Prototype Summits & Their Future

[Tim Northcutt]

Since lots of issues have been scattered throughout a number of threads on this, let's take a look at this:

The ACO holds a big summit in Paris with officials from FIA, ALMS, and various "builders and factories" for input on 204 and beyond....Panoz describes the talks as "spirited"...And the ACO travels to the orient to meet with the many Asian manufacturers....

Grand Am launches the DP era with a fizzle, holds a summit in Indy a few weeks ago, and various threads have comments about "people who were there" saying that builders & teams are both worried about spending huge $$$ next year only to get blown away by VAG if they stay in the ALMS...

Fact is, only MG-Lola really sold any kind of product to teams in the last ouple of years, the only Dallara still on the track now is an older model without the 2002 upgrades, Panoz went back to a 3-yr.-old car, and some chassis, like the Crawford, are nowhere to be found....

Last year's Audis and the new Bentley seem to be in a league of their own...

Lister, DBA & the Bentley surfaced as new ones...but about as many seem to have gone away....Cadillac & Dallaras to name two...

And the European side of prototypes...from the last list I saw for Estoril (FIA-SCC race on April 13) had 12 cars total in the field...the equaivalent to the 675s had Pilbeams and Lucchinis and one of the seven 900 kg. cars was an old Ferrari 333SP

Questions below have been raised by many of you for this year and next year in other threads...

-- If you're a builder, do you build an LMP 900, only to get blown away by whatever form VAG surfaces in next year and then end up selling no cars to customers because nobody wants to race for "Best Non-VAG"????

-- A new car under new rules is going to cost big $$$ to test & delveop, no matter which LMP category you race it in....is it worth it as a team owner or a builder, or do you look at cheaper racing alternatives???

-- If you're Panoz, do you run both a GT and an LMP, since you'r the guy behind the ALMS series, or do you focus on what you'll put on the street???

-- If you're a smaller builder like R&S and Crawford, do you go toward
Grand Am instead???

-- How important to the future of prototypes is it for the japanese makers to get involved in a big way...they'll at least spend the same kind of money that VAG will...American makers can't justify doing it for the prototypes...

-- How important are prototypes to endurance road racing, and will it evolve into GTS & GT only racing everywhere (that has been raised more than once in various threads...not by me...but it is out there)

I'm sure this only scratches the surface of potential issues....but the prototype side of sportscar racing could be facing serious issues by 2005.... if they aren't facing them now already with 675s that can't finish and an Audi parade for the the last three years, plus anothr win to open things at Sebring.

Your thoughts????

[gttouring]

it wil get better soon, the prototypes will comeback from everywhere panoz led the way by being a semi support to the teams, Audi still has VAG in their corner even if it is not in name, the joest team was the same as last year with whatever mods were made before the departure of the official VAG team. The privateers will come back , we still have Listers, the wicked Dome, the courage, it will mend soon, the factories have to take a peripheral involvement for a while. names shapes, and what have you, but a full blown effort? the Oreca Vipers are a great example they were the GT Factory team but it wasn't Dodge/Chrysler Viper ORECA team, it was The Oreca Vipers, a fantastic team one of the best ever. This is the sort of involement the factories should give and limit it to. I adore the factory machines, always will, but they will relax their grip they must, and as F1 is getting outrageuos, the Makes will put more in that corner, leaving the Glory of sports cars to rise again as the Best MotorRacing on the planet.

Oui?

[Tim Northcutt]

Good thoughts...

Here's another one...why do the bottom-feeders in F-1 spend the outrageous $$$ they spend just to start every race tha tthe back of the grid?

Maybe David L., when the "possible Minardi entry" at LM a few months ago was trying to drop them a serious hint that they are in the wrong form of racing, and that their $53 million annual F-1 budget would fund one helluva competitive LMP program.....

I see lots of well-made points that i tried to summarize as best I could to start this thread....

These "summits" tell me two things:

1. the governing bodies want to try to serve their constiuents to ensure that it does survive and to get their input for makeing rules that will work for the best of the sport, but it also says

2. There are issues and problems, either right now as in Grand Am, on the horizon, with ALMS and/or the FIA prototypes (GT seems very strong),that they definitely see out there, and they need to be dealt with by all parties, or the sport will face some real troubles....

[MaxSport]

Tim-go say those same things on the DSC board and see what happens.

Good points that you bring up. Sounds like someone I know.

KM
PS-thanks,Tim. I will be sure to send you that $100 USD for asking the hard questions that the "Neville Chamberlains" over at DSC refuse to talk about.

[Javi]

Well

I think sportscar world will survive to VAG dominance, as it survived ferrari´s one in the sixties, porsche´s one in the early eighties... When group C died in 1992 it was said to be the end of sportscars. By 1995, we had no factory efforts at LM, but a wonderful mix of privateers. Then the factories came back in 1997, and we had three wonderful years with lots of factories and close racing. Now it´s VAG time, but don´t worry.
I´ve read today that FIA will support its FIA-SCC championship with the same restrictors used by ACO (ALMS) That´s the way to go. OK, we´ll have two championships, one for the US and one for europe, but if regulations are similar, teams will be tempted to make cross-atlantic trips for some races. Team Goh Audi is rumoured to enter FIA SCC championship if permitted to use ACO restrictors...

[Tim Northcutt]

These questions were asked by many who have responded to issues raised in lots of threads...I just tried to put them into one spot so that we could look at as many of them as possible adn discuss them...

I think that they are all valid issues that deserve to be discussed and "Better Be" discussed by the governing bodies of the sport, the builders (big and small) and the race teams....the long-term health of the sport depends on it...

One other idea that showed up in a GT thread that, in my opinion, MUST be part of the future of prototypes...

For a big auto manufacturer or a substantial "Factory" (like VAG in the prototypes, GM and Ferrari in other levels) to compete, they must provide some minimum number of cars that would be available for purchase to race.....like CART required for chassis and engine makers a few years back....

and the numbers were something like two works cars would require at least 4 or more for others to purchase and race...

But I would add one mote item....the cars for purchase must be provided with upgrades as the builder develops and uses them....

Carl Haas was the Lola, and later the Swift distributor in CART when they had multiple chassis makes in CART....his teams had all of the new improvements, but the other owners of the same chassis never got them until much later or even the next year.....

I like this idea....what do others think???

[Tim Northcutt]

One big question I have concerning the ACO "Summit" in Paris:

The ALMS news item on the summit made note of the list of manuafactureres who were there and listed Audi, Ferrari, SARG (Toyota), Porsche, and a few others....

My question:

Were others such as --

Lola
Lister
Dome
Dallara
Durango
R&S
R&M
the builder of the DBA
Pilbeam
Promec
Crawford

and any others not mentioned here for whom racing is their only product market????

We'll probably never know if they were there...if they weren't, the summit, in my opinion, was a waste, because these builders will be there for the long haul...racing is their business...not like Cadillac, who ran a few years to get some marketing hype, then dumped the program just as it was starting to make some headway...

Without the needs of these specialty builders being addressed or met, prototype racing will not survive...

[cybersdorf]

about a few of the names you mention:

Lister isn't thinking about selling chassis yet.
Durango isn't recognised as a constructor yet.
R&M seems to have given up the prototype project.
Crawford is in the DSP business so that won't have helped. I believe they have given up their "SR1" project as well.

Panoz will have to go one way, or the other; simply because running two separate programmes is too expensive for him. I see him do GT and nothing else.

...they must provide some minimum number of cars that would be available for purchase to race...

That's what made GT1 so expensive, though. A car like the GT-One makes more sense without the need to build a whole bunch of them (be they for road use or not). Also, you will have to sell those, too; how big is the market for sports prototypes?

[Tim Northcutt]

NOTE: I didn't list Courage...sorry...

but I listed the Lister, Durango, R&M and Crawford for the exact reasons you mentioned and here is why....

If you got out of building them, why, and what kind of climate would bring you back?

What can our governing body do (by creating a climate) that will make it possible for you, Durango & Lister, to become a constructor or to sell your products?

To Crawford...you built an open-seat chassis a few years ago, and now are in the DSP business...what can we as a governing body do to get you involved in our type of racing???

Businesses learn more from their negative feedback or why customers did not come back than they learn from their loyal clients....

And on your final note:

Making them available for purchase is the key, and it must also be a two-way street...the purchaser should have to share testing data with the manufacturer as well....

Someone else raised an idea related to this that makes even more sense...

Don't make the builder provide these "other cars" for purchase for the first couple of years, so that they can sort out the bugs, focus on development, and set themselves up to be able to provide parts, technical assistance and other vital things for these "customers" once the cars do come on-line....

[cybersdorf]

First of all, I obviously have no idea what the selection criteria of the ACO for this meeting were (if there were any). Durango and Lister right now are too small to even think about customer cars. (Just as DBA, or whatever their name is this week, would like to sell cars eventually, but right now aren't building any.)

For the smaller European builders, there will have to be a stable European series. Not all of them are prepared/able to make the kind of jump Pilbeam and Picchio made, and go racing overseas.

Crawford has made the decision to stay with GA, and go for the car of choice in that series. Maybe they can't, maybe they won't pursue the development of an LMP alongside with their DSP. Also, any LMP project wouldn't have made much sense before the announcement of the definite 2004 regs. (Yes I know, Lister... )

Durango hasn't physically built a new car yet, just fiddled with an existing chassis.

As for Courage, I have a feeling that whatever the ACO does, Yves Courage will be consulted beforhand

[Tim Northcutt]

If you're building for the future, the reasons you make above would be exactly why I would put these people in the mix...and I would be stunned if Courage wasn't at the table in Paris last January...

It was my understanding that the ACO gathered not only builders, but also ALMS and FIA leadership as well....stability of whatever series fields cars that are LM eligible is manadatory...and it behooves the ACO to work with them to help make them stable...

That was probably a key component of the summit to begin with...get the different series on the same page, and work from there to serve the needs of the builders, teams, etc...

If it wasn't, they missed the boat....

Like I noted earlier...other than the automakers listed, we have no way of knowing who was there...maybe most of these builders were there, and maybe that was why the meeting was so "spirited"....

I'm more interested in what everyone's thoughts are for the future of prototypes and how the climate could be improved (or if it even needs improving or changes) as opposed to "who was invited, who showed up, who might or might not build cars, or whether or not somebody listed is "technically" a builder..."

[veeten]

and therein lies the difference, Tim. You're working with probabilities, whereas they're working with definates. "Definates" allow you to set-up the rules according to whom is there allready, and as others come in they can use the rules as the basis for the chassis needed to compete, regardless of the series one is building for.

If the rules were designed with changing number of manufacturers involved as the measure, then they would have to be changed practically every month! This can get to be expensive, not to mention frustrating, moreso to the core of companies that have been your advocates for some time. It's one of the reasons that CART is in the fix it's in right now, why do this to sportscars?

While manufacturer involvment is a good thing, it's better to have a stable number of chassis builders with rules that allow for a reasonable amount of innovation and design. And if they only want to supply the powertrains, no losses there. Just don't give us a series or category that is so unwatchable that it makes lawnmower racing look like the "pinnacle of racing".

[cybersdorf]

As for Europe, the racing just will have to improve. Then there will be a demand for new cars. The 2003 season will hopefully bring stability to the FIASCC; and it remains to be seen if the ACO will join forces with the FIA in building a European series, or do something of its own. Also, there will have to be some outside help. There are too many European series right now - Formula Nissan, Formula Renault, Formula Whatever. F3000 may not be enough value for the teams'/sponsors'/drivers' money anymore. If one of these were to fail... - prototypes may be a more logicasl alternative for teams used to working with single seaters.

Also, there will have to be a "second division" for smaller teams to graduate from. In recent years, there has been nothing whatsoever of this kind in Europe. Now, we see some series gradually beginning to fulfill this role again - the Italian prototype ch'ship, Czech endurance, the Sportscar Challenge, Infinity. It'll take time but it may turn into a solid foundation for prototype racing. The GTs already have that.

The smaller prototypes, and the endurance racing format, are getting more interesting for national Championships nnow because a) you have a real racecar to work with, and you don't get funny looks for driving an F3 at age 40 , and b) you can share the cost of the car with your somebody else, and both can do plenty of driving.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
Grand Am launches the DP era with a fizzle, holds a summit in Indy a few weeks ago, and various threads have comments about "people who were there" saying that builders & teams are both worried about spending huge $$$ next year only to get blown away by VAG if they stay in the ALMS...

To be fair, while there are various threads, there's only one poster who's been saying this. I understand he's probably not in a position to be more concise (the old "protect your sources" canard), but I wish he could and would say more. As it is, what info has been officially released tells nothing about the true state of the DP class.

It will be interesting to see just how the prototype racing will evolve. I expect that the rules will evolve to make LMP900-based cars less and less useful, with an eye to encouraging other factories to join.

Whether any North American factories will join will always be a question, but history is not on their side. And how that affects the ALMS remains to be seen - as European car makers with any aspirations of cracking the North American market will see just how successful the R8 program has been for Audi.

[Fab]

I have to admit that, after what we had for the first GA races, I'm not scared for ALMS...

[Fab]

Originally posted by cybersdorf
As for Courage, I have a feeling that whatever the ACO does, Yves Courage will be consulted beforhand

I don't think so ; it seems he simply follows ACO because he exists by and for Le Mans.

To Tim questions : ACO has talks with the manufacturers who have fame in car building in the wide public. They would like to push them to come back to Le Mans (and ALMS/ACO rules). Ferrari is against the rule, for now.

The others are too small, and ACO don't bother to push them or not (I make any judgment here, I just report the ACO approach).

It's difficult to explain, my english is too weak and it calls to 'french' behaviors (good or bad, as you'll want to see it) : ACO is not a firm, but an association, without economical purposes. If it was necessary (because a lack of cars), they could do a race with kids cars or bicycles. They are independant (I repeat, but it's important here : whatever you think of ACO behavior, good or bad) : they don't want to make deals, or so. Don't ask me why, it's like that (an historical behavior here, like in Asterix Le gaulois, if you've read this comic book). They don't tend to justify or beeing fair or unfair (again, whatever we could think of their choices), they do and don't take care of the others.

There's some good, and some bad, results... if we want to watch the race, we're able to do it. If we're not satisfied, there's plenty of other races around the world (again : ACO approach --> "if you're not satisfied, go away").

I'm not sure I've been clear, and I'm afraid of beeing to 'simple', to arsh in my expression. I just wanted to try to make you feel how 'thinks' and 'acts' the ACO board.

The thread of 'how could it be' is interresting ; but don't look for a logic in ACO choices/behavior/words/talks/Car builders consulting : I'm not sure there's one, except to attract most of them. I understand that not consulting Lola, Lister, Dome , Dallara, Pilbeam looks not fair, but the ACO purpose is not to attract them, but to attract main car builders (let's say Ford, GM, Bentley, MG, Toyota, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, etc... notice that they don't bother of... Renault and Peugeot ! I don't know why, but mainly because Renault is involved in F1, and Peugeot/Citroen in WRC)...

Not sure this helps

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally posted by MaxSport
Tim-go say those same things on the DSC board and see what happens.

Good points that you bring up. Sounds like someone I know.

KM
PS-thanks,Tim. I will be sure to send you that $100 USD for asking the hard questions that the "Neville Chamberlains" over at DSC refuse to talk about.

Good of you to give us another plug KM!

Tim is perfectly welcome to come to dsc to make those points Kurt as is anyone who wants to make a point constructively and with civility.

If you aren't quite sure why your own contribution wasn't welcome then I'd suggest you revisit your original post on dsc, then ask yourself whether it was constructive or provocative in both tone and content.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Fab
I understand that not consulting Lola, Lister, Dome , Dallara, Pilbeam looks not fair, but the ACO purpose is not to attract them, but to attract main car builders (let's say Ford, GM, Toyota, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, etc...

But, someone will have to build the chassis! The Audi isn't really an Audi, it's a Dallara. And so on.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Graham Goodwin
Good of you to give us another plug KM!

Tim is perfectly welcome to come to dsc to make those points Kurt as is anyone who wants to make a point constructively and with civility.

If you aren't quite sure why your own contribution wasn't welcome then I'd suggest you revisit your original post on dsc, then ask yourself whether it was constructive or provocative in both tone and content.

Besides, for 100$ we could have been the best of friends!

[Tim Northcutt]

Veeten:

Then you totally miss my point....you can't grow a business without understanding where various publics are coming from....

Getting info from those wide range of sources gives you a basis of analysis from which you and decide exactly where you need to go in order to achieve growth or stability...depending upon the objective..

[Fab]

Originally posted by cybersdorf
But, someone will have to build the chassis! The Audi isn't really an Audi, it's a Dallara. And so on.

As I suspected, I was not clear enough, and my lact post let think that I'm agree with ACO... Cy, you're right, but, as you said above, I'm not sure there's a logic in this... yes, the chassis have to be build, but the names count too... we know what is a Dallara, but ask to non-fans... and ACO want to touch non-fans...

[Fab]

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
you can't grow a business without understanding where various publics are coming from....

I've never succeed to know if ACO really took this event/race/championship as a business. IMHO, and regarding the conflict they had with FIA in the early 90', they definitely don't... and especialy not with Michel Cosson as a Chairman. They want independance, that's all. They prefer to be poor, but independant (that's a french approach that can be surprising elsewhere, I don't know...).

[Tim Northcutt]

Because of its reputation, its long-time tradition, and its stability over many decades, the ACO can afford to be that way and can afford to dictate the direction it wants to go...that can be a very positive thing for the sport....

They wouldn't have bothered to call this "summit" with leaders from the ALMS, FIA, major auto makers, etc., if they didn't want feedback or input on what they were going to issue for the 2004 regulations....they would have just formulated them on their own, issued them and said, "we're the ACO...if you want to race here, build it this way...even if it is totally different than any other set of regulations created by the other sportscar series that exist on this planet..."

But they didn't...they called many parties together to receive input on their proposed direction for 2004 and beyond that the ACO feels is the best way to go...maybe some things changed, maybe they didn't...but apparently they showed a desire to listen...they wouldn't have gathered all of those entities in Paris otherwise...

Personally, I think it is very smart of them to do so....they are the one central figure that can truly guide the course of endurance sportscar racing to ensure that it grows and thrives....

[Burd]

Originally posted by Fab
I have to admit that, after what we had for the first GA races, I'm not scared for ALMS...

You're making the major mistake of assuming that all the ALMS has to do to be successful is "beat" Grand-Am. That couldn't be farther from the truth. If the DP concept actually does fail, that certainly does not mean the ALMS will suddenly receive a large influx of fans and sponsorship dollars.

Hopefully Panoz and company aren't thinking about their current competitive business situation in the same way that many of their fans seem to be. Please don't take this as an insult, but if they have the same attitude that you display in this post, then you *should* be scared for the ALMS.

[cybersdorf]

Good point, well made.