Ferrari - Ford GT - Porsche - Vette

Well, since I'm one of those guys on the Corvette sites, you are half right (so half wrong). Some loyalists don't understand racing bodies and make frustrated (and incorrect) statements. That said, many loyalists CAN look at what went on at LeMans 2016 and make a reasonable assessment that the BOP was clearly done WRONG. The GT is the latest and greatest...right up until the NEXT latest and greatest comes along.

Call the Corvette what you will, it's success in racing is unquestionable, and with a mid engine platform appearing in the next 2 years, we'll see what happens. Corvette did win the series championship last year (2016) so what does that say about everyone else that a "dinosaur" did that.

Jimmy

PS. I still think it's wrong that the GT is allowed to race. This is supposed to be production based racing, how many GT's have they produced so far? The lame excuse that Multiac/Ford were slow/had delays getting up to speed is THEIR problem. Same for the Porsche RSR's

 

The whole point of GT racing is to alow "road gt cars" to race....now how can a car that isn't into production be alowed to race!!??? THis is bs and everyone knows it. There is a minimum number of cars built needed in order to let a car race...were are the fords? i don't think building them after is in the rules....

 

I agree. The more brands racing, the better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Look Jimmy, I currently own a Corvette, have owned a C5 Z06 (an awesome car at the time) and a '67 L71. I believe they are the best sports car for the money hands down, however they are racing a very old platform and if not for big BOP help they wouldn't have stood a chance last year or this. I understand that if not for BOP many manufactures wouldn't be competitive therefore not show up and bring their money. Not good for the sport. I also understand the "turn them loose mentality" and run what you brung cause everyone doesn't deserve a trophy mentality. The truth as in many thing most probably lies somewhere in the middle. It's the "Ford's car is a cheater prototype" even though it follows every rule in the book and is the least wavered car out there that truly puzzles me. As for the late deliveries, everyone (Corvette, Ferrari, Porsche etc) voted to allow Ford to race last year period. I'm really not looking to be branded a troll because I currently do not own a Ferrari and not trying to stir the pot. But guys, manufactures have been reading the rule books for years with the intent on building a better "mouse trap" Ford currently has the better mouse trap"

 

DeSoto,

Please find for me the post where I bragged about the Audi over the other cars. I need to see what you are referring to. No anger here-just need to reread what I wrote.

I try to make sure that I include all in the credit for the cars. I have been very good on the Ford GT in giving ALL who worked on the car credit. When I speak about superior engineering and design I am referring to everyone (and that was a lot!) who worked on the program.

I am proud of the car-but under no circumstance would I or have I taken all the credit for it. I was the chief designer with 30-40 other guys working on it. And as I have written before on the site--All of their work was "special" and outstanding on this car. Right people in the right places with the right focus and attitude can work wonders.

But the Ford is not a prototype. Not at least as it is defined and understood by ACO, FIA, IMSA, etc.

And Ford's investment in this program was not nearly as big ($$-wise) as everyone seems to "know".

They don't know. Period. I do. Period. I was there, I was involved-all these other people were not.

The amount spent on the GT was very much in line with with Ferrari spent on doing the 458 or 488 program. The race car side of it (design and mfg) is a very small % of the overall cost. Again--I have numbers to back this up. Numbers from Ferrari!!

I can understand the issue over letting the car run when there were no street cars around. Yes-Not to the rules as written. But Ford approached the ACO and the ACO had to get permission from the LM-GTE technical body (Made up of all the mfg's in the series.) to allow the Ford to run. So it was all the other mfg's who said it was okay to run the car.

And having had "X" number of road cars out would have had no impact on any of the race results gotten.

Still--I can understand the issues about "meeting the rules". But take your anger to the ACO. Nobody on this site can alter what the ACO decides. Not you, not me, nobody.

And be careful about protesting too much--Ferrari is the single worst abuser of ACO rules there has ever been. Enzo has "cheated" on the rules on a regular basis. It is in their history/DNA.

Porsche has done it, BMW has done it. Each of these companies hire some very smart people to look at the rules and see how to tweak them in their favor. Heck--Audi use to bring a pair of lawyers to every FIA LMP Technical meeting I was ever at! And a French linguist specialist! -Because the "official" rules are the French ones. But many of the technical terms (Originating in English) had no direct French translation. So the French would use terms that didn't quite mean what they did in English. Audi was smart (clever? devious?) enough to take advantage of this a number of times.

 

I would offer that all the cars (except the Ford GT) are racing "old" platforms. The 911 (obviously), the 488 (which I assume is pretty closely related to the 430/458 platform), the Aston Martin, etc...IMO, to suggest that the C7.R is "propped up" (my words) by the BOP so it remains competitive is simplistic at best. Corvette Racing has been dinged plenty of times with inlet restrictors/etc and to suggest otherwise is incorrect. The BOP they (Corvette) were hit with at LeMans last year proves that...the car, in race trim was 3 seconds a lap slower than practice times (I assume Doug Fehan and team didn't get stupid overnight). Certainly the Ford GT did not suffer the same.

Again, there's no doubt the Ford GT is the latest and greatest (as it should be), and my disappointment is not aimed at anyone but the governing bodies.

 

Again, what's that to do with the price of pianos in New Zealand?

I've already stated that that's a fact. What's your point?

We're not discuusing the sport of auto racing anymore; the bottom line is we're discussing advertising.

 

The 911 moved the motor finally to in front or the rear tires so it's a new platform. The 488 is a mid engine with current updates= the best racing GT platform. The BMW, Vette and Aston front engine cars are not a ideal or in my words "an outdated racing platform". There is a reason why they continue to race this outdated design however, not because they make for the best high performance sports car but because the allow for the most in creature comforts which translates into units sold to the masses. Enzo gave up on the front engine race car in the '60's and Corvette is finally in 2018. I don't suspect BMW ever will make a mid engine mass produced 2 seater because that's not their target market.
I know for a fact that the GT is the most BOP'd car in the series.
Signed, Simple Steve

 

Ummm.. It has always been about advertising...or making a profit.

Motorsports is first a business, then a sport, and then an engineering exercise. Always has been, always will.

 

The "problem" is the ACO.
they are like motorsport.com or ASO (DAKAR/Tour de France)......it is not about the sport/fans/supporters/petrolheads it is about how to make as much money/profit as possible!
Dome Judd or Pescarolo could never have beaten the Audis.
ACO gave Ford 4!! entries in GTPro at the expense of at least two GTam cars.
They wanted to give the public some fresh blood, something new; a Ford-Ferrari battle, 50 years ago.. ALL MARKETING.

 

LorenzoBandini--

Just saw in another post that you questioned the roll cage in the street car.
Time to set that error straight:

The roll cage in the street car is the same one in the race car. Down to using some very special steel spec that is only used in F1 cars right now. Very expensive stuff but makes for a lighter roll cage.

We decided to keep roll cage same in street to race car for design reasons. Only need to design one roll cage.

What the race car does is add extra bars as required by the rules. But the roll cage in the street car is exactly what we put in the race car.

And the whole car is like that.

 

Of course it is about marketing! Where do you think the money comes from to build and support the track at LeMans?

The spectator take doesn't cover the operating costs. Motor racing has never been a "service" for the fans. That is part of it-but the fans pay for that service. It is not a charity!

It is a free market--the ACO has a right and duty to generate as much of a profit as possible for their services. It is called the free market. If you don't like the way it is run then nobody is stopping you from organizing your own series and setting whatever rules/standards you want.

What if somebody came to you and said I don't like the way you run your business and so you need to change! Are you obligated to just because someone says so?

Because Dome and others didn't have the money that Audi did then Audi should be prohibited from spending their money the way they want? What next--Everyone doing an LMP car should be given the exact same amount of money? Who decides that?

 

The Ford GT & mid-engined 911 are brilliant cars; I'd love to own either one. My thought is that GT classes should be race-modified cars which are pulled off the production lines. With either of the cars mentioned, there was no production line when the cars were allowed to race. Therefore, according to my edict (assume I'm king for a day) they could not have raced when they were allowed to. As many have opined, Ford could be accused of buying favor with the ACO (or whomever) for last year's class win. The whole deal was a little to orchestrated and, seemingly, almost ordained.

 

David Lind,

I have no issues with what you wrote. Agree with almost everything you wrote.
I have no issues with following the rules to the letter.

All of the ACO/Ford stuff happened after the car was built, and after I was involved.

 

Toni VILANDER is feeling a little bit disappointed with the 3rd place finish in GTLM.
The main reason for the disappointment is that the Risi Competizione Ferrari 488 had the potential to be a race-winner.

VILANDER: Daytona Debrief - Sportscar365

 

That was too long ago, I won´t bother to search it, but I don´t remember that you were specially rude so it doesn´t matter what were the exact words. Back then I didn´t know that you were working in the Audi, so when I said that beating a Dome-Judd with an Audi was easy, you didn´t like it at all. No disrespect for your work, but you have to admit that those small teams had little chance so as I´ve said, let´s put things into perspective.

Back to topic, beating GT cars with a prototype is also relatively easy. It doesn´t mean that the guys that built the prototype are smarter, they just sneaked through a classic loop-hole in the rule book of GT racing. I don´t have a problem with that Ford or whoever builds "homologation cars". Actually they are quite cool and the Ford GT is veeery cool. But if General Motors gets angry enough about the Ford GT, they could outspend Ford and build a better prototype and then everybody will have to build prototypes and we would have GT1 again.

I think that ACO and IMSA have lost the plot: they´re allowing prototypes and mid engined 911s that then have to be BOPed, with all the politics that BOP implies. What´s the point? Let them race with whatever they bring no matter the cost or BOP them in a way that spending millions in prototypes is useless. Right now they´re trying to please everybody without being fair with anybody.

 

+1
but the fault is with ACO/IMSA not Ford. Loop-hole or no loop-hole. ACO & Endurance committee are the ones to blame.

BMW with their Z4 GTE....non oem type engine (from other BMW); so Ferrari could use a LaF with a 488 V8 engine then

 

That was just in regard to Kanaan making the statement on FOX that the GT before him was "exactly" what "anyone" can walk into a showroom and buy. Not so in either case....it's not "exactly" and just "anyone" cannot. (last I heard's they're all accounted for...)