IMSA manage to upset Audi!

[Mr. Rick]

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!)

 

[Lorry]

I've commented on the handicappers before, and I know they try hard, but if you keep winning you'll suffer in the long run.  Big budgets can only go so far.  And the fans want a race, not an F1 style procession

[Nordic]

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.

[amazing 1]

Audi, the manufacturer, which has supported and promoted the ALMS for years and helped to make it what it is today

hmmm.Lets see dull,boring,and predictable.

I would love to go to the races and not know who is going to win.

[Matt Harper]

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.

[Pieter]

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.

[Fax]

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

[Andy Zarse]

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.

[Mr. Invincible Mou]

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 

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 

[Perdu]

"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?

 

[Matt Harper]

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).

[garyfrogeye]

What does every one think would happen if it was the Corvette that had the technological advantage in ALMS that Audi do.
I feel that the best car should win (but I also like the way that the winners of the BTC have to run with weight penalties).
am I a hypocrite or what.

[Perdu]

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!

[Fax]

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

[Nordic]

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.