[FIA GT] GT1 FIA = GT1 ACO according to Stephane Ratel

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by pitviper

I do agree actually that they could be even a bit more wild looking and be plenty fine with me. I love the way the Super GT cars look and would love to see the Super GT "treatment" that we see on the GTR, Z, Supra, SC430, and NSX applied to a Viper, Aston, or F599... sheesh... gives me chills just thinking about it...

Me too, but for entirely the opposite reasons!!!!

Silhouette Aston or Ferrari??? eugh........

[JAG]

Originally Posted by geeteeone

A few problems with this, the first being that the lighter you make the cars, the more expense is involved in converting a road car to meet the formula. In road form most of these cars are topping 1500kgs, it's not easy at all to pair them down to the minimum weight as it is. Ratel's suggestion calls for a slightly heavier minimum weight as less changes from the road car are required to get down to the limit.

The second - trying to push the current GT2 engine formula up to 550hp is going to cause problems for the smaller engined cars such as the Porsche. I'm sure they could do it, but the engine development required to do this would surely push up the costs. The only way the current 911 GT3 RSR engine would get anywhere near this figure is to remove the air restrictors altogether!

Of course, if they were to slap a turbo on it...

Ratels plan is for larger Grand Tourers, current GT2's have run at 1100kg (now 1150kg) for years and have a sliding power to weight ratio.

The top GT2's have been putting out around 500bhp for some time, an extra 5% restrictor area is simply giving them back what has been taken away in recent years and will take then a second or so closer to the all new GT1's, whether they actually reach 550bhp doesn't matter.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Sorry to break the flow briefly but i'm not so sure about this. I agree with you about bad business to push gas guzzlers etc but all the makes who built big bangers for current GT1 have similar size cars in their range and still turn out concept cars to the same kind of spec, for the road at least.

It's only Porsche out of the 'big' firms who don't have a bigger car and they're more interested in prototype racing anyway aren't they?

Ferrari and/or Maserati, Aston, Jag, Corvette, BMW, Merc (i bet there's more besides) plus the smaller firms like K-segg, Saleen, Pagani etc all have big cars ready and available to adapt to big class GT racing which suits Ratel down to the ground I reckon?

On the one hand you have hyper cars from niche manufacturer's who find it a struggle to stay in business and haven't supported GT1 for the past decade, on the other large Grand Tourer's that are more luxory than sporting.

In the late 80's, early 90's F40's, 959's, XJ220's etc., were significantly quicker than said manufacturer's regular sporting models. These days the 430 Scuderia and 911 GT3 are more powerful and quicker than old school supercars, and can even lap quicker than an Enzo.

I'm not sure I really want to watch 1300kg, 600bhp luxory cruisers battling it out, it's a far cry from the late 90's purpose built 900kg, 650bhp big bangers.

My interest is the spec of the car, that's why I've followed Group C/IMSA GTP - 90's GT1 - LMP1 Coupe, they're essentially the same cars.

[AndrewF31]

Hi,

I'm new here but have been watching sportscar racing for a good 10 years and I just would like to know if for once the GT1 rules will now be common for all competitions from 2010? As we've seen the past years, ALMS, LMS, GT1 and even LeMans tend to have different rules for the class, and that alone, in my opinion, brought the death of the class. It's about time they align themselves and establish a common set of rules so that you won't have the funny business we've seen with so many cars being left out of the LeMans 24 hrs due to the different rules (the most blatant of them all being Maserati).

I will really enjoy seeing the new GT2 Corvette come the second half of the season but it should be interesting what this new class will bring us.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AndrewF31

Hi,

I'm new here but have been watching sportscar racing for a good 10 years and I just would like to know if for once the GT1 rules will now be common for all competitions from 2010? As we've seen the past years, ALMS, LMS, GT1 and even LeMans tend to have different rules for the class, and that alone, in my opinion, brought the death of the class. It's about time they align themselves and establish a common set of rules so that you won't have the funny business we've seen with so many cars being left out of the LeMans 24 hrs due to the different rules (the most blatant of them all being Maserati).

I will really enjoy seeing the new GT2 Corvette come the second half of the season but it should be interesting what this new class will bring us.

Welcome to Ten Tenths AndrewF31

Hmm, FIA GT and ACO GT 1 and 2 have been somewhat aligned for a couple of years now with only a slight difference which allowed for running under both sanctioning bodies with very little change.

The commonality (or not) of the rules is not the issue that has brought about the death of the current (rule-set) GT-1!

As to the rule-set of the top GT class moving forward from this point: That is the Million Dollar question at the moment. We shall see!


L.P.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by AndrewF31

(the most blatant of them all being Maserati).

I'd say it's the only notable one, and that was outside all rules to begin with - the FIA just changed theirs to let it compete, the ACO didn't.

[juicy sushi]

i hope this idea fails miserably and never comes to pass. GT1 has been proven not to have legs.

the manufacturers aren't interested, new rules don't serve the sport by once again dividing teams and grids into different classes which dilute the overall quality of the racing.

the "big bangers" are either worse cars than their smaller siblings (the 599 and murcielago), or are small manufacturers who build barely legal cars which only exist in tiny volumes.

in gt2 there are 5 major manufacturers which will field cars this year (porsche, ferrari, bmw, corvette and aston martin), and well developed other entries exist in the spyker and the reiter gallardo. under the rules, they will be available to customers, making a broad range of affordable cars which can be raced.

so far, for these new gt1 rules, there is only a nissan which isn't using the proper engine. in gt racing, it's supposed to be the street car. that means the same motor. otherwise, by definition it's not gt racing.

diluted grids split in different classes makes for less economically viable racing, and a more boring product. i don't find gt1 to be more spectacular than gt2, and in fact, find it less interesting because it basically consists entirely of old cars.

i don't see any positive to this idea in any way, shape or form. i am sick of classes flaming out after 2-3 years with a lot of people out of work or poorer because the concept didn't work. i want stable rules that lead to stable, large grids, stable livelihoods for participants and stable, profitable events. this idea accomplishes none of that, and, in fact, makes things worse...

[Purist]

Two to three years? GTS/GT1 in its current guise came about in 1999, which counting this year, equates to ELEVEN seasons with this GT class structure. And really, these two classes started alongside the old GT1s (as GT2 and GT3), which began in 1994 or so. That gives you SIXTEEN seasons with the framework of the two GT classes we have at this time. If that's instability, I don't know what on Earth you're looking for, but you won't find it.

As I keep saying Sushi, it's not really possible to provide a good single-class platform that covers the range of engine displacements. The rules allow for it, but there haven't been the "big bangers" in GT2, because they get too choked off by the air restrictors. Meanwhile, the restrictors in GT1 mean that the smaller engines are left gasping trying to keep up. BTW, if a car that doesn't share the same engine with the road-going model isn't a GT, then the GT2 Corvette C6 is NOT a GT because it doesn't use the 427-cid V8; I don't care is it's still technically an LS, it's not the 427, period.

And on a personal note, there NEEDS to be a place for V12s in sportscar racing, and hopefully in GTs, because we're almost sure as heck NOT going to see them in GT2. Not to mention a Gallardo is a poor substitute for a Murcielago (and looks like a squiched, length-wise, Murcielago that came out wrong).

As to the Maserati comment, it's a strange episode that. There were originally planned to be allowances for supercars by the ACO, but they changed their minds in the middle of the MC12's development. The FIA and ALMS made dispensation to allow the car. I think the Maserati is the best looking car I've seen on the sportscar grids since the old GT1s, and perhaps the Bentley Speed 8. Frankly, in my book it was an utterly assinine call on the part of the ACO, and I have ZERO sympathy for them on that one.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Purist

BTW, if a car that doesn't share the same engine with the road-going model isn't a GT, then the GT2 Corvette C6 is NOT a GT because it doesn't use the 427-cid V8; I don't care is it's still technically an LS, it's not the 427, period.

What?? The C6 Corvette is offered with a 6.2L and the C6-Z06 a 7.0L engine! The ZR-1 a 6.2L supercarged engine.



L.P.

[Purist]

The only one I was aware of being used in the C6 was the 7.0-litre unit. The ZR-1 is a separate kettle of fish. Also, is the GT2 Vette using the 6.2-litre or a 5.5-litre lump, as some seem to be saying?

[juicy sushi]

Originally Posted by Purist

Two to three years? GTS/GT1 in its current guise came about in 1999, which counting this year, equates to ELEVEN seasons with this GT class structure. And really, these two classes started alongside the old GT1s (as GT2 and GT3), which began in 1994 or so. That gives you SIXTEEN seasons with the framework of the two GT classes we have at this time. If that's instability, I don't know what on Earth you're looking for, but you won't find it.

the class has existed, but major participation has not. the last new car developed by a manufacturer and entered in gt1 was what? the grid has essentially become the exact same cars year after year for over half a decade at this point. not the same models, but the same cars because new ones aren't being built.

As I keep saying Sushi, it's not really possible to provide a good single-class platform that covers the range of engine displacements. The rules allow for it, but there haven't been the "big bangers" in GT2, because they get too choked off by the air restrictors.

the big bangers are either the less sporty offerings of those manufacturers, or they come from tiny companies whose entire production run could be counted on your hands with half the production run consisting of the actual gt1 cars. they might as well have just been placed in the prototype category.

the big bangers wouldn't be appreciably faster under these rules (or at all, in fact), and aren't a viable class structure. in particular, they don't succeed outside of europe at all. it would be a thoroughly useless class for the ACO, and global sports car racing.

Meanwhile, the restrictors in GT1 mean that the smaller engines are left gasping trying to keep up. BTW, if a car that doesn't share the same engine with the road-going model isn't a GT, then the GT2 Corvette C6 is NOT a GT because it doesn't use the 427-cid V8; I don't care is it's still technically an LS, it's not the 427, period.

as horndawg pointed out, the base corvette is a 6.0 litre v8. the Z06 has a 7 litre V8, and the ZR-1 has a 6.2 litre supercharged V8. the GT2 corvette will still be a gt. no trickery there.

And on a personal note, there NEEDS to be a place for V12s in sportscar racing, and hopefully in GTs, because we're almost sure as heck NOT going to see them in GT2. Not to mention a Gallardo is a poor substitute for a Murcielago (and looks like a squiched, length-wise, Murcielago that came out wrong).

i don't care about the number of cylinders, just the quality of sound. and i have to completely disagree about the lambos. the murcielago looks quite fat and gimmicky to my eyes. the gallardo has clean, correct proportions. it's also a significantly better car in every respect.

As to the Maserati comment, it's a strange episode that. There were originally planned to be allowances for supercars by the ACO, but they changed their minds in the middle of the MC12's development. The FIA and ALMS made dispensation to allow the car. I think the Maserati is the best looking car I've seen on the sportscar grids since the old GT1s, and perhaps the Bentley Speed 8. Frankly, in my book it was an utterly assinine call on the part of the ACO, and I have ZERO sympathy for them on that one.

i see it the other way. if ferrari wanted to race the enzo, they should have raced the enzo. a faux-maserati making an end run around the rules 911 GT1 style wasn't in the interests of the class. and i have always found it the ugliest gt car of the last decade. the proportions were all wrong, with a huge greenhouse and overhangs that made it look ponderous...

[juicy sushi]

Originally Posted by Purist

The only one I was aware of being used in the C6 was the 7.0-litre unit. The ZR-1 is a separate kettle of fish. Also, is the GT2 Vette using the 6.2-litre or a 5.5-litre lump, as some seem to be saying?

the 6.2 this year, a 5.5 the next. both are from the same engine, just different displacement levels.

the zr-1 isn't a separate kettle of fish, it's still a 'vette, just another model in the range...

[eddsc]

i want stable rules that lead to stable, large grids, stable livelihoods for participants and stable, profitable events. this idea accomplishes none of that, and, in fact, makes things worse...

What admirable concepts - and you're right, this 'latest big idea' doesn't even hint at your targets. One hour races, very few cars currently being put forward (and one is so old as to have no value in marketing terms), cars that don't fit any kind of green agenda, huge transport costs (which don't either) and a formula that didn't appeal to the manufacturers (who wanted GT2 cars which they could 'let rip' with no restrictors). Oh dear, where is this championship going?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by eddsc

What admirable concepts - and you're right, this 'latest big idea' doesn't even hint at your targets. One hour races, very few cars currently being put forward (and one is so old as to have no value in marketing terms), cars that don't fit any kind of green agenda, huge transport costs (which don't either) and a formula that didn't appeal to the manufacturers (who wanted GT2 cars which they could 'let rip' with no restrictors). Oh dear, where is this championship going?

Hopefully in the crapper!!!



L.P.

[JAG]

I wouldn't mind GT2 cars with no restrictors.

They've only been pegged back in order to maintain a performance gap to GT1.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by eddsc

What admirable concepts - and you're right, this 'latest big idea' doesn't even hint at your targets. One hour races, very few cars currently being put forward (and one is so old as to have no value in marketing terms), cars that don't fit any kind of green agenda, huge transport costs (which don't either) and a formula that didn't appeal to the manufacturers (who wanted GT2 cars which they could 'let rip' with no restrictors). Oh dear, where is this championship going?

To be fair, the Ford is a halo-car and so racing it is not just advertisement for the Ford GT, but also for the whole Ford-brand, and it would have been that way even if the GT was still in production or was raced while in production.

[juicy sushi]

the ford gt is a truly sad case. i understand ford's decision not to race in order to preserve it's "legacy", but really, that missed the point. the car might not have worked in gt1, but it would have made a very strong gt2 contender that ford could have sold to a lot of teams looking for a porsche alternative before the ferrari had established itself.

now, it's too late, the car is out of production, and only matech can show what potential the car had...

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

the big bangers wouldn't be appreciably faster under these rules (or at all, in fact), and aren't a viable class structure. in particular, they don't succeed outside of europe at all. it would be a thoroughly useless class for the ACO, and global sports car racing.

What is the basis for this rhetoric?

"cars that don't fit any kind of green agenda, "
There is no such thing as a "green" automobile and there is no green agenda.
Any "agenda" is a political trick they think will fool the obtuse masses, with half-truths and damned lies.
If sports car racing thinks this scam is going to help them they are as intelligent as a pile of hour old camel dung.

[juicy sushi]

uh, bob, i said nothing about green racing.

my comment was that the GT1 class had been a high profile failure outside of europe, and was simply not viable at the world championship level. also, under the rules ratel mentioned, they wouldn't have any advantage over the smaller cars...

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

uh, bob, i said nothing about green racing.

my comment was that the GT1 class had been a high profile failure outside of europe, and was simply not viable at the world championship level. also, under the rules ratel mentioned, they wouldn't have any advantage over the smaller cars...

That quote is not yours, which is why highlighted it.
I assumed that most would see it was from a post above yours.

[Purist]

Well, sushi, I guess I'll never understand your aesthetic tastes. The GT1s are noticeably more brutish and just "evil' looking, and I can tell that even being more than half blind, literally. The Murcielago just looks mean and properly proportioned. As I said, the Gallardo looks squished length-wise, and came out wrong. It also has more of that clinical appearance, which like the 911 GT3 RSR or F430 GT, does NOT belong in the "top" GT class. As Jeremy Clarkson said, "When you're going on a picnic, you have the Germans make the basket, so the handles don't fall off. And you have the Italians make the food. Well, with the Gallardo, they (VAG) let the Germans make zie food." I'm not actually especially fond of the normal road-going Maserati MC12, but the "Competizione" and MC12 Corsa are darn good looking. And thanks to the mandated raised noses in LMP, the ONLY place we'll see those jaw-dropping coupes in sportscar and GT (GT2s are NOT jaw-dropping I'm afraid) is in a GT1 class. I will admit that the new Aston does a good job of hiding that raised center section, but it's not Bentley Speed 8, Porsche 911 GT1, or Sauber-Mercedes C9. It's not purely an aesthetic thing. Those insane GTs are awe-inspiring and attention-getting moreso than any of the other classes, except perhaps selected LMP1s. That has been one area where sportscar racing has for a long time been fairly uniquely spectacular: car desgn and variety. Having those cars that really make people salivate, which is the case for a lot of people and GT1s (much more so than with GT2s), is good for the following and thus the public viability of sportscar racing. Just thinking back on aesthetics, given what you think of the Murcielago and MC12, I would guess that you find the GT2- class Ford GT hideous.

Sorry, but I could say a lot of the same things about GT2. How stable is it really with ow many teams have come and gone since that class showed up. And I don't find a 996 GT3 RSR giving way to a 997 GT3 RSR as an injection of new blood, and the same goes for the F360 GT being replaced by the F430 GT. If you have an issue with Ferrari being half-assed in their sportscar efforts take it up with them (referring to your Enzo comments). Then again, they haven't had a factory sportscar effort since 1973 with the 312PB. And I suppose I'm used to the Corvettes now having the 427, so even though it's still an LS, it's not the same thing to me. Just like "stock" to me means that it is taken right out of the road-going car's engine bay and plunked into the racer without any modifications (except for the suitable electronic adjustments). (Now if we could just get traction control banned in Le Mans competition.)

Racing is supposed to be raucous and impractical and perhaps somewhat environmentally insensitive. We keep taking more and more real world stimulation out of our lives and we wonder why movies and video games are so popular. So what if the "big bangers" are low-volume, impractical, beastly dinosaurs. There still needs to be a place in the class structure for those fire-breathing, earth-shaking monsters. Call me ignorant of economics and of what the manufacturers and the market supposedly want (focus groups are notoriously bad anyway). Call me insane and illogical, I'll take all those sentiments as compliments, since I figure I'd have to be that way to enjoy auto racing as much as I do. Thanks for the affirmation that my love for the sport is alive and well.

[juicy sushi]

Originally Posted by Purist

Well, sushi, I guess I'll never understand your aesthetic tastes.

no problem, i don't understand yours either. that's why there are different cars out there i guess.

Sorry, but I could say a lot of the same things about GT2. How stable is it really with ow many teams have come and gone since that class showed up. And I don't find a 996 GT3 RSR giving way to a 997 GT3 RSR as an injection of new blood, and the same goes for the F360 GT being replaced by the F430 GT.

why? the cars have been purchased in large enough numbers to fill grids globally. manufacturers actually find the class so worthwhile they actually build new versions of the car when the street model changes. meaning they find it commercially worthwhile. only gm did that with the corvette in gt1. and they didn't sell it in large numbers.

the teams may change name, but the cars are being sold, and there is a market for them. these are not the same chassis being raced again and again without replacement. that was the case in gt1. no new cars were being built, because no one wanted to buy them.

And I suppose I'm used to the Corvettes now having the 427, so even though it's still an LS, it's not the same thing to me.

that's fine, but it is still a problem you'll just have to live with. the Z06 is only one model of corvette.

So what if the "big bangers" are low-volume, impractical, beastly dinosaurs. There still needs to be a place in the class structure for those fire-breathing, earth-shaking monsters.

you want there to be a place. that doesn't mean there is one. the cars cost too much, and not enough people were interested in making them. hence the class failed outside europe. within europe outside of ratel, no organization wants to continue with the class either. that says something about how viable it is.

Call me ignorant of economics and of what the manufacturers and the market supposedly want (focus groups are notoriously bad anyway). Call me insane and illogical, I'll take all those sentiments as compliments, since I figure I'd have to be that way to enjoy auto racing as much as I do. Thanks for the affirmation that my love for the sport is alive and well.

no problem...

[geeteeone]

Originally Posted by Purist

Racing is supposed to be raucous and impractical and perhaps somewhat environmentally insensitive. We keep taking more and more real world stimulation out of our lives and we wonder why movies and video games are so popular.

Very well put. I really don't understand the killjoys on here.

It's not like Ratel is proposing keeping the existing GT1 class - clearly that is unsustainable. But what exactly is wrong with a more cost effective GT1 class containing the best of both worlds - fast fire-breathing cars that are actually cost effective to race?

Originally Posted by eddsc

One hour races, very few cars currently being put forward (and one is so old as to have no value in marketing terms), cars that don't fit any kind of green agenda, huge transport costs (which don't either) and a formula that didn't appeal to the manufacturers (who wanted GT2 cars which they could 'let rip' with no restrictors). Oh dear, where is this championship going?

I must admit that the one hour races thing is disappointing, I'm not sure where Ratel is coming from with that one. Perhaps a single 1.5 hour race would have been better.

Who cares about the green agenda, this is sportscar racing! If we are headed down that road then there will come a point when I'm simply not interested any more. Where is the escapism!

As for transport costs, hasn't Ratel already said that the car count is being limited to 24 so that the teams can have free transportation?

Of course the manufacturers wanted an unrestricted GT2 formula - it means they can spend their way to the front of the grid. But I like Ratels idea more, I see it as an extension of the GT3 concept, which has already proved very successful.

Let's not damn the GT1 WC before it has played its full hand, it will either survive or die on its own merits.

[Speed-King]

Another manufacturer?

At this rate the so called "big four" might very well find themselves on the outside looking in come 2010!

Another thought: Could or would Corvette or Porsche keep someone like Callaway or RUF from fielding their cars in GT1?

[Dead-Eye]

What engine would they use, if it's actually supposed to be a GT1?