I think that the idea and motivation for the "leveling the playing field" is that they are trying to appeal to a larger audience by making this, as much as possible, a "human" contest. What I mean by that is that by making the cars perform more-or-less equal, the contest becomes about the skill of the individual drivers and less about the might of the machine.

This brings it more in line with other types of sports where it's all about the abilities of the athletes and not some unfair advantage from the equipment they are using. Think about it: this is the reason other sports also have regulations for the equipment used. Imagine if one baseball team had more money for R&D and developed a better bat. That team would have an unfair advantage. In fact, when we catch guys playing with a corked bat, we penalize them for unsportsman-like behavior. Why? Because it's giving them an unfair advantage and that takes away from the perception of "human" competition.

You could ask, why not make them all drive the same kind of car then? But let's face it, in this world, there are Chevy people and there are Ford people. If you made a one-brand racing series, you chop off a large percentage of your possible audience. After all, if you're a Camaro guy, you're probably not going to be interested much in a Mustang-only race. But race both together and, not only do you get to see your Camaro race, but you can hopefully watch it kick its competition's butt. So race different types of cars but make the cars more-or-less equal in performance and the competition is perceived as more intense and exciting.

The most important thing you guys must remember here is that, in professional sports, it's all about the entertainment and the fans because no matter what you would like it to be, at the end of the day, it's a business. Nothing else. I worked for many years for a professional racing team in the Grand-Am Racing Series. We used to call it the "traveling circus" and the entire team, especially the drivers, are the entertainment. It's all a big show and without spectators, there is no show.

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I don't keep up much with racing series and I completely agree with your Nascar comment and the value of a level playing versus innovation.

 

So, we're in complete agreement about what/why many forms of racing have become...entertainment, rather than true competition. Here's the rub though: endurance racing is not a "human contest". It was created for the sole purpose of proving cars/technology, not drivers. Hell, in endurance racing, each car has multiple drivers...and few fans can even remember all their names. That's because in general, fans of endurance racing...and we're talking here about someone who goes to Sebring and only leaves the fence for a pee break, or someone who sits all the way through Le Mans without falling asleep...are into endurance racing because they ultimately care about the manufacturers' cars, and the resulting competition between those cars. The real lure is in finding out which technology will prevail and, speaking for myself, I could care less who's driving any particular car, as long as they're competent. The drivers only come into it as just one part of the race strategy. If you truly "level the playing field" in endurance racing by artificially limiting or aiding this or that entry, you eliminate most of the interest in its original purpose. Competition is supposed to stimulate improved technological capability and performance by everyone. Giving laggards artificial help can never accomplish that, and it just smacks of entertainment and revenue collection. It may add to someone's bottom line, but long term, it will damage and possibly even ruin endurance racing...again, JMO

 

As I said, I worked for a professional racing team for many years and did many Daytona 24 hour endurance races. If you think it's all about the endurance of the machine and not the humans, you don't fully understand the sport. Yes, the drivers take turns, but the crew is awake the whole time making sure the car is running in top shape. As the hours progress, fatigue takes its toll and mistakes are more frequent. This can often be the difference between a win or a loss: not equipment failure but human failure.

To make matters worse, in later years, they changed the start time of the Daytona 24 from 12:30PM to 3:30PM which meant that most of us were awake and working for more than 40 continuous hours. You don't even get a break when the race is over because you are required to pack up the car and leave the premises by 6:00pm.

You may not agree with it, but all forms of professional sports are first and foremost a business. Competition is not even a distant second. It's all about entertainment. We are the traveling circus. When the race is over and the fans have all gone, it's time to pack up all our gear and drive to another town to put on another show.

 

You are approaching this issue from the viewpoint of an employee, and I'm approaching it as a fan. We're bound to feel differently about the loss of pure competition. You don't really care all that much because as more and more money rolls in, you see it as job security. I understand that, and I never meant to imply that the people involved in making it all happen (crew, drivers, track workers, emergency staff, etc.) were not important...just that their involvement (the human element) was not the prime reason for the activity's original creation. "Who's-car-is-faster-for-longer" was the prime reason...and we're in danger of losing that. Soon it will be "which-team/driver-is faster-for-longer", like NASCAR. While there is nothing chiseled in stone that says there's anything wrong with that, it will kill the whole point of endurance racing for me. Then I'll just have to move on to something more interesting...like watching paint drying, or even worse, golf. The money is no doubt on your side, not mine...and as we all know, when money talks, fair play walks.

I've pretty much run out of different ways to state my case, so I'll sign off on this issue now.

 

I'm afraid the days of "which car is faster for longer" are long gone.

You could consider watching bowling instead of golf.

 

I'm partial to curling myself !

 

Funny you should mention bowling. A couple of months ago, I entered a bowling alley for the first time in decades...and what I saw left me momentarily speachless: they now have something called "gutter guards". I couldn't possibly make up something this bizarre. They're kind of like rubber curbs along the edges of the alleys, and they're there to keep the ***** from going into the gutters. Apparently, the ACO has now merged with the ABC and instituted this "enhancement to competition" that levels the playing field so newbies and small children can now compete on an even footing (score-wise) with adult professional bowlers...and, just like the ACO's changes at Le Mans, the new gutter guards are bringing in more dollars because the small children no longer have to actually learn the skill of bowling in order to compete. What could be better?



Actually, I have to admit that I like watching curling...though it's all skill and strategy. Say, I have some great ideas that would make curling more interesting to watch, for more people: maybe, in the interest of making the competition as close as possible, the better teams should be required to use stones that vary wildly in size and shape compared to those used by the lesser teams, or, the better teams could be forced to play on a much longer sheet than the lesser teams...you know, just to level the playing field. These changes would generate closer scores and make curling more appealing to promoters, sponsors, uneducated fans, etc. It would bring in more money as a result. The competition would no longer be fair, but what the hell...turning it into a more profit-generating business would be worth it, right?