Speedsource to Riley, Multimatic down to one car

[GT1]

At this rate Multimatic will be out of Grand Am by the end of the year. While others have been updating or buidling new cars, the most frequent thing I have heard about Multimatic is how many drivers have tested 001 tryin to get them to buy one.

I am sure that the Multimatic is quicker today than Daytona 2003, but I would say that isn't enough. A lot of folks have said they hated the Multimatic worst of all DPs, but the one good thing is that it is different, you certainly know which one your looking at.

[paul-collins]

Jeez, they change chassis and engines, and Grand Am in the meantime is busy outlawing their engine for next year.

That's a pretty costly effort they've got going, there...

[GT1]

What engine are they outlawing?

['70 Mach 1]

Just reading the DP rules over at the Grand American website and it looks like new engine rules on the horizon (1/1/2005). 5.0L maximum displacement limit, but engines will (as of 1/1/2005) now no longer limited to 6 or 8 cylinders (though they have to be production based) ... and some other changes mentioned as well ...

[paul-collins]

Yep, and the entry for the Glen lists 7 of 17 DPs having Pontiac power, which is the LS6 5.5L engine.

Also, they're reducing the maximum bore to something less than stock for the LS6, so if someone wants to make the engine legal they'll have to sleeve it, they can't just cut stroke (which would maintain some of the torque). edit: oops - just realized this isn't true, as the max bore for the LS6 is more than the stock, 'cause it's a two-valve, not four.

This rule change is definitely aimed directly at the LS6. As one competitor put it to me, "There is no allowance for overall competitiveness of the team/package. We should be racing dyno sheets."

[GT1]

You would think after 3/4s of the owners bailed with the suprise announcment that their SRPs would be obsolete, one might give teams a bit more notice before doing things.

[Danske]

Well, the engine restrictions aren't based on results or applied to specific teams, that's true. But that means a team isn't being penalized because someone with the same engine is winning. They may be at a disadvantage because they can't make their LS6 run as well as someone else's LS6 under the same restrictions, but that's not the fault of the rules. Put that way I don't think it sounds so bad.

OTOH, if no one can make a TRD engine run as well as the LS6 then that may indicate an inequity in the restrictions. If GARRA doesn't want their (comprehensive) engine restrictions to appoint a dominant engine then it's logical for them to adjust those restrictions.

So if it's possible under the engine restrictions to take any of the approved engines and make it as good as anyone else's, then teams only succeed or fail at doing so on their own merits. Is it really something to complain about if a team can't get as much out of their engine as others have? Are they "racing dyno sheets" any more than they would in a series with more open engine regulations?

Unless you mean "racing dyno sheets" as bemoaning the usual state of affairs in motorsports (it does seem to frequently be an accurate description).

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Danske
OTOH, if no one can make a TRD engine run as well as the LS6 then that may indicate an inequity in the restrictions...

...as evidenced at Mont Tremblant?

[Danske]

Hey, that was just a hypothetical (change TRD to BMW if you like); and I'll have you know that the fourteen fastest laps of the race were put in by the SunTrust Pontiac Riley.

[Fogelhund]

Danske - Toyota engines have qualified on the pole at every event, and could easily have won every event so far. They won at Mont Tremblant going away.

The qualifying times between TRD, Pontiac and Porsche engined teams have been pretty close. Why the penalty? There seems to be more to this then just penalizing performance, because frankly that doesn't wash.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Danske
I'll have you know that the fourteen fastest laps of the race were put in by the SunTrust Pontiac Riley.

Of course,
a) they had no reason to pace themselves, as they were out of it, and
b) Scott Pruett is a master of driving with his mirrors (see Trans Am, 2003). He didn't have to go any faster.

A more instructive comparison is between the two Dorans, whose performance levels could be best summed up as "a distinction without a difference."

[Danske]

Ack, the TRD vs LS6 example was entirely hypothetical!!! Please read as Engine A and Engine B.

Now seriously, that argument was directed at the tweaks to the engine restrictions at the end of last season. As far as lowering the maximum displacement to 5.0L for next year, I don't know why GARRA's doing that and I didn't mean to imply I was addressing that issue, just the general concept of engine restrictions based on make. For all I know the teams/GM would rather run the LS engine as a 302 with more revs and it wasn't GARRA's idea to drop the 5.5L class.

However, it was specifically a Ganassi Lexus Riley that has been on pole for every race. But let's just say you put all the engines of all the teams on the dyno and the Ganassi engine is the best of all the Lexii, and the SunTrust is the best of all the Pontiacs and also superior to the Ganassi engine.

Okay, if you're going to adjust any engine restrictions, for whom and why? For no one because you don't care if the restrictions give the edge to one make as long as they don't get pole? Just for Ganassi even though their engine isn't superior? For SunTrust even though they don't have the same qualifying and race performance? For all Lexus teams because Ganassi qualified on pole and won even with an inferior engine? For all Pontiac teams because the current restrictions observably give an advantage to the Pontiac engine? The last one is at least trying to have the restrictions have a neutral effect on results, as it's not based on results or targetted at individual teams; every team can theoretically build their engine up to the same level of performace if the restrictions are balanced. Now that's just an explanation of the theory as I see it, not advocating it as the One True Way.

Oh, I was half facetious with the fastest laps comment. I know the SunTrust car had more reason to go fast than Pruett in the lead, but it also was faster than the other Ganassi Lexus Riley which was not at the front, and faster than every other Lexus-powered car. So what to make of that? The #58 Porsche Fabcar was also faster than the BMW and Lexus Fabcars, so you can't even take same-chassis different-engine comparisions as 100% indicative of engine performance. And if you can't do that then you can't use race results or even qualifying as the sole indication either. Which leads us back to the possibility that the Pontiac engine does indeed have a leg up on the others under the current regulations. We just need those dyno reports.

[Fogelhund]

This came from Grand-Am, and we do know for certain that it wasn't a request from teams to run the 302. Let's say that there are teams that are VERY unhappy with what has transpired, and are considering their future options right now. It seems as though costs are no longer of consideration.

If you can't use qualifying or race results as an indicator, then it would seem as though there is little need for changes.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by Fogelhund
This came from Grand-Am, and we do know for certain that it wasn't a request from teams to run the 302. Let's say that there are teams that are VERY unhappy with what has transpired, and are considering their future options right now. It seems as though costs are no longer of consideration.

If you can't use qualifying or race results as an indicator, then it would seem as though there is little need for changes.

Surprise...

It's the same NASCAR mentality of tweaking this and tweaking that in case someone might get an upper hand....

Sorry, but I hate "contrived competition".....

My guess is that the cars that were running better last year (the DPs with Porsche engines) are getting their doors blown off by the Lexus and Pontiac engines....

J.C drives a porsche-powered car, doesn't he??????


I agree with fogelhund....if results are any kind of indicator, then leave the rules alone...

and the point about cost considerations is another one....to "convert" an engine like that will be very expensive for teams that are running them....

This is a stupd move on Grand Am's part....very stupid...

[Dauntless]

Hmm, makes me wonder if they aren't trying to pull the rug out from under T/A-type cars...though why they would is beyond me!

[Tim Northcutt]

They were doing exactly that last year with the mid-season rules changes to the AGT's because the Heritage Motorsports Mustang on Steroids was every bit as fast as the DPs...even won the pole at Watkins Glen....they reduced gas tank sizes, etc.....

This is just another step in the process to create artificial competition....

I'm waiting for their next move.....restrictions to the Riley that will either give them more drag or take away downforce from them if they continue to dominate....with any luck at all, a Riley chassis would have won virtually every race thus far this season....

That'll change if the Grand Am officials have anything to say about it...

[Patrick B]

What GA did to the AGT cars last year is no different then what the ACO is doing to the older LMP's this year. When you want teams to buy the new cars sometimes you have to slow down the older ones.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Patrick B
What GA did to the AGT cars last year is no different then what the ACO is doing to the older LMP's this year. When you want teams to buy the new cars sometimes you have to slow down the older ones.

GOOD GRIEF!

---"When you want teams to buy the new cars sometimes you have to slow down the older ones."---

I deleted what I first wrote because Patrick you are probably a nice fellow, but if this is your logic, Lord almighty something is terribly wrong.

To sell a new car you have to slow the old ones down? I would say put then new ones in the crusher because they have all the qualities of a pile of rotting cr--.

If slowmobile racing is what GARRA wants, put fenders on F-Vs, OLD Formula-Vs and call them Daytona Prototypes.
If they are still to fast, use rebodied Citroen CVs, you can't get much slower than that.

---"When you want teams to buy the new cars sometimes you have to slow down the older ones."---

[Patrick B]

Why do you think the ACO is putting smaller spoilers and fuel tanks on the non 2004 compliant LMP cars? They want people to but the new cars(WR, Courage etc). Same reason they let ALL of the 2004 spec cars in LM ahead of some old cars(Autocon Riley etc).

Some people might not like it but thats they way it is...

[Fogelhund]

Patrick, while your logic is correct, the timing effect is not.

The LMP900's were "penalized" before the start of the season, which is quite different then adding penalities mid-season.

With the LMP900 situation, you are correct, they are encouraging teams to go the LMP1 rule set, to make that purchase.

Midseason, with changing the rules on the AGT, it was simply a punitive penalty, not driven to get people into DP's, but rather to ensure that the DP's would be at the front. Surely nobody would believe that midseason, people would buy a new DP for events a few weeks away?

Regarding the LM selection... well, it is such a mess isn't it? There aren't any **real** 2004 spec LMP's anyway, the Nasamax "hybrid" and then those Courage and WR's, whose eligibility is, hmm interesting.

[paul-collins]

Pat, if you were saying the difference between SRPs and DPs last year, had anyone bothered to run their SRPs, is similar to the LMP900s versus LMP1s, I'd buy it.

We're talking about different classes, though. Completely different kettle of fish. What would be comparable is if the Corvettes were slowed down so that Clint Field would be guaranteed to finish ahead of them in his Lola B2K/40. Which ain't gonna happen.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by Patrick B
Why do you think the ACO is putting smaller spoilers and fuel tanks on the non 2004 compliant LMP cars? They want people to but the new cars(WR, Courage etc). Same reason they let ALL of the 2004 spec cars in LM ahead of some old cars(Autocon Riley etc).

Some people might not like it but thats they way it is...

I think the changes last year had less to do with "buying the new cars" and more to do with the "Prop up the Daytona Turd Boxes" that can't outrun a Mustang on Steroids in Watkins Glen qualifying, or in Race Competition at Fontana...

I watch the Series...I remember these types of things....and I still don't like it....


As for the ACO changes 2003 specs cars to run in 2004, look at the Audi Test Day Times for this year with these "restricted" cars compared to what the Audis ran last year in qualifying, Patrick B....for that matter, compare the top times in Test Day with the 2003 LM Pole Time set by a Bentley last year.....

And keep an eye on what the Pole Sitter at LM's time will be this year...my bet is that it'll be as much as 2 seconds quicker, provided the weather is good...(not raining)

I'll agree that they probably want to reward teams that are building the 2004 specs cars because of their commitment to the future of the series and their expenditure was considerable to create a new specs chassis.....

But this apparent "attempt" to slow the existing cars from last year hasn't panned out in reality, now has it????

But I digress from the real issue in this thread....

Be honest, Patrick B....

There is no way that you can believe that these "Grand Am" rules revisions on the engines that we have been discussing is a GOOD THING for the Series....

It is going to prove to be very expensive for teams to make those changes to their engines, or they will have to scrap that Pontiac-badged power and spend a boatload of cash to buy power that meets these new regs....and in turn, refit the new engine into the chassis (possibly more modifications) and alter their existing drive lines as well....

So much for "combatting the HIGH COST of racing"...what a load that notion has become now!!!!

If I had Pontiac power in a DP and they dropped this bombshell on me, I'd be selling my chassis and engine and Going to the IRL....

The cars are more cost-effective (look it up...they ARE about the same cost as some DPs and cheaper than others) and the paydays are much, much better......

[Chevyguy]

Well, I've been a DP supporter from the beginning. I'm also (obviously) a GM supporter. My opinion, this rule blows. The LS6 is already handicapped by rev limiting. It was fine. Look at the first three races. The 24 is a survival race, anybody could have won. The second win for Pontiac was gifted to them by driver error, which would have been a Lexus 1-2. Pit strategy played a major part at Phoenix, and also the Riley, which I'll be getting to shortly. My point, this rule is completely unnecessary, and I'm curious to read GA's reasoning as to why they've decided to do this. It almost makes me think Toyota is lining somebody's pockets, but that's slander, and I don't want to beleive it. I like that they want things even, but reducing the LS6 is going to make things easy for Lexus.

The Riley however, is an offset to the competition. That is why Speedsource, obviously serious about doing well in the series, picked one up. Anything Bob Riley designs is going to make better downforce, period. In watching the races, the good drivers have discovered that you can make more time with late braking than you can concentrating on corner exit speed. That's where the Riley is owning.

Back on topic, I'm sure the Multimatic is still a great chassis for the class, but there hasn't been a pro driving line-up in one since the first race, which of course, they won. Ford needs to get with the problem and get involved. Now down to one engine, Ford is danger if being out of the DP class completely. Stick Mark Martin and some Formula Ford boys in that thing and get it some camera time. GM did it with Crawford.

As eluded to before, Speedsource got the dominant chassis so they could get out front. They don't have the famous drivers, so now we can see how good the Riley is in the hands of, hmm, not amateur, not lesser, ah, you get my drift.

Tim, you are a smart man. IMO, saying something is "on steriods" is way for people without a decent vocabulary to say something is bigger, better, or more powerful. Not you, or anyone on this forum fits that discription. Can we refer it as the Heritage Mustang, or #48, if you wanna save some typing? Or am I just being an ass (arse)?

[Tim Northcutt]

I'll do that...no problem, Chevyguy....

fair enough....and I agree with someother points that you make as well...

I don't understnad why they are making the rule change, either....

[Patrick B]

I don't always agree with GA's rules, such as the sever handicapping of the SRP1 & 2 cars in 2003. But its hard to argue with their results->Glen entry