i can understand why pre-qualifying like that wouldn't be popular, but it's a little more transparent than just nominating entries. i think they should keep guaranteed entries for elms champions and the winners of the previous year's race. everything else would benefit from everyone being in the same boat, imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isynge
Much like I said in the run up to this years event, I can't help feeling that tighter coordination between the ACO and the teams on the waitlist would be a huge benefit, especially those that notionally have the capacity to run a second car would help minimise the prospect of there being a gap, especially if the ACO decides to leverage the overall brand value of the 24 Hours and made an offer akin to "buy a premium hospitality package for the race and we guarantee it, and your livery, will go to ensure the race's longevity - this could mean signage on a car if we need to support a late entrant, or facility named after you on circuit" - with a bit of creativity I'm pretty sure many things are possible.
|
i agree with that. even down to things like clarity between teams and the aco with driver and staff availability. otoh, it's blatently obvious why nobody would want to have that kind of a situation! the risk would surely be too high of drivers, engineers and sponsors jumping ship...
i mean, the example of alpine who had a second entry that needed a spot on the le mans grid to fly is a great demonstrator of what's currently wrong. drivers were in place, but the budget wasn't there once it was clear they'd only be on the reserve list and it was withdrawn. shooting one of your main national flag flying teams in the foot like that seemed distinctly backwards. on the other hand i can understand how they'd be keen to make sure there was a bit of diversity between teams, especially pre-season when it wasn't clear how poorly supported the wec lmp2 class would be.