Sports Car Socialism?...what BS

[Nick Koske]

Well we can agree on one thing..the ACO/LMS/ALMS can force their competitors to do what ever they want and you're right, Rules:

Sporting Regs
ART. 30 - FINAL TEXT - DISPUTES
a) The French version is the only one valid.
b) Any interpretation of these regulations is the AUTOMOBILE CLUB
DE L'OUEST’S exclusive responsibility.

Tech Regs
2.1 - What is not expressly permitted by the Automobile Club de
l'Ouest is prohibited. Eligibility of a car is within the exclusive
competence of the ACO.
ART. 18 - FINAL TEXT – DISPUTES
a/ The French version is the only one valid regarding the
implementation and interpretation of the regulations.
b/ Any interpretation regarding these regulations is the
AUTOMOBILE-CLUB DE L'OUEST exclusive responsibility.

give the ACO the ability to regulate as they feel even if it isn't written. But, I will reiterate...just because they can...doesn't make it right. I don't think it's right to force a team, who bought a car the conforms to all of the technical regulations that all of the other cars conform to, play by different rules when it comes to drivers skill. Team LNT wasn't told they can't used pro drivers in their Zytek and Embassy wasn't told they can't use pro drivers in their Radical. If they don't want a car with two pro-drivers then why not change the rules and write it in...hell put them in the ACO's/LMS's version of a competitor bulletin. But again something like driver skill composition should be uniformly applied. If they wan't to give the Spyder Ballast/Restrictor decreases that's one thing...but to tell a team that they need to have a driver that isn't as good...just seems ridiculous.

Then you have the problem of defining amateur, because one teams amateur driver doesn't equal another. So then team do some creative financing so that their drivers are amateur. So what's next ranking drivers skill and separating the classes based on that?

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

They are taking measures to ensure this. And actually they are protecting their entries in the class from what could be a factory effort in a privateer class!

Verschuur said: "I have to accept this, even though it is not in the rules. You cannot compare us to Penske in the American Le Mans Series: it is a factory team and we are a true privateer."

Verschuur seems to think they're a privateer.

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Why has there been none in the LMS until now?

My guess is the reason there hasn't been any Spyders in LMS is because the project was funded by PMNA and PMNA wanted to make the cars available to their clients in the states first. My other guess is that Porsche was giving the ACO/LMS a little, "FU, we'll race in the states"...for the diesel/gasoline performance disparity rule set. Of course that's all my speculation.

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

They knew that they would not have free reign in the P-2 class is my guess and that did not fit their model. And now the ACO/LMS has shown they will not allow it, period. With the ACO giving themselves the latitude to ease up on the ruling if it proves out to be wrong.

Really all of this seems to me to be a giant political pissing contest between the ACO and Porsche, IMO.

[ChuckK]

It is equally remarkable that the same day this very odd move occurred Pugueot also said FU to LMS. They formally announced they will run Sebring and Petit and maybe other ALMS races. Their goal is to win Le Mans and they have realized the club level of racing in LMS doesn't have the level of competition necessary to prepare them to race pro teams at Le Mans.

[HORNDAWG]

Hmm, it looks to me as those rules are written otherwise you could not have copied them for quoting. Therefore they are written rules yet you still insist that they are not.

give the ACO the ability to regulate as they feel even if it isn't written.

Would it not be prudent, if not a self requirment, to read the rule set in total before investing millions of $$ (pick a currency) for anthing that can only be used to that rule set?

VM Motorsport by Equipe Verschuur is a privateer team and the ACO is making sure it stays that way. Please explain why would Peter van Merksteijn, the VM in the teams name, pay a pro driver when he is a driver and has experience at LeMans with Seikel M.S.(?) and has a long relationship with Porsche.

I believe you are correct in the assertion of the political vying between the parties involved, but I would include all the parties involved in this. But we have to remember when it comes down to it, it may be a pissing match but it is in the ACO's bathroom!

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by ChuckK

It is equally remarkable that the same day this very odd move occurred Pugueot also said FU to LMS. They formally announced they will run Sebring and Petit and maybe other ALMS races. Their goal is to win Le Mans and they have realized the club level of racing in LMS doesn't have the level of competition necessary to prepare them to race pro teams at Le Mans.

I would surmise that one has nothing to do with the other.

[Nick Koske]

SportsCar Analytics has taken on this issue with this article: http://sportscaranalytics.com/?p=290#more-290

A little nugget from the article:

"To say that Peter’s decision to limit Verschuur’s use of professional drivers is a poor decision is an understatement, as it completely diminishes the credibility of the competition within the LMS LMP2 classes. If the LMS brass are so concerned with dominant cars killing off competition, then just what is happening in LMP1? Will a privateer team running a Peugeot 908 Hdi-FAP be asked to run a single professional driver as well, or are teams only allowed to have an equipment advantage in specified classes?"

Must say I agree completely.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Nick Koske

SportsCar Analytics has taken on this issue with this article: http://sportscaranalytics.com/?p=290#more-290

A little nugget from the article:

"To say that Peter’s decision to limit Verschuur’s use of professional drivers is a poor decision is an understatement, as it completely diminishes the credibility of the competition within the LMS LMP2 classes. If the LMS brass are so concerned with dominant cars killing off competition, then just what is happening in LMP1? Will a privateer team running a Peugeot 908 Hdi-FAP be asked to run a single professional driver as well, or are teams only allowed to have an equipment advantage in specified classes?"

Must say I agree completely.

Its an editorial piece. Its Trey's opinion.

[Nick Koske]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Its an editorial piece. Its Trey's opinion.

And?...Either you agree or you don't. I happen to agree with Trey and stated so. Isn't that what discussion forums are...one giant place for editorial opinions?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Nick Koske

And?...Either you agree or you don't. I happen to agree with Trey and stated so. Isn't that what discussion forums are...one giant place for editorial opinions?

Well first it was brought in as an outside source. Not an opinion. And the parameters with which are used to state his opinion are incorrect. This is a P-2 issue and has nothing to do with P-1. The administration of rules by the ACO have been consistent with their stated intent of P-2 being and being kept for privateers while P-1 is for "works" teams and Privateers that wish to compete with them. You can ignore the facts if you wish, but it does not change the fact that the ACO is the last word on the subject. And with the wrong parameters being used an opinion that uses said parameters is moot as it draws on false conclusions.

[Nick Koske]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

You can ignore the facts if you wish, but it does not change the fact that the ACO is the last word on the subject.

The federal government has the last word on the immigration issue...yet plenty still talk about it and disagree with the government. The state government has the last word on speed limits, yet many seem to disregard them. The ALMS was the last word on the AM/Corvette adjustments (they even wrote them down) last year...yet many seemed to discuss and disagree with them. Just because a group had the last word on a subject does not make them immune to debating the rights or wrongs.

The ACO can make any rule they please I do not question that fact...but that doesn't make it right in my eyes...and many others. I choose not to just agree with 'rules' just because they are rules. I question them...

If this was such a big deal to the ACO, then why doesn't the ACO write in the rule book, explicitly limiting P2 to non-works teams with a limit of only one pro driver? Applicable to all P2 teams?

Why do they choose, to pick and choose which entries get which set of rules? Don't you think all rules should be applied fairly across the board? Why can Embassy, LNT, etc... use all pro drivers and a Spyder team can't? Why do they decide to enact rules that are not explicitly written in their rule books? If they're so concerned with cars scaring away competitors why haven't they penalized the Ferrari or Peugeot?

Just because they can...is not a good enough answer for me.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Nick Koske

The federal government has the last word on the immigration issue...yet plenty still talk about it and disagree with the government. The state government has the last word on speed limits, yet many seem to disregard them. The ALMS was the last word on the AM/Corvette adjustments (they even wrote them down) last year...yet many seemed to discuss and disagree with them. Just because a group had the last word on a subject does not make them immune to debating the rights or wrongs.

The ACO can make any rule they please I do not question that fact...but that doesn't make it right in my eyes...and many others. I choose not to just agree with 'rules' just because they are rules. I question them...

If this was such a big deal to the ACO, then why doesn't the ACO write in the rule book, explicitly limiting P2 to non-works teams with a limit of only one pro driver? Applicable to all P2 teams?

Why do they choose, to pick and choose which entries get which set of rules? Don't you think all rules should be applied fairly across the board? Why can Embassy, LNT, etc... use all pro drivers and a Spyder team can't? Why do they decide to enact rules that are not explicitly written in their rule books? If they're so concerned with cars scaring away competitors why haven't they penalized the Ferrari or Peugeot?

Just because they can...is not a good enough answer for me.

Obfuscation of the facts about the issue at hand does not change them. You are an engineer are you not? When would you ever build something from the wrong data set and expect it to be correct and function properly? I would venture to guess never! Same thing applies here!