FIA/ACO to create universal GT class - Page 10

Beetle · 19 Feb 2013, 03:36 (Ref:3206998)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

Why not have the GT3 cars with BoP, as we have now, and the upgrade kits for them (whatever parts they may feature) can be the bits with the more detailed GTE-style technical regs?

Best of both worlds, perhaps over-simplified but it would be nice to know which parts of a GTE car are more expensive than GT3 (I would imagine the engine is the biggest cost here). Then it can be decided which parts would be on the GT3-base car (to keep it relatively cheap) and which parts could be on a GTE-upgrade kit so the manufacturers have some more detailed regs to work with on those sections only.

Probably much easier said than done, I admit!

That sounds like a really good plan, actually. There's one side, the GTEs, which would take a big financial blow if they had to scrap all these mechanical parts, and GT3, which would need to undergo more modification. Nice to meet in the middle, if you get what I'm saying.

Mt. Lynx · 19 Feb 2013, 07:40 (Ref:3207057)

Use GT3 as a base, with BOP and all. The top mfg class can then be GT3 with larger restrictorplates, carbon brakes and an upgraded aeroopack (optimized from GT3 spec.), and a weight limit at the current GTE spec.

TF110 · 19 Feb 2013, 07:55 (Ref:3207061)

1200kg, 2100mm width, road car based engine/drivetrain, GT3 aero rules and call it a day.

KingKenny04 · 19 Feb 2013, 08:01 (Ref:3207065)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

GT3 aero rules

I thought the problem with GT3 was that there ARE no rules?

TF110 · 19 Feb 2013, 08:23 (Ref:3207083)

That's the point.

Let them bring what they want to bring. Innovative parts are appealing.

ArnageWRC · 19 Feb 2013, 09:28 (Ref:3207127)

Why not have the same car for both GT3/ GTE? Like the WRC/ RRC in Rallying – all that changes are the brakes, restrictor, front & rear wing.

Speed-King · 19 Feb 2013, 09:53 (Ref:3207143)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArnageWRC

Why not have the same car for both GT3/ GTE? Like the WRC/ RRC in Rallying – all that changes are the brakes, restrictor, front & rear wing.

Has that really been a success, though? The only WRCs that have an RRC-option available are the Fiesta and the Mini - both of them are privateer options and can't really compete with the factory powerhouses of Citroen and Volkswagen and their bespoke WRCs.

Also, what's the price difference between an RRC and a WRC? Does it really make the kind of difference that the GT rules makers are interested in?

Gingers4Justice · 19 Feb 2013, 12:56 (Ref:3207283)

One thing I do hope comes of the new regs is the return of the plucky little manufacturer who just want the honour of racing their car at Le Mans. Spyker, Morgan, TVR, Lister...I love seeing cars like those at LM. The current Pro/Am set up doesn't really work for them. To get a car to be an "AM" car, where they belong, they'd have to spend a year racing against manufacturer teams with F1 drivers around the globe.

NaBUru38 · 19 Feb 2013, 13:27 (Ref:3207299)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salamus

I think the best solution is to have 2 rulesets, one for big cars (Corvette, Viper, SLS) and one for small cars (458, 911).

No Viper vs 911? Boring!!!

urdragon · 19 Feb 2013, 14:18 (Ref:3207329)

In my opinion, the best success of GT3 si the freedom to develope a car minimum in the AM category, so a certain freedom against GTE is required, personally i would use the same platform with slighly more rules for the GTE or GT3+ version of the pros, so the same car with expensiver updates for the pros. But both cars on sale by the manufacturers.

KingKenny04 · 19 Feb 2013, 15:15 (Ref:3207345)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

That's the point.

Let them bring what they want to bring. Innovative parts are appealing.

But then where do you draw the line between prototype and GT?

Salamus · 19 Feb 2013, 16:03 (Ref:3207368)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

No Viper vs 911? Boring!!!

You didn't understand my post. All the cars should be in one class but there should be two rulesets, since the cars are so different.

HORNDAWG · 19 Feb 2013, 16:51 (Ref:3207386)

Same base car in the GT (4, 3 & GTE) classes per mfg.
A ruleset for GT-3 safety, aero, with the rest in a BIG box to keep them on the same page. Then they can be BoP per series to the particular sanctioning bodies need/desire. Driver classification would also be determined by the individual sanctioning body w/ Le Mans being Pro/Am only.
More than likely with an inter-class BoP with GTE

GTE as a Pro class, also allowing Pro/Am, with basically the current technical ruleset.

L.P.

Livininthinair · 19 Feb 2013, 17:35 (Ref:3207401)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

One thing I do hope comes of the new regs is the return of the plucky little manufacturer who just want the honour of racing their car at Le Mans. Spyker, Morgan, TVR, Lister...I love seeing cars like those at LM. The current Pro/Am set up doesn't really work for them. To get a car to be an "AM" car, where they belong, they'd have to spend a year racing against manufacturer teams with F1 drivers around the globe.

X eleventybillion - this is one of the "charms" of LeMans that is now missing in action...

In my mind this also includes Pescarolo, Dome, Epsilon Euskadi, WR ect...

Pandamasque · 19 Feb 2013, 18:33 (Ref:3207421)

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingKenny04

I think the key is to have a definitive set of regulations, but to keep those regulations as open as possible. It's pretty simple. Cars overall must conform to stock dimensions (length, width, height, maybe allow a slightly wider track). Must keep stock engine configuration and displacement (not necessarily the stock engine itself). Just come up with a formula based on displacement and induction type for calculating weight (minimum weights for given displacements + a modifier if turbo'd or supercharged). Require stock mounting locations for suspensions components. THAT'S IT. If any further BoP is required, nerf quicker cars instead of buffing slower cars to discourage manufacturer and team whining.

Good plan. But I think sticking to stock block engines is important both 'philosophy' and cost-wise.

Kid Roberts · 19 Feb 2013, 19:48 (Ref:3207439)

Ditch the paddles! That is my only gripe...

**joeb** · 19 Feb 2013, 20:32 (Ref:3207452)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid Roberts

Ditch the paddles! That is my only gripe...

Why ditch paddles if that is what production cars come with?

Kid Roberts · 19 Feb 2013, 20:44 (Ref:3207461)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeb

Why ditch paddles if that is what production cars come with?

They should ditch them in production cars too.

TF110 · 19 Feb 2013, 21:59 (Ref:3207518)

That's a step backwards. The paddles allow the drivers to keep their hands on the wheel instead of having to reach over to shift. Another safety feature that also comes with quicker shifts.

Beetle · 19 Feb 2013, 23:46 (Ref:3207571)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

That's a step backwards. The paddles allow the drivers to keep their hands on the wheel instead of having to reach over to shift. Another safety feature that also comes with quicker shifts.

I agree. Keep the paddle shift.

Kid Roberts · 20 Feb 2013, 00:29 (Ref:3207586)

I'd rather see them do something that requires skill. I know all things evolve, but it's a lot more fun to watch a driver go through the gears on an h-pattern.

TF110 · 20 Feb 2013, 00:53 (Ref:3207593)

I'm not even aware of the last time they used an H pattern in the series these cars race.

cobraRed01 · 20 Feb 2013, 01:03 (Ref:3207599)

Clutch, stick, talent...no paddles.

**joeb** · 20 Feb 2013, 01:03 (Ref:3207600)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

I'm not even aware of the last time they used an H pattern in the series these cars race.

I think one of the gx caymans did at Daytona this year.

Speed-King · 20 Feb 2013, 02:18 (Ref:3207607)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

I'm not even aware of the last time they used an H pattern in the series these cars race.

M3 E46 GTR - at least at the Ring, not sure if they had sequential gearboxes in ALMS.

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