Who agrees with Mike Cotton?

[Graham Goodwin]

OK let me put it this way.

If your dream is for an international championship of 2 hour races with single drivers and F1 style pit stops then fine.

It bear no resemblance to any form of sportscar racing that I'd be interested in.

There's a massive difference between endurance racing and sprint racing - between the strategy and teamwork of the former and the latter - The one common factor could be the cars. In my view there are too many sprint series now and that is removing something very special from the racing product on offer.

The fact that (for instance) the Le Mans Series is proving so successful with competitors is proof if any were needed that there is still a market for proper sportscar racing and not a watered down for TV alternative.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

Personally I would prefer to have just 1 driver per car. Fans like to support drivers, by having 1 driver per car people can identify with that car more easily than they can when there are 2 drivers per car. A good example of this is the DTM or even the WTCC. From a fans perspective it works. There would still be differnces between FIA GT and the DTM, like the fact FIA GT has what are IMO better cars and the ammount of people who can work on the car at any one time in the pit lane is limited to 2 people. I have to admit though if the ACO did adopt DTM/F1 style pitstops I think it would only be a good thing. Sure you woudnt need 20 or so people working on the car like F1 but perhaps 11 people.

If you wish to watch sprint races with single driver's, watch DTM or WTCC.

Sportscar racing's strength is the endurance aspect, build from that base and NEVER, EVER change the fundamentals.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by WouterM

Group C also had the smallest grids in history. It always amazes that when looking back all the bad aspects are forgotten. Somehow what happened in the 1980s motor racing has stuck as ideal; turbos in F1, Group B in rallying and Group C in sportscar racing.

Sure Group C had a lot of manufacturers, but few were committed (financially) to the extent that would be needed now to make a successful program. Being at Le Mans was what seemed to matter back then, but marketing now dictates that winning is the only reason to go. I'd rather see fully committed people like Martin Short and Henri Pescarolo face the giants than to see the half-hearted attempts of the past return.

3.5l Group c was a disaster, but traditional Group C raciong attracted 30+ car grids, many of which were privateers, without being supplemented by GT cars.

Idealy there would be no GT cars at Le Mans, or at the very least, a single class with 15-20 cars, while the other 35-40 are prototypes.

[SALEEN S7R]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

The fact that (for instance) the Le Mans Series is proving so successful with competitors is proof if any were needed that there is still a market for proper sportscar racing and not a watered down for TV alternative.

The LMS is popular with competitors yes, and thats good. Just a shame that it isnt so popular with the crowds.

[Graham Goodwin]

Not a shame - a disgrace. The LMS need to do MUCH more to change that

[JAG]

Originally Posted by SALEEN S7R

The LMS is popular with competitors yes, and thats good. Just a shame that it isnt so popular with the crowds.

LMS is far more popular with well informed sportscar fans than FIA GT, now it is time to push on and promote the series to the wider world.

Le Mans and the ALMS show what is possible.

At least we have three of the better events to finish the season with.

[canam]

The market will (and already is) dictate the outcome. GT1 (and GT2 now) cars cannot be financed easily with only two hour races. The real crunch will come if LMS runs competing (or nearly competing) dates. Given that there is no true manufacturer support, the pot is very limited. Ratel needs to be more involved in marketing the LMS and the partners/owners need to invest in the series to build it up.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by canam

Ratel needs to be more involved in marketing the LMS and the partners/owners need to invest in the series to build it up.

That is where Dr Panoz help build the ALMS. He worked with marketing partners, sponsors and team owners too help each of them get maximum exposure.

I dont think the "build it and they will come" mentalilty works too well.

[old man]

Wow, a lot of chat in the last two hours while I did some work!!

I did say that you should restrict the pit lane crew because of the finance issue and would not agree with 11 man crews, the present crew is quite enough.

The attraction of GT1 and 2 running with one driver is that the public would indeed identify with a driver and we know that builds a fan base. As Mr Ratel is involved with both LMS and the FIA series he should be able to dovetail the two series and I thought that I had seen something about only 5 races being wanted in that series, am I wrong? 6 includes the Brazil experiment

The 2 hour format is what TV wants we are told so we would have a good chance of good TV and GT racing with better crowds

[SebringMG]

2 hours is fine for sprint style GT racing with 10-12 events per year, LMS is fine in the 6 hour format with 6 races.

Having a single driver would as GG points out wreck most teams budgets and why anyone would want more people in the pitlane is beyond me.....there is strategy involved in the decision as to whether to change tyres atm, if you do F1 style pitstops then yet another level of strategy is removed....bad imo.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by old man

Wow, a lot of chat in the last two hours while I did some work!!

I did say that you should restrict the pit lane crew because of the finance issue and would not agree with 11 man crews, the present crew is quite enough.

The attraction of GT1 and 2 running with one driver is that the public would indeed identify with a driver and we know that builds a fan base. As Mr Ratel is involved with both LMS and the FIA series he should be able to dovetail the two series and I thought that I had seen something about only 5 races being wanted in that series, am I wrong? 6 includes the Brazil experiment

The 2 hour format is what TV wants we are told so we would have a good chance of good TV and GT racing with better crowds

Do sportscar fans identify with the driver, I personally couldn't care less who drove.

Are the public going to be excited by Piccini vs Deletraz, or Aston vs Peugeot vs Audi?

Other than F1, mainstream TV wants 40 minute sprints, then they may drop you at any given time, just look at the way the BTCC is shoved around the schedules

[canam]

Originally Posted by JAG

Are the public going to be excited by Picini vs Deletraz, or Aston vs Peuget vs Audi?

Only if there is a lot of action (fights)--both on and off the track

[old man]

Originally Posted by SebringMG

2 hours is fine for sprint style GT racing with 10-12 events per year, LMS is fine in the 6 hour format with 6 races.

Having a single driver would as GG points out wreck most teams budgets and why anyone would want more people in the pitlane is beyond me.....there is strategy involved in the decision as to whether to change tyres atm, if you do F1 style pitstops then yet another level of strategy is removed....bad imo.

Quite right on the pit crew, 4 men plus refuel is enough but teams could have two paying drivers if they want but they would have to be good to win if you get the likes of Wendlinger, Melo, Collard et al in some cars, nevertheless, as we had in the days of the Chevron/Lola 2 litre era the privateers would be pleased to compete with the pro's.

Of course, a little start and prize money would not go amiss but then I am going to far eh? Shows just how old I am!

[SALEEN S7R]

Yes 4 men on the tyres and 1 guy on the re fuelling rig would be enough, although not necaessary unless the teams were allowed to re fuel and change tyres at the same time. At Le Mans Peugeot have done something similar to this if I remember correctly, as soon as the re fuelling rig came out 4 guys jumped on the tyres, 1 in each corner. Never understood why the other teams in either the LMS or FIA GT havent copied that yet. The rules say only 4 people can work on the car at any 1 time but it doesent specify that they have to be the same people. If it isnt possible though at some circuits to connect up 4 air guns per pit box then I guess you could still have 4 pit crew on the tyre changes. Rather than thinking of the pitstops as being F1 style I think I would say they would be more in line with the DTM. F1 pit crews have something like 20-25 people, not 11.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by JAG

Other than F1, mainstream TV wants 40 minute sprints, then they may drop you at any given time, just look at the way the BTCC is shoved around the schedules

Im not surprised about the BTCC ..... its about as exciting as cleaning your arse !!!

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by JAG

Group C showed 1000K events with manufactuer support, promotion and a good few years behind them can bring in the crowds.

When they chased TV ratings and shortened events it was the begining of the end.

LMS doesn't yet have the necessary promotion or manufactuer suppoprt behind it, neither has it really established itself in the wider world yet.

Attract Audi and another manufactuer to P1, and I firmly believe it will take off.

With Peugeot using the 908 in primetime TV ad's, if nothing else, it shows the big money and potential behind these kinds of manufactuer efforts, which can only benefit the LMS long term.

I don't post in here very often but I have to agree with everything you say JAG.

When it became GT1 etc. I stopped watching.

Sportscar Racing was different to F1 etc. It was all about endurance and tactics. It wasn't the pit stops that made it exciting, it was the changes throughout the race that made it exciting.

Stuck, Belloff, Wollek etc. all using different driving styles to achieve the necessary result.

I watched the Silverstone GT race recently and was amazed at the lack of spectators. I did attend the '96 race (I think) when the heavens opened and there were many thousands there.

It sems to me that dumbing it down has actually lost, rather than gained, support.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by JAG

3.5l Group c was a disaster, but traditional Group C raciong attracted 30+ car grids, many of which were privateers, without being supplemented by GT cars.

Idealy there would be no GT cars at Le Mans, or at the very least, a single class with 15-20 cars, while the other 35-40 are prototypes.

3.5l was a disaster due to the timing, don't forget 5 works teams had cars built and run plus a couple of very good off the shelf cars. If the world econmoic climate had not changed and sponsors pulled out we would be looking back on the 3.5 cars in a much better light.

[Nordic]

The other big differance between the Grp C era and now in terms of spectator interest are the drivers. To us, ie 'sportscar fans' it does not really matter to much who drives the car, as long as they are fast, they do not need to be a 'name'

If you want to put bums on seats, ie attract the more general motorsport fan, or those from outside(!) having a name driver, ex or current F1 is clearly going to have the best appeal.

This is what you found in the mid to late 80's Martin Brundle, Eddie Cheever, Derek Bell, John Watson, Andrea de Cesaris, Thierry Boutsen, Henri Pescarolo, Derek Warwick, Marc Surer, Manfred Winkelhock, Stefan Bellof, Riccardo Patrese, Alessandro Nannini and Guido Dacco ( )

These drivers had appeal to both sponsors and spectators and was a large part of why Group C suceeded. It was big news with big name sponsors like Canon, Rothmans, Martini, Shell, AEG, Kenwood driving a PR program.

The BPR series and early GT1 had similliar appeal and it was also a success.

IMHO the LMs and FIA GT promotion is akin to shouting down a well, the product is good but the general public really cant be arsed with it. Seeing races on telly with a handful of spectators sitting on deserted terraces is not the stuff of dreams for companies looking to sponsor a sport.

[Tim the Grey]

Most of those guys were regulars in the DTM as it then was. Running 956s or 935s in the German National Championship.
The same cars would then play in European sportscar races, with a guest driver or two, but the headliner was always in the car.
At least, that's how I remember it!

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Most of those guys were regulars in the DTM as it then was. Running 956s or 935s in the German National Championship.
The same cars would then play in European sportscar races, with a guest driver or two, but the headliner was always in the car.
At least, that's how I remember it!

That right, if you had a 956 you could run it in the WSC one weekend, then the German series (remember the Norsring money sprit race!). All the time building support for the cars and drivers.

If you felt like it the intersire was also a possiblity for any quite weekend.

Same car paying for itself over weekend after weekend, now the cars sit in the workshop for most weekends.

[tlracing]

Lack of stability & cost.

A few years ago SRO/FIA wanted GT's to be manufacturers and professional drivers only, so they did all they could to get rid of anyone not fitting those requirements. Costs spiralled dramatically and teams/drivers voted with their feet, leaving for other series (look at the way VdeV, Britcar, etc. have all flourished). Now SRO wants (needs?) the non-professional drivers & non-manufacturer teams back because the number have dwindled.

Short races don't attract 'endurance' drivers nor, I suspect, would 1-driver events. A minimum of three hours, 2-3 drivers per car, no silly pitstop rules and I do like the idea of limiting the number of pitcrew...

...but then, I'd been saying for years that a sports-proto series that harked back to the 2-litre days!!

[Tim the Grey]

That is how you got the likes of Jagermeister, and Rothmans, and Shell, and Bitburger to act as title sponsors. LOTS of exposure for the money!

[old man]

Originally Posted by tlracing

Lack of stability & cost.


Short races don't attract 'endurance' drivers nor, I suspect, would 1-driver events. A minimum of three hours, 2-3 drivers per car, no silly pitstop rules and I do like the idea of limiting the number of pitcrew...

...!!

This is the LMS, seems to be working well but Cotton is arguing that we need to do away with the 2 pit stop rule, we all seem to agree so the logic is that if FIA is to be different from the LMS a 2 hour blind with just the one stop is what it would become. I think that would be won by single driver pro's unless the rule book said 2 drivers. A pro doing a 2 hour sprint is an endurance driver in my book, some of them can't do a 1 hour stint at present if its hot. And 3 drivers in 3 hours also cannot be described as "endurance" driving

[tlracing]

So 2 hours, 1 driver, 1 pitstop? I can't see why that would be interesting to anyone. Sounds rather too much like 'F1-with-sportscars' to me!

Look back at events like the Silverstone 6 hours in the mid/late 70's - yes, hindsight may be wonderful, but surely the reason these were so well-populated were that they were accessible for more people, whether drivers or spectators?

Long events (as I said, a minimum of three hours) with 2+ drivers (lower cost = more interest for the self-funded/sponsored driver).

One question, however: If a pro "...can't do a 1 hour stint at present if its hot..." then why isn't "...3 drivers in 3 hours..." endurance driving?

[eddsc]

What a range of contrasting opinions here. I would try to solve the puzzle with races of different lengths - after all, if you can't agree on one, two or three hours, then just throw out the idea of the same length each time and make them all different.