Changing The Rules of Engagement (Le Mans)

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

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.

As much as it may dismay thee, Indy was what I was thinking as I wrote the response, but left it out as I thought it might be too much a cliché for some.

One, Uno, Адйн, Eins big difference, Indy has had bump day for as long as I have been around and it STILL functions in the same manner, you qualify on that day, and you are in.
There is no by invite elitist pre-arranged guarantee.

As another comparison, when T. George set-up an exclusionary pre-set arrangement, for even part of the field, it started the destruction of open wheel racing.
----------------------------------

Malcom wrote:
"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."

Absolutely it should just plain be eliminated, totally.
Remeber when LeMans was so important, Ford showed up during test days with a car that never raced anywhere, but still spent enough time and effort that it was already quite developed.
Just racing at LeMans was considered worth the expense to build a car try it, and scrap it and start again, if it was not right.

There were no hoops for teams and or SPONSORS to jump through. The race track was deemed a large enough challenge as it was, no gimmicks.

"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;..."
Paul, if such happens, so what; if the exclusionary by invite only is eliminated, and, perhaps, LeMans is one of very few (Some used to do just Daytona, Sebring as a test hoping to be able to afford LeMans,) at least a team, or owner only has to fund as many races as he wants to run without trying to find someone to pay for races, he would rather not do; and therefore has to come up with some BS reason to explain to a possible sponsor why he cannot just run, where A: they get most profitable exposure; B: A number of races that is more rationally affordable.

Now if Malcom or anyone is speaking of setting up LeMans for European, standard, fine, but if a USA contingent is actually desired, the current system is a losing proposition.
Using the same precedent, Paul, you and I both thought of,--indianapolis as the benchmark.
Remember not only was the 25/8 buffonery a losing proposition, but also the only having "allowed" proper engine badges scam, which has turned Indy into Formula Honda.

All hoopla about 2010, is ignoring the forest for the trees, NOTHING has dramatically improved since LeMans turned the only surviving road race with international prestige into a coven for the "proper cliques".
Malcoms sees the dying trees in the forest, though I do not agree with his opinion; most seem to be talking some sorts of bizarre formulas for success, while cancer slowly kill the host.
Bob

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

And that might hurt in Year 1 but when the pattern is accepted and established.
=====
But surely the sanctioning body should do everything it can to encourage just that!

Established how?
Accepted, why and by whom?
Car companies, without which road racing becomes extinct quickly, will not be dictated to, because road racing exists because car companies went racing, NOT visa-versa.
Most likely the important car companies will publically politely say "no thanks" and behind the sceens say it using terms that get bleeped here.

Sanctioning bodies sanction, promoters promote; if either forgets why it exists...well open wheel racing is a good example.
Bob

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Established how?
Accepted, why and by whom?
Car companies, without which road racing becomes extinct quickly, will not be dictated to, because road racing exists because car companies went racing, NOT visa-versa.
Most likely the important car companies will publically politely say "no thanks" and behind the sceens say it using terms that get bleeped here.

Sanctioning bodies sanction, promoters promote; if either forgets why it exists...well open wheel racing is a good example.
Bob

Well said.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

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

Aaaccck!!! I mistyped sortof. What I meant was, I don't think a full season prior to acceptance should be the thing. The suggestion prior to me (post #74) seemed to be suggesting that in order to be eligible for entry in 2007, you had to run the full 2006 season. That seems a bit much. I'd agree that full current season should be required, which I think I stated in my first post in this thread.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Established how?
Accepted, why and by whom?
Car companies, without which road racing becomes extinct quickly, will not be dictated to, because road racing exists because car companies went racing, NOT visa-versa.
Most likely the important car companies will publically politely say "no thanks" and behind the sceens say it using terms that get bleeped here.
Bob

Car companies?? like Lola, Courage, Pescarolo, Zytek, Creation, Radical, Prodrive, Lister, Dome. In LMS, this is whole of the P1 and P2 fields and roughly half of the GT1 field. Car companies going racing??? hmmmm I thought car companies meant things like Ford, MB, Nissan, Toyota etc etc. haven't seen much of these boys around and they are not needed either.

As for committing to a full season in the same year of the getting an entry, I simply don't agree. There has been a tendency for teams to opt-out of the rest of the season afer LM to, say, 'prepare for the following year'.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Aaaccck!!! I mistyped sortof. What I meant was, I don't think a full season prior to acceptance should be the thing. The suggestion prior to me (post #74) seemed to be suggesting that in order to be eligible for entry in 2007, you had to run the full 2006 season. That seems a bit much. I'd agree that full current season should be required, which I think I stated in my first post in this thread.

In which case we're on the same page - The simple fact is - If you commit and don't deliver on the commitment don't expect to be welcomed back!

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Established how?
Accepted, why and by whom?
Car companies, without which road racing becomes extinct quickly, will not be dictated to, because road racing exists because car companies went racing, NOT visa-versa.
Most likely the important car companies will publically politely say "no thanks" and behind the sceens say it using terms that get bleeped here.

Sanctioning bodies sanction, promoters promote; if either forgets why it exists...well open wheel racing is a good example.
Bob

But the factories aren't the only ones racing - the suggested formula accounts for both factory (even brand new factory) efforts and privateers.

There is ample room within the proposal for instance for the kind of programme Audi are running in 2006, for the pkind of programme it appears Peugeot will run in 2007 and for that matter the kind of programme that Toyota ran in 98 and 99

In the case of the ACO Bob, and specifically in the case of the le Mans Series the Sanctioning Body ARE the promoter - The only thing they seem to have "forgotten" is that they actually should be doing some promotion!

[Mal]

The ACO were right to move away from qualifying and head toward a race performance selection procedure as it eliminates the possibility of qualification cars and sprint cars etc gaining entires that can result in half the field breaking down before nightfall.

[Bentley03]

Paul, thanks for explaining. Now I have a handle on why you would give a negative response to Jag’s question “Is a team who's very survival is depenent on a Le Mans entry even worthy of that entry?”, I’ll do my best to explain why I vehemently disagree and believe your stance is so misguided.

Originally Posted by paul-collins

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

Agreed, although I believe the ACO should be doing all they can to make sure the best teams actually are available.

Originally Posted by paul-collins

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.

Again I agree, though on the proviso that the organisers have done everything they can to ensure that the best teams are in fact competing in their series.

Originally Posted by paul-collins

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.

This is the point at which I find your stance unacceptable. If you apply this belief to the teams which compete in the ALMS, I think you have a sound argument. I would agree with you wholeheartedly and there would be no disagreement between us. Unfortunately, the same belief cannot be applied to the LMS. If you think Pescarolo could compete at the level they do without entries at Le Mans then you are just wrong. Let me take that a step further, the Team’s very survival is dependent upon entries at Le Mans. Will you tell Henri his team is not worthy of their entries, or shall I?

You will have gathered by now that this whole discussion is in fact LMS LMP1 specific, the most exciting class for most, yet the most unstable both in terms of numbers and in funding. It is these cars that battle for the overall, the ‘headline’ class, and by virtue of that fact, the class most able to garner interest in the series.

Brett has quite rightly pointed out how few full regs LMP1’s there are in existence. The corresponding attitudes of IMSA and the ACO to this situation are diverse, to say the least.

IMSA have taken what I believe to be the very sensible decision to allow older LMP1’s to race competitively in the ALMS. I applaud that decision. They have shown foresight and the ability to look at the bigger picture. They show a willingness to work with the teams that have supported the series in the past, do their utmost to attract new teams and acknowledge those teams, both old and new, as important members of the ALMS family.

What a contrast on this side of the Pond. The majority of cars which have made up the LMP1 grid in the LMS are now obsolete and are thereby unable to race in Europe. The LMP1 field in the LMS has been completely decimated since the ACO has decreed that there will be no allowance for non full regs cars to race in the LMS beyond 2006. Brett, in one of his longer posts, has talked of the “if, probably, maybe’s”. In truth, we don’t have that many LMP1 if’s, probably’s and maybe’s on the horizon in Europe for 2007. And that is the point. As you have acknowledged yourself, the LMS is not a commercially viable series for the teams in itself. The question the ACO should be asking is the same question that the organisers of the ALMS have asked themselves, ‘WHAT CAN WE DO TO GUARANTEE THE CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THESE TEAMS IN OUR SERIES’. The answer, of course, is to enter into a constructive dialogue with the teams to see how they can assist them in there desire to continue racing both at Le Mans , but more importantly for the ACO, in the LMS.

I think it’s fair to say that we are all aware by now that it is predominantly Creation and Zytek to whom Malcolm is referring (If we knew we had two guaranteed entries for Le Mans etc.).
It is a fact that the LMS LMP1 grid has been decimated for 2007.
It is a fact that Creation and Zytek, along with Pescarolo, are the teams that have most successfully taken the fight to Audi in both the LMS and at Le Mans since 2004.
It is a fact that the LMS is not in itself a commercially viable series.
It is a fact that small specialist manufacturers outside of France have considerable disadvantages in terms of getting Le Mans entries over their French counterparts.
It is a fact that small manufacturers carry greater risk into their projects than teams buying cars off the shelf.
It is a fact that the lead in time for projects such as those which Creation and Zytek wish to undertake are considerably longer than those of teams buying off the shelf.
And this bit is opinion, Paul. Both Le Mans and the LMS will hold considerably more appeal with Creation and Zytek on the grid in 2007.

I would concede that the ACO can easily fill the Le Mans grid without Creation and Zytek in the mix. But I think you are mistaken if you believe that their absence would improve it. These are two teams that the ACO should be bending over backwards to help. Right now, the LMS desperately needs them. As I have said elsewhere on this thread, these are two of the jewels in ACO rules racing. They are passionate about what they do and have a desire to continue what they have been doing for the last three years. I maintain that the ACO should be helping them to achieve not only their own goals, but the goals of the ACO themselves. And if that means guaranteeing them two entries a piece at Le Mans in 2007, locked in nine months ahead, that is precisely what the ACO should do.

Throughout this discussion we have all had to make assumptions in order to justify our points of view. But in a climate where we have a floundering LMP1 class in Europe I take real exception to your opinion that a team that is dependent upon gaining Le Mans entries for their survival is not worthy of those entries in the first place, to be arrogant and misguided. There are just so many teams in Europe which would fall into that category.

Originally Posted by paul-collins

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.

Your comparison to Eddie the Eagle is probably best ignored, I know it was only an afterthought, but can only be construed as offensive at best, and deeply insulting if applied to the likes of Creation, Zytek , Pescarolo , need I go on?


So, the ACO can do one of two things. They can adopt what I would call your destructive 'stand back and watch the b*stards struggle' attitude, which will probably result in the teams taking their racing elsewhere. Or, they could adopt what I would call a constructive attitude and enter into a dialogue with the teams with the specific aim of keeping them in the family.

The absence of Creation and Zytek in Europe next season, nett loss or nett gain, Paul?

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

The absence of Creation and Zytek in Europe next season, nett loss or nett gain

Well, that is a question that is awkward given our bias. I think the more appropriate question is, the absence of Creation and Zytek from racing next season....

If Creation and Zytek don't have new cars next year, one wonders if they run the old cars in the ALMS where they are allowed. Ask us again, would we rather have Creation and Zytek in the LMS with new cars, or the ALMS with this years cars? Personally, I'd rather see them in ALMS, of course a selfish answer. I'll even go so far as to say, that these cars are more suited to the tracks over here, than in Europe.

The absence of Creation and Zytek in Europe, is a net gain to us...if they race in North America.

It is a net loss, if they don't race at all.

[paul-collins]

It's funny to see someone post that the P1 category is floundering in Europe, only a couple of months after other posters were lambasting the ALMS for making competition adjustments in P1 to address their weak field (and by saying the ALMS was wrong to do so - "the ACO would never do that"). It wasn't you who said that, Bentley - I believe it was JAG - but clearly P1 is a problem on both sides of the pond. IMSA can only adjust things within their own series; it would seem to me that the proper place to fix LMS issues would be within that series, rather than the LM race itself.

There's much more to be said, of course, but I'll have to give it some thought.

[Fogelhund]

btw - kudos to Malcolm for coming up with an interesting topic, that if at least we don't agree, we are all mostly passionate about.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Well, that is a question that is awkward given our bias. I think the more appropriate question is, the absence of Creation and Zytek from racing next season....

If Creation and Zytek don't have new cars next year, one wonders if they run the old cars in the ALMS where they are allowed. Ask us again, would we rather have Creation and Zytek in the LMS with new cars, or the ALMS with this years cars? Personally, I'd rather see them in ALMS, of course a selfish answer. I'll even go so far as to say, that these cars are more suited to the tracks over here, than in Europe.

The absence of Creation and Zytek in Europe, is a net gain to us...if they race in North America.

It is a net loss, if they don't race at all.

Bingo!!

Go to the top of the class, Brett (not the French one! )!

And therein lies the differences in our opinions. It's only natural to want what we consider to be best for our own (geographical) series.

Sadly, despite the impressive car counts in the LMS, the ALMS would appear to be in better hands. And that is why, when we have a series in Europe for which the fragile spine has been built around the carrot of entries for Le Mans and teams which many of us deem to be important to the series are not being given constructive help to maintain their presence in the series, something has to be done.

Whether you agree or disagree with Malcolm's editorial, it is important to acknowledge that the shortcomings of the Le Mans entry system is working brutally against the likes of Creation and Zytek. And if you try to look at the situation through 'european' eyes, the benefits of the ACO agreeing a nine month two car lock-in for Le Mans 2007 for these two teams may just become apparent.

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

This is the point at which I find your stance unacceptable. If you apply this belief to the teams which compete in the ALMS, I think you have a sound argument. I would agree with you wholeheartedly and there would be no disagreement between us. Unfortunately, the same belief cannot be applied to the LMS. If you think Pescarolo could compete at the level they do without entries at Le Mans then you are just wrong. Let me take that a step further, the Team’s very survival is dependent upon entries at Le Mans. Will you tell Henri his team is not worthy of their entries, or shall I?

But Henri has already earned his entries - by virtue of his championship and his Le Mans finish. This is a deflection. Henri is a poster child for my method of qualification.

Originally Posted by Bentley03

You will have gathered by now that this whole discussion is in fact LMS LMP1 specific, the most exciting class for most, yet the most unstable both in terms of numbers and in funding. It is these cars that battle for the overall, the ‘headline’ class, and by virtue of that fact, the class most able to garner interest in the series.

Brett has quite rightly pointed out how few full regs LMP1’s there are in existence. The corresponding attitudes of IMSA and the ACO to this situation are diverse, to say the least.

IMSA have taken what I believe to be the very sensible decision to allow older LMP1’s to race competitively in the ALMS. I applaud that decision. They have shown foresight and the ability to look at the bigger picture. They show a willingness to work with the teams that have supported the series in the past, do their utmost to attract new teams and acknowledge those teams, both old and new, as important members of the ALMS family.

What a contrast on this side of the Pond. The majority of cars which have made up the LMP1 grid in the LMS are now obsolete and are thereby unable to race in Europe.

Yes, and in fact we can see that the ACO is still trying to discourage IMSA's efforts (by saying that non-compliant cars won't earn any automatic entries).

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I think it’s fair to say that we are all aware by now that it is predominantly Creation and Zytek to whom Malcolm is referring (If we knew we had two guaranteed entries for Le Mans etc.).
It is a fact that the LMS LMP1 grid has been decimated for 2007.
It is a fact that Creation and Zytek, along with Pescarolo, are the teams that have most successfully taken the fight to Audi in both the LMS and at Le Mans since 2004.
It is a fact that the LMS is not in itself a commercially viable series.
It is a fact that small specialist manufacturers outside of France have considerable disadvantages in terms of getting Le Mans entries over their French counterparts.
It is a fact that small manufacturers carry greater risk into their projects than teams buying cars off the shelf.
It is a fact that the lead in time for projects such as those which Creation and Zytek wish to undertake are considerably longer than those of teams buying off the shelf.
And this bit is opinion, Paul. Both Le Mans and the LMS will hold considerably more appeal with Creation and Zytek on the grid in 2007.

Ok, now the gloves are off - this isn't about rules in general, it's strictly about Zytek and Creation developing cars for 2007.

As I said before, Henri isn't part of the picture in this, as he's already gone through the motions to secure his own entries. If others needed those entries in order to secure their future, well, they were there for the earning.

The real problem I have with this is that it's not fair to all teams. It's not even about teams at all. It's about constructors. Except it's not - it's about constructors that are also teams. I don't see Lola or any of their teams getting anything out of this scenario. I only see the two teams mentioned above.

If it were strictly about teams, then I'd tell them to buy an off the shelf package and get to work on those. We know there are two that exist (Lola and Courage). Would Creation require 9 months if they were taking the route of the B06/10?

I understand the frustration that Trevor Foster and Mike Jankowski must feel at having some great engineering knowledge that they'd like to implement to race next year, and no funds to do it. I can even see that, for this year only, it might be worthwhile to grant some sort of entry guarantee based upon constructors. More '07 compliant cars is better, right? But we must not confuse teams with constructors in discussing the problem of P1 availability and variability.

[canam]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

I understand the frustration that Trevor Foster and Mike Jankowski must feel at having some great engineering knowledge that they'd like to implement to race next year, and no funds to do it.

It is probably not a question of having the funds but whether there is a business case that can be justified. The new cars will absorb capital and need to generate a payback. Guaranteed LM entries will reduce the risk and improve the timing of that payback. Simple as that. Sponsors are exceptionally fickle and hard to find and le mans is a necessity as sponsorship money will form part of the payback.

Pescarolo chose to shun pay drivers (for most of the season) and this has been a prime element of his success this year. Every other LMS team has had a mix of pro and amateur for budget reasons. It would be very sad if Pesca's success this year prevents him from developing his new car for 2007 as the funds have dried up and he has had employ the use of a (very good) pay driver for the last two races of the season. Ironically, the very reason for earning the guaranteed entries could be the same reason he may not be able to take them up--even with the advantage of LM entries.

[JAG]

'I think it’s fair to say that we are all aware by now that it is predominantly Creation and Zytek to whom Malcolm is referring (If we knew we had two guaranteed entries for Le Mans etc.). '

Sorry to sound harsh, but Creation and Zytek don't deserve two Le Mans entries, neither team has run two cars for the course of the season, neither has yet commited to two cars next season.

Even Creation admitted they were stretched running two cars at Donington, why would you consider them deserving of two Le Man entries, they have hardly puilled up any trees these last few years?

If they run two cars in the LMS next season, or one here, one in the US, a two car entry in 2008 maybe on the cards.

If Creation choose to miss Le Mans and the LMS next season, and run in the US, what does that say, 'we'll take our ball away if you don't play by our rules?'.

As for Zytek, they are looking to run a hybrid electric car, but should this untried technology be guaranteed two entries, especially as the team has yet to complete one full season, running ONE car, in the LMS?

Lets not forget, Zytek are a large company,small teams like Chamberlain, Swiss Spirit, Rollcentre have competed in each race

We keep hearing about bias towards French entries, yet Courage have run the season wih two new P1's, while Pescarolo has won the Championship at a canter, and more importantly for this discusssion, shown podium form at Le Mans.

And why freak out about 2007 LMS P1 car counts, off the top of my head I can think of:-

Audi (Joest/ORECA/GOH/Audi UK) Take your pick
Peugeot (at least with a limited program)
Chamberlain
Courage x2
Kruse
RFH
Swiss Spirit
Pescarolo
Lavaggi
Creation an Zytek (they 'only' need a new tub)

And of course, the arrival of Audi and Peugeot, a higher quality support program, and a generally stronger field will improve the profile of the series.

[JAG]

'It is a fact that the lead in time for projects such as those which Creation and Zytek wish to undertake are considerably longer than those of teams buying off the shelf.'

Creation entered the LMS with an off the shelf chassis, it is they who chose to develop the car into a hybrid, build a tub to produce a full P1 in 2007, and unveil plans for an ambitious coupe.

If funds are so tight, buy off the shelf from Lola, Courage or link up with Zytek again.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by canam

Car companies?? like Lola, Courage, Pescarolo, Zytek, Creation, Radical, Prodrive, Lister, Dome. In LMS, this is whole of the P1 and P2 fields and roughly half of the GT1 field. Car companies going racing??? hmmmm I thought car companies meant things like Ford, MB, Nissan, Toyota etc etc. haven't seen much of these boys around and they are not needed either.

The former are chassis builders, not car companies.

Despite your sentence above, you are as aware as I am, without a known major car co. engine under the hood, the prototype series is on a good day growing sideways.
Perhaps on the Euro side of the Ocean, this situation is fine as they are Euro tubs with Euro engines, but if the US is part of this equation, as I approximated earlier, the 2010 vision is optimistic at best, and brain dead of arrogance, at worst.

The current diesel gambit, may play awhile in Britain and Europe, but over here the bloom is already off of the bud; of course if they could attract Catepillar or John Deere as major sponsors, they would get a whole new set of fans, as farmers are as mechanically & tech. adept, as the general populace is illiterate.
Bob

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by JAG

'It is a fact that the lead in time for projects such as those which Creation and Zytek wish to undertake are considerably longer than those of teams buying off the shelf.'

Creation entered the LMS with an off the shelf chassis, it is they who chose to develop the car into a hybrid, build a tub to produce a full P1 in 2007, and unveil plans for an ambitious coupe.

If funds are so tight, buy off the shelf from Lola, Courage or link up with Zytek again.

Probably because Racing Teams: Race and or build cars, to their liking and are seem to refuse to let any wannabe Praetor tell them how to do their job.

It seems the ACO has trouble with the fact that others do say how high and how far" when they say jump.
Bob

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Probably because Racing Teams: Race and or build cars, to their liking and are seem to refuse to let any wannabe Praetor tell them how to do their job.

It seems the ACO has trouble with the fact that others do say how high and how far" when they say jump.
Bob

Racing teams need to race within their means.

Why splash out on your own design, then struggle to run a couple of cars, when you can buy off the shelf.

[FIRE]

Here's just a thought:

LMS 2006 (4 races so far):

• Average of 8.75 LMP1 cars/event --> 8.75/2 --> First 4 cars in championship get automatic LM entry for next year
• Average of 9.5 LMP2 cars/event --> 9.5/2 --> First 5 cars in championship get automatic LM entry for next year

So at this moment the following teams get an automatic entry:
LMP1
1. Pescarolo
2. Chamberlain-Synergy
3. Creation
4. Swiss Spirit

LMP2
1. RML
2. Barazi-Epsilon
3. Binnie
4. Bruneau
5. Chamberlain-Synergy (ASM RfP has same total of points but took part in less races so Chamberlain wins entry)


ALMS 2006 (8 races so far):

• Average of 5,25 LMP1 cars/event --> 5,25/2 --> First 3 cars in championship get automatic LM entry
• Average of 4,25 LMP2 cars/event --> 4,25/2 --> First 2 cars in championship get automatic LM entry

So at this moment the next teams get an automatic entry:
LMP1
1. Audi
2. Dyson
3. Autocon

LMP2
1. Penske
2. Intersport

If a team doesn't use their automatic entry ACO takes it back and use it to invite an other team.

Next year 55 LM entries:

• 2006: x12 LMP1 --> 2007: x14 (?)
• 2006: x12 LMP2 --> 2007: x13 (?)
• 2006: x12 GT1 --> 2007: x14 (?)
• 2006: x14 GT2 --> 2007: x14 (?)

Total automatic LMP1 entries: 4 + 3 = 7
Total automatic LMP2 entries: 5 + 2 = 7

This means ACO can give wild cards to 7 LMP1 teams and 6 LMP2 teams.
Possible wild cards:
LMP1
x1 Audi
x2 Peugeot
x1 RfH
x1 Courage
x1 Zytek
x1 Epsilon

LMP2
x1 Rollcentre
x1 Bruichladdich
x1 Kruse
x2 Belmondo
x1 WR


Of course this qualifying/selection procedure doesn't mean teams (i.e. Creation) can enter 2 cars but 14 teams know already at the end of 2006 were they are in June 2007. So they have more time to search for extra backing, preparation, etcetera. It will make LMS and ALMS more important because you can qualify for LM if you perform well.

[AU N EGL]

WOW if all those teams showed up and raced hard, What a show that would be.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by JAG

Racing teams need to race within their means.

Over here many teams, at least into the nineties, often flushed tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars down the drain, because they simply wanted to race. There was no "business" outline, other than quiting when flat broke, governing them.
And the racing flourished for love of sport.

Why splash out on your own design, then struggle to run a couple of cars, when you can buy off the shelf.

They probably do it, at least partially, for the reason named above, not because a sanction decided they know how to do it better.

As of now the ACO is winning and sports car racing is growing sideways.
Bob

[JAG]

TBH, I couldn't care less what Creation do, it's their time and money.

I also don't see the slightest need to change a selection system that works for most, is evolving with more selections based on merit, and other than the odd clanger, seems to work.

As has been highlighted elsewhere, the real focus should be improving the LMS as a platform for teams to base their program around, with Le Mans as an achievable bonus (1 car), that also seems to be slowly happening.

Would this editorial have been written if the teams involved were not British?

Serious question.

[Graham Goodwin]

I can't answer for Malc but I can say that the same advantages would apply whatever nationality the teams were -

The fact is that in recent years the entry lists have been dominated by teams from just three nations - France, UK and USA - By my very rough calculations 116 of the 150 available start slots (77%) were filled by teams from these three nations in the past three years - (With UK teams forming the single largest group at 44 or so).

The fact that the ACO offer auto entries for high flying ALMS teams and the fact that they have also worked closely with the JLMC organisers shows vividly that they are keen to expand the reach of the 24 hours - The fact that they clearly go to some lengths to ensure entries from as many nations as possible are welcomed (sometimes stretching the quality threshold to do so)

So far i've counted at least half a dozen theories behind the formula - Fact is that as far as i'm aware it has one aim in mind - Stability - and several other advantages fall out from that.

Whether the teams that would most benefit in the coming year are British is rather besides the point - The idea of applying a formula means that the stability, the rules and the advantages they bring for pre-planning, would apply to everyone.