Schedule Follies
Just minutes before it was announced, Murphy was told the two TBA’s were Detroit and Texas. Subsequently, other candidates have made the routine rounds of the rumor mill. Boss Scott confirmed the Detroit TBA in a rather odd and self-serving press release after Grand Am confirmed it would have that June 2 Detroit Race. Now it seems likely nothing will fill that ALMS April/May TBA.
Nor does the September/October event seem very likely. Though Sears Point, Montreal, Oklahoma City (the only thing going on there appears to be the all-too-routine legal wrangling amongst the promoter group – Oklahoma City Grand Prix LLC et al v. Mattioli), and Thunderbolt (New Jersey) have been thrown out there by fans, the only one that makes sense – the only one that might motivate Braselburg to move PLM to late October date – is Texas.
Unfortunately, that’s ground being plowed by others. The gang from International Speedway Boulevard was in Austin not long before PLM, just the latest in a series of such visits. Australia’s V8 Supercar – a NASCAR ally, an FIA darling, and a growth product for Speedtv – is already scheduled for the new Texas track. The FIA’s ally in North America is Grand Am, not the ALMS, the partnership with the ACO in the WEC notwithstanding.
The Circuit of the Americas needs an event ahead of the its first F1, if for no other reason than to sort out its traffic and parking plans. As of now, Murphy will bet on Grand Am being that event, even though he can’t think of a weaker way to test traffic (little will be expected) and parking (little will be needed). Perhaps they want to make sure their dry run isn’t too challenging?
All that assumes the Texas track will get built in time for any 2012 race, even the November F1 date. Construction’s been halted while the principals fight for control (see also Oklahoma City and Baltimore). The only “money guy” in the promoter group is Billy Joe “Red” McCombs, who in owning the San Antonio Spurs, Denver Nuggets, and Minnesota Vikings, pretty much defined “cheap” and “ruthless” for sports ownership and promotion.
The continued “temporary” absence from the Grand Prix of St. Petersburg. Boss Scott told us this was just a temporary scheduling conflict, and that ALMS would be back in the streets of St. Pete. Temporary is now 3 years; the promoters don’t seem to be very interested in getting the Braselburgers back, do they? The Bear’s said from the beginning the combination of geography and calendar made this a “cannibal event,” one that would do little more than leech from the series’ premier event in Sebring. But why dissimulate?
Laguna Seca moves back to the spring. Make up your fricken mind! Are they really trying to kill sports car racing on the Monterey Peninsula? Braselburg’s spin is “requested by the venue.” Of course Boss Scott has given us nothing but reasons to believe him, hasn’t he?
The likely outcome of all this is another 9-event ALMS schedule, with two breaks, eight weeks in May-July, and seven weeks in September-October.
Sebring Confusion
Who to believe? Here’s Scott Atherton’s description of Sebring rule from his State of the Series at PLM:
“Next year’s 60th running of the Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring will be round one of the 2012 ALMS. It will also be round one of the FIA WEC… The ALMS cars will be competing with technical specifications consistent with what will be in place for the balance of the ALMS season. …
Our class configurations will remain unchanged for 2012:
LMP1 – utilize the current 2011 regulations that include permitting grandfathered cars.
LMP2 – as current
LMPC – as current
GT – as current
GTC – as current”
Autosport, in its October 6, 2011, issue paraphrased Boss Scott this way:
“Atherton said that the latest contract would give the ALMS new freedom when implementing ACO rules. He stated that cars from his series would be able to run in ALMS specification when they compete at Sebring next March.”
and continued:
“That comment has been contradicted by the ACO.
ACO president Jean-Claude Plassart said: ‘Sebring will be 100 percent WEC rules. There will be no GTC cars, for example. They are not in the rules.’”
Nor, Murphy reminds his readers, are 12 cylinder LMP1’s. “100%” is pretty unequivocal, isn’t it? The Bear emailed Messr. Plassart for clarification. Valérie Girard, (v.girard@lemans.org) actually, to whom Jean-Claude’s mail is routed. Murphy will pass on what he hears – if anything.
Corvette
Corvette, under pressure from GM to deliver in the remaining years of its contract with Pratt & Miller – or sooner – met at Road Atlanta with the ACO. Their point? Others have been given an “unfair advantage,” not in the way Mark Donohue meant it, through engineering and team performance, but off the track in the way “performance balancing” is conducted in the sport.
Does this have to do with the design waivers granted in the homologation of entrants? It doesn’t seem likely, does it? Ferrari got none in 2011, and Corvette (and BMW) got a bazillion. Perhaps the devil is in the (engineering) details? Murphy’s been told Corvette would rather have the rules and homologation done at the beginning of each season (as it once was), then leave it alone. Without (as they see it) getting “on par with BMW, Porsche, and Ferrari,” the American team might easily be gone before the end of 2013. Pratt & Miller’s contract extends through the 2013 season, but the company’s work can easily be directed into pursuits other than the American Le Mans Series if GM believes that would be advantageous.
So why go to the ACO, since the ALMS has announced a separation of rule-setting from the ACO the ‘Vettes are an ALMS program? At least one source says the ALMS so-called “declaration of independence” from ACO rules is largely window-dressing, mostly concerned with the Sporting Regulations, not so much the Technical Regulations. Then there’s the fact that Chebby has always said that the most important part of the Corvette Racing program is Le Mans, not the ALMS.
Far more ominous to the American Le Mans Series is the obvious budding romance between Chebby and Grand Am. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. The General moved last season to make the NASCAR sports car series the place it would establish a performance resume for its new Camaro, while it discouraged Corvette GT entries, preparing to move ”the American Sports Car” into a prominent place in Daytona Prototypes, where it was designing and funding a Corvette body for the new “DP 3.”
At the end of the season the Bear was told Chevrolet would substantially strengthen its Grand Am factory driver program, abandoning the use of part-time ALMS drivers in favor of an expanded full-time Grand Am group. In fact look for considerable “restructuring” across the board, with drivers being assigned and re-assigned to different series, with movement in all directions between ALMS, Grand Am, and Pirelli World Challenge.
A new IndyCar engine program, a continued strong relationship with NASCAR (despite the rants of a Detroit pundit), and now the title sponsorship of Grand Am’s first race in the Motor City means at least a relative reduction of the prominence in the Division of Corvette’s American Le Mans Series program.
Ferrari
The Bear won’t be surprised if you’re at least a little confused at Corvette’s ACO complaints, since he’s written that a Ferrari team is unhappy about the same tinkering, and “the straw” was an advantage given mid season to (wait for it) – Corvette. So much so that the “pause and review button” was punched for the ALMS racing program.
A move to Grand Am seemed a slam-dunk just a few weeks ago (the toe is already in the water via a little noticed partnership) until Maranello signaled it was getting cold feet. Backtracking a bit, when Ferrari committed its 458, it was generally supposed that Mazda would not return in 2012. Now it appears the RX8 is back.
Why would Ferrari expose its 458, (MSRP $247,000) to regular losses to Mazda’s RX8 (MSRP $26,795)? The simple answer is they don’t want to, and Grand Am’s reversal of its early decision to let the RX8’s homologation lapse has caused Maranello to review its commitment to support full-season Grand Am entries. It’s bad enough they’ve had to suffer through a season of losses to the BMW M3 (MSRP $58,900), but that car at least has some racing history and a performance cachet, as does the Porsche 911 (MSRP GT3 $103,100). Murphy’s certain zoom-zoom doesn’t count Maranello among its fans.
For manufacturers the attraction of racing is the establish your performance creds – or in Ferrari’s case, reinforce them. If you are Ferrari – or more recently, Audi – the last thing you want to do is damage a hard-won performance reputation.
So what are the 2012 choices for Murphy’s favorite Ferrari team in the whole wide world? (1) Take the year off (2) Race in the WEC – including Le Mans (3) a Grand Am campaign (4) an ALMS campaign, with or without Le Mans. The Bear’s betting that’s pretty much the order of probability, too.
Jaguar
In its second full season, RSR’s Jaguars completed just 44% of ALMS GT laps. In 18 entries, had one top-ten finish. The kitty cats averaged a 13th place finish in a field that averaged 15 entries. Is there any doubt this is the worst GT team ever? It certainly is among those that raced for so long. Others in history this bad had the sense to be embarrassed – and quit. When will Tata realize what a great advertisement this is for its competitors in America, providing reasons at every event not to purchase a Jaguar?
Fun with Numbers
The Braselburgers – led by “Two-T” Scott – continue to have a problem with numbers. During the Silverstone round of the LMS, on-line viewing reportedly peaked at 2,500. We’re told that ESPN3 routinely draws 100 times that for ALMS races.
Or try this from the 2011 State of the Series: “Attendance is up 12%,” reflecting in large part the substitution of Baltimore for Salt Lake City. To which Murphy says, “duh!” In 2009, Miller was reported to have attracted 35,000 fans willing to drive around the Oquirrh Mountains from Salt Lake City. That number – already “ambitious” – fell further in 2010 before the northern Rockies were abandoned in 2011. Given that Baltimore was claimed to be on the far side of 100K, it’s not just a “large part” of a 12% increase, but rather likely all of it, and perhaps more.
The funniest numbers faux pas was by Boss Scott, again in the State of the Series. “In addition to our already extensive international distribution through Motors TV in Europe (50 internationally-recognized nation-states), Fox Sports Latin America (33), Fox Sports Middle East (19) and Rogers Sports Net in Canada (1), we are now fully distributed through ESPN International which represents an additional 149 countries…” The ALMS is seen in 252 countries? Better tell Hillary, her Department only recognizes 195 (Taiwan not included).
ALMS Twitter followers nearly doubled from 3900 to 7500. Meanwhile, Murphy attracted over 800 followers (Twits?), even after winnowing out the pole dancers not already close friends.
The Other Jaguar
As soon as Ian Dawson (Taurus, ECO, etc.) was identified as the boss of an oddly ambitious out-of-nowhere Lotus racing program, the Bear knew something was up (or down). Now that shoe has dropped, with the thud we’ve come to know and love from Dawson’s racing adventures. The thud this time was the sound of the Lotus LMP2 program’s hitting the trash bin. After watching the Evoras at PLM, it wasn’t hard to imagine another Jaguar Racing program in the making.
Abruzzi: a cousin to the Norwegian Blue?
Dissembling again, Boss Scott said the Abruzzi was “on hiatus.” Unless “hiatus” no longer means “a pause, or break in continuity,” that was wrong when he said it. The Abruzzi was dead, gone, is no more, a former Abruzzi, very much like a Norwegian Blue.
Losing Count
…of the departures. This time, Lynda Polk, long time timer/scoring chief for IMSA will not be returning next year. Murphy expects her position to be filled by a needy Champ Car refugee.
Bathurst
Murphy sent Crocodile McFly – the Down Under Mole – from Hendry’s Beach to Australia to report on the Bathurst 1000. The Croc called with his impressions on Monday. “Wow! A great event. Good, close racing. The fly-over was so low, I had to duck. Great crowd at a track “you aught to see.” Crocodile thinks this would be a better show than DTM. They have the right idea on so-called “gentleman drivers,” he says. They simply refer to them as “Co-drivers.” Simple, and without the negative (to some) connotation. Now that the FIA has approved the Supercars as an international sanctioning body, we’ll undoubtedly see more of them, including at Texas in 2013. Supercars, F1, and DTM – can USA racing get any more crowded?
The Bear understands there are new Supercar rules coming. That’s good, since the current technical regulations are compromised by as many adjustments as the infamous ACO homologations, and for just two cars. Perhaps they’ll provide little more exhaust noise, the only thing our mole thought should be tweaked.
Crocodile is going to stay over for the Gold Coast race this weekend. Check back with Murphy for that report.
Andy Lally Challenge
Andy’s had four races since Murphy last updated the Challenge, Chicagoland (28th, $95,100), New Hampshire (34th, $80,300), Dover (33rd, $78,925), and Kansas (37th, 85,250). That added $339,575 to his season earnings, bringing the total to $2,618,856. He’s also captured and maintained the 35th place in owner’s points for Kevin Buckler, so is ensured a spot on the starting grid.
The American Le Mans Series field closed out its season with races at Laguna Seca, where the field earned $148,000, and Petit Le Mans, which paid them $135,000. With that $283,000, the entire ALMS field was happy to claim total season winnings and bonuses of $1,795,000 including estimated privateer bonuses that Murphy added at the beginning of the Challenge.
Six races remain on Andy’s 2011 schedule.
Tags: Abruzzi, ACO, Andy Lally, Baltimore, Billy Joe "Red" McCombs, BMW, Circuit of the Americas, Crocodile McFly, Detroit, ECO Racing, ESPN International, FIA, General Motors, Gold Coast, Grand Am, Ian Dawson, Jean-Claude Plassart, Kevin Buckler, Laguna Seca, Lotus Evora, Maranello, Mazda, Montreal, Motors TV, Norwegian Blue, Oklahoma City, Pirelli World Challenge, Pratt & Miller, Rogers Sports Net, Salt lake City, Scott Atherton, Sears Point, Sebring, St Petersburg, Taurus, Thunderbolt, V8 Supercar
@Fox:
The car design is not owned by the ACO. All the ACO does is provide the constructors with a general set of specs for the width, length, height and weight. Other than that, the ACO has no control over the car. How long do you think it would take Lola to change those specs and have an entirely new car? About 2 hours on a CFD program would do it. If the ACO had control over prototypes, then the Grand Am prototype would never have been developed.
The only way the ACO could control the car design and who uses it would be if the ACO designed it and had a patent which they do not.
Something like 1 1/2 -2 seasons of USSCR/GrandAm ran with LeMans spec cars in direct competition with the ALMS. The ACO folk sure put up a big legal battle over that. Before there was an ALMS, there were many instances of LeMans spec cars running in the IMSA managed series, with the phrasing I mentioned in who could race in the series. I know enough IP law to know that anything built to a set of specs is not controlled by the originator of the spec, that’s just plain stupid to think so. Otherwise, the entire Historic Racing community would have IMSA, ALMS, ACO, FIA, GrandAm, IRL, whoever controls IP for CART, USAC, AAA, and a host of other rulesmaking bodies climbing up their butts with lawsuits. And I know for a fact that historic racing series don’t have persmissions from the above race series entities to reference their rules as related to what cars qualify for running. And I’m sure you know the copyright law does not allow one to selective enforce and not enforce owns copyrighted material. Knowingly failing to enforce such without the existance of any agreement between parties will often lead to forfeiture of copyright. That’s why Disney has a small army of lawyers with C&D’s that go to any school putting up murals of Disney characters.
@Clay:
In court, whether or not the ACO owns the designs would NOT be relevant. The topic that would be addressed is if the ACO had the right to block someone from using equipment built to the specific regulations developed by the ACO
(oops, bumped Tab before hitting Enter)
You do not have to own the rights to a specific design to be able to legally block someone from using it. It is possible that the technical regulations developed by the ACO could be outlining a CONCEPT which the ACO can be reasonably expected to have control over. If a court agreed with that assessment, the ACO would be able to block the use of any vehicle built specifically to LMP specs even though they don’t own the rights to a given vehicle.
The idea may not seem to make much sense, but there IS a legal precedent for it. The ownership of each car’s design is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The only relevant matter is the rules package it was built to, and whether the ACO has a reasonable case for having absolute authority over their application.
Of course, this is all a hypothetical situation – we’ve no idea if the ACO would actually try this if IMSA decided to break away.
(okay, I’ve got to get a new keyboard, sorry for posting so many messages Murph)
And yes, I know how quickly a good designer could tweak around things if a court sided with the ACO. Like I said in an earlier post: “It wouldn’t take much to circumvent a ruling blocking the use of LMP rules – a small tweak here and a small tweak there to bring them out of line with the ACO rulebook, for instance.”
The problem is, IMSA would be screwed the moment such a matter WENT to court. No matter the outcome. IMSA wins, they’ve spent too much on court costs to keep going. IMSA loses or simply doesn’t challenge, then the manufacturers can alter the cars easily, BUT THE TEAMS CAN’T NECESSARILY AFFORD THE NEW CARS. IMSA simply couldn’t afford the fallout from such a situation.
If they’d stop using their rear ends as a source of warmth for their heads, IMSA could make things work just fine with the marriage to the ACO intact. They simply don’t need to risk it.
@jeff:
First off: USRRC/Grand-Am NEVER uses Le Mans specifications. They for a time used similar specs, but they were not completely in line. The FIA did the same in Europe.
Secondly, and far more importantly, I’M SPEAKING HYPOTHETICALLY. You do know what this means, correct? I’m talking about how splitting from the ACO COULD screw over the ALMS if the ACO decided to be douchebags about it. I am NOT saying it’s something that WOULD happen.
Thirdly, the ACO has grown a lot since the USRRC/early GA days. We don’t know for certain that they would behave the same now as they did then, particularly now that they have a much more powerful ally in the FIA.
@Fox:
New keyboards can be a pain. OK, I will buy your arugment. That is so easy to circumvent. Give me 2 hours on a CFD and the one mm change in the dimensions where and there and a name change from LMP to let’s say AEP (American Endurance Prototype) and that kills the ACO LPM issue. They can have their LMP car. We would have a new design
If you have ever been around a constructor, it is so easy to White Lite a car and then make tiny changes and the car is different. In motorsports it is monkey see monkey do. In other words an entirely new series and cars could be on the track very quickly and there is nothing the ACO can do or for that matter would even want too do.
Additionally, jeff, while your common-sense understanding of IP law is accurate, court cases have frequently ended in precisely the type of situation I have outlined. It goes beyond merely the set of rules, it goes to the entirety of the idea itself.
Losing out by not enforcing what you control is exactly the type of concern that could actually lead to the ACO becoming douchebags about this matter. Up until now, the ALMS has used LMP regs with the ACO’s blessing. As a result, the ALMS using LMPs isn’t losing the ACO any rights they may have to the matter.
When it comes to historic racing, the organizations that once ran those cars(the ones that still exist, anyway) COULD file lawsuits if they wanted to. But why waste the money over cars that aren’t being raced professionally? These matters come up when it’s beneficial for the party that controls(or MIGHT have control) the IP to assert their control. What would be the benefit of attacking historic racers? There’d be none – so just let them be.
Now, you may ask, what would be the benefit to the ACO? Well, think about the comments I made about the North American Endurance Championship a few posts back. Removing an obstacle to an alliance with that could be of potential benefit.
But as I said before, I’m speaking hypothetically. There’s no reason to think any of this could happen….. Not at this time, at least.
Fox:
Here are three things that makes this discussion moot. 1. Very few if anyone wants or can spend the million dollars per car to go to Le Mans. 2. The ACO does not care what goes on here. 2012 will be the last year of racing with the WEC. 3. With no races here with the ALMS, what is the reason to use the rules, follow the French line and kill the teams sponsor programs with a huge hole in the schedule at the start of summer.
Those three reasons alone are enough to kill the marriage and send IMSA on their own way.
For the present, the ALMS has disappeared from sight. Whereas Grand Am has weekly announcements from the series, the manufactures and the teams, what has the ALMS said or announced since the disapointment and surprise concerning PLM? Not even the ALMS teams are saying anything. Even the LMS has had a number of announcements in the past two weeks.
Does this continued silence mean something or was it the holiday spirit taking up all the time?
@Clay:
There is one reason to continue using the ACO specs: If the teams can’t afford to buy cars now, what makes you think they can afford to buy cars once the ALMS splits from the ACO? It’s not like the prices are going to suddenly decrease if IMSA continued to use LMP rules. And if they abandoned LMP rules for any reason, that’d just make things even WORSE by producing a new financial burden for the teams WITH cars.
As I’ve said before, divorcing from the ACO simply does NOT provide the answer. It addresses none of the problems that are facing IMSA/ALMS.
For some reason I am feeling the above comment has not adequately stated what I was trying to say. This is likely the unfortunate results of trying to engage in coherent discussion after a particularly rough night at work without first sleeping. So I’m uncertain if I actually did fail or if I’m just imagining things.
Please give me until 3:00 Eastern to sleep and re-evaluate my statement before you respond to it. I’ll post clarification by then if I think I miscommunicated after I give it a look with a rested mind.
Murphy, please feel free to delete this post at the aforementioned time(and the post directly above if I do write a correction).
@Fox:
Staying married has little to no benefit, (sort of like sleeping in seperate bedrooms, or doing it for the kids). My concern is there is no benefit beyond the use of the name Le Mans.
The ACO has made it very clear, their primary focus is the WEC. Other than the WEC, they are not concerned with the ALMS or the LMS. As long as there are a few cars from either series at Le Mans every year to fill the field, the two can run their own show. Since the ACO has no real concern as long as it does not interfer with the WEC, now is the time to make some changes. While ALMS says they are doing so, there is curretly no sign of any independence. There needs to be changes and they need to be made now. The solutions are not difficult, but will they occur before everyone just leaves.
BTW, the cost of the race car is one of the smaller parts of the budget. As an example the transporter cost more than the basic LMP-2..
Formula Fox, since your knowledge of IP law is clearly superficial, the Bear’s best advice is to just give it up on this topic.
There are two posters here who are VERY knowledgeable in the area of Intellectual Property law. Murphy is one of them, and the other, who you chose to characterize as having a “common sense understanding” is employed full time by a state supreme court.
You can stretch all you want to “concepts,” but in this case it’s not even remotely going to fly. IMSA can run with the same cars and without any contractual agreement with the ACO “at will.”
The Bear was fine with this discussion wandering along into irrelevancy because it has been setting records for most comments on a Murphy Paddock Poop.
@Murphy:
My uncle is a lawyer specializing in IP law. He’s both won and lost cases for the very reasons I have stated.
@Clay:
There IS a benefit, the problem is that nobody is interested in taking advantage of it right now. There are many reasons for this, but IMSA being connected to the ACO is NOT one of them.
BTW, my most recent comment on my information on IP law will be my last comment on the matter. Just keep in mind that almost nothing goes how you would expect it once the fecal matter hits the air circulation device.
@Fox:
I wish somone would list all these great benefits of being associated with the ACO that you keep talking about. Maybe I am not intelligent enough to see them.
@Clay:
They’ve already been listed several times, but there are currently no teams that can take advantage of them.
This would seem to support the idea of there’s no benefit to the union until you take into account the fact that there is ZERO benefit to separating from the ACO.
One benefit too seperating would be to eliminate that huge 8 week hole in the schedule that Le Mans creates. What do you think a sponsor thinks of that big hole just as summer is starting? But you are not paying the bills for a race team sitting around for 8 weeks or a sponsors marketing not getting promoted.
What is your solution for that 8 week hole?
Thanks for the entertainment, and one of the most misguided lines of argument I’ve seen since… well you were banned from Speed Forums, for lowering the IQ of the community.
Brett:
Are you saying he has been this nuts on another site? I was beginning to think I had lost the ability to communicate in reasonable English.
These posts have really become too mired in the back and forth of sanctioning costs etc…..the bottom line for the fan is the future of first class sports car racing in the USA. Im old enough to have started with WC endurance races in the 60′s, the USRRC, (real) Can Am, the IMSA glory years down till today. Grand Am, for the spectator, doesnt do it. the fans have spoken with their $ and bodies at Sebring and Petit in ’11. Whatever it takes thats what sports car racing should be. And the crowds in the 60-70-80-90′s in many other venues (the Glen, Riverside, Bridgehampton, Mosport, St Jovite, etc) supported that type of racing. Ok motor sports have changed but Grand Am getting all the “news” now has not been supported at any vvenue by fans in the seats or on their blankets.
@Clay:
As I’ve already noted, the gap does not need to be 8 weeks. The gap is as long as it because IMSA is unwilling to fill in as much of it as they can.
The problems are all related to IMSA management, not the deal with the ACO.
@Brett:
I was unfairly banned from the Speed forums because I reacted poorly to someone’s refusal to acknowledge something I had directly stated regarding the URC.
How is it unfair when I confess that I reacted poorly? Because someone else reacted EVEN WORSE in response to me, going so far as to outright insult me(something he was already well known for in regards to a great number of other posters, and which he has continue to engage in since my ban). The moderator who banned me has DIRECTLY STATED that we were both guilty of the same poor conduct(his post saying such is still in the thread, but the rest of the matter has been deleted), he chose to ban ONLY me.
Say what you will about my behavior on the Speed forums, but one thing I never did was intentionally insult anyone, and I always apologized on the occasions which I had accidentally done so. I quite frankly am not sad to be banned from that forum since I have no love for moderators who will ban someone for simply reacting poorly to a misreading of his point, but leave around people who will knowingly insult people at the slightest opportunity. The other user involved in the postings that got me banned is not the only person guilty of such.
I know, I know… nobody gets banned from a forum fairly, and there are no guilty people in prison. If you feel as though you didn’t get banned fairly, then perhaps it is time to think about why you did get banned. Let me help you out, endlessly posting in an argumentative way, often with indefensible positions. Just like here.
@Brett:
Would you please actually bother to read my previous comment? I know fully well why I got banned. My declaration of it being unfair has nothing to do with WHY I was banned, it’s purely down to the moderator engaging in Brian Barnhart levels of inconsistency.
I ask you this: How is it fair for a moderator to ban one person, then NOT ban someone else for engaging in behavior he PUBLICLY ADMITTED was equally poor? THAT is the unfairness.
I will NOT defend my behavior, but I WILL rail against inconsistent moderating, the same way I oppose Brian Barnhart’s inconsistent officiating. As long as users(whom I will be kind enough to leave unnamed here since we honestly shouldn’t be discussing this here anyway) who insist on insulting everybody who disagrees with them are allowed to hang around the Speed forums unpunished, the moderators have failed in their task.
@Murphy:
Word of warning, what you see above from Brett is a small component of one problem I frequently had on the Speed forums: People reading one line of something I wrote and then going TL;DR and responding to something I didn’t say. I had a tendency to…overreact to such incidents.
One which I hope my ban from the Speed forums will have tempered.
As for the issue Brett was alluding to regarding the current situation, I am simply going to remind everyone that I have SEEN court cases of similar situations be decided in the exact way I have described. I’m leaving it at this: I’ve been arguing my point based on direct observation. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you still don’t agree with me, fine. We can agree to disagree based on our differing experiences on the matter if you so wish.
@Fox:
The 8 week gap can not be reduced by much if a team is going to Le Mans when considering the logistics. But with few if any teams participating, it kills everyone else. So as long as there is accomidation for Le Mans, the gap will remain and it turns sponsors off.
@Clay:
Three words: Non-Points Races
@Fox:
With that comment, I will assume you have never run a race team, put together a budget or had to answer to a sponsor. That is such a great idea, spending $200-300k per race on non points races. Burn up lease miles on the engines etc and not get any points. I am sure there is going to be a lot of teams willing too do that.
You go ahead and keep your ACO marriage and let’s see how that works out in 2013. I will wager a lot of money the WEC race in 2013 will be stand alone and no one will go to Le Mans then tell me again what the benefits are.
@Clay:
I would question the legitimacy of any sponsor who wouldn’t be keen on a chance to get extra exposure. Yes, this would require teams who get their invites to Le Mans to actually use them, but if they did it would create an opportunity for other teams to get some camera time, which can only benefit their sponsors. Every little bit of exposure helps.
Or, here’s another idea: Don’t make it a “race” as we’re used to seeing. Do what DTM did in Munich this past year and have a Race of Champions style stadium event. That round was non-points last year(I’m told it will pay championship points in 2012, though), but it was extremely well-received b y media, fans, drivers, teams, and most importantly SPONSORS. They liked it even before it was decided to make it a points-paying round next year.
Yeah, I know, different cultures, fanbases, etc. Point is, just because something’s a non-points race doesn’t make it a waste. Do things right, and you can create a great showcase even that gives your series’ little guys a chance to shine. Points or no points, winning can only make you look good to your sponsors.
Unless, of course, you win by cheating.
A non-points race would be a waste… it wouldn’t happen.
@ Fox, you just can’t control yourself can you?
@Fox:
I am not sure who in the hell you are suggesting may cheat. As for our sponsors, their ONLY goal is to not only win races and get exposure but too win the championship.
For your information, two of our sponsors have been involved in both sports car and F-1 sponsorship and or ownership since 1956 and have a a very good grasp of what goes on and how to promote a race team. A non points paying race is a waste of time and money. Championships are what is important to a major marketing program.
You obviously have no idea what goes into a major motorsports program or the marketing and how much it costs Otherwise you would not make some of the comments you have made.
You’re right, Clay, I don’t know what goes into it. But what makes you think I was trying to argue as if I do? There really is only one thing I know for certain in this regard: The more exposure a sponsor gets, the better for their bottom line at the end of the season.
I also know that reaping any benefit from that exposure is dependent on the continued support of fans like me. We’re the ones who keep the series going, and while I do occasionally comment on the exposure angle, most of my comments are simply the viewpoint of a fan throwing out ideas that could(emphasis COULD) help the series.
The gap for Le Mans can be shortened by at least two weeks without severely harming the teams’ ability to go to Le Mans. And, in fact, the ALMS has had such shorter gaps in the past. Assuming we MUST have six weeks for the Le Mans gap, there is no reason you can’t fill the gap with a special non-points event for the little guys – be it an actual race or something like the DTM event I mentioned earlier.
If you put a big enough monetary prize behind such an event, the little teams would be glad to put in the extra miles. And if you did something like the DTM stadium event, it wouldn’t be adding too many miles at all.
So why couldn’t something like that be done? It doesn’t necessarily need to be anything specifically like the examples I’ve cited, but if IMSA would think outside the box there is no reason they couldn’t get something going to keep momentum during the Le Mans gap.
Like I said, the union with the ACO is NOT the problem, it’s ALL down to IMSA’s management. The ACO union may not be providing any real benefits RIGHT THIS MOMENT, but if IMSA would actually use their heads we wouldn’t be having this discussion because there wouldn’t be any problems!
Divorcing from the ACO will solve NOTHING if IMSA doesn’t sort out their management problems.
“Divorcing from the ACO will solve NOTHING if IMSA doesn’t sort out their management problems.” <- this is most certainly correct.
In order to have a non-points paying event, you need big prize money, big name drivers, and big time media exposure. While it isn’t a bad idea on it’s own, it just isn’t realistic to hope for that now at the current time.
The possibility of IMSA getting their act together is next to impossible. Divorcing or staying married for appearance is a moot point. 2012 will be the last year of a combined race. Since teams do not attend Le Mans, I still question the relavance.
That huge hole in the schedule is an absolute killer for marketing programs; Our financial partners estimate that break costs several million dollars in lost exposure. The idea of a stadium race or a non points paying race is about as far fetched as thinking the ACO cares about the ALMS/IMSA.
One of our financial partners read those posts and told me don’t even think about spending our money on such non events. You are correct thise events require big money and that is something IMSA/ALMS does not pay as Murphy has detailed all season.
Since IMSA/ALMS is being so quiet since the “surprising schedule announcement” while the competition is making several aweek, one must wonder what is going on. Announcements from LMS and even grand Am teams are weekly while nothing from the ALMS. Not a good sign.
“Announcements from LMS and even grand Am teams are weekly while nothing from the ALMS.”
Not terribly different from most seasons since Audi left the ALMS, if we’re honest.
My preference is to participate in the ALMS. However, the two huge holes in the schedule, lack of prototypes as well as anything resembling a decent broadcast package has our financial partners looking very strongly at competing in both Grand Am and LMS utilizing the same constructor and engine manufacture.
“competing in both Grand Am and LMS utilizing the same constructor and engine manufacture.”
Riley Technologies chassis and Ford engine, correct? (they’re the only two that have equipment for both that I can recall right now)
Fox:
No you are not correct.
Fox:
No you are not correct.
No Soup for you!!
Then I need a reminder of who else makes chassis and engines for both.
Which is surprising, since little details like that are usually what I’m best at remembering.
We are not going to show our hand right now. I learned the hard way to remain quiet until all the details are determined and finalized..
Just wondering, Clay – would your GA-program still get off the ground in time for Daytona? That’s only two months away from now, which seems awfully short to me, especially if the cars aren’t off-the-shelf-Rileys (or Dallaras or Coyotes, but both of those don’t produce LMP-cars), but rather Lola or some other European builder who doesn’t have a DPG3 as of yet…
Cobrawesome. You are correct. We have made arrangements with a current DP team to assist for the Rolex if our financial partners decide to run Grand Am early. In my conversations with GA just last week, it seems there may not be a full field of the new car for the Rolex as the constructos are behind. Riley has limited capacity and the Coyote is a Pratt and Miller and they are tied up with the new Corvette.
Depending on their decision, I have a feeling a possible GA program would be a mid season addition due to the time issue as you mention and the fact there is this shortage of new bodywork. I think we will start in either ALMS or LMS and add the second program.
So we shall see. We think we have our ducks ina row as far as constructor and engine program. It is just a matter of getting the final decision from our financial partners as to what we do. There are three possibile series and they want to compete in two in some fashion in 2012.