Audi vs. Dyson and the ALMS rules makers

[S4Aero]

I know that many here are motorsports fans - myself included. I particularly enjoy open cockpit racing in various forms - LeMans, Formula 1, CART, IRL, etc.

As an Audi fan, I have particulary enjoyed LeMans and the ALMS series. The preformance and dominance of the R8 is the stuff of legends. The new R10 seems poised to pick up the baton without losing a beat.

A remarkable engineering achievement, the R10 is the first Diesel to win the 24 hours of LeMans and several ALMS series races in its first year. It is particularly poignant in today's uncertain fossil fuel environment that the R10, an engineering tour de force, uses a more efficient fuel source, achieving outstanding power, fuel economy and reliability.

Oh yeah, did I mention that it keeps winning?

Well, now it seems that the ALMS governing body (and Dyson Racing) want to change the rules to handicap the R 10. It is their hope that allowing Dyson a 65 kg weight allowance and a larger fuel tank will even things up.

Rules be damned, if somebody looks too good, we'll just change them. Audi, a major contributor to the ALMS, and the only major-brand factory team in P1 is understandably upset by this decision. Dyson seems to like the change - go figure.

I am firmly in Audi's camp on this one.

This isn't some SCCA event or handicapped drag race. This is (supposed to be) PROFESSIONAL racing.

Like we say in our golf group when a friend gets a little too whiney about losing - "Play better!"

Read the rules, Build your car. Run what you brung. May the best team win.

If you're interested in this, I've posted a link to Fourtitude.com for some history on this story.

http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Features/article_2456.shtml

 

[Gene]

I know that many here are motorsports fans - myself included. I particularly enjoy open cockpit racing in various forms - LeMans, Formula 1, CART, IRL, etc.

As an Audi fan, I have particulary enjoyed LeMans and the ALMS series. The preformance and dominance of the R8 is the stuff of legends. The new R10 seems poised to pick up the baton without losing a beat.

A remarkable engineering achievement, the R10 is the firest Diesel to win the 24 hours of LeMans and several ALMS series races in its first year. It is particularly poignant in today's uncertain fossil fuel environment that the R10, an engineering tour de force, uses a more efficient fuel source, achieving outstanding power, fuel economy and reliability.

Oh yeah, did I mention that it keeps winning?

Well, now it seems that the ALMS governing body (and Dyson Racing) want to change the rules to handicap the R 10. It is their hope that allowing Dyson a 65 kg weight allowance and a larger fuel tank will even things up.

Rules be damned, if somebody looks too good, we'll just change them. Audi, a major contributor to the ALMS, and the only major-brand factory team in P1 is understandably upset by this decision. Dyson seems to like the change - go figure.

I am firmly in Audi's camp on this one.

This isn't some SCCA event or handicapped drag race. This is (supposed to be) PROFESSIONAL racing.

Like we say in our golf group when a friend gets a little too whiney about losing - "Play better!"

Read the rules, Build your car. Run what you brung. May the best team win.

If you're interested in this, I've posted a link to Fourtitude.com for some history on this story.

http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Features/article_2456.shtml

Its similar to what has happened in the past with Formula 1 and Ferrari. The moment a team with a bigger budget comes in they begin to dominate. The more they dominate, the less interesting the sport becomes because we always know the outcome. i.e. if the same person keeps winning we get bored. Sure the fans of that make of car/team will be happy, but what about the other people?

In many ways Formula 1 is learning from this, beginning to have engine freezes to allow the smaller teams to compete better. I see the benefits of this, but I also see the disadvantages.

When it comes down to it, its about the spectators. A race is more intense and fun to watch if there are 5 front runners battling it out for first place, rather than one team 20 laps ahead of the other team. The more intense and fun the race is, the more spectators, meaning more money from a commerical perspective.

So in this case I guess I'm aligned to the ALMS rule makers. Yes I generally dislike rule makers like ALMS and FIA, but in many ways it is towards our benefit more than anything (and what benefits us benefits them by generating the $$).

I think your comment about diesel being better for the environment is somewhat of a moot point. If you really want to save the environment, then don't race cars on a looped race track at all, because in reality thats not doing what cars are supposed to do - i.e. take us from A to B.

If you take it from another loosing team's perspective, then it becomes a very different story doesn't it? To an extreme, if Audi keep winning everything, the loosing team will loose sponsor's, and will eventually pull out. Then Audi can start racing themselves. Now wheres the fun in that? Or lets say BMW or Mercedes decided to join with a budget 3 times the size of Audi's. Lets say this new team creates a jet engine that is within the rules, and shatters any previous record held by Audi, but costs about 30 times the amount of Audi's diesel engine. Then you as a pro-Audi spectator will be very unhappy indeed. Most, including me would call it unfair, because the teams simply aren't on a level playing field.

Or if you want to take it from your analogy, when you play golf with your mates, if one golf pro joins you with all his million dollar golf clubs and training from tiger woods, and wins every single game for 2 years running, then would you want to continue playing against him? I would think not. Nobody likes loosing all the time. Sometimes "playing better" is just not possible, due to uneven team budgets. Not every team has a major car maker with a major car racing fund backing them.

 

[Gene]

Oh and my ultra-biased point of view, I think Audi should quit doing the 'little' racing leagues and join the big boys of formula 1.

Then Mercedes should buy out Mclaren entirely. BMW already has Sauber.

Give it a few years for everything to settle and then we can really see who is the better car maker (at f1 anyway).

I suspect you'll see what I'm talking about above, if Audi were to do this at the point in time. They're team budget would be quite a bit less than BMW Sauber, Mclaren Mercedes, Ferrari etc. Audi have always publically said that the sport is too expensive for them and not commercially viable.

 

[S4Aero]

I should clarify my position a little bit.

I am not against rules that create even playing fields. I understand (and remember) the F1 issues when no one could beat Ferrari.

Dominance based on $$$ spent isn't good for any sport.

My complaint comes from the timing of the changes. Everyone sees the rules before the season starts. Teams design and implement plans to create a machine that they believe can win under those rules. To have them change to tilt competitive advantage during a season is just wrong.

If the ALMS governing body believes that Audi is enjoyng an unfair advantage, they can address that advantage after the season is over. They can do many of the things that other motorsports bodies have done, including creating spending caps, limiting practice time, limiting horsepower, etc.

That way everyone has a chance to compete within the rules.

It would be interesting to see a true manufacturers championship at any level. F1 would be a classic venue. As you point out, it would be the most expensive menu to really battle for supremecy.

Obvioulsy, Audi (and other manufacturers) use motorsports for two reasons - to develop and test technologies that may have commercial application, and to promote the brand. LeMans and ALMS have been very good to Audi on both counts. Whether another league offers the same opportunities at the same bang for the buck is another matter.

 

[Gene]

I should clarify my position a little bit.

I am not against rules that create even playing fields. I understand (and remember) the F1 issues when no one could beat Ferrari.

Dominance based on $$$ spent isn't good for any sport.

My complaint comes from the timing of the changes. Everyone sees the rules before the season starts. Teams design and implement plans to create a machine that they believe can win under those rules. To have them change to tilt competitive advantage during a season is just wrong.

If the ALMS governing body believes that Audi is enjoyng an unfair advantage, they can address that advantage after the season is over. They can do many of the things that other motorsports bodies have done, including creating spending caps, limiting practice time, limiting horsepower, etc.

That way everyone has a chance to compete within the rules.

It would be interesting to see a true manufacturers championship at any level. F1 would be a classic venue. As you point out, it would be the most expensive menu to really battle for supremecy.

Obvioulsy, Audi (and other manufacturers) use motorsports for two reasons - to develop and test technologies that may have commercial application, and to promote the brand. LeMans and ALMS have been very good to Audi on both counts. Whether another league offers the same opportunities at the same bang for the buck is another matter.

Firstl, lets talk about F1 and ALMS on the save level, because the same thing is happening. i.e. rules introduced half way through the season.

I completely understand your point of view, but I'm sorry to say spectators don't work on a seasonal basis. i.e. If a spectator see that one team is winning all the time in one season, they get bored, and the following year they don't watch. Its as simple as that. Rules need to be changed based on whats happening at that point in time. Take for example 2005 indianpolis race. Spectators were sorely disappointed because Michelin runners pulled out as the FIA refused to changed the corner that caused the Michelin tires to fail. As a result there was an uproar. This year the spectator count was down. Now had the FIA dynamically changed the rules, then then there would be more spectators this year.

Unlike you and me that are car fanatics that will stick to watching something whatever the circumstances, most people aren't like us. And I still think that ALMS is doing the right thing for the sport, if only to retain spectator numbers.

Oh I know that car manufacturers say that they use the racing to help improve their technology also. I agree with that, but I think that 80% of the reason they enter the sport is for advertising. If you really wanted to test and improve technologies, I'm sure the $300million (F1 budget) they spend would be better spent off the race track . But it advertising works, and thats making them money. And it keeps me entertained.

 

[drronh]

Without advertising the ALMS wouldn't exist, and without TV spectators there would be no sponsors. No corporation is going to spend a lot of cash for little to no exposure. Don't get me wrong- I'm all for racing technology for racing's sake, but what is Dyson supposed to do? He may be able to make some incremental improvements to his car's package, but if the diesel technology is that much superior he needs a diesel engine to remain competetive. He's not going to get one unless Audi starts selling customer engines.

 

[Snake Vargas]

Yeah, the timing probably isn't the best, but I can understand that they need to make changes. Maybe if Audi was given some explicit acknowledgement of their superiority (instead of what now seems just a tacit/implied acknowledgement) then they could all continue to race a competitive series.

From what I know, ALMS isn't a big-budget, big-following series like F1 that could sustain some lack of competition for a little while. The following is so much smaller that things need to be addressed quickly, like Gene and Drronh have said.

It's also difficult for the privateers to get the budget needed to develop diesel engines with such a small lead time, and be effective.