Changing The Rules of Engagement (Le Mans) - Page 5

Bob Riebe · 20 Sep 2006, 04:42 (Ref:1714292)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

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.

I really doubt that - Control - is probably more honest and real reason.

The problems that are happening is what ususally happens when control is forced on participants; again Indianapolis and open wheel racing, are the premonition of where the ACO (and GARRA) with its use of control have sports car racing headed.

Bob

Graham Goodwin · 20 Sep 2006, 06:01 (Ref:1714311)

I think perhaps there is some confusion there bob - i'm talking about the proposed change, not the current arrangement.

canam · 20 Sep 2006, 07:15 (Ref:1714346)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

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.

Struggle?? If you are referring to Creation, they are far from struggling. Having made four starts in the LMS, they have three podium finishes (two seconds and a third) with a total points tally of 22 (more than the all the LC70s in the LMS combined). They are also running two different cars on two consecutive weekends on two different continents.

In contrast, Courage (eights starts with two cars each race) have a points tally of seven and only two finishes in the points. Strugglling???

The decision to make their own cars (Creation and Zytek) is abviously driven by these teams' desire to control their own futures. We will see whether the decisions taken by Zytek and Creation were the right ones at PLM (assuming they compete) as they will be up against two well-run P1 Lolas. Not buying an LC70 was definitely the right decision. Lola???

**Bentley03** · 20 Sep 2006, 09:14 (Ref:1714464)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul-collins

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?

Paul, it's been a fascinating, and I believe worthwhile, discussion over the last few days. I suspect a few feathers have been ruffled and if either you or Brett have felt insulted by anything I've said, I apologise unreservedly.

paul-collins · 20 Sep 2006, 12:45 (Ref:1714634)

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam

The decision to make their own cars (Creation and Zytek) is abviously driven by these teams' desire to control their own futures. We will see whether the decisions taken by Zytek and Creation were the right ones at PLM (assuming they compete) as they will be up against two well-run P1 Lolas. Not buying an LC70 was definitely the right decision. Lola???

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that - after all, the Aston Martins are, in theory, faster than the Corvettes too, but how've they done?

I have to suspect that part of the results come down to Creation "the team" versus Swiss Spirit / Courage Competition "the teams". After all, aren't Pescarolos based upon Courage C60s? Perhaps then Creation should be buying C60s?

Fogelhund · 20 Sep 2006, 13:02 (Ref:1714653)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Paul, it's been a fascinating, and I believe worthwhile, discussion over the last few days. I suspect a few feathers have been ruffled and if either you or Brett have felt insulted by anything I've said, I apologise unreservedly.

You have to work pretty hard to insult me, so no worries. I enjoy discussing, debating and exchanging ideas with people who have a passion for sportscars, and its future.

**Bentley03** · 20 Sep 2006, 13:12 (Ref:1714666)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

You have to work pretty hard to insult me, so no worries. I enjoy discussing, debating and exchanging ideas with people who have a passion for sportscars, and its future.

Seems at least half of your Creation/Zytek wishes have come true, Brett!

paul-collins · 20 Sep 2006, 13:16 (Ref:1714670)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Paul, it's been a fascinating, and I believe worthwhile, discussion over the last few days. I suspect a few feathers have been ruffled and if either you or Brett have felt insulted by anything I've said, I apologise unreservedly.

If I took umbrage at anything you might have said, I think it fair to own up that I earned it.

After all, I deliberately chose Eddie instead of the Jamaican bobsled team. (Who, after all, did improve to where they qualified on merit anyway)

**Bentley03** · 20 Sep 2006, 13:38 (Ref:1714696)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul-collins

If I took umbrage at anything you might have said, I think it fair to own up that I earned it.

After all, I deliberately chose Eddie instead of the Jamaican bobsled team. (Who, after all, did improve to where they qualified on merit anyway)

Indeed!

JAG · 20 Sep 2006, 17:21 (Ref:1714837)

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam

Struggle?? If you are referring to Creation, they are far from struggling. Having made four starts in the LMS, they have three podium finishes (two seconds and a third) with a total points tally of 22 (more than the all the LC70s in the LMS combined). They are also running two different cars on two consecutive weekends on two different continents.

In contrast, Courage (eights starts with two cars each race) have a points tally of seven and only two finishes in the points. Strugglling???

The decision to make their own cars (Creation and Zytek) is abviously driven by these teams' desire to control their own futures. We will see whether the decisions taken by Zytek and Creation were the right ones at PLM (assuming they compete) as they will be up against two well-run P1 Lolas. Not buying an LC70 was definitely the right decision. Lola???

My point is Creation admitte they struggled to run two cars at Donington, so why everyone suddenly believes they deserve two guaranteed Le Mans entries is beyond me, lets not forget they have never factored at Le Mans and are yet to win in the LMS.

Courage have run two cars from round one, have Japanease backing from Mugan etc., a long Le Mans pedigree, and a chassis that is now showing real promise.

Creation have earned one Le Mans slot, IMO, they don't deserves a second until they either consitently run two cars, win regualrly, show Le Mans form, or a combination of all three.

This whole discussion is about teams struggling for funding, without guaranteed Le Mans entries, I'm simply suggesting how can this be the case for Creation, seeing as they are spending time and money buidling their own cars?

canam · 20 Sep 2006, 18:36 (Ref:1714896)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

My point is Creation admitte they struggled to run two cars at Donington,

Creation admitted that they struggled with the small tyres as they could barely last a stint. The number of tyre changes required put the car down from the Pesca...not the car's pace (fastest lap). The team never said that they struggled to run two cars. I suggest you read the press release.

Creation have run two cars before in FIAGT. Finishing fourth in the championship in their rookie season in front of several well-established multi car teams.

JAG · 20 Sep 2006, 18:47 (Ref:1714909)

I watched the Motors TV coverage, the team manager said they struggled to finish the cars on time, and were still coming to terms runinng two cars during a race weekend.

Hence why they need more experience, if not better results, before being granted two Le Mans entries, unless your going to tell Swiss Spirit, Chamberlain, RFH etc. they''ve been dumped for a second Creation (that only ever competed once in 2006).

They've earned one entry, good luck 'em, come back next season with a season long two car team, and they may have a point.

canam · 20 Sep 2006, 18:56 (Ref:1714915)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

I watched the Motors TV coverage, the team manager said they struggled to finish the cars on time, and were still coming to terms runinng two cars during a race weekend.

Despite all this 'struggling', they finished P2 and P3 and got fastest lap of the race. God help the other teams if they aren't 'struggling'.

Maybe with a second guaranteed entry, they will run two cars next season.

JAG · 20 Sep 2006, 19:37 (Ref:1714955)

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam

Despite all this 'struggling', they finished P2 and P3 and got fastest lap of the race. God help the other teams if they aren't 'struggling'.

Maybe with a second guaranteed entry, they will run two cars next season.

Maybe they can earn a second entry by matching the likes of Pescaolo at Le Mans, winning the LMS, winning PLM or running two cars in the LMS.

So far their results have earned them a single entry for 2007. Maybe thats their level, maybe the financial commitment of running two cars, without 2 guaranteed Le Mans entries, (which can never be guaranteed), is a step too far.

Tell you what, give me two guaranteed entries, I'll go along to Chamberlain and see what kind of deal we can put together.

Bob Riebe · 20 Sep 2006, 20:03 (Ref:1714976)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

I think perhaps there is some confusion there bob - i'm talking about the proposed change, not the current arrangement.

I will give you that, but tell me, just how is the proposal really any different.

The Devil is in the detail, but detail changes with the ACO mean near nothing, it needs a total rewrite from blank pages.

Bob

Graham Goodwin · 20 Sep 2006, 20:08 (Ref:1714981)

the proposal is different because it gives more stability to more of the potential field for a longer period - I think it is as simple as that.

canam · 20 Sep 2006, 20:21 (Ref:1714995)

Beating the Dyson Lolas would be enough for me. They have already trounced the LC70 (Courage: 12 starts/18 points vs Creation 06H: 4 starts 22 points) and now it is time to do the same thing to the Lola. If they do, two entries should be justified. Same thing with Zytek. Both these entities are pushing forward to win rather than buying customer cars to finish in the top six and hope for the best. They are risk takers and racers. They are the ones that need cultivation.

I suspect that the prime movers in these teams care not a jot of this theoretical debate. They will build their cars for next year and take the associated risks. In that, they should be applauded because if the LC70 is the common denominator in sportscar racing...God help us.

**Bentley03** · 20 Sep 2006, 22:40 (Ref:1715092)

Personally, I'd prefer to see one Creation with pro drivers (Nic and Jamie if they are still with the team next year) rather than two Creations compromised by pay drivers. I've hated the compromises the team have had to make with their driver line-up(s) this year!

canam · 21 Sep 2006, 02:06 (Ref:1715155)

Any two car team will have economies of scale that can often accommodate one car being all pro. It is very rare for a one car team to have that luxury.

The Badger · 21 Sep 2006, 06:33 (Ref:1715202)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Personally, I'd prefer to see one Creation with pro drivers (Nic and Jamie if they are still with the team next year) rather than two Creations compromised by pay drivers. I've hated the compromises the team have had to make with their driver line-up(s) this year!

Same here . But I have no worries with a 2 car team with pay drivers in one car and the quick boys in the second chassis . Its obviously a money thing .

Would be nice to see McGaritty get a full time drive with Creation for 2007 .

Any word on if the team were impressed or not with McGaritty at Donington ?

Fogelhund · 24 Sep 2006, 22:56 (Ref:1717992)

Creation seemed to be quite a ways off the pace today, matching the Chamberlain Lola LMP1 on pace, and just beating the best of the LMP2 Lola's.

Any thoughts on why they were so far off the pace?

canam · 24 Sep 2006, 23:16 (Ref:1718000)

They say that tires were the major problem, but the scale of the difference with the front-runners suggests a car issue. 1/2 to 1 second is tires. Anything greater is something else.

Although a different chassis number, I hope the PLM car does not have a similar problem. I suspect that with one guaranteed LM entry in the bag, they will definitely run with the lighter weight and that should help with their tyre problems.

eddsc · 24 Sep 2006, 23:17 (Ref:1718002)

An unsuitable track, which was particularly unsuitable for the small-wheeled car, I'd suggest.

**Bentley03** · 25 Sep 2006, 07:15 (Ref:1718128)

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam

I suspect that with one guaranteed LM entry in the bag, they will definitely run with the lighter weight and that should help with their tyre problems.

Now that's a very interesting point (and not just for the reason you've given).

If the Audi's are running to mandatory IMSA adjustments which are, as yet, not recognised by the ACO (please correct me if I'm wrong here), by running to 925kgs the Creation car could potentially get the second Le Mans entry they are seeking by simply finishing the race as the only full regs ACO car competing.

**Bentley03** · 25 Sep 2006, 07:31 (Ref:1718135)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

.......the only full regs ACO car competing.

That should probably read 'the only LMP1 car competing which is ACO compliant' since it's only a Hybrid.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
RML MG Lola for 1000km Le Mans, LMES and Le Mans 24 hour 2004	Wout	ACO Regulated Series	21	27 Sep 2003 15:26
[LM24] 2004 Le Mans Rules	pirenzo	24 Heures du Mans	6	16 Dec 2002 19:35
[LM24] Entry Rules for le Mans?	Liz	24 Heures du Mans	5	5 Nov 2000 23:41