Garra

[mayk]

Well...this forum area has to start somewhere, so let me kick it off....I went to the first DP race for the Series, Daytona back in 2003 and you have to give them credit, although the numbers have leveled off, they have grown the car count....2008 should be interesting for them.

I was fortunate enough to be the photographer for a couple teams (Spirit of Daytona, VICI Racing and Forest Barber at some races, and a few GT teams) from the start, but the cost of covering them and the ALMS was just a little to rich for my blood (and wallet).

I hear they may be racing more and more with NASCAR (Saturday races) so we will see how that goes...I know I am going to pass on Daytona in 08, even though I do have a team asking me to shoot for them again, and although I will miss my room mates of JT and Jimmy, won't miss the constrant drone of the V-8s at 3am in the morning!

Who else follows this series?

KM

[John Dagys]

Well of course I keep a close eye on it. I went to 4 races this year and really enjoyed it. But after the 3rd and 4th one, things started to get a bit boring (especially as GAINSCO kept on grabbing poles and wins). But it's a nice series and I think it can exist alongside the ALMS.

Over the years, they have been steering away from ACO racing and I give them credit for that at least. Their DP formula produces great, close, racing - but as we've seen this year in the ALMS - the ACO style could also produce that. B

But I have a feeling it expanded too quickly. They nearly had 40 DPs on the grid at Daytona one year, and now they struggle to get 18 for a normal sprint race. The car counts could be up, but we are complaining about the same issue in the ALMS - and the open-wheel guys are too. So I think thats more of an issue across the board in professional road racing.

The Rolex 24 is one of my main highlights of the year and I can't see missing it. I'll be back there again next year (and it may be my only Rolex Series race of 2008). We'll have to see how everything goes.

[John Thawley]

Well.... here's the problem I have.

First, if you make any negative comment toward GARRA, you're "bashing." I resent that. An opinion is an opinion. If it's presented in a thoughtful civilized manner, I want to hear it and I want to discuss it.

So... mine are negative comments. I will preface that with saying I enjoy racing.. especially good racing. I like World of Outlaws, Formula One, and pretty much everything with wheels. Do I like them with the passion and furor that I like the American Le Mans? No. But, I enjoy them.

I have a fundamental problem with products being "dumbed down." It simply goes against my grain. With anything I do, I try to raise the bar. For me, that makes life interesting and as humans, gives our life purpose. Go stronger, get smarter, get faster... push the envelope in everything you do. If you don't, who will?

GARRA's format, to me, doesn't encourage that. In fact, the message I get (speaking as a race fan) is "we will tell you what's exciting and what the benchmark for true competition is and we will establish the parameters of the technology."

Sorry.. that doesn't pique my interest. In fact, for my money, thank goodness GARRA includes the GT class. At least it resembles something honest.

I find it fascinating how NASCAR's "car of tomorrow" and the "Daytona Prototype" are both served up as the future of racing while neither lives up to its name. The car of tomorrow uses a carburetor and there's nothing prototype about a DP. It's an expensive kit car at best.

I think the term "Car of Tomorrow" is pretty self explanatory. I don't think it requires a definition. It should be exactly that... the car of tomorrow. Obviously, it's not even close to being the car of yesterday. Seems like kind of fraud to me... but then again, I'm just a stupid fan who's supposed to file in with my $85 and occupy a 12" slab of bench that, oh by the way, we'll call a "seat."

But let's take the literal definition of prototype. The American Heritage dictionary defines it this way:

pro·to·type (prō'tə-tīp') Pronunciation Key
n.
1. An original type, form, or instance serving as a basis or standard for later stages.
2. An original, full-scale, and usually working model of a new product or new version of an existing product.
3. An early, typical example.
4. Biology A form or species that serves as an original type or example.

OK... so I suppose we have a few ways to use the word. But as racing enthusiasts... as people with a passion for going harder, faster, stronger... which would we point to as our interpretation? I'm guessing we'd go with No. 2 and reasonably accept No. 1 - Sadly, and in all honesty, a Daytona Prototype can only point to numbers 3 and 4.

So.... it simply boils down to the fact that I don't like being spoon fed BS. It is what it is... I can enjoy it for the racing. But it's simply a spec class.

JT

[Todd Benne]

As mentioned, at least the GT class resembles cars and some racing. I can relate to it. But the DPs? As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Supposedly the new Dallara DP. Leaves me scratching my head. I just can't get excited.

http://news-images.caradisiac.com/IM...Am_Dallara.jpg

[Hallen]

I do watch the races and I even enjoy them from time to time. But the DP cars are uninspiring. As typical of Spec racing, sooner or later one chassis is determined to be the "best" overall and that is what everybody switches to. It then gets even less inspiring.

NASCAR thinks that because they call a car a Chevy or Ford that I will relate that race car to the actual brand. I don't. Not at all. I want products from real cars being use. The DP's at least use branded engines, but I have no idea if any of those engines really have any of the manufacturers parts in them... other than the BMW. But somehow, it is not as aluring as the true prototypes in ALMS.

The GT class is another deception. Some of the cars are real cars. Some of them are purpose built race cars being pawned off as real cars. If you are going to use tube frame, fine, just make it clear and make it its own class. Don't mix them in with real cars and say the Mazda beat the Porshce. It didn't. A car with a tube frame and a Mazda-like shell beat a Porsche. I guess it is splitting hairs, but for me, it is a sticking point.

But, at least the do run some road courses and we get a look at some tracks we won't see in the ALMS. I don't know how long the road courses will last though if they start doing more NASCAR support races. Then we will see more of the icky rovals.

[Todd Benne]

I am going to place these two links in this thread. They make for some interesting reading. Enjoy.

GARRA vs ALMS

Series Stats

[Todd Benne]

The ideal situation would be to get some Guy, who has competed in both series to share their thoughts. It would be interesting to hear his perspective on the competition, level of racing, event comparisons, things like that.

[BobN]

John sums up exactly how I feel about GARRA. I don't like people telling me what I'm supposed to like and then using the insulting "purist" or "elite" tag when I don't.

The product should stand on its own merits without the incessant cheerleading of "we're the best there is since sliced bread" routine. Positioning something just north of Shelby Can-am as state of the art and top level is absurd. Many of the drivers and some of the teams ARE top notch. The product falls far short as far as my tastes go.

[Hallen]

Originally Posted by Todd Benne

I am going to place these two links in this thread. They make for some interesting reading. Enjoy.

GARRA vs ALMS

Series Stats

I actually think the Last Turn Club's evaluation of the two series was missing an important part. The fact that GARA ran a good portion of their races without the GT cars I think makes a big difference in yellows, length of yellows and in closeness of finishes.

The GARA stuff is moving more and more to just racing the prototypes and GT cars separately. This makes for much less interesting racing in my opinion. But it also reduces the number of yellow flags. Fewer cars on the track, closure rates are much more similar, and there is less lapping going on.

[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by Hallen

The GARA stuff is moving more and more to just racing the prototypes and GT cars separately. This makes for much less interesting racing in my opinion. But it also reduces the number of yellow flags. Fewer cars on the track, closure rates are much more similar, and there is less lapping going on.

But.... considering you've acknowledged it's closer to all spec racing, wouldn't the presence of the GTs at least put SOME burden on the drivers to demonstrate they can THINK and drive fast?

I don't think the yellows go away with the GTs. Heck, the starts are separated by class, and yet, more times than not, there is a yellow on the first lap. Maybe the problem is a.) not enough "space" in the rules/technology for teams to show their abilities in developing the car and b.) not enough power to get out of one another's way?

It's kind of like restrictor plate racing. The more you take out of the driver's hand, the less of a factor he becomes. I mean, that's one way to look at it.

JT