# Audi ALMS pull out threat?!



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

http://www.mariantic.co.uk/lmp/ reports that there's a rumor that Audi may be pulling out of the ALMS after Sebring and only doing the endurance races. It has something to do with IMSA appearently not keeping their promise to talk with the ACO about giving back the LMP2's '06 air restictor-makes me wish that the FIA would step in, but they'll only make things worse.


----------



## chewym (Jun 21, 2006)

I sure hope that Audi does race all of the races. But the fact is that ALMS wants P2s to compete for overall wins, while by rule they aren't supposed to.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (chewym)*

That's largely because no one has the guts to run a decent LMP1 car. Hell, Panoz was able to beat the R8s occasionally with a car that was as aerodynamic as a brick, severely overweight, and used an engine that Ford designed originally back in the '60s. So why can't anyone else try against such odds? The R10, like the R8 isn't unbeatable.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

IMSA is being stupid with this, there is no reason in the world to not just give the P2 cars the proper ACO restrictors. Their feeling is that if they are only going to have Audi in P1, let the P2 cars race with them, but that is simply wrong in my eyes. P2 cars are getting too fast as it is. They should NOT be challenging for overall victories.
On the other hand, Audi has brought this on themselves. You cant blame others for not stepping up. The only way you are going to fight Audi is with a Audi/F1 type budget and it just doesnt make sense. There was a lot of money spent on those Panoz projects and people just arent willing to take on that kind of expenditure unless they are a manufacturer and right now there is no reason for anyone else to really take them on. We've seen how successful Dyson has been and he has spent a boat load of money on trying to take Audi down.
Look, Audi has brought this on themselves, I'm actually at the point right now that the absolute best thing for sportscar racing would be to have Audi pull out and go home. They have single handedly destroyed P1 racing.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

veni, vidi, vici


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (16v)*

Yes, Audi did bring this on themselves in a way, but isn't it the objective of auto racing being to win as often as possible. I mean, that's what the R8 did, all the way up to Lime Rock in 2006. And no one complained. And it can't be said that the R8 lived out to it's full potential and that it's competitors knew what they were dealing with. If Audi continued development with it, who knows what the R8 would be capable of now.
I think that politics has a lot to answer for here. The ACO and FIA made these rules back in 2002, when a diesel powered car didn't exhist. So they had to guess, and at least offer a theoritical advantage just to get someone to go into the alternative fuel field.
IMSA, meanwhile, wants to put on a show, which is in their right(I can't really blame the fans, but it seems to be partly influenced by disenchanted ex-NASCAR fans). And Grand Am, the NASCAR-ization of road racing, is also partly to blame, due to Jim France(NASCAR CEO Brian France's brother) paying for it with NASCAR's money basically.
Auto racing has a right and a place to be a test bed for tomorrow's technology, which is why Audi/VAG races(ie no NASCAR for them). But not all teams can readily afford such tech. But there have always been haves/have nots in racing-so why can't it be accepted now? Hell, Jan Lammers(driver/owner of Racing for Holland, and a former 24 Hours of Le Mans winner) accepts this and says that he'd rather harrass the factories every now and then, than have an easy time in a lower category. 
And why doesn't anyone put Mercedes-Benz' 5.7 liter CLR V8, or the Elan/Ford V8 and put them in a Lola or Courage? According to Mulsanne Mike(in an email he sent me about this) is that the Manufactures don't want to spend money factory supporting something they're not intersted in. These would be excellent pirvateer cars, but won't ever see the light of day. 
Panoz beat Audi with an unaerodynamic, overweight car powered by a 351 Ford OHV V8. There's hope for everyone.
I wonder what George thinks of this?
_Modified by chernaudi at 2:53 PM 2-8-2007_

_Modified by chernaudi at 2:54 PM 2-8-2007_

_Modified by chernaudi at 2:55 PM 2-8-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 2:56 PM 2-8-2007_


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

I should say that I'm not asking to drag George in just to drag him in, but he argued some of the points that I'm trying to argue for(ie, why auto racing came about in the first place, and it's relevance in the world).


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_ There's hope for everyone.
I wonder what George thinks of this?


I actually dont think there is. Look at the money and resources that Pescarolo puts into his team and he still continually gets beat by Audi at Le Mans. Look at the money that Dyson put into his cars, he comes close, but how close is it really? And in the end, we all know that Audi hasnt even shown the potential of the R10 yet, when the competition gets faster, they'll just turn up the wick and, if need be, drop millions more into the project to stay in front.
Why on God's green earth would you want to enter P1 against Audi? If you can come to the table with 10 million bucks, you know they are going to come with 20 million, if you come with 50 million, you know they will just spend 75 million. They will ALWAYS out spend you and will ALWAYS out engineer you. Great for them, but why would the privateer do that.
Panoz did win on occasion, but Panoz spent a TON of money on that project and even built a new prototype that turned out to be crap and went back to the original one.
Face it, there is no one to take on Audi but a factory effort (which the Panoz was) at this point and no one is going to compete with that diesel monster, hell you cant even get the same fuel that Audi uses...how is that fair or worth it.
Peugeot seems to feel that bettering their diesel technology is worth spending the money and they are spending it, big time, we'll see how it pans out for them. However, not many manufacturers are going to see the value in spending that money. After all, anyone wanting to spend big money in racing right now is going to F1 since its a much more visible stage. Why do you think that BMW left? They saw that with Audi involved it was going to be a big spending race and nothing more and didnt want to "waste" their money that way. Chrysler came, spent a boatload of money, decided it wasnt worth it and left as well. Cadillac gave it a three year effort, spent a crapload of money and said they were sticking with their three year plan and left just as they were getting fast, saying the money wasnt worth the outcome.
These are almost F1 budgets at this point without getting near the visibility of F1. Audi has used it marvelously to their benefit and felt that the tech was much more focused on what they were producing, kudos to them for that.
Acura will move to P1 eventually because they are trying to start the Acura name on a worldwide scale soon and they will benefit from it. When the rules change a bit we might see someone else come in as well, but at this point its like you trying to take on Trump in a spending competition. It just isnt going to happen, everytime you up the ante, he will just blow you out of the water. Unless you have the wallet of Trump and find it worth taking him on, its a worthless effort. Just like anyone else trying to take on Audi (or GM for that matter) right now.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

It's just like rallying in the early 80's, and TransAm after that. 
Not that I'm complaining b/c it's amazing to see what they've done/can do


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (16v)*

Maybe the best thing that can happen is that Audi someday sells R10s(or R8 engines) to privateers, but the former probably won't happen. even Hughes De Channauc(team Oreca owner) says that Audi would have to help out at least as a semi factory effort to run the R10. But Swiss Spirit has a 3 year deal on R8 engines. Maybe after that, they'll become more aviliable.
But Toyota has spent hundreds of millions(infact the whole R10 LM/ALMS budget from '06-the same amount) to run Le Mans in '98. Two cars DNF'd and one finished 9th. More of the same in '99. Two DNF's, and one car finished 2nd, and arguably should've won. And in F1, the only team that spends as much as them is Ferrari, and Ferrari kicks the crap out of them.
If Audi really really wants to change this preception, run the R8 to 2002 rules, and run the R10. Same track, same day. Should be interesting at least. But it's never gonna happen, at least anytime soon.


_Modified by chernaudi at 8:05 PM 2-8-2007_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

Sorry. Just found this.
First, a piece of what I just ran in the news blog

_Quote »_PlanetLemans.com is reporting that Audi Sport boss Dr. Wolfgang Ulrich stated in an interview with Globecast Radio "After all the discussion in the last two weeks, we are rethinking whether we compete in the ALMS."
With such a large investment on Audi's part, i.e. a huge commitment to the R10 and the ALMS series, it is presumably Ulrich's contention that this investment wouldn't be served by rule changes that augment lower-investment teams to the point where Audi's competitiveness is questioned. Porsche was already near Audi's pace last year, and theoretically needs no additional help.
In a dinner at the North American International Auto Show, Audi of America boss Johan de Nysschen said to me "We'd like our competitors to step up to the plate (with LMP1) and beat us. We'd like to be beat." Within the context of the conversation, he was inferring that if manufacturers would step up to the plate with the level of commitment it takes to fully fund and develop an LMP1 program, he'd welcome the competition. Artificially raising LMP2 because that's as much as Porsche and Acura are willing to invest is not the same thing in Audi's mind and given their commitment level, it's hard to blame them.
Of course, being the editor of this website, one might argue that I'm biased. For the opinion of someone who runs a site that's not Audi centric, I recomend you follow the link below to Planet Le Mans as the piece that spurred this post is very informative.
http://www.planetlemans.com/cm...mid=2


On what's been said in here, I agree and disagree with you Jimmy. I think Audi has every right to be pissed off and want to leave and I don't see that as being unsportsmanlike. I applaud Pescarolo and Dyson for pushing to compete with Audi in LMP1, but at the end of the day that's not their responsibility. LMP1 is meant to be the top of the top, and Audi shouldn't be talked down because they're the only manufacturer willing to play in this sandbox. Going back to what de Nysschen said, he'd like to see others like Acura, Porsche and more stepping up to the plate like Peugeot has.
BMW did, but I'm not sure it was a spending issue for them. Rumor was the LMP12 was a testbed for the F1 motor, and by the following year they were campaigning F1 with Williams. These budgets are only so big and for BMW, Ferrari, Renault and others, the spec series that is F1 is their priority. If BMW wanted to stay out of a spending war, they should have stayed out of F1.
Yes, Audi has shown a track record of going into a series, developing to the point of ridiculousness and completely dominating. The other track record they have shown is picking a series that is NOT a spec series, but a showcase for roadgoing technology. NASCAR and F1 need not worry about Audi involvement for now, because that's not their M.O. 
With BMW pushing Hydrogen and Toyota pushing hybrid technology, I think it'd be awesome if those companies came out to Le Mans with some trick drivetrains that showed these new technologies. At the end of the day, to me at least, F1 is largely a show of money, a show of drama rooting for "your" driver, and a big old waste of race fuel because they rarely promote new technologies that translate to the road. 
At the end of the day, it comes down to value of the series. Clearly other manufacturers don't see the value, otherwise they'd be there. Audi is arguably the biggest proponent of sportscar racing if based on their investment as no one is fielding an effort on their level.
My take is for ALMS and ACO to put a plan in place of rules that will apply say in three years with only minor adjustments. So when companies like Audi commit to a given set of rules in their development, they know they'll get a return on investment for a given set of time. After that three years, I say open it up (GT1, LMP2 and LMP1) and let them all shoot for all-out win. When I went to Le Mans in 2005, the Astons were running ahead of the LMP2 field int he beginning. Let them run. Let Porsche do more with less with and LMP2 and as they did with the 550s back in the day, but don't make that happen right after the company with the biggest commitment develops their latest program.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
On what's been said in here, I agree and disagree with you Jimmy. I think Audi has every right to be pissed off and want to leave and I don't see that as being unsportsmanlike. I applaud Pescarolo and Dyson for pushing to compete with Audi in LMP1, but at the end of the day that's not their responsibility. LMP1 is meant to be the top of the top, and Audi shouldn't be talked down because they're the only manufacturer willing to play in this sandbox. Going back to what de Nysschen said, he'd like to see others like Acura, Porsche and more stepping up to the plate like Peugeot has.

I dont think I ever implied that Audi was being unsportsmanlike for leaving, I never really commented on that at all.
I also agree, that they have the right to be upset, I said in one of my posts that I think that IMSA is being stupid about this whole thing and they SHOULD be complying with the ACO ruleset for P2 since its an across the board thing. If they then find that one P2 design (say the turbo 4s) need help vs. the others, then then can use their competition adjustments to adjust within the class, but I do think that P2 should be slower and should NOT be fighting for the overall, that is unfair to P1 teams.
I didnt think that I was talking down about Audi either. I did say they brought it upon themselves, but that often happens when you are willing to do whatever it takes to win and are willing outspend everyone else. They've done it time and time again, Trans Am, IMSA GTO, WRC, BTCC, now the ALMS.
If I criticize them at all, its for doing it series that are not necessarily the top of the food chain and therefore no one else is willing to spend the money and resources on it that they do. Its not F1, sportscar racing in many forms is nowhere near as popular as F1 and therefore you cant expect companies to throw F1 type budgets at it. BMW and Mercedes get 50 times more marketing out of LOSING to Ferrari in F1 than they would be beating Audi at Le Mans.
And Acura has stated VERY plainly that they will be in P1, they are just using P2 and the established engine and chassis components available in that class to do their development rather than do what Audi did and build a P1 car that failed miserably on their first try. Its just two different ways of going about it, but they will get their competition.
Also, BMW, Chrysler and Cadillac all put factory efforts up against Audi and failed, so Calling out other manufacturers really isnt the right thing to do when you have a track record of running some of the biggest into retirement.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_BMW did, but I'm not sure it was a spending issue for them. Rumor was the LMP12 was a testbed for the F1 motor, and by the following year they were campaigning F1 with Williams. These budgets are only so big and for BMW, Ferrari, Renault and others, the spec series that is F1 is their priority. If BMW wanted to stay out of a spending war, they should have stayed out of F1.

They were going to F1 because they knew where the marketing lies and where the money will be better spent. They got their butts kicked by Audi when the LMP car was at its most sorted and decided, why keep spending the money here, lets go F1 racing where at least when you lose you are still in F1.
Why do you think Spyker decided to spend the millions and go F1 racing instead of staying in sportscars where they started?

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Yes, Audi has shown a track record of going into a series, developing to the point of ridiculousness and completely dominating. The other track record they have shown is picking a series that is NOT a spec series, but a showcase for roadgoing technology. NASCAR and F1 need not worry about Audi involvement for now, because that's not their M.O. 

I'd hardly call F1 a spec series. You MUST build your own car from scratch in F1, both chassis and engine. You have rules just like everything else, but within those rules its wide open and there is no borrowing others chassis or engines, you got to do it all.
But with sportscars they can use things that they find more viable as a company test bed, and thats fine. But a ton of tech comes out of F1 cars and goes into street cars as well.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_With BMW pushing Hydrogen and Toyota pushing hybrid technology, I think it'd be awesome if those companies came out to Le Mans with some trick drivetrains that showed these new technologies. At the end of the day, to me at least, F1 is largely a show of money, a show of drama rooting for "your" driver, and a big old waste of race fuel because they rarely promote new technologies that translate to the road. 

Sure that would be cool, but is it worth the money that would have to be spent? Like I said above, a lot of F1 tech ends up on road cars. Things like active suspensions, auto/manual tranny technology, tire technology, materials development, etc.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_At the end of the day, it comes down to value of the series. Clearly other manufacturers don't see the value, otherwise they'd be there. Audi is arguably the biggest proponent of sportscar racing if based on their investment as no one is fielding an effort on their level.

Exactly, and how to you convince a manufacturer to spend tens of millions of dollars on a series with much less value than F1 from a marketing standpoint?

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_My take is for ALMS and ACO to put a plan in place of rules that will apply say in three years with only minor adjustments. So when companies like Audi commit to a given set of rules in their development, they know they'll get a return on investment for a given set of time. After that three years, I say open it up (GT1, LMP2 and LMP1) and let them all shoot for all-out win. When I went to Le Mans in 2005, the Astons were running ahead of the LMP2 field int he beginning. Let them run. Let Porsche do more with less with and LMP2 and as they did with the 550s back in the day, but don't make that happen right after the company with the biggest commitment develops their latest program.

Well, that is what does go on. But IMSA has more to worry about than just keeping Audi happy. Remember, they are running a race series, the ACO sanctions ONE event a year and their goal from the beginning was to have that race breed auto technology, so their interests are FAR different than IMSA's are.
IMSA needs to run a race series and put on a show for the fans. They happen to have it based on ACO rules, but their interests go beyond what the ACO's are. In this case they feel that fans want to see P2 cars compete at a higher level and possibly race with the P1 cars. If they arent going to have any other P1 cars in the field, they feel like they have to do something. To them, if Audi leaves it may be the best thing for the series, as I stated above. They need to have a racing series and that means entries and exciting racing or its not going to survive. If no one is willing to compete on Audis level, then they need to do something to make people want to enter the series.
I can understand their thinking. Why the hell should the worry about what Audi thinks or marketing will be like if it means running their series into the ground? If Audi and GM leave, maybe they fill the grid with 5 more cars, ten more cars, that are actually competitive with each other. Isnt that better from their perspective than having Audi R10s run around at the top of the grid for 12 races a year?
Again, I'm not saying I agree with this particular move by IMSA, however, I can fully understand it. Audi has every right to complain and whine, I'd probably do the same, but in the end, their interests are not the same as IMSA's and IMSA has to consider what is best for them...not Audi.
And as one final devils advocate type note, if Audi is so concerned about using the series as a test bed for their technology, then they shouldnt worry so much about the rules that allow for competition, they should go along and just do their thing and create their technology that will go into the road cars. If they really wanted to spend all that money and just race, they should go F1 racing.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (.:RDriver)*

Well then, why don't IMSA draft their own set of rules(or at least their own variant of the ACO's rules)? That's what happened when Group C came about. And it was influenced partly by the success that Porsche was having with with the 956, and that by early '83, it was avialble to any privateer who wanted one and could afford it.
That's one thing that PO'd American teams to begin with until Panoz came on board at IMSA. The ACO always like to go their own way with the rules. The IMSA and ACO rules were always broadly the same, but there was enough difference to scare away American teams at Le Mans.
And as for Audi being the only show in town in LMP1, the same happened in 2003. How come no one complained then? Maybe because there were 2 different teams racing against each other( Champion and Joest)?
I feel that part of it is the way that Wolfgang Ullrich runs Audi Sport. Why can't it be more like Porsche, where(as Chris Dyson says) they don't care, as long as one of their cars wins? Meanwhile, Ullrich seems to believe that even if the R8 could beat the R10, it's a huge discredit to his program. 
It also doesn't help that Penske Racing's effort is factory backed by Porsche, no matter how much Porsche says that that isn't it(Ullrich even touched on this in the interview-here's the link to it at VW Vortex: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3068659). Porsche is seemingly afraid of losing to an oil burner if they run LMP1.
The big irony is that Porsche is anti diesel. But it was Ferdinand Piech(Ferdinand Porsche's grandson, and Ferry's nephew) who pushed for the TDI diesel system's development in the '80s(like so many other things that Audi lovers cherish, like quattro AWD, for example-he even helped design the car that launched it!).
I easily may be wrong, but that's how I see it. And I refuse to look at Porsche through rose tinted glasses just 'cause they own VW. I had a hard enough time watching the ALMS after Panoz pulled out, and I may go back to watching NASCAR if Audi pulls out.
But I think that I may have a solution that everyone can agree to(or not). Go back to the Group C regs. Limit every car/fuel type to the usage of a certian amount of fuel during the race within a certian tolerance. Group C was great, until the FIA(ie Mosely and Eccostone, the greedy, arrogant cretins they are!) screwed it up of almost everyone with the cars that ran 3.5 liter F1 engines in them, and were given all those provisions and rules breaks, and cost as much, if not more, than the R10, and for damn sure the R8, to run, even for a factory. This sucks, but who's gonna fix it(you'll probably won't want me to head the FIA, for example!)?

_Modified by chernaudi at 3:32 PM 2-9-2007_

_Modified by chernaudi at 3:34 PM 2-9-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 3:37 PM 2-9-2007_


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

And this isn't the first time Audi theatened to pull out of a racing series due to something they didn't see as particulary fair. They pulled out of the WRC in '86(along with Ford) after a rash of fatal accidents, as both Audi and Ford tried to convince the FIA to improve saftey of cars, and for specators.
Then they pulled out of Trans Am and IMSA GTO(now GT1 for those who are keeping track) because of complaints from competitors. The same thing happend in DTM in '93. And various FIA sanctioned touring car championships in Europe in the late '90s.
What I can't see is why the R8 laid waste to everything set infront of it at one time or another, and kicked the crap out of everyone, no one complained? If it's R&D didn't trial off as much as it did after 2002, it would probably be as fast as the R10 is now-for sure if it were run to 2002 regs. And for that reason, it can't be argued that everything was known about the R8's capabilities.
And on a somewhat related topic, Jack Roush talks about waging war with Toyota in NASCAR. His Mustangs ran against Audi's Trans Am and IMSA GTO cars. Imagine if NASCAR was a somewhat more open formula, and Audi Sport/VAG saw it as worth their while to run. I bet ya that even Toyota would crap a brick if Audi mopped the floor with them!


_Modified by chernaudi at 4:21 PM 2-9-2007_


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Well then, why don't IMSA draft their own set of rules(or at least their own variant of the ACO's rules)? 

Umm, that is exactly what they are doing that started this whole thing. IMSA said that even though they are based on the ACO rules, they can modify for the best of their series, so that is what they did with the P2 rules and Audi threatens the pull out.
I also think that we are going to start to see more of it and IMSA will start to take more and more liberties with the rules, even if it means Audi leaving cause they also see a benefit to that too.
Right now the only thing keeping them in check at all is the licensing of the name Le Mans. To use the American Le Mans Series they have it licensed from the ACO and therefore the ACO has some say in what they do because, essentially, its their name on the package.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_
Then they pulled out of Trans Am and IMSA GTO(now GT1 for those who are keeping track) because of complaints from competitors. The same thing happend in DTM in '93. And various FIA sanctioned touring car championships in Europe in the late '90s.

They never pulled out of Trans Am, IMSA, or BTCC (I'm not sure about DTM). They were FORCED out due to their dominance. All basically made AWD illegal and therefore Audi went packing.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: (.:RDriver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.:RDriver* »_
They never pulled out of Trans Am, IMSA, or BTCC (I'm not sure about DTM). They were FORCED out due to their dominance. All basically made AWD illegal and therefore Audi went packing.

This is true. SCCA changed the engine rules, booting them out of T/A, BTCC (FIA) banned awd.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: (16v)*

Sorry Jim, didn't mean to suggest you were saying they were unsportsmanlike. That's more response to things I've heard elsewhere.
I still think F1 is more spec series. You have to have a specific chassis design (open-wheel, mid engine), you have to have a specific engine type, etc. What I like about Sportscar is that you can race such a wide variety, with experimental drivetrains, etc. 
AND, I think Audi's investment has paid off. They've built a sporting name and a reputation for dominance for a fraction of what BMW has spent in F1. It's debatable, but I think being a one brand show in sportscar has benefitted them. For the sport though, I'd much rather return to the days when Audi had just come in, BMW was in it, Mercedes was in it.... so much facory involvement, it was crazy.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*

if F1 weren't sucking the race programs dry we'd probably still have those days of old...


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (16v)*

And on this F1 vs LM/ALMS spending deal, what has BMW spent on F1 every year, $100 million at least(and that's probably conservative)? And what has that gotten them? Nothin' from what I can see. An occasional race win, but no championship, and they've been mid pack runners the majority of the time since the end of '03. Audi spent on average 15-20 million to run the ALMS/Le Mans with the R8 when Reinhold Joest ran the team. What did that get them? A hat trick at Le Mans, winning 80-90% of the ALMS races from 2000-2002, and every ALMS Drivers'/Manufactures' Championship in that same period. And ADT Champion Racing won the IMSA Privateers' Cup in '01-03. Not to mention growth in the North American market place-and this has even expanded to VW.
And Audi supported Champion Racing('01-05), Audi Sport UK team Veloqx(04), Audi Sport Japan Team Goh(02-04), and Audi France Playstation Team Oreca(05) on at least a semi/quasi-factory basis while the R10 was being developed-and the R8 was equally,if not even more dominant. And remember, the Bentley Speed 8 was heavily funded and supported by Audi Sport, and Reinhold Joest was highly influential in the opporation of that team(they didn't just use the numbers 7 and 8 as the car was called the Speed 8-those are Joest's trademark LM numbers!). And Audi still spent about $15-20 million a year on the R8 until '06(but per race spending was about the same for the 3 races that the R8 did), and the same amount was spent per year on the Bentley Speed 8 program from '01-03.
And the guys running those teams(Joest, Dave Maraj, Hughes de Channauc, among others) all knew what they were doing-Audi wouldn't have come to them to run their cars if they didn't.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler have probably spent more on NASCAR in one year than Audi/VAG has spent on LM/ALMS in 2 years. Hell, Toyota have probably out spent Audi's single season R8 buget just getting ready for the Daytona 500-since the end of last year's Nextel Cup season. And the R10 program probably cost Audi/VW about 70-80 million dollars, but they ran LM and the ALMS. Toyota spent 75-100 million on LM in both '98 and '99. Hell, Cadilac spent 50 million to run LM and a partial ALMS schedule in '02, over twice what Audi spent to run the whole ALMS season, and LM that same year.
If Audi has taught us anything, you need both money and people to get it all right. And Audi always has had both. Panoz had people-in the form of David Brabbham and Jan Magunssen, who are two of the best in my book, and PTG's Tom Milner helping out when he could, for some examples. But the buget(especally for them to be really competitve at LM) was never really there, but Don Panoz did good for the series with his own cars. And Cadillac had money, but the team was never really properly managed, esepecally when compaired to Audi, or to their Corvette them, where Doug Fehan and Gary Pratt have done an excellent job on par with what Audi has done.
So money doesn't hurt, and good people are an excellent asset, but you need both to succeed.

_Modified by chernaudi at 4:26 PM 2-10-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 4:29 PM 2-10-2007_


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

I would bet that Audi is spending more than 15-20 million dollars a year...easy.
Secondly, like I said before, running mid pack in F1 will do FAR more for you than all the victories Audi has at Le Mans.
You can ask almost anyone on the street about BMW and Mercedes involvement in F1 and they know about it, ask them who won Le Mans last year and they wont have a clue...that is, if they even know what Le Mans is.
Walk into any BMW dealership and you see things all over the place about the BMW race team, they have watches, model cars, posters, hats, sweatshirts, etc, etc. I dont see any of those things in my local Audi dealerships because most people wouldnt have a clue what they are to begin with, but they ALL recognize an F1 car.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (.:RDriver)*

First of all, I was talking about the R8, and an May 2003 issue of Motor Trend says that Bentley spent 16.4 million dollars to run LM and Sebring-why would Audi spend much more to run LM and the whole ALMS schedule with the R8? I know that the R10 is much more expensive right now to run as it's new and the technology needs to be refined to reduce complexity and cost. But the R8 was a very simple car to run as far as sportscars go, and the only things that need paid for is the testing and racing, and who knows what sponsors like Infineon, ADT, S line/quattro gmbh, Sony/Playstation/Gran Turismo 4 were paying these teams.
And here in the US, why run mid pack in F1 when it would cost less to build a factory here and run NASCAR and have a chance to win? I think Toyota answered that. Problem is that Audi(and VW recently, for that matter) don't have factories here, and can't run in NASCAR for that reason(there's a rule saying that a forign company must build cars in North America to qualify to run in NASCAR's top 3 divisions). Not that VAG would do such a thing, as NASCAR's rules are against everything Audi/VW are looking for(though oddly enough they run DTM, which is basically the German equivalant of NASCAR).
And there isn't all that much tech transfer from F1 to road cars compaired to Sportscars. Yes, there is, but not everyone can afford a Ferrari Enzo or a Maserati MC12(a rebodied Enzo), or a McLaren F1. And the fact that BMW has a V10 avialible for the M5 was probably influenced just as much by them running F1 as it is the they knew that Audi would put the Lambo V10 in the S6 and S8.
There are also those out there that say that the ALMS fields are so small because of Grand Am, the essentially NASCAR owned sportscar series. The gentlemen drivers go there 'cause the cars are cheap(basically mid engined NASCAR stock cars), and they know that they at least have an outside chance of winning.
And even if manufactures like the publicity of running mid pack, the drivers for damn sure don't. And if I'm the owner of a car maker, I wouldn't like to be seen as a feeder to bigger and better teams as far as driver talent is concerned. And F1 is still a cult sport in North America anyways, at least compaired to NASCAR.
So I say to those who don't like running in the ALMS(especally manufactures), shut up or run NASCAR if you want to be in the North American market. That may be a pretty conceeded statement, but it cost more to run in the back in NASCAR than it is to be second best to Audi. Oh, that leads me to another thing-NASCAR's paydays are better too. The guy who finishes dead last in next Sunday's Daytona 500 will win more money than the winner of the 12 Hours of Sebing-and if you're driving for a factory team, you'll get little to no money, due to IMSA's payment rules.
So if IMSA would market the ALMS better, have fair and stable rules, and a decent purse for all races, most would be all and well.
I know that most of this is BS, but I'm telling you the way it is from my point of view. And that is as a largely disenchanted NASCAR fan, who feels that they've sold out their long time fan base for money. And wants to watch racing from a series where some of their traditional values still exhist. That should say a lot hopefully.


_Modified by chernaudi at 8:06 PM 2-10-2007_


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

And to add to my last post, I was just watchin' the Bud Shootout NASCAR event, and Darrell Waltrip said that Toyota coming into NASCAR was a good thing for the series' growth. That is until others start to complain(my assesment of DW's statement). I see it coming. And it's happening in the ALMS. Audi came in in 2000 with the R8, and IMSA said the same thing-it's good for our series. It won 80% of the races it entered. No one complained. The same was said of the R10-that it was good for the ALMS/Le Mans. That's until the complaints started.
I guess the thing when I think about it that I'm frustrated about is that no one complained when the R8 was kicking the crap out of everyone/everything-sometimes with redicuous ease-and no one said anything about it. But their doing it with the R10. Is it cause they're afraid of being beat buy what in the country is still seen as an inferior technology? Did IMSA's competition adjustment policy give them a forum to complain? It can't just be because of the R10's profromance potential-as the R8 never really showed it's potential to the full. What's the answer?

_Modified by chernaudi at 8:30 PM 2-10-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 8:32 PM 2-10-2007_


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

Dude, you need to step back, take a deep breath and relax, you're getting waaaaay too worked up over this whole thing.
I have a hard time following your posts because you make a lot of statements that you dont really finish or back up, but, like always, I'll address a couple things.
If Bentley spent almost 17 million dollars to run two races, one of which was on their own continent, how can you think that Audi only spent a few more million to run an entire season on a whole different continent?
Audi rented garage space over here, they shipped cars back and forth a couple times a year, they shipped their people back and forth a bunch of times a year, they were still developing the car for most of the years they were over here and were still building new cars each year. If Bentley spent 16.4 million on those two races, I bet Audi spent 40-50 million to run a season over here and develop those cars. Remember, there is a lot more to it than the cost of tires, fuel and people's hotel rooms at the track. Remember, we're talking about the entire cost of developing the cars from the beginning as well as ongoing R&D, testing and building, not just the cost of actually running the races.
Again, there is a lot of tech transfer from F1 into companies cars, not just the Enzos of the world. Everything they learn about materials, engine management, suspension designs, aerodynamics, and tire design is eventually used in some way in our cars. Its not as straightforward as sportscars seem, but I guarantee you its just as relevant.
And when it comes to marketing for a foreign manufacturer, there is nothing in the racing world that sells better than F1 stuff because EVERYONE knows what F1 is. Tomorrow, go out on the street and ask people if they have heard of Le Mans, then ask them if they have heard of F1. I dare you to do that and HONESTLY report your results. I face it on almost a daily basis when I have to explain to people what I do for a living. The first thing I get is NASCAR and the second I get is F1. When I ask if they have heard of sportscar racing or Le Mans they look at me with a funny face till I tell them its sort of like F1 racing but with the cars with fenders and Porsches and Corvettes.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_There are also those out there that say that the ALMS fields are so small because of Grand Am, the essentially NASCAR owned sportscar series. The gentlemen drivers go there 'cause the cars are cheap(basically mid engined NASCAR stock cars), and they know that they at least have an outside chance of winning.

Your point?

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_So I say to those who don't like running in the ALMS(especally manufactures), shut up or run NASCAR if you want to be in the North American market. That may be a pretty conceeded statement, but it cost more to run in the back in NASCAR than it is to be second best to Audi. Oh, that leads me to another thing-NASCAR's paydays are better too. The guy who finishes dead last in next Sunday's Daytona 500 will win more money than the winner of the 12 Hours of Sebing-and if you're driving for a factory team, you'll get little to no money, due to IMSA's payment rules.

Wow, big words there. My question is why would they want to run NASCAR if they dont want to run the ALMS? 
And more to the point, what makes you think they want to run anything at all in the US? If a factory does, they will generally run ALMS, but the point is they dont want to run anything here or they would be.
BTW, I'm hearing rumors that BMW might be following Toyota's footsteps into NASCAR. Maybe they heard you.
And what does the paydays have to do with anything? If manufacturers are running for the technology R&D and for the marketing value as you seem to suggest they should, why would they care about paydays? I guarantee you that is a small part of what is put into racing and they are subsidizing their drivers just fine without them getting a payday. Plus I thought you would like IMSAs rules for payouts as its supposed to encourage privateers to take on the likes of Audi.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_I guess the thing when I think about it that I'm frustrated about is that no one complained when the R8 was kicking the crap out of everyone/everything-sometimes with redicuous ease-and no one said anything about it.

You havent followed the ALMS for very long have you? People have been complaining about Audi winning everything in site for YEARS. Its just people used to hold out hope that Panoz or Dyson would take them down here and there. With the R10 everyone KNOWS no one else has a chance, so they are just screaming louder.
But I have been working very closely with the ALMS since '01 and I can say with a very straight face that people have been sick of Audi for almost as long. Hell, I know folks that get a paycheck that says Audi on it, that root against them every race in hopes of actually seeing a race. I have been disappointed with Audi winning everything for years as well, but could still enjoy the racing as Dyson almost always put up a good fight that would lead to enjoyable racing. But at this point its just gone too far and I think that is how many feel, even those that like Audi.
And I dont know the answer. But seeing Audi take step back for a couple years may not be the worst thing in the end...I dont know. So I just sit back and do my job and hope that more folks come to the series and I can keep on working.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (chernaudi)*

the only time folks didn't complain was in '99 when they showed up at Sebring - they were slow and the BMW LMR's ran away







IIRC that's Alboreto


----------



## lappies (Apr 10, 2006)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (16v)*

Over the last 6 months I have noticed that Audi Sport actualy has a very limited involvent in their sports car program. The racing program was outsourced to Championracing.
It seems if Audi is busy behind the seens with something. Mabye a new racing program? WRC, F1, etc???
I am a huge fan of Audi and their motorsport program. BUT Audi has been in Sports Cars for too long. I am 18 and everyone around me doesnt like Audi and realy doesnt care about endurance racing. Le Mans in most countires only apeals to die hard motorsport enthusiasts......... 
In general outside the USA the only motorsport everyone knows is Formula 1 (dont get me wrong, I hate F1). Walk up to the average person and ask him who Tom Kristensen is and he wont know, but he will know who michael Schumacher is.
If Audi wants to be the leading car manufacture by 2015 then 1 thing they must do is compete with both BMW and Mercedes on the track. Formula 1 is the best way to do this. 
I am part of the upcoming generation who still think BMW and Merc is better than Audi








They dont care about Le Mans , its just Formula 1 
I pearsonaly think Audi should go into F1, to promote itself. 
REMEMBER the Auto Union and the 4 rings was formed by HORCH, AUDI, DKW and Wanderer to go compete in the World Grand Prix Championship (Formula 1 in the 30s) Formula 1 is a great part of Audis motorsport heritage!
I know people are now going to say..........."Its too expensive" "It will take too long to be competative" "There is no technology transfer"
So What?
"Its too expensive" ? Bull @@@@ Spyker is in Formula 1 for crying out loud! Audi has much more money that that little Dutch car maker.
Formula 1 is the best way for Audi to promote itself. The lack of technology transfer doesnt matter. The Audi brand promoting itself is much more important! 
Anyway, Audi cant expect to do Endurance racing forever! 
Look at this trend.
Toyota at Le Mans 1990-99 then went to F1
BMW Le Mans 1990's then F1 with Williams
Mercedes Le Mans early 1990's then F1 with Mclaren
Formula 1 is the logical next step........
If Audi goes to anything else that would be regressing.


_Modified by lappies at 8:32 AM 2/11/2007_


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (lappies)*

I guess that the thing that I'm trying to argue is that Manufactures are into racing for promotion and money, right? And that racing usually inspires developments for road cars. There are only a few viable places where that can be done now. The ALMS is one of them. Why would BMW come there in '99, Audi in '00, and Porsche last year and Honda/Acura this year, if it weren't worth their while? And besides, go to http://www.audi.com, and look up the stuff they put up for Le Mans last year(if it's still up). The ALMS and Le Mans is second in TV ratings for auto racing next to NASCAR,(albeit a very distant second). And NASCAR out rates all other US based racing series, and F1, along with the NBA, NHL, MLB, and is in a virtual tie with the NFL(stick and ball sports).
And as for Audi and their spending habits in the ALMS, Joest based his ALMS efforts out of Atlanta, not too far away from IMSA's headquaters. And I don't think that the whole team went back and forth between the US and Europe more than a 3 or 4 times a year. And as for the R8 itself, Audi did spend a pretty penny developing the car until the end of it's life, but Audi didn't build a new car since early 2002(That's when 605 was completed and is at Champion Audi last I heard of it). Bentley also from 2001-'03 built cars: The '01 cars, the modified '01 cars ran in '02 and a basically entirely new car that won LM in '03. I doubt that Bentley saved much money using the Audi R8's engine as the basis for theirs. And Bentley would've spent as much money as Audi to run the whole ALMS season it they felt it were worth their while.
F1 uses cars that are spec as far as chassis layout, the engines are all to the same specs, and the cars would pretty much look the same if it weren't for the different paint schemes.
In NASCAR it's worse-the cars are all built to the same specs, use castiron pushrod carburetted engines, and are as low tech as can be-even the Austrailian V8 Supercars are high tech compaired to NASCAR Nextel Cup/Busch Grand National cars. And they're not cheap either-it can take more than 50-60 million dollars a year to run, largely because you have to build so many cars a year, due to there being so many specialized cars for the differnent tracks on the schedule. Which is why road racing is far cheaper-you could've bought an Audi R8 a few years ago and run every major sportscar race in the world for what it cost to run a few NASCAR races and be a mid pack runner.
I'll bet you that the only thing that would lure more foreign marques in to NASCAR is if they get rid of that stupid rule that basically bans most foreign makers form competing, and allow the manufactures to develop more modern engines-at least allow all aluminum engines with electronic fuel injection(Panoz already used such an engine in the LMP1, and it was Ford 351 SVO OHV based). And allow for both pushrod and OHC engines, and do like the ACO and develop an equivalancy formula for both.
I know that this is starting to sound like a NASCAR "mine is bigger than your's"-fest. But I'm not as big a NASCAR fan as I used to be. Because Brian France is starting to act/sound like Bernie Eccostone-a pompus nitwit who sells out his sport for the act of lining his pockets. But that's life I guess. I bet if Don Panoz did some of the same things, IMSA would be far better off now. I say that if a manufacture or a private team owner is willing to make an investment in a sport, get everyone together(heads of manufactures, team owners, head of the sactioning body/ies), and debate until they all feel that the rules package is at least fair and statisfactory. And I'd also include incentive in the form of contengincy prizes for manufactures to sell cars to privateers, and I'd bring back the Privateers' Cup, so that privateers who cant contend for race wins every week have something to race for. Add a bigger purse that rewards all, And the ALMS would possibly be in good shape. But then again, when you solve a problem, you can accidently create one.
And NASCAR can also be blamed for the road racing schism in America, as NASCAR didn't want to play with IMSA anymore after Panoz alligned himself with the ACO. And I also must say that a great opportunity was missed too. NASCAR wanted to grow globaly. I would've loved to see NASCAR Cup cars run around Silverstone, Brands Hatch, Le Mans(either circuit would've done for me), Spa, Monza, Nurbergring or Rockingham(UK) or Eurospeedway Ovals. But as the Cup Series was sponsored by Winston Cigarettes, the opportunnities were limited due to anti tobacco legislation in most European countries, which left them with Japan(where no such legisation exhist), Italy and Belgium(where taxes had to be paid on the teams' entry fees).
And NASCAR could've used the ALMS as a feeder series for teams and manufactures. But that would've lead to a collapse of the ALMS, just like whem Max Mosely and Bernie Eccostone decided to use Group C for the same thing for F1.
And don't get me wrong. Al though I've always admired waht Audi have done in racing, I haven't always been their biggest fan. In the ALMS, I used to root for Panoz, then Champion Racing after Panoz pulled out. I just wasn't a big fan of Audi's factory teams at the time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe I should just let it go for a while and see who really gets screwed, as Audi made an investment in the ALMS not just for racing, but from a sponsorship stand point. And there are too many people/organizations to blame for what's happening now-all I can do is play Speed TV's Robin Miller and call it as I see it, because I can't change what's happening, I can only criticize.
_Modified by chernaudi at 2:44 PM 2-11-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 3:01 PM 2-11-2007_


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_
F1 uses cars that are spec as far as chassis layout, the engines are all to the same specs, and the cars would pretty much look the same if it weren't for the different paint schemes.









so would all the P1 and P2 cars to the untrained eye


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (16v)*

Even the untrained eye could tell many apart after a few glimpses, but the cars a built to the same basic rules aside from engine size and min. weight so in theory, one can buy an LMP2 car, put a bigger engine in it, ballast it to the min. LMP1 weight, and put wider wheels/tires on it(that's what Creation and Zytec did or are doing). And that's where the difficulty lies there, although it's a good idea from a cost cutting stand point.
And if I'm Scott Atherton or Don Panoz, wouldn't I be trying to keep everyone as placated as possible? I mean one would assume that they should count themselves fortunate to have Audi, GM, Ford(through Mazda and Aston Martin, at least for now), Honda, and Porsche om board as factories that not just field cars, but support the series as sponsors/marketing partners. And have teams like Intersport and Dyson Racing being privateers willing to also make an investment in the sport as well. I'd be the biggest pile of BS in the world to work with such companies and people. And one must remember how the ALMS got burned just last year by programs(most notably Lexus, whose program probably got hacked by Toyota in favor to support it's NASCAR program), that said that they'd show up, and the samething was said race after race, until it came out that they wouldn't be showing up at all.
And one thing that would help out the ALMS is if Audi and GM would sell customer cars(Aston Martin already has). Audi's already selling R8 engines to Swiss Spirt. Maybe this is an opportunity, as Audi can field competitve cars without building their own cars, and make a lot of money and get their name out there without spending the $15-45 or so million they spent running the ALMS with the R8. Besides, a Porsche RS Spyder or Acura powered Courage or Lola LMP2 car cost as much as a R8 did a few years ago, so what makes the difference now? I guess that's the big question now for the ALMS.

_Modified by chernaudi at 8:32 PM 2-11-2007_

_Modified by chernaudi at 8:34 PM 2-11-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 8:36 PM 2-11-2007_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Even the untrained eye could tell many apart after a few glimpses, but the cars a built to the same basic rules aside from engine size and min. weight so in theory, one can buy an LMP2 car, put a bigger engine in it, ballast it to the min. LMP1 weight, and put wider wheels/tires on it(that's what Creation and Zytec did or are doing). And that's where the difficulty lies there, although it's a good idea from a cost cutting stand point.
And if I'm Scott Atherton or Don Panoz, wouldn't I be trying to keep everyone as placated as possible? I mean one would assume that they should count themselves fortunate to have Audi, GM, Ford(through Mazda and Aston Martin, at least for now), Honda, and Porsche om board as factories that not just field cars, but support the series as sponsors/marketing partners. And have teams like Intersport and Dyson Racing being privateers willing to also make an investment in the sport as well. I'd be the biggest pile of BS in the world to work with such companies and people. And one must remember how the ALMS got burned just last year by programs(most notably Lexus, whose program probably got hacked by Toyota in favor to support it's NASCAR program), that said that they'd show up, and the samething was said race after race, until it came out that they wouldn't be showing up at all.
And one thing that would help out the ALMS is if Audi and GM would sell customer cars(Aston Martin already has). Audi's already selling R8 engines to Swiss Spirt. Maybe this is an opportunity, as Audi can field competitve cars without building their own cars, and make a lot of money and get their name out there without spending the $15-45 or so million they spent running the ALMS with the R8. Besides, a Porsche RS Spyder or Acura powered Courage or Lola LMP2 car cost as much as a R8 did a few years ago, so what makes the difference now? I guess that's the big question now for the ALMS.

_Modified by chernaudi at 8:32 PM 2-11-2007_

_Modified by chernaudi at 8:34 PM 2-11-2007_

_Modified by chernaudi at 8:36 PM 2-11-2007_

I'm against a huge field of customer cars in LMP1 and GT1. I think that should be where manufacturers push themselves and leave LMP2 and P2 to customers. Where this isn't a spec series is that brands like Audi and Peugeot can run diesel. Le Mans' rules push for that sort of evolution and they welcome change, whereas Formula 1 is largely there to push for a more even field and put on a good show. 
I read a good article way back when ALMS had the National Grand Prix in D.C., and the Washington Post covered it. The contention was that in ALMS and sportscar racing, the cars are the star. In F1 and Nascar, the drivers are the star. There's got to be a happy medium I guess, but I think it is this way because you have the emphasis on the technology and the hardware and not on the driver necessarily.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I'm against a huge field of customer cars in LMP1 and GT1. I think that should be where manufacturers push themselves and leave LMP2 and P2 to customers. 

Unfortunately that just isnt going to happen, at all, ever. Look at the landscape of manufacturer involvement in racing these days. What are the series that have more than a couple involved at any high level? NASCAR, F1, Aussie V8, Japanese GT, DTM, and maybe BTCC/WTCC.
These are all essentially spec series as you put it. The cars are all basically the same under the bodies, even the Japan GT (the least spec) still goes by very strict rules making sure that all the cars are performing essentially the same on the track. All these series basically specify the same kind of chassis and the same kind of engine regardless of what actually comes in the real car.
In this day and age, the win on Sunday, sell on Monday mentality is basically gone and doesnt really apply any longer as in the days of marketing and billion dollar Super Bowl commercials, manufacturers do not need to show off their cars on the track to sell them any longer.
I believe its that a manufacturer simply doesnt want to lose. That simple. Why put huge money into a series that you might lose in. Why didnt Ford race the GT? Because they didnt want to spend 40 million dollars developing the car to maybe go out and lose to a Corvette, a car that costs a third of the price. Why would any manufacturer feel like going out and taking on Audi in a car that doesnt even look like anything they sell, only to lose to a car that is a diesel? Doesnt make sense from a marketing standpoint.
However, in NASCAR, Aussie V8s, DTM, or the others, you can pretty much guarantee that you will get your chance at the top since the racing is more based on racing as the cars are all basically the same underneath.
I hope I turn out to be wrong, but I dont see it happening. The only hope would be that entries breed entries and if Peugeot or Acura can go out and start to beat Audi and make them races, then you might see others take notice and go "we can do that too." Till that day, we have a history of the only team to beat Audi at their own game was an Audi in another skin. Till the day they get knocked off their horse or they decide to give it up, manufacturers in P1 and GT1 are going to be very few and far between.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Even the untrained eye could tell many apart after a few glimpses

I'd be willing to bet a HUGE bottle of Jager (Jimmy will get the reference), that if you stripped the cars clean 9 out of 10 people at Sebring wouldn't know which was which.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (16v)*

I was just reading the sportscar forum at SpeedTV.com and a post really caught my attention(it's the fifth post on the second page).
Let's just look at these 3 points:
1): How will Audi leaving encourage more teams to show up?
2): IMSA owes Audi for trying to promote the series/Le Mans, and is the epitomy of modern sportscar racing.
3): Unless F1 just vanishes anytime soon, no manufactures will go sportscar racing.
My arguements are:
1): I doubt that it will lure any manufactures, and won't get very many more privateers in there, as there are more profitable racing series out there.
2): Very true, but if IMSA didn't run to ACO rules, would Audi even of cared to show up? I don't think so, as Le Mans was the only major racing title(not counting NASCAR) that Audi didn't win(and I'm counting the '30s Grand Prix as that era's equivalant to modern day F1).
3). True again, but it brings another question: Would they(other manufactures) still care? Possibly, as many have had success rooted in sportscar racing, and running the ALMS may help with North American sales. 
But we have to take the present situlation for what it is. Detroit's big three are hemorraging huge amounts of money. Ford has all it can take for now in NASCAR and WRC for direct factory racing. GM has the same deal with NASCAR and GT1. Chrysler: NASCAR and that's it. Most of the manufactures(regardless of nationality/buget) don't have the money to race everything they want, and must choose their favorites. Only Mazda(owned by Ford) has made a commitment, other than Audi, GM, Honda, and Porsche.
And that's the current state of sportscar racing. Anyone is welcome to argue these points.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (16v)*

Yeah, but there are perfect storms.
Look at Touring Car in the 90s. You had to run 2.0-liters, but could run 4cyl, I6 or V6. You could run manual or sequential transmissions, front, rear or all-wheel drive. They penalized accordingly with weight, but it was pretty cool. Heck, even a wagon (Volvo) and a minivan (Renault) raced at one time or another in that style of racing before it fell on hard times and manufacturers pulled out.
Sportscar? The perfect storm was 1999ish, Porsche had just pulled out (probably because someone else wanted to use Team Joest







), Mercedes was there with the CLK, BMW with the LM, Audi with the R8R. F1 has a bulk of manufacturers right now, but this sort of thing is cyclical as priorities change.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_I was just reading the sportscar forum at SpeedTV.com and a post really caught my attention(it's the fifth post on the second page).
Let's just look at these 3 points:
1): How will Audi leaving encourage more teams to show up?
2): IMSA owes Audi for trying to promote the series/Le Mans, and is the epitomy of modern sportscar racing.
3): Unless F1 just vanishes anytime soon, no manufactures will go sportscar racing.


It will encourage others to participate because they dont have to go against the 800lb gorilla. Dyson would not have left and could potentially return with one of their Lolas if Audi left. People such as Tracy Krohn would possibly come in as he wants to go to Le Mans with his own team and wants back in the ALMS, but felt like he needed to defend his GA championship this year. There are others out there running GA for no better reason than a chance to win and not having to go against Audi. It doesnt cost much less to run a DP than it does a P1 car, regardless of what GA fans will tell you. That is unless you have to spend the money Audi does, which is why people didnt.
I argue that Audi saying goodbye would bring in other teams, of course its not likely we'll find out.
IMSA doesnt owe Audi anything at this point. Sure, they should be grateful and Audi did do a lot for the series, but at the same time, it has hurt the series as well and at this point I dont think they owe Audi anything. 
I agree, that with F1 where it is, not many, if any will drop it for the ALMS, it just doesnt make sense as I've argued many times in this thread.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (.:RDriver)*

So hypothecicaly Champ Car owes Ford(a company that's on it's last legs compaired to VAG) more for staying on when Honda and Toyota left, than IMSA owes VAG for sticking with the ALMS when all the other factories left for F1 or something else? Stupid question, but if Audi hurt the ALMS as much as it helped it, could the same be said of Ford and Champ Car(although Champ Car owns most of Cosworth, who built the Ford engines), or(defininently) Honda and the IRL?
But maybe you're right about Audi either cutting back their schedule or pulling out for a while until things settle and improve. Maybe they should go run the LMS in Europe. Everyone(execpt Pescarolo) seems to be less PO'd about Audi and the R10 over there(Yves Courage says that he supports the current rules package, and his buget is a fraction of Pescarolo's, and they've ditched Mugen's and Yokohoma's sponsor dollars in favor of Michelin tires and the same AER turbocharged V8s that Dyson ran last year, and ditched the horridly unreliable Courage/Hewland gearboxes in favor of Xtrac trannies like those that Pesca and Bentley use/used. Just a non-Audi news flash, as otherwise, meaning last year's problems, the LC70 would be a good match for one of those 3.6 Audi FSI V8s).


_Modified by chernaudi at 8:31 PM 2-12-2007_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (chernaudi)*

I doubt they'll run LMES, but I could be wrong. If the LMP2 rules go as expected, I wouldn't be surprised to see Audi dial it back to Sebring and Petit Le Mans.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_So hypothecicaly Champ Car owes Ford(a company that's on it's last legs compaired to VAG) more for staying on when Honda and Toyota left, than IMSA owes VAG for sticking with the ALMS when all the other factories left for F1 or something else? Stupid question, but if Audi hurt the ALMS as much as it helped it, could the same be said of Ford and Champ Car(although Champ Car owns most of Cosworth, who built the Ford engines), or(defininently) Honda and the IRL?

Its not even a close comparison to compare Ford in Champ Car and Audi in the ALMS.
Ford has been the SPEC engine in Champ Car, therefore doing a ton for CC and keeping them running well. If Ford had pulled out as well as the others, then CC would have been in trouble.
Audi is a competitor in the ALMS that keeps all their toys to themselves. If Audi wanted to produce a spec engine for LMP1, that would be great and a similar situation. Instead, Audi wont even sell a customer car and just goes around obliterating anything and anyone that enters the class. In the beginning, it was a good thing, bringing exposure to the series. After a few years it started to become a detriment to the series and sportscar racing as a whole since no one wants to come play in the sandbox anymore for fear of getting beaten down by the big bully that owns it.

Those others havent hurt the other series because they have always been readily available to all the competitors in the series, even before becoming a spec engine.
What if Audi had offered the R8 as a reasonably priced customer car? Dont you think they would have been snapped up and raced successfully by others besides Audi? And, NO, the Champion team doesnt count since they are just Audi competing against Audi and they couldnt even start their car without an engineer from Audi present and could not ever test or do any development on their own.
Dont you think that would have been great for sportscar racing? But Audi, apparently, was more concerned about controlling winning by the factory than they were about the good of racing.
So, no, comparing Ford in CC and Honda in the IRL is nothing like Audi in the ALMS/Le Mans.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (.:RDriver)*

Well Porsche has done the same thing too, even when they were willing to see customer cars. The factory 956/962Cs always had an advantage compaired to the customer cars, and(Just like Joest at LM '85) a bit of luck was required to beat the factory, even with similar cars.
Porsche was accused of favoring AJR in GT2 in the ALMS for years, and who knows if they'll favor Penske compaired to Dyson, and Rob Dyson has done as much for Porsche over the years as Roger Penske has.
That's one of the reasons why it's hard to compair the Audi dominace to that of Porsche. Porsche(aside from giving their factory teams a slight edge) didn't really care who won as long as it was one of their cars. Audi wanted all their cars to be equal with eachother for what ever reason, privateer of factory.
Porsche was(and apparently still is) selling cars to willing customers and let them tinker with them, often with factory help, especally the post 917 era. Audi, other than chassis set up stuff, rarely if ever let the teams themseves screw with the cars, and that the cars were also rarely if ever started with out a guy in an Audi Sport uniform with a laptop at hand.
Maybe if Audi sold more customer cars and were at least a little more leanent about the teams fussing with their creations, the ALMS would've been better off. And Porsche also sold customer engines to privateer teams, even if their cars weren't of Porsche origin. Maybe Audi is starting to realize that there is money to be made, and competition to be had if they sold some of their old engines to privateers. However, such a deal on a wide scale is years from happening, if at all. 
Heck, I'd love to see what a car using the R10 tub/bodywork and the 3.6 TFSI V8 would do. It would be lighter than the current R10, weight balance would be slightly better, the suspension and aerodynamics are as good, if not(especally areo) better than the R8, and the R8 engine would get to with in 1-3 laps(depending on circuit) of the R10's diesel. And the 3.6 TFSI V8 has excellent power and a torque advantage over almost everyother engine on the market today, aside from the Elan/Ford Panoz V8(about the same power/torque), and the Bentley 4 liter version of the 3.6(larger displacement, and more turbo boost and larger air restictor, as the Bentleys were closed cockpit). But this, like other manufactures(other than Peugeot) challanging Audi right now, or Audi selling up dated R8s as customer cars in the ALMS, is a pipe dream.
If Audi Sport/VW would've lightened up about some of this stuff, as early as 4-5 years ago, a lot more people would be happier than they are now. Heck, Rob and Chris Dyson were interested in buying a couple of R8s a couple of years ago, but were tuned off by a lot of the stuff that I mentioned. I mean the Audi R8 could've been easliy the privateer success story that the Porsche 956/962 was, but it didn't happen. Appearently Audi and IMSA need to understand that if they want something, they're both probably gonna have to give up something. Audi wants to compete with factories. Well, give up some power or let others run a slightly larger air restictor, maybe a little ligher weight, something like that. On IMSA's side, they must develop a consistant, firm equivalncey formula for all cars, just like the ACO did in the post Group C era, that would allow all cars to have roughly compairable overall profromance.
And just like restictor plate racing in NASCAR, I don't really have a good answer that will satisfy everyone. As I also said in my last post, maybe Audi should cut back their ALMS schedule and run in the LMS in Europe until things are looking better for the ALMS, and most of the people in the LMS seem to be less PO'd about the R10(and Yyes Courage, also as mentioned, has decided to run Michelin tires(insted of Yokohoma), AER engines(instead of Mugen), and XTrac(instead of Courage/Hewland) gearboxes which is addressing the major problems with last year's LC70, and is fully supportive of the current regs, so is Jan Lammers/Racing For Holland, Creation and Zytec don't seem to be very afraid-only Pescarolo has been outright critical of the ACO regs). Why are the Euro teams less angry about the regs than the American teams?

_Modified by chernaudi at 12:00 PM 2-13-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 12:03 PM 2-13-2007_


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Well Porsche has done the same thing too, even when they were willing to see customer cars. The factory 956/962Cs always had an advantage compaired to the customer cars, and(Just like Joest at LM '85) a bit of luck was required to beat the factory, even with similar cars.

Done the same as what? Nowhere did I say anything that this could be related to.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Porsche was accused of favoring AJR in GT2 in the ALMS for years, and who knows if they'll favor Penske compaired to Dyson, and Rob Dyson has done as much for Porsche over the years as Roger Penske has.

That is no secret. We all know that all GT3s are not the same. This year at the test, Flying Lizard said we could take as many photos of the new 997 as we wanted as long as we didnt shoot into the empty wheelwells. Hmm, something different than the other cars methinks. Not a secret.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_That's one of the reasons why it's hard to compair the Audi dominace to that of Porsche. Porsche(aside from giving their factory teams a slight edge) didn't really care who won as long as it was one of their cars. Audi wanted all their cars to be equal with eachother for what ever reason, privateer of factory.

Not true at all. The factory team ALWAYS was a year ahead on development with the R8. When they ran new aero, it was on the Joest cars before the Champion car. When they changed parts of the chassis, Joest was running the newest model and the others had "last years" chassis. Audi never ran equal cars as the others when they were running a factory team.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Porsche was(and apparently still is) selling cars to willing customers and let them tinker with them, often with factory help, especally the post 917 era. Audi, other than chassis set up stuff, rarely if ever let the teams themseves screw with the cars, and that the cars were also rarely if ever started with out a guy in an Audi Sport uniform with a laptop at hand.

Audi didnt let ANYTHING happen without their approval. They NEVER let you start one of their cars without them on site. You could NEVER test the car without them being there to oversee it. You could NEVER modify or change ANY piece of the car without them oking it (and putting it on the factory car first). Its still the same. And Audi US does not count as Audi factory, everything Champion does still has to go through the motherland.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Maybe if Audi sold more customer cars and were at least a little more leanent about the teams fussing with their creations, the ALMS would've been better off. And Porsche also sold customer engines to privateer teams, even if their cars weren't of Porsche origin. Maybe Audi is starting to realize that there is money to be made, and competition to be had if they sold some of their old engines to privateers. However, such a deal on a wide scale is years from happening, if at all. 

Dont think this new thing with Swiss Spirit is any eye opening thing by Audi. Its solely a ploy to argue that the equivalency factor for gas and diesel is fair. The only reason that car has an Audi gas engine is so that Audi can make sure they run similar and prove that the rules dont favor diesel too much right now. I can guarantee you that there is an Audi person at SS every time that engine is fired up, just like in the past.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Heck, I'd love to see what a car using the R10 tub/bodywork and the 3.6 TFSI V8 would do. It would be lighter than the current R10, weight balance would be slightly better, the suspension and aerodynamics are as good, if not(especally areo) better than the R8, and the R8 engine would get to with in 1-3 laps(depending on circuit) of the R10's diesel. And the 3.6 TFSI V8 has excellent power and a torque advantage over almost everyother engine on the market today, aside from the Elan/Ford Panoz V8(about the same power/torque), and the Bentley 4 liter version of the 3.6(larger displacement, and more turbo boost and larger air restictor, as the Bentleys were closed cockpit). But this, like other manufactures(other than Peugeot) challanging Audi right now, or Audi selling up dated R8s as customer cars in the ALMS, is a pipe dream.

Wouldnt be as good as you think, its not that easy. The R10 was designed soley around the diesel engine. Most of its design would not be what you would want with a gas engine. It uses larger tires (especially in the front) and different suspension in order to help the car cope with the weight and torque of the diesel, it uses a 5 speed gearbox instead of the 6, larger driveshafts, different bodywork to deal with the different cooling and heat exchangers the diesel requires and there is probably much more we arent even aware of. Its suited to diesel and much of the design would be wasted space or weight on a gas engine. The basic aero might work, but the rest isnt designed for a gas engine.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_If Audi Sport/VW would've lightened up about some of this stuff, as early as 4-5 years ago, a lot more people would be happier than they are now. Heck, Rob and Chris Dyson were interested in buying a couple of R8s a couple of years ago, but were tuned off by a lot of the stuff that I mentioned. I mean the Audi R8 could've been easliy the privateer success story that the Porsche 956/962 was, but it didn't happen. Appearently Audi and IMSA need to understand that if they want something, they're both probably gonna have to give up something. Audi wants to compete with factories. Well, give up some power or let others run a slightly larger air restictor, maybe a little ligher weight, something like that. On IMSA's side, they must develop a consistant, firm equivalncey formula for all cars, just like the ACO did in the post Group C era, that would allow all cars to have roughly compairable overall profromance.

You're right on the customer thing. If Audi had that car open to other people and didnt want to hold the reigns so tightly on it, then there would likely have been more than a couple out there running. But that isnt what Audi wanted and we see what happened.

_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_And just like restictor plate racing in NASCAR, I don't really have a good answer that will satisfy everyone. As I also said in my last post, maybe Audi should cut back their ALMS schedule and run in the LMS in Europe until things are looking better for the ALMS, and most of the people in the LMS seem to be less PO'd about the R10(and Yyes Courage, also as mentioned, has decided to run Michelin tires(insted of Yokohoma), AER engines(instead of Mugen), and XTrac(instead of Courage/Hewland) gearboxes which is addressing the major problems with last year's LC70, and is fully supportive of the current regs, so is Jan Lammers/Racing For Holland, Creation and Zytec don't seem to be very afraid-only Pescarolo has been outright critical of the ACO regs). Why are the Euro teams less angry about the regs than the American teams?


The reason they arent so fed up with Audi is they havent been running against them for the last 6 years. I can guarantee you if Audi had won every LMS event since its inception, people would likely be just as fed up.
I dont mean to sound like all my bitching is to imply that Audi is all that is wrong with the ALMS, they share some of the blame as well. They have missed on opportunities and are doing well in spite of themselves more than because of themselves in many cases, but you also cant deny that Audi had a part in putting us in the position we are in now. Its not necessarily their fault and I cant say that they should have acted differently (wanting to see it and saying they should are different things), but because of the situation, their dominance and their lack of willingness to allow others to be a part of it have put the state of racing in a sad situation. Also, virtually all I say about Audi, could have GM substituted and apply to GT1.
All that says is that now, _possibly_ the best thing for the series would be to have Audi bow out for a bit and see if anyone else wants to take up the reigns. It wont happen immediately and may not happen at all if there is all the lingering possibility that Audi would return as soon as there are a few cars in the class, but who knows. The only thing we know for sure is that if Audi stays, its doesnt look like its going to get any better any time real soon. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: Audi ALMS pull out threat?! (.:RDriver)*

And if you ask me, it doesn't really help that everyone is impatient with everything. The big thing that I think is wrong with IMSA's competiton adjustments(namely the way they were applied last year) is that they were attempts at a quick fix solution. And quick fixes almost never really work. Granted, Audi didn't help things with the dominance and win-at-all-cost(as long as it's legal) mentality. But the economics of racing(needing a manufacture or a very big sponsor) hasn't helped. And Audi, IMSA, and the privateer teams not getting together to come up with a effective short term solution(as they all know better about such things than I), that would help out the long term is one of the things that has kinda screwed every body. I mean, wouldn't you be willing to give up something for the good of the sport if it will help you achive your long term goals?
The way I see it now, give the LMP2's a 2-3 percent restictor increase. Give gasoline powered LMP1s a similar increase and/or lower their minimum weight to about 890-900kgs. IMSA's supposed to have all this telemetry crap, why don't they use it to formulate a somewhat consitant, fairer rules package. And have less capable privateers run with more restrictor and/or sligtly less weight than the better privateers/factory teams.
I know that this is just pipe dream BS, but all that can be hoped for is that everyone gets it right, and that everyone ends up somewhat placated, at least to the point that Audi and everyone else shelves their plans to leave/reduce their scheludule for an other day.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

the only impatience I've read is right here......


----------



## Tanner74 (Jul 28, 2003)

This should eliminate any doubts if Audi was going to withdraw from the 2007 ALMS....
_We will keep up our successful involvement in the American Le Mans Series to flank the forthcoming drive to promote diesel engines in the USA. In the 2007 season, the Audi Sport North America team will for the first time be entering two Audi R10 TDI cars in every race._
- Rupert Stadler


----------

