Sports Car Socialism?...what BS

[Nick Koske]

Don't know how many of you guys caught a recent Autoweek article about one of the RS Spyders racing in LMS next season.

A "gentlemans' agreement" means that the Dutch Equipe Verschuur team will run just one professional driver in 2008.

LMS boss Patrick Peter reached an agreement with team owner Frans Verschuur that he will use one or more amateur drivers and not field the car with two professionals as originally planned. Peter believes that an all-pro line-up in a Porsche would frighten away entrants in the buoyant LMP2 prototype class.

"We have to be prudent," said Peter. "I do not want to get one new car and lose many others."

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."

My first question is he requiring all other P2 entrants to do the same? Only one pro driver. More rules that aren't written into the rules...This just seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I just don't know what to say. More mind boggling BS from the ACO.


Full article: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...&rssfeed=rss01

[bullitt_60]

Agreed. As I have said elsewhere, just because you have pro drivers does not make it a works team. See Dyson Racing.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Nick Koske

Don't know how many of you guys caught a recent Autoweek article about one of the RS Spyders racing in LMS next season.

A "gentlemans' agreement" means that the Dutch Equipe Verschuur team will run just one professional driver in 2008.

LMS boss Patrick Peter reached an agreement with team owner Frans Verschuur that he will use one or more amateur drivers and not field the car with two professionals as originally planned. Peter believes that an all-pro line-up in a Porsche would frighten away entrants in the buoyant LMP2 prototype class.

"We have to be prudent," said Peter. "I do not want to get one new car and lose many others."

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."

My first question is he requiring all other P2 entrants to do the same? Only one pro driver. More rules that aren't written into the rules...This just seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I just don't know what to say. More mind boggling BS from the ACO.


Full article: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...&rssfeed=rss01

First it is the LMS (Patrick Peter) not the ACO that has brought this up with the Verschuur team. Although it is the stated wish of the ACO to not have "works" teams in P-2 and Verschuur should know that, as it is public knowledge, even if some wish to ignore it. Once the Spyder has been evaluated in the LMS, which is the right of the series to do, then maybe they will allow a pro driving team in them. As to being mind boggling? It is only such if the stated intent of the ACO is ignored! Racing sanctioning bodies are not a democracy and administer with their own interpretation of their rules all the way down to your local Saturday night dirt track!!

[bullitt_60]

I believe the ACO own the LMS. Also, questioning a shoddy decision by racing organizers is part of the reason we post on forums. Blindly following leads to stagnation.

[Nick Koske]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Although it is the stated wish of the ACO to not have "works" teams in P-2 and Verschuur should know that, as it is public knowledge, even if some wish to ignore it.

Who said anything about works?? Two pro drivers does not make a works team...ask Dyson. What it does make, is a team that is committed to winning...and I find nothing wrong with that. Ignore what...what is there to ignore...a memo about some intention. If they don't want folks to ignore it...then they need to write it where it counts. If the ACO/LMS wants P2 to be facorty free...then they need to write it in the rules...until that time it's fair game, IMO.

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Once the Spyder has been evaluated in the LMS, which is the right of the series to do, then maybe they will allow a pro driving team in them.

To rule against one car because of it's perceived speed is absolutely ridiculous. Sure it's in their 'right' to handicap any car they please...that doesn't make it right though. Especially a car that has yet to set foot in a race on the European continent. I find it interesting they handicap a car that's never raced...yet let the P1 diesels absolutely blow the door off the gasoline P1s all season. Doesn't seem like they're worried about losing P1 entries.

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

As to being mind boggling? It is only such if the stated intent of the ACO is ignored! Racing sanctioning bodies are not a democracy and administer with their own interpretation of their rules all the way down to your local Saturday night dirt track!!

Show me the rule that states only one pro-driver per P2 car and I'll stop. Show me where they've told all other P2 teams that only one pro driver per car. Until then, it's a rule...wait it's not even a rule...that's being unequally applied. Intent means nothing...they either need to make it a rule or not.

[HORNDAWG]

First I'll answer the assertion that the ACO is the only "LM" sanctioning body that inacts rules that are biased against a certain car. The IMSA/ALMS do it all the time by either giving breaks to other cars(usual) or as in the case w/Audi straight up!

Second I will cover "works". We all know that certain teams get preferential treatment from the factory in their support packages! To deny that is .... now throw in a pro driving team w/ the possibility of factory shoes and even though it says VM Motorsport by Equipe Verschuur on the side of the Spyder you have a defacto "works" team! quote from DSC.

Will Weissach be watching the wires in the hope that the 2008 Le Mans Series and ALMS calendars don’t provide clashing races? We believe they will, and that there may be the intention for some of the Porsche factory drivers to run in both championships, if the calendars allow it.

as pertaining to Spyders for the LMS.

Now we come to the "its not written down anywhere" scenario. That may be the case as it pertains to the written rules. But not when it comes to how the rules will be applied. There are several quotes written down on what the ACO have as a vision for their rules and race/ feeder series. If you wish to ignore it that is your priviledge but to catagorically deny that it is not part of the overall scheme is naive at best. And intent means everything when it belongs to the ACO and if you want to participate you do so at their discretion.

All in my opinion of course.

[John Thawley]

I'll just jump in carefully here and state that without a doubt, rule books in this day and age all carry the disclaimer that whatever the interpretation of a rule, that decisions will always favor the "intent of the rule." It is not unheard of to read that a decision was made and that while a specific rules violation cannot be cited, the infraction violated the "intent" of the rule... such and such. There are even cases where there is wording to the fact, "if something is not address within these rules, it is illegal."

It's their ball.

JT

[Nick Koske]

I don't deny the can do what they want...I'm questioning whether it's right or not, that's all. I don't believe sanctioning should be holding competitors to rules that aren't written. Maybe Verschuur would have gone a different route if they would have know that having a Spyder, penalizes their efforts. Maybe they would have gone for a Zytek P2 if they knew they could have two pro drivers. Holding teams, that make plans based on the current ruleset, to other rules made up in a 'willie-nillie' fashion, seems like poor form and a good way to piss off your entries, IMO of course.

We all know about the ALMS's indiscretions with the Corvette/AM rules in 2006. They sufficiently pissed off AM, Corvette, and a good number of fans. Just because you can...doesn't mean you should.

[Spyderman]

I could not have put it better myself Nick!

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Nick Koske

I don't deny the can do what they want...I'm questioning whether it's right or not, that's all. I don't believe sanctioning should be holding competitors to rules that aren't written. Maybe Verschuur would have gone a different route if they would have know that having a Spyder, penalizes their efforts. Maybe they would have gone for a Zytek P2 if they knew they could have two pro drivers. Holding teams, that make plans based on the current ruleset, to other rules made up in a 'willie-nillie' fashion, seems like poor form and a good way to piss off your entries, IMO of course.

We all know about the ALMS's indiscretions with the Corvette/AM rules in 2006. They sufficiently pissed off AM, Corvette, and a good number of fans. Just because you can...doesn't mean you should.

Well maybe if the ACO was listened to there would be no confusion as to the intent of the rules. As to not being in the rules try Sporting Reg. Art. 30b Tech. Reg. Art. 2.1 and Art. 18b
Also on top of the application for entry is the phrase; for the examination of the selection committe.
Anyone making this kind of investment/money outlay should be well aware of what the rules are both written and implied. There is nothing 'willie nillie' about what is being put forth by P.Peter. It has been the expressed intent of the ACO that P-2 be a privateer class and not to have a factory presence there. If you do not know this it is by disregarding their statements as such, which are recorded in print! They do not want a repeat in the LMS of the Penske model in the ALMS! 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! And as to not being informed of any possible sanctions on a Spyder in the LMS I suspect that Hartmut knew there would be very close scrutinee of any entered in the LMS. Why has there been none in the LMS until now? 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.