Changing The Rules of Engagement (Le Mans)

[Bentley03]

It was with great interest that I read this editorial on DSC. My thanks to 'eddsc' who has given me permission to post the article on 10 Tenths in order to make it available to a much wider audience.

Changing The Rules of Engagement

One advantage of being present at Donington Park on August 25, the day before the Le Mans Series meeting got underway, was finding an opportunity to discover what’s really going on in the paddock. Conversations which started on Friday tended to run on into Saturday (and then into the following week), and some (hopefully) interesting thoughts evolved.

And then something reminded me of something else: the fact that the ACO made it clear that cars finishing at Petit Le Mans, in positions that would qualify for a place in the Le Mans 24 Hours, would only be granted that guaranteed place if they were running in full ACO specification.

Suddenly it all became clear: the current system of awarding guaranteed places for Le Mans, of granting some entries in January, some in February and the rest in March could be improved upon – very simply. By doing so, a great deal of uncertainty could be removed from this branch of racing ‘at a stroke’, and simultaneously, ACO rules racing could be given a huge boost for 2007.

So this is more or less how an alternative system could work.

1. There were 41 entries at Donington Park. The vast majority of the teams present have supported the Le Mans Series throughout the season. Some of these teams have been pushing for two entries for the Le Mans 24 Hours in recent years, but because of the current qualification system, they haven’t had the incentive to push ahead with plans for a second car, until they were sure of a second entry: that always seems to come too late.

With a little ‘filtering’ where necessary, at least 35 cars (including nine two-car teams – some of which were single entries at Donington) could be selected for Le Mans now.

Besides removing uncertainty for the teams, this would inevitably increase the number of new prototypes available to race at Le Mans in 2007. With the ‘hybrid era’ about to end, prototype numbers, especially in LMP1, are looking a little shaky next year, as things stand.

“If we had two entries confirmed now, we would have two new cars ready to go for next year, and nine months to raise the support to do it,” seemed to be the prevailing view at Donington Park.

2. There were 11 American entries at Le Mans last year, but two of the teams are no longer racing. Sticking to 11 for now, even though others are likely to want to race at Le Mans in 2007, offer ALMS entrants 11 places at Le Mans in 2007.

Instantly, 11 US teams can be assured of a place at Le Mans next year. If more than 11 apply, some ‘natural selection’ would simply reduce it to 11. Those teams which have been consistently competitive in the ALMS, and with Le Mans experience, would logically take priority.

3. Suggest to the European teams (with the 35 cars) that have been invited to Le Mans that they might like to consider racing at Sebring next year. It would be expecting an awful lot for all of them to want to go to Florida next March, and those building new cars may not be ready (and Sebring couldn’t cope with this number), but a less than subtle hint that if 20 European entries made it to Sebring, then they would be looked upon very favourably in future years. Basically, they’ve just earned lots of brownie points.

Suddenly, the ALMS season gets off to a terrific start, with a huge grid at the opening race of the season.

Sportscar racing – the four-class system, on both sides of the Atlantic – starts 2007 awash with momentum, rather than uncertainty.

4. Lets build on that, and make the Le Mans 24 Hours part of the Le Mans Series. Why not? If a scoring system was devised that didn’t give the 24 hour race too much sway, and because the top European teams will be there anyway, why shouldn’t Le Mans be both an individual event and part of the Le Mans Series?

The Le Mans Series has now received a huge shot in the arm. Teams can now approach sponsors with a ‘double whammy’ of Le Mans and the Le Mans Series.

5. So we’ve ‘arrived’ at about 46 potential entries for Le Mans next June. Remember that the grid size will be 55 next year. The ACO now has nine places to allocate to whoever is left. We mustn’t forget Peugeot of course, any teams such as Racing for Holland, which didn’t complete the 2006 season – perhaps a Japanese entry or two? Have we missed anyone significant out? An FIA team or two? The reserve system will logically always need to be there, ‘just in case’.

Wouldn’t it be possible to put such a system, outlined above, into place almost immediately – perhaps with teams obliged to confirm their entries by, say, October 31? By December 31, teams planning on crossing the Atlantic, for Sebring, would need to confirm their presence there.

The bottom line is that companies working on their budgets for next year need to do so now – not in January, February or March. With a system like this in place, we would neatly avoid any of those last minute dramas over entries that pull out. Any team that did pull out at the last minute would need to understand that, with so much advance notice this time, they really would be ruling themselves out of Le Mans for many years to come.
Malcolm Cracknell

[isynge]

I read the article first time round and found it thought provoking. My only hesitation with it, is when attempts have been made to fold Le Mans into a championship the results seem to have been patchy.

Where the nail is very much hit on the head is that getting some entries sorted early, so a team knows it's got a run in June, would be very advantageous. I imagine Pescarolo's task in sorting out next year has been eased by the knowledge that he's got two entries in the bag. Similarly teams like LNT probably find the commercial challenge of sorting next year out quite a lot easier.

[AU N EGL]

The ACO and the FIA have always been a bit at odds with each other. Dr, Panoz ( ALMS ) has done wonders in smoothing things out between the two.

Isn't the LMS based of the ACO rules now ??


Then there is the other thing, IMHO, If you want to Bark with the Big Dogs, you have to play by their rules.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Isn't the LMS based of the ACO rules now ??

Both the LMS and the ALMS are 'based' on ACO regs. LMS to full ACO regs and the ALMS with 'adjustments' to the ACO regs as IMSA see fit.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Isn't the LMS based of the ACO rules now ??

Not just based on the rules, it's actually run by them, which gives me a little more confidence it will be around for a little longer than any FIA series!

As for Le Mans selection, you'll always have dissaponted teams.

[paul-collins]

I tend to disagree - for every team that gets nine months to raise funds for a two car guaranteed entry, there are probably 5 or 6 who no longer have any desire to raise funds, since the likelihood of getting an invitation becomes infinitessimal. Which means you're going to decimate the field, ultimately, for the season, and reduce the number of teams who could reasonably be counted upon to act as reserves.

The only thing this does is try to take the decision out of the ACO's hands - which, given the past, may be a good thing . Perhaps the single Racing for Holland entry is a good example of why this would be reasonable. Or Spinnaker Clandesteam.

But if a strict regimen were followed of choosing entrants for Le Mans based purely upon merit, where would the fundraisers have difficulty?

Perhaps the evaluation of merit could be codified - but I wouldn't go as far as locking in entries 9 months in advance - and especially not as many as contemplated here.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

But if a strict regimen were followed of choosing entrants for Le Mans based purely upon merit, where would the fundraisers have difficulty?

Paul that is a very all trueistic Idea. Unfortunituly that is not how racing works.

Professional teams take BIG money to run. Multi millions of dollars / euros / Stering per year. These sponsors what results NOW, not planning in the future.
Some manufactures dont want to sponsor GT racing do the competion from other teams. Chrysler/ MB and the Viper or BMW and the New 6 serires car which was FIA hologized two years ago. These manufactures dont want to compete as they my loose. Loosing a race means loosing sales. If the manufacture does not compete they dont loose.

Event promotions ( races ) are the same way, it takes lots of money to promot the event.

Yes winning teams from diffent classes should get invitations, and for the most part they do.

Event sponosors may also get team invetations, even if their team sucks. It pays to smooze with the big shots of differnt events.

and the event promotor, ACO, has there own choices so French teams ( sorry guys) get in no matter how bad they may be.

Do you think Peugot will get an invitation to the 24 hour?? even if they dont do one race prior to June?? Of course they will. Nature of poltics .

Racing is not only between the Green and Checkard flags, it is 24/7/365.

The ACO has the biggest race, 24 h LeMans, so THEY get to set the rules.

We may not like it, but that IMHO is the way it is.


Tom

[duke_toaster]

Add LM24 to the championship, and maybe merge ALMS with LMES, getting each team to do the ones in it's continent plus two in the other.

And in an ideal world, I would like to see a merger between FIA GT and LMS. That would mean 4 class racing @ Spa. That would be legendary.

This invite junk should go totally. Just run it as part of a championship.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Paul that is a very all touristic Idea. Unfortunately that is not how racing works.
Tom

Tom:
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.

If one bases how racing works on the power plays of the nineties, things will be, at best, tenuous. (the 2000s have been, catch as catch can, power doing as the old cliché says)

There is no whammy poster trashing awaiting your reply, just curiosity.
Bob

[AU N EGL]

Bob

Personally I dont like it. But unfortunitly that is the way it is for now. Dr. Panoz is working very hard with the ACO to change the rules. Without Dr. Panoz and ALMS the ACO might be history.

The Manufactures want to dispaly their high tech goods, but the indpendent teams fill the fields. Which is a Good thing.

Some ppl compalin that IMSA ( ALMS) rules are differnt the ACO. Yes to a small point. Every rule change or ( cough) competition adjustment IMSA made the ACO followed. Scott A. ( ALMS President) spends a lot of his time working with the ACO. Yes the ACO ( French ) wants to do things their own way. ( Heck that is what I do to ) but Race promotors need and must work with manufacutres and big sponsors or race partners to get the funding for the teams and races. Spectators and TV rights cant pay all the bills.

If some race orginzation says ' MANUFACTURE ABC" you WILL give us X amount of mony and provide 10 cars. That manufacutre will say go jump in the lake. Take their money and leave. Only King Burnie can do that with F1.

Does that mean P1 is for Audi?? NO, even though AUDI is screeming up and down that Peugot is coming out with a dissel. Heck my Dissel Chevy pick up has more HP & torque then the R10. But that is part of working with the manufactures.

It is not an easy thing to do. So if a race promotor has to allow some sponsors choices or natioanl choices to fill the fields, so be it. They also provide the MONEY to fund the event.

Racing is NOT socializium. Racing is pure capitalisium at its best. Money pays the bills. PPL like Dr. Panoz ( which he put in severl hundred million dollars of his own money ) and Scott A. do all the hard work to keep the races going.

Manufacures dont have the money. Today Ford anounced severl thouand ppl will be layed off here in the States. Ford will sell AM and Jag. Look at GMs problems. MB is loosing money big time on Chrysler. BMW is too far involde with F1 to pull out. Ferrari is F1. Toyota is hevealy invovled with F1 and now NASCAR. Big Manufactures dont have the money too support racing in too many differnt venues. They must pick and choose based on who they sell cars too and what races potential customers watch.

Indpednet teams fill the field but dont have the big budgets. Limit budgets and the manufactures leave. Fully indpendent teams and racing is minor leage profession and amature.

Too have any type of racing there needs to have comprmise between the big and small manufactures, small indpendent teams, and the ever shrinking advertsing money of race sponsors.

Racing is not cheap, no matter how you look at it.

[JAG]

Personally, I spend far less time worrying about Le Mans than the LMS and ALMS.

Le Mans is so huge it will take care of itself, even when the sport hits rock bottom, i.e. 1992/1993/1994.

The ACO seem to have at last figured you need a strong European Le Mans reg series, hence the intoruction of the LMS, a US series with regs flexibilty, and finally a Japanease series.

If the ACO manage these series, they'll have a pool of 70-90 quality cars from which to choose from.

A Le Mans entry should be a bonus, not a necesssity to keep a team going.

The ALMS has served Dyson well, hopefully the LMS will become prestigous enough itself to enable European teams to put together a sportscar program, independent of a Le Mans entry.

[yamato]

I really like the idea of tweaking the way entires are handed out. But I'm not so sure about making the 24 hours part of the LMS. Then you are basically guaranteeing any full season LMS entrant a trip to LM? Either that, or you are asking a team to enter a race series where they might not be allowed to compete in one of the races (and one that might carry more points than the others).

I am all for handing out some early entries, but not now before the season is over. Wait until the season is over, and then give out some entries based on the seasons' performance. Stick with the basic formula, you would just have to have an early entry deadline (say November sometime). The ACO would love this, because they can collect money even earlier.

Now you give out entries to these full season competitors in both the LMS and the ALMS who have proved their worth (and submitted and early entry). Now, instead of announcing additional entries just before Sebring, you can wait. Extend the standard entry deadline a bit, give teams a chance to prove their worth at Mila Milhaus and/or Sebring before you decide on the final Entries.

I think that this could really work well. Teams that have performed well can submit their entry early, get there confirmation on say December 1st. and then secure their funding. Teams that feel they still have something to prove to the ACO could submit for standard selection and could use early season races to show their worth. You could have an FIA-GT race (Brazil), and ALMS race (Sebring), and an LMS race (late March, early April race) all in the bag before final selections are announced.

what do you think?

[Graham Goodwin]

Fair point but I still think that 20 in 2007 will be pushing it a bit!

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Fair point but I still think that 20 in 2007 will be pushing it a bit!

Maybe, maybe not. There are so many unknowns that we really can't say right now.

Based on this seasons ALMS teams, with their suggested car entries next year, you'd come up with 11. Intersport x 2, Audi x 2, Corvette x 2, AMR x 2 (not really an ALMS team next year), Panoz x1 (or 2?), FLM, PWL.

Then we have the unknowns, rumours and otherwise.

Dyson x2 (not likely but...)
Courage Cosworths x2 (???)
Porsche LMP2 x2 (apparently no sales until post LM. Why? Why not post Mid Ohio? Is there plans?)
Acura LMP2 x3 (were they planning on an assault?)
VDS Radical x1?
I don't think Risi is interested but....
How many new Porsche 997's? Can we discount than none of them will want to go?
Is Kinetic really buying Spykers? Would they want to go?
Krohn expressed interest, in what who knows....

On the other hand, 35 from LMS is also stretching things a wee bit right now.
LMP1 is the problem area, unless it gets shrunk at the expense of an expanded LMP2. Creation and Lister "seem" to have nothing to run in 07' for LM. Zytek?

I don't think we'll know until January (or later) next year, what is going on for next season.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Creation and Lister "seem" to have nothing to run in 07' for LM. Zytek?

And that, surely, is the reason why 'headline' teams such as Creation and Zytek should be told NOW by the ACO if they will be granted entries for Le Mans next year, and if so, whether they will be granted one or two. With a 'sensible' amount of time to accrue the necessary funds and build the cars, both teams would have two cars built and ready for competition in time for the start of next season. It's the uncertainty and incredibly short lead time of the current system which causes such problems for these teams. It is not just Le Mans which would benefit from their presence, it's the LMS aswell. The ACO really does need to nurture and work with teams like Creation and Zytek, not against them.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

And that, surely, is the reason why 'headline' teams such as Creation and Zytek should be told NOW by the ACO if they will be granted entries for Le Mans next year, and if so, whether they will be granted one or two. With a 'sensible' amount of time to accrue the necessary funds and build the cars, both teams would have two cars built and ready for competition in time for the start of next season. It's the uncertainty and incredibly short lead time of the current system which causes such problems for these teams. It is not just Le Mans which would benefit from their presence, it's the LMS aswell. The ACO really does need to nurture and work with teams like Creation and Zytek, not against them.

Why grant entries nine months in advance, to teams without cars currently, with no funding currently to build? Too much risk on the ACO. You assume that such funding would indeed be found, and the cars built in time. You assume that the cars will be worthwhile, sorted and reliable. Neither team has ever factored at LM, so why even take that stretch for these teams?


If we gave out entries to every team that needed nurturing and work, there wouldn't be any spots left for newcomers that have yet to announce. How does this help and nurture their programs? Have the brand new Creation and Zytek cars for next year proven to be fast, and reliable?

We have no idea what the P1 grids will be next year across the globe, and locking into current teams has the potential to lock out some very good teams.

Isn't Creation's car supposed to be for late 07' or 08' anyway?

This is an interesting exercise, but you'll never find a perfect solution.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Why grant entries nine months in advance, to teams without cars currently, with no funding currently to build? Too much risk on the ACO. You assume that such funding would indeed be found, and the cars built in time. You assume that the cars will be worthwhile, sorted and reliable. Neither team has ever factored at LM, so why even take that stretch for these teams?

I'm simply a fan of this type of racing. I've never had any involvement with any teams nor been privy to the business of raising funds to go racing. But I look at the current generation of LMP1 teams in the LMS and regularly see well documented budgetry problems for most, including the current top (privateer) team, Pescarolo. The stark reality is that without guaranteed Le Mans invites these teams will find it extremely hard to generate enough funds to go racing next year. Now, you may be aware of other teams waiting in the wings with a full season budget in place and raring to go, but I'm not. Sure, these teams may not have yet factored at Le Mans, but let's be honest, apart from Audi, Bentley and Pescarolo in recent times, who has?

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

If we gave out entries to every team that needed nurturing and work, there wouldn't be any spots left for newcomers that have yet to announce. How does this help and nurture their programs? Have the brand new Creation and Zytek cars for next year proven to be fast, and reliable?

Again, you may be aware of 'newcomers that have yet to announce', but I'm not. We're talking about teams who both led at Donington last time out, Creation filling the two lower steps of the podium and debuting one of it's two cars. There was no RFH (budgetry) and they were only beaten by Pescarolo (who nearly didn't make it for budgetry reasons). These are not Mickey Mouse teams, they are two of the jewels in ACO rules racing. If you're in any doubt about that, look at the reaction of the fans in the USA when Zytek and Creation come over to play!!

2007 is the first year for the full new regs. Is it unreasonable for the ACO to assist it's 'headline' LMP1 teams to make the transition when they are perilously close to being unable to support the ACO's series next year?

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

And that, surely, is the reason why 'headline' teams such as Creation and Zytek should be told NOW by the ACO if they will be granted entries for Le Mans next year, and if so, whether they will be granted one or two. With a 'sensible' amount of time to accrue the necessary funds and build the cars, both teams would have two cars built and ready for competition in time for the start of next season. It's the uncertainty and incredibly short lead time of the current system which causes such problems for these teams. It is not just Le Mans which would benefit from their presence, it's the LMS aswell. The ACO really does need to nurture and work with teams like Creation and Zytek, not against them.

The answer is to nuture the LMS into a strong series, which teams can build their season around, without the need for a Le Mans entry, just as the ALMS provides for Dyson.

Is a team who's very survival is depenent on a Le Mans entry even worthy of that entry?

Can't think of too many teams who race only at Le Mans, let alone competitive ones.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by JAG

The answer is to nuture the LMS into a strong series, which teams can build their season around, without the need for a Le Mans entry, just as the ALMS provides for Dyson.

Agreed, and it's the thinking behind my suggestion that the season should run from July to the following June with Le Mans as the Season Finale. The LMS seems to lose it's way post Le Mans.

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by JAG

Is a team who's very survival is depenent on a Le Mans entry even worthy of that entry?

Just thought I'd highlight this question, because it seems to be the gist of the editorial.

I'd answer in the negative, myself.

[FIRE]

Interesting editorial and discussion.

[Graham Goodwin]

I'd say first up that it wasn't the gist of malc's editorial

It is however important to realise the part that Le mans holds in supporting the wider health of sportscar racing and yes, in that regard, there is some 'duty of care' on the ACO to support efforts that will take the whole scene forward rather than back.

My view on this narrow point is that I'd much rather see an entry from a team with real intent to go forward in the sport (Creation, LNT, Zytek, Rollcentre, being supported than a 'wildcard' heart before head entry along the lines of Durango, Norma etc

The issue isn't that the job that's been done lately has been unbelievably awful - It hasn't, but rather that any system needs a close look from time to time, if only to prevent some of the real howlers.

In this regard a degree of structure is a good thing - and there is some structure, i think malc is arguing, and I agree with him, that more structrure still in the LM selection would be a massive boost to stability in the wider sportscar arena.

[paul-collins]

I'd be happy to answer the question.

Le Mans should be taking the best teams available. Period.

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.

A team that survives only on Le Mans is not going to rise to the top of the corresponding series; neither are they going to add to the quality of the field, if all others are there on merit. Therefore, those dependent on the automatic entry for survival are not the ones who will improve the Le Mans grid.

I think Brett has hit on a valid point - perhaps the real problem is the LMS and its lack of commercial viability on its own. But giving them LM entries is not the way to strengthen the series. Proper marketing of the series itself (TV, local promoters) is what is needed.

Graham, given the capricious nature of the ACO selection process, more structure is probably a good thing. It ought to be significantly weighted toward merit, but has not been. I think it's a valid issue to tackle - but I think it's independent of the issue of LMS commercial viability.

Let me just add: Eddie the Eagle was a heartwarming story at the Calgary Olympics. By Lillehammer, he could not qualify. I enjoyed the storyline but I think the Olympics are better for having their standards set.

[Graham Goodwin]

I think for the most part selection has been based on merit, it's just that it would benefit further from bveing more so!

[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...........