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

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by TWK

Bob, being an old fart myself, I find I occasionally agree with you.

However, to characterize Jim France as "just (a) rich boy" is WAY off the mark. In that, you're clearly shooting from the hip without any knowledge of the subject.

Just out of interest, how would you characterize him?

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Just out of interest, how would you characterize him?

JC or Brian?

Both out of touch Rich Kids...

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

JC or Brian?

Both out of touch Rich Kids...

I actually meant Jim, who is Brian's brother and JC's father.

[chernaudi]

To address this matter, first off, Jim France is a son of Bill France Sr. and hence the brother of Bill France Jr, making Brian his nephew. However, you are right about him being JC's father.

Jim was CEO of ISC until from 1987-1992 when he stepped down to take a more active role in NASCAR due to Bill Jr becoming majority owner of NASCAR as well as becoming president and CEO of NASCAR, and when due to declining health when Bill Jr. stepped down from his role as president and CEO in favor of Mike Helton and Brian France respectivly, though he remained a board officer until his death in 2007.

Jim served Bill Jr. chiefly as an advisor unitil his death and now serves Brian in that role. That all being said, Jim France still is majority owner of ISC and is owner of Grand Am. And being from the France family and with Grand Am being basically 100% privately owned by him like how the France family in all are majority owners of 100% privately owned NASCAR, he can call it as he sees fit and can do whatever he wants with his money.

But then again, Tony George was punted out of running the IRL Indy Car series and being majority shareholder of IMS because he paid for race teams out of his pocket. But since ISC is publically traded and he's not CEO anymore and he privately owns Grand Am and is a major stakeholder in privately owned NASCAR, Jim seems to be immune from such issues as Tony had.

[thebear]

Then we have this bit of news. .

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by TWK

Bob, being an old fart myself, I find I occasionally agree with you.

However, to characterize Jim France as "just (a) rich boy" is WAY off the mark. In that, you're clearly shooting from the hip without any knowledge of the subject.

Big Bill France, was a racer, he knew what it was like to race, he knew what it took to work on and build a race car.
Now if there is proof, that the boys (Bill Jr. no matter what his title was, as long as the old man was still alive, did as his father told, period) had the same dirt under the finger nails knowledge of racing the old man did, I will say I am wrong, but until that they are just boys who inherited what Big Bill created and built.

[Speed-King]

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...d-for-11-12/P1

[rdt012237]

Wow, First time an official at G/A speaks thankyou Speedking!

[andy_b]

will be more on this on Speed.com later in the week

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by andy_b

will be more on this on Speed.com later in the week

I don't think it matters much the basic premise is the same -

• Tie The Race Cars to Production cars using visual cues

How well did that work last time?

There was only one car that succeeded in looking like the production car from the GTP era and that was the Corvette (Lola) GTP.

• Keep to its Grand Am Roots

Which largely means; Some changes in engine regs but slap down teams for playing by the rules but have eeked out an advantage (see Grand Am penalties on Ganassi's BMW power). Spec Tires will remain (though the first tire test didn't go so well) and still want their US boutique manufacturers involved.

They might be more than 1-2 second faster than a ALMS GT car but that's assuming the new cars for next year won't see any further development.

Plus paddle shift is legal in GT next year.

[trahsub]

Rename this thread to: Grand-Am makes its move, and it still sucks.

[juicy sushi]

Is it just me, or does the engine rules mooted in the Speed article sound possibly close to LMP2 (and Ford has announced that it's going to offer an Ecoboost V6 as an LMP2 motor)?

The idea of more downforce to get more drag sounds a bit off to me. I'd rather they tried to cut downforce signficantly. I think Grand-Am would be better if they tried to match the Daytona Prototype class with FIA GT3 in pace. That way, those manufacturers interested, but wanting to offer production-based machines would have a strong incentive by being able to go for overall wins. It would also eliminate the need for Prep 1 rules, as you could just run a Daytona Prototype and get the benefit of purpose-built race machines with a set of rules better suited to that (and no stepping on toes of manufacturers sensitive to their thoroughbreds being beaten by something which looks like a grocery getter)...

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

Is it just me, or does the engine rules mooted in the Speed article sound possibly close to LMP2 (and Ford has announced that it's going to offer an Ecoboost V6 as an LMP2 motor)?

The idea of more downforce to get more drag sounds a bit off to me. I'd rather they tried to cut downforce signficantly. I think Grand-Am would be better if they tried to match the Daytona Prototype class with FIA GT3 in pace. That way, those manufacturers interested, but wanting to offer production-based machines would have a strong incentive by being able to go for overall wins. It would also eliminate the need for Prep 1 rules, as you could just run a Daytona Prototype and get the benefit of purpose-built race machines with a set of rules better suited to that (and no stepping on toes of manufacturers sensitive to their thoroughbreds being beaten by something which looks like a grocery getter)...

This isn't so much a Grand Am bash thread but it seems to always get to that point.

Their so-called "Thoroughbreds" are not faster than ALMS GT cars around the same circuits. The GT cars are somewhere near Porsche Supercup pace since that is the benchmark used with both sets of rules. So its actually slower than the new GT-3R which isn't much slower than a FIA/ACO/ALMS GT car.

They are trying to appeal to "US" the ALMS fan base, the majority.

Whatever they do, I think they'll come up short. My main concern was them beating the ALMS to the punch with GT3 spec cars. But with both series calling for modifications to existing cars to make them competitive with current Cup cars and slot them in, the OEM's are looking for the most cost effective approach.

The easiest thing for the ALMS' Elkins to do is take the current FIA performance balancing scheme and run with it. I believe there are only two 2010 spec Cup cars on the grid. According to Speed King those cars can be upgraded to GT3-R spec. That would leave the other teams in GTC with a choice.

• Buy a New Porsche GT3-R
• Buy an Audi R8 LMS
• Buy a BMW Z4 GT3
• Buy a Lamborghini Gallardo GT3
• Buy a Benz SLS GT3
• Move to GT(2)
• Leave The Series

There is still some movement to happen in the series. If Porsche looses the Driver's, Manufacturers and Team titles will they look for another partner in Alex Job, TRG or Black Swan who all have GT2 experience?

Say that happen we would loose a team to the higher class but not the series, no net lost. But opening up the manufacturers would I believe increase the size of the field. There many people running Porsche Club, BMW Club that might consider moving into the ALMS but don't have a way into the series until recently.

You can keep the cost down in GTC by using a spec tire like they are currently. You would only need conduct tire testing for the new models allowed but if you give them enough time to do so that shouldn't be a problem for a large company like Yokohama.

You could also use the Winter Test for Performance Balancing all the cars.

Going on the what I have seen in the FIA GT3 series in the past few seasons, cars like the Callaway Corvette or Alpina B6 at longer, fast circuits (here that would be Road America, Road Atlanta and Mosport) would have an advantage hard to overcome. A more balanced car like the Porsche GT3R, BMW Z4 and Lambo are almost as fast but maybe handle a bit better. The Audi has struggled this year, it was only because the fuel pump failed on the Hohenadel/Keilwitz Vette on the last lap that allowed Audi's sole victory in the sprint races.(At Spa 24) Sure when the top Ferrari went out and the BMW's had various issues, the Audi by just staying on track would be there at the end. The Factory prepped cars are MUCH faster than Belgian Semi-Works or the United Autosports customer cars, that's Audi taking a page out of Porsche's handbook on how to treat customers.

So that means a pro-driven Audi R8LMS would be competitive in America since overall handling is more of a premium and its good braking.

I know the agreement is for 3 years for both LMPC and GTC, but if there are no objections to upgrading then go ahead and make the move, I say.

[Speed-King]

According to Speed King those cars can be upgraded to GT3-R spec.

Technically yes, but I am not sure if Porsche supplies a kit for that. All I know is that there was a Cup (2009 and older) to Cup-S-kit. I haven't heard about a GT3R kit so far, but it should be possible.

I'll see if I can find out something about that over the weekend at the 'Ring.

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Technically yes, but I am not sure if Porsche supplies a kit for that. All I know is that there was a Cup (2009 and older) to Cup-S-kit. I haven't heard about a GT3R kit so far, but it should be possible.

I'll see if I can find out something about that over the weekend at the 'Ring.

Have fun at the FIA GT1 Event... Also thanks for the information. We should have asked Hindy to ask the guy from Porsche NA that was at Road America.

[joeb]

LastTurnClub posted a copy of the memo sent by GA to the teams regarding changes to the series for 2011/12. Interesting part at the bottom about letting gt3 cars in. They want to let in cars as long as they can slow them down in all aspects of their performance "cornering, braking, top speed, etc.". So my question would by, why spend the money on a performance race car just to strip away the performance? Costs are always an issue, so if you buy an expensive car, then you have to spend money to cripple it just to race it?! I know performance balancing is necessary in todays gt environment, but this seems a little odd.

oh and the 4 cars they mention specifically: Audi R8, Ferrari 458, and gt3's from Merc and BMW. So basically all the makers of DTM cars for 2012 plus Ferrari - could this be related to some type of tie-in?

[Speed-King]

I think their goal would be to get Audi to sell a bespoke Grand Am version of the R8, so prospective buyers wouldn't have to spend extra money to make it slower.

And that actually sounds a lot like what Scott Elkins told John Dagys about the possible inclusion of the R8 in ALMS GTC.

As absurd as it may sound, but I think GA and IMSA have a common goal here, as they have very similar performance requirements.
Building North American-spec cars for two series is probably easier to justify than doing it for just one series and if the two sanctioning bodies (perhaps three if you include SCCA World Challenge) want these cars to come to their series they just might have to give the manufacturers a near-as-makes-no-difference common ruleset.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

You can keep the cost down in GTC by using a spec tire like they are currently. You would only need conduct tire testing for the new models allowed but if you give them enough time to do so that shouldn't be a problem for a large company like Yokohama.

Controlled tyre competition allows multiple brands to invest in ALMS.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I think their goal would be to get Audi to sell a bespoke Grand Am version of the R8, so prospective buyers wouldn't have to spend extra money to make it slower.

And that actually sounds a lot like what Scott Elkins told John Dagys about the possible inclusion of the R8 in ALMS GTC.

As absurd as it may sound, but I think GA and IMSA have a common goal here, as they have very similar performance requirements.
Building North American-spec cars for two series is probably easier to justify than doing it for just one series and if the two sanctioning bodies (perhaps three if you include SCCA World Challenge) want these cars to come to their series they just might have to give the manufacturers a near-as-makes-no-difference common ruleset.

Yes that would be the smart thing to do. Now if the German marques can convince the series (pl) to do such a thing! ALMS is already venturing down that path with the Porsches in GTC at the moment.

And it may also help with slowing the escalating costs in some of the Euro GT-3 series as well.


L.P.

[Speed-King]

Now if the German marques can convince the series (pl) to do such a thing!

Scratch my back and I scratch your's... or perhaps simply plain-old blackmailing.

The series want the cars and the manufacturers want the shared spec, so...

[ger80]

so bringing GT3 cars back to the original GT3 performance level. sounds good to me - think you could use the same cars in the cup classes you have in some national GT3 championships in europe.

[Speed-King]

Or at least in VLN, Britcar, Dutch Supercar, etc.

[HORNDAWG]

Well I think it ought to happen with all of them including FIA GT-3 itself! The (current) Audi R8 LMS could be bumped to GT-2 and the rest brought back in line and put in check!!!





L.P.

[ger80]

Well, but some people dont want it to happen. Otherwise the GT3 performance never got what it is now. So dont count on Mr. Ratel

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by ger80

Well, but some people dont want it to happen. Otherwise the GT3 performance never got what it is now. So dont count on Mr. Ratel

Oh, I would NEVER count on the Rat!





L.P.