Another defection from the 997GT3RSR

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by 450knotOffice

I've listened to Team White Lightning driver interviews and those guys stated that the Ferrari was a much easier car to drive than the RSR.

Horsepower and weight figures are interesting. The RSR has more HP but a lot less torque, which would imply that the Ferrari could probably exit a corner more quickly, but might be a little slower at the end of a long straight. Also, the Ferrari is about 100 to 125 Kg lighter than the RSR. This lighter weight would probably lead to a braking advantage too, I would think.

I got this off of 6speedonline:

2007 Porsche 997 RSR
Dry Weight: 1225 kg (100 litres capacity, FT3 safety fuel cell with FIA homologated quick fill couplings)
Power: 485/357

2007 Ferrari F430GT
Weight: 1.100 kg for FIA races, 1.125 kg for ACO races (all the liquids at the
standard level, without fuel and driver).
Power: 440/470

The racing 430 has only 440 hp? The 430 Scuderia has 510. Is that because of a restrictor plate?

[motion]

Must be Euro PS. Stock 430 has 485 HP.

[1fastredsc]

I believe it has a 4.0L version of the 4.3L street engine, and also has the same restrictor plate as the 911, or at least should. I wonder why they allowed a large weight advantage like that, maybe to even out the 911's power advantage? Oh wait, that can't be right, a flat 6 with a power advantage, that defies the laws of mule.

[JeremyD]

From one of my friends who races - states that the P-cars are pretty equal to the F-cars all thngs considered - but the f-cars are 300 times easier to drive at the limit making them easier to drive consistently at the edge.

The P-cars lack torque - so you have to have your exit speed correct EVERY time - that's even more difficult to do in an ass engined car - those incremental loses. Incremental losses add up.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by JeremyD

The P-cars lack torque - so you have to have your exit speed correct EVERY time - that's even more difficult to do in an ass engined car - those incremental loses. Incremental losses add up.

V8 Power vs 6cyl power. Like my buddy said!

[tsiegwart]

I guess I don't understand what the problem is.

I like the slight ebb and tide and the relative parity from year to year. The last thing I want to do is go to Road America and see every GT2 car on the grid a Porsche.

The cars are close. The F430 has a slight edge right now, but let's see what happens next year. I wish the Panoz was more competitive or there was another mfg in GT2 (Honda?, that would be sweet, NSX replacement 2010). Right now it's still great racing and I like it that way.

[Mule]

The other interesting factor here is the cost of the Ferrari is roughly double that of the Porsche. A half a mil is a lot to get started in a grown up version of the spec racing I did as a kid with one of these:

[1fastredsc]

Originally Posted by tsiegwart

I guess I don't understand what the problem is.

I think what many are complaining about here come from these interesting rule modifications that are made to make other cars competitive. For instance it seems that in order to make this Ferrari competitive they've decided to give it a weight advantage to make up for the 911's power advantage. Had the RSR's won this year you'd probably could expect more weight added to the 911's.
In GT1 i remember reading through the massive rules for ALMS and there is a clause that allows a slightly larger restrictor plate for engines with 2 valves per cylinder instead of 4.
In LMP1 the diesels, hell i don't even know where to get started on those. They are allowed an extra liter of displacement, about twice the boost if i remember right, and a 1mm larger restrictor than there gasoline powered counterparts. Then to add salt to the wound, Audi got upset when teams started complaining over there pit stop advantage from using diesel as a fuel and was forced to shrink their fuel tanks. In case your not aware, diesel has a measurably larger amount of energy per volume than gasoline does, which was the basis for the complaint.
On top of that, Audi is upset over the LMP2 spyders domination this year, and it is said that new restrictions will be imposed on the spyders for the next season. This way the "lower" classed cars stay away from the "upper" classed cars.

[kstar]

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about this stuff as some of you, but all of these rules give me a headache . . . just like the US tax code gives me a headache.

Is there a "flat tax" approach to racing, i.e. something that is simple and as fair as possible without pages and pages and pages of rules, restrictions and requirements?

I always thought the IROC races were cool, but that, of course, limits the race/series to one make and model.

Best,

Kurt

[jtfreels]

Kurt, the answer to your question is the original CanAm series. Within few limits "run what you brung". Of course a certain company did that better than anyone else and that whole idea collapsed.

Jay

[Rikao4]

Thank you fast, your right .
The Porsch Co. of old would however have come back with..you change the rules..we built it better...expensive / but that is what made Porsche / Porsche.
Understand why they got of racing.. but if your going to race, Race to win!
Rika

[Jeff Higgins]

Ah yes; Can-Am. Could you imagine racing under those rules today? The carnage would be intolerable. The fact of the matter is that modern race car technology has outstripped man's ability to drive them. The sanctioning bodies have to do something to keep the speeds down. Even F1 has a "target" lap time for each circut with which they enter the year. They know how fast they can safely race. They adjust the rules accordingly.

That gets a lot harder in the series where cars differ dramatically. It's easy in spec series like Grand Am, NASCAR, and even F1 (although by no means "spec", the cars are very narrowly restricted). But how do you achieve true parity between a rear engine flat six, a mid engine overhead cam four valve V-8, and a front engine pushrod two valve V-8? When a specific platform cannot keep up, like Panoz with the front engine pushrod V-8's, is it a rules disparity or poor team performance? Very hard to tell.

Years ago (when my kids were little) I used to watch NASCAR. Gordon was cleaning up one year, on his way to a championship. All of the other Chevy drivers b!tched like hell every time he won, because the next week NASCAR slowed all of the Chevys down. The rest were running mid-pack as it was, but the rules adjustments were based on the fastest Chevy. It gets really hard to tell which make is really doing a better job in that environment.

So maybe Ferrari has to add weight next year, or Porsche gets to lose some. Suddenly, it will appear as though Porsche finally "got it together" again in GT. Maybe the only real change they make is to take some lead off the floor. That has to be tough; put your best effort forth and have the sanctioning body decide how fast it is going to be.

Or a mediocre effort, and be rewarded by the sanctioning body that is looking for "fair" competition between makes. I think the only reason Panoz is not allowed to run theirs up front in GT is because fans would see a conflict of interest between ALMS and Panoz, both being owned by the same Mr. Panoz.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

But how do you achieve true parity between a rear engine flat six, a mid engine overhead cam four valve V-8, and a front engine pushrod two valve V-8? When a specific platform cannot keep up, like Panoz with the front engine pushrod V-8's,

I don't know... I am asking... but I thought the Panoz ran the Ford DOHC V8? (Same V8 they run in the Mustang)

[tsiegwart]

1fastredsc,

I agree with your perspective for sure. It's always a balance for the governing body to maintain close competition and allow technical innovation. It's never perfect.

I'm a big F1 fan, follow CART (now Champ Car), I actually don't hate NASCAR, and really wish WRC was back on SPEED. I like it all.

In person and at the track the ALMS format is awesome (ie running all the classes at once). Someone is always over-taking someone. I loved seeing a C6R Corvette pull out, up along side, and try to pass a Spyder going up a hill (that is an awesome race car) only to have the Spyder disappear through the next turns. The variety and close racing are great. The Audi R10 may be the coolest race car I've ever seen period. The Porsche Spyder is a great car also, but it bothers me that it beats the R10 when I know it shouldn't.

I really like the ALMS series now. I'll go back and see them at RA next year for sure. And all the crazy rule issues keep us talking about it during the off season.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

I don't know... I am asking... but I thought the Panoz ran the Ford DOHC V8? (Same V8 they run in the Mustang)

Actually, I think you are right. I was thinking old 289/302/351 based, like a NASCAR motor. I have looked at several Panoz Esparante's when ALMS still came to Portland, but I honestly can't remember for sure. I bet you are right.

[tsiegwart]

Panoz, is a bored out 4.6L modular engine. I talked a lot to those guys last August at RA. Good guys. I found all the ALMS teams really approachable and willing to answer questions.

[nostatic]

thankfully my '79 doesn't read the results from any of these series so my lap times aren't affected

[Seric]

I wouldn't worry about it to much. Ferrari has the edge over the ailing 996 and the brand new 997. Give Porsche some time to tweak the 997 and we could see some more wins. If Ferrari has extracted all it's performance from it's current car, and the ALMS puts restrictions on it, expect to see the 997 dominating by the 2009 season.

Back and forth.