Print Page - IMSA manage to upset Audi!

Just received word that "Audi’s further participation in the American Le Mans Series is under discussion" as IMSA have moved the goal posts.

From the next race (at Road America), the Dyson Lolas can race with 65kg less and from Mosport onwards can have fuel tanks 5 litres larger.

Dr Wolfgang Ullrich (Head of Audi Motorsport): "To us, the recent regulation changes made by IMSA appear to have been made at random and are unjustified. A year ago hardly anybody could believe that it would be possible to win a race with a diesel powered sportscar. We demonstrated that it is feasible, and thanks to ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ we produced the world’s most state-of-the-art LM P1. We can not accept that our life will now be made artificially difficult. Audi, the manufacturer, which has supported and promoted the ALMS for years and helped to make it what it is today, will only continue its American Le Mans Series programme if there are again stable and consistent rules, like at Le Mans, which also contribute towards justifying manufacturer’s involvement and expenditure.”

Discuss.......

(OK, blue touch paper lit and moving well out of the way!)

;D

I think Audi just want the existing regs kept the same don't they?

Audi built a car to the regs, the same ones Lola built there car to, and now they are being messed with because they did a better job. I don't like any one team to dominate but it to my old fashonioned mind its up to the others to speed up.

If the Dyson's win the next two races at a canter what happens then? do they get a handicap, what next?

Will Porsche face the same type of penalty on there P2 car which is just as quick and dominates over the other P2's to such an extent its as quick as a P1.

Its crazy and shortsighted.

I'm with Nordic on this - don't punish the innovators - instead incentivise the rest.
This has been going on in sportscar racing for decades. Porsche 917 and 962 were effectively excluded from competition by regs changes - and as said previously, the Spyder P2 car will definitely come under scrutiny too. Needless to say, the GM/Pratt & Miller team have been running with a handicap for the last two seasons.
It seems self-destructive on the part of ALMS. Just when they get the series so high profile, with more key manufacturer interest than ever, they do something dumb like this.
I fully understand Audi's displeasure at this suggestion. Their investment in this branch of the sport is monumental and to have that all go to waste is disgraceful and insulting to a company that has provided so much support and sportsmanship.
Maybe they'll say "Bugger it, we'll take the changes on the chin and still beat the opposition", as did GM, but it's hardly the way forward.
I accept that it must be demoralising for the smaller, less well-funded teams to be up against global manufacturers, but that kind of goes with the territory in my opinion.

I'm a bit in the middle on this one. The ALMS has the responsibility to develop the series and offer attractive racing. Attractive as GT1 and GT2 are, where you don't know who's going to win. That attracts spectators, high end technology doesn't. Especially in the USA, where the competition element is far more important than in Europe. We even sometimes have the patience to watch a F1 race.

Audi has spent, so I've been told, about 50 million dollars on the project and they do deserve their return on investment. But when compared to the other teams' budgets, there is a huge gap that just isn't that easy to match. And therefore you could say, Audi made damn sure they were going to win by just doubling or tripling the competitors' budgets and develop a sure winner. They just bought themselves a championship. That's not an attractive thought, especially when seen through American spectator's eyes.

I have no problem with IMSA handicapping the Audi's. IMSA understands that domination by any one team or car can kill a a series in no time flat. Most US sportscar racing fans remember all too well how Porsche effectively killed the Can-Am series with their cost no object 917/30. The Can-Am was thriving with healthy grids of McLarens and Lola's but when Porsche came on board they simply spent the opposition into submission.
I'd feel differently about this if Audi were going to be supplying customer cars as Porsche did with the 956/962 series, but there's nothing to indicate they were going to do anything but put two cars on the grid and spend more on them than the rest of the LMP grid combined.
Fax

Being a bit touchy aren't they? :(

On the one hand it's tempting to say bye-bye. On the other, I could happily tell the cynical bastards f@ck off. Yes, they have put a lot of money into promoting the sport but it's extremely naive to think this was an act of altruism on the part of Audi. Personally I'll never forgive them for hogging the go-karts at Le Mans for the whole weekend. If that's the sort of thing they bring to the party then I think we can all do without them, thank you very much.

I enjoyed the JK concert in 2003 though.

Damn.. this is a tough one.

I started off wanting to rant and rave at the officials for messing things up, but then having given it some thought, I can see that they are only trying to make the racing "open" for anyone to win. Although in truth, I fail to see how handicapping someone really makes a race "open" at all, as sooner or later this means that everybody should eventually get a win simply for the sake of it. That is hardly competetive racing....

I can also see the points raised by Audi, and probably other manufacturers, in that it is a bit wrong to suddenly change the rules to allow other cars a better chance of winning.

I can also fully appreciate Mr. Zarses points too ;) :D

What seems to me to be the problem, is that the rules are getting changed mid season. That is totally unfair in my opinion. I think that some form of sensible handicapping system (bit like in horseracing) needs to be developed, and then adhered to throughout the season, then everyone knows where they stand.

I guess at the end of the day, if what the paying customer wants, is to see different people win, then this is the way it has to be. Personally, I think it shows the paying customer to be a bit "ignorant", for want of a better description, if they cannot appreciate the efforts and expense applied by a big manufacturer. I could hadly see the FA suddenly telling Man Utd or Chelsea they cannot buy star players, because it is unfair on other teams in the league. Although this is effectively what has happened in Baseball and American Football (perhaps other sports too I am not aware of) with the implementation of salary caps, so is this an American thing?

Perhaps the salary cap thing is the answer, and all competing teams would have to adhere to a strict budget. Although I have no idea how this could be implemented with giants such as Audi and GM.

Either that, or perhaps we need to see a return to one make racing, where it mainly comes down to the driver. However, that is probably not a viable option, as I doubt there would be too many people willing to pay to watch 30 Audis proceeding silently round a circuit in almost perfect synchronisation :o

"I doubt there would be too many people willing to pay to watch 30 Audis proceeding silently round a circuit in almost perfect synchronisation"

I know I wont!

I HATE IT when the man with big shallow pockets thinks that is all he needs to be a winner.

A bit of a shame changing it in mid series so to speak, but when there is such a huge advantage to Audi the other teams do need some attempt at equalisation.

swings and roundybouts innit?

:-\

What is the venomous objection to Audi? We all seemed pretty chuffed when a green Audley won Le Mans a couple of years ago - so why knock 'em because they absolutely know what they are doing and apply creativity, technical innovation and fresh thinking. They also recruit the best driver line-ups that they can - and apply total dedication to the sport in which they compete. The reward? A competitive advantage given to their opposition. That's not right. Being punished for being successful is not right.
Equalisation is unrealistic in a sport like this - if it's applied, you get.....NASCAR. Everything the same - just a different paint scheme.
The cream rises to the top. Audi/Joest deserve every win they have achieved - and they do get beaten from time to time.
The runners-up have to raise their game (just like Prodrive have done - and maybe it's time to take the ballast out of the C6R, because they have got it together).

Blarryell Gary said it before I dunnit

Matt, while I agree to a certain extent with you I for one wasn't too upset that the Bentleys just left it at that after 2003.

A fantastic lap after lap performance but wouldn't have been good for the spectators three or four years later.

The AUDI thing would have set in.

Henri having a good old try was my high point of this years Le Mans race rather than the Audi cars which were even quieter than the Bentleys I think.

Sitting back here chilled to Houx Annexxe levels after several cans of cold lager, I am sure that motor racing needs noise and petrol, without it I may as well stay at home every June.

And this could never be! 8)

What happens when one manufacturer dominates? The rest of the competition gives up and goes elsewhere, how can Dyson compete with Audi? They can't, they'll go to Grand-Am where cars are spec and they'll win on preparation. We've got a whopping five cars in GTS right now because other than Prodrive nobody else can spend with P&M. My solution is simple, if you want to play, you have to be able to supply & support customer cars as well. But to be honest I really don't give a sh**t about the cars anymore, anyway. After the show I saw at Mid-Ohio last weekend from the AMA Bikes, pro auto racing these days can f**ck off, the bikes are where its at now. I'll visit the historics and remember when, but couldn't give a sh**t about contemporary car racing.
See ya all,
Fax

Quote from: Fax on August 14, 2006, 05:01:40 pm

The Can-Am was thriving with healthy grids of McLarens and Lola's but when Porsche came on board they simply spent the opposition into submission.
I'd feel differently about this if Audi were going to be supplying customer cars as Porsche did with the 956/962 series, but there's nothing to indicate they were going to do anything but put two cars on the grid and spend more on them than the rest of the LMP grid combined.
Fax

The grids may have been bigger but unless you had a McLaren M8 Chevrolet you where not really in the game between 69-70, not alot else won until the 917/10 & then the 917/30 came along. The Fuel crisis also played its part in the dowmfall of CanAm.

The McLaren was better by design as was the later 917 and now the R10. Thats what it's all about, building the fastest and best.

I agree 100% that Audi should sell the R10. in fact it should be in the regs that if a team wants to run in a series it must make available an equal chassis to another team that wishes to buy one, to run as they see fit within a year of its first race.

The cost of the sale of the cars should be capped and the numbers limited.

Agreed Nordic, not a lot else won in the Can-Am but the privateers were in the fight though. McLaren largely won on preparation, and obviously they had the latest bits. But anyone could buy a year old design McLaren (at a very reasonable price) customer car and be right in the thick of the fight, especially if the factory cars ran into trouble (which they did from time to time, John Cannon at Laguna in '68, Tony Dean at Road Atlanta in '70, and Francois Cevert at Donnybrooke in '72). Lola also built some fine cars and of course Shadow was in there as well. My point was that until Porsche came along privateers could still afford to take the fight to McLaren, Chapparral, etc. But when Porsche came along the goalposts had been moved so high most teams couldn't afford to go there. The same thing will happen in the ALMS. Why bother competing if you know going in you've got no chance. You hit it on the screws, if the manufacturers want to participate, than they should have to supply identical customer cars at a capped price.
Its what Porsche did before, and will be doing next year with the RS Spyder.
Fax

Quote from: Fax on August 15, 2006, 08:11:01 pm

You hit it on the screws, if the manufacturers want to participate, than they should have to supply identical customer cars at a capped price.
Its what Porsche did before, and will be doing next year with the RS Spyder.
Fax

It must have been a thrilling race in 1983. Such diversity!

Car Distance Speed Pos Car Drivers Number miles(km) mph(kph)
1. Porsche 956T 2649t Vern Schuppan, Al Holbert, 3 3136.50(5047.934) 130.70(210.330) Hurley Haywood
(AUS,USA,USA)
2. Porsche 956T 2649t Ickx, Bell 1 (5044.584) (210.191)
3. Porsche 956T 2649t Andretti, Andretti,Alliot 21 (4962.650) (206.777)
4. Porsche 956T 2649t Schickentanz, Merl, de Narvaez 12 (4927.218) (205.300)
5. Porsche 956T 2649t Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Keegan 16 (4887.404) (203.641)
6. Porsche 956T 2649t Ludwig, Wollek, Johansson 8 (4829.829) (201.242)
7. Porsche 956T 2649t Laessig, Plankenhorn, Wilson
18 (4736.462) (197.362)
8. Porsche 956T 2649t Lammers, Palmer, Lloyd 14 (4622.008)
(192.583)
9. Sauber BMW C7 3500 Garcia, Naon, Montoya 46 (4606.032) (191.918)
10. Porsche 956T 2649t Henn, Ballot-Lena, Schlesser 47 (4463.477) (185.978)

Good choice of race. 1983 was indeed a classic, the winning car was being hunted down by its team mate driven by Ickx & Bell at a furious rate and on the last lap almost siezed solid due to lack of water.
http://rupert8766.fotopic.net/p9287207.html
shows the winning car crossing the line, you can see the steam coming from the exhust. Tence stuff.

The start line up was not too shabby either. True by weight of numbers the 956 was always going to be hard to beat. But you also had the pretty & fast but too fragile Lancia LC2.
Ford Rondeau's with some support from Ford, Aston martin Nimrods, Mazda's and various specials from EMKA, WM, Grid, Sehcar (Sauber) and best of all a Porsche 928!

Oh to have a grid of 11 Audis matched by the various Domes, Creations, Zytek, Lolas, Pesca's and courage's in 07

It would just become single spec racing but with the works Audi (usually) winning.

And am I alone in finding the 956/962 a bit of a boring car to watch too, the Audi R8/R10 of it's day. It never gripped me really, with it's flat exhaust note and functional looks. No, I was never that thrilled by the 956's; they dominated pretty much every race. I spent my formative spectating years watching ETC instead, which did have a great variety on the grid and any of about four or five manufacturers could easily win. Alternatively it was Group B rallying, which was similarly open. It was only when Jag, Merc, Nissan etc put in a proper showing in Group C that I switched allegiance. Thing's aren't too bright at the moment but with Peugeot, Honda and Porker just around the corner maybe the sun is rising on sportscar racing at last.

Agree Andy,
Things look rosy on the horizon for LMP2, but I'd hate to see Audi run everyone off in LMP1. Makes for mighty boring racing in the premier class. Yes the 956/962 wasn't a thrill a minute car, but big FIA Group C and IMSA GTP grids bolstered by them (and C2 Spice's & Gebhardt's) made for entertaining racing. And some of the battles between the privateer teams (Joest, Kremer, Brun, Lloyd, etc.) were terrific. There might be a bunch of Audi's on the grid if they became customer cars, but having a big LMP1 grid with a group of Audi's is better then a small LMP1 grid with two Audi's. I'm not a huge fan of big factory involvment in racing. People argue that it adds credibility to racing, but usually costs go through the roof, grids shrink and the racing itself suffers. The early ALMS races were a hell of alot less predictable and more entertaining when you had big fields of Ferrari 333SP's and Riley & Scott's all run by privateer teams rather than watching a pair of Audi's drone around followed by a couple of Lola's. At least the LPM2 Porsche is keeping them honest....Until IMSA puts the clamps on them.
Fax

Quote from: Andy Zarse on August 16, 2006, 04:48:59 pm

And am I alone in finding the 956/962 a bit of a boring car to watch too, the Audi R8/R10 of it's day.

Yup, beat me to it Andy, I agree entirely. The 956/962 was not a visceral racer and nor is/was the R8/10. My first acquiantance with the 956 was at the 83 Le Mans race that you mentioned. I couldn't figure how they could be so subdued, but so quick. I have to say that the cars design, shape and presence (in Lang Heck configuration) was quite beautiful, in my opinion (quite unlike the R8/10 and even the R8 coupe) - but it sounded like my road car, at the time.
The various suggestions and arguments on this thread about customer cars are well made and convincing.
The 83 race was a great battle, even though 9 out of the top 10 were the same marque. (You forgot the Warsteiner M1 in your list of other memorables of that race, Nordic!)
Come what may, I still feel that punishing the winner is a kind of wierd way to promote a race series, however.

The weight break given to the Lolas effects the P2 Porsche's every bit as much as Audi.

This adds credibilty to the thought that Dyson was assured that a P2 would not be as quick as a P1. The Porsche has proven that wrong and rather than slow the Spyder and go head to head with both Porsche and Penske and run the risk of them backing out form suppying other teams.

The fall out from that may also have risked the AGR & other Honda P2 teams, ALMs took the easier option.

I think we would all rather see cars speeded up rather than slowed.

Warsteiner M1, one of the best, great looking and the sound. magic.

In a previous thread I metaphorically tipped my hat to Audi for building to the current regulations a car that went on to trounce the opposition. My feelings haven't really changed on the subject. They won at Le Mans fair and square and can pretty much win wherever they turn up in America because of their genuine superiority.

That said I do have more than a little sympathy for those in this thread who desire closer racing but I do feel that regulation changes should come during the closed season. A design that wins within the rules should be allowed to exploite its advantage for a full season... the idea that Audi should be made to supply customer versions of their car I do like though.

As has been illustrated, fine sportscar racing can be achieved with multiple entries of one type of car.. it need not be a train of cars going round in "almost perfect synchronisation".

The '83 race was indeed a classic Nordic. Apart from the closeness of the racing at the sharp end of the race one of my most abiding Le Mans memories of all is the site of the drivers in the 928 you mention trying to tame the absolutely viscous understeer they were experiencing in the Mulsanne Corner. Lap after lap, hour after hour I stood mesmerised by the site. It was hideous, hysterically funny and compelling viewing in equal measure.

Club Arnage

Club Arnage => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. Rick on August 13, 2006, 01:22:12 pm