Changing The Rules of Engagement (Le Mans)

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

I'd be happy to answer the question.

Paul, thanks for the reply. I'll give you a full and proper response later when I'm less pushed for time!





Stand back and watch the b*stards struggle, eh...........

[JAG]

And lets not forget if you gave entries based entirely on merit, the likes of Creation, Zytek and Rollcentre would still only recieve one entry, seeing as they have run one car for the majority of the season.

You could argue the same for Pescarolo, but they have solid LMS, and crucially, Le Mans results to back up their claim, regardless of them being a French team.

Shouldn't Swiss Spirit gain an entry ahead of a second Creation car, same goes for the Portuguese Lola P2 ahead of a second Rollcentre Radical.

With the likes of Peugeot, customer Audis, and potential new P1 entries from Kruse, RFH/DOME etc. a one car entry is as good as it's going to get for non manfactuer entries in P1.

The upside will be the growth of the LMS, and an increasing profile, which will benefit all teams.

[TWK]

Pardon the "short take" in the context of such scholarly discussion, but isn't guaranteeing 35 entries to a series with little history and few races a bit over the top?

The principle of "early selection" is presumed to ensure that more teams will be more able - and willing - to take up more entries. It seems to me there is little to support that assertion. "Guaranteed" entries are routinely taken up by others. Entries given are routinely "scratches."

Le Mans has no trouble filling its fields, so it needs no change to improve its position. Rather the suggestion is one that seems to have only a single effect - to ensure a huge block of entries to the LMS.

I admit I rather more like Brett's ideas - or just leave it alone.

Oh - elsewhere in the thread Le Mans was characterized as a "regional gentleman's race" before the 1990's. I thought that was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by TWK

I admit I rather more like Brett's ideas - or just leave it alone.

Oh - elsewhere in the thread Le Mans was characterized as a "regional gentleman's race" before the 1990's. I thought that was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

IF this is the quote sir, it don'ts nots says thats: "The reply that part of this quote was interesting, but out of curiosity, how do you feel, at this point in time, does racing work.

Racing as a whole fell apart in the nineties, with the odd exception of drag racing and LEMANS, as LeMans went from a regional "gentleman's" race to a quasi-international elitist event."

The term IN, meands DURING, and during the early nineties LeMans was just the oft quoted "gentlman's" regional.
Reading glasses might help.
----------------------------------------------

Paul:
"There are currently two series that provide opportunities for the teams to prove their mettle. The best will surely rise to the top, and Le Mans invites will flow accordingly (or, at least, ought to). Not because of automatic entries, but because of merit."

Merit, hmmm.
Merit in road racing, especially, used is based on one bring a car to the track, cuts laps and if his times are fast enough, he has the merit to race.

Now this is naturally based on how things are done in the US, and as I said in a different post, Europe and the US have different standards and always have, as far as racing goes period.
The current situation at LeMans is not even ten years old and many here speak as if this is the way thing are done and always have been.

By what precedent are you judging?
Bob

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Paul:
"There are currently two series that provide opportunities for the teams to prove their mettle. The best will surely rise to the top, and Le Mans invites will flow accordingly (or, at least, ought to). Not because of automatic entries, but because of merit."

Merit, hmmm.
Merit in road racing, especially, used is based on one bring a car to the track, cuts laps and if his times are fast enough, he has the merit to race.

Now this is naturally based on how things are done in the US, and as I said in a different post, Europe and the US have different standards and always have, as far as racing goes period.

The current situation at LeMans is not even ten years old and many here speak as if this is the way thing are done and always have been.

By what precedent are you judging?
Bob

The one with which I'm most familiar, of course.

Notice that Indy has bump day to determine the field. In theory that means that it's merit that determines the field. Colin Chapman and his ilk had to qualify.

Now, the argument could be made that qualifying is horrifically expensive for American teams, as compared to European teams; fine, then, give some of them the guaranteed entries. But in reality *all* European (perhaps I'll just call them "open") slots could (maybe even should!) be determined by qualifying.

Now, that said, having a qualifying day or days at LM may be impractical, and in days past it led to special qualifying engines, and other exhorbitantly costly items; you could, instead, come up with a qualifying formula based upon performance at previous LMS races - which starts to sound like Malcolm's suggestion, except that I take exception to the long timeline being granted in Malcolm's proposal. That way "qualifying" would be based upon a performance that makes sense w.r.t. the race itself (enduro performance for an endurance race).

As I said, the effect of locking in guaranteed entries is rather the opposite of what is intended - while it might guarantee that Creation builds their car, it could equally well deter three or four teams from pursuing their funding for additional cars, since they don't have a realistic shot at an entry.

I don't mind having entries being guaranteed in the sense that the rules for decisions are codified. Hey, the French are all about codes. Let 'em do it! My objection is the timing, and the idea that LMS should get 3x the American Le Mans Series in entries as a rule. It seems to me that it's not addressing the real issue (how to generate funding) in a meaningful way for all teams.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by TWK

Pardon the "short take" in the context of such scholarly discussion, but isn't guaranteeing 35 entries to a series with little history and few races a bit over the top?

YES and NO. By gauranteeing these 35 entries, each of these teams can go back to their respective sponsors well in advacne to surcure the neccessary funds for the event and the year.

Walking into your sponsor on May 15 and say We have been selected for LM 24 in a months time, we need $500,000 for the race. Not going to happen

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

YES and NO. By gauranteeing these 35 entries, each of these teams can go back to their respective sponsors well in advacne to surcure the neccessary funds for the event and the year.

Walking into your sponsor on May 15 and say We have been selected for LM 24 in a months time, we need $500,000 for the race. Not going to happen

We've already gone over that. The question TWK proposes is why would the LMS get such a heavy % vs. ALMS or JLMC?

[Adam43]

Doesn't the original article put that down to number of entries and geography?

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Wealthy ppl who want get into LMS racing can purchase prebuilt cars, Lolas and the New Crawfords for example, and differnt engine packages, AER, Judd or ???

Did I miss something?

[canam]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

As I said, the effect of locking in guaranteed entries is rather the opposite of what is intended - while it might guarantee that Creation builds their car, it could equally well deter three or four teams from pursuing their funding for additional cars, since they don't have a realistic shot at an entry.

Who are these mythical teams that would be intending to build//buy additional cars in the hope of Le Mans entries and would be deterred from such action if they didn't have a realistic shot at getting an (additional) entry. RfH, Zytek, Creation, Chamberlain??? or are these the teams that 1) don't have a car or 2) would only buy one if they receive an LM entry (spinnaker clandesteam) and 3) have not committed to a full season of LMS or ALMS racing.

Most teams leave no stone unturned to get financial support. It is fine in saying that the promoters should be helping but they are not in any position to give substantive financial support. Put simply: They can't; they don't and they won't. It is down to the teams and any help in reducing uncertainty is a move in the right way.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

We've already gone over that. The question TWK proposes is why would the LMS get such a heavy % vs. ALMS or JLMC?

Simple, to get Europiean team entered vs stacking the grid with ALMS or JLMC teams. Balance of the three major LMs seriers.

[paul-collins]

Stacking the grid with ALMS or JLMC teams? When has that happened?

Now, if you meant stacking the podium...

[eddsc]

However I look at the regular, 2006 ALMS entry, I can't find more than 13 likely entries. 11 from 13 is about the same ratio as 35 from 40. If you can find more than 13 Tom, then if they put forward a good case for inclusion...
Fascinating discussion.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by canam

Who are these mythical teams that would be intending to build//buy additional cars in the hope of Le Mans entries and would be deterred from such action if they didn't have a realistic shot at getting an (additional) entry. RfH, Zytek, Creation, Chamberlain??? or are these the teams that 1) don't have a car or 2) would only buy one if they receive an LM entry (spinnaker clandesteam) and 3) have not committed to a full season of LMS or ALMS racing.

Most teams leave no stone unturned to get financial support. It is fine in saying that the promoters should be helping but they are not in any position to give substantive financial support. Put simply: They can't; they don't and they won't. It is down to the teams and any help in reducing uncertainty is a move in the right way.

Not so much additional entries, but new entries.

This year we've seen Swiss Spirit, ASM Team Racing for Portugal, Protran and Team Bruichladdich come from nowhere, and in the case of three of them, be frontrunners.

Next year we'll see Epsillon, possibly Kruse with two P1 cars, and who knows who else with new cars.

In the US it maybe less likely for entries to seemingly spring from nowhere, but in Europe, with so many national series, it's no exageration to say you could realistically expect another 4-5 P1 cars from new teams.

Would it be such a huge shock to see Oreca, Zackspeed, Konrad, Cirtek, Scuderia Playteam, Vitaphone, not to mention well funded national runners in British, French, Spanish, Belgian GT series, suddenly turn up with a P1 car?

All quality teams who would be locked out of a potential Le Mans slot.

[canam]

Originally Posted by JAG

Not so much additional entries, but new entries.

This year we've seen Swiss Spirit, ASM Team Racing for Portugal, Protran and Team Bruichladdich come from nowhere, and in the case of three of them, be frontrunners.

Next year we'll see Epsillon, possibly Kruse with two P1 cars, and who knows who else with new cars.

In the US it maybe less likely for entries to seemingly spring from nowhere, but in Europe, with so many national series, it's no exageration to say you could realistically expect another 4-5 P1 cars from new teams.

Would it be such a huge shock to see Oreca, Zackspeed, Konrad, Cirtek, Scuderia Playteam, Vitaphone, not to mention well funded national runners in British, French, Spanish, Belgian GT series, suddenly turn up with a P1 car?

All quality teams who would be locked out of a potential Le Mans slot.

Let them prove themselves as P1 runners. As they don't have/haven't raced their P1 cars yet, why should we leave spaces for them--the ACO would not look at them even now without cars. They made a choice to run in GT, let them get entries in GT. If they want to run P1, then they have to prove themselves before they get LM entries in that category.

I strongly beleive that the 'entry ticket' to a LM entry is a full season of LMS or ALMS beforehand in the category the team is seeking the entry. If you are not there for the full season, you don't get the entry. Tough but fair...as it allows the fans to see the cars at tracks other than Le Mans.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by eddsc

However I look at the regular, 2006 ALMS entry, I can't find more than 13 likely entries. 11 from 13 is about the same ratio as 35 from 40. If you can find more than 13 Tom, then if they put forward a good case for inclusion...
Fascinating discussion.

Yes I would agree. But dont think there will be.

I would personall love to bring a new Reily coupe ( sorry said Crawford earler) with a Katech engine package ( Corvette LS7r engine), but I dont have few million to spare http://www.rileytech.com/


Did not the ACO raise the team enteries to 55 for '07? Depending if the pit road extension and pit Garages could be finished in time?

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by eddsc

However I look at the regular, 2006 ALMS entry, I can't find more than 13 likely entries. 11 from 13 is about the same ratio as 35 from 40.

Well, if ratios are the way to go, then why guarantee them when there's no competition for them anyway?

If someone better can come along in 6 months and poach an entry out from under you based on merit, surely Le Mans doesn't suffer for it?

Put another way, if the criteria for getting an entry is to be a consistent supporter of the LMS, where's mine?

[Graham Goodwin]

One other thing - whether the numbers mentioned in the article are exactly correct or not surely the principle is the thing here - Consistency and openness

[paul-collins]

Nothing wrong with consistency and openness. I'm all for it.

Just not 9 months of lockdown.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Nothing wrong with consistency and openness. I'm all for it.

Just not 9 months of lockdown.

And that might hurt in Year 1 but when the pattern is accepted and established.....................................

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by eddsc

However I look at the regular, 2006 ALMS entry, I can't find more than 13 likely entries. 11 from 13 is about the same ratio as 35 from 40. If you can find more than 13 Tom, then if they put forward a good case for inclusion...
Fascinating discussion.

I don't disagree in the least with the numbers you've provided as ratios.

Having provided an estimate of say 13 ALMS (2006) cars "likely", they all have funding, and they all have legal cars.

LMS has two LMP1 cars that have run in 2006 that are legal for 2007. (Ok, Courage has a third, but it hasn't run in LMS, and in my opinion should run in ACO sanctioned races to be eligible) The rest are "to be built", or "to be funded". A whole lot of if, maybe, probably....

Of course, LMP2 is much better, but then we are hinting at two car teams from teams with only one car currently, who if, maybe, probably.....

Starting to drift from the original topic, how can the LMS be granted so many spots, when certainly LMP2 and GT2 interest from the ALMS next year could be quite substantial. There are hints that there is quite a bit of interest in the new 997. We know interst = a whole lot of if, maybe, probably... but it seems as though we are dealing with that equally on both sides of the pond here. Can we immediately discount these teams? Can we immediately discount that there is a possibility that Porsche, Acura, Intersport, VDS are interested in all/some of their cars entering? If we go with the same 3:1 ratio in LMP2, as has been suggested for overall... Given 16 cars (and I doubt it will be that high... but you never know) in LMP2... it gives us 12 LMS entrants, 4 ALMS entrants. Porsche (assuming for a second they are interested) and Intersport are likely to gain three auto entries under the current system, leaving a single spot for a second Intersport car, VDS, three Acura's (assuming they are all interested), Mazda (Zoom, Zoom, Boom) and anybody else who may join.

I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't currently know who is going to be in LMP2 next year, and I don't know who will be interested in LM. I have a hunch that we'll see that such a limiting platform could definately be problematic though. One thing for certain, it would be nice come next April, and have such huge interest in this class, that gaining entry becomes a problem. Assuming that all these (potential) teams are interested, I don't see a team such as Rollcentre even getting a second entry.

Assuming interest from all, I'd have to assume a grid of; Porsche x2, Acura x3, Intersport x1, RML x1, Rollcentre x1, ASMx1, Barazi X1, Belmondo x1, Bruneau x1, Binnie x1, BRUICHLADDICH X1.... (14 cars so far... with Horag, Kruse ,a second Rollcentre, a second Intersport, a VDS, a second Belmondo, Welter, BK Mazda and any new teams fighting for the last two theoretical spots....)

Is there a good reason to give out entries now, and eliminate potentially better entries? Does that help the ACO franchises? Can we say today, that with 100% certainty that second Rollcentre Radical is better than two of the ALMS Acura teams, better than the second Intersport, better than VDS, better than BK Mazda (ok, you've got me there), or any other possibilities??

In LMP1, can we say with certainty that if we handed out the entries today, that a Creation would have two new, fully sorted cars, will have achieved full funding, and pro drivers to fill these seats by race day? Can we say today with certainty that we are better off inviting two Creation cars today, eliminating this rumoured ALMS Courage/Cosworth effort from LM next year? Would eliminating a potential Courage/Cosworth LM entry be a net positive for the ACO sanctioned series as a whole?

[Graham Goodwin]

Nobody is eliminating anything - As was outlined originally the 'formula' accommodates any worthwhile entries emerging - It gives the ACO the much needed flexibility that the realities of the sport demand.

You DO need to accommodate worthwhile new and emerging efforts and from time to time and like anything else no initial stab is perfect - I do however think this makes immeasurably more sense than where we are now.

It's NOT a matter of LMS vs ALMS vs JLMC and the number split can and should be amended depending on the relative strengths of the ACO sanctioned series.

What Malc didn't include in his formula was something I felt should be there - some form of performance/ quality cut-off. So you don't get underperforming cars/teams gaining entry.

Either way we are all talking contstructively about something that matters rather than carping on in the wake of another LM entry list 'reveal'

[canam]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Is there a good reason to give out entries now, and eliminate potentially better entries? Does that help the ACO franchises? Can we say today, that with 100% certainty that second Rollcentre Radical is better than two of the ALMS Acura teams, better than the second Intersport, better than VDS, better than BK Mazda (ok, you've got me there), or any other possibilities??

Death and taxes are the only things which are 100% certain (except in California where death is apparently optional).

There is always something 'potentially better' around the corner but I don't care. Until they show themselves and prove their worth, they should not get an entry (including Acura, Courage Cossie ). This is all talk with no one sticking their necks on the line with real green stuff. When you have to do that, the position is very clear. What is good for the teams, will be good for the ACO. Racing is business. The ACO are not curators of an art gallery searching for the 'perfect race'. Happy customers (teams and fans) make a happy promoter.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by canam

There is always something 'potentially better' around the corner but I don't care. Until they show themselves and prove their worth, they should not get an entry

I don't really disagree with you. But then, part of this discussion revolves around giving auto entries nine months in advance to teams without designed, funded, built, tested or sorted cars, all in the name of helping them out. I can see no reason to favour one potential team/car, that hasn't proved their worth over another.

I'm not sure a full season should be required, but certainly some races should be required.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

I'm not sure a full season should be required.

But surely the sanctioning body should do everything it can to encourage just that!