Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonerz
Speedy, I think I do differ from many people's opinions on tubers around here, but I think I can safely say that there are some truths that 'the crowd around here' can agree on pertaining to tubers:
|
The Prep 1/Prep 2 nonsense has been a nightmare, it was never going to work. If you want to disconnect yourself completely from the ACO (which a few feel should happen anyway) than doing some variation of what Grand Am is doing is signing your death warrant IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonerz
1. If you have a tube-frame chassis, the title 'prototype' becomes somewhat inappropriate. The arrival of the monocoque in F1 in the early 70's meant the end of the technical superiority of tube or space framed chassis.
|
And drove up the cost of SCCA Club Racers in the mid to late 70's
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonerz
2. Balancing tube framers and production chassis to compete in the same class is ridiculous. (Note: this does not mean a GTX or AAGT car cannot compete against a 'proper' GT car built to different performance specifications.)
|
See #1 for Grand Am who used the Porsche 911 Cup as the benchmark because the DP's are no quicker than GT(2) car. You can't have what happen at California Speedway a few years ago (Boris Said) or have a slower but reliable GT car beat more "exotic" DP's at the biggest race on the calendar (TRG) just decided to slow all the GT's down instead of speed the DP's.
Which struck many as FOUL...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonerz
3. (Somewhat related to '2') Tube-frame aren't necessarily without a place in American sports car racing.
|
How relevant is SCCA Trans Am? They have a place - NASCAR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonerz
As far as the article is concerned, I've commented on it elsewhere and yes... the manufacturers need more to appease them. GT(2) won't die so long as the ROI is there to support it. Look at NASCAR, the ludicrous expenses in that sport have not yet meant its death, manufacturers feel that they get ROI enough to remain in Sprint Cup racing in spite of its insane (to many around here unreasonable) costs. If you give manufacturers and sponsors exposure AND relevance the ROI is huge and there is wiggle room for costs to escalate more.
Chris
|
I don't think GT(2) will die.
The technology is constantly increasing in the road car and ultra relevant.
As long as the OEM's take a shell off the production line and are willing to build cars for people to buy, they are getting ROI. Because they won't build cars they can't sell and Porsche has sold every single racing 911 it can build. Porsche was willing to spend much money in the ALMS in 2008 (with Flying Lizard) to protect its market after the defection of Tafel Racing to Ferrari. Plus getting walloped in Europe in FIA GT and at Le Mans was just too much to take. The American Le Mans Series is so important they had most of the factory pilots here full time.
I don't think you need to create a 'tube chassis class to help say Mazda or Ford. Marc VDS with partner Multimatic modified a Mustang FR500GT3 into the Marc VDS Mustang GT3 (Independent Rear Suspension). This is basically no different than Steve Saleen building the Saleen Mustang SR which had a Thunderbird IRS in place of the standard straight axle. I even emailed them if they were going to build any street cars
Mazda is rumored to be kicking around the idea of
bringing the RX7 back
BMW sales will likely happen once its shown it can be competitive day in and day out. I don't mean dominate, they are in year two of development and had a dreadful Le Mans. It took Risi dominating the ALMS in 2007 and AF Corsa dominating FIA GT2 for sweeping changes to happen.
35-40 cars (though too many for Lime Rock) is very possible in two years.