Grand Am making its move, is it time for ALMS to make its move?

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I don't think that IMSA really wants to speed up the Porsche 911 GT3 cup type cars, as they're nearly as fast as GT2 cars down the straights. What IMSA may do is slow the FIA GT3 cars [...]

Take the Audi R8 LMS for example, since that's the car that a lot of people focus on. I say let them keep the 5.2 liter V10, but slap a smaller restrictor on in and have have Audi make available "budget package" version of it [...]

Not only would that help satify IMSA intentions of keeping the cars slower than GT2s and make performance ballancing easier, it would make the R8 LMS and other GT3 cars-which are nearly as expensive as GT2 cars-cheaper, which in the long run would satisfy Audi, Porsche, and others as their "GT3" cars would be more avialbile from a cost standpoint and can be upgraded to international/FIA GT3 specs by buying an electronics/air restrictor package and maybe the relevant wheels/tires and so on.

Exactly. GTC should be opened to other brands only if they are slower and cheaper than LMGT / GTE cars.

[Fogelhund]

Restrictors, weights and tire sizes are all options that IMSA can employ to slow down/and or equalize these cars out. There shouldn't be anything that can't be made to fit in the category, if desired.

[Subaru_WRX_STi]

frankly it make no sense to have the R8 LMS in GTC, ALMS needs more prototype entries, we already have a booming GT field

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Subaru_WRX_STi

frankly it make no sense to have the R8 LMS in GTC, ALMS needs more prototype entries, we already have a booming GT field

I agree that the ALMS needs more prototypes, but I fail to see a correlation. How would allowing the R8 into GTC, reduce future prototype entries?

[chernaudi]

Audi might not run LMP1s in the ALMS, but they haven't done so full time since 2008 and it's too early as to whether or not that'll happen next year for the R8 (GTC) or R18 (LMP1) to run ALMS outside of the ILMC rounds for the R18 unless Audi feels they have to make another push for diesel technology in the US.

However, with sales of the A3 TDI being healthy and proving a shot in the arm for Audi's four door version of the VW Golf and Audi having no problem selling every Q7 they import into North America (many of which are diesels), I don't see that happening unless Audi expands their NA TDI line up.

Besides, if Audi does run LMPs in the ALMS, they may be R15s anyways, unless the performance balancing restrictions are too strict and favor the R18.

[Subaru_WRX_STi]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

I agree that the ALMS needs more prototypes, but I fail to see a correlation. How would allowing the R8 into GTC, reduce future prototype entries?

no connection at all of course, but I meant that IMSA should work hard to bring some additional LMP entries even with small privateers and more LMPC cars, the GT field is World Class now, thats why I said it make no sense to have the R8 LMS or any other European FIA Spec-GT3 car in the Challenge Class

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by Subaru_WRX_STi

no connection at all of course, but I meant that IMSA should work hard to bring some additional LMP entries even with small privateers and more LMPC cars, the GT field is World Class now, thats why I said it make no sense to have the R8 LMS or any other European FIA Spec-GT3 car in the Challenge Class

As per the title of the thread, both the ALMS and Grand-Am are vying for entries. The ALMS needs all they can get and can't affort to let someone who is looking at a GT3 type entry to pass them up. That is, of course, if your an ALMS fan.

[Subaru_WRX_STi]

now I watched Keke Rosberg interview, he is hoping for an Audi GT1 racer, seems that everyone want that R8 LMS, GA, IMSA, ACO and Ratel ^^

[TWK]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

As per the title of the thread, both the ALMS and Grand-Am are vying for entries. The ALMS needs all they can get and can't affort to let someone who is looking at a GT3 type entry to pass them up. That is, of course, if your an ALMS fan.

Yet, according to a John Dagys piece, pass them up is exactly what Scott Elkins intends to do, because (paraphrasing) "they are too hard to manage for cost and performance."

Granted, Scott, it's a hell of a lot easier to manage a bunch of duplicate Porsches, but is that racing that fans want to see?

(Aside: Elkins' reasoning on wanting a V8 in the R8 shows an astounding lack of technical knowledge of air-restriction performance balancing. I suggest a thorough review of the ill-fated Lamborgini in the ALMS.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally Posted by TWK

Yet, according to a John Dagys piece, pass them up is exactly what Scott Elkins intends to do, because (paraphrasing) "they are too hard to manage for cost and performance."

Granted, Scott, it's a hell of a lot easier to manage a bunch of duplicate Porsches, but is that racing that fans want to see?

(Aside: Elkins' reasoning on wanting a V8 in the R8 shows an astounding lack of technical knowledge of air-restriction performance balancing. I suggest a thorough review of the ill-fated Lamborgini in the ALMS.

I couldn't agree more...Those are my thoughts as well

[HORNDAWG]

I couldn't agree less with this particular slant/take of the Dagys article! The inclusion of more cars into GTC is a good thing. Making sure that the cars included are in the same performance envelope is a smart thing, IMO. To just throw it open and, end up with a FIA like, having to constantly adjust the cars after EVERY race is BS.






L.P.

[Speed-King]

Some more infos on the GARRA-DTM-deal

So it looks like we won't see DTM-cars in the Rolex-series after all, but the goal is now definitely to establish a DTM-only sprint series.

Makes one wonder what DTM ( that is Audi, Merc, and probably BMW) have offered Daytona in return...

[JAG]

I can only see DTM cars being a sub class of Super GT too rather than a replacement for GT500.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by JAG

I can only see DTM cars being a sub class of Super GT too rather than a replacement for GT500.

Don't bet the farm on that quite yet...

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Some more infos on the GARRA-DTM-deal

So it looks like we won't see DTM-cars in the Rolex-series after all, but the goal is now definitely to establish a DTM-only sprint series.

Makes one wonder what DTM ( that is Audi, Merc, and probably BMW) have offered Daytona in return...

I made this point last night, I think fans are getting confused or easily confused.

Some seem to think by talking to DTM about sharing a chassis all of a sudden the cars would look like current spec DTM cars. When discussions between Germany and Japan were talking about sharing chassis between the Super GT and DTM, everybody got excited about Super GT looking cars in DTM or vise-versa.

That is not the case at all.

What they want to share is common components in the car. By sharing the cost of ONE chassis between three series you reduce the cost of the cars across the board. Making it cheaper to build a DTM car and cheaper to build a Super GT car and cheaper to build a Grand Am DP.

The cars would still look like the series they belong too.

Aussie V8's Car of Tomorrow is the same concept and they are looking for other series to SHARE COST with, not all of a sudden have Ford Falcons in SCCA World Challenge for example.

[gucom]

well, the admission of 4-door cars in Super GT does seem to indicate DTM cars possibly racing there, doesn't it? A shared chassis (in this silhouette case) probably doesn't necessitate an equal number of doors (i'm not even sure the rear doors on DTM can open?), but they chose to allow it anyway, so there must be a reason for that...

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by TWK

Yet, according to a John Dagys piece, pass them up is exactly what Scott Elkins intends to do, because (paraphrasing) "they are too hard to manage for cost and performance."

Granted, Scott, it's a hell of a lot easier to manage a bunch of duplicate Porsches, but is that racing that fans want to see?

(Aside: Elkins' reasoning on wanting a V8 in the R8 shows an astounding lack of technical knowledge of air-restriction performance balancing. I suggest a thorough review of the ill-fated Lamborgini in the ALMS.

Astounding doesn't quite cover it, I'm not sure what does, so don't ask -

If he's seen any races this season, he would know the Audi teams are complaining about the lack of pace (Horsepower). This was largely because the teams were handed some new restrictions for 2010.

Taking a page out of Porsche's book on how to treat customers, is anybody surprised at the pace of the factory run R8's either in N24 or Spa 24? That sh*t is no accident, between some very quick drivers and likely more power than what the customer teams have access too, the Audi's were every bit as quick as the GT2 spec BMW's.

There are no Driver restrictions in the once around the clock races like there are in the regular GT3 Championship. So the likelihood of GT3's being on pace with the leading edge of GT2 is unlikely, if you keep that dynamic.

On some tracks (maybe only one) the fastest of the GT3 cars would be flirting with mid-pack of the GT2 field and that's not a bad thing at all really. An LMPC car finished on the overall podium, little mention of that this past weekend, but I sure didn't miss that and seemingly nobody cared.

There are ways we can allow current spec GT3 cars into the series will little fuss.

If somebody appears a bit quicker than they should be, then you can back them up a little bit. I don't want to see what happen to Matech however in 2008 when they just built a better car than everybody else, yet the SRO and FIA kept restricting them. Seems like that's happening again with the Callaway Corvette teams, you can't blame these teams for putting together solid driver line ups and good engineering staffs.

This wouldn't likely happen in ALMS since we aren't using FIA's Driver Rating System. But you could put more ballast on the teams that field known factory drivers in GT3 cars. Not likely but it could happen.

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by gucom

well, the admission of 4-door cars in Super GT does seem to indicate DTM cars possibly racing there, doesn't it? A shared chassis (in this silhouette case) probably doesn't necessitate an equal number of doors (i'm not even sure the rear doors on DTM can open?), but they chose to allow it anyway, so there must be a reason for that...

Well Super GT allowed a car by Honda that doesn't even exist, so allowing cars with 4 doors shouldn't stop anybody. Honda doesn't even have a CAR! But are allowed to race what in effect is a "concept" car.

[chernaudi]

Elkins' stance on this is bull! Performance ballance the cars! You have no trouble in GT2 making a 4.0 Boxer 6, 2 4.0 v8s, a 5.5 V8 and if one wishes to count the Ford GT and the Panoz Esperante a 5.0 V8 rougly equal in power and the cars equally as competitive.

IMSA doesn't want GTC to be a spec class forever, but to do so, they've got to be willing to do the foot work! What does IMSA really want with this class?

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

I made this point last night, I think fans are getting confused or easily confused.

Some seem to think by talking to DTM about sharing a chassis all of a sudden the cars would look like current spec DTM cars. When discussions between Germany and Japan were talking about sharing chassis between the Super GT and DTM, everybody got excited about Super GT looking cars in DTM or vise-versa.

That is not the case at all.

What they want to share is common components in the car. By sharing the cost of ONE chassis between three series you reduce the cost of the cars across the board. Making it cheaper to build a DTM car and cheaper to build a Super GT car and cheaper to build a Grand Am DP.

Nope, this has nothing to do with confused.

There's for once a huge difference between a DP and a DTM-car and it's not just the looks, it's also that one is front-engined and the other mid-engined and one is a simple tube frame car whereas the other is a carbonfibre chassis. You can't just use a DTM-chassis and slip it underneath a DP-shell without some serious reworking probably to the point where it would be the polar oppossite of cost effective...


The problem would be less pronounced with Super GT, but them allowing 4-door cars from 2012 onwards tells me that allowing DTM-cars into the series is exactly what they are planning.

And then, aerodynamic development is a huge part of the budgets in DTM and Super GT, if you come up with a shared ruleset you go all out, to make sure that you don't have to develop two or three completely different sets of bodywork.

[gucom]

@dj4monie: lol, good point, but at least the explicit approval of 4-door cars seems to suggest the chances of it actually happening are pretty good... haven't heard anything of DTM allowing coupés so far though...

[picchiofan]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMSA doesn't want GTC to be a spec class forever, but to do so, they've got to be willing to do the foot work! What does IMSA really want with this class?

Total grid sizes larger than 18.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by gucom

haven't heard anything of DTM allowing coupés so far though...

They ran Coupes until 2003/04 and AFAIK the number of doors in DTM is still free.

[dj4monie]

I also believe Scott is looking at the current performance of a Cup car and comparing that to the current GT3 cars. Porsche has addressed this and built the GT-3R. As was mentioned one or two teams with 2010 cars could make the upgrade up to GT3-R's without a problem.

What happens to the other 8 or so teams in GTC currently is the question? I still think asking Audi to build a specialized R8 just for the ALMS is kinda of stupid. What if somebody wanted to run the car at the Spa 24 or N24 or Dubai 24? They would get their doors blown off by current spec GT3 cars.

I say bring the current cars up to GT3 status and work with Porsche. I'm sure Porsche can workout something in terms of cost, its ultimately sales of new cars, conversion kits or upgrade kits for them in any case.

I believe some teams want to run Audi's, BMW's, Callaway Corvettes or even the Benz SLS. If you introduced a Manufacturers Championship, you wouldn't have a Porsche Parade.

Why doesn't a fan do their own unscientific poll of GTC teams at Road America or Mosport. Why not email Tim Pappas, seems like he's the kind of guy that would answer that question?

I don't think the barrier to allowing more cars in GTC is out of control performance, the FIA cars have been balanced already, you don't have to re-invent the wheel, ACO doesn't have this class. So you take the current FIA regulations and run with them.

The tighter and shorter natural of our tracks might negate the the straight line speed advantage of some of the cars most weekends. The Audi's appear to be really good under braking and better handling than some of the cars, so their complaints of lack of speed would likely only show up at the tracks with the fastest average speeds.

Memo to Scott -

Just get it done.

[Speed-King]

What happens to the other 8 or so teams in GTC currently is the question? I still think asking Audi to build a specialized R8 just for the ALMS is kinda of stupid. What if somebody wanted to run the car at the Spa 24 or N24 or Dubai 24? They would get their doors blown off by current spec GT3 cars.

Why would they want to? How many of them (or any ALMS teams) have wanted to do that until now?

And then could they? Spa and Nürburgring are in the middle of the ALMS season, so any team serious about an ALMS campaign would probably have better things do do around that time of the year.