USCC (leave your axe outside)

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Baigu

But why bother wasting money & time trying to force the fans to like it when you could have P2. Mostly every endurance fan around the world likes it and its also recognised all over the world.

Grand Am/Nascar should start a exchange program for DP's against P2 or PC cars, like Indycar did for Champcar.

There seems to be a lot of interest on the manufacturer side in creating DP-bodywork for next year and onward, they can't really do that in P2 and not all DP engines are compatible with P2 regs either...

If USRC wants to have a chance to succeed, they need the manufacturer name-plates in their top class.

Also, I find people that prefer P2s over DPs for anything other than aesthetic reasons rather hypocritical, it's just as much of a cost containment formula.

I won't argue aesthetics, but to suggest that P2 is somehow a "purer" formula than DP because it's engineering driven is ridiculous, because - NEWSFLASH - it's not. Check the rules, if you don't believe me.

[gregtummer]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

There seems to be a lot of interest on the manufacturer side in creating DP-bodywork for next year and onward, they can't really do that in P2 and not all DP engines are compatible with P2 regs either...

If USRC wants to have a chance to succeed, they need the manufacturer name-plates in their top class.

But this is what I don't get. If the cars are performance-balanced to run equal, why does it matter?

If Ford invented a car in the DP class that could be powered by solar and wind power and bypass fuel entirely (which would be one of the greatest inventions of all time), Grand Am would force it to sit in the pits for 50 seconds while the other DPs pitted too so that no one anywhere would gain an "unfair" advantage.

So why does this matter?

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

But this is what I don't get. If the cars are performance-balanced to run equal, why does it matter?

Ask Ford and Audi, not me.

But it can be only good for the series, bringing in promotion $$$, and giving the fans something to root for or against.

[gregtummer]

So no one anywhere has any incentive to get better at anything?

Except for maybe the driver of the car on the 24th restart with 15 min to go.

[Accident]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

If you want to tell sports car fans everywhere that they are stupid to like exciting cars, and are killing racing thereby, okay.

...

If caring about the cars is wrong then fans are wrong, because the Vast majority of sports car fans care a Lot about the cars. And everyone knows that the best business advice one can get is to ignore what the customers want, right?

That's taking my comment a bit far isn't it?

As I thought was made clearer by my second paragraph, it was only to (admittedly in a somewhat cheeky manner) mimic the other post and point out it isn't so clear as one being right or wrong.

One has essentially 2 different cars, 3 engine packages, and only 3 teams total, one of which can't even finish a race, but the cars are interesting and the fans like them, but teams can't afford to run them.

The other has essentially 2 different cars, 3 engine packages, and can make double digit grids, and while one team may be the frequent winners, there are usually about 3 other cars that are in the hunt at least, but the cars are uninteresting and fans don't really care about them.

Neither one of those sounds like a success that should be carried forward, to me at least.

[Baigu]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

There seems to be a lot of interest on the manufacturer side in creating DP-bodywork for next year and onward, they can't really do that in P2 and not all DP engines are compatible with P2 regs either...

If USRC wants to have a chance to succeed, they need the manufacturer name-plates in their top class.

Also, I find people that prefer P2s over DPs for anything other than aesthetic reasons rather hypocritical, it's just as much of a cost containment formula.

I won't argue aesthetics, but to suggest that P2 is somehow a "purer" formula than DP because it's engineering driven is ridiculous, because - NEWSFLASH - it's not. Check the rules, if you don't believe me.

Lots of manufacturers interest because its the top class in North America. Put P2 the top class and you would see the same thing. P2 are faster and accepted in ELMS and WEC as well. That way, the best teams and drivers could come over and vice versa.

I disagree that DP look worst, they dont anymore. The Corvette body is decent looking but it does not make the car faster. P2 are better looking but its the speed that I like more. I think the PC cars are the best looking out of the 3 but I'm still not interested in the class unless I was a driver or team owner.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Baigu

Lots of manufacturers interest because its the top class in North America. Put P2 the top class and you would see the same thing. P2 are faster and accepted in ELMS and WEC as well. That way, the best teams and drivers could come over and vice versa.

I disagree that DP look worst, they dont anymore. The Corvette body is decent looking but it does not make the car faster. P2 are better looking but its the speed that I like more. I think the PC cars are the best looking out of the 3 but I'm still not interested in the class unless I was a driver or team owner.

Neither, current chassis, will be the exact chassis of the 2016-2017 clean sheet ruleset!





L.P.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

So no one anywhere has any incentive to get better at anything?

What it comes down to is this: With the level of (especially aerodynamic ) sophistication race cars have reached today, any further progress will only come by spending huge amounts of money. 25 years ago it was still possible to develop new aero-parts on a paper napkin, but those days have been over for a while now. At the least, anything that's truely helpful will need a ton of on track testing and at the worst a metric b*ttload of windtunnel time.

That's fine for manufacturers like Audi or Toyota, but it's disastrous for most privateer outfits as we can see in P1 right now (8 cars for LM, when was the last time with that few cars in the tops class?!)

But just because getting faster on the test track isn't viable anymore, doesn't mean that going faster on the race track should not be possible. If a team can beat their oppossition due to advancements made over a race weekend in fields like set-up or fuel strategy - more power to them! After all, that's a level playing field and not one skewed so ridiculously towards the guy with the biggest wallett (at least not to the same degree).

A rational analysis will show you that the situation I've just described exists in pretty much any major racing series right now, with the notable exceptions of P1 and F1. But neither P1 nor F1 seems a viable top class for a domestic American racing series right now.

[Ferrari333SP]

If they slow down the GTE/GTLM cars in any way, shape, or form, this new series is dead to me.

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by Ferrari333SP

If they slow down the GTE/GTLM cars in any way, shape, or form, this new series is dead to me.

Yeah, it would be far from ideal and silly considering if those same cars went across the ocean to LM, they'd be sped up again.

As it has been said before, this is utter BS. Why they don't do the sensible thing and speed up those DP's is beyond me, less mess and in my eyes, makes it more accessible for teams that want to dip in and out either side of the Atlantic. Then again, this is NASCAR we're talking about

[HORNDAWG]

Oy vey, everyone involved has said that the DP needs to be sped up! There are a couple of DP team owners sniveling about it and everyone goes nut bags about it, . The series is not going to slow up 75-80% of the grid in order to not speed up the DPs.








L.P.

[nkoske]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Oy vey, everyone involved has said that the DP needs to be sped up! There are a couple of DP team owners sniveling about it and everyone goes nut bags about it, . The series is not going to slow up 75-80% of the grid in order to not speed up the DPs.

While I agree that's what common sense would tell us...most of us aren't sure that the powers that be have a ton of common sense .

[gsmith2424]

Originally Posted by nkoske

While I agree that's what common sense would tell us...most of us aren't sure that the powers that be have a ton of common sense .

I mean heck NASCAR will be owning the combined series and you just have to look at the dumb stuff they already pull with the stock cars.

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by gsmith2424

I mean heck NASCAR will be owning the combined series and you just have to look at the dumb stuff they already pull with the stock cars.

You never know, maybe the USCR will feature 'random red flags' to spice up the racing or have cameras falling on the track. I mean, how can the WEC and Le Mans compete with that right?

[Salamus]

If any NASCAR gimmicks become familiar in USCR, then I am out.

[gregtummer]

Originally Posted by aneesh99

You never know, maybe the USCR will feature 'random red flags' to spice up the racing or have cameras falling on the track. I mean, how can the WEC and Le Mans compete with that right?

Along with exploding jet dryers and tracks falling part......Well I'm sold!

I'm waiting for them to introduce banana peels that drivers can shoot out of the back of their cars, just like in Mario Cart.

[Purist]

Speed-King, I thoroughly disagree with your assertion that you can no longer just draw up something on a paper napkin. That is still absolutely possible for those with a mind toward whatever kinds of devices/innovations they have specialized knowledge about.

A major part of the problem is the restrictive, anal-retentive rules so many series have. These rules usually ban further development of more fundamental and established items, techniques, etc. Therefore, the ONLY avenues left to go even a tiny fraction quicker are those insanely intricate, insanely complex, and insanely expensive solutions that have simply never occurred to the rulesmakers. And as soon as the rules people see these new solutions, they promptly ban them, forcing teams/manufacturers to go to even more absurd lengths to make any gains at all!

This cycle CANNOT be broken, so long as the point of racing is to go faster! In other words, this will NEVER change, no matter how many "cost containment" measures you try to impose! Therefore, the ONLY way for the situation to improve is for the most nit-picky regulations to be eliminated, for the moderate limitations to be relaxed, and leave just the large, sweeping general guidelines intact as they are now.

It is these very rules that have made "innovation" almost solely the purview of the monied manufacturers. Lotus was NOT a large, wealthy constructor, yet look at what they accomplished! If things were allowed to occur in a more "natural" environment, the innovators at the small teams would have opportunities to pull one over on the big boys, because those large, calcified management structures generally can't move as quickly as the small constructors to adopt new things. It's also harder for a brilliant mind to stand out or move up in one of those larger organizations. If that individual saw real opportunity to be rewarded by working with a smaller outfit, that would take away a HUGE part of the draw that is the vast salaries the big factories can offer.

As it stands, I would have to say that the chicken-****, anti-innovation rules have been quite detrimental. Many of the real innovators, I am certain, have gotten ****ed off by the current state of affairs, and sworn off the field of motorsport altogether! They have LEFT, and God knows if they can EVER be gotten back! These would be the minds that COULD keep privateers and small constructors in the hunt against the large factories, but outside of those factories, they are GONE from major league racing, perhaps for good!

And you CAN'T reasonably tell me that this is just hogwash! The later GTPs and Group Cs made MORE downforce than the LMP1s of 2008 or today, and did so with SUBSTANTIALLY superior L/D values! There are MASSIVE efficiencies that could still be exploited in basic areas, but the rules PREVENT this from ahppening! And since these are BASIC things, they would NOT cost the VAST sums we speak of all the time in here and in the F1 section!

(Yeah, I'm just a bit worked-up about this stuff, just in case you couldn't tell.)

[aneesh99]

You're bang on but this isn't an ideal world.

Speed-King is on the money with his statement that said:

'After all, that's a level playing field and not one skewed so ridiculously towards the guy with the biggest wallett (at least not to the same degree).'

As much as I would like P1 (but especially F1) to go back to 'have at it, spend as much as you like', it is completely counter productive and counter intuitive in this era. Money isn't abundant with the financial crisis, where sponsors aren't pouring in the millions, where manufacturers have shown time and time again that racing is an expendable amenity.

I don't know how you feel or where you stand Purist (though I guess your nick gives it away,no? ), but I'd rather have racing as it is than none at all. And that's exactly what would happen if you let it loose.

[broadrun96]

Yes you are definitely worked up, but your argument has one MAJOR flaw. If the rules allowed the simple back of the napkin engineering, who would actually do it? Not a single team pushing to go faster would give up the TINIEST bit of the computing power to improve their car no matter where the drawing started. So your options are eliminate computers and pretend they don't exist or write rules that only ALLOW certain things with no grey area. Nothing not specifically allowed within the rules can be tweaked or built and even there you will have guys like Penske who figured out how to tune and tweak a 'spec' Indy car to make more downforce within the rules for road courses on the last chassis. Just like the genie, spending is NEVER going back in the bottle without giving the teams ALL the cash they can spend and watching them like a hawk or having a spec chassis/parts.

[Purist]

Those tiny things don't yield the same time gain as the more fundamental areas will. Therefore, on a given budget, you'll make more speed concentrating on the basics. As that is the case, that is what the teams will do. The other stuff will come, eventually, no matter what, but by then, the methods will be vastly more refined, there will be a firmer foundation underpinning all of it, and hence, the costs will have come down dramatically.

(There's plenty of money out there; it's just being sat on, by the tens of trillions! And "supply side economics" is NOT going to get us out of this "crisis", caused by a lack of DEMAND!)

It is better to have inspiring racing, in more than just the entertainment sense, which by itself isn't very fulfilling in the end, even if it is only in periodic doses. If what is being offered is never truly inspiring, never feeds the soul, and never spurs the imagination, even if it is a constant, what is the real value in it?

BTW, I did NOT say that there should be no rules at all, but a more minimalist approach than now makes more sense than a depressingly constant regression.

I think the part that probably irks many of us the most is this perception we sometimes get that we're being told that we just "should" like this other thing, and if we don't, there's something wrong with us. If my preference is legal, and there is no real moral issue attached, what place does another man have to tell me, or act in a way that tells me, that I just "ought to" shut up and willingly accept what he offers/demands?

If the NASCAR philosophy is thoroughly applied to USCR, then they are, by their actions, telling us that we, who appreciate and even salivate over, the cars, are not okay. That is a statement to the affect that it is not okay by them for us to be, and that we are not welcome in the upper tiers of the racing community of our own country! THAT is something for which it would be perfectly justifiable to be upset.

I will echo some earlier comments. I want to think that this will be handled competently; however, I cannot, in good faith, assume that "common sense" will rule the day within the management at USCR. That is too big a leap to reasonably make at this juncture.

[Dutton]

It is very hard to see NASCAR not constantly fiddling with things for "the greater good". One just has to hope they contain themselves to a more GARRA-type interference than NASCAR, but my concern is that they are going to want to "harmonise" the USCR with the top three NASCAR series from a marketing perspective.

I am assuming they are going to try and start pushing it on the NASCAR-only masses, in order to make money. Therefore, I fear, they are going to want to give it a familiar "feel".

This is all conjecture, of course, but I can certainly see the rationale for it.

[supermario21]

I don't measure excitement as in "how many cars can win." Any number of factors can make racing exciting, including car diversity, technology, speed, etc. Spec field depth is not one of them. The comment of only 8 LMP 1's being in this year's Le Mans is supposed to be a negative in terms of high-cost racing, yet that 8 car field yields 5 cars of 2 different makes with great tech/speed that can truly win and the other 3 (especially Rebellion) are all high quality outfits. Is this worse than Le Mans 2000-2004 when there were probably 20 top class vehicles yet only the Audi R8's (or Bentley's) were any good and had a chance at winning? Heck the most exciting part of the 2000 race was watching Audi's revolutionary rear-end changes. In the spirit of competitiveness, the ACO outlawed those. Did that help small-budget teams who might be in inferior cars that might be more prone to hypothetical gearbox failures? I think not.

Sportscar racing has always been better than formula racing in my opinion because designers and manufacturers were given free reign around a loose set of parameters, rather than essentially spec formulas. If you look at the past history of Le Mans racing, it was when the rules got too tight (3.5 L engines anyone?) that caused costs to increase and people to leave the sport.

[Lanky Turtle]

I'm actually looking forward to the USCR season next year. It's something new and exciting for the sport that should at least help get some attention from the racing press.

And I think it will be interesting to see some upgraded DP's going head to head with the vastly different P2 cars.
Just so everyone is clear, P2 IS part of the season next year. This has been announced.

And Grand Am does a pretty good job of balancing the vastly different engine and chassis combinations in Conti Challenge, so maybe they will pull something good out of the bag, though it might get adjusted race by race as the season goes on.

One thing I will say though is, if they so much as change one little thing that is not to my liking, whether it be a window net shape I don't like, or a sticker on the front of a car which is supposed to resemble a headlight, or allow a yellow flag wavearound of cars in which the pacecar picks up the overall race leader, instead of a yellow flag wavearound of cars in which the pacecar picks up the first CLASS leader, then I will tune out and never watch another USCR race again for as long as I live, and will spend the rest of my adult life griping about it on the internet.

[gregtummer]

Another thing a lot of Grand Am fans say is

"Well I was at the Daytona 24 in the early 90s and before and the race would be over by sunup, because one car was so far ahead. I don't want to go back to that again."

To which my response is: So? That car that is 8 laps ahead, don't you think they DESERVE to be there because of their superior speed, better fuel efficiency, and by being able to keep their car running, while other cars were breaking?

Why should we penalize success and give cars 8 laps back? To improve the show? So INTEGRITY of the sport means nothing now? Or are we just WWE Entertainment where every race we have 4 cars running nose to tail at the end of 24 hours so that we can call it a "classic"? I mean, a car could LITERALLY sit in the pits for the first 8 laps of the race and be back on the lead lap by the end of the race through no effort of their own.

In the 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans, Audi won by 10 laps over the 2nd place Peugeot and being an 8.5 mile track, they won by 85 miles. Yet somehow that didn't stop 230,000 people from coming to the 2008 24 Hours of Le Mans. At the 2011 Petit Le Mans, Peugeot won by 5 laps over the Oreca Peugeot, but I don't know of anyone that left the track disappointed that they went, because there wasn't a "hero finish".

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Oy vey, everyone involved has said that the DP needs to be sped up! There are a couple of DP team owners sniveling about it and everyone goes nut bags about it, . The series is not going to slow up 75-80% of the grid in order to not speed up the DPs.

Originally Posted by nkoske

While I agree that's what common sense would tell us...most of us aren't sure that the powers that be have a ton of common sense .

To echo what nkoske said, I hope you're right horny, but the track record leads people to believe the opposite. There is, however, an opportunity to develop a really cool category (GTPesk in my mind) if they get it right.