[Fogelhund]

This is my response to the article on DSC.

I don't disagree that the system currently in place has it's flaws. But, it really is not possible to create a system that doesn't have flaws.

I would like to begin, by putting forth some of the tenets that I believe should be true. First, it should be apparent that the ACO will foremost do what it believes is best for its race. Second, I agree with Mr. Cracknell that the ACO should be doing what it can to strengthen it's franchises. These two tenets at times create conflict.


Let me examine the proposals put forth.

1. Essentially moving forward calendar wise, and increasing the number of guaranteed places on the grid.

This quote summed it all.

“If we had two entries confirmed now, we would have two new cars ready to go for next year, and nine months to raise the support to do it,” seemed to be the prevailing view at Donington Park.

Frankly, I simply cannot buy this argument put forth. While I appreciate that a guaranteed entry might help Team X to raise the support to enter the big race, I'm not certain what recent achievements this team can put forth, to reasonable support an argument that they are a solid two car team.

What proof does the ACO have, that this second entry will enhance the show, when there is simply no provenance behind it? There is a probability that a team could raise the funding, and have professional drivers, but then they could go out and find a couple of relatively inexperienced rent a ride buyers. Then there is a reasonable probability that the team doesn't raise the funding, and due to a scarcity of "at large entries", some teams simply don't bother submitting an application, resulting in a reduction in the quality of the grid.

Why exactly should the ACO be putting their race at risk for unfunded cars, no matter what the time frame is?

I'll tell you what ACO. Give Bobby Rahal, a guaranteed entry now. Certainly with that guaranteed entry, Rahal would have a better chance to raise funds, and adding that Rahal to the ALMS, sure would raise it's profile.

This is mid-September. It is a completely normal timeline, to expect a number of very capable potential entrants to not even announce their programs for several months. It is my belief that if we preselected 46 cars today, the remaining nine positions would be oversubscribed, by teams much more qualified, than many on the list of 35 LMS and 11 ALMS cars.

Hmmm, what about those Peugeots? Ok, well we only have seven at large positions now.

What if there is a European Audi team next year? Ok, well we only have five at large positions... Maybe it won't be Audi, but it certainly will be some entrant, in one of the classes that will be a lock.

In my opinion, way too many guaranteed entries, and way too much risk for the ACO.

3. Suggest to the European teams (with the 35 cars) that have been invited to Le Mans that they might like to consider racing at Sebring next year. It would be expecting an awful lot for all of them to want to go to Florida next March, and those building new cars may not be ready (and Sebring couldn’t cope with this number), but a less than subtle hint that if 20 European entries made it to Sebring, then they would be looked upon very favourably in future years. Basically, they’ve just earned lots of brownie points.

There is no question that the ALMS has had unsatisfactory entry levels the past few years, but I believe that this isn't the answer for Sebring or the ALMS. I believe that the ALMS really should be looking internally at building up car counts to around 40. That certainly doesn't preclude entries from Europe, but it does reduce their importance.

Secondly, if a team is given this proposed guaranteed entry in September, what justification is there for not being ready six months later? Do we really expect much out of a team, if they cannot field a team some two and one half months prior to Le Mans pretest? Sure, we can come up with some examples, such as Rollcenter last year, but at this point things are looking pretty dodgy for the ACO, having given up a guarantee, and now a no show.

The ACO simply would build themselves too little flexibility under such a scenario, and I can't support this type of idea.

4. Lets build on that, and make the Le Mans 24 Hours part of the Le Mans Series. Why not? If a scoring system was devised that didn’t give the 24 hour race too much sway, and because the top European teams will be there anyway, why shouldn’t Le Mans be both an individual event and part of the Le Mans Series?

The Le Mans Series has now received a huge shot in the arm. Teams can now approach sponsors with a ‘double whammy’ of Le Mans and the Le Mans Series.

Given we have concluded that there are likely to be 5 at large entries left over with this system, and we split 3 for LMS, and 2 for ALMS for argument sake.

These are the teams this year in the LMS, that were not around last year. These teams would have been fighting for those three LMS "at larges".

CHAMBERLAIN - SYNERGY MOTORSPORT LMP1
SWISS SPIRIT LMP1
LUC ALPHAND AVENTURES GT1
RACING FOR HOLLAND - do you give a guaranteed entry to a team with 3 points in LMP1 over countless other teams with better results?
IMSA PERFORMANCE MATMUT - GT2

Maybe there is more I've missed, yet two of these teams would unlikely have been at LM this year, due to this discussed changes in guaranteed entries.

Further to this, the point of this being part of the LMS series. So your current 2nd and 4th place LMP1 teams in the standings, your current GT1 leader, and your current 3rd in GT2 in the standings all might miss a round of the series, and lose out points to their competitors. Chances are the three LMP1's get chosen. It is highly likely that those teams who were forced to miss a round of the series, would have fairly unhappy having lost out in their championship bid. Perhaps Mssr. Alphand would be disappointed with this outcome, having enough points to win the championship, except he wasn't allowed to run at one of the races.

I appreciate that finding sponsorship money is difficult, and there is a strong need to plan well in advance.

With a system like this in place, we would neatly avoid any of those last minute dramas over entries that pull out.

Well, no we don't, and in fact we may increase this probability. Said sponsorship money is not guaranteed, perhaps the place where you wish to purchase your car falls behind in their production, such as Radical did this year. There will still be last minute dramas, and perhaps even more.

The Le Mans Series has now received a huge shot in the arm. Teams can now approach sponsors with a ‘double whammy’ of Le Mans and the Le Mans Series.

.... and yet other new teams get quite the opposite result. Very little chance to go to Le Mans, the promise of missing a round of the championship... how does this appeal to sponsors. What about Mssr. Alphand, currently leading the championship, but unlikely to have done so if LM was part of LMS, and he wasn't invited? While we may have a positive on one side, we have an equal negative on the other.

I suppose 35 guaranteed entries for the LMS looks great, yet the combined JLMS and ALMS get 11, with few at larges available. The ALMS has won 75% of the classes/overall the past three years, and yet is guaranteed only 20% of the entry? Somehow this doesn't seem very equitable, nor does it do for the ALMS, what it does for the LMS in terms of theoretically building grid size. ... and which series needs the most help building grids again???


There are however several changes to the existing qualifications that I would make.

1. To be deemed eligible to enter LM, you must be full-time entrants in an ACO sanctioned series, and have competed in at least two races prior to LM in that current year in ACO sanctioned races. This doesn't mean one car in series = two at LM... both have to run to qualify.

This ensures that teams are qualified, and ready to race at LM, and eliminates cherry-pickers who do nothing to increase the quality of the ACO franchise series.

2. Eliminate the sale of autobids. Your team earned it, you use it, or forfeit.

3. Require that all drivers will have competed in a minimum of two ACO sanctioned races in the prior twelve months. Sorry Mr. Rent a ride. Beyond $, what have you done to deserve to be here, be a rolling pylon, and decrease the quality of the show?

4. Guaranteed entries, subject to the above requirements as follows;

Top 3 finishers in points, in ALMS and LMS, per class. If JLMS actually survives, revist this.

Teams cannot receive more than two guaranteed entries, and auto-bids do not roll to the next nearest point getter.

5. Only half tongue in cheek, go back to a proper pre-qualifying for the rest of the entrants. I appreciate the costs involved to those who don't make it, yet this is an excitement lost, and it ensured that some of the questionable teams didn't make the grids. Average time of the three drivers, get on with it.

Points 1.) and 3.) may require certain Euro teams/drivers to make Sebring, to fulfill their requirements to enter LM, satisfying the desire to have more Euro teams enter said race..

Just my opinions.