FIA/ACO to create universal GT class

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Simmi

Why do they only let in the top class now?

It could be that GT-Am houses the older GTE cars for a final year before effectively doing the same thing as it does now with year-old GT+ machinery.

I have no idea what will happen, but seen as next to nothing has been announced it's not right to just assume you'll have GT+ and GT at LM and WEC level.

They do not allow only the top class now! They have 2 classes, GTE Pro and GTE AM. If it is based off the same exact chassis with only attached upgrades to make it a GT+, then they can just as easily unbolt those kits and put it back to GT spec. Or sell it to a collector. That is a much more customer ($) friendly model.



L.P.

[deggis]

(provisionally called GT and GT+)

http://www.fiawec.com/en/news/the-en...ated_1419.html

So the names might not be final after all.

[MagVanisher]

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.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Simmi

Not a lot to go on at this point but over in Fuji there has been a press conference to say that the FIA/ACO are setting up a working group to look at creating one GT class for somewhere around 2015.

John Dagys first to break it from what I can see.

Check his tweets here: https://twitter.com/johndagys








A lot to digest. Thoughts...

Bloody good idea , imo .

[deggis]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Bloody good idea , imo .

Oct 2012... more recent development here:

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...00#post3310100

[juicy sushi]

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.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

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 totally disagree! I do not think that a mfg should be forced to go to prototypes! A separate class, GT+, for the mfgs of GT is just fine. It provides a devel class for GT mfgs with an optional class for privateers if they do not want to run against werks GTs. The import part is to keep a tighter reign on devel in the base GT+ class, but especially what is allowed to be added (trickle down) to the GT class.








L.P.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I totally disagree! I do not think that a mfg should be forced to go to prototypes! A separate class, GT+, for the mfgs of GT is just fine. It provides a devel class for GT mfgs with an optional class for privateers if they do not want to run against werks GTs. The import part is to keep a tighter reign on devel in the base GT+ class, but especially what is allowed to be added (trickle down) to the GT class.








L.P.

I'd imagine we'll see a system for the base GT-class similar to what they do in the new R-classes in rallying, i.e. one shot at homologation, with a very limited number of jokers for upgrades in case something has gone seriously wrong with the original car.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I totally disagree! I do not think that a mfg should be forced to go to prototypes! A separate class, GT+, for the mfgs of GT is just fine. It provides a devel class for GT mfgs with an optional class for privateers if they do not want to run against werks GTs. The import part is to keep a tighter reign on devel in the base GT+ class, but especially what is allowed to be added (trickle down) to the GT class.



L.P.

Agreed!

[urdragon]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I totally disagree! I do not think that a mfg should be forced to go to prototypes! A separate class, GT+, for the mfgs of GT is just fine. It provides a devel class for GT mfgs with an optional class for privateers if they do not want to run against werks GTs. The import part is to keep a tighter reign on devel in the base GT+ class, but especially what is allowed to be added (trickle down) to the GT class.

Just assuming that Aero developement (The only permitted in GTs) it is applied to road cars and not the way reverse (Nowadays the laptimes are improved by hybrid and active aero systems), which is the natural way in GT cars.

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 ^)

[Maelochs]

"I don't see why this obsession on manufacturers investmens on GTs ..."

Likely because the GTs are models they actually sell in showrooms.

[urdragon]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

"I don't see why this obsession on manufacturers investmens on GTs ..."

Likely because the GTs are models they actually sell in showrooms.

That doesn't suit with the BoP system, a huge wind tunnel effort will be pushed back by the BoP. Hiring the best drivers are probably a better idea to enhance Brand and car sales, in terms of cars a more reliable car has most points in favor also.

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.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by urdragon

That doesn't suit with the BoP system, a huge wind tunnel effort will be pushed back by the BoP. Hiring the best drivers are probably a better idea to enhance Brand and car sales, in terms of cars a more reliable car has most points in favor also.

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.

The actions of the mfgs would seem to dispute this view. BoP is not a newly minted phenomenon. As well as most mfgs have just or are getting ready to roll out new cars.




L.P.

[urdragon]

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.

[Mt. Lynx]

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.

[broadrun96]

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.

[Starfish Primer]

Originally Posted by urdragon

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.

Agree, the BOP is also useful to avoid creating homologation specials, racecars disguised as GT and barely available on the road. You can build a "Dauer-Audi R18" to smash the competence but BOP will be there to level the performance with a 911 RSR.

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.

[jasonjessica09]

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.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by jasonjessica09

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.

So what! The series mentioned are of completely different types, and make up.






L.P.

[FstrthnU]

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.

[Pandamasque]

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.

[Mr Pink]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

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.

Very well put! Amen!

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

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.

Exactly! Some sliding scale of weights and restrictors would be great so that way the cars get to keep some of their unique characteristics.

[urdragon]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

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.).

Somebody dares to clasify them in groups, according al specs:

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).

[urdragon]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

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.

The problem to that is how to let some technical competition without changing the base car $$$$ that shouldn't let it's cost increase, for a car designed to be raced by privateers , if everything is messed up in 2016, is to achieve a comoon base car, and for this reason, base cost shouldn't increase for privateers, if a formula is found not affecting privateers for this, all will be perfect.

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.