Daytona 24 Hour Discussion Thread

Just an observation but the Fugly Fords (How dare they call it a 'Ford GT!) do get far too many breaks, so I guess they deserve what they get at LM.
"Is the reason why Ford wins bring about so much animosity the fact that the engines in the GT are mere truck engines, as opposed to expensive bespoke engines "befitting a proper supercar"?
If they were running truck engines at Daytona then the engine note was really strange.
Of course they sounded odd, a 4 cylinder Ford EcoBoost is nothing like a V8........:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

So you are basing the politics of racing upon how a car looks? Beauty is subjective; what you find ugly others may find beautiful. Beauty is also greatly subjected to the bias of the observer, so much so that an observer who, for other reasons does not like the subject of observation, will call the subject of observation ugly merely to find other ways to express his or her dislike of the subject.

As far as "breaks"? Again, this is subjective and if you have already decided upon your feelings of the subject of observation you will choose to interpret the actions of that subject to be suspect. Or you will choose to interpret actions of others, actions that allow the subject to succeed, as suspect actions.

In short: Your bias only lets you see what you want to see, forcing you to miss the whole picture.

Yes, the engines in the GT's are based upon the Ecotech 6 cyl turbos found in the Ford F150 pickup trucks. I do not believe, at any time, that anyone stated that the engines were four bangers.

While you may find your comments humorous in a self-centered sort of way, they are ill-informed.
 
If they are cheating then why are they not penalized? To say IMSA lets them get away with it is, in my judgement, tantamount to saying that they cheated and IMSA just did a "wink, wink". In other words you are unhappy that Ford played within the rules and won. That is what the complaining is all about.

When Corvette and Ford get BoP'd so much at Le Mans that they become back markers (as happened in the last two races for Corvette and last race for Ford) are you going to complain that a European Governing Body (ACO or FIA), did it on purpose so a European car maker can win?

If you do not, then aren't you being hypocritical?

As far as F1? The BoP is there, they just pick the automaker they want to dominate and write the rules around that team. I have been watching F1 since the '70's and that is one series that is chock full of predictable seasons and rules made to cater to the team with the most money to throw at the FIA.
You didn't read what I wrote, good job :thumbsup:
 
The problem that IMSA/FIA/ACO have is the Ford is more prototype than GT.

The Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari, and BMW are road cars turned into GT cars. Albeit heavily modified of course. The Ford was designed from the ground up to be a race car more than the others and that will certainly give them a performance advantage.

I was watching a documentary about the Ford GT project and from almost day one Multimatic were brought onboard to help with the design and engineering of the car. So Le Mans and competition was their number priority and it was always the goal.

It's not strictly true about BoP by the way. Yes in 2016 they were very devious in making the BoP work for them at Le Mans (all of sudden they found huge pace) but in 2017 the ACO were wise to it and made sure the car was balanced accordingly.

However I understand the frustration but if they removed BoP completely I feel the Ford would dominate even more than it did at the weekend.

There's one other thing to consider, the Ford was designed for Le Mans, long straights, and fast corners. Similar to Daytona. Let's see how the next few races go.

On a side note it will be interesting to see how the new Vantage goes. That car was co-developed with in parallel with Prodrive, similar to the Ford programme. I'll be curious to see what the pace of that car is like.
 
You didn't read what I wrote, good job :thumbsup:

Yeah, I did. You complained that Ford cheated, always cheats and always wins because they always cheat. Of course, if any of that were true then Ford would have won both the drivers and manufacturer's crowns for in IMSA and the WEC. Which, of course, they did because both governing bodies allow them to cheat. All one has to do to see the overwhelming Ford domination, (due to the allowed cheating), is look at the results from the past two years to see that Ford owned the top two steps of the podium in every race.

I get it people don't like Ford. They look for ways to rationalize the wins Ford gets by saying they cheated. They then point to the numerous violations found by IMSA and the FIA/SRO as proof of that cheating. They point out that the GT is merely an LMP2 car and use as evidence the changes imposed by IMSA and the FIA/SRO upon Ford to ensure the cars meet the GTE/GTLM homologation standards. Changes that Ford was hard pressed to complete before they were allowed to compete.

No, you did not write the above, but reading your post that is what you seem to be saying.
 
Beauty is subjective; what you find ugly others may find beautiful. Beauty is also greatly subjected to the bias of the observer, so much so that an observer who, for other reasons does not like the subject of observation, will call the subject of observation ugly merely to find other ways to express his or her dislike of the subject.

5aaa29ea337e98d3bd7f81e44ad08ce1.jpg

This is my replica Ford GT40.
I built it from a base kit package over 5 years.
This means it is a 'Ford GT40R'.
Where possible it uses Ford parts or specially fabricated components to comply with current engineering standards.
The present Ford is more prototype than GT, if the company had the gonads to run the production based model complete with truck engine in the original shell it might (just might!) have grounds for claiming credibility.
Is it possible to walk into a Ford dealership and order a 6 cylinder EcoBoost 'Ford GT'? I don't know myself but I doubt it.
And frankly, I could care less.
Of course, not being an 'expert' such as yourself '1212', I can only base my opinions on following Motor racing in general and GT/Sports cars for around 50 years.
:p
 
View attachment 233318
This is my replica Ford GT40.
I built it from a base kit package over 5 years.
This means it is a 'Ford GT40R'.
Where possible it uses Ford parts or specially fabricated components to comply with current engineering standards.
The present Ford is more prototype than GT, if the company had the gonads to run the production based model complete with truck engine in the original shell it might (just might!) have grounds for claiming credibility.
Is it possible to walk into a Ford dealership and order a 6 cylinder EcoBoost 'Ford GT'? I don't know myself but I doubt it.
And frankly, I could care less.
Of course, not being an 'expert' such as yourself '1212', I can only base my opinions on following Motor racing in general and GT/Sports cars for around 50 years.
:p

Great, you have a replica in which you tried to replicate a Ford GT. Nice car and I applaud your dedication.
It is not a Ford, though, no matter how many Ford parts you put in it. It is merely a replica of a Ford.

The present GT, whether you want to admit it or not, is a Ford GT. Just because it does not fit your idea of what a GT should look like does not mean it is not a GT. It just means you don't like it and you choose not to call it a GT despite the fact that it is, indeed, a GT. Now we circle around to my argument that can be best summed up as: Eye of the beholder. You don't like the way it looks, but others may find it attractive, may applaud Ford for coming up with a design that goes outside of the box and makes the car very competitive on the circuit.

My Focus ST does not look anything like the Focus that was released back in the late '90's/early 00's. Does that mean my car is not a Focus? Or does it mean that the style has changed and mine is merely a different interpretation of a car Ford calls the Focus? Does that mean my car is uglier than the early Focuses? Or just different?

No, it is not possible, now, to walk into a Ford dealer and order a 6 cyinder EcoBoost Ford GT. It is not possible because the time to order is over until Ford chooses to make more of them. It is a limited edition model as I am quite sure you are aware, thus your question is either a logical fallacy of which you are aware of (willful ignorance) or you are not as well informed as you think you are.

Yet, when they were taking orders for the current GT, yes, you could order it that way. As a matter of fact that was the only power plant offered in the vehicle, of which, of course, you should have been aware of if you were as knowledgeable as you say you are, which then supports my assertion that you are using a logical fallacy to make you argument or are not as informed as you present yourself to be.

Your whole argument is based upon the subjectivity of your opinion, and, perhaps, the opinions of others with whom you share your beliefs. This does not mean you are correct, nor does it mean that you are wrong in your assessment. I merely means, what I stated in my prior reply: How one views that car is subjective, but one should not determine their politics of a car's success based upon looks.

What, exactly, are you attempting to prove by doing that?

I gather you do not like the current iteration of the GT, you have made that clear. That does not mean it is, as you insist, ugly, it just means you do not find it attractive. Others may disagree.

If you have anything other than a pic of your opinion of how a GT should look, please, provide it.

Otherwise you are merely stating an opinion based upon emotional attachments to a car from a bygone era, not fact.

Yours is a very nice car though. I would love to take a closer look at it. I hope it gives you the same kind of joy I know it would give me. Kudos on your efforts.
 
Last edited:
A Focus ST? Of course the current model is different to the first, that is the way the system operates.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
FTR, Ford attempted to badge their first version of the GT with the hallowed 'GT-40' label.
Unfortunately for Ford, their request was refused by the company ('Saffir' IIRC) officially licensed to build real Ford GT40s.
You obviously overlooked my opening comment, mine is a 'Ford GT40R'.....a REPLICA.
 
Last edited:
A Focus ST? Of course the current model is different to the first, that is the way the system operates.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
FTR, Ford attempted to badge their first version of the GT with the hallowed 'GT-40' label.
Unfortunately for Ford, their request was refused by the company ('Saffir' IIRC) officially licensed to build real Ford GT40s.
You obviously overlooked my opening comment, mine is a 'Ford GT40R'.....a REPLICA.

What is your point? You seem to be upset that the current GT does not fit your narrow view of what a GT car should look like, you don't seem to know anything about the current GT other than it does not fit your narrow view of what a GT car should look like, you claim that Ford is getting breaks in racing, most likely because their current GT does not fit you narrow view of what a GT car should look like (thus, surely Ford is cheating?), you want to show off a replica and try to pass it off as a Ford GT and an example of your narrow view of what a GT car should look like, and then you say: " A Focus ST? Of course the current model is different to the first, that is the way the system operates." with little laughy faces after, ( as if you think I am an idiot), yet our whole conversation is about how you think the current Ford-built GT is not a GT because it does not fit your narrow view of what a GT car should look like.

Are you even reading your own posts? You have now doubled-down on your own double-down of misinformed, scattered logic while making my point for me.

Allow me to paraphrase you: Of course the current Ford GT does not look like yours as they are both different iterations, years apart, of the same model. That is the way the system operates.

Right? (Is this where I use emogees to express my amusement because I am not capable of doing so with words?)

Why are you bringing in information about a kit car to make your point? What is your point?

I did not miss your opening statement, read the first two sentences of my last reply. If you had done so, and capably processed the words, you would have seen me use the term "replica" twice and "replicate" once.

You still have not even been able to back up your original statement in your original post, you have gone walkabout with your logic and it seems you have a burning need to shill a replica car and pass it off as more of a Ford GT than the current GT.

Is this where I insert the SMH emogees?
 
If anyone is interested. The original Ford GT40 ran in the Prototype class from 1964-1967. Then It was reclassified to the Sports class for 1968-1969.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was not originally conceived as a GT car. The name is just confusing.

JW Automotive did conversions of the prototypes after some time to make them road legal.
 
You lucky ones, can't watch any of these of the geoblock. FFs cant even chill with netflix ( best free vpn service ) so gotta spent money on dat VPN, no other options

Yeah that's tough my friend. In fairness these streams are a fairly recent thing (IMSA.TV started a year or two ago I think, complete Indycar replays started 18 months ago, and so on) and I would imagine there was some serious discussions with the TV/CABLE companies as they probably want a total monopoly on broadcasts. I'm surprised we can see the DTM races in the UK as I thought maybe BTSport would try and block that. However if you want to get your product "out there" and keep the sponsors happy worldwide. Online streaming is the way to do it.

It makes me laugh when viewers complain "it's only 720P!", it's free, it's great quality, no adverts, just stop whinging! :laugh::)

I have no issues waiting a few days to see the full Indycar replays. They are advert less too which judging by some comments by our friends in the US is a major plus.

In the past I had tried "ahem" shared streams but the quality was usually terrible and I felt it just wasn't worth bothering with.

I would have liked to have tried the F1 service out of curiosity, but with the SKY and Channel 4 contract it won't be available to UK residents.
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 70 7.3%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 99 10.4%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 139 14.5%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 265 27.7%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 379 39.6%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 4 0.4%
Back
Top