# Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Editor's Note:*_ Fourtitude usually does not run press releases for competitor teams in series where Audi competes. However, this week in their preview to Road America, Tyson Racing responded to Audi Sport's own voiced concerns over penalties levied on the new R10 TDI. In as much, we believed it was important to include the release in our news schedule._
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY -- After coming off a mid-season competitive run of podium finishes at the last two races at Salt Lake City and Portland, Dyson Racing is looking forward to their annual sojourn to the Kettle Moraine country and the Generac 500 at Road America. One the classic tracks in America, it is a favorite of teams and fans alike.
The Elkhart Lake race also sees the ALMS continuing to fine-tune the performance balancing of their various classes. Doing what is best for the sport, the ALMS is making these adjustments in the spirit of competition to give the fans the best possible racing and provide a venue for participants and sponsors to showcase their ability and technology.
“We were perplexed by Audi Sport’s reaction to the well-intentioned measures the ALMS is taking to improve the quality of racing,” said Chris Dyson, Sporting Director of Dyson Racing, in response to Audi’s recent public threats to leave the series. “We normally wouldn’t respond to such remarks, but since we have been directly addressed by a competitor, we feel it is appropriate to respond.
“We understand the ACO’s need to grant latitude in the rules to encourage an unproven technology, and Audi’s diesel R10 is a technological wonder. There is no question that Audi have produced an amazing machine under the current regulations.
“But when it is proven on the track on multiple occasions that this new technology provides an insurmountable and crushing advantage, then it is no longer racing but rather a demonstration run.
“We were surprised at the stridency of Audi’s reaction. It is the job of a sanctioning body to adjust the rules as needed, and as competitors we abide by their changes. We realize that these adjustments may not create an ideally level playing field, but all that racers look for is a reasonable opportunity to be competitive. In over 20 years of its history with IMSA, Dyson Racing has never shied away from a fair fight and our reputation is founded on taking the fight to the best in the world.
“Audi’s posture is puzzling given the current situation. Our car has been given a weight break, which helps us slightly over a lap. The upcoming increase in LMP1 gasoline-powered fuel tanks by five liters will provide some very small relief, but given diesel’s greater energy per liter properties, in its current guise the Audi R-10 still maintains a disproportionate advantage over gasoline-powered prototypes. Their greater straight line speeds and much better fuel economy have not changed. And that central issue still remains – the absurd disparity between diesel and gasoline fuel economy. And these areas also need to be addressed.
“We applaud the American Le Mans Series’ understanding of the spirit of sports car racing and we hope that their collaborative efforts with the ACO will continue to make the ALMS and Le Mans a place for fair competition. We trust that our competitors will understand the need to work together to foster the growth of our racing series.”


----------



## S4Aero (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties ([email protected])*

There's no other way to put this, so I'll just say it.
What a load of crap!
I've got an idea. Let's change the rules in any sport that has a dominating champion. Not only that, let's do it in the middle of the season.
Imagine basketball - we'll just outlaw the dunk for the Miami Heat. That'll even things up a bit!
While we're at it, we'll outlaw the blitz for the Steelers. That'll help all those teams that haven't figured out how to protect their quarterback.
As long as I'm on a roll, let's force Tiger Woods to putt with his wedge.
I have always believed that rules are created (and agreed to) before the game starts. Anything else is a fix and frankly, cheapens the competiton.
While Dyson praises the R10 and Audi's development thereof, in the next breath, they decry the advantages of that development. Am I mistaken, or didn't they read the rules. They could have developed a Diesel, too.
This isn't some SCCA event, or a weekend drag race that handicaps the entrants. This is PROFESSIONAL auto racing.
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!
The ALMS LMP1 series isn't for babies. It isn't handicapped, (or shouldn't be). It isn't cheap, either. If you can't afford the price of admission, stay home.
If I were Dyson, I would be embarrased by this decision.


----------



## Black27T (Aug 18, 2006)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (S4Aero)*

I could not have made my point any better than what you just did. I totally agree.
I stopped watching SCCA racing because it is an ambarrassment. No dignified OEM should compete in this series as it changes rules on the go, anytime, anywhere. If they want everyone running the same cars then just call it NASCAR.
As far as the ALMS, it seems that the Audi dominance has caused a negative reaction from those competitors and added pressure to once again take away the technology advantage that Audi rightfully and fairly (by the rules) has brought to the sport. If anything, Dyson Racing has shown that it cannot match this technology, maybe due to its small size compared to Audi. However, all competitors at the start of the season began with the same rules. Dyson and others simply can't produce such advanced technology.
Audi should be allowed to show its dominance and in a way pressure competitors to step it up. Otherwise what is the point of competition if rules change unexpectedly and unfairly.
Spectators deserve to watch a FAIR RACE and not a FIXED RACE.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (Black27T)*

You know, it's funny. I'm mixed on this. I get the whole economics of making changes to some rules to keep development spending down. Mid-season is uncool, but I see that point.... for the sole reason of keeping spending in check. Major League sports also have salary caps for teams so that richer teams like the Yankees don't spend more. However, they don't go lowering the caps on the Yanks in the middle of a winning season.
Additionally, the case of the Audi R10 is a different one... even from that of the R8. Sure, Audi spent plenty, is exerting complete dominance in a brand new car by posting a thus-far perfect win record, etc. etc. HOWEVER, they're also raising the bar on alternative fuels at a particularly poignant time in world history. They're raising the awareness of the importance of fuel economy and even noise pollution. Sure, they may have made the car not smoke and be ultra-quiet because they're trying to rewrite diesel's image, but those are also very important qualities that the R10's non-diesel competitors should also aspire to attain. In this case, it's not just about the money.
They say the R10's dominance is bad for the series. I disagree. They ought to levy weight penalties for things like bad fuel economy and decibel level of exhaust. It's these very reasons, specifically noise, that keep the ALMS out of racing street circuit style races like the once-and-done National Grand Prix of Washington, D.C. and are encroaching on their ability to race at Lime Rock. The general, non-racefan public won't put up with it. Unfortunately for the ALMS, this lessens their ability to even hold races in the valuable metropolitan areas like Boston, New York, D.C. and Miami that are some of the strongest marketplaces for companies like Audi, Aston Martin and BMW, and where you'd expect them to have their biggest draws.


----------



## buickgn (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties ([email protected])*

I have mixed feelings on this one as well, but I feel in the end Audi has been slighted. The ALMS encouraged a manufacturer to make a diesel powered car, they practically begged them with the enlargement of the restrictors, engine size, and allowed them to carry the same fuel load. Everyone realized the greater energy content of Diesel when the rules were written, but ignored it due to the inherent drawbacks of a diesel power plant (heavier, lower peak power). Audi chose to tackle the technological hurdles that come with creating a completely new chassis and powerplant technology, and have reaped the benefits of the GREAT amount of money invested in the process. Imagine how much more unfair it would have been if Audi would have used all the R+D money spent on developing a racing diesel, on a R10 that was a update of the gas powered R8. While Dyson could never afford to match the investment of Audi, they chose to play it safe, and use a mature, more traditional car that there was lots of testing and race development done on. This would traditionally have given them a distinct edge, but the success of the R10 is a testament to the quality of it's design. In most racing series a new car would lag well behind a developed car for a few races until the reliabiltiy issues were ironed out, and more race day daa was captured. Now that the Audi has proved to be much more competitive (and FAST) than anyone thought possible, it is unfair to erase many of the advantages that encouraged Audi to pursue a Diesel powered program in the first place. At the end of the day people like to see cars like the R10 that are incredible pieces of engineering, and there are very few series that still allow as much engineering creativity as the ALMS. Without a marquee OEM brand like Audi in the ALMS I believe it would be much weaker, and I think the ALMS needs to be very careful with the restrictions and rules changes so as not to bite the hands that feeds them. So while I think mid-year rules changes are unfair, I think that next year some rules changes will be required so as not to discourage the smaller teams, and make for more competition, because a 3 or 4 car P1 class would be very boring indeed.


----------



## Dan-B (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (buickgn)*

I understand the need for the new regulations... but the change mid-season is basically a new handicap.
I agree with S4Aero... Let's not punish those that have achieved success under current regulations. Punishing midseason is ridiculous!


----------



## cyberpmg (Nov 27, 2001)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (buickgn)*

Audi's TDI R10 has clearly shown a realistic direction and future for the continuation of ALMS. Maybe I'm missing something, but wasn't the rules committee already placing tighter rules for LMP1 cars to be more fuel efficient and quieter? Audi did it in spades.
The impact and dominance of the R10 is actually showing positive results as other manufacturers are actively working to produce their own brand of diesel power (Peugeot is already working to run a TDI at next year's Le Mans). Audi saw the direction for future competition and has set the bar for others to follow. (Audi: Never Follow)
By limiting cars to generate closer racing serves two purposes. First, it essentially eliminates the battle of manufacturers and becomes simply a battle of who is the better driver. Second, close races generate more crowd interest and more revenue in race attendance and merchandise sales. While I merrit the challenge of drivers, I do not approve of improving the profit margin at the expense of those participating in the race.
By placing limits on the R10 (or extra allowances for everyone else), it becomes counterproductive to show and encourage others that it is possible to have power, reliability, efficiency, and an overall reduction in noise pollution from a diesel prototype. It should be the calling card for others to work on achieving similar results. In the end, this knowledge and technology will find its way into production models for consumers... a true win for everyone.


----------



## phaeton (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (cyberpmg)*

Great article, fantastic read http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Quick question when Audi dominated Touring Car Championships worldwide did they give Audi a weight penalty as Audi started winning ?
I briefly remember this happening but can't remember fully.
OT when VW raced RSI Beetles Down Under, the Race bosses gave VW a weight restriction which really stuffed up the RSI's brakes, I got so annoyed because I knew VW would've be on top.
So I agree with *S4 Aero* on this one.
Go Audi Vorsprung durch Technik


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (phaeton)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phaeton* »_Great article, fantastic read http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Quick question when Audi dominated Touring Car Championships worldwide did they give Audi a weight penalty as Audi started winning ?
I briefly remember this happening but can't remember fully.
OT when VW raced RSI Beetles Down Under, the Race bosses gave VW a weight restriction which really stuffed up the RSI's brakes, I got so annoyed because I knew VW would've be on top.
So I agree with *S4 Aero* on this one.
Go Audi Vorsprung durch Technik









A quick history on touring car in the '90s. The A4 debuted at the end of 1995. Then, in 1996 (its first full season), it won the championship in (I believe the number was 6) 6 out of 6 series, including Germany, UK, Australia, Italy, etc. quattro cars got weight penalties and eventually all-wheel drive was simply banned. Audi ran some FWD cars for a few years, but the touring car formula soon died off in popularity.
What was cool about Touring Car in those years is what was basically open for developement of multiple technologies. Manual trannies or sequential, no problem. FWD, RWD, AWD, no problem. BMW ran RWD manual tranny cars while Audi ran sequential shift all-wheel drive cars. People complained all-wheel drive was an unfair advantage, though the option to develop it was open to all and Ford actually tested a Mondeo with their system but couldn't make it competitive. 
I remember reading a piece on the ALMS in the Washington Post prior to the National Grand Prix a few years back. One thing it pointed out was that the cars were more the stars than the drivers. ALMS has a tech savvy fan base. ALMS should be proud of the openness of their series, that it pushes technological development and isn't a spec series like (ahem) other sportscar series that also run a 24 hour race in Florida.
I feel for their trying to keep LMP1 competitive and not a one pony show, but in doing so, they need to get a few more manufacturers to step up to that sort of development in LMP1 or LMP2 to compete with Audi as Porsche has done and it appears Acura is doing. That will make for good racing, not handicapping one of the only manufacturers that has shown ultimate commitment to the series.


----------



## phaeton (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
A quick history on touring car in the '90s. The A4 debuted at the end of 1995. Then, in 1996 (its first full season), it won the championship in (I believe the number was 6) 6 out of 6 series, including Germany, UK, Australia, Italy, etc. quattro cars got weight penalties and eventually all-wheel drive was simply banned. Audi ran some FWD cars for a few years, but the touring car formula soon died off in popularity.
What was cool about Touring Car in those years is what was basically open for developement of multiple technologies. Manual trannies or sequential, no problem. FWD, RWD, AWD, no problem. BMW ran RWD manual tranny cars while Audi ran sequential shift all-wheel drive cars. People complained all-wheel drive was an unfair advantage, though the option to develop it was open to all and Ford actually tested a Mondeo with their system but couldn't make it competitive. 
I remember reading a piece on the ALMS in the Washington Post prior to the National Grand Prix a few years back. One thing it pointed out was that the cars were more the stars than the drivers. ALMS has a tech savvy fan base. ALMS should be proud of the openness of their series, that it pushes technological development and isn't a spec series like (ahem) other sportscar series that also run a 24 hour race in Florida.
I feel for their trying to keep LMP1 competitive and not a one pony show, but in doing so, they need to get a few more manufacturers to step up to that sort of development in LMP1 or LMP2 to compete with Audi as Porsche has done and it appears Acura is doing. That will make for good racing, not handicapping one of the only manufacturers that has shown ultimate commitment to the series.


Thanks for that brief history, those were the days I remember watching the Aussie & British TC races on telly it was exciting stuff














.


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (phaeton)*

i also completely agree with S4Aero. i think it is completely unfair to change anything mid-season in any sport out there.
I am on this board so i obviously love Audi and I was fortunate enough to see the R8 race at the said once-and-done Washington Gran Prix a few years back. The R8 dominated with rule and regulation changes over the years that it ran all the way up to its last race being outgunned by its competitors.
Winning a race is not purely about the power of the car and Audi has proven that their pit crews, technology to put a car back together once damange has occured, and fuel efficiency are what led the way for the R8 and are now doing so again with the R10.
I think the ALMS will take a huge hit in its following if Audi removes the R10 from competition in that series. Sure there are other cars but if you ask most people that know about the ALMS to name one name or brand that stands out the most they would 9 out of 10 times say Audi because of its sheer dominance and advancement in the sport.


----------



## GTX141 (Sep 30, 2003)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (ProjectA3)*

One thing people are forgetting is reliability. Speed is not the issue, as the Dyson's have demonstrated that hey can hang (in general) wit he R10. Thei rbiggest problem is reliability. 
If ALMS really wanted to make things fair, they'd make Audi use broken parts................


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (GTX141)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTX141* »_
If ALMS really wanted to make things fair, they'd make Audi use broken parts................

Hahahaha.
You know, I attended Le Mans in 2005. At that point, the R8s were so restricted, and so heavy, they couldn't come close to the Pescarolos' best lap times. However, they stayed reliable, which helped TK get his seventh win. As the heat of the morning hit, Pescarolo had to dial it back as they were running too hot. 
Anyway, it makes a big difference at Sebring and Le Mans. On shorter tracks/shorter races, this is less of a factor.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties ([email protected])*









In fairness to all sides being heard, here's an alternative viewpoint from Scott Atherton (pictured here at Lime Rock on the right without the baseball hat), boss of the ALMS. Scott was asked to comment on "Performance Balancing Measures" during SPEED's coverage of the race at Road America today. Below is a transcription of Atherton's statements.

_Quote »_I would say (performance balancing) is the most challenging aspect for any sanctioning body, to manage rules that involve manufacturer involvement. It's one of the cornerstones of the American Le Mans Series to have a high level of manufacturer involvement on and off the racetrack. But, if that's one cornerstone, then on the opposite side of the foundation is another cornerstone that is there for our independent teams. That's the balancing point that has to be reached. 
There has to be the stability, the incentive, the relevance, and the return on investment for manufacturers to want to be involved in a racing series. That goes without saying, and believe that the number of manufacturers we have actively involved in the American Le Mans Series is the best answer I can give you in terms of how we are doing. 
I think we've created a very attractive platform that has the highest level of relevance for a manufacturer to be involved and see a direct connection from the racetrack back to the showroom. Why does a manufacturer go racing? The American Le Mans Series represents the perfect fit. 
At the same time, we can't afford, nor would we ever want to create an environment that also isn't a welcome environment for an independent team. Both the Porsche (RS Spyder) and the Audi (R10) are literally unchanged from their original configuration. So, the rules stipulated absolutely applies in regards to those examples. We have elected to provide an enhancement to the gasoline-powered LMP1 entries in an effort to bridge what our data indicates is a gap in the performance capabilities between those two classes, or those two cars rather... in the same class. 
The level of sophistication of IMSA's ability to extract data from the cars has gone up exponentially. We've attempted as a sanctioning body to keep pace with what we know is the rapid advancement in technology on behalf of the teams by utilizing our own very experienced personnel as well as going out and utilizing some experts on a consultancy basis along with extensive data acquisition - from telemetry and track related equipment that's been installed that provides proprietary information to IMSA. I think the IMSA technicians have a wide range of data to assess the true performance capabilities of each individual car. So, to suggest that any of the IMSA decisions being made are not without careful consideration and voluminous amounts of data that is being analyzed by true professionals and true experts in their field and it's only after that process that decisions are being made. 
Sometimes it happens sooner or in a more compressed timeframe than we would like because of the way the schedule is configured, but at no point are these decisions being made haphazardly or without firm factual backup to go with them.


----------



## Ernesto G (Aug 22, 2006)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties ([email protected])*

I watched the Road America race, plus I was aware of how was the diesel engine for Le Mans developed, and I'm afraid I have to disagree with the concepts by the posters above. Sorry.
The diesel regulations for Le Mans were simply way too forgiving. It was an open invitation to win by a large margin, providing you have the funds required to develop the engine. Of course, only a large corporation with a sizable share of the diesel auto market would try that: Audi did and won right away. While that is a very commendable effort and the technology advance is remarkable, the purpose of racing is competition: if a set of rules gives a specific technology a huge advantage, the rules need to be changed.
Now Audi is winning easy in ALMS. And Dyson-Lola-AER, a privateer which already spent a fortune -for their own, smaller scale- developing a gasoline V8 engine, finds itself crushed by a brand new car built around a very forgiving set of regulations (I'm tempted to call it a loophole, but actually it was intentional) developed specifically to invite a diesel car to compete by increasing its chances of winning.
Look at F1 and the Renault Turbo program: it first saw the track in 1976, but was not competitive until 79, when it won its first race. Only then other manufacturers began paying attention and developing their own turbos, but still, it was only in 83 when Piquet, driving a BMW turbo engine, won the championship. From 76 thru 82, despite the gradual rise of the turbos, the winners were normally aspirated V8 Cosworth or V12 Ferraris. That's a reasonable development and transition phase, proving that the regulations were reasonably fair. When a brand new technology wins by a landslide from the start, it simply means the regulations were grossly off from the start and need to be adjusted.


----------



## buickgn (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (Ernesto G)*

As I said in my post above the regulations for a diesel were very loose, ALMS basically made Audi an offer they couldn't refuse. Because as Ernesto said Audi was the only company in a position to build a diesel powered racecar. However, everyone understood the implications of the regulations when the rules were agreed on. I think everyone expected Audi to have more teething problems, and be much less reliable which would help to balance the fuel economy benefit. That is racing though, another example of this is the ACO allowing competitors to use a larger inlet restrictor if the cars are air conditioned (a requirement for closed top cars come next season). This loophole was so large that the Pescarolo Judd open top cars were rumored to be running an A/C unit just to use the larger restrictors.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Dyson Racing Responds to Audi Sport's Complaints Regarding R10 Penalties (Ernesto G)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ernesto G* »_I watched the Road America race, plus I was aware of how was the diesel engine for Le Mans developed, and I'm afraid I have to disagree with the concepts by the posters above. Sorry.
The diesel regulations for Le Mans were simply way too forgiving. It was an open invitation to win by a large margin, providing you have the funds required to develop the engine. Of course, only a large corporation with a sizable share of the diesel auto market would try that: Audi did and won right away. While that is a very commendable effort and the technology advance is remarkable, the purpose of racing is competition: if a set of rules gives a specific technology a huge advantage, the rules need to be changed.
Now Audi is winning easy in ALMS. And Dyson-Lola-AER, a privateer which already spent a fortune -for their own, smaller scale- developing a gasoline V8 engine, finds itself crushed by a brand new car built around a very forgiving set of regulations (I'm tempted to call it a loophole, but actually it was intentional) developed specifically to invite a diesel car to compete by increasing its chances of winning.
Look at F1 and the Renault Turbo program: it first saw the track in 1976, but was not competitive until 79, when it won its first race. Only then other manufacturers began paying attention and developing their own turbos, but still, it was only in 83 when Piquet, driving a BMW turbo engine, won the championship. From 76 thru 82, despite the gradual rise of the turbos, the winners were normally aspirated V8 Cosworth or V12 Ferraris. That's a reasonable development and transition phase, proving that the regulations were reasonably fair. When a brand new technology wins by a landslide from the start, it simply means the regulations were grossly off from the start and need to be adjusted.

Some good points, however I still disagree in some regards. One reason the loophole was opened was to entice manufacturers to embrace alternative fuels. It wasn't happening without that enticement, and with the changing face of energy resources in the world... this needs to happen. Of course, privateers would never be able to bankroll this sort of development, however these cars and this technology eventually ends up in the hands of privateers much like the privateer efforts with the R8 (Champion, Johannson, etc.). Peugeot is expected to return to Le Mans this year with another diesel to widen that further. I'd love to see Toyota or Honda show up with a hybrid. The great thing about Le Mans and this niche of sportscar racing is that it openly embraces evolution and change. Here we are in the 21st century, and series like NASCAR haven't even considered this technology you speak of called the "turbo."








Thanks for the comments. I'm all for hearing the dissenting opinion, and in most cases I get the reasons for performance balancing, but I think the need to foster development beyond very loud and not exactly miserly gasoline race engines takes some priority.... and not just because I'm an Audi guy.


----------



## VentoGT (Mar 22, 2000)

There are some good points being made, I', just glad I get Speed channel and can watch such an exciting racing series like ALMS. 
I do think Audi did exactly what they should have with the devleopment of the R10, but they should not be penalized mid-season. IMSA should should account for the changes during the off-season in preparation for the 2007 season. 
In regards to Lola getting crushed...I don't think a 2nd and 3rd place is getting crushed! They have a very competitive car as it stands now...and although the diesel fuel issue can continue to be debated there is by no mean a completely unfair advantage. 
Racing will always differ from traditional sports when it comes to "performance balancing"...we'll just have to sit back and see how the teams play their cards.


----------



## Steve Talley (Sep 25, 2006)

In racing, you have 3 choices, lead, follow, or get out of the way. If you are the guy in the lead, the guy who is following is challenged with the task to make you follow. The guys that need to get out of the way are the cry babies who want the rules changed to slow the fast guy down. How many years in a row did John Force win the funny car title? Someone finally figured out how to make the same power he makes, and hook it to the track, and now Force is the guy doing the chasing. Part of racing is figuring out how to be the top dog, and when you are, someone will eventually figure out the trick to beat you. Well, rather than cry to the rule makers to slow them down, they need to figure out how to beat Audi with the current rules. It seems to me that all of these major racing series have begun changing the rules to make it a fair race "to draw better crowds". If you are behind, suck it up, and put your nose to the grindstone and figure out how to be the king of the hill.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (Steve Talley)*

That's exactly how I feel. If rubbin' is racin' in NASCAR, then evolution is racin' in sportscars. Those who evolve live and prosper- those who don't wither and die. In other words, the Dyson boys can evolve their car to match the R10( as they did against the R8), and stop taking these hand outs like a bunch of wusses. No disrespect, but this isn't the way things should go in the ALMS.


----------

