3:55 rule... - Page 2

SALEEN S7R · 15 Jun 2005, 01:05 (Ref:1328888)

I really hope the ACO do re consider their stance regarding this matter, if they dont however it will only make series like FIA GT all the more appealing for GT1 and GT2 teams as the series isnt subject to the ACO's whims. Just as things were beginning to look good in sportscar racing and the balance was reasonably happy the ACO have to come along and start playing with things again. A real shame.

JAG · 15 Jun 2005, 01:39 (Ref:1328900)

Isn't it similar to FIA GT success ballast?

Nordic · 15 Jun 2005, 06:15 (Ref:1328970)

ANY ballast in a car in any series to try to slow it down is wrong. If a car has been built within the rules and is faster than the rest then that team has done the best job. To try and prop up older or slower cars by hobbling the best is plain wrong.

Bob Riebe · 15 Jun 2005, 06:29 (Ref:1328976)

Jag:
I was told to EXPLAIN my post (it is odd that people from the Continent that brought us Dalli and Picasso, some things must be reduced to half-tones) any way, it was designed to make one think, about the obvious, blah,blah,blah...
SO:
The first cartoon represents the pot being caught calling the kettle black (You are correct the FIA really has bozo rules that are just as pointless as the ACO), and the kettle having a har-har-har, because one really cannot complain loudly about the ACO and tout the FIA as superior.
The second cartoon represents Rodney's famous "Can't, can't, can't we all just get along" farcecal statement.
The Third shows, hell no, why, the pot and kettle are both still black, what would be the point, eat-drink-and be merry, for tomorrow your soul may be required of you.

OR something like that.

While we often have differing opinions Jag, I seriously doubt "fully" understanding any post is the among your true concerns of life, but heeeere's ...

Bob

paul-collins · 15 Jun 2005, 19:29 (Ref:1329706)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Isn't it similar to FIA GT success ballast?

Except that success ballast is set to zero at the start of the season.

SALEEN S7R · 15 Jun 2005, 19:36 (Ref:1329722)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Except that success ballast is set to zero at the start of the season.

Yes, and that if a car that has maximum ballast dosent finish in the top 3 for a few races the ballast is removed, perhaps not all but a lot of it.

JAG · 15 Jun 2005, 20:18 (Ref:1329770)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Jag:
I was told to EXPLAIN my post (it is odd that people from the Continent that brought us Dalli and Picasso, some things must be reduced to half-tones) any way, it was designed to make one think, about the obvious, blah,blah,blah...
SO:
The first cartoon represents the pot being caught calling the kettle black (You are correct the FIA really has bozo rules that are just as pointless as the ACO), and the kettle having a har-har-har, because one really cannot complain loudly about the ACO and tout the FIA as superior.
The second cartoon represents Rodney's famous "Can't, can't, can't we all just get along" farcecal statement.
The Third shows, hell no, why, the pot and kettle are both still black, what would be the point, eat-drink-and be merry, for tomorrow your soul may be required of you.

OR something like that.

While we often have differing opinions Jag, I seriously doubt "fully" understanding any post is the among your true concerns of life, but heeeere's ...

Bob

Who told you to explain it?

I just took it as one of your very entertaining rants at modern motor racing.

JAG · 15 Jun 2005, 20:19 (Ref:1329774)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Except that success ballast is set to zero at the start of the season.

Maybe the same will happen here, but on a year to year basis.

Doubt if the ruling will last. Another white lines farce.

Fab · 16 Jun 2005, 05:09 (Ref:1330062)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Who told you to explain it?

I did.

tblincoe · 16 Jun 2005, 08:10 (Ref:1330144)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Maybe the same will happen here, but on a year to year basis.

Doubt if the ruling will last. Another white lines farce.

i wish you were right, but the ACO sounds very serious about this one... we shall see what comes of this, maybe i'm just thinking the worst.

**John Turner** · 16 Jun 2005, 08:33 (Ref:1330154)

I've noted that fior some reason, this thread, has been given a 'thumbs down' rating, but the subject is a good one, worthy of comment so I'm a bit perplexed. Perhaps the rating is aimed at some of the posts; I must confess that, as an intellectually challenged and inarticulate European, I struggled to decipher a few!

Anyway, I will rate it better to see if it gets rid of that 'thumbs down'!

Good old ACO! Simply put, it seems ridiculous to allow cars to be built to a set of regs. for racing and then propose that they cannot race at the speeds they are capable of. 'Racing' is the operative word here; it is their raison d'etre; they were not built for time trials or economy runs! Any attempt at artificially reducing the performance of these beautiful GTs is just sacrilege, apart from defeating the object of the whole exercise in the first place.

Fab · 16 Jun 2005, 08:58 (Ref:1330169)

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Turner

I will rate it better to see if it gets rid of that 'thumbs down' !

Three stars now... certainly due to your own credit

Fab · 16 Jun 2005, 09:13 (Ref:1330176)

Note that fuel samples have been done on the Bouchut's Ferrari yesterday eve... the car was suspected to be too fast...

SALEEN S7R · 16 Jun 2005, 10:48 (Ref:1330223)

The strange thing is Fab, really strange I mean is that im actually a little bit suprised by what you just said. If the ACO stopped tweaking the regulations every 6 months or so and just left things the way they are for a while I think the LM 24hrs would attract considerably more manufacturers than what it has done in recent years.

The main reason I prefer series like FIA GT and races like the Spa 24hrs, apart from the races being aimed at GT's is the fact that to a degree the rule's remain the same for a few years normally then have a bit of tweaking.

archibold · 16 Jun 2005, 13:42 (Ref:1330372)

Saleen S7R

Have to agree with you 100%, the key to any stable successful series is well defined regulations that have a known lifespan.

Fab · 16 Jun 2005, 15:11 (Ref:1330458)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

The strange thing is Fab, really strange I mean is that im actually a little bit suprised by what you just said. If the ACO stopped tweaking the regulations every 6 months or so and just left things the way they are for a while I think the LM 24hrs would attract considerably more manufacturers than what it has done in recent years.

Agree ! ACO's pretty hard to follow... A shame is that some of their decisions might be good, but in the bunch what's good and what's not ?

Do you want a confession ? Right now ? I'm tired of ACO... and I heard some things in the pitlane this year I didn't like too...

But things beeing as they're now...

I'm just a poor sod in the attendance, I pay my ticket, if I'm not pleased, I can beat it...

Gil Abobeleira · 16 Jun 2005, 16:41 (Ref:1330554)

What have you heard Fab?

Fab · 16 Jun 2005, 17:04 (Ref:1330586)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil Abobeleira

What have you heard Fab?

Sorry, can't write it there...

(it was just related to some gentleman driver behavior and ideas... nothing to do with ACO)

ClearHooter · 16 Jun 2005, 18:08 (Ref:1330675)

Racing used to mean the fastest, most durable, best driven, most inovative, best handling car won. I suppose if I have a problem with racing today its this is no longer the case. Its not just in this form of the sport its almost all forms of the sport. They've been doing at LeMans since FORD dominated in the late '60s. Drag racing has brackett racing. A really bad joke. NASCAR's been doing it with spoilers, heights, restrictor plates and displacements for years. They say they do it for safety and competition sake but bunching cars up at over 140 + mph doesn't make much sense to me.

JAG · 16 Jun 2005, 21:41 (Ref:1331068)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fab

Sorry, can't write it there...

(it was just related to some gentleman driver behavior and ideas... nothing to do with ACO)

Fab I think you need to chill out and enjoy yourself

SALEEN S7R · 16 Jun 2005, 21:45 (Ref:1331077)

Yes but JAG - unlike some of us here a lot of us would like to see what GT1 cars are really able to do, without the regulations being tweaked as soon as one of the cars in class shows signs of being anywhere near the LMP cars.

JAG · 16 Jun 2005, 22:05 (Ref:1331122)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

Yes but JAG - unlike some of us here a lot of us would like to see what GT1 cars are really able to do, without the regulations being tweaked as soon as one of the cars in class shows signs of being anywhere near the LMP cars.

Thats the point though, they are nowhere near.

Hence why I believe the rule will be scrapped.

TheNewBob · 17 Jun 2005, 19:20 (Ref:1331780)

It's nice to read that Autosport's Gary Watkins shares views with this forum - his article in latest Autosport also saying that the 3:55 rule is something of a farce, considering it "one of the more bizarre pieces of rule-making" from the ACO. Also stating how it's not doing the GT1 class any good, particularly since it's a class in growth at the minute.

Seems it's the ACO on their own with these rules...

SALEEN S7R · 17 Jun 2005, 19:29 (Ref:1331789)

Lets hope then that the ACO realise this and that they change their minds over this. If there is enough pressure applied on the ACO then they will surley have to act.

krt917 · 25 Jun 2005, 11:53 (Ref:1339793)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tblincoe

too bad ACO has introduced this rule because it totally wipes out the spectacle of flat out racing in what is one of, if not the best class in ACO competition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

IMO, all attempts at enforced equalisation are thoroughly bad for the sport.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nordic

ANY ballast in a car in any series to try to slow it down is wrong. If a car has been built within the rules and is faster than the rest then that team has done the best job. To try and prop up older or slower cars by hobbling the best is plain wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly with these three posts.

I have always been against artificail 'levellers' in all forms of motorsport. The whole point of a race is to find which car/driver/team combination can do the best job in a given set of circumstances. Set the technical rules, see what teams come up with and let them get on with racing what they have brought. If one combo is quicker, then the others have to catch up. If another class that should be quicker isn't, then that's tough (or change the 'quicker' class' rules).

I'm an Aston fan, but I'd rather see the Corvettes beat them and know that it was a fair straight fight, than see Aston's win in a situation that has been created by weight or restrictor fiddles.

I hope the ACO see sense soon. I've always given them a bit more credit than the FIA for doing so (not that that is difficult!).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is that all about? (SC rule)	Knowlesy	Formula One	51	15 Jun 2005 10:04
107% rule	roys1	Formula One	5	20 Mar 2005 12:59
7% rule	expert	Formula One	33	1 Nov 2002 08:54
107% Rule	Yoong Montoya	Formula One	33	20 Apr 2002 04:50
GP rule changes	OVERSTEER	Bike Racing	2	12 Nov 2001 10:54