Maserati Confirmation

[Nordic]

Hopefullly just going thru the motions now. The ACO need to accept the fact the MC12 will race in the US, Aston will race at Sebring, if it gets trounced by the MC12 they can always make a big play of the rule problems, (if on the other hand the MC12 gets trounced will it reappear?)

Both the ALMs and the ACO need each other to some degree, the future of Prototype racing may depend on the outome. I doubt a breakaway by ALMs and the new set of regs that would entail would be good news worldwide.

[JAG]

Aston is completely in the right, the MC12 should not be allowed to race.

Its no good saying 'lets see how quick each car is' before deciding whether the MC12 should be allowed.

The MC12 could quite easily sandbag, and look what happened when an unhomologated car was last allowed to race in a major race series, the mercedes CLK-GTRE in FIA GT.

The ACO probably feel in a much stronger postition than previous years because of the success of the LMES.

[paul-collins]

So, JAG, what's next then, does Richards force FIA to dehomologate the car in FIA-GT, too?

At least now the wolf is out of his sheep's clothing. And I'd say forget about seeing the C5-R or C6.R homologated for FIA-GT competition, too.

I'm sure he'll enjoy the hospitality at Sebring, though.

[JAG]

The MC12 shouldn't be allowed in FIA GT either, but then the FIA has a habit of allowing such things and suffering the consequences down the line. The ACO appear to have learned from their misakes.


The ALMS have panicked in the face of Grand-Am's recent 'success's' and so have waived rules for the MC12. Why not allow the M3 GTR V8 in also?

[Fogelhund]

Here is the bottom line. Prodrive would not field a full season entry in the ALMS. Had they agreed to do so, I am quite certain that the Maserati would have been politely told to go home.

Corvette is spending a decent budget to field a team in the ALMS, and has done so for years. There were quiet suggestions that Vette has leaned on the ALMS that their "interest" in the series would be lessened if there were no competition. To keep Vette, they needed a competitor. There is little marketing value in demonstration runs.

So Richards wants to play his legal cards again to get his own way. How about this, take your ******* Aston's and go home, and here's your entry fee. Prodrive needs to sell X number of cars to break even, and that cause sure wouldn't be made any easier, if the ALMS politely declined to allow any Prodrive cars in their series in the future. Further, the ACO has made it abundantly clear that in order for other entries to be accepted for their LeMans race, these entrants must race prior to acceptance. So how exactly can ACO back peddle on this one if the Aston's don't race? How can a non-race proven car enter LM?

So Mr. Richards, if you can't play nice in the sand box, take your cars home, don't bring them back, and lets see you try and sue to get your cars into LM. For the ACO, if Aston gets thrown out of Sebring, and you accept them as entrants for LM, you can believe that your credibility is completely shot.

With no personal disrespect intended, those Europeans with high levels of principals over this, you just don't understand what is going on in North America. This is a pure example of wishing to spite yourself out of existance. You don't have the same levels of interest invested in this that we do. Without some bending by the ALMS, we end up with DP's. What happens here, doesn't affect you in any meaningful way, including the disappearance of the ALMS. This series needs to be managed in a manner to allow its continuation in the North American market, including what needs to be done to have entrants.

Aston Martin, Go Home.

[tblincoe]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Here is the bottom line. Prodrive would not field a full season entry in the ALMS. Had they agreed to do so, I am quite certain that the Maserati would have been politely told to go home.

Corvette is spending a decent budget to field a team in the ALMS, and has done so for years. There were quiet suggestions that Vette has leaned on the ALMS that their "interest" in the series would be lessened if there were no competition. To keep Vette, they needed a competitor. There is little marketing value in demonstration runs.

So Richards wants to play his legal cards again to get his own way. How about this, take your ******* Aston's and go home, and here's your entry fee. Prodrive needs to sell X number of cars to break even, and that cause sure wouldn't be made any easier, if the ALMS politely declined to allow any Prodrive cars in their series in the future. Further, the ACO has made it abundantly clear that in order for other entries to be accepted for their LeMans race, these entrants must race prior to acceptance. So how exactly can ACO back peddle on this one if the Aston's don't race? How can a non-race proven car enter LM?

So Mr. Richards, if you can't play nice in the sand box, take your cars home, don't bring them back, and lets see you try and sue to get your cars into LM. For the ACO, if Aston gets thrown out of Sebring, and you accept them as entrants for LM, you can believe that your credibility is completely shot.

With no personal disrespect intended, those Europeans with high levels of principals over this, you just don't understand what is going on in North America. This is a pure example of wishing to spite yourself out of existance. You don't have the same levels of interest invested in this that we do. Without some bending by the ALMS, we end up with DP's. What happens here, doesn't affect you in any meaningful way, including the disappearance of the ALMS. This series needs to be managed in a manner to allow its continuation in the North American market, including what needs to be done to have entrants.

Aston Martin, Go Home.

i couldn't agree with you more Fogelhund...

although i do believe that this is just saber-rattling by ACO and Prodrive and that there is no doubt in my mind that both DBR-9s will be present at Sebring

[Fogelhund]

Dave Richards doesn't believe in Sabre Rattling, nor is much of a sportsman.

Aston Martin just couldn't buy this type of Goodwill could they? (sarcasm!!)

[JAG]

Ferrari have f***** up F1 good and proper, now they are well on their way to doing the same in GT1!

[Fogelhund]

Urgent - Could someone please email me the full contents of the Autosport article.

[Fogelhund]

Recieved, thanks.

[alfasud]

Originally Posted by JAG

The ALMS have panicked in the face of Grand-Am's recent 'success's' and so have waived rules for the MC12. Why not allow the M3 GTR V8 in also?

Slightly different.... M3 GTR was for the GT class and for whatever reason BMW believed they would be able to race with a V8 engine (and other non production based features) and I understand were allowed to race for a time (one season?). But they never built the M3 GTR road cars (other than one or two prototypes), so naturally Porsche protested.

Now Maserati wish to race the MC12 in GTS and for whatever reason, when building the MC-12, believed the physical size (which is the main issue) would have been allowed. Unlike BMW they can't rectify the situation by building production cars of the same specification, nor can they simply change to a production based engine.... they've already built the production cars and it is the production based engine. There are no quick bolt on fixes.

I agree that ulimately they should build a car that fully complies with ACO regs including physical dimentions.

[PascaLM]

Technical rules are made to be applied and respected.

[JAG]

If the FIA, like the ACO, had taken a firm stand with the MC12 in the first place a reprofiled MC12 would be up and running now.

Maserati cocked up big time, hoping to force through a 'Super' GT class etc. They should be forced to sit out until they build a legal car.

Isn't it ironic that protests led by F1 giant Ferrari would have forced out F1 minnows Minardi in the Aussie GP, if Minardi had not made last minute changes to their car, in order to comply with the letter of the regs!

Maybe Ferrari/Maserati should be given some of their own medicine!

[kdr]

Originally Posted by JAG

If the FIA, like the ACO, had taken a firm stand with the MC12 in the first place a reprofiled MC12 would be up and running now.

Maserati cocked up big time, hoping to force through a 'Super' GT class etc. They should be forced to sit out until they build a legal car.

any news on their "legal" car? i for one still don't believe we'll now ever see it.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by kdr

any news on their "legal" car? i for one still don't believe we'll now ever see it.

Because of the FIA homologating the 'illegal' MC12, the revised car is only scheduled to arrive next season.

Thats if they don't get another waiver!

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by PascaLM

Technical rules are made to be applied and respected.

Like the "no connection between the wing endplates and the bodywork" rule?

Back to the rules - Maserati, should they choose to create a narrower car, only have to do it for the race car. That's the way the rules read.

As for the dimension's being sacrosanct, both the ACO and FIA have exemption clauses. FIA say that performance controls will be implemented at their discretion; ACO say you need "full CEE homologation" and have to produce 300 cars. Now, I don't know what CEE homologation is, but it's a shame that the Maserati can't claim the Enzo as part of the build count, since the drive train and (I think) chassis are common...

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by JAG

If the FIA, like the ACO, had taken a firm stand with the MC12 in the first place a reprofiled MC12 would be up and running now.

Maserati cocked up big time, hoping to force through a 'Super' GT class etc. They should be forced to sit out until they build a legal car.

Originally Posted by PascaLM

Technical rules are made to be applied and respected.

Look, its time to clarify something here, and its been repeated numerous times so I don't know how you folks keep missing it.

Maserati took their technical drawings including dimensions to the ACO early on in the project. The ACO gave their verbal blessing on all aspects, and were led to believe that they would be compliant with the new rules.

Maserati built a car that they thought would meet the regulations. This is not the first time that this has happened, and surely won't be the last. Corvette had similar issues.

So the general consensus from our European friends is that they would prefer to see Maserati sit on the sidelines, and have GM pursue other projects then the C.6R then?

FWIW, Maserati has basically been given a one year exemption by the ALMS, nothing more. There will be no full season Aston entrants until next season at best anyway, so the crying has no sympathy from me.

[kdr]

i often see the word "homologation", but don't really understand its meaning. anyone care to enlighten me?

[Bob Riebe]

I absoultely believe that Bucky Cat should mediate this problem, for it is obvious that Satchel represents the ACO.

Bob

[JAG]

OK, I can see the ALMS' point of view, but I believe there needs to be compromise on both sides.

If Aston wants the Maserati out, they need to be willing to compete in at least 50% of the ALMS season.

On the other hand Maserati needs to give some firm details as the when the new car will be ready. Maybe they could give an undertaking that it will be ready after Le Mans?

When did Maserati go to the ACO/FIA? This car has been rumoured for a good 2-3 years, in which time regs have changed a number of times.

I was under the impression the MC12 had not been legal under ACO regs for at least 2 years, but was legal in the FIA series, hence why it was a shock that the car was imitially refused homologation.

I belive full CEE homologation requies extensive crash, emmisions testing etc. and is required for all mass produced cars. Many smaller companies like TVR can recieve some kind localised low volume type approval.

All of the old GT1 cars required full CEE approval. Cars like the Lister Storm GTL and TVR Speed 12 oly had low volume type approval and so were barred from FIA GT, even though only one actual production car was requried.

I would assume the MC12 already has this CEE approval, but quite obviously not the 300 raod cars!

[tblincoe]

Fogelhund hit the nail on the head in this one... eveyone thinks that Maserati just said "screw you, we're going to build an illegal car" this is absolutley false and is presumptious at best if mentioned.

ACO has jerked manufacturers around in the GT1/GTS class before, specifically with Corvette in 97/98/99. Maserati was given the green light to build the car before they went ahead with the program, and once it was built, ACO said, "oh crap, we screwed up, it looks like a supercar" the ACO is just trying to cover its butt right now by saying they "dissaprove, blah blah blah" just to make sure they look good if something goes wrong.

as for Prodrive, i really don't care. they were only going to race at Sebring and Petit/Laguna, and after that they were going to sell the cars to privateer teams to run with either factory support or by themselves. i think its absolutely ridiculous of Richards to do this though, because they are going to racing against a FULLY competitive MC12 at Silverstone anyways. The MC12 in the ALMS will be controlled and restricted to the point where the ALMS will be hell-bent on making sure the MC12 won't run away with the race. i dont see why everyone has their panties in a bundle before this car has even hit the track... its absolutely ridiculous how people think this car is going to be 5 seconds faster than the others in its class.

[fazzaz]

Originally Posted by JAG

If the FIA, like the ACO, had taken a firm stand with the MC12 in the first place a reprofiled MC12 would be up and running now.

Maserati cocked up big time, hoping to force through a 'Super' GT class etc. They should be forced to sit out until they build a legal car.

Isn't it ironic that protests led by F1 giant Ferrari would have forced out F1 minnows Minardi in the Aussie GP, if Minardi had not made last minute changes to their car, in order to comply with the letter of the regs!

Maybe Ferrari/Maserati should be given some of their own medicine!

There is not a single fact in all those words. Opinions and biases are fine, but you're off the scale.

[JAG]

The fact is at this time, and for at least 12 months Maserati knew the MC12 was not legal.

I don't buy the argument that Maserati couldn't have had a revised car out for this season. Afterall, they hardly had to make major mechnical changes to the car. They could have had a race car ready for Sebring, at the very latest Le Mans. Any road cars that were required could have been built throughout the year.

[JAG]

And, as was pointed out by 'TWK' on the ALMS forum, the MC12 has never even been presented to the ACO for homologation, so they have never even been given the opportunity to give the MC12 dispensation similar to the FIA!

[jhansen]

The fact is, we don't know how this all played out behind the scenes. And while we are all entitled to our opinions, most of this is speculation at best based on what reporting on the subject is available. The bottom line in my mind is that the ALMS has made a decision on what it sees as its own best interest. And in my opinion it's about time.