I just don't get it

almzkid · 12 Dec 2004, 22:19 (Ref:1177851)

I thought that the ACO and the FIA had finally agreed upon unanimous and joint GT regulations, hence the agreement of joint GT1 and GT2 rules for the LMES/ALMS and FIA GT.

So if this is true why is the Maserati still not eligible for the ALMS and LMES?

The car is fully eligible for the 2005 FIA GT championship, so why is it not eligible for ALMS and Le Mans. Sportscarpros is saying that the car will not in fact appear at any ACO or ALMS sanctioned events in 2005 including Lemans and Sebring. I don't get it. If it is eligible for the FIA GT championship why not the ACO events?

pirenzo · 12 Dec 2004, 22:33 (Ref:1177869)

Considering the car hasn't frankly been all that fantastic (given the concerns that it would be totally unbeatable) I don't see why it shouldn't be made eligible for ALMS/Le Mans. It would be nice to see it at those events.

JAG · 12 Dec 2004, 23:15 (Ref:1177904)

The MC12 has dispensation to run in the 2005 FIA GT series. After that they will need to produce the new reg car.

Will there even be any MC12s in FIA GT next year.

One or two at most, IMO.

almzkid · 12 Dec 2004, 23:29 (Ref:1177914)

but why is the car eligible for the FIA GT series and not ACO series if they have common regulations for 2005?

SALEEN S7R · 12 Dec 2004, 23:34 (Ref:1177919)

Because fortunatly the FIA GT championship isnt governed by the ACO. The FIA and ACO are working together and have a common set of rules, but the FIA allow more leway generally speaking (Lister storm GT) for other cars to enter the series, in short they arent as strict IMO as the ACO are with the rules side of things. Its a good thing too IMO that not everything is ACO controlled or else wed have a situation similar to that of F1, just with the ACO at the helm and not Eccelstone dictating how sportscar racing is run.

vs346 · 12 Dec 2004, 23:48 (Ref:1177922)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

The MC12 has dispensation to run in the 2005 FIA GT series. After that they will need to produce the new reg car.

Will there even be any MC12s in FIA GT next year.

One or two at most, IMO.

And thats a sad thing if it turns out to be true. If there are only a few in the FIA GT and none in the LMES/ALMS, whats the point?

It's a shame that fans and the like are penalised because of a car that people are "afraid" will be dominant. Last time I looked, the R8 was dominant, but it also changed the face of prototype racing. Having a big name to battle it out with the Ferraris and Vettes, and maybe (big maybe) dominate (just add penalty weight!!) is much better than having no MC12 at all.

argh.

JAG · 13 Dec 2004, 00:16 (Ref:1177929)

Its not a case of fearing its dominance, the car is simply plain illegal in FIA GT and ACO races. However FIA GT have given the car a years grace to comply with the new regs.

Allowing cars that are technically illegal or unhomologated is not good for the stability of a series. Competitors know were they stand in ACO events.

vs346 · 13 Dec 2004, 00:42 (Ref:1177935)

so then that begs the probably unanswerable question, why did Maserati build an illegal car? did someone misinterpret the rules?

JAG · 13 Dec 2004, 02:53 (Ref:1177955)

Quote:

Originally Posted by vs346

so then that begs the probably unanswerable question, why did Maserati build an illegal car? did someone misinterpret the rules?

hrug:

eddsc · 13 Dec 2004, 05:58 (Ref:1177986)

What a great question...
The implication has always been that a certain, very successful, F1 manufacturer flexed its muscles to ease the car into one Championship - but the cost of the things (and other issues) has restricted sales such that the funding isn't available to create the smaller car needed for ACO rules in 2005.

Fab · 13 Dec 2004, 06:15 (Ref:1177998)

Quote:

Originally Posted by almzkid

but why is the car eligible for the FIA GT series and not ACO series if they have common regulations for 2005?

The car isn't fully elligible in FIA-GT : it has a dispensation that the ACO didn't give.

ACO was clear [b]from the start[/i] with Maserati : "your car does not fit the rules, you won't be allowed to enter that way".

The rules are the same for elligible cars.

alfasud · 13 Dec 2004, 06:36 (Ref:1178004)

Quote:

Originally Posted by vs346

so then that begs the probably unanswerable question, why did Maserati build an illegal car? did someone misinterpret the rules?

I think when Maserati started building the MC-12, they thought it would be legal.... but rule changes didn't go the way they were hoping.

Main problems are in overall dimensions - width and front/rear overhangs.... something that can't be fixed overnight, so FIA GT have allowed dispensation to run in the 2005 FIA GT series, but ACO have taken a more strict approach. In the end it's their series and they can decide whether to allow a dispensation or not.

Fab · 13 Dec 2004, 07:27 (Ref:1178015)

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfasud

I think when Maserati started building the MC-12, they thought it would be legal.... but rule changes didn't go the way they were hoping.

Jean Todt met ACO when the project wasn't even born. The dimensions' rules didn't change for a long time ; ACO said from the start that the MC12, beeing a GT car, couldn't enter LM with the idea to win the overall. Jean Todt knew from the start that the car woulnd't fit the rules. But, as usual, he considered that the rules were not for Ferrari (and Maserati) and that they had to change to welcome the MC12 entry.

This agenda, those events were described by Daniel Poissennot for almost one year, but never Maserati acted to move forward in the direction of the rules.

It has been now clearly established that the MC12 has to reduce its size (width and length) to enter LM ever... as the LM potential field is always larger than the grid, ACO is (and was, last ten years) not keen to let any team try to turn the rules at his own advantage.

If ACO bows, I'll regard the move as an acceptation of the fact that factories are stronger than the ACO's board, thing that remains to prove.

Nordic · 13 Dec 2004, 10:00 (Ref:1178090)

Quote:

Originally Posted by vs346

Last time I looked, the R8 was dominant, but it also changed the face of prototype racing. all.

argh.

When the R8 was first designed it did face potential stiff competion from Chrysler (Dallara), Caddy, Dome, Panoz & was designed within the rules. Its just that Audi did a better job and carrried it on.

The MC12 was designed in the hope that the rules would be changed to allow them to race. To do this would make a mockery of the power of the FIA/ACO or anyone else to regulate any series.

JAG · 13 Dec 2004, 12:54 (Ref:1178193)

So will the next Maserati be a LMP1 with the running gear of the MC12.

Hope so!

Gabrio · 13 Dec 2004, 14:40 (Ref:1178275)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fab

Jean Todt met ACO when the project wasn't even born. The dimensions' rules didn't change for a long time ; ACO said from the start that the MC12, beeing a GT car, couldn't enter LM with the idea to win the overall. Jean Todt knew from the start that the car woulnd't fit the rules. But, as usual, he considered that the rules were not for Ferrari (and Maserati) and that they had to change to welcome the MC12 entry.

This agenda, those events were described by Daniel Poissennot for almost one year, but never Maserati acted to move forward in the direction of the rules.

It has been now clearly established that the MC12 has to reduce its size (width and length) to enter LM ever... as the LM potential field is always larger than the grid, ACO is (and was, last ten years) not keen to let any team try to turn the rules at his own advantage.

If ACO bows, I'll regard the move as an acceptation of the fact that factories are stronger than the ACO's board, thing that remains to prove.

Fab is absolutely right and the MC12 is soon going to be tested in Le Mans version which is narrower and shorter.

Fab · 13 Dec 2004, 15:53 (Ref:1178322)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabrio

Fab is absolutely right and the MC12 is soon going to be tested in Le Mans version which is narrower and shorter.

That is news indeed !

Gabrio, give precisions if possible ! And thanks for that !

Gabrio · 13 Dec 2004, 16:03 (Ref:1178333)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fab

That is news indeed !

Gabrio, give precisions if possible ! And thanks for that !

All I know is that the FIA gave Maserati permission to race in FIA Gt in the current shape in 2005. However it does not comply to ACO rules. To do so, the car should be both narrower and shorter and a project for Le Mans is being studied. As soon as I get to know more, I'll let you know.

Bramzel · 13 Dec 2004, 17:06 (Ref:1178405)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabrio

Fab is absolutely right and the MC12 is soon going to be tested in Le Mans version which is narrower and shorter.

I assume that they will have to use this version in FIAGT then as well? Or will they still be allowed to run with the "widebody" there?

Gabrio · 13 Dec 2004, 18:26 (Ref:1178510)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bramzel

I assume that they will have to use this version in FIAGT then as well? Or will they still be allowed to run with the "widebody" there?

FIA has now homologated the widebody version. It is now therefore legal for FIA GT but not for Le Mans.

paul-collins · 13 Dec 2004, 19:07 (Ref:1178549)

Right, it's homologated under 2004 (ie pre-joint ACO/FIA) rules. Homologation lists are not being amalgamated, only the rules going forward.

Similarly, the C5-R is not currently legal under FIA rules. I suppose they could submit it for homologation, but I have no idea what changes it would take for them to get it homologated, and since they aren't building any more, why would they?

As far as I'm concerned, the FIA have shown themselves to be weak in the face of pressure from Feraserati. The ACO were right to not homologate it, IMO.

In land development, when there's any sort of legislative change that preserves agricultural zoning, the landowners always claim (to the press) losses based on what the land would have been worth if they could have changed the zoning to residential and then develop it. The answer is always "there's no compensation for losses on speculation." I'd say that this phrase applies here.

Gabrio · 13 Dec 2004, 19:10 (Ref:1178553)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Right, it's homologated under 2004 (ie pre-joint ACO/FIA) rules. Homologation lists are not being amalgamated, only the rules going forward.

As far as I'm concerned, the FIA have shown themselves to be weak in the face of pressure from Feraserati. The ACO were right to not homologate it, IMO.

In land development, when there's any sort of legislative change that preserves agricultural zoning, the landowners always claim (to the press) losses based on what the land would have been worth if they could have changed the zoning to residential and then develop it. The answer is always "there's no compensation for losses on speculation." I'd say that this phrase applies here.

You're right. On the other hand, FIA Gt is only going to survive under the current format if it attracts several manifacturers. As it is today, it is too expensive for privateers.

paul-collins · 13 Dec 2004, 19:20 (Ref:1178564)

Isn't that abandoning its roots, though? I thought it was explicitly against factory teams?

Gabrio · 13 Dec 2004, 19:29 (Ref:1178572)

Yes. It is but how can privateers afford to run cars that cost in excess of 750.000 Eur ? You could have that only with NGT cars maybe. And even a 360GTC costs almost as much if you want a factory supported car. Remember the end of BPR?

paul-collins · 13 Dec 2004, 19:42 (Ref:1178579)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabrio

Yes. It is but how can privateers afford to run cars that cost in excess of 750.000 Eur ? You could have that only with NGT cars maybe. And even a 360GTC costs almost as much if you want a factory supported car. Remember the end of BPR?

Well, yeah, isn't the end of BPR presaged by manufacturer involvement? Sounds like it's exactly the same road last travelled, except with 25 road versions instead of 1.

The market ought to take care of it. If Maser had've been properly told to stuff it, then we'd still be looking at a healthy market for 550s, Saleens, etc. Now we're looking at everyone abandoning their current cars for, what?

You'd never expect to hear that the ACO is providing the "cost-effective" version of any sort of racing, but there's BMS switching series...