|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
28 Sep 2013, 18:09 (Ref:3310468) | #426 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
5 Oct 2013, 22:18 (Ref:3313304) | #427 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
So the names might not be final after all. |
||
|
7 Oct 2013, 04:56 (Ref:3313961) | #428 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
BTW, if the GT class will be unified and distributed betweem Pro and Pro/Am, is there any consideration for Am teams? I think the FIA/ACO should update the GT4 class.
|
|
|
7 Oct 2013, 05:40 (Ref:3313968) | #429 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
7 Oct 2013, 08:03 (Ref:3313990) | #430 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
||
|
8 Oct 2013, 18:53 (Ref:3314748) | #431 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 361
|
I'd rather they keep the technical differences between a GT-Pro and GT-Am as minimal as possible (ie, none) as I think that if manufacturers want to blow the bank on development, they should head to prototypes.
I'd like the rules to be as open as possible by creating a performance 'box' for the cars, rather than lots of technical regulations which limit the variety. Give them a minimum and maximum weight, and then a regulated power-weight ratio range to reduce the ability for arms race spending to ruin the class. Cost inflation due to poorly written rules simply isn't viable, and manufacturers shouldn't need to make multiple cars for multiple classes. Keep the rules sensible and universal, as any technical differentiation just means GT1 and GT2 will re-emerge over time and we wind up back at the same starting point with the same problem. |
||
__________________
have a nice diurnal anomaly... |
8 Oct 2013, 19:24 (Ref:3314770) | #432 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
8 Oct 2013, 19:32 (Ref:3314772) | #433 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,335
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
9 Oct 2013, 05:33 (Ref:3314957) | #434 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
9 Oct 2013, 11:47 (Ref:3315121) | #435 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,192
|
Quote:
I don't see why this obsession on manufacturers investmens on GTs where the ruleset is tighter than in LMPs, But i don't mind as long as they are forced to sell the cheaper base car without those kits to the privateers, even considering, current economic climate only permits great investments of manufactures instead of privaters (Vita4one,hexis,JRM investment went V and AMR,RJN Nismo,WRT... went ^) |
|||
|
9 Oct 2013, 14:07 (Ref:3315218) | #436 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
"I don't see why this obsession on manufacturers investmens on GTs ..."
Likely because the GTs are models they actually sell in showrooms. |
|
|
9 Oct 2013, 14:44 (Ref:3315232) | #437 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,192
|
Quote:
I'm not sure a terrible economic effort out of I+D (in GTs) is anything viable and productive in this environment which also is not focused in selling road cars, road cars focus more in other benchmarks, maybe profesional laptimes on famous tracks, I asume we are talking of Racing cars sales. |
|||
|
9 Oct 2013, 15:22 (Ref:3315250) | #438 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
9 Oct 2013, 15:26 (Ref:3315252) | #439 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,192
|
One then, may doubt about the convenience of using BoP in the so called GT+ superior class, but then there is the issue of how comparing cars of different architectures (If the idea of a comoon architecture is definitively confirmed for both GT an GT+ classes), BoP was a safe Bet on comparing (Different architectures) them in GT3.
|
||
|
9 Oct 2013, 17:01 (Ref:3315291) | #440 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
|
Why are seemingly everyone so concerned with BoP? AFAIK it's used in just about all forms of racing. There several ways to Balance of Perfomance, different racing classes use different methods. In GT3 they use restrictor plates, ballast and I tjink some control of the rear wing. In GTE they use waivers, ballast and restrictors. The new LMP rules use the ultimate tool in energy limitation. F1 used strict aero rules and rev limits. SuperGT use ballast and restrictors, etc etc.
BoP is nothing new in racing, so I would be very surprised if mfg's cared at all. And looking at the world wide success of GT3, I'd say they've done something right. To ignore that would be foolish indeed. |
||
|
9 Oct 2013, 18:23 (Ref:3315320) | #441 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,043
|
Hell Corvette joked about BoP in their ads for the ZR1 last year. Those of us who knew the ALMS GT car got the joke and everyone who cared probably wondered what they meant and asked or looked it up themselves.
|
|
|
9 Oct 2013, 19:03 (Ref:3315354) | #442 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,208
|
Quote:
I'm not 100% happy with the BOP, specially with its politics, but I cannot see a better way to keep GT racing running on the long term. |
|||
|
9 Oct 2013, 19:43 (Ref:3315380) | #443 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,109
|
As high as the quality of the ALMS GT class remember the grid was just 11 cars this year. I did get jealous of the Blancpain Endurance grids for being over 50 cars or even of GT Open which gets over 30 cars for sprint races.
|
|
|
9 Oct 2013, 19:50 (Ref:3315385) | #444 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
So what! The series mentioned are of completely different types, and make up. L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
9 Oct 2013, 21:32 (Ref:3315433) | #445 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,569
|
Or to put it another way, you can't expect 30-40 GTLM cars when the whole USCC field will be limited to ~56 cars or so.
|
|
|
10 Oct 2013, 11:07 (Ref:3315671) | #446 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
I for one would like to see GT+ (or whatever it will be called) completely void of BoP, just give them a universal rule set, a set of restrictors and min. weight limits for all the possible engine sizes and configurations and make sure everyone sticks to drivetrain layout of the original road car. Of course some types of road sports cars are much more suitable for GT racing. But instead of balancing makes of cars, balance the types of cars. Build some BoP into the rules to counteract some of the drawbacks of base cars (e.g. sub-optimal engine and/or gearbox position etc.). And restrict the aero somewhat. Most fans would agree that overpowered cars racing at the limit are more fun to watch. But after that allow technical competition among the manufacturers. I want to see them compete and win on merit, not through politics! There's always a chance that some car will dominate, but I'm willing to take that risk. Besides, there will always be close racing in the base GT class for privateers where GT3-like BoP would be a win-win since it's a class for privateers and not manufacturers to compete in.
|
||
|
10 Oct 2013, 12:58 (Ref:3315729) | #447 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 798
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Oct 2013, 14:10 (Ref:3315769) | #448 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,491
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Oct 2013, 16:57 (Ref:3315862) | #449 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,192
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_GT3 There are lots of types of cars in GT3 to classify with multiple BoPs. Lots of work, lots of diferent cars, engine sizes, engine disposition, drivetrains... Car sizes (Aero)= Lots of Groups. Even discarding homologation expired cars, too much work for the fans to understand (allthough some of us even do not understand current BoP anyway). |
|||
|
10 Oct 2013, 17:10 (Ref:3315867) | #450 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,192
|
Quote:
Otherwise (If keeping cost low for privateers is not posible) discard a comoon base model for GT and GT+ (Like nowadays) or discard technical competition. Last edited by urdragon; 10 Oct 2013 at 17:16. |
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Re-introduction of multi-class GT structure in ACO-style racing? | Deleted | ACO Regulated Series | 49 | 21 Apr 2014 16:46 |
[FIA GT] FIA/ACO GT regulations | ger80 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 4 | 14 Jul 2006 23:23 |
[FIA GT] why did the FIA kill the GT1 class in FIA GT? | CVT | Sportscar & GT Racing | 42 | 16 Nov 2003 01:48 |
Seqential Tranny in ACO GT class? | RacingManiac | ACO Regulated Series | 12 | 4 Jul 2003 02:27 |