| zzyzx | 10-07-2003 09:08 PM |
World Challenge changes for '04
�
�
Here's an article over at The Race Site, that has an interview with Tom Milner of Team PTG - you know, all the BMW M3s in WCGT. Anyways, it seems highly likely they are pulling out of WC altogether and all the '03 M3s are up for sale. Details are in the article:
[url]http://www.theracesite.com/index.cfm?pagetype=2&form_article=5953[/url]
Bottom line, do you think his arguments against the SCCA are well founded? Is there a better solution?
- Steve
[url]http://www.theracesite.com/index.cfm?pagetype=2&form_article=5953[/url]
Bottom line, do you think his arguments against the SCCA are well founded? Is there a better solution?
- Steve
| enduroshark | 10-08-2003 10:01 AM |
I think that SCCA should tweak rules if they see a car model become dominant (and not because a team is better prepared than the rest).
The success of World Challenge comes from not having a dominant car model. The variety it brings is one of the things that makes the series a success.
This needs to be balanced with having a car model be penalized just because a particular team or a particular driver are better at maximizing what they have. I expect a PTG BMW driven by Bill Auberlen to be faster than a privateer. It's the nature of racing. The teams need to work closely with the officials so that they know how developed their effort is and the officials can determine if the car has more potential or if it really needs a "break". Simply judging by on track performance is not the whole story.
Judging by on-track performance, the Touring BMW's are a severe overdogs, since Auberlen was kicking butt, even with heavy REWARDS weight (which he never failed to comment on). But no one seems to claim that the BMW is the Touring overdog, even though it might be the best choice in the class.
The same debate goes on in Club Racing.
Although I agree with Mr. Milner, I wish he would have chosen his words better than to say that the series organizers are not professionals.
The success of World Challenge comes from not having a dominant car model. The variety it brings is one of the things that makes the series a success.
This needs to be balanced with having a car model be penalized just because a particular team or a particular driver are better at maximizing what they have. I expect a PTG BMW driven by Bill Auberlen to be faster than a privateer. It's the nature of racing. The teams need to work closely with the officials so that they know how developed their effort is and the officials can determine if the car has more potential or if it really needs a "break". Simply judging by on track performance is not the whole story.
Judging by on-track performance, the Touring BMW's are a severe overdogs, since Auberlen was kicking butt, even with heavy REWARDS weight (which he never failed to comment on). But no one seems to claim that the BMW is the Touring overdog, even though it might be the best choice in the class.
The same debate goes on in Club Racing.
Although I agree with Mr. Milner, I wish he would have chosen his words better than to say that the series organizers are not professionals.
| BOY | 10-08-2003 10:31 AM |
I see SCCA messing with the pack too much. Like PAX indices, the fudge factor should be determined at the start of the season and held strong unless there has been a gross error or oversight.
| ShockWave | 10-08-2003 01:22 PM |
This is a really tough series to maintain parity in, especially now that they've gone to slicks. I think that may have been a mistake. On street tires, you can really on get so good before you're wasting money as there's a point where the tires just won't stick. With slicks, there's no limit to the amount of money you can spend to eek out that extra .01%. Same kind of thing happened years ago in Fomula Ford.
That being said, all the teams knew what they were getting into when they started the year. I really don't think they should be surprised at getting an additional penelty after a 1-2-3-4 finish. On top of that, the Corvettes got a penelty after the second race, so they had already seen that SCCA was on the look out.
I hope they choose to stay involved. I think they're a great team, clearly the class of the GT field. They have all the resources to stay at the top of the field despite having to navigate changing waters. And I for one have no interest in watching a 50 minute BMW ad. The LMP 900 class is down to six cars in ALMS, and next year there should be even fewer because no one wants to waste their time following the Audis around. I'm all for protecting the World Challenge series from one make domination.
Besides, Aberlin's scoring podium places with 200 pounds of bonus weight! Simply superb. And what fun would be the series without Hans Stuck's mid race commentary!
That being said, all the teams knew what they were getting into when they started the year. I really don't think they should be surprised at getting an additional penelty after a 1-2-3-4 finish. On top of that, the Corvettes got a penelty after the second race, so they had already seen that SCCA was on the look out.
I hope they choose to stay involved. I think they're a great team, clearly the class of the GT field. They have all the resources to stay at the top of the field despite having to navigate changing waters. And I for one have no interest in watching a 50 minute BMW ad. The LMP 900 class is down to six cars in ALMS, and next year there should be even fewer because no one wants to waste their time following the Audis around. I'm all for protecting the World Challenge series from one make domination.
Besides, Aberlin's scoring podium places with 200 pounds of bonus weight! Simply superb. And what fun would be the series without Hans Stuck's mid race commentary!
| zzyzx | 10-08-2003 02:52 PM |
Perhaps we should look at this another way.
Currently we know the SCCA will do all it can to maintain parity in the field. This supposed parity is car-based, not team or driver based. So, if you run the same car as the leaders in the series, you are impacted even if you're last in the series. Keep in mind we're not talking about REWARDS weight...
So, one may argue what the idea of parity is based on.
Isn't this essentially the same thing as limiting the number of wins a team/driver can have during a season? Something along the lines of: "Driver/team can place 1st in two events, 2nd in five events, 3rd in 6 events..." Ultimately, this is what it boils down to because how you place will ultimately determine the "adjustment" to the rules to avoid letting you become dominant in the series.
In the current scheme as I've already stated, the other people who happen to run the same car as you get penalized for your success.
[quote]
The same debate goes on in Club Racing.
[/quote]
Are you referring to the debate on competition adjustments in Improved Touring?
- Steve
Currently we know the SCCA will do all it can to maintain parity in the field. This supposed parity is car-based, not team or driver based. So, if you run the same car as the leaders in the series, you are impacted even if you're last in the series. Keep in mind we're not talking about REWARDS weight...
So, one may argue what the idea of parity is based on.
Isn't this essentially the same thing as limiting the number of wins a team/driver can have during a season? Something along the lines of: "Driver/team can place 1st in two events, 2nd in five events, 3rd in 6 events..." Ultimately, this is what it boils down to because how you place will ultimately determine the "adjustment" to the rules to avoid letting you become dominant in the series.
In the current scheme as I've already stated, the other people who happen to run the same car as you get penalized for your success.
[quote]
The same debate goes on in Club Racing.
[/quote]
Are you referring to the debate on competition adjustments in Improved Touring?
- Steve
| elgorey | 10-08-2003 03:42 PM |
the "problem" is that with the parity modifications, spending big money on chassis engineering and top level drivers do you no good.
This frustrates the big teams such as PTG who cannot then buy their way into a championship and drop out.
Its a double edged sword, you want the big teams to compete, but you dont want to shut out the privateers.
This frustrates the big teams such as PTG who cannot then buy their way into a championship and drop out.
Its a double edged sword, you want the big teams to compete, but you dont want to shut out the privateers.
| enduroshark | 10-08-2003 04:10 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B] Are you referring to the debate on competition adjustments in Improved Touring?
- Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Not only the IT stuff. You see it in pretty much all classes. SCCA classifies a car. Someone with a big budget and good driving skills builds the car to the hilt and starts winning. Others that might not have their cars as well prepared claim that the other car is an overdog and want reclassification or competition adjustments, etc.
It happens in SS, Touring, Production, etc.
In IT it is very obvious in some cases and worse because the Comp Board then relies on the "no competitiveness guarantee" to refuse to change anything on one side, while on the other side saying that "competition potential too great".
To me, as long as the World Challenge people not penalize a team for having a better developed car than their competitors and then to apply changes to the car and not the team, I'm for it. Rules should be applied based on the best possible example of the model.
[B] Are you referring to the debate on competition adjustments in Improved Touring?
- Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
Not only the IT stuff. You see it in pretty much all classes. SCCA classifies a car. Someone with a big budget and good driving skills builds the car to the hilt and starts winning. Others that might not have their cars as well prepared claim that the other car is an overdog and want reclassification or competition adjustments, etc.
It happens in SS, Touring, Production, etc.
In IT it is very obvious in some cases and worse because the Comp Board then relies on the "no competitiveness guarantee" to refuse to change anything on one side, while on the other side saying that "competition potential too great".
To me, as long as the World Challenge people not penalize a team for having a better developed car than their competitors and then to apply changes to the car and not the team, I'm for it. Rules should be applied based on the best possible example of the model.
| pio!pio! | 10-08-2003 07:54 PM |
[url]http://bbs.sccaproracing.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002900.html[/url]
here's the thread about it in the world challenge forums. I agree that weight parities and such are a good thing...however I sympathise w/ Milner's position as they are going above weight parities and doing stuff like weight adjustments and letting the rules slide for other teams etc..
here's the thread about it in the world challenge forums. I agree that weight parities and such are a good thing...however I sympathise w/ Milner's position as they are going above weight parities and doing stuff like weight adjustments and letting the rules slide for other teams etc..
| kfoote | 10-08-2003 09:23 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by enduroshark [/i]
[B]
Judging by on-track performance, the Touring BMW's are a severe overdogs, since Auberlen was kicking butt, even with heavy REWARDS weight (which he never failed to comment on). But no one seems to claim that the BMW is the Touring overdog, even though it might be the best choice in the class.
[/B][/QUOTE]
There are three teams (7 cars, 3 Turner Motorsport, 2 Wheels America Racing, 2 Chili Pepper Racing) that I know of that have run E46 BMW 325's in identical configuration, and they are scattered throughout the field. If you look at the other cars in the class, the Lexus has more power, the Mazda Protege has the best power:weight ratio, and the Audi A4 has the AWD start advantage. If you go purely based on history, this is the first year that Acura or Honda has not been the champoinship winning car since 1994. That Bill Auberlen has clinched the champoinship with two races to go is more a testament to his driving and the reliability of the cars (Bill Auberlen and Will Turner are the only drivers in WCTC that have finished every race in the points, which you get to 25th place) than anything else. The cost to build any of the cars for the top teams is in the $150k/car range, so that really isn't much of a factor here.
Personally, I feel that sweeping rules changes benefit the larger and better funded teams as they have the ability to deal with the change more quickly. There were several this year, and there will be a few for next year, the new tires being the biggest one. Whoever can figure out the tires better early in the season will have the advantage, which means more money spent on testing results in being better prepared for the new season. The top teams always seem to have some new development part for every race that the teams with fewer resources available simply do not have access to, and that's what it takes to stay up front in WCTC.
Looking at the rules, if I were to start a WCTC team, the order of my choice of cars would be:
1. Mazda Protege
2. Audi A4 Quattro
3. Nissan Sentra Spec V
4. BMW E46 325
5. Lexus IS 300
6. Acura RSX
7. BMW E36 328 (this would be higher, but this is the last year for the car)
8. BMW E36 325 (see above)
9. Honda Prelude
10. Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS (LOTS of development still needed)
11. Mercury Cougar
12. Ford Focus SVT
These are all cars that I know have run in the last 2 years.
YEEEOW! sorry for the rambling
[B]
Judging by on-track performance, the Touring BMW's are a severe overdogs, since Auberlen was kicking butt, even with heavy REWARDS weight (which he never failed to comment on). But no one seems to claim that the BMW is the Touring overdog, even though it might be the best choice in the class.
[/B][/QUOTE]
There are three teams (7 cars, 3 Turner Motorsport, 2 Wheels America Racing, 2 Chili Pepper Racing) that I know of that have run E46 BMW 325's in identical configuration, and they are scattered throughout the field. If you look at the other cars in the class, the Lexus has more power, the Mazda Protege has the best power:weight ratio, and the Audi A4 has the AWD start advantage. If you go purely based on history, this is the first year that Acura or Honda has not been the champoinship winning car since 1994. That Bill Auberlen has clinched the champoinship with two races to go is more a testament to his driving and the reliability of the cars (Bill Auberlen and Will Turner are the only drivers in WCTC that have finished every race in the points, which you get to 25th place) than anything else. The cost to build any of the cars for the top teams is in the $150k/car range, so that really isn't much of a factor here.
Personally, I feel that sweeping rules changes benefit the larger and better funded teams as they have the ability to deal with the change more quickly. There were several this year, and there will be a few for next year, the new tires being the biggest one. Whoever can figure out the tires better early in the season will have the advantage, which means more money spent on testing results in being better prepared for the new season. The top teams always seem to have some new development part for every race that the teams with fewer resources available simply do not have access to, and that's what it takes to stay up front in WCTC.
Looking at the rules, if I were to start a WCTC team, the order of my choice of cars would be:
1. Mazda Protege
2. Audi A4 Quattro
3. Nissan Sentra Spec V
4. BMW E46 325
5. Lexus IS 300
6. Acura RSX
7. BMW E36 328 (this would be higher, but this is the last year for the car)
8. BMW E36 325 (see above)
9. Honda Prelude
10. Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS (LOTS of development still needed)
11. Mercury Cougar
12. Ford Focus SVT
These are all cars that I know have run in the last 2 years.
YEEEOW! sorry for the rambling
| pio!pio! | 10-09-2003 03:57 AM |
For TC, the Protege has excellent multiteam factory support. that makes #1 a no brainer.
I'm curious why you chose the A4 as #2. Only Stasis is running the car, and they are good team, but not a big dog team like Realtime or anything. I don't think there is big development support.
I wouldn't choose the Spec V as the suspension design is not ths most optimal, the RTR car has a redesigned suspension and windtunnel tested aero parts that I'm unsure if they would be willing to share that knowledge w/ other teams.
I'm curious why you chose the A4 as #2. Only Stasis is running the car, and they are good team, but not a big dog team like Realtime or anything. I don't think there is big development support.
I wouldn't choose the Spec V as the suspension design is not ths most optimal, the RTR car has a redesigned suspension and windtunnel tested aero parts that I'm unsure if they would be willing to share that knowledge w/ other teams.
| kfoote | 10-09-2003 10:13 AM |
The A4 doesn't have a lot of support, but it's relatively easy to get teh necessary power out of the engine, and the AWD is a big advantage on the low grip tracks, like Laguna Seca where Paul Lambert won in 2002. Stasis have had a lot of issues this year, like losing a car in a trailer fire, that have forced them to put their efforts in directions other than development. There is some tech support available, as some of the pieces from the S4s that Champoin ran are legal.
The Sentra suspension design that RTR uses will likely be in the VTS for next year, which will force them to share the general design. All body panels have to be SCCA approved and made available to any customer who wants one, so RTR has to make any aero pieces they build available. The engine in the car has a lot of potential, and it is relatively light.
The Sentra suspension design that RTR uses will likely be in the VTS for next year, which will force them to share the general design. All body panels have to be SCCA approved and made available to any customer who wants one, so RTR has to make any aero pieces they build available. The engine in the car has a lot of potential, and it is relatively light.
| zzyzx | 10-09-2003 12:44 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by enduroshark [/i]
[B]
Not only the IT stuff. You see it in pretty much all classes. SCCA classifies a car. Someone with a big budget and good driving skills builds the car to the hilt and starts winning. Others that might not have their cars as well prepared claim that the other car is an overdog and want reclassification or competition adjustments, etc.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Sure, this is the issue everywhere, including Solo... The discussion here is really about how you handle it.
For IT, there was a motion to use "competition adjustments" - basically weight and other factors akin to WC. I believe this was not passed, however. That is IMO unfortunate as it will ultimately lead to the classing of fewer cars in IT.
I think the real issue in WC is not the rules per se, but the fact that the rules are chaning every race. This increases R&D costs and again the team with the big budgets figure out the best place to put that weight, or the best restrictor plate design, etc...
With all that, it's ironic that we still have two teams, one in each series - PGT (GT) and Turner Motorsport (TC) that still dominate the series with one marque - BMW.
And of course the smaller teams with less money are still scrambling to keep up with the mandated changes and saping their financial resources.
It's funny with all the politics that goes on in WC and the "lobbying" we end up where we are this season. It would be great if you could go back in time and cut out all this stuff, use a static ruleset, and replay through the season and see what happens. I bet that the outcome wouldn't have been much different...
- Steve
[B]
Not only the IT stuff. You see it in pretty much all classes. SCCA classifies a car. Someone with a big budget and good driving skills builds the car to the hilt and starts winning. Others that might not have their cars as well prepared claim that the other car is an overdog and want reclassification or competition adjustments, etc.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Sure, this is the issue everywhere, including Solo... The discussion here is really about how you handle it.
For IT, there was a motion to use "competition adjustments" - basically weight and other factors akin to WC. I believe this was not passed, however. That is IMO unfortunate as it will ultimately lead to the classing of fewer cars in IT.
I think the real issue in WC is not the rules per se, but the fact that the rules are chaning every race. This increases R&D costs and again the team with the big budgets figure out the best place to put that weight, or the best restrictor plate design, etc...
With all that, it's ironic that we still have two teams, one in each series - PGT (GT) and Turner Motorsport (TC) that still dominate the series with one marque - BMW.
And of course the smaller teams with less money are still scrambling to keep up with the mandated changes and saping their financial resources.
It's funny with all the politics that goes on in WC and the "lobbying" we end up where we are this season. It would be great if you could go back in time and cut out all this stuff, use a static ruleset, and replay through the season and see what happens. I bet that the outcome wouldn't have been much different...
- Steve
| pio!pio! | 10-09-2003 01:02 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kfoote [/i]
[B]The A4 doesn't have a lot of support, but it's relatively easy to get teh necessary power out of the engine, and the AWD is a big advantage on the low grip tracks, like Laguna Seca where Paul Lambert won in 2002. Stasis have had a lot of issues this year, like losing a car in a trailer fire, that have forced them to put their efforts in directions other than development. There is some tech support available, as some of the pieces from the S4s that Champoin ran are legal.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I was at Laguna when their trailer electrical system sparked and then burned!! My friend was crewing their team. I got to go into the Speed production trailer and watch them show the other Stasis car (a pay driver, only experience was FWD club racing compared to the rear drive biased audi) go off in qualifying. He got airborne then slammed into the wall.
[B]The A4 doesn't have a lot of support, but it's relatively easy to get teh necessary power out of the engine, and the AWD is a big advantage on the low grip tracks, like Laguna Seca where Paul Lambert won in 2002. Stasis have had a lot of issues this year, like losing a car in a trailer fire, that have forced them to put their efforts in directions other than development. There is some tech support available, as some of the pieces from the S4s that Champoin ran are legal.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I was at Laguna when their trailer electrical system sparked and then burned!! My friend was crewing their team. I got to go into the Speed production trailer and watch them show the other Stasis car (a pay driver, only experience was FWD club racing compared to the rear drive biased audi) go off in qualifying. He got airborne then slammed into the wall.
| kfoote | 10-09-2003 03:17 PM |
I saw the S4 on the flatbed in the paddock as well at Laguna. It was not a pretty sight. It will be interesting to see how things go for them ar Atlanta next week.
| pio!pio! | 10-09-2003 06:55 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kfoote [/i]
[B]I saw the S4 on the flatbed in the paddock as well at Laguna. It was not a pretty sight. It will be interesting to see how things go for them ar Atlanta next week. [/B][/QUOTE]
u mean A4 right? they are using the A4 w/ the V6 since turbos are not allowed in TC
[B]I saw the S4 on the flatbed in the paddock as well at Laguna. It was not a pretty sight. It will be interesting to see how things go for them ar Atlanta next week. [/B][/QUOTE]
u mean A4 right? they are using the A4 w/ the V6 since turbos are not allowed in TC
| kfoote | 10-09-2003 11:01 PM |
Sorry, yes, I did mean A4. The only time the S4 has run this year was at Road Atlanta, and that was in GT, not Touring.
| [email�protected] | 10-10-2003 04:20 PM |
There are quite a few things going on with this issue.
First to clear up something mentioned above, the WC does not run on slicks. They run on the Toyo RA1 DOT approved tire. It is designed for club racing and other racing classes that require a DOT approved tire.
The problem with this issue is that PTG is complaining that the rules are unstable and that the SCCA does not handle itself in a professional manner. Now, there are some issues where the SCCA is not as strict as say the ALMS would be, but the SCCA has always been like this and at its roots is a club. The unfortunate thing is that PTG should have known this going in. I cant beleive that they did not research the way the WC is controlled and that anything happening this year was a surprise. It is very well known that the SCCA adjust rules during the year to make sure all cars are as equal as possible.
Also, the SCCA will try to make sure that the fastest of each type of car are equal. Just because PTG was very well prepared, they cannot let them run away with the race in order to have a less prepared M3 team run at the front. It will always make the top runners of each car the most equal. If the lesser teams cannot go as fast, that is what happens. Remember, they are equalizing the top potential of the car. If PTG shows the potential of the M3 to be very high, then the rules will make sure the highest potential of the car is in line with the others. It is up to the other teams to bring their cars up to the speed of the top teams, thats always the way it is.
Before this season, only one E46 M3 had been run, the one by McMillan Motorsports. Though an excellent team and driver, they did not have the same money or backing that PTG did. Therefore the rules were in a state that made that car competitive with that team and driver as there was no other cars to compare to.
Now PTG comes in with major backing, support, money and talent. The cars are blistering fast. At Sebring they come from the back of the pack to finish high in the field, at LRP they win two races, etc, etc. Now it is apparant that under the rules, the cars have an advantage.
The SCCA tries to slow them down. PTG takes offense at this, but it is normal. Also, for every rule that got changed against PTG, there was one that went to their advantage. What you dont see them complaining about is the loophole in the rules that they took advantage of at LRP in the rain by using different tires they were supposed to (That has now been cleared up). This was one of those lack of rules things that they are complaining about that went in thier favor. Also, having spoken with other drivers in the series, the M3 gearbox ratios were not specified till after Road America, over halfway through the season. This was another lack of enforcement that went in their favor. You dont here them complaining about that one. This allowed them, THOUGH NOT SAYING THEY DID, the opportunity to change ratios at every track, not allowed by WC rules, but the SCCA did not nail them down till RA.
So again, the SCCA is known for this, it makes for great racing to have the cars so close on any given day. I can see where a team such as PTG is against this because they are used to such series as the ALMS and the ACO, but I cant believe they did not know what to expect. This is why I find the comments disappointing, though understandable.
I think the SCCA does a great job and it shouldnt change. I like being able to go to Petit next week and not have any clue on who to put money on. This is what makes the series great.
First to clear up something mentioned above, the WC does not run on slicks. They run on the Toyo RA1 DOT approved tire. It is designed for club racing and other racing classes that require a DOT approved tire.
The problem with this issue is that PTG is complaining that the rules are unstable and that the SCCA does not handle itself in a professional manner. Now, there are some issues where the SCCA is not as strict as say the ALMS would be, but the SCCA has always been like this and at its roots is a club. The unfortunate thing is that PTG should have known this going in. I cant beleive that they did not research the way the WC is controlled and that anything happening this year was a surprise. It is very well known that the SCCA adjust rules during the year to make sure all cars are as equal as possible.
Also, the SCCA will try to make sure that the fastest of each type of car are equal. Just because PTG was very well prepared, they cannot let them run away with the race in order to have a less prepared M3 team run at the front. It will always make the top runners of each car the most equal. If the lesser teams cannot go as fast, that is what happens. Remember, they are equalizing the top potential of the car. If PTG shows the potential of the M3 to be very high, then the rules will make sure the highest potential of the car is in line with the others. It is up to the other teams to bring their cars up to the speed of the top teams, thats always the way it is.
Before this season, only one E46 M3 had been run, the one by McMillan Motorsports. Though an excellent team and driver, they did not have the same money or backing that PTG did. Therefore the rules were in a state that made that car competitive with that team and driver as there was no other cars to compare to.
Now PTG comes in with major backing, support, money and talent. The cars are blistering fast. At Sebring they come from the back of the pack to finish high in the field, at LRP they win two races, etc, etc. Now it is apparant that under the rules, the cars have an advantage.
The SCCA tries to slow them down. PTG takes offense at this, but it is normal. Also, for every rule that got changed against PTG, there was one that went to their advantage. What you dont see them complaining about is the loophole in the rules that they took advantage of at LRP in the rain by using different tires they were supposed to (That has now been cleared up). This was one of those lack of rules things that they are complaining about that went in thier favor. Also, having spoken with other drivers in the series, the M3 gearbox ratios were not specified till after Road America, over halfway through the season. This was another lack of enforcement that went in their favor. You dont here them complaining about that one. This allowed them, THOUGH NOT SAYING THEY DID, the opportunity to change ratios at every track, not allowed by WC rules, but the SCCA did not nail them down till RA.
So again, the SCCA is known for this, it makes for great racing to have the cars so close on any given day. I can see where a team such as PTG is against this because they are used to such series as the ALMS and the ACO, but I cant believe they did not know what to expect. This is why I find the comments disappointing, though understandable.
I think the SCCA does a great job and it shouldnt change. I like being able to go to Petit next week and not have any clue on who to put money on. This is what makes the series great.
| pio!pio! | 10-10-2003 04:48 PM |
But unfortunate side effect is they slow down the car, not the driver. For example, when they increased the base weight for the Corvette's, it hurt the privateer effort of David Famer. I don't think the SCCA makes an effort to make sure his car or say the Mustang is turning similar laptimes to the RS6
| [email�protected] | 10-10-2003 09:11 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pio!pio! [/i]
[B]But unfortunate side effect is they slow down the car, not the driver. For example, when they increased the base weight for the Corvette's, it hurt the privateer effort of David Famer. I don't think the SCCA makes an effort to make sure his car or say the Mustang is turning similar laptimes to the RS6 [/B][/QUOTE]
But they slow down the [b]potential[/b] of the car. It sucks for the privateer, but they always have been and will always be slower than efforts with more money.
But if 3R has shown the potential, within the rules, for the Corvette to be too fast at the front, then they have to slow the car down within the rules. David, and I am very good friends with David btw, knows this and knows his car is not built like the 3R car. But he could, with the right money and within the rules be just as fast. The fact he runs top ten with his car is already amazing.
Fact is, if all Corvettes run with the same rules package, then there is no way to speed up the privateers without having the top cars out in front.
Just like with PTG, they cant let them run too fast just bacause they have the money to make their cars the baddest they can, while someone else with an M3 wont be at the front.
If you make all of the fastest of the cars equal, then all the other teams have the ability to be just as fast. The front runners must always be equalized, there is no other way. The driver and team play an integral part of this. But that is how the SCCA can keep the racing close, the driver, team and car are integral, and the point is to make the best of each car represented as equal as possible so the races are close.
[B]But unfortunate side effect is they slow down the car, not the driver. For example, when they increased the base weight for the Corvette's, it hurt the privateer effort of David Famer. I don't think the SCCA makes an effort to make sure his car or say the Mustang is turning similar laptimes to the RS6 [/B][/QUOTE]
But they slow down the [b]potential[/b] of the car. It sucks for the privateer, but they always have been and will always be slower than efforts with more money.
But if 3R has shown the potential, within the rules, for the Corvette to be too fast at the front, then they have to slow the car down within the rules. David, and I am very good friends with David btw, knows this and knows his car is not built like the 3R car. But he could, with the right money and within the rules be just as fast. The fact he runs top ten with his car is already amazing.
Fact is, if all Corvettes run with the same rules package, then there is no way to speed up the privateers without having the top cars out in front.
Just like with PTG, they cant let them run too fast just bacause they have the money to make their cars the baddest they can, while someone else with an M3 wont be at the front.
If you make all of the fastest of the cars equal, then all the other teams have the ability to be just as fast. The front runners must always be equalized, there is no other way. The driver and team play an integral part of this. But that is how the SCCA can keep the racing close, the driver, team and car are integral, and the point is to make the best of each car represented as equal as possible so the races are close.
| zzyzx | 10-11-2003 12:41 AM |
There are two was to equalize performance:
1) REWARDS weight, assigned based on actual performance.
2) Changes to the rules for a specific car that affect all drivers/teams - mid season no less.
If you are saying option #2 is needed, then I think you're also saying that option #1 is not sufficient. I'd like to understand why you believe this.
No only is option #1 the appropriate approach, but it's also the most economical. The costs to compete in WC are starting to skyrocket and option #2 is just one of the culprits. Most all teams are starting to talk about what can be done to reduce costs...
- Steve
1) REWARDS weight, assigned based on actual performance.
2) Changes to the rules for a specific car that affect all drivers/teams - mid season no less.
If you are saying option #2 is needed, then I think you're also saying that option #1 is not sufficient. I'd like to understand why you believe this.
No only is option #1 the appropriate approach, but it's also the most economical. The costs to compete in WC are starting to skyrocket and option #2 is just one of the culprits. Most all teams are starting to talk about what can be done to reduce costs...
- Steve
| [email�protected] | 10-11-2003 01:46 AM |
Rewards is definatley the bette way to do it on a regular basis, it is not always enough.
Two seasons ago, McMillan was running his M3 and did ok with it. But he did not win and it was not a dominant car. He was the only one runninng.
So the rules governing the car stood, things looked ok for it.
Then PTG comes into it with the time, money, support and knowlege of how to build the car to the best of its potential. It was very fast and very dominant. Had the SCCA just left it to rewards weight to even up the score, the BMWs would have had the advantage for the first half of the season till they won enough races for it to be heavy enough to even up the score.
The same thing happened with the Vette. McClure and the 3R team did a ton of off season testing and developement and got the car up to speed for the start of the year. Again, waiting till rewards weight to take effect might give someone an advantage to get too far out in front.
Additionally with the Vette a new tranny was approved for use with different gear ratios, so the SCCA had to give a weight penalty for it otherwise those with it would have an advantage. With this trial and error to see how much of an advantage the tranny makes will happen till its stabilized. An initial guess, then adjustments if necessary.
Sometimes something more drastic is needed. This has always happened, its just never been a big deal till PTG started complaining about it.
I admit it should not be the first thing to even up fields, but sometimes its necessary to keep things even. I guess I am really saying that I understand it happening and if necessary support it. I would not want to see PTG, or anyone else, just go out and win every single race because they were so underweight to begin with that the rewards weight would not take effect.
I am pretty close with some of the drivers and teams, along with spending much time at many of the races, and from what I have seen and talked with them about, they understand what SCCA is trying to accomplish and why they do it. Most dont like when it happens to them, but they understand and support the series.
If the SCCA kept the rules static, the series would not be half as exciting as it is today.
The whole idea of the series is different than most. Its not like ALMS or WRC where there are a set of rules and everyone spends as much money building cars to fit in those rules where you can make any car the same weight and give it the same hp.
There are many different kinds of cars and engines. Making them equal is almost impossible.
Look at SCCA club racing. They keep the weights and rules the same all year and there is almost always a particular car that is the car to have. In T1 its a Corvette, in SSB its the Miata, in T2 is been the Z28/Firebird. In WC they try to avoid this, and this is the only way I see it happening effectively.
Two seasons ago, McMillan was running his M3 and did ok with it. But he did not win and it was not a dominant car. He was the only one runninng.
So the rules governing the car stood, things looked ok for it.
Then PTG comes into it with the time, money, support and knowlege of how to build the car to the best of its potential. It was very fast and very dominant. Had the SCCA just left it to rewards weight to even up the score, the BMWs would have had the advantage for the first half of the season till they won enough races for it to be heavy enough to even up the score.
The same thing happened with the Vette. McClure and the 3R team did a ton of off season testing and developement and got the car up to speed for the start of the year. Again, waiting till rewards weight to take effect might give someone an advantage to get too far out in front.
Additionally with the Vette a new tranny was approved for use with different gear ratios, so the SCCA had to give a weight penalty for it otherwise those with it would have an advantage. With this trial and error to see how much of an advantage the tranny makes will happen till its stabilized. An initial guess, then adjustments if necessary.
Sometimes something more drastic is needed. This has always happened, its just never been a big deal till PTG started complaining about it.
I admit it should not be the first thing to even up fields, but sometimes its necessary to keep things even. I guess I am really saying that I understand it happening and if necessary support it. I would not want to see PTG, or anyone else, just go out and win every single race because they were so underweight to begin with that the rewards weight would not take effect.
I am pretty close with some of the drivers and teams, along with spending much time at many of the races, and from what I have seen and talked with them about, they understand what SCCA is trying to accomplish and why they do it. Most dont like when it happens to them, but they understand and support the series.
If the SCCA kept the rules static, the series would not be half as exciting as it is today.
The whole idea of the series is different than most. Its not like ALMS or WRC where there are a set of rules and everyone spends as much money building cars to fit in those rules where you can make any car the same weight and give it the same hp.
There are many different kinds of cars and engines. Making them equal is almost impossible.
Look at SCCA club racing. They keep the weights and rules the same all year and there is almost always a particular car that is the car to have. In T1 its a Corvette, in SSB its the Miata, in T2 is been the Z28/Firebird. In WC they try to avoid this, and this is the only way I see it happening effectively.
| sdecker | 10-11-2003 09:53 AM |
The rules should be modified to attempt to maintain parity. This is how it has been since the beginning for WCTC. Why change it because one team is complaining? Don't get me wrong, because I like the PTG cars and drivers, and they are awesome. There are some series whose basic 'spirit' is about parity -- and WCTC is one of them. Leave it alone, since it works. There's no shortage of contenders coming out and playing the game under the current rules.
My 2 cents...
Scott
My 2 cents...
Scott
| zzyzx | 10-11-2003 10:19 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by [email�protected] [/i]
[B]Rewards is definatley the better way to do it on a regular basis, it is not always enough.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Keeping in mind we're talking about mid-season changes and equalizing not cars, but actual performance....
If REWARDS weight isn't enough, then the REWARDS system itself should be revised. People need to start thinking outside the box on this. For instance, why can't assigned REWARDS weight be car specific? Different cars react to weight differently, so I don't think this is necessarily far off base. I think the creativity and effort needs to be spent here, not elsewhere...
That said, I think you're implying that the M3s were too light to begin with. I wouldn't disagree with this. As to Phil's car, how would you like to be in his shoes? Limited budget, you work your arse off, and your reward is added weight above and beyond the REWARDS weight?
IMO, PTG [i]should[/i] complain about the current system. They have many valid complaints which you kinda side stepped. In your original post, you essentially point these facts out yourself than ignore it. Why? PTG contacted the SCCA twice prior to LRP and the SCCA [b]failed to respond to PTGs inquiries[/b] ragarding the tires sizes. Let's please keep this in mind. As to PTG taking full advantage of the rules, that's what racing is all about, isn't it?
And they were even up front with it to boot!
The current system is poor IMO, because it leads the following issues:
1) Each team lobbies the SCCA as if their a special interest group (throughout the season...) to enact changes to the rules in their favor. This lobbying is acted on in some cases, and make the whole system overwhelmingly political. I say change the rules so you can leave the BS/lobbying for the offseason.
2) The mid-season rules changes significantly impact costs. Costs are an issue - a big issue. This is just one of many things that can be done to help the teams out.
3) WC needs factory/big teams to stay healthy. Loosing PTG is a bad thing for WC. I don't think it'll significantly hurt the series, but it's a warning sign. It means it's time to rethink some things and be more careful next time. It's simply pointless to say PTG should have seen it coming. They put in their dues and they can say whatever they want and I'll for one, listen.
- Steve
[B]Rewards is definatley the better way to do it on a regular basis, it is not always enough.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Keeping in mind we're talking about mid-season changes and equalizing not cars, but actual performance....
If REWARDS weight isn't enough, then the REWARDS system itself should be revised. People need to start thinking outside the box on this. For instance, why can't assigned REWARDS weight be car specific? Different cars react to weight differently, so I don't think this is necessarily far off base. I think the creativity and effort needs to be spent here, not elsewhere...
That said, I think you're implying that the M3s were too light to begin with. I wouldn't disagree with this. As to Phil's car, how would you like to be in his shoes? Limited budget, you work your arse off, and your reward is added weight above and beyond the REWARDS weight?
IMO, PTG [i]should[/i] complain about the current system. They have many valid complaints which you kinda side stepped. In your original post, you essentially point these facts out yourself than ignore it. Why? PTG contacted the SCCA twice prior to LRP and the SCCA [b]failed to respond to PTGs inquiries[/b] ragarding the tires sizes. Let's please keep this in mind. As to PTG taking full advantage of the rules, that's what racing is all about, isn't it?
And they were even up front with it to boot!
The current system is poor IMO, because it leads the following issues:
1) Each team lobbies the SCCA as if their a special interest group (throughout the season...) to enact changes to the rules in their favor. This lobbying is acted on in some cases, and make the whole system overwhelmingly political. I say change the rules so you can leave the BS/lobbying for the offseason.
2) The mid-season rules changes significantly impact costs. Costs are an issue - a big issue. This is just one of many things that can be done to help the teams out.
3) WC needs factory/big teams to stay healthy. Loosing PTG is a bad thing for WC. I don't think it'll significantly hurt the series, but it's a warning sign. It means it's time to rethink some things and be more careful next time. It's simply pointless to say PTG should have seen it coming. They put in their dues and they can say whatever they want and I'll for one, listen.
- Steve
| zzyzx | 10-11-2003 10:20 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sdecker [/i]
[B]The rules should be modified to attempt to maintain parity. This is how it has been since the beginning for WCTC. Why change it because one team is complaining? Don't get me wrong, because I like the PTG cars and drivers, and they are awesome. There are some series whose basic 'spirit' is about parity -- and WCTC is one of them. Leave it alone, since it works. There's no shortage of contenders coming out and playing the game under the current rules.
My 2 cents...
Scott [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't watch WC too much, do you? ;) WCTC = World Challenge Touring Car. PTG is in GT and that's the team we're discussing here...
Oh, and nobody disagrees about the fact that parity is necessary. We're discussing the details of how you go about implementing parity.
- Steve
[B]The rules should be modified to attempt to maintain parity. This is how it has been since the beginning for WCTC. Why change it because one team is complaining? Don't get me wrong, because I like the PTG cars and drivers, and they are awesome. There are some series whose basic 'spirit' is about parity -- and WCTC is one of them. Leave it alone, since it works. There's no shortage of contenders coming out and playing the game under the current rules.
My 2 cents...
Scott [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't watch WC too much, do you? ;) WCTC = World Challenge Touring Car. PTG is in GT and that's the team we're discussing here...
Oh, and nobody disagrees about the fact that parity is necessary. We're discussing the details of how you go about implementing parity.
- Steve
| sdecker | 10-11-2003 11:07 PM |
My bad, brain fart! :lol:
| [email�protected] | 10-21-2003 05:19 PM |
Sorry it has taken time to respond, I was in Atlanta covering the WC race.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]Keeping in mind we're talking about mid-season changes and equalizing not cars, but actual performance....[/b][/quote]
Exactly my point. Actual performance of the cars in the hands of the teams is what needs to be equalized. If PTG can make an M3 go faster then all the other teams, then that is the one that the equalization has to based off of. WC is not the ALMS that allows a team like Joest Audi to come in and spend boat loads of money to out perform everyone.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]If REWARDS weight isn't enough, then the REWARDS system itself should be revised. People need to start thinking outside the box on this. For instance, why can't assigned REWARDS weight be car specific? Different cars react to weight differently, so I don't think this is necessarily far off base. I think the creativity and effort needs to be spent here, not elsewhere...[/b][/quote]
The rewards system does not need to be re-done. When I said its not enough, it was meant because in some cases the cars could be classified so wrong that the time it would take for the rewards weight to have an effect would be too late. But you dont want to make the rewards weight greater, because then when the cars are close, winning one race might put you from first to tenth place. I think rewards weights are right on, but I think there are times when you need to go beyond them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]That said, I think you're implying that the M3s were too light to begin with. I wouldn't disagree with this. As to Phil's car, how would you like to be in his shoes? Limited budget, you work your arse off, and your reward is added weight above and beyond the REWARDS weight?[/b][/quote]
Certainly it would not be my first choice to have happen to me, but I think Phil and the other Corvette drivers understood why it was done. I think that it was too much and was a mistake in the case of the Vettes actually. However, the reasoning behind it was understood, I just think it went a little too far in their case. though Phil won the first couple of races, it was obvious that the BMWs were still faster as they came from the pit lane and back of the pack to finish high at Sebring. I never said the SCCA was infoulable, just that their intent and the idea behind what is being done is good. BTW, Phil's budget is not that of PTG or Champion, but its not all that limited. But again, in the end, Phil and 3R showed the SCCA the potential of the Corvette and they took action to insure it would not be able to run away from the other cars.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]IMO, PTG [i]should[/i] complain about the current system. They have many valid complaints which you kinda side stepped. In your original post, you essentially point these facts out yourself than ignore it. Why? [/b][/quote]
Not sure what those are, but I will respond to them if you point them out.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]PTG contacted the SCCA twice prior to LRP and the SCCA failed to respond to PTGs inquiries ragarding the tires sizes. Let's please keep this in mind. As to PTG taking full advantage of the rules, that's what racing is all about, isn't it?
And they were even up front with it to boot![/b][/quote]
No argument there. My point was not to imply that PTG did something wrong, they did exactly what they should have done. They did ask the SCCA and were responded to with an "its OK." So they did what they thought was legal. In the end it was found that this was not what should have been done, but because of an ambiguity in the rule book and the ok they received they were not penalized. However the rule was straightened out so that in the future this would not be an issue.
The point was that the rules issues that PTG were complaining about actually benefitted them in this instance. They were not complaining about rules ambiguity or changes mid season when it benefitted them, only when it went against them. Not that they even should have, just that they shoud have seen both sides to the way the SCCA does business. That was my point.
Additionally, PTG was never required to declare gear ratios for thier racing gearbox (almost all other cars are using stock boxes) used in the cars until they hit Road America. More than half way through the season. Now this allowed them (and not saying they did or did not cause I have no info either way on the issue, this is just a "could be" observation) to be able to change gear ratios for each event if they wanted to and have an advantage, something not allowed by SCCA rules. I talked to many other drivers that wondered how the cars could acclerate so well at short tight tracks, yet still have plenty of top end at long fast ones. The fact that the SCCA took so long to actually pin them down was another issue where SCCA didnt enforce rules (like they complained about with the headlights of some teams) again was a benefit to them. Again not a judgement on the team as they are just doing what they need to under the rules to win, but they gotta see the irony.
They can complain about the rules, but they need to understand that for every time it hurt them, it also helped them another time.
PTG were also the first team to show up with little winglets on the sides of the front splitters to increase downforce. This is something that had not been adressed specifically in the rules as not being allowed, its just no one ever took advantage of it until PTG. Now everyone has them on thier cars.
The problem I see with the complaints being made is this. If PTG was so prepared as to be able to read the rule books and find little loopholes in rules to take advantage of, then how come they apparantly had no clue that the SCCA runs the series the way they do? They should have know well before hand what was possible and that they would be facing a changing rule book as they developed the cars and won races. To play dumb doesnt cut it because they obviously had done their homework on the series and the rulebook.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]The current system is poor IMO, because it leads the following issues:
1) Each team lobbies the SCCA as if their a special interest group (throughout the season...) to enact changes to the rules in their favor. This lobbying is acted on in some cases, and make the whole system overwhelmingly political. I say change the rules so you can leave the BS/lobbying for the offseason.
2) The mid-season rules changes significantly impact costs. Costs are an issue - a big issue. This is just one of many things that can be done to help the teams out.
3) WC needs factory/big teams to stay healthy. Loosing PTG is a bad thing for WC. I don't think it'll significantly hurt the series, but it's a warning sign. It means it's time to rethink some things and be more careful next time. It's simply pointless to say PTG should have seen it coming. They put in their dues and they can say whatever they want and I'll for one, listen.
- Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
All good points. But here is why I think that the series is doing fine the way it is.
1. The racing is great and at any given weekend any of a number of cars and drivers can stand on the podium.
Thats all there is. In my book that is what its all about. Achieving a series where there are a number of makes of car, drivers, and teams that can win the race.
I'm sorry to see PTG having such problems with the series. It will be unfortunate if we do not see the BMW in WC action any longer. However, it wont hurt the series one bit. GM is said to be coming into the series with a factory Caddy effort. 3R racing is doing great with the Corvette of McClure and the Porsche of Fitzgerald. Champion has continued to develop the RS6 and is finally showing the endurance to go with their speed. The Vipers are showing the ability to win races. PTG has shown the BMW can win, hopefully someone else will take up the reigns of the cars. And we will probably see some other new cars coming as well, including the RX8 and possibly a 350z from an established team.
WC is not in danger, they have the best racing in the country right now with true wheel to wheel action every event and the chance for any of about 5-6 drivers to stand at the top of the podium. As far as I'm concerned the system is working and they wont have issues in the near future.
It is certainly something to ponder though. I know of several touring teams that are heading to GA Cup because they dont like the rules package in the SCCA, but whats that old saying? "You cant please everybody all of the time." The first order of business is to please the fans and I think they are doing a good job of it, and with the new TV package with Speed announced at Petit and the announcement of being partners with the ALMS, the series will do just fine IMO.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]Keeping in mind we're talking about mid-season changes and equalizing not cars, but actual performance....[/b][/quote]
Exactly my point. Actual performance of the cars in the hands of the teams is what needs to be equalized. If PTG can make an M3 go faster then all the other teams, then that is the one that the equalization has to based off of. WC is not the ALMS that allows a team like Joest Audi to come in and spend boat loads of money to out perform everyone.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]If REWARDS weight isn't enough, then the REWARDS system itself should be revised. People need to start thinking outside the box on this. For instance, why can't assigned REWARDS weight be car specific? Different cars react to weight differently, so I don't think this is necessarily far off base. I think the creativity and effort needs to be spent here, not elsewhere...[/b][/quote]
The rewards system does not need to be re-done. When I said its not enough, it was meant because in some cases the cars could be classified so wrong that the time it would take for the rewards weight to have an effect would be too late. But you dont want to make the rewards weight greater, because then when the cars are close, winning one race might put you from first to tenth place. I think rewards weights are right on, but I think there are times when you need to go beyond them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]That said, I think you're implying that the M3s were too light to begin with. I wouldn't disagree with this. As to Phil's car, how would you like to be in his shoes? Limited budget, you work your arse off, and your reward is added weight above and beyond the REWARDS weight?[/b][/quote]
Certainly it would not be my first choice to have happen to me, but I think Phil and the other Corvette drivers understood why it was done. I think that it was too much and was a mistake in the case of the Vettes actually. However, the reasoning behind it was understood, I just think it went a little too far in their case. though Phil won the first couple of races, it was obvious that the BMWs were still faster as they came from the pit lane and back of the pack to finish high at Sebring. I never said the SCCA was infoulable, just that their intent and the idea behind what is being done is good. BTW, Phil's budget is not that of PTG or Champion, but its not all that limited. But again, in the end, Phil and 3R showed the SCCA the potential of the Corvette and they took action to insure it would not be able to run away from the other cars.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]IMO, PTG [i]should[/i] complain about the current system. They have many valid complaints which you kinda side stepped. In your original post, you essentially point these facts out yourself than ignore it. Why? [/b][/quote]
Not sure what those are, but I will respond to them if you point them out.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]PTG contacted the SCCA twice prior to LRP and the SCCA failed to respond to PTGs inquiries ragarding the tires sizes. Let's please keep this in mind. As to PTG taking full advantage of the rules, that's what racing is all about, isn't it?
And they were even up front with it to boot![/b][/quote]
No argument there. My point was not to imply that PTG did something wrong, they did exactly what they should have done. They did ask the SCCA and were responded to with an "its OK." So they did what they thought was legal. In the end it was found that this was not what should have been done, but because of an ambiguity in the rule book and the ok they received they were not penalized. However the rule was straightened out so that in the future this would not be an issue.
The point was that the rules issues that PTG were complaining about actually benefitted them in this instance. They were not complaining about rules ambiguity or changes mid season when it benefitted them, only when it went against them. Not that they even should have, just that they shoud have seen both sides to the way the SCCA does business. That was my point.
Additionally, PTG was never required to declare gear ratios for thier racing gearbox (almost all other cars are using stock boxes) used in the cars until they hit Road America. More than half way through the season. Now this allowed them (and not saying they did or did not cause I have no info either way on the issue, this is just a "could be" observation) to be able to change gear ratios for each event if they wanted to and have an advantage, something not allowed by SCCA rules. I talked to many other drivers that wondered how the cars could acclerate so well at short tight tracks, yet still have plenty of top end at long fast ones. The fact that the SCCA took so long to actually pin them down was another issue where SCCA didnt enforce rules (like they complained about with the headlights of some teams) again was a benefit to them. Again not a judgement on the team as they are just doing what they need to under the rules to win, but they gotta see the irony.
They can complain about the rules, but they need to understand that for every time it hurt them, it also helped them another time.
PTG were also the first team to show up with little winglets on the sides of the front splitters to increase downforce. This is something that had not been adressed specifically in the rules as not being allowed, its just no one ever took advantage of it until PTG. Now everyone has them on thier cars.
The problem I see with the complaints being made is this. If PTG was so prepared as to be able to read the rule books and find little loopholes in rules to take advantage of, then how come they apparantly had no clue that the SCCA runs the series the way they do? They should have know well before hand what was possible and that they would be facing a changing rule book as they developed the cars and won races. To play dumb doesnt cut it because they obviously had done their homework on the series and the rulebook.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B]The current system is poor IMO, because it leads the following issues:
1) Each team lobbies the SCCA as if their a special interest group (throughout the season...) to enact changes to the rules in their favor. This lobbying is acted on in some cases, and make the whole system overwhelmingly political. I say change the rules so you can leave the BS/lobbying for the offseason.
2) The mid-season rules changes significantly impact costs. Costs are an issue - a big issue. This is just one of many things that can be done to help the teams out.
3) WC needs factory/big teams to stay healthy. Loosing PTG is a bad thing for WC. I don't think it'll significantly hurt the series, but it's a warning sign. It means it's time to rethink some things and be more careful next time. It's simply pointless to say PTG should have seen it coming. They put in their dues and they can say whatever they want and I'll for one, listen.
- Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
All good points. But here is why I think that the series is doing fine the way it is.
1. The racing is great and at any given weekend any of a number of cars and drivers can stand on the podium.
Thats all there is. In my book that is what its all about. Achieving a series where there are a number of makes of car, drivers, and teams that can win the race.
I'm sorry to see PTG having such problems with the series. It will be unfortunate if we do not see the BMW in WC action any longer. However, it wont hurt the series one bit. GM is said to be coming into the series with a factory Caddy effort. 3R racing is doing great with the Corvette of McClure and the Porsche of Fitzgerald. Champion has continued to develop the RS6 and is finally showing the endurance to go with their speed. The Vipers are showing the ability to win races. PTG has shown the BMW can win, hopefully someone else will take up the reigns of the cars. And we will probably see some other new cars coming as well, including the RX8 and possibly a 350z from an established team.
WC is not in danger, they have the best racing in the country right now with true wheel to wheel action every event and the chance for any of about 5-6 drivers to stand at the top of the podium. As far as I'm concerned the system is working and they wont have issues in the near future.
It is certainly something to ponder though. I know of several touring teams that are heading to GA Cup because they dont like the rules package in the SCCA, but whats that old saying? "You cant please everybody all of the time." The first order of business is to please the fans and I think they are doing a good job of it, and with the new TV package with Speed announced at Petit and the announcement of being partners with the ALMS, the series will do just fine IMO.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét