Down with "equalizer racing"

[guernsey kau]

Is there anyone else out there who would like to see a return to racing (besides F1) where the best car was actually allowed to win? Where a superior car wasn't immediately ballasted and restricted and "equalized" so that it was no longer superior? Where a "level playing field" means the same rules for everybody? Automobile racing, that is, which is actually between different types of automobiles...Now there's a novel concept.

[1LM1]

Fortunately, it's still the case in WRC, Formula 1 and Le Mans prototype categories: no penalty ballast when you win! The best car win.
In ALMS it's quite unclear though: they are changing rules too often even in the prototype category.
In LMS, it's perfectly clear so far: no ballast when you win.

I fully agree that Motorsport doesn't need the penalty ballast rule.

WTCC is not like that (penalty ballasts are in place): so wtcc is no longer a sport for a manufacturer, it's a show.

[Subaru WRX]

sorry, but the penalty ballast is applied in the FIA GT without any problem, at Paul Ricard, the n°1 Vitaphone carried on an extra 120 Kgs and no one had protested !
so I am in favour of thus penalty weight, if you win and dominate, you must be penelazed ! like IMSA is trying to do in the ALMS

[DocF225]

It all comes down to money and marketing. More different winners during a season means that the less-than-avid fans may pay attention and spend more money with the various sponsors. Making more money for the sponsors, more money for the event venues, and so on and so on.

Real motorsport fans want to see racing: may the best, fastest, strongest, car win.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Some people don't like equalizing the race cars, but lets face it, watching the Audi's dominate the prototype category race in race out does nothing to turn on a fan who wants there to be a race. Watching two cars whip around under team owners with no competition doens't sell tickets. I just wish IMSA and other bodies were better at the equalizing. They have sandbagged the Saleens in IMSA so bad that they cant compete with the Aston's and the Vette's. I also noticed after winning the championship in GT1 the Vettes were sandbagged to the point where the Aston Martin's couldn't lose until they too were handicapped. It has to be done sublty during the season, and it has to be done in a manner that is fair to everyone. Hit them all with weights, or change the air inlets by a percentage basis.

People want to see good races, not walkovers. That is the biggest issue I have with Sportscar racing today, is that in North America at least, there is not the depth of field there should be and the cars they do have are not always close to each other.

[harvick#1]

the best finish last year in ALMS was the Porsche Spyder and Audi R10 duking it out at Miller Motorsports Park. I heard Lime Rock was great, but due to my paper screwing up TV times, I missed the replay on CBS :mad:

hopefully IMSA can adjust the rules next year. but I see Audi NA and Team Joest winning ALMS, LMES, and the 24 hours of Lemans

[guernsey kau]

You say: "Watching the Audis dominate...does nothing to turn on a fan who wants there to be a race." Does a race have to be close to be a race? Which fans require that? Not all and, I suspect, not most.
The ALMS, dominated by Audi for years, has greatly outdrawn Grand-Am, where the racing is always close (because the cars are "equalized" by extremely restrictive regulations). I remember huge crowds at Watkins Glen for the old CanAms, where the mighty McLarens not only always won but almost always ran first and second. There is an assumption nowadays that "the fans" need to see close racing at every race or they won't turn out, but that assumption has never been proven. (A recent poll by SpeedTV found that four times as many fans preferred unrestricted racing as preferred spec racing.)
Some people go to a race to see close racing. Some go to see the best cars driven at the limit by the best drivers. Some go to see the spectacle of gorgeous cars and glorious sounds and awesome acceleration and cornering. Most want all three, I suspect, in varying proportions, but I'm pretty sure we all want to see competition, and if the competition is meaningless, what good is it?
Meaningful competition: The best car, the best driver, the best team, or (usually) some combination of all three wins.
Meaningless competition: The car that has been given the best break by the ruling body that weekend wins. Who cares?!
Or put it this way: Would you rather watch Muhammad Ali dominate a worthy but outclassed opponent, or watch a "thrilling" fight between two puppets with the promoter pulling the strings?

[Bob Riebe]

You say: "Watching the Audis dominate...does nothing to turn on a fan who wants there to be a race." Does a race have to be close to be a race? Which fans require that? Not all and, I suspect, not most.
The ALMS, dominated by Audi for years, has greatly outdrawn Grand-Am, where the racing is always close (because the cars are "equalized" by extremely restrictive regulations). I remember huge crowds at Watkins Glen for the old CanAms, where the mighty McLarens not only always won but almost always ran first and second. There is an assumption nowadays that "the fans" need to see close racing at every race or they won't turn out, but that assumption has never been proven. (A recent poll by SpeedTV found that four times as many fans preferred unrestricted racing as preferred spec racing.)
Some people go to a race to see close racing. Some go to see the best cars driven at the limit by the best drivers. Some go to see the spectacle of gorgeous cars and glorious sounds and awesome acceleration and cornering. Most want all three, I suspect, in varying proportions, but I'm pretty sure we all want to see competition, and if the competition is meaningless, what good is it?
Meaningful competition: The best car, the best driver, the best team, or (usually) some combination of all three wins.
Meaningless competition: The car that has been given the best break by the ruling body that weekend wins. Who cares?!
Or put it this way: Would you rather watch Muhammad Ali dominate a worthy but outclassed opponent, or watch a "thrilling" fight between two puppets with the promoter pulling the strings?
Give the man a CIGAR, here-here.

I agree one hundred percent.
A difference is back in the Can-Am days the school nerds were more mechanically educated than seventy percent of todays youts.
Make loyalty was King up into the eighties; that all died with generic FWD crapwagon of the nineties, and the fascist wannabe totalitarian rules that were imposed by racing sanctions.

The IMSA/ACO rules are just as equalized as any, now being used.

Even the Can-Am as origianlly laid out had limits at the extremes, but they were more broad than most.
It used to be basic guidelines between the limits of which the car builders did their separate forms of magic; there was no stinking contrived competition "fairness" rules. But then again grade schools used to have recesses where kids were allowed to be kids, and now they ether play in the correct manner or they get to stay inside where their independant thinking can do no harm.
Bob

[Mark in Oshawa]

The problem is Bob is that if you opened up the rules now, with technology and tire limits being what they are, you would end up with parades without a lot of the show of the old Can-Am. I find F1 a snore now, since the cars are so skitterish and hard to pass. The old Can-AM was fun to watch because the cars were on the ragged edge but more important LOOKED it. F1 was the same until the ground effects era. You saw power slides in those old cars. Even if no one passed, at least you got a show of driving. Now it is far more aniseptic. Look, I would love no rules balls out winner take all racing, but I don't think we will see it again.

I do think that being a good close race isn't enough, since large crowds don't watch the Rolex guys and some of their battles are fantastic. I think the main reason Rolex hasn't caught on with sportscar fans is because of their goofy proportions. ALMS works because it allows some variety of ideas and designs, but to an extent handicaps some of the teams to make it at least close. Would Dyson's team have been as potent as the Audi's without restrictors on the Audi?? Would Penske's Porsches be as close to the Audi's without it? No and I think in those instances it was interesting to see the Audi's have to work for their wins. The old Can-Am died because people got tired of watching the McLaren's win. It wasn't rules that killed the Can AM Bob, it was because the same teams won all the races a lot of seasons.

If you have teams that cannot win against a manufacturer spending more money than you could possibly raise, then eventually they just go away. Then you are stuck with the manufacturers coming and going on their whims. That is what I would call a dangerous situation. The Privateers and smaller teams have to have a chance to at least look like they can beat the factory. Otherwise, it is a neat show for guys like Bob and I who love race cars and variety, but it isn't a viable product long term.

The World Challenge isn't less interesting for me becuase they handicap the cars with weights. I think it is intersting to see different layouts of cars and how they work better on certain tracks. You still will see the top cars succeed, but there is a lot more intrigue to see how drivers and cars overcome the handicap. It is about putting on a show guys, because left to their own devices, the top teams wouldn't put one on.

Also it should be noted that in World Challenge touring, you have rear wheel and front wheel drive cars, some tracks the front wheelers have troubles, in others they have an advantage. I think all types of racing where there are different cars, you can have this, but as I said before, everyone has to feel they have a shot at least, or they just give up and go away. Car counts and close racing are part of making a series work, for better or worse. Can Am died because the other 20 guys got tired of looking up the tail pipes of the McLarens and later the Penske Porsches. When they walked away, you had hardly anyone left who gave a damn, and it killed the series. When they tried to redo Can-Am, it just wasn't the same, and while I wont pretend to know all the reasons it died, I do know that it wasn't making the rules equal that killed it.


Spec racing sucks, but at least show me some guys who have a shot week to week. Make it interesting....

[1LM1]

You say: "Watching the Audis dominate...does nothing to turn on a fan who wants there to be a race." Does a race have to be close to be a race? Which fans require that? Not all and, I suspect, not most.
The ALMS, dominated by Audi for years, has greatly outdrawn Grand-Am, where the racing is always close (because the cars are "equalized" by extremely restrictive regulations). I remember huge crowds at Watkins Glen for the old CanAms, where the mighty McLarens not only always won but almost always ran first and second. There is an assumption nowadays that "the fans" need to see close racing at every race or they won't turn out, but that assumption has never been proven. (A recent poll by SpeedTV found that four times as many fans preferred unrestricted racing as preferred spec racing.)
Some people go to a race to see close racing. Some go to see the best cars driven at the limit by the best drivers. Some go to see the spectacle of gorgeous cars and glorious sounds and awesome acceleration and cornering. Most want all three, I suspect, in varying proportions, but I'm pretty sure we all want to see competition, and if the competition is meaningless, what good is it?
Meaningful competition: The best car, the best driver, the best team, or (usually) some combination of all three wins.
Meaningless competition: The car that has been given the best break by the ruling body that weekend wins. Who cares?!
Or put it this way: Would you rather watch Muhammad Ali dominate a worthy but outclassed opponent, or watch a "thrilling" fight between two puppets with the promoter pulling the strings?

I want to underligne one more time that I completely agree with this point of view. Thanks Guernsey Kau!

Mark in Oshawa, I read your standpoint and I respect it but I don't share it.

Why? I will give you an example: I am a Peugeot fan and I am so happy to see Peugeot coming back in the LMP1 category.
I find the challenge fascinating and it's notably fascinating because Audi is so strong at Le Mans. I want a fair fight between Peugeot and Audi. For example, let's say that Audi enter the LMS. They win the first 3 races, I don't want them penalized. If they are and Peugeot win the 4th one because of Audi's new ballast, I find it absolutely meaningless! I will only be happy if Peugeot win when the same rules are applied to every team. The equivalence Petrol/diesel is another issue. Let's suppose the regulations are fair right now (with new fuel tank capacity for diesel cars).

If Audi keep winning the 24 hours of Le Mans during the next ten years or an other competitor win this race and Peugeot never win it, I will be sad but I prefer that situation to a Peugeot win in 2008 because of R10 penalized after the Audi's 1, 2, 3, 4 (4 R10 could enter Le Mans this year) in this race in 2007.

Fortunately, There is no penalty ballast rule at Le Mans. I think the battle between all the competitors will be fair every year from now on.

[Bob Riebe]

Here is a post I put at T-Ts a day ago which is about a similar point.
Mark, I do not want unlimited rules, and if a Can-Am type show were to return it would have more rules to eliminate the aero and ground effects that have turned road racing, into a quasi slot-car racing. (I think mimimum ride height would eliminate a good deal of ground effects type devices.)

I would love to see IMSA AAGT - SCCA Cat.II type cars return only with no displacement limits.
In those days they used tires up to 21 inches wide; I think they can make them bigger :0
----------------------------------------------------

As I sit here in not cold enough foggy weather(this is what winter is supposed to be like in the UK, not Minnesota) a thought of future passed, came to mind:

As many here are the last generation who will have experienced the great tracks before they were codified to fit the vision of lessor men, how will ye one's of the last generation, that spans the change, relate the tales of days gone by to what the future seems to be bringing in the form of conforming to a lessor challenge.

Just as when I was a youth - to hellion - to college graduate, I read of the great Auto Union verses Mercedes confrontation at Avus; Fangio, Nuvolari, Clark, Brabham etc. taking on the challenge of man and machine at Spa, Monza, Nurburgring, right into the last days of outright track and speed records at Spa, LeMans, Daytona etc. ; i.e. Peugot doing 250 at LeMans; Greenwood hitting 236 in practice at Daytona; Rodriguez lapping Spa at over 150, what will ye of the last generation write about?

Will it be he same accomplishements of the past, when men knew the risks and attacked them with a, in your face, attitude towards the risk involved, even as many around them took the stairway to heaven; or todays win by design, without the last lap charges, throwing a deteriorating car around the track in a make or break last stand.

I am curios as those, who experienced the change in how races were run, and racers conducted themselves, will be the one who will still be writing racing history long after I am worm food, (or pickled as people sadly are these days) and I am really wondering how will these gents writing future history contrast, or simply present what was, with what is, and seems to be, in the future?

Second thought, how will those who were not around, in the "days of old" write about something they never experienced, or will they simply not write of it anymore?
Bob

[Peter Olivola]

It's racing. Fifty years from now no one will give a d*mn. Nor should they.


Second thought, how will those who were not around, in the "days of old" write about something they never experienced, or will they simply not write of it anymore?
Bob

[Mark in Oshawa]

Two takes from two of my favourite posters on these boards. Riebe is be-moaning the challenge and derring do of racing is gone, and Olivola rightly points out 60 years from now no one will pay much attention. Maybe not, but I see both sides of this. I have read enough of the good old days and saw the end of that era as a kid, so I know of which Riebe speaks when he talks of the balls out Can-Am's and the way F1 was more a sport up into the 70's, but it isn't the reality.

Technology and money drive the sport today, and if left unchecked, would turn a lot of races into souless affairs. F1 is rarely interesting past the first few laps. Watching teams gain or lose time based on pit stops and no passing on the track bores me to tears. No, ballast and tighter air restrictions to handicap cars may suck, but you now are competing for viewers and attention, and close racing means fender to fender, wheel to wheel racing. THAT makes for passes for position. It means Action, and THAT gets attention. If no one watches the sport, then you just have a soul less engineering exercise.

I think run what you brung with a set of rules worked in the past, but with technology and money being what they are, it just wont work. Not now. I think some might argue that it would be more doable now because the technology is available to everyone and the science means most cars will be very similar solutions to the same problem, but it always will come down to who spends the most money. With a restriction made to a motor, or a ballast penalty, money will not negate in the short term this "disadvantage" That allows the smaller teams, (Dyson as opposed to Audi) to at least have a chance. There is not enough factory support to put a full field out there, so ALMS rightly figures they must make the rules to allow Rob Dyson's limited budget to have a chance. It didn't change the outcome of the races, but it allowed the Dyson boys to have a shot. That was the show because no one else really put a prototype out there that could run with the Audi's. Watching Audi run around passing slow cars is no show. For it to be a sport, the outcome has to be in some doubt.

[LeonBrooke]

I think cars should be equalised but not with success ballast. I think the cars should be equalised with ballast before the event and then only for that event, to equalise lap times.

I also think this should apply only for touring and GT cars. Prototypes and open-wheel cars shouldn't be equalised, but racing cars based on production cars should be. But you shouldn't be punished for winning.

[BobbyC]

When you can still win consistently after all such penalties of weight and performance, it shows you can build a better mousetrap.

It does have the old NFL scheduling mentality in it. (Prior to 2002, the NFL schedule was weighted this way - based on a 30 team format:

1. 8 Games - vs Your Own Division
2. 5 Games - vs One Division in Opposite Conference
3. 3 Games - vs Respective Placed Teams in other divisions from previous year (except for one marked).

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am not a big fan of success ballast, nor am I a big fan of changing the rules midseason to right some wrong. As much as I would love to see close racing, teams shouldn't be punished for success unduly. I think ALMS has done a pretty good job over the years balancing off the ability of a team to dominate vs the rights of the lesser teams.

Bobby C has it right. When you win despite them sandbagging you, it proves more engineering prowess than the other guy.

Riebe's take on what is wrong with racing and what he wishes it would be are not bad thoughts, I just don't see how pandora's box will ever be closed to the gadgets and tricks of today's race cars.