Future; GP & HP brought back; Growth by absorbing GT4/5/L

peterzekert

peterzekert

Well-known member
Guys, Twenty years ago, in spring of 1992, I approached GP members about a combination of GP & GT5. Response from both camps was negative. Several told me "hell no".

Jump to today with smaller fields in most classes, but with Prod bucking the trend and showing decent fields in several parts of the country. Still decent fields can be 3-4 cars at a national race.

Consider a new "modified" EP; FP; GP and HP, built along existing prod class structure with the inclusion of GT cars as a highest level of prep (and more weight and/or SIR to go along with that advantage).

Both the ProdAC and the GTAC, and Prod and GT members would have to be involved, making sure that, if GT were absorbed into "modified" Prod, the GT cars were not brought in at overdog status.

ProdAC (Advisory Committee) and GTAC might want to bring in additional Prod members to ensure the absorption is not going to mess up existing structure.

"Modified Prod Classes":
EP and some smaller engine GT3 (with their SIRs);
FP and some ~1800cc GTL cars (with their SIRs);
GP and some ~1400-1600cc GTLs (with SIRs);
HP and the under 1350cc GTLs (with SIRs as applied).

Any POSITIVE or CONSTRUCTIVE NEGATIVE suggestions??

ANYONE want to be involved in this process???

Thank you, Peter Zekert
 
I will say that I find FP and GTL cars to be extremely close to performance at most tracks.

Don Kraftson and I regularly have great races in the NE.
 
I like any outside the box thinking.

But I think it's a little early to throw in the towel on GT.

The club needs a tin top tier like GT. Tube cars have a lot to offer.

What I think GT needs is a marketing leader that can make racing a GT car attractive to broader audience. I'm an engineer. I have no marketing skills. But I can tell when marketing is needed. We have a great product and a less than great reputation and sales rate.

The idea that a good rule set will cause racers to materialize is crazy. Take the 2011 GTL rule changes as an example. These changes should have brought some small bore GTL cars out of retirement, but they went completely unmarketed/unadvertised. Did we think that guys who parked their cars five years ago were still reading fastrack?

Look at SM and SRF. SRF actually takes out ads in magazines, makes videos, etc to promote their class. SM had the benefit of some very marketing and technology savvy folks during its growth years. I'm not saying marketing is the sole reason for their success, but it's a big part of it.

How do we market GT?

-Kyle
 
disquek":3d0dh67b said:
I like any outside the box thinking.

But I think it's a little early to throw in the towel on GT.

The club needs a tin top tier like GT. Tube cars have a lot to offer.

What I think GT needs is a marketing leader that can make racing a GT car attractive to broader audience. I'm an engineer. I have no marketing skills. But I can tell when marketing is needed. We have a great product and a less than great reputation and sales rate.

The idea that a good rule set will cause racers to materialize is crazy. Take the 2011 GTL rule changes as an example. These changes should have brought some small bore GTL cars out of retirement, but they went completely unmarketed/unadvertised. Did we think that guys who parked their cars five years ago were still reading fastrack?

Look at SM and SRF. SRF actually takes out ads in magazines, makes videos, etc to promote their class. SM had the benefit of some very marketing and technology savvy folks during its growth years. I'm not saying marketing is the sole reason for their success, but it's a big part of it.

How do we market GT?

-Kyle
Click to expand...

Kyle,

Put on an event like the Production Car Festival for the GT guys. I've begged, pleaded, bribed, etc., the GTL guys for seven years to join us at the Prod Fest as a way to promote GTL. Zero interested, nada, zip. I guess the GTL guys just aren't as passionate about the class as the Prod guys??

There used to be a GT5 Invitational at Mid-Ohio and it was a big success. Maybe something like that could be revived for GT.

Mark

MC
 
I like the idea of a GTL invitational at Mid-O. Could be at the double national in June which is an awesome event.
 
It's a great idea.

I'd suggest that it be an overall GT festival, much like the prod festival. Not just GTL.

-Kyle
 
Not sure how I feel about this. My first reaction was that Prod & GT cars kind of achieve their speed/lap-times in different ways. Like Bobby said, often FP & GTL cars can find themselves in eachothers races as it is, yet typically whenever that's happened I've found myself more on edge than anything. The cars just don't race the same. FP cars have more engine, GTL cars have better handling. And we're not talking minor variances here. Trying to pair those up into the class would be real tough. Also remember that the recent direction of the Prod category as a whole is the Prep2 car, designed to be cheaper to build, easier to maintain, and more reliable. Allowing in cars to the prep level of a GT car would be the complete opposite.

Bobby Lentz":1bipkai7 said:
I like the idea of a GTL invitational at Mid-O. Could be at the double national in June which is an awesome event.
Click to expand...
I'm on the Race Board for that event, and the groupings and schedule are all but concreted already. I can say though, that the EP/FP/HP/GTL classes will be all alone in their own group again this year. :mrgreen:

Would most people agree that GT1, GT2, & GT3 all seemed to have been relatively healthy last year? All three of them impressed me with the numbers of cars they brought out on several occasions. No, not earth shattering numbers, but decent for them I thought. As for GTL, I thought they really missed the boat in getting the "converted Prod roadster" in there competitively.
 
I think the idea has some merit, Peter. I also very much agree we need to market ourselves and show why GT-L,3,2 etc is the best thing since cheese in a can. Show how a GTL car can be less expensive to run than a LP Prod car. I know what some LP motors cost and they are more than a GTL motor for sure. An SIR GT engine is the same mindset as a LP engine in Prod only a different way of getting there. Longer life motors are what it's about.

Markteing!!! See I can't even spell it let alone do it well. Yes we need a GT fest at either Mid-Oh or Nelsons double this year.

Mark I've tried to get to Prod fest for years and never can quite get there.

Educate the members about ALL OUR CLASSES with indepth articles in Sportscar. Two pages would go a long way showing what the cars are all about. I could care less about the PRO XYZ cars I'll never run.

My 2 cents worth

Bryan Floyd
 
There are some good ideas/comments here. Dating myself: Back in the 70's when Production was being absorbed into GT, Production was not being allowed GT prep. I think this is the primary reason, along with perceived costs, that resulted in the remaining Prod racers resisting the change. Since then Prod was allowed so many changes, upgrades that the original premise of Prod racing was lost. Perhaps it is time to re-think the class structures to reflect better where we are today in terms of technology etc. No one wants their ox to be the one getting gored, but is obvious changes need to be made. We can sit on the sidelines and complain after the fact or we can be proactive and come up with proposed changes that we feel we can live with. The reality is that racing at any level is never cheap. Although history would indicate that we have little chance of ultimately influencing the decisions made by the CRB & BOD, if we don't try, we have no chance of succeding. Kevin, I concur that there are marked differences in the handling/speed characteristics between Tub and Tube cars, however, there are also some pretty big performance differences in Tub cars now for a variety of reasons not necessarily related to prep or driver skill. I think it deserves a long hard look to see if it is possible to change things up. Unless I read it incorrectly the BOD is going to do this with or without our input.
 
This would turn out just like the GT4/GT5 combination. It would be a mistake. Knowing what we know now, my guess is nobody would have supported the combination of 4 and 5. Currently the Prod classes are strong, so much so that the general consesus at the runoffs from those in charge was "thank God for Prod" (referring to the numbers of entrants). At this point, Prod should hold on and hold on tight to what is there. As proven in the past any show of weakness will result in a sound thumping. The announcment of consolidations is one we have seen before and with the exception of GP the BOD has failed to pull the trigger. The number of classes they want has already changed from 16 to 20 to 24. There is more blood in the water than from GT and Prod. My suggestion is stand firm, strengthen GTL, do nothing to upset prod and see who is left standing when the plan of month shakes out.
Taking one for the team, only works if you really are part of a team.
 
QUOTE :
"Although history would indicate that we have little chance of ultimately influencing the decisions made by the CRB & BOD"

THIS IS THE MOST REVEALING STATEMENT ABOUT ANY ATTEMPT TO DO ANYTHING TO MAKE OUR CLUB IN ANY WAY RESPONSIVE TO THE MEMBERSHIP WHO ACTUALLY PUT THE CARS ON THE TRACK.

True today as much as many, many years ago

They march to a much different and influential [$$$] drummer

Give it up
BC
 
In my opinion EP, FP and HP should be left alone. They are arguably healthy and growing. I realize that there are outliers in H and maybe what I am about to suggest will be a partial solution, in that once we see how one thing goes it can attract cars from the other.

I always felt that GP and GT5 were a good mix. When I raced in Colorado (back before and up to the time frame you are talking about for your earlier proposal) I noticed that in most cases the cars on the track that I was most "wheel to wheel" with were GP cars. I was in the not-so-enviable position of taking home trophies for finishing first in a class of one. :cry:

Now, these many years later, GT5 is no longer and has transitioned to GTL. I still think that a number of cars that were once GP could fit in that class. The problem is that to populate this class and make it equitable to all of the racers in said class some rule adjustments would be necessary.

GTL, by virtue of it's rule set can achieve a much lower CofG than a "tub" car. Tube frame cars would require a higher ride height specification than the current "if two tires on the same side of the car are deflated nothing rearward of the front wheel opening may touch the ground". Probably something along the order of 3 inches. GP cars will probably have a little better acceleration than the current GTL engine regulation so it may be necessary to adjust SIR sizing. The cars that used to be GP in this discussion would need to be given the ability to upgrade the brakes if they wish. (I mostly think that this would be useful from an unsprung weight perspective, as the brakes themselves probably work adequately with the most recent pad compound technology.)

In the effort to make the cars "race more the same" it would be beneficial to make the power close to equal and make the weight equal. I have a certain amount of experience on this subject. A "tub" car, even with the suspension points moved around and inch and with arguably superior brakes can just keep up with a "tube" car with the kind of adjustments I'm talking about.

The problem, as I see it, is that this is heresy to the GTL crowd. (and GT crowd in gerenral) who believe that GT is about "maximum everything and no limits". In the big scheme of things this would be a different (slight varation) on a class philosophy. Some guys have developed their cars to a point that this would require changes and no one ever wants to change their car to "go slower". The same people who make a lot of noise about this are the ones who change their car regularly to eek out another tenth or two in going faster, so changing the car is really not the issue, just the going slower part. Some of the recently succesful cars that have won the Runoffs are not all that different from a GP car. The FWD Honda's of Bovis and friends are still "tub" cars on some level. (I say this with only peripheral knowledge as I have not seen these cars in many years but I believe the statement to still be true) To the line of people who are about to reply "yeah, but what really constitutes a "tub" car?" It's pretty simple. The whole frame from the real car has to be there, not moved around, not overly lightened. Rollcage can go to both ends and support whatever it needs to. Sort of like building a "Prod" car. So if a car would pass muster in "Prod" it is a "tub" car. If you start hacking big sections of the frame out and replacing it with lighter, more advantageously positioned stuff, now it is either a "semi-tube" or "tube" car. We all know a "tub" car when we see one.


so to Re-cap;

* Combine GTL with GP as most recently raced.
* Establish slightly higher weight, ride height and possibly larger SIR for GTL.
* Permit brakes in the GP cars.
 
This to me is not a BAD idea if it could be done correctly and left alone.

I know Limited Prep Production was a good idea when it was born as well but that idea came out of the barn running and has not been re captured and most likely will not.

I think Production numbers are pretty good right now and if we could some how get the different brands across the board some help to give them a chance then we should leave it alone. The world is good with a few different brands right now but the rest are left as RED HEADED step children.
 
This strikes me as one of those logical good ideas that will end up biting us.

The GT4/GT5 merger is still causing ill will years later. This could be the same deal all over again.

Also, one thing that the 2011 GTL rule change (favored the small motors) proved is that car dont "un-park". This huge rule change did not bring even one small motor car out of the garage. So the idea of bringing back parked GP cars is a long shot at best.

What's not caught on is the idea that the SIR is a form of limited prep. It drastically reduces the operating costs of the motor and transmission (lower RPM). It also lowers the build costs. Some people in GT misinterpret the SIR as a leash, where as the people in prod see LP as a benefit.

Back to my original idea, market GT properly. Show that the SIR is an improvement. Show low operating costs, close racing, great people, and they will come.

-Kyle
 
I agree that the rule changes did not "unpark" GT5 cars. The rule changes were still in order if the facts bear out that the bigger engined cars had an advantage. Until we are collectively ready to write the cars with little engines out of the rules the AdComm, CRB, BoD is repsonsible to make adjustments that show good faith to the specifications that are listed, whether or not anyone brings the car.
 
Rob,

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you.

I was for the change when it happened, but the failure of that change taught me a lesson.

Hopefully, in time, it will bring out the small motor cars. Hopefully there is still a class left when those guys get off their a** and come race.

-Kyle
 
What do you guys think of the concept below? I thought of this a couple of years ago, and maybe now is the time for something like this. Just throwing an idea out there...



I had sent this previously, however, in light of the new mission statement to reduce class count, thought I would re-send.

Request: Revise all of the closed-roof car classifications into a new group of classes called TT for 'Tin-Top.'

All of the closed roof cars should be classed together- IT, GT, Prod, Touring, and SS into one class called TT.

Every major racing series at one time or another has combined tube-frame with production chassis-based race-cars. Let's equalize everyone into 6 classes of 'TT' and have some huge race fields. Add a 7th if needed because you can't equalize everything that I have listed in TT4.

TT1- GT1 and Unrestricted STO Cars
TT2- GT2, Restricted STO cars on DOT tires
TT3- T1, GT3
TT4- T2, GTL, EP, STU, ITR
TT5- T3, FP, ITS
TT6- SSB, SSC, HP, ITA

The above is just a quick rough idea, and I don't know enough about the different IT classes, so I could be totally off, but the beauty of the above is that EVERYONE will have to make some relatively minor changes for the greater good of closed-wheel racing, rather than some complaining of favoritism to one class or another. Through weight, restrictors, tire size, and "trunk kits," or other aftermarket parts, all of the cars in each TT class could be equalized.

You have now taken 14 current national classes with mostly not-so-great field sizes, plus all of the IT classes (and given them a real home in National racing), and boil them down to 6 or 7 TT classes with huge fields and great door-to-door racing.

You will have solved the Runoffs issues with too many classes, not enough entries, and a schedule that is way too long for most people's taste.

Trying to keep the current class structure alive isn't working very well, and there are lots of unhappy campers in lots of different classes. The way to approach this dilemna is a clean-sheet approach. I'm not saying my idea above is the only option or the "right" answer, but I do think that it's time to step-back, look at the big picture for the future of club racing that accounts for the need to consolidate classes and the need to increase field sizes.
 
jasonberkeley":2geg1n4p said:
What do you guys think of the concept below? I thought of this a couple of years ago, and maybe now is the time for something like this. Just throwing an idea out there...



I had sent this previously, however, in light of the new mission statement to reduce class count, thought I would re-send.

Request: Revise all of the closed-roof car classifications into a new group of classes called TT for 'Tin-Top.'

All of the closed roof cars should be classed together- IT, GT, Prod, Touring, and SS into one class called TT.

Every major racing series at one time or another has combined tube-frame with production chassis-based race-cars. Let's equalize everyone into 6 classes of 'TT' and have some huge race fields. Add a 7th if needed because you can't equalize everything that I have listed in TT4.

TT1- GT1 and Unrestricted STO Cars
TT2- GT2, Restricted STO cars on DOT tires
TT3- T1, GT3
TT4- T2, GTL, EP, STU, ITR
TT5- T3, FP, ITS
TT6- SSB, SSC, HP, ITA

The above is just a quick rough idea, and I don't know enough about the different IT classes, so I could be totally off, but the beauty of the above is that EVERYONE will have to make some relatively minor changes for the greater good of closed-wheel racing, rather than some complaining of favoritism to one class or another. Through weight, restrictors, tire size, and "trunk kits," or other aftermarket parts, all of the cars in each TT class could be equalized.

You have now taken 14 current national classes with mostly not-so-great field sizes, plus all of the IT classes (and given them a real home in National racing), and boil them down to 6 or 7 TT classes with huge fields and great door-to-door racing.

You will have solved the Runoffs issues with too many classes, not enough entries, and a schedule that is way too long for most people's taste.

Trying to keep the current class structure alive isn't working very well, and there are lots of unhappy campers in lots of different classes. The way to approach this dilemna is a clean-sheet approach. I'm not saying my idea above is the only option or the "right" answer, but I do think that it's time to step-back, look at the big picture for the future of club racing that accounts for the need to consolidate classes and the need to increase field sizes.
Click to expand...


You forgot American Sedan. The head of the CRB races in American Sedan so you need to add them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top