V8Vs running first in both classes entered
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,266
From: whereabouts unknown
Rep Power: 120
I don't know the details of why or the rules but if what you are describing is the reasoning, I'd say that's lame. Sports don't make exceptions for lesser teams or underdogs. It takes away the point of it being a sport. Just imagine if in Baseball your ratio of runs scored to your oponent was less based off salary cap. Or in Basketball if they lower the hoop for shorter players. Or F1/Nascar/Any race, the lesser teams run fewer laps.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,358
From: Melbourne
Rep Power: 214
So you guys would be OK if, on a spec race class, a car that has 350hp races against cars that have 570hp? It would be about as fun as watching Usain Bolt running in the Special Olympics. Or are you saying that those handicapped athletes really need to step up their game? 
Last edited by karlfranz; Jun 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,358
From: Melbourne
Rep Power: 214
Technically it is. That is why some cars are required to carry ballast. When you have a racing series based on production cars and those cars can have widely different road specifications, you have to do something to level the playing field. It's called the "Balance of Performance Rules".
Last edited by karlfranz; Jun 16, 2014 at 12:49 PM.
Registered User
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,031
From: MD
Rep Power: 79
Ferrari and Corvette had to deal with the 5L cut in fuel, why is AM exempt? If they can't innovate to meet new standards then why are they racing? On a side note, it's also lame that Ferrari were able to change their aero after the deadline. If you can bend the rules and get an exemption from rules then why have rules?
Here's an article I found for reference: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114255
Here's an article I found for reference: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114255
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,358
From: Melbourne
Rep Power: 214
Also, the extra 5 liters of fuel are the same ones that got taken away last year.
Aston Martin Racing has hit out at rule changes for its Vantage GTE ahead of this weekend's Fuji round of the World Endurance Championship.
Team principal John Gaw argued that the removal of the five extra litres of fuel capacity awarded to the car under the Balance of Performance rules three seasons ago has resulted from AMR's hard work over the 2012/13 off-season.
"Clearly, we made the biggest step over the winter of any of the manufacturers," he said. "That's why we feel a little hard done by."
Gaw also suggested that Aston's rivals, Porsche and Ferrari, had managed their performance over the early-season races for political reasons.
"One of our rivals played a masterclass and got help ahead of the Le Mans 24 Hours," said Gaw, in clear reference to Porsche.
"We haven't done that and have raced fairly all season."
The ruling from the endurance committee means that the fuel capacity of the two GTE Pro Astons at Fuji must be reduced from the previous 95 litres to the class standard of 90.
PRESSURE FROM RIVALS
The move, made by the FIA and Automobile Club de l'Ouest endurance committee, follows pressure from Aston's rivals over the course of the season.
The debate came to a head at the previous WEC round at Austin in September when the winning Pro class Vantage shared by Frederic Makowiecki and Bruno Senna was able to complete the race on four full stops and one splash-and-dash six laps from the finish.
ACO sporting manager Vincent Beaumesnil, who sits on the endurance committee, said: "If a car has a waiver for a bigger tank, but you see on the track that the car has the better fuel autonomy, then it clearly does not make sense."
Porsche's new 991-shape 911 RSR has also been granted a further two waivers in order to help the car double stint its tyres. These affect the rear wing and the width of the wheel rims.
AMR has shuffled its driver line-up for Fuji after reducing its Pro entry from two to three cars.
Makowiecki moves into the lead Vantage with Darren Turner and Stefan Mucke, while Senna shifts over to the Am class car driven by Christoffer Nygaard and Kristian Poulsen.
Team principal John Gaw argued that the removal of the five extra litres of fuel capacity awarded to the car under the Balance of Performance rules three seasons ago has resulted from AMR's hard work over the 2012/13 off-season.
"Clearly, we made the biggest step over the winter of any of the manufacturers," he said. "That's why we feel a little hard done by."
Gaw also suggested that Aston's rivals, Porsche and Ferrari, had managed their performance over the early-season races for political reasons.
"One of our rivals played a masterclass and got help ahead of the Le Mans 24 Hours," said Gaw, in clear reference to Porsche.
"We haven't done that and have raced fairly all season."
The ruling from the endurance committee means that the fuel capacity of the two GTE Pro Astons at Fuji must be reduced from the previous 95 litres to the class standard of 90.
PRESSURE FROM RIVALS
The move, made by the FIA and Automobile Club de l'Ouest endurance committee, follows pressure from Aston's rivals over the course of the season.
The debate came to a head at the previous WEC round at Austin in September when the winning Pro class Vantage shared by Frederic Makowiecki and Bruno Senna was able to complete the race on four full stops and one splash-and-dash six laps from the finish.
ACO sporting manager Vincent Beaumesnil, who sits on the endurance committee, said: "If a car has a waiver for a bigger tank, but you see on the track that the car has the better fuel autonomy, then it clearly does not make sense."
Porsche's new 991-shape 911 RSR has also been granted a further two waivers in order to help the car double stint its tyres. These affect the rear wing and the width of the wheel rims.
AMR has shuffled its driver line-up for Fuji after reducing its Pro entry from two to three cars.
Makowiecki moves into the lead Vantage with Darren Turner and Stefan Mucke, while Senna shifts over to the Am class car driven by Christoffer Nygaard and Kristian Poulsen.
Last edited by karlfranz; Jun 17, 2014 at 05:11 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 108
From: S.E. Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Rep Power: 18
Where the heck is the rest of this thread? We had a good discussion going on here and a lot of it just disappeared. Aren't we allowed to question the marque? Please let us know so we can decide whether or not it's worth hanging out here...
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,266
From: whereabouts unknown
Rep Power: 120
No, it really isn't. Cars are not born with mental or physical handicaps, they are designed and constructed by engineers. To my knowledge, Aston's engineers are not mentally or physically handicapped. So, no, your special Olympics analogy does not work.
Yes, Aston has limited funds, but that's their problem. I like that they race but if they can't compete, thems the breaks. In F1, Team Marussia doesn't have the funds that Mercedes, Red Bull, or Ferrari do. Despite that, Marussia has to make due with the same fuel restrictions as the other teams during races. Special allowances to help less competitive teams compete is lame.
Yes, Aston has limited funds, but that's their problem. I like that they race but if they can't compete, thems the breaks. In F1, Team Marussia doesn't have the funds that Mercedes, Red Bull, or Ferrari do. Despite that, Marussia has to make due with the same fuel restrictions as the other teams during races. Special allowances to help less competitive teams compete is lame.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 563
From: Columbus, Georgia
Rep Power: 38
racing series around the world, four and two wheel, make rule exceptions for any of a number of reasons. It's nothing new or unusual. The ultimate goal is to level the playing field when it's felt a particular vehicle or type of vehicle may have an edge. BUT, sometimes politics also play into it. A good example is the ama superbike race series, few years ago when harley actually thought they could be competitive, AMA made all kinds of rule changes to try and make the bike a winner (didn't work) because they hoped it might stimulate interest in the US for mc racing.
So a special fuel consideration for AM is nothing special.
So a special fuel consideration for AM is nothing special.
No, it really isn't. Cars are not born with mental or physical handicaps, they are designed and constructed by engineers. To my knowledge, Aston's engineers are not mentally or physically handicapped. So, no, your special Olympics analogy does not work.
Yes, Aston has limited funds, but that's their problem. I like that they race but if they can't compete, thems the breaks. In F1, Team Marussia doesn't have the funds that Mercedes, Red Bull, or Ferrari do. Despite that, Marussia has to make due with the same fuel restrictions as the other teams during races. Special allowances to help less competitive teams compete is lame.
Yes, Aston has limited funds, but that's their problem. I like that they race but if they can't compete, thems the breaks. In F1, Team Marussia doesn't have the funds that Mercedes, Red Bull, or Ferrari do. Despite that, Marussia has to make due with the same fuel restrictions as the other teams during races. Special allowances to help less competitive teams compete is lame.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 509
From: pa
Rep Power: 37
Regardless of what one thinks of the fairness of the rules, 10 year old architecture being competitive in any way is imposing. BTW, if 962s were not subjected to handicapping would endurance racing even resemble what it does today?
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 108
From: S.E. Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Rep Power: 18
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 108
From: S.E. Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Rep Power: 18
Let me try again...
Actually, the "NASCAR effect" is kind of at the core of what we're talking about here. It is "leveling the playing field" taken to the absolute extreme. NASCAR has morphed into an entertainment conglomerate, rather than the race-sanctioning organization it was at the start. As such, NASCAR's goal is to attract as many eyeballs (as much money) as possible. Since squeaky-tight "racing" is more interesting to more, non-technically-minded, fans than an individual manufacturer's technological innovations, they have deduced that a "level playing field", where all the cars perform identically, will produce maximum revenue. As a result, they have homogenized all the cars into functionally-identical performance. With the cars now all more or less performing the same, most fans are left to root the for individual drivers, giving little if any thought to the cars they drive. Technological innovation is no longer even desirable under this paradigm. All thanks to the "desirability" of that wonderful "level playing field"...
David has the choice of whether to improve and continue participating, or to go home and let the Goliaths have at it. One would think that an "equal playing field" would be one where every participant is playing under the same set of rules, no?
This is like asking "how would you like it if all the cars that ran in this year's Le Mans were forced to run in LMP1?" It's a completely specious argument. Also, referring to your other specious argument, the purpose of a spec race class is to limit development advantages and, thus, costs, in order to maximize participation opportunities. By definition, in a spec class there would be no 350hp-to-570hp match ups.
The 5 liters that were taken away last year were, at that time, a 5-liter advantage over the rest of the field. That action left everyone equal. Here's what happened this year: the ACO decided, for whatever reason, that it would be desirable for all of the GTE Pro cars to be able to run 14 laps on a single tank of fuel. In order to accomplish their goal, they had to give everyone a 5-liter increase...everyone, that is, except for Aston Martin. Starting from the same amount of fuel as everyone else, the V8Vs needed a total 10 extra liters to accomplish a 14-lap run on a single tank...or 5 liters more than anyone else. You'd think they would be embarrassed by the fact that even Chevy's "antiquated" two-valve pushrod V8 does better on hp/lb-of-fuel/hr than their high-tech multi-cam multi-valve V8. It appears that they have some combustion chamber development work ahead of them...unless we continue to enable their lackadaisical engine development program by rewarding them with a free pass on this. JMO
I don't know the details of why or the rules but if what you are describing is the reasoning, I'd say that's lame. Sports don't make exceptions for lesser teams or underdogs. It takes away the point of it being a sport. Just imagine if in Baseball your ratio of runs scored to your oponent was less based off salary cap. Or in Basketball if they lower the hoop for shorter players. Or F1/Nascar/Any race, the lesser teams run fewer laps.
So you guys would be OK if, on a spec race class, a car that has 350hp races against cars that have 570hp? It would be about as fun as watching Usain Bolt running in the Special Olympics. Or are you saying that those handicapped athletes really need to step up their game?
The 5 liters that were taken away last year were, at that time, a 5-liter advantage over the rest of the field. That action left everyone equal. Here's what happened this year: the ACO decided, for whatever reason, that it would be desirable for all of the GTE Pro cars to be able to run 14 laps on a single tank of fuel. In order to accomplish their goal, they had to give everyone a 5-liter increase...everyone, that is, except for Aston Martin. Starting from the same amount of fuel as everyone else, the V8Vs needed a total 10 extra liters to accomplish a 14-lap run on a single tank...or 5 liters more than anyone else. You'd think they would be embarrassed by the fact that even Chevy's "antiquated" two-valve pushrod V8 does better on hp/lb-of-fuel/hr than their high-tech multi-cam multi-valve V8. It appears that they have some combustion chamber development work ahead of them...unless we continue to enable their lackadaisical engine development program by rewarding them with a free pass on this. JMO