ACO to slow GTS

[JAG]

Acoording to todays Autosport, the ACO will make changes to the GTS regs to slow them by 3 seconds a lap from 2005.

Power is likely to be unaffected as the ACO already have an agreement with the FIA to bring the FIA cars in line with the ACO.

Maybe changes to the aero?

It seems the ACO are happy with the current speeds and balance between the classes and doesn't want someone to arrive with a Super GTS car, like Maserati.

[Fogelhund]

If true, it would seem as though GT might need to be slowed down by a proportionate amount as well.

[jhansen]

I'm don't agree with slowing the GTS class down for the sake of keeping them below the P1 class. Once the new P1 cars show up, and to some extent, the hybrid cars, P1 speeds will increase. If safety is the reason, then each class should be slowed down. It's not the GTS class's fault that the prototypes have lacked any real innovation in the past few years. Kudos to GTS for uping the bar. P1 will follow suit soon.

[JAG]

The P1 cars are already 20 seconds a lap quicker than GTS. When the new LMP1 regs come fully into force in 2005/2006 the ACO have commited themselves to long term stablility for the class.

I think the main reason is to keep the GTS cars at their current pace (which is pretty much the limit for genuine road based cars), and stop someone like Maserati, or whoever, coming in with GTS 'prototypes' and in the process pushing out the regular GTS cars.

If Maserati want to race a super GT car, compete with a coupe LMP1 car.

[jhansen]

Well the difference between pole speeds was around 16.6 seconds to be accurate. But that's not really the point. The gap on shorter circuits is much less than 20 seconds.

But anyhow, it all looks very Grand-Amish and I'm not for it. The ACO can get tough and reject the Maserati if they are that adament about it. Just don't dumb down the classes. And I don't see how the road car's performance should restrict the race car's performance. It's a race car after all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for prototypes being top of the heap, but they need to do it because they are truly the quicker cars, not because it was legislated. As long as the rules and spirit of the rules are adhered to, the two classes will always be separate in terms of speed.

[JAG]

There was no danger of GTS cars ever beating the P1 cars at LM, or anywhere else for that matter, on pure pace. They are far too quick.

The problem is in order for the GTS cars to go much quicker they need to move away from there road car routes and build homologation specials like the Maserati.

An Enzo GTS would be fine, but an MC12 is very different from an Enzo.

[jhansen]

Then regulate the homoglation specials and you wont have a problem.

[JAG]

Thats what they've done.

Keeping GTS cars at their current speeds just stops manufactuers having any ideas about going for overall wins (lobbying the ACO for LMP1 restrictions etc.), and puts more focus on LMP1.

[MulsanneMike]

I'm with JAG on this and I hardly see it as a Grand-Amesque manuever. Slowing (slightly) GTS down only solidifies their performance position and would highlight the speed of any homologation special further making it difficult to even get that sort of car into the series. Plus, 3 seconds is nothing when you consider the pace of development. Compare qualifying times from 2003 to 2004 and I think you'll find a pace of development greater than 3 seconds

[SALEEN S7R]

Personally I can see JAG and Mulsanne Mikes points. However, from my perspective I dont see a problem with cars such as the Saleen S7R, Lambourgini Murcielago or the Maserati MC12. The Lambo, Saleen and Maserati IMO are merley the new generation of road based supercars. Sure the perfomrnace gains have been big but not massive.

In 1999 the GTS pole time was a 3:56. This years was in the 3:49 region thats a 6 second differnce, thats less than 1 second a year if u counted each second as a year. As new road going supercars are improved then of course the speeds will be too, it stands to reason that a Ferrari 575 will have better areodynamics than a Viper for example becuase its a much newer car. And that is reflected on the race track too.

Keep the GTS regulations as they are I say, have them somewhere around the pace of the LMP 2 class cars, at the moment they arent any threat to LMP 1 class cars on pace. Still over a 24hr race they could still potentially throw a suprise because of their reliabilty.

[Purist]

There are a few issues in the Maserati arena. The MC12 has to have extreme dimensions to be competitive in the road legal supercar fight, which translates to a racing version that has similar dimensions. The dimensions are the biggest thing that the FIA/ACO can harp on that is actually in the rules.

In a number of ways, it is probably easier, and less expensive to develop a GTS car, even a homologation special, than to come up with a worthwhie prototype. You don't have as many aerodynamic devices at your disposal for the car, so analysis and testing are simplified. Use of some materials is more limited, or outright banned, so that makes the choices in that area less complicated. Parts in a prototype are often more stressed, because of the higher performance level of that type of car. Also, it is very difficult to get the prototypes down to their respective minimum weights.

Finally, Ferrari has not been very consistent in its participation in prototype racing. The 312PB was factory supported, and run in 1972-73. The next, and most recent such program that I am aware of, was the 333SP. The most important distinction though is that the former cars were run by the factory, but 1973 was the last time that Ferrari had a factory backed prototype racing team. So it hasn't been done in 30 years, and I don't know whther Ferrari is seriously considering breaking that trend.

[JAG]

By keeping the GTS cars at their current pace, around 3.50-52, all the ACO are doing is reafirming the GTS class position in the overall Le Mans class structure.

With the Maserati and rumours of further homologation specials arriving, some doubt was placed into manufactuers minds as the whether GTS would one day soon become the N0.1 class, further holding back LMP1 developments.

With this move the ACO have put a line in the sand and stated that the 3.50 mark is were the top GT class should be. If the homologation special route had been allowed to continue, we would have ended up with GTS cars looking more like a Bently Speed 8 LMGTP than a 575GTC.

Now manufactuers, such as Aston Martin, can be confident that a genuine road based GTS car, like the DB9, can be competitive.

Also I belive there is a very big difference between a Lamborghini Murcielago and a Maserati MC12.

The Murcielago is a genuine road car first, with road car aerodynamics, that was then coverted for race use.

The MC12, although based on the ENZO has very extreme bodywork specifically designed to give it a racing advantage. Immediately the 575, DB9, Murcielago, C6-R would have been made obsolete. The ENZO would have been fine to race as it does not have the purpose designed 'racing' bodywork that the MC12 has.

Do we want to see road cars in GTS or prototypes that have been road homologated.

Personally I think Maserati will move into LMP1, if not with the MC12, then with a derivitive of it eventually, especially after the successful launch of the LMES.

[Cadete]

Saleen, the Maserati was different than the Murcielago or S7. It had a distint long tail and was overall designed from an Enzo as a racing car, then homologated as a road car to receive even more upgrades as a racing car. The fact that we saw the racing version of it even before anyone knew how the road version would be says a lot about the philosofy behind the car.

As for the changes in the GTS regulations, keep in mind that they are probably also to get the ACO rules closer to the joint ACO/FIA rules that will enter in 2006, if I'm not wrong.
What can be bad is if every single year they change the rules to keep the pace at exactly the same. In my view, they will adopt the joint regs in 2006, then keep them for a long time, and after if speeds get too much out of hand, then they will be revised, again in a way that will keep them around for a long time.

[Danske]

Didn't NASCAR go through this already with the Dodge Daytona?

[Chevyguy]

See there, ACO restricts GTS and it's "reaffirming", GA restricts GT and it's "contrived competition". Gimme a break.

The ACO can't hold it's death grip on this class forever. The factories control the ACO, and the factories want to run production cars. For all of the profound quotes, like "contrived competition", here's mine: Resistance to change is the detriment to progress. You can shoot it down, but what is unacceptable for one cannot be the right thing to do for the other. This is joke. Sorry if you can't share my sentiment.

[SALEEN S7R]

On this point Chevyguy I do agree with u. Personally I feel that the ACO should simply leave things as they are for now. The GTS class is going from strength to strength, and isnt really a realistic challenger for outright wins at the moment, so whats the point in changing the rules? They have said the Maserati cant race for now which is fair enough, but they will be back with a car meeting the dimension criteria.

BTW anyone have any guess as to how much the new for 2006 modifed MC12 would be compared to say the current MC12? Will this make any major differnce?

[SALEEN S7R]

Hmm that post wasnt very clear, what I was trying to ask in the last paragraph was does anyone have any idea how much slower the 2006 version would be compared to the current MC12 at the moment? Personally Im guessing maybe 1-1.5 seconds a lap slower...

[Dani Filth]

2006 ?? . what happend to 2005 ..

[JAG]

Originally posted by Chevyguy
See there, ACO restricts GTS and it's "reaffirming", GA restricts GT and it's "contrived competition". Gimme a break.

The ACO can't hold it's death grip on this class forever. The factories control the ACO, and the factories want to run production cars. For all of the profound quotes, like "contrived competition", here's mine: Resistance to change is the detriment to progress. You can shoot it down, but what is unacceptable for one cannot be the right thing to do for the other. This is joke. Sorry if you can't share my sentiment.

Come on, its hardly the same. The GTS cars are the best part of 20 seconds a lap slower than the LMP1 cars at LM, around 10 seconds slower on other circuits.

All the ACO are doing is reafirming that GTS is a PRODUCTION class, not a class were homologation special RACING cars are allowed.

If the Maserati came in, in its current spec it would have blown away every single production GTS car, who do not have the advantage of long tails etc. that give a definate performance advantage.

In a few years we would have had the ludicrous situation of a GTS production class, with no genuine production cars in sight!

And how you can say the manufactuers want to race production cars, and presumably don't want to race LMP cars is beyond me.

Only 3-4 years ago GTS was a complete joke, but the class has been given time to grow and now we see, at last, Maserati, Lamborghini and Aston Martin joining the class.

However their are very good reasons why the LMP class has not grown in recent years. The FIA SCC was a complete joke and was never going to attract manufactuers. Plus the new regs meant no new cars would be built prior to 2004.

It is only in 2005/6 that we will start to see the manufactuers return with Audi, Porsche, Mazda strong candidates. There are at least 3 manufactuers seriously interested in the diesal route. Plus there are Lola, Zytek, Lister, NASAMAX all planning new cars, that we know off.

Do not base your perception of the LMP class on the ALMS. If GTS was the top class this year, the racing would have been even worse than than the LMP1s have provided!

Take a look at the LMES for what is possible.

[Nordic]

I think the ACO have done the right thing by drawing a line in the sand so to speak. As JAG says to allow in the MC 12 would have distroyed the GTS class and we would have ended up with the same boom and bust situation that killed GT1.

JAG is 100% right when he says GTS cars need to be production based.

The ACO are not controlling speeds so much, as trying to control the evoloution of the cars. If the new hoped for Aston, is alot quicker than the current crop of cars and it is built within the rules then the ACO would then have little say in it.

The problem comes when the rules are twisted, Maserati, have I beleive built a car knowing full well it did not complie with either the sprit or the written rules hoping the name Maserati name would be enough to twist the ACO's arm into moving the goal post.

[GT1]

If your slowing another class down to not challenge the prototypes, that sounds like Grand Am.

I realize that they want P1 cars to win it and respect that, but it shoudl be earned. Corvette took fifth overall at Le Mans, most P1 cars would be estatic with that result. They won't ever beat Audi on pace, but in the ALMS all it would take would be one big P1 pill up to see GTS cars win overall.

I do agree with the Maserati. A lot of folks took a look at that in testing and said "Its GT1 all over again". A road car should be a road car. These one off specials like the Dauer, or the later part of the GT1s degenerated the class quite quickly.

[Nordic]

The P1 cars have been slowed alot over the recent years, this year the LMP1's had reduced fuel tanks, and slowed in respect of aero packages.
Slowing the GTS's should be more about leveling the field again.

[Aysedasi]

I'd leave the GTS cars as they are and cut some slack back for the LMPs......

[JAG]

Originally posted by GT1
If your slowing another class down to not challenge the prototypes, that sounds like Grand Am.

I realize that they want P1 cars to win it and respect that, but it shoudl be earned. Corvette took fifth overall at Le Mans, most P1 cars would be estatic with that result. They won't ever beat Audi on pace, but in the ALMS all it would take would be one big P1 pill up to see GTS cars win overall.

I do agree with the Maserati. A lot of folks took a look at that in testing and said "Its GT1 all over again". A road car should be a road car. These one off specials like the Dauer, or the later part of the GT1s degenerated the class quite quickly.

But they are not being slowed down, in order not to challenge the prototypes. You could speed up GTS by 10 seconds a lap and they still would not challenge for a win at LM.

There is a big difference between a GTS car finishing high up due to reliability or a crash taking out the LMP1s, and doing well on pace alone.

Lets put this into perspective. 3 seconds at LM is like 1 second on a regular circuit. Development of the cars will gain at least a second a year.on a regular circuit.

As has been seen in the LMP1 class. Rules are changed to 'slow' the cars, but each year they go quicker than ever. e.g. Audi R8 4 seconds quicker a lap this year than last.

The pegging of the GTS cars to the 3.50 area is reafirming that GTS is for production cars like the 575/DB9 and not specials like the Maserati.

Remember the DB9 project was put on hold because they did not wan to compete against honologation specials.

[pounetbf]

don't forget the safety problem .
All along the history, the rules have been changed everytume the cars are felt to be too fast. (remember, for example, the 917).
the faster th cars, and especially in corners, the higher the risk for the public. that means bigger wire fences, and larger safety distance between the track and the public area. this is due to FIA rules and public laws.
Le Mans (nor anybody else) cannot afford a second 1955 drama.

apparently the ACO feel (and I do too) that the good value is, for the better time in practice session.:
- more than 3'30" for prototypes
- more than 3'50" for GTS
- more than 4'05" (or 4'10") for GT

So, as the cars are faster and faster, especialy in curves, due to improvements in tyres and aerodynamics, ACO (and FIA) will regularly adjust the rules to stay within those limits.
For exemple with a slightly smaller restrictor.
And the manufacturers will continue to try to make a better car within the existing limits. research and improvement is a premanent process.