Alright when was that again.....?

The cars are too heavy and too low powered to be interesting prototype cars.

It looks indeed like the times when prototypes were the crazy spaceships are over for a while.
We had a few glorious eras when crazy spaceships ruled racing in the late '60s, early '70s, throughout the '80s and from the late '90s all the way until Porsche and Audi left the LMP1H class to the shameful show the ACO is responsible for we have today :-(

Le Mans prototypes should never be spec racers.

They always were the absolute pinnacle of racing just like F1 cars insigne seater open wheel racing.

This is the second biggest gripe that DESTROYS the sport.

The first biggest factor though is the ACO's alphabet soup regulation salad with EOT, BoP, HIV and colon cancer.

Look how they thoroughly managed to destroy last years and this years GT class racing with their nasty BoP infringements.

We may just as well throw the dice before the race who gets the most favorable BoP and know the most likely race winners before hand. We may just as well save us all the expenses of racing at all and just do this thing as a boardgame instead … so much more politically correct as well ;-)

Gone are the times when engineering innovation, guile and skill determined the races. Its a game of politics and regulations.

Dial back the regulations.
Make GT cars mandatory to bear manufacturer dealership showroom road legal cars again.
Open the regs for the prototypes so engineers and drivers can shine.

… also … loose the ridiculous face diapers.
 
Most important thing would be that compability between europe and usa.

s-l500_1.jpg


Don't worry, every LMDh car will come ready equipped with one of these.
 
Peugeot is going the hypercar route to develop batteries with his partner TOTAL, also they have a lot more freedom than with LMDh and LMH won't be insane expensive like LMP1 hybrid was.
 
The cars are too heavy and too low powered to be interesting prototype cars.

It looks indeed like the times when prototypes were the crazy spaceships are over for a while.
We had a few glorious eras when crazy spaceships ruled racing in the late '60s, early '70s, throughout the '80s and from the late '90s all the way until Porsche and Audi left the LMP1H class to the shameful show the ACO is responsible for we have today :-(

Le Mans prototypes should never be spec racers.

They always were the absolute pinnacle of racing just like F1 cars insigne seater open wheel racing.

This is the second biggest gripe that DESTROYS the sport.

The first biggest factor though is the ACO's alphabet soup regulation salad with EOT, BoP, HIV and colon cancer.

Look how they thoroughly managed to destroy last years and this years GT class racing with their nasty BoP infringements.

We may just as well throw the dice before the race who gets the most favorable BoP and know the most likely race winners before hand. We may just as well save us all the expenses of racing at all and just do this thing as a boardgame instead … so much more politically correct as well ;-)

Gone are the times when engineering innovation, guile and skill determined the races. Its a game of politics and regulations.

Dial back the regulations.
Make GT cars mandatory to bear manufacturer dealership showroom road legal cars again.
Open the regs for the prototypes so engineers and drivers can shine.

… also … loose the ridiculous face diapers.
I think people need to get over the impression that series XYZ is the pinnacle of anything and that reglementations should be as open as possible to aid innovation. The results is exactly what you complain about - Toyota getting a boner how fast they are on their own and the most interesting category being LMP2 that is basicly exactly what is proposed here - a "spec" class with an equal playingfield where everyone can have a go and not just some big factory teams. The times are over, when big manufacturers could pump as much money as they like to into a programm for a few years, just to leave it a bit later with all privateer and smaller teams getting dusted by sheer cost explosion. And it's important to understand that motorsport shouldn't be in the hands of a bunch of guys with the most money - we've seen it with the decline of LMP1, F1 and DTM as current examples. While the good examples of recent times show that some important limitations are needed and make it actually alot more diverse. Hence the better competition in MotoGP, Indycar, LMP2, IMSA and BTCC, where costs are actually far lower with spec parts where it matters and not everything being in control of one big brand. Today we again had a new winner in MotoGP and the top 13 riders are devided by as many points as the top 2 in F1, it's that laughable.

Endurance racing is about efficiency and there is as much innovation and work required to get the most out of a given budget or spec rules as it is with open regulations. The difference being that it get's interesting for more manufacturers as well as private people if the costs are somewhat controllable and when the concept is sustainable for all involved. If you beat 5 big manufacturers it means alot more than beating 2 private teams with a fraction of the budget that you are running on.
 
Man this thread shows people can never be pleased

during lockdown:"We want le mans back"
After lockdown:"EW the cars are too modern"


Well get used to it green tech is the future and oil is dying the petrol enthusiasts are gonna claim it's not innovative
stop living in the past I am sure that given enough time hybrid technology will be just as powerful as gas engines maybe even complete with fake vroom vrooms.


Update: i am very impressed the admins allowed this semi political rant to stay up thanks guys
 
Last edited:
I think people need to get over the impression that series XYZ is the pinnacle of anything and that reglementations should be as open as possible to aid innovation. The results is exactly what you complain about - Toyota getting a boner how fast they are on their own and the most interesting category being LMP2 that is basicly exactly what is proposed here - a "spec" class with an equal playingfield where everyone can have a go and not just some big factory teams. The times are over, when big manufacturers could pump as much money as they like to into a programm for a few years, just to leave it a bit later with all privateer and smaller teams getting dusted by sheer cost explosion. And it's important to understand that motorsport shouldn't be in the hands of a bunch of guys with the most money - we've seen it with the decline of LMP1, F1 and DTM as current examples. While the good examples of recent times show that some important limitations are needed and make it actually alot more diverse. Hence the better competition in MotoGP, Indycar, LMP2, IMSA and BTCC, where costs are actually far lower with spec parts where it matters and not everything being in control of one big brand. Today we again had a new winner in MotoGP and the top 13 riders are devided by as many points as the top 2 in F1, it's that laughable.

Endurance racing is about efficiency and there is as much innovation and work required to get the most out of a given budget or spec rules as it is with open regulations. The difference being that it get's interesting for more manufacturers as well as private people if the costs are somewhat controllable and when the concept is sustainable for all involved. If you beat 5 big manufacturers it means alot more than beating 2 private teams with a fraction of the budget that you are running on.
As I generally absolutely agree with the sentiment of your post I can absolutely not see how the proposal of the absolute extreme end of the spectrum of solutions is the logical means of solving the issues in endurance racing.

Have budget explosions ruined racing and generally put an end to several great eras of endurance racing in the past?

Yes, absolutely!

Are budget restrictions and the use of some standardized cost controlled components lead to exciting racing?

Quite likely.

Is it the right solution to go the the absolute extreme and mandate a true and complete spec class where only three chassis manufacturers are allowed to build chassis and the drive train is tightly controlled by its majority of components being also of spec manufactured by only one party?

ABSOLUTELY VEHEMENTLY NOT!


It was a terrible mistake by the ACO to disallow from the get go privateers to enter into the LMP1 H class as privateers are the bread and butter of the racing field while the manufacturers generally have the needed budget to kick off major innovation and the stamina to run with them over several year programs without bankrupting the outfit.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with manufacturers developing highly expensive, innovative vehicles and then leave the racing series after a short term of success.
This has ALWAYS been the formula of great racing. Just look at the past how major manufacturers have entered highly successful racers, earned championships and won races (or failed at it) for a short term of 1-3 seasons while mildly developing the vehicles and then either left the series as a manufacturer outright or moved on to the next project.

The highly successful cars they developed and raced more often then not went on into privateer hands and continued racing for a few seasons, often times even as longliving as a full decade after their works entry and racing was wonderful!

The LMP1 H regulations should have been more cost controlling and from the get go should have allowed and encouraged privateers to enter with viable development partners.

It would have been wonderful to see a Rebellion LMP1 H with a Mercedes co-developed drivetrain.
It would have been amazing to have seen a midengined Corvette LMP1 H prgroam in partnership for an innovative hybrid drive train with Tesla outside of the strict boundaries the ACO has thought out in technical limitations for the past LMP1 H formula.

In a free market industry stringent regulations and limitations are never the formula to a diverse and innovative field of successful entities.

And yes, the same ACO letting Toyota suckle to the ACO tit for a few years longer allowing the clown show of the one entry LMP1 H was a biiig mistake and made a farce out of endurance racing just to keep the manufacturer from leaving.

An outright spec series as proposed (and looking likely to happen) is NOT what Le Mans endurance racing fans want to see.
 
As I generally absolutely agree with the sentiment of your post I can absolutely not see how the proposal of the absolute extreme end of the spectrum of solutions is the logical means of solving the issues in endurance racing.

Have budget explosions ruined racing and generally put an end to several great eras of endurance racing in the past?

Yes, absolutely!

Are budget restrictions and the use of some standardized cost controlled components lead to exciting racing?

Quite likely.

Is it the right solution to go the the absolute extreme and mandate a true and complete spec class where only three chassis manufacturers are allowed to build chassis and the drive train is tightly controlled by its majority of components being also of spec manufactured by only one party?

ABSOLUTELY VEHEMENTLY NOT!


It was a terrible mistake by the ACO to disallow from the get go privateers to enter into the LMP1 H class as privateers are the bread and butter of the racing field while the manufacturers generally have the needed budget to kick off major innovation and the stamina to run with them over several year programs without bankrupting the outfit.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with manufacturers developing highly expensive, innovative vehicles and then leave the racing series after a short term of success.
This has ALWAYS been the formula of great racing. Just look at the past how major manufacturers have entered highly successful racers, earned championships and won races (or failed at it) for a short term of 1-3 seasons while mildly developing the vehicles and then either left the series as a manufacturer outright or moved on to the next project.

The highly successful cars they developed and raced more often then not went on into privateer hands and continued racing for a few seasons, often times even as longliving as a full decade after their works entry and racing was wonderful!

The LMP1 H regulations should have been more cost controlling and from the get go should have allowed and encouraged privateers to enter with viable development partners.

It would have been wonderful to see a Rebellion LMP1 H with a Mercedes co-developed drivetrain.
It would have been amazing to have seen a midengined Corvette LMP1 H prgroam in partnership for an innovative hybrid drive train with Tesla outside of the strict boundaries the ACO has thought out in technical limitations for the past LMP1 H formula.

In a free market industry stringent regulations and limitations are never the formula to a diverse and innovative field of successful entities.

And yes, the same ACO letting Toyota suckle to the ACO tit for a few years longer allowing the clown show of the one entry LMP1 H was a biiig mistake and made a farce out of endurance racing just to keep the manufacturer from leaving.

An outright spec series as proposed (and looking likely to happen) is NOT what Le Mans endurance racing fans want to see.
I am not sure if we have the same understanding of a spec series. Personaly, I couldn't care less at this point how super innovative the cars are, because I care for great racing, that the cars look good and that they sound great. I think, it's time that we move on from the idea that everything has to be super innovative and diverse, because the costs for racing have increased so much that there won't be any high class racing if we keep going like that. Best example being the recent decline of DTM. The times that Porsche sold their 956s or 962s to some private teams are long gone. It is essentialy what those mentioned chasis manufacturers do these days. And as far as I understood the concept, those mentioned manufacturers aren't set in stone and it could very well be that we see more of them buidling their own LMDh chasis in the future, while the engineers will still have alot of room to find some clever solutions.
 
I am not sure if we have the same understanding of a spec series. Personaly, I couldn't care less at this point how super innovative the cars are, because I care for great racing, that the cars look good and that they sound great. I think, it's time that we move on from the idea that everything has to be super innovative and diverse, because the costs for racing have increased so much that there won't be any high class racing if we keep going like that. Best example being the recent decline of DTM. The times that Porsche sold their 956s or 962s to some private teams are long gone. It is essentialy what those mentioned chasis manufacturers do these days. And as far as I understood the concept, those mentioned manufacturers aren't set in stone and it could very well be that we see more of them buidling their own LMDh chasis in the future, while the engineers will still have alot of room to find some clever solutions.

Innovation in racing has always been indeed one of the major driving forces behind manufacturers willing to spend immensely costly budgets on racing programs (next to the obvious marketing effect successful racing programs create).

Taking the unique manufacturer made racing machines and replacing them with generic tins labeled as such takes the marketing effect away and a frozen spec series as currently suggested eliminates the entire innovation vector of going to race in the first place.

Personally I have never been interested in any of the re-label exercises currently in fashion, be it Alfa Romeo labeled F1 cars, Ford or Mazda branded Bathurst racing spec cars,the current crop of Indy cars, ... even the current LMP2 machines although they made for great racing moments have zero impact on me.

I do need a manufacturer or a privateer team to come up with a design, build it and race it but then I am old fashioned I guess.

One very major reason for the demise of the DTM series is not necessarily cost explosion but the major factors have always been that manufacturers who left the series had either costly other commitments in racing programs and simply had to decide cost benefit factors which budgetary commitments net the most potential - why would BMW and Audi keep showing race cars on weekends to an almost exclusive German fan community and try to sell a combined ~1/2 Mio cars more on the German market when without even spending money on a racing program they can focus on much more lucrative markets and sell many more cars.

The DTM too was a racing series constrained by regulations that forbade in essence any technology transfer from the race track to the production cars. Where hybrid and electric vehicles are in the intermediate future of production cars to market learning something useful from running V8 spec engines is hardly the case.

You have got the manufacturer handing down their racing cars to privateers quite wrong.
Now more then ever is this in fact a major part of the calculation in race car programs - look no further than the WEC - ALL privateer GT cars are actual handed down vehicles from the manufacturers previous years ran cars by design of the regulations and by design of the business model of the manufacturers.

This is a good thing - without this the costly development of cutting edge GTE cars would be so much more costly for the manufacturers and the grids would be quite empty without those privateer teams running 1 or 2 year old cars previously ran by the works teams.

The proposed LMDh regs do not seem to take any account of this.

It is a lose lose.

The fans lose to see unique true manufacturer made cars (no more Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin, ....) but instead we get to see generic tin cans with manufacturer stickers.

The manufacturers lose all credibility as their former unique identities get washed down the drain of a relabeling and marketing culture.
Who will pursue in the future to ever drive a Porsche or Ferrari one day if all the race cars labelled as such are just Hyundais anyway?

I am not looking forward to watch this one bit :-(

The alteration of the generic LMDh cars as currently proposed sees in fact very little room for unique manufacturer changes.
No manufacturer designed chassis are permitted instead only a handful of "standard chassis manufacturers" are planned to be licensed to build ALL chassis to spec, cosmetic alterations in limits permitted to allow for re-branding.

All I read in the blurbs is simply all bad.
 
In my undestanding IndyCar drivers are slower than F1 drivers and often get outpaced. Didn't Nakajima win in that Indy 500 thing a couple of weeks ago?
Nigel Mansell and Juan Montoya where over weight when coming from Indy Car to F1. Its less physical and in the 90's a lot of older drivers like Mario Andretti and Emerson Fittipaldi ran up front. The bottom line there is or maybe was more money in running around at the back of pack. F1 is like you have to be on form as they dont want drivers running around at the back all lazy like. Unless they bring in money. And F1 being a non spec series you have to be in a good car. That means you can get left caught out and stuck in mediocre machinery if poorly managed.
 
I'm mixed about what would be a good move, here is what I think:

Option 1:
- Keep Grosjean
- Get a new talent from F2

Option 2:
- Get Perez
- and a new talent from F2

Option 3:
- Perez
- Hulkenberg
=> Both could be a bargain as this is their last chance for a seat in F2. IMO.

Option 3:
- Get two new talents from F2
=> Risky, but can't fare worse than last place anyway.

Opinions?
Need a American driver, A good one. America has a big market for people who buy Ferrari's and Aston Martin's. And other luxury branded cars. With the economy as it is in other parts people cant afford cars like that. some of the richest people in the world live there. Even JB from my ex home town of Frome Somerset in in California.
 
1983: John Player Special Grand Prix of Europe at Brands Hatch. Was stopping at a friends in London and we just rucked up on the Sunday with no tickets and paid at the gate. Just looked at the entry list and didn't realise how many drivers I've seen race. I remember John Watson in the McLaren trying to over take into Druids and thinking 'effing hell' at the speed of it and basically on the limit as he dodged up the inside coming up Pilgrims Rise. Since then I've attended Monaco in 94 (the race after Senna and Ratzenburger sadly lost their lives. They had the first 2 grid positions free in tribute with the respective flags painted on), Magny Cours in 2000, A few at Silverstone and then I went to the Le Mans 24hr in 2001 and been there every year since apart from this year for obvious reasons. Booked for next year though, fingers crossed. Still would love to do Spa. The noise at Monaco still rings clearly in my ears. Awesome
 
Last edited:
In my undestanding IndyCar drivers are slower than F1 drivers and often get outpaced. Didn't Nakajima win in that Indy 500 thing a couple of weeks ago?
The thing is the racing is more intense in England compared to America. The tracks are usually better and European drivers bring a lot of skill and talent. So it is hard for a established American driver to go into F1. The desire to go into F1 has to be found when they are young and they have to do the European racing scene. That means leaving to live in Europe. You need a lot of money and commitment to do this. The late great Ayerton Senna did that when he was young. Lived out a caravan and worked his way into F1. This is a lot to ask of any driver.
 
The thing is the racing is more intense in England compared to America. The tracks are usually better and European drivers bring a lot of skill and talent. So it is hard for a established American driver to go into F1. The desire to go into F1 has to be found when they are young and they have to do the European racing scene. That means leaving to live in Europe. You need a lot of money and commitment to do this. The late great Ayerton Senna did that when he was young. Lived out a caravan and worked his way into F1. This is a lot to ask of any driver.
I think you could debate your comments about racing being more intense and the tracks being better in Europe. I do agree your chances are much better getting into F1 if you live in Europe and participate in the F3 and F2 ladder. We have 1 American in the F3 championship and he is third with 1 win (Logan Sargeant).
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 103 8.0%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 134 10.3%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 185 14.3%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 363 28.0%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 505 39.0%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 5 0.4%
Back
Top