16 replies to this topic

[winkelhock]

From Wikipedia I found this information:

"In 2001, ALMS regulations stated that cars must be for sale on two continents within twelve months of the rules being issued. To fulfill this rule, BMW put 10 road going GTRs on sale after the 2001 season, for 250,000 euros (then $218,000) each."

However, did BMW really put these 10 road going M3 GTR for sale? Does anyone know?

[cheapracer]

I don't know but I seem to remember other teams being quite peeved about those BMW's?

Anyway, what i really wanted to say is seeing 2001 in TNF makes me feel, well, bloody old.

[cpbell]

I don't know but I seem to remember other teams being quite peeved about those BMW's?

Anyway, what i really wanted to say is seeing 2001 in TNF makes me feel, well, bloody old.

Not wishing to derail the thread (as I have no information on the subject of the original post), but ought there be some kind of rolling threshold for TNF? Perhaps any subject more recent than 10 years old is not admissible?

[winkelhock]

Not wishing to derail the thread (as I have no information on the subject of the original post), but ought there be some kind of rolling threshold for TNF? Perhaps any subject more recent than 10 years old is not admissible?

Sorry if I post at the wrong area...please relocate this if necessary.

[URY914]

So you are saying that a question about a subject 10 years ago should be "current history"?

[arttidesco]

Not wishing to derail the thread (as I have no information on the subject of the original post), but ought there be some kind of rolling threshold for TNF? Perhaps any subject more recent than 10 years old is not admissible?

Are you saying Simon Arron should not be posting his wonderful Nostalgia in the making threads on this Forum ?

Or that we should not post photo's of older vehicles in contemporary events ?

IMHO the answer to your question is no we should not have a rolling threshold.

As to the answer to the original question I cannot help, but it should be noted putting 10 cars on sale in showrooms on two continents for €250,000 / $ 218,000 each is a very different proposition to actually selling them.

I'd be interested to see evidence of either the 10 cars in showrooms or subsequently in private ownership on the road.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Wasn't there a similar role in the 90s for GT1 prototypes at Le Mans? Ie somewhere there are Mercedes CLK GT and Porsche 911 GT98s that are road legal.

[Nordic]

Wasn't there a similar role in the 90s for GT1 prototypes at Le Mans? Ie somewhere there are Mercedes CLK GT and Porsche 911 GT98s that are road legal.

Yep, Merc, Porsche, Lotus Panoz etc all had road road going versions of the GT1 cars. The power of google will provide photos.

I can recall seeing the Panoz at Le mans, metallic yellow and just as ugly as the racer.

[IrishMariner]

...it should be noted putting 10 cars on sale in showrooms on two continents for €250,000 / $ 218,000 each is a very different proposition to actually selling them....

I am ready to be corrected on this, but it reminded me a bit of the Mondeo/Alfa-Romeo debate in the BTCC in the early 90's. The dominant Alfa was sold in dealers but the homologated rear spoiler was supplied seperately in a box with rivets for the owner to attach. Ford argued that it was against the rules but IIRC, Alfa answered quite humorously by asking how many pop-rivets were required to fit the Mazda V-6 into a Mondeo?

My 2c is that 2001 is well within the realms of 'Nostalgia' and this question is not at all out of place in the TNF forum.

Edited by IrishMariner, 03 April 2011 - 21:31.

[Henri Greuter]

From Wikipedia I found this information:

"In 2001, ALMS regulations stated that cars must be for sale on two continents within twelve months of the rules being issued. To fulfill this rule, BMW put 10 road going GTRs on sale after the 2001 season, for 250,000 euros (then $218,000) each."

However, did BMW really put these 10 road going M3 GTR for sale? Does anyone know?

As far as I know the cars were never built!

BMW wanted to continue in 2002 with the cars in IMSA but still hadn't build, let alone sold ten cars and because of that, IMSA wanted to restrict the cars in competition.
BMW refused to accept that and then eventually withdrew from the series and cancelled the production cars too.
So, technically, they became champion in the lowest GT category, intended for larrge volume production GT's with a car that never went into production at all !!!

Putting it on the same level as the V8 powered Mercedes CLK of 1998 and the 1998 Porsche 911 GT1 also so called ` production GT that never went on sale to begin with. (and perhaps a some other examples like the '98 Nissan and the Toyota GT1) With that difference that all these cars were intended to run within the top GT1 category of which it was known that only a tiny amount of cars (1) were required to classify as a production type.
BMW's offence with breaking the rules with the lower category, intended for the larger volume production GT cars is more serious and insulting in my point of view. with Hindsight those 2001 titles should be taken off and given to the runner-up instead. It was one of the most blatant acts of cheating withing production based car racing ever...

The rules for prototypes of production cars of which not enough cars were built yet were changed in 2002. the percentage of the maximum allowable restrictor opening was reduced to 85% of the maximum allowed. It was inspired by the BMW affair of 2001. BMW refused to accept the penalty that since their cheatmobile would be chanceless again against Porsche but somehow, building and selling those 10 required production cars to avoid this penalty was not possible either....
One `victim` of the new for 2002 rules was the Spyker `double 12` GT2 car that debuted in 2002 at Sebring and also ran Le Mans that year. But Spyker took the bullet and the smaller restrictor. Ironically enough, there have never been enough `Double 12's built either so that car also never complied to the rules. But whenever the Double 12 ran, it ran with the restrictions valid for prototype cars. And since it never won anything of importance in 2002 and 2003 with the "Double 12", who cared.


Henri

[cpbell]

Sorry folks, I didn't explain my point of view very well. Mr. Arron's thread is one of my favourites and I'm always fascinated to see contemporary photos of historic vehicles and "vintage" drivers. My suggestion was that, perhaps a definition of what should be posted here instead of in Racing Comments might be a good idea? In other words, if someone were to start a thread on, let's say, the Coppa Ciano (I'm aware that there are probably already several dealing with this very subject), it would clearly be a TNF thread, whereas if they start a discussion on Kimi Raikkonen's WDC in 2007, should that be here?

WRT to 911 GT!, I seem to recal that the earlier (1996) spec car was available as a road car, but that the 1998 car wasn't.

[Henri Greuter]

Sorry folks, I didn't explain my point of view very well. Mr. Arron's thread is one of my favourites and I'm always fascinated to see contemporary photos of historic vehicles and "vintage" drivers. My suggestion was that, perhaps a definition of what should be posted here instead of in Racing Comments might be a good idea? In other words, if someone were to start a thread on, let's say, the Coppa Ciano (I'm aware that there are probably already several dealing with this very subject), it would clearly be a TNF thread, whereas if they start a discussion on Kimi Raikkonen's WDC in 2007, should that be here?

WRT to 911 GT!, I seem to recal that the earlier (1996) spec car was available as a road car, but that the 1998 car wasn't.

Same for the Mercedes CLK's: The '97 with V12 went in production and was offered for sale, the '98 V8 powered car not, neuterh was the '99 Le Mans "Flipper"
I believe that the '97 version of the GT1, that raced at Le Mans (modified bodywork) wasn't available as production car either

Initially, Porsche had postponed the production of the '96 version production cars but was then forced to built them in time to allow the customer cars of the race version that were already sold as well being eligible. Pretty much the same kind of demand that BMW was told in early 2002: Wanna race a Production car? Then make sure it is a production car first or take penalties so you can still participate but can't upset the cars that fulfill all rules 100% anymore.


henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 04 April 2011 - 10:49.

[winkelhock]

As far as I know the cars were never built!

BMW wanted to continue in 2002 with the cars in IMSA but still hadn't build, let alone sold ten cars and because of that, IMSA wanted to restrict the cars in competition.
BMW refused to accept that and then eventually withdrew from the series and cancelled the production cars too.
So, technically, they became champion in the lowest GT category, intended for larrge volume production GT's with a car that never went into production at all !!!

Putting it on the same level as the V8 powered Mercedes CLK of 1998 and the 1998 Porsche 911 GT1 also so called ` production GT that never went on sale to begin with. (and perhaps a some other examples like the '98 Nissan and the Toyota GT1) With that difference that all these cars were intended to run within the top GT1 category of which it was known that only a tiny amount of cars (1) were required to classify as a production type.
BMW's offence with breaking the rules with the lower category, intended for the larger volume production GT cars is more serious and insulting in my point of view. with Hindsight those 2001 titles should be taken off and given to the runner-up instead. It was one of the most blatant acts of cheating withing production based car racing ever...

The rules for prototypes of production cars of which not enough cars were built yet were changed in 2002. the percentage of the maximum allowable restrictor opening was reduced to 85% of the maximum allowed. It was inspired by the BMW affair of 2001. BMW refused to accept the penalty that since their cheatmobile would be chanceless again against Porsche but somehow, building and selling those 10 required production cars to avoid this penalty was not possible either....
One `victim` of the new for 2002 rules was the Spyker `double 12` GT2 car that debuted in 2002 at Sebring and also ran Le Mans that year. But Spyker took the bullet and the smaller restrictor. Ironically enough, there have never been enough `Double 12's built either so that car also never complied to the rules. But whenever the Double 12 ran, it ran with the restrictions valid for prototype cars. And since it never won anything of importance in 2002 and 2003 with the "Double 12", who cared.


Henri

Thanks Henri!! In fact, as BMW didn't build the required qty. of street cars that IMSA asked for, does it mean technically BMW is NOT the 2001 ALMS GT champion?

[Henri Greuter]

Thanks Henri!! In fact, as BMW didn't build the required qty. of street cars that IMSA asked for, does it mean technically BMW is NOT the 2001 ALMS GT champion?

To my knowledge, they are still acknowledged as the 2001 champions.
They did comply to the rules during that season even if it took a tremendous amount of creative thinking to be seen as legal. it was only after winning the title that they refused to built the required cars and it depends on how you think about this to be a vital part of the deal to make the car legal.
But let's say that they won it on a dirty manner by persuading to be permitted to race according the rules set for the category with a car that had yet to be built. it certainly was not within the spirit of the rules set for the category.

Now had the 15% restrictor penalty be applied yet in 2001 already (because of being a `prototype`) then it would have been a different matter. But as I understand it, they were declared champion in a category for production based cars but the car they used for it had not been produced yet.
And when charged to built it at last in order to remain legal for next year they bowed out and cancelled the production, thus retrospectively making their championship car an illegal creation after first having been a cheatmobile.

Henri

[Duc-Man]

And that is why every car company should do what Porsche did with the 917 back in the day: build them, line them up and then race them.
Or the other way around: a car should not be allowed to race unless the x-amout of cars are build and recognized by the officials.

Edited to add this link. Can somebody read that arabic writing on that banner on the left?
And this one.

Edited by Duc-Man, 04 April 2011 - 17:32.

[ray b]

'''It was one of the most blatant acts of cheating withing production based car racing ever...'''

well that covers alot of ground

the red guys GTO's was built but how many and when ?
was that car the one paraded for the officials with swapped numbers ??

then there is the whole nastycar ''stockcar'' CORPrat team cheating mantra
'' if you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin ''

[Henri Greuter]

'''It was one of the most blatant acts of cheating withing production based car racing ever...'''

well that covers alot of ground

the red guys GTO's was built but how many and when ?
was that car the one paraded for the officials with swapped numbers ??

then there is the whole nastycar ''stockcar'' CORPrat team cheating mantra
'' if you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin ''

Again: we are talking about a car competing in a category for large volume GT's, not the supercar status like Lambo, McLaren, Ferrari V12's etc but the entry level.
There are even more Maserati MC12 street versions built and sold then there were street legal M3 V8GT's!

After the affairs with the late '90's GT1 cars one may have expected that similar acts would be prevented to happen again. For the supercar category but certainly for the entry level GT cars.

And of that red GTO you mention, Yes too less of then had been built. No denying that. But at leats there were some built. But BMW had to built even less cars then the number of GTO's that were actually built in the 60's to fulfill their commitment and retrospectively make their car legal and their title a honestly earned one. Even if it took some binding of the rules.........


Henri