World GT1 Championship

[Asa]

In last week's Autosport (I only got it yesterday), I read that Ratel is looking at making GT1s cheaper in order to get enough of them together to start a World GT Championship for GT1 cars. Autosport said the FIA will want to see about 18 GT1 cars and the series racing on 4 continents before granting it "World Championship" status.

What do you guys think?

I think Ratel already acknowledged that he needs manufacturer support if he is to have a World GT Championship. I personally think if the cars can be much cheaper and the teams are sponsored by the manufacturers, then maybe we can get rid of the shared driving idea, have 1 driver per car, and shorten the races to two hours. But qualifying should be 1 hour long not 20 minutes like now.

For Spa, Mil Milhas and other longer races, additional drivers are allowed but the regular drivers must remain in their own cars.

If the races are for two hours and just 1 driver per car, then I think it has the potential to become the most popular racing championship in Europe, if not the world.

Anybody who wants to do long races with shared driving between pros and amateurs, head for the LMS or ALMS. I really think FIA GT is currently competing with LMS's GT classes in the drivers' market.

[canam]

Ratel had a dream where there would be several manufacturers: Porsche, Aston Martin,, Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini etc etc. would provide six cars to various teams to run them for a season (2 cars per team). This would then form the basis for a world championship. Apart from the fact that none of the manufacturers have any interest in stumping up the cash to do this, the cars that currently run are expensive: 1) to buy and (more significantly) 2) to run. You need three paying drivers to make it work for a top car--unless the team is happy to lose money.

Without a 'deep-pocket' title sponsor, I cannot see it happening unless costs are hugely reduced...and with the current crop of cars, it is not really possible. Will this happen with world championship status? I doubt it.

At the same time, I cannot understand why many of these teams don't go over a race in the ALMS. They would be welcomed with open arms.

[mirkob]

The last number of SportAutoMoto (Italian) magazine reports, that the teams asked for new rules for FIA GT 2007 (a letter was send by BMS's boss Lucchini, the teams expected replies before the end of September, said Bartels):

1) Races of 2 Hours with 2 PitStop for car
(but was th first problem with KSO last year..I dont understand)

2) weekend in only 2 days instead of 3 days
(but was second problem with KSO last year..I dont understand)

3) Max 10 Rounds for SEason
(I agree)

4) For 2007 only 1 race of 24hours (Spa) and no more 24 HOurs from 2008
(seems no interest to 1000 Mihas Interlagos, I dont agree)

5) Extra-European races with the same money of continental races
(...)

Plus various poinst about engines and gearbox and other components for more rounds (like F1?)

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by mirkob

The last number of SportAutoMoto (Italian) magazine reports, that the teams asked for new rules for FIA GT 2007 (a letter was send by BMS's boss Lucchini, the teams expected replies before the end of September, said Bartels):

1) Races of 2 Hours with 2 PitStop for car
(but was th first problem with KSO last year..I dont understand)

ALMS uses 2:45 min races. Longer races are hard on cars and teams

2) weekend in only 2 days instead of 3 days
(but was second problem with KSO last year..I dont understand)

One can prep and test plus race a car in two days. Three days. teams that want two days, maynot have the budget for three days.

3) Max 10 Rounds for SEason
(I agree)

4) For 2007 only 1 race of 24hours (Spa) and no more 24 HOurs from 2008
(seems no interest to 1000 Mihas Interlagos, I dont agree)

10 rounds sounds good. Long races are hard on teams, equipment and cars.

Originally Posted by canam

Without a 'deep-pocket' title sponsor, I cannot see it happening unless costs are hugely reduced...and with the current crop of cars, it is not really possible. Will this happen with world championship status? I doubt it.

I agree here too. Title event sponsor, TV sponsors and coverage and big dollar sponsors for each team. Manufactures are not going to put up the money let alone give cars to teams. Teams have to buy the cars, equipment, heirer personal. Team's dont have many sponsors any more. They are called Marketing Partners now, not sponsors. Difference is Partners work with you on their equipment. You do not get endless equimpent for free either. The Partner will proved some equipment and technical expertiese, but not all the equimpment you need. The team must purchase the remainder.

At the same time, I cannot understand why many of these teams don't go over a race in the ALMS. They would be welcomed with open arms.

MONEY. flying a team and equimpent across the Atlantic, plus having a transporter and race shop on two sides of the Atlantic takes very very deep pockets. Plus not all sponsors or Marketing Partners advertise the same way on different sides of the Atlantic.

[JAG]

So Spa 24 Hrs will not be part of the Championship from 2008?

As for the idea of a World Championship, never going to happen when the majority of you grid consists of relatively small, specialised manufactuers.

Other than car costs and a few too many flyaway events, I can't see whats want wrong with the current FIA GT Calender.

[courageous]

Ratel's dream was for GT1 to be a world series & team up with a local enduro series at every race.

So for instance; Europe races would go with GT2, Far East would invite GT300 & in the Americas they would try and get DP (fat chance).

GT2 would have races combined with GT3 when GT1 was in other continents.

I would love that DREAM to happen, but there is more chance of Welter winning Le Mans.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Asa

I think Ratel already acknowledged that he needs manufacturer support if he is to have a World GT Championship. I personally think if the cars can be much cheaper and the teams are sponsored by the manufacturers, then maybe we can get rid of the shared driving idea, have 1 driver per car, and shorten the races to two hours. But qualifying should be 1 hour long not 20 minutes like now.

I can remember seeing a quote not so long ago from Ratel saying that a 2 hour format would actually increase costs for the teams. The reason he gave was that it turns the event into a Sprint Race which would bring a whole new financial model for the teams, namely one based on finding outright speed rather than speed & reliability.

I don't think 500km or around 3 hours is really asking that much from a fan/spectator/TV viewer is it? Plus, it serves to add to the uniqueness of the series, so let's leave the shorter races to the National GT championships.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Longer races are hard on cars and teams.

I thought that was the point. It seems that we have lost the desire to do something that is difficult.

It is what sets the racing apart. Remove the endurance aspect and we just have another WTCC series, but with bigger engines.

A world series would be nice, but not essential especially if there is danger that it would be a short lived affair.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I thought that was the point. It seems that we have lost the desire to do something that is difficult.

It is what sets the racing apart. Remove the endurance aspect and we just have another WTCC series, but with bigger engines.

A world series would be nice, but not essential especially if there is danger that it would be a short lived affair.

THe long races have never worked in the US.
One problem was the asinine decision by the IMSA decades ago, that races of 300 miles or longer HAD to have two or more drivers.
That caused an exodus of some teams to SCCA back then and has never been logical or well received.

The lack of approval of the long races is probably both SCCA and IMSA went to 100 mile sprints back then.

Over the years, some drivers have expressed a liking for the "mini-enduro" 200 mile, plus or minus, races as they still encompass strategy of pit stops, and such, but now with the totally obtuse not leaving the pits always open, that would shoot race strategy up the buttocks.

I liked the 100 mile sprint races because it truly showed who was the quickest, but on a fast track they wre quite short, so 200-250 races would be nice.
Bob

[Adam43]

We are wandering a little here, but it is interesting. Personally I like a mix of race lengths. It would be nice for a world championship to have a mix and not a standard race format. Unlikely though.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

THe long races have never worked in the US.
One problem was the asinine decision by the IMSA decades ago, that races of 300 miles or longer HAD to have two or more drivers.
That caused an exodus of some teams to SCCA back then and has never been logical or well received.

The lack of approval of the long races is probably both SCCA and IMSA went to 100 mile sprints back then.

Over the years, some drivers have expressed a liking for the "mini-enduro" 200 mile, plus or minus, races as they still encompass strategy of pit stops, and such, but now with the totally obtuse not leaving the pits always open, that would shoot race strategy up the buttocks.

I liked the 100 mile sprint races because it truly showed who was the quickest, but on a fast track they wre quite short, so 200-250 races would be nice.
Bob

Well a 500km race is 310miles so it's a little more than you suggest. But also you're essentially talking about National (American) championships rather than a World Championship.

I always feel that a World Championship race has to be something bigger than a Formula's own National championship event would be, so maybe that's not entirely incompatible with your view?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Well a 500km race is 310miles so it's a little more than you suggest. But also you're essentially talking about National (American) championships rather than a World Championship.

I always feel that a World Championship race has to be something bigger than a Formula's own National championship event would be, so maybe that's not entirely incompatible with your view?

Depending on the size of the track, whether it was the too comon new go-kart sized tracks or one of the old high speed tracks; races of 275 to 350 miles would probably work just fine.

As far as that goes, the Brands Hatch 500-miles, not little kilometers, would sound nice too.
Bob

[Erki]

What's wrong with GT1 and GT2 racing together?

[canam]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

MONEY. flying a team and equimpent across the Atlantic, plus having a transporter and race shop on two sides of the Atlantic takes very very deep pockets. Plus not all sponsors or Marketing Partners advertise the same way on different sides of the Atlantic.

Just do ALMS...only. Dump FIAGT. Keep the core few people in europe but the cars, mechanics and logisitcs in the US. There are many great race shops in the US that can find the 'weekend warrior' every privateer team nneds to survive--and many European mechanics would love to work in the US ie cheaper cost of living. Everything else is cheaper...and you get prize money as well. I would bet that a privateer GT ALMS budget is less than 50% of a FIAGT budget--even for a European-based team.

I agree slightly on the marketing side but most of the FIAGT teams 'marketing' is driver-related and could be transferred to any part of the globe. Additionally, the attitude to sponsorship in the US is more positive than this side of the pond.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Well a 500km race is 310miles so it's a little more than you suggest. But also you're essentially talking about National (American) championships rather than a World Championship.

That is 2 ( if your lucky) or 3 fuel stops. Hmmmm

Good distance

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

That is 2 ( if your lucky) or 3 fuel stops. Hmmmm

Good distance

What size fuel tanks do GT1 cars have?

[Splatz the Cow]

If they model it on MotoGP, then I think it is easy to view GT1 as a world class event. In MotoGP there are three classes of bikes, and the beginners start on the smallest cc bikes, and move up to the other series. This could be applied to GT2 and GT1 with the potential to move on to Proto class.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

What size fuel tanks do GT1 cars have?

100 L ~ 25 US Gallons

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Splatz the Cow

If they model it on MotoGP, then I think it is easy to view GT1 as a world class event. In MotoGP there are three classes of bikes, and the beginners start on the smallest cc bikes, and move up to the other series. This could be applied to GT2 and GT1 with the potential to move on to Proto class.

Throw in GT3 and you have that just in GT! I like this as an ideal.

Looking more generally I am not sure it works (unfortunately). There isn't as much interest or cash required to sustain it (I get the impression). In addition their are more manufacturers to be involved, with much more variety in machinery. The engine is in the same place on all the bikes There are Superbikes, but there is less diversity in the racing series. No touring car, single seaters, as many single make series equivelent (correct me here if wrong).

However the main bit you refer too is the one event with the three races if you like. That may work, apart from MotoGP I can't think of another series that does it. Others have support races that have drivers that move up to the main event. However why not develop something with three main races (albeit one being the main attraction) and try to develop a GT racing into a something that you stay in rather than flit in and out of.

[JAG]

The fact that Audi, Porsche, Peugeot and any other major car manufactuer spend more on their individual LMP1 program than Aston, Ferrari, Saleen and Lamborghini's GT1 efforts combined tells you all you need to know.

Other than GM, GT1 is a privateer class, if they are drove out through high costs there will be no series, full stop.

To sustain a World Championship you need the Peugeots, Toyotas, Audis, Nissans of this world, not Saleens, Listers and Astons.

[Asa]

The thing about long races is that the TV companies get scared off. They don't want to devote 3 hours of their air time to one race unless the promoter pays for it.

TV companies are used to Football and F1 style 2 hours programs now. They know the action lasts for 1 hour plus about 35 to 45 minutes, the remaining time is for ceremonies, interviews and analysis. FIA GT wants 3 hours plus time for the post-race stuff, which is too much. TV companies would rather show two football games. This is hard commercialism and I think many will admit football is likely more popular than FIA GT (not better or worse, just more popular).

If you can't get decent TV deals together, then the teams can't get sponsors, if the teams are not sponsored, then they will want to get pay drivers. Once you have pay drivers, then you will always have to make sure the races are long enough for them. Then you go back to the inability to get decent TV deals...

Ratel's meeting with the manufacturers was about the change of rules to reduce costs in GT1. If the costs of participation is low, then the teams can run without pay drivers and the races can be shorter and TV deals are easily to negotiate. But the fundamental is that the costs of buying and running a car is reduced significantly. Probably the only way is if the manufacturers get involved seriously.

Also, Ratel is in favour of GT1, GT2 and GT3 running like 500cc, 250cc and 125cc in MotoGP. One thing about MotoGP is that their races individually aren't all that long but all three combined to give a great event.

Also remember MotoGP only has one rider per bike and it helped to create the personality that is Valentino Rossi. People flock to the races just to see him race and TV companies pay for the coverage because he is in the race.

If FIA GT continue to have shared cars, then it would be hard to create real personalities. You will get a decent crowd at the circuit but you are never going to fill up the whole place and have TV companies paying for the rights.

F1 makes its most money from its TV deals, not sponsorships. TV is the most important thing if FIA GT wants to move away from what it is now. GT has the potential to be hugely popular but not if it stays like this. It is up to Ratel and the manufacturers.

[The Real DMN]

It needs to be bared in mind that GT racing is endurance racing. Any move away from this will be a bad thing IMO.

[AU N EGL]

and that is why the ALMS races are 2:45 for most races, to fit into the 3 hour game time limit for TV

[Flat12-Aircool]

Throw in GT3 with GT1 & GT2 and Ratel will again be looking for another support race.

[Francesco]

Originally Posted by The Real DMN

It needs to be bared in mind that GT racing is endurance racing. Any move away from this will be a bad thing IMO.

i am with you, i think that GT Racing is endurance racing, a 1 hour, 1 driver race is like a touring car race, for me it would be great to go straight back to BPR 94-95 days