|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
View Poll Results: What do you think? | |||
Yes, we need a second GT class for higher/lower performance cars and engines | 19 | 30.65% | |
No, LMGTE just needs some serious fixing; change engine regulations, loose things up, reduce BoP etc | 30 | 48.39% | |
No, LMGTE is fine as it is and there are no underlying problems (or fery few of them) | 7 | 11.29% | |
I don't really care as long as the racing is good | 6 | 9.68% | |
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
27 Jul 2012, 17:47 (Ref:3112262) | #1 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Re-introduction of multi-class GT structure in ACO-style racing?
Basically, there has been some discussion about this and other things over at the GTE Speculation thread, as well as over at RLM forum. Here's my original message from that other thread:
Quote:
Note: this thread isn't about bringing GT3 to ACO style racing, that wouldn't help the situation at all... Note II: GTE-PRO and GTE-AM doesn't count as multi-class Last edited by Deleted; 27 Jul 2012 at 18:08. |
||
|
27 Jul 2012, 17:51 (Ref:3112267) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,532
|
The problem with more classes is when they begin to nip at the heels of LMP2. The higher GT class would be pegged back and in turn the lower class would suffer as a result.
LMP2 could become some thing as a mid way between road car and full prototype, like the Ferrari FXX? (In regards to GT3, I agree that bringing them into Le Mans would have adverse effects due to the way it operates (BoP), but I'll agree with what was mentioned in Midweek Motorsport and say they could race at Le Mans as a support race.) |
||
__________________
Entire team is babies. |
27 Jul 2012, 17:56 (Ref:3112270) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,264
|
I'd just improve the performance of the current GTE cars, remove the displacement restriction, allow things like carbon brakes and larger aero on the Pro cars and leave the Am cars with the current regs. It's not that simple I know but it'd be a start.
|
||
__________________
MBL - SpeedyMouse Race House |
27 Jul 2012, 17:57 (Ref:3112271) | #4 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 61
|
the only form that i think (not taking gt3 cars) is:
LMGTE1: most evolved GTE model with only pro line-up, only for work/official teams. LMGTE2: previous years GTE model (or purposely detuned) with only pro-am line-up and only for private teams. Is hard to image that a manufacter will be happy to produce a GTE with a larger engine for "GTE1" class and the same GTE with a smaller engine. GTE cars are already able to run close to 2010 GT1 timelaps, will be enough give them a lower min. weight and restrictors brakes with a free formula engine. |
||
|
27 Jul 2012, 18:03 (Ref:3112279) | #5 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,630
|
Quote:
Carbon brakes in gtepro sounds good to me. Would be easy enough to remove those as the cars trickle down to gteam. |
|||
|
27 Jul 2012, 18:08 (Ref:3112282) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,264
|
Forgot to mention remove some weight too. Swapping carbon brakes for steel and adding weight to go from Pro to Am would be rather simple.
|
||
__________________
MBL - SpeedyMouse Race House |
27 Jul 2012, 18:54 (Ref:3112301) | #7 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
for one car? (viper) No. The solution is pretty simple, just dont dont let these gt1 cars to race at lm and wec to keep (almost) everyone happy for the moment. When there is more interest in more powerful "lmgt1" cars and all the manufacturers support this and if it wont theraten the existance of the old gte, then it would be okay. On the other hand these machines would be at the back of the lmp2 cars, so I think 4 classes may be a bit too much. with a pure gt grid it would be okay, but not with the lmp cars.
|
|
|
27 Jul 2012, 18:56 (Ref:3112303) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
these are pretty much equivalent to the current gte pro and gte am categories.
|
|
|
27 Jul 2012, 19:16 (Ref:3112311) | #9 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 31
|
Return to the roots
Personally I would prefer something like in the 60s and 70s when there were simply unified rules as how a team or manufacturer can modify street GT model for racing. There was a required minimum production over the 12 and 24 month to classify such road-going car as a GT, thus avoid prototypes like Dauer 962 racing as a GT car, and that was all.
Back then there may not have been such variety like in current GT3 or ALMS GT but there was a real sense in racing for manufacturers titles as the speed of the cars was derived from their real production models. Today with all that stupid balancing, the race results does say nothing about the GT car performances. It just reflects how they were balanced or handicapped. Than the cars could be divided into several classes by some criteria. Engine size (FIA GT Group 3 and Group 4) or general performance (SCCA Production Classes) was used in the past. Today's GT racing is nice but so much artificial that there is almost no point in any kind of manufacturers championships at all. I know my idea is not realistic these days but if I could dream of something, I would return to the GT and racing roots in general . |
|
|
27 Jul 2012, 19:20 (Ref:3112312) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
LMS, it also holds true for the Corvette, which technically has a 6.2-litre engine, but was told to run a 5.5-litre lump for their full program beginning in 2010. If we want Mercedes to be able to run their GT at Le Mans, they would also need allowances to run their 6.2-litre V8 in the SLS AMG. If Aston decides it's simpler to run their GT programs just using the V12, that engine too is above the current 5.5-litre allowance.
Also, did they drop the maximum displacement for forced induction engines when they did it for atmospheric engines? If so, I would imagine the new McLaren is ineligible for GT2 now. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
27 Jul 2012, 19:45 (Ref:3112318) | #11 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
|
I think we only need one class of cars. The Pro/Am idea works fine as a divider.
My own take on a GT class goes something like this: Chassis: anything goes. The entire chassis from the homologation model must be retained though. The differences will be mountingpoints of engine and suspension. An all carbon chassis would have to retain all points as original f ex. Drivetrain: engine and gearbox layout must be retained as original. Rear wheel drive only. Gearbox could actually be a spec unit (well... It'd have to fit a wide range of engines) Max power 450 kW. Spec ECU wich limits acceleration to 0-100kph in 3s and then matches the rest of the powerband to the torquecurve. Top speed limited to 300kph. Due to the ECU, there is no real need for a traction control system. No ABS. I would also like to control downforce. Something like 1000 kg at 250kph. Hard to control, but sensors in the suspension could do the trick. Minimum weight 1250kg. Looking at what P2 will become, I don't think they will be competitors on track. P2 cars ate much more efficient in every way. They only lack in power comparatively. |
||
|
27 Jul 2012, 19:52 (Ref:3112320) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,532
|
Just to be a little random, would a new take on the GT4 regs work as a lower class in ACO racing, with an emphasis on entry level cars such as the 370z, Camaro, GT86 and Boxster?
Then in turn open up GTE a little more? |
||
__________________
Entire team is babies. |
27 Jul 2012, 20:46 (Ref:3112336) | #13 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 61
|
Quote:
I've read about carbon brakes too, the use of c.brakes will increase costs and cars won't obtain so high benefits that justifies the cost; but because their longer lifetime and heat resistence, should be mandatory in 12/24H races so won't be necessary anymore all those repairs that have been necessary during the le mans race. |
|||
|
27 Jul 2012, 21:17 (Ref:3112348) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,340
|
I'd actually go for three classes:
GTX: Start with a production shell, then go nuts. Any engine from a manufacturers range is good, reposition it however you like and do whatever you want with your suspension pick up points. I.e. built RACECARS and no whatsoever BoP. GTO: Closer to production, no waivers of any kind, for cars over 4 litres of displacement GTU: The counterpart to GTO, for cars under 4 liters. With a X-class format, guys like BMW can compete for top-GT honors, but everybody will know that these cars have very little in common with the street cars. The O and U classes would be a real test for roadcars. |
||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
27 Jul 2012, 21:32 (Ref:3112351) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
Mt. Lynx, I can't get behind the standardized acceleration thing, or mandated uniform top speed. Such limits will make passing within the class EXTREMELY difficult, and at Le Mans, it will be worse, because the slipstream will become far less effective. At the end of those 5 long straights, you'll just hit a brick wall trying to pass anybody.
The cars are similar enough in their various performance characteristics already, in no small part because the weight differential between the heaviest and lightest cars in class is a fraction of what it once was in GT racing. At one time, you could have had a variation of something like 900-3000lb between all the various production cars running at Le Mans. Also, that 4.0-litre Porsche, I think, you'd have a hard time balancing that against the Corvette with the sort of system you're talking about, because that 5.5-litre V8 (or what should be a superchargeed, 6.2-litre lump coming from the C6 ZR1) has so much more torque than the Porsche Flat-6, and makes both its power and torque at much lower revs. In addition, if everyone is making roughly 600hp, any existing BMW model is sunk. The Aston Martin Vantage might be in some difficulties too. The Porsche 911 isn't bad aerodynamically, but if you take away other advantages it might have, that car may well be fundamentally uncompetitive in your system. If you try to be equitable to keep the smaller engines in the game, I think you'll choke off the Viper, and possibly the Corvette, too much for there to be a point in running those cars. The Viper presents the difficulty of dealing with immense torque and balancing that as well. BoP seems about the only way to really cover the wide range of vehicles we have in this single GT class. As much as I might not like the tinkering, what we're getting, in the ALMS at least, has so far been incredible. So, practically speaking, I'd rather not screw with a good thing. Last edited by Purist; 27 Jul 2012 at 21:37. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
27 Jul 2012, 22:26 (Ref:3112372) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
I'd keep GTE as a single class but introduce 3 'subclasses' or 'brackets' if you will. Any production based 2-door car with driven real wheels would fall in one of the brackets based on the engine displacement and would be given a minimum weight accordingly. So that the most powerful cars like the 7-litre Corvettes, Vipers and V12 Astons would be the heaviest of the bunch, competing against lighter Ferraris and Porsches with smaller engines, with the likes of Lotus and Ginetta in the less powerful but ultra-light subclass. All of these 3 'subclasses' must be equally competitive for the overall GTE win on a theoretical 'average' circuit. More powerful cars then would be given smaller restrictors for Le Mans. The scoring within GTE should be overall only (except GTE-Pro / Am, but that's another matter).
Example: GTE-1: N/A over 4.5 litres (or equivalent smaller capacity for a forced induction engine) / 1300kg - for cars that used to be GT1 meterial GTE-2: N/A 3.0-4.5 litres (or equivalent smaller capacity for a forced induction engine) / 1150kg - pretty much GT2 GTE-3: N/A under 3 litres (or equivalent smaller capacity for a forced induction engine) / 1000kg - Ginettas, Evoras, Caymans, even things like GT86 But this whole thing should be kept for anoraks on forums. The racing should look as if it's all one class. Oh, and introduce some serious cost-control. Maybe make manufacturers sell customer cars at a capped cost or something. Also get rid of paddle-shift boxes and mandate a simple sequential solution. Last edited by Pandamasque; 27 Jul 2012 at 22:39. |
||
|
28 Jul 2012, 00:01 (Ref:3112397) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,025
|
I voted no, despite being generally in favor of a lower-spec GT category along the lines of Grand-Am's GT category or perhaps the GS class to replace GTC in ACO style racing - particularly the ALMS.
The ACO needs to fix the niggling problems with GTE, lack of hybrid and alternative drivetrain legality, stupid engine displacement limitations, entirely too many waivers and unnecessary BoP (certainly on the IMSA-side) and see if GTE can sink or swim. Despite grid numbers in the ALMS in particular showing little indication of growth in GT, saturating GT with more similar-looking cars at this juncture doesn't seem wise. Chris |
||
__________________
Member: Ecurie Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. EFR & Greg Pickett fan. |
28 Jul 2012, 00:09 (Ref:3112399) | #18 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Not sure how introducing GTE-AM to the ALMS (which I think is going to happen if Black Swan and some of those other whiners get their will through) is going to improve that situation...
|
|
|
28 Jul 2012, 00:28 (Ref:3112401) | #19 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,900
|
Quote:
Awesome thread at RLM, never have I felt more at home hindy's comments were awesome...Thanks for sharing..... BTW you've earned my *respect, for stating your displeasure with corvette's BoP even though your a huge corvette fan. Great show of character. *as much or as little as that means [/off topic] |
|||
|
28 Jul 2012, 00:46 (Ref:3112404) | #20 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
|
Quote:
Downforce measure would be easy using sensors though. Flat out in a straight line and then look at the telemetry. I fail to see how the cars could be a limitation in my proposal. What I want is equal footing, exciting racing and good appeal to as many as possible. Let's face it, average Joe don't care, and usually don't know about any BoP or waivers. They see things they recognize and like it for that. Granted, many sportscars fans are tech nerds or brand specific nerds or both, but I doubt that the nerds are a majority when it comes to audience attendance, be it live or via TV. This is partly why I want a rule set that is somewhat invisible, and doesn't take a thousand waivers or BoP:ing all year long. |
|||
|
28 Jul 2012, 01:03 (Ref:3112406) | #21 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
I've shown this list qute a few times already, but this is how I would see the 'natural' ranking of the current GT cars. With bigger engine vette could probably outscore the 458 too a few times @ certain circuits, especially on the fast ones where they always shine (Le Mans, RA, Mosport etc) but I must say that the Ferrari is the better performing car in terms of overall package, it is not overly difficult to admit that Despite all of this and what you may or may not think of me, I don't lost my sleep because of this :P it may be kinda annoying to have this mess on our hands and all that but it's still a victory if Corvette passes the line first, and I take it gladly. It is still a good, fun class and much better than the alternatives, but something needs to be done before it turns into GT3 Last edited by Deleted; 28 Jul 2012 at 01:23. |
||
|
28 Jul 2012, 04:52 (Ref:3112429) | #22 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,638
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
28 Jul 2012, 05:21 (Ref:3112435) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
There is no hard-and-fast speed limiter in GT2, that I am aware of; the ACO has simply made it known that they would prefer the GT2s not exceed 290km/h, which isn't really an issue anywhere but at Le Mans itself. It wouldn't be an issue at all if they hadn't neutered LMP2 such that those cars can barely get past the GTs on the straights, regardless of the circuit.
If you limit a category's potential performance, so that every car has the same potential in most every area, passing will become nigh impossible. If you can't get a better launch out of the corner, because your acceleration is exactly the same as everyone else, you can't gain any ground until you're a ways down the straight, and the slipstream really kicks in. With a rev/speed limiter though, you're likely going to hit a brick wall when you try to pull out of the slipstream, and you just won't be able to pass at all. Let the cars capitalize on their natural strengths as much as is reasonably possible. I'm still mentally working out my thoughts on a GT scheme; hopefully I'll have that ready to post here soon. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
28 Jul 2012, 07:09 (Ref:3112452) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
Quote:
Still, I wish the GTE-Pro should have no limitations on engine displacements, as well as having hybrid drivetrains. |
||
|
28 Jul 2012, 11:25 (Ref:3112557) | #25 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,900
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BTRDA Class Structure | jimmynova | Rallying & Rallycross | 4 | 30 Oct 2010 18:04 |
Safety car & multi class racing | ger80 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 47 | 30 Mar 2010 21:20 |
Multi-Class-Racing: Good, bad or ugly? | Speed-King | Touring Car Racing | 16 | 29 Apr 2009 09:37 |
FF1600 Class Structure? | mattray | Club Level Single Seaters | 45 | 10 Jul 2004 19:44 |
Seqential Tranny in ACO GT class? | RacingManiac | ACO Regulated Series | 12 | 4 Jul 2003 02:27 |