10 man-hours to product development (*cough Evora*).

So success ballast for me.

Thats totally true, but a "racing result of a GT3 or a GTE" will not change the fact the ???? is the best car on track, the specialised press or yourself if you can afford it can confirm this.

Regarding to the brands "Fame", that's the most true that a brand can promote better herself by spending more on the cars, but that spiral would end on single cars competitions like Corse clienti, Supertrofeo, boring to most fans.

I prefer to separate brand cars (GTE maybe) with higher budget to customer cars with lowers, and also I would use prestational limits to cars like evora or BMW Z4, but the customer teams (If the cars and ruleset were consistently built) would not chose that cars, instead of a 458 this may be proven by seeing how many amateurs align those cars on races like 24h of spa (They pay for driving real cars, not joke cars). This (evora or BMW Z4) cars live on brand efforts and not in true road car paces.

[trickyd]

I don't like BOP in general, but I can live with it in amatuer series where it is about gentlemen drivers having a laugh and manufacturers are not represented as such, and so to stop the bloke with the Ferrari winning all the time they put a suit case full of bricks in his boot. Thats fine by me because I don't watch (or want to watch) a load of gentlemen messing around on a Sunday afternoon. So in the context of GT3 and GT4 its ok. But in professional, top level series, i.e World Endurance Championship and GT World Championship I think it is wrong. If a manufacturer wants to beat Porsche/Ferarri/McLaren or whoever they should go to the trouble of building a car which is as good as theirs, or better. No just turn up with a fairly powerful, heavy coupe and wait for the rule makers to hobble the opposition. And if thats too expensive, and a manufacturer says 'oh but we don't want to make such an expensive, impractical car nobody will buy", why are they racing against such cars and what are they trying to prove? It gives crappy mass manufacturers a shot at the glory and glamour of the genuine performance car manufacturers, without having to compete with them. Its like tying footballers legs together to allow a team of fat plebs to compete with them.
To get around it I'd have a GT Championship, for the proper stuff, and an amatuer championship, not on TV or owt, for the gents to mess around and for Stephane Ratel to feck around with balancing until his heart is content. In if the GT Championship goes pop because everyone is in a Ferrari or a McLaren then we will all just have to admit that GT's are only really support for the main act anyway and go and watch the WEC!

[Maelochs]

Part of the problem there is that there is a limited market for pure sports cars. A small company like Ferrari can afford to build a serious sports car; (of course Ferrari is a division of Fiat which is a global company building a huge range of vehicles.) A really large company like GM can afford to build one, because it too has a huge range of vehicles supporting its boutique cars.

BMW doesn’t think it can profitably build a specialty car to compete with Corvette and Ferrari for a limited market share. So in your plan, BMW should either bankrupt itself to build an homologation special, or leave GT racing?

How many cars could compete with the 458 without waivers? Evern Corvette needs a special engine waiver; Corvette really doesn’t build a car which fits the class. In fact, almost no one does. Audi could homologate the R10 with a V8 engine; otherwise, who has a car which, head to head, can match the mid-engines pure sports car of Ferrari.

Seems to me you are trying to make GT a single-make Ferrari-Challenge clone.

For what it’s worth, I agree with your dream. I wish that GT could be filled with real sports/GT cars, all built to a single set of rules, with absolutely no waivers. I wish manufacturers could afford to build lines of sports cars specifically to provide a base car for LMGTE.

I wish a lot of things.

I cannot start a car company, pump it of big enough to build a GTE homologation special, and enter GT racing with a Ferrari-beater. I am not an engineer or a businessman, I have no capital and no access to capital for such a crazy undertaking, and pretty much no faith that such a car could be built profitably.

The market is too small, and pretty much the only profitable options are supercars or mass-produced compromised sports cars (Corvette lovers won’t tolerate a mid-engined model, and most customers need a back seat, if only big enough to park the kid in a pinch.)

BoP is pretty much a necessary evil if we want the world’s best sports cars to have any other cars to race. IMO.

[trickyd]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Pa
BMW doesn’t think it can profitably build a specialty car to compete with Corvette and Ferrari for a limited market share. So in your plan, BMW should either bankrupt itself to build an homologation special, or leave GT racing?

Yes, and compete in Touring Cars, because BMW build fast saloon cars. Should Ferrari be allowed to stretch the 599 and bung 2 more seats in it so they can go head to head with BMW in Touring Cars? No, that would be ridiculous, so why is the reverse ok? In the early 1970's there was only really the 911, Ferrari Daytona and a few mad Corvette's. In the 60's there was the Ferrari GTO and Shelby Cobra/Daytona. Was that an issue? I don't think it was, in fact it was a golden age. GT's have only been a class/series on their own since the fall of Group C, previously, and currently in GTE, they were/are the grid fillers for want of a better word, behind the prototypes who are the spectacle. Whenever they have had a small chance in the limelight, Group 5 and late 90's GT1, they were essentially prototypes anyway. Since then Ratel has tried all kinds of mad schemes to try and make a success of a global GT series, all of which so far have fell flat on their arse after encountering major obstacles. Flogging a dead horse I believe the phrase is.