37 replies to this topic

[chr1s]

One for the sports car experts. I thought that production cars have always been a feature of Le Mans,  as well as prototypes there always seems to be an abundance of 911's, Ferrari's  and other such cars further down the grid. When I've watched  the race in more recent times that's still the case. But  recently I saw highlights of the 1988 and 1989 races  and there were no production based cars at all, just prototypes. Was there a reason for this?

 

Thanks Chris.

[milestone 11]

'88/'89 was in the midst of the World Sportscar Prototype championship which started in '86 from memory. There were 935's which bore the closest resemblance.

[SamoanAttorney]

One for the sports car experts. I thought that production cars have always been a feature of Le Mans,  as well as prototypes there always seems to be an abundance of 911's, Ferrari's  and other such cars further down the grid. When I've watched  the race in more recent times that's still the case. But  recently I saw highlights of the 1988 and 1989 races  and there were no production based cars at all, just prototypes. Was there a reason for this?

 

Thanks Chris.

 

Chris

 

from 1982 to 1992 the FIA World Sportscar Championship ran under Group C and Group B regulations. 1982 was a transitional year that still allowed Group 5 and 6 cars to compete. Group C rules governed the prototype classes and Group B was concerned with production based racecars.

 

As far as I know there were only two cars built to Group B regs intended for endurance racing (a great many were produced to compete on rallies) the Porsche 961 and the Ferrari GTO Evoluzione. One Porsche chassis, a development of the 959, was constructed and ran at Le Mans in 1986 and 1987 under the IMSA GTX Class banner. The Ferraris, based on the 288 GTO, were the work of Michelotto, six in total. They did not race though a couple were used as test mules for the upcoming F40.

 

To comply with Group B a limited run of 200 cars were to be built in a year and 20 of these could be designated as evolutions. This requirement was way beyond the financial resources of traditional sportscar companies (Porsche and Ferrari were very different animals financially back then) and rendered the class uneconomic. It was going to be cheaper to buy a Group C1 or C2 car so those classes prospered as did sportscar racing. 

 

The involvement of manufacturers such as Porsche, Lancia, Jaguar, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan and Mazda did not sit well with those who controlled F1, aka Max and Bernie. They persuaded the President of the FIA, Jean-Marie Ballestre, to scrap the Group C fuel consumption rules and introduce a new formula one style engine of 3.5 litre V10s. No turbos, no rotaries, and, it was speculated, no endurance racing. All that lovely manufacturer money heading to F1 where it belonged.

 

At the same time Bernie and his men took over the running of the FIA SWC, costs rocketed and entries dwindled.........all was going to plan.

 

By the end of 1992 just eight cars took the start of the final round of the Championship held at Magny Cours. Even Le Mans was in trouble with a mere 28 racers taking the Tricolor that year.

 

A week after the 1992 Le Mans 24 Hours the ACO witnessed first hand, at their Bugatti circuit, a grid of 56 GTs assembled for the premier round of the Venturi Trophy, the work of Stéphane Ratel. Salvation was at hand. The ACO resigned from the World Championship and created a GT class for their 1993 race. June 1993 saw 7 Venturis joined by 11 Porsches, 3 Jaguars and 2 Lotus, 23 in all, just under 50% of the grid of 47.

 

The following year Ratel, with his partners Patrick Peter and Jürgen Barth, launched the BPR and modern day GT Racing rose from the ashes of the destruction of Group C.

 

Apologies for the discourse but this story needs telling in greater depth than I have managed here.

Edited by SamoanAttorney, 14 April 2018 - 07:42.

[milestone 11]

Excellent synopsis.

[SamoanAttorney]

Excellent synopsis.

 

 

That is very kind of you.

 

I lived through those turbulent final seasons in Group C. I thought it was all over as I drove home from Le Mans in 1993, having missed the obvious answer, the GT class. I only had eyes for the Peugeots and Toyotas......what amazing cars they were when flat out......less than two years later I was witnessing the début of the McLaren F1 GTR at Jerez.......GT and Endurance Racing was back with a vengeance.

 

There have been a few wobbles since then; FIA GT 1998/1999, end of the SuperRacing Weekend, FIA GT1 World Championship and the departure of Peugeot, Audi and Porsche from the FIA WEC to mention but a few.

 

However GT3 and GT4 is everywhere and in numbers, GTE seems to have the backing of the factories but I am not so confident about the prototype classes.............LM P2 suffered from a fair hike in costs in 2017, the reduced schedule in the WEC over the next few years will seriously impact the earning capacity of the privateer teams and therefore the constructors with their cost capped products..........expect a number of projects to disappear after Le Mans.

 

LM P1? The jury will remain out till the new regulations are agreed.

 

Plus ça change......

Edited by SamoanAttorney, 14 April 2018 - 10:06.

[Charlieman]

The thing is that LM24 is bigger than FIA championships and the organisers have defined their own categories when it suits them. Failure to agree common classes for IMSA, LM24 and WEC has damaged all three over the years. And rule changes have meant that the type of cars changes abruptly. If the LM P1 class collapses further, it is possible that the ACO will reinvent Le Mans.

 

SamoanAttorney makes a strong case for the rebirth of GT racing, but I have reservations. It is effectively a manufacturer category for homologation specials; cars are developed by the manufacturer with little scope for independent development. As far as driver participation goes, it is similar to Group 5 and Group 6 2-litre racing, with a professional driver leading for one or two amateurs.

 

Group 5 provided space for small firms to pick a production car and turn it into a racer on their own. The entry barriers to GT racing are high -- participating manufacturers will not be threatened by a small outfit, only by a new car supported by a big manufacturer.

[Henri Greuter]

Chris

 

from 1982 to 1992 the FIA World Sportscar Championship ran under Group C and Group B regulations. 1982 was a transitional year that still allowed Group 5 and 6 cars to compete. Group C rules governed the prototype classes and Group B was concerned with production based racecars.

 

As far as I know there were only two cars built to Group B regs intended for endurance racing (a great many were produced to compete on rallies) the Porsche 961 and the Ferrari GTO Evoluzione. One Porsche chassis, a development of the 959, was constructed and ran at Le Mans in 1986 and 1987 under the IMSA GTX Class banner. The Ferraris, based on the 288 GTO, were the work of Michelotto, six in total. They did not race though a couple were used as test mules for the upcoming F40.

 

To comply with Group B a limited run of 200 cars were to be built in a year and 20 of these could be designated as evolutions. This requirement was way beyond the financial resources of traditional sportscar companies (Porsche and Ferrari were very different animals financially back then) and rendered the class uneconomic. It was going to be cheaper to buy a Group C1 or C2 car so those classes prospered as did sportscar racing. 

 

The involvement of manufacturers such as Porsche, Lancia, Jaguar, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan and Mazda did not sit well with those who controlled F1, aka Max and Bernie. They persuaded the President of the FIA, Jean-Marie Ballestre, to scrap the Group C fuel consumption rules and introduce a new formula one style engine of 3.5 litre V10s. No turbos, no rotaries, and, it was speculated, no endurance racing. All that lovely manufacturer money heading to F1 where it belonged.

 

At the same time Bernie and his men took over the running of the FIA SWC, costs rocketed and entries dwindled.........all was going to plan.

 

By the end of 1992 just eight cars took the start of the final round of the Championship held at Magny Cours. Even Le Mans was in trouble with a mere 28 racers taking the Tricolor that year.

 

A week after the 1992 Le Mans 24 Hours the ACO witnessed first hand, at their Bugatti circuit, a grid of 56 GTs assembled for the premier round of the Venturi Trophy, the work of Stéphane Ratel. Salvation was at hand. The ACO resigned from the World Championship and created a GT class for their 1993 race. June 1993 saw 7 Venturis joined by 11 Porsches, 3 Jaguars and 2 Lotus, 23 in all, just under 50% of the grid of 47.

 

The following year Ratel, with his partners Patrick Peter and Jürgen Barth, launched the BPR and modern day GT Racing rose from the ashes of the destruction of Group C.

 

Apologies for the discourse but this story needs telling in greater depth than I have managed here.

 

 

 

Indeed an excellent description.

 

Am I permitted to bring up one factor of which I have always believed that it contributed to the success of GpC in the mid and late 80s?

 

TV eschewed Endurance racing but  the company VideoVision took up the rights to cover the events and they had their reports broadcasted in at the then current version of Sky Channel in a weekly show called "International Motor Sport" So, though delayed, but over in Europe we got to see the Gp C races on TV.

Videovision did the same for rallying during that period of time.

Now, is it s sheer coincidence that long distance racing as well as Rallying went through a great era in the mid eightties, be it a tragic one on occasion? Wit a lot of interest from the public? Only because of the cars? To me it certainly helped that we got the chances to see those cars and races.

I think that the input of both Videovision and Sky Channel should not be underestimated. Once Bernie E got more hold of TV rights and Promotion within other forms of racing than F1 only, Videovision was kicked out, coverage gone and, how coincidental, both GpC and rallying went down in popularity worldwide......

 

But it is only a detail I can add to your synopsys and to everyone: feel free to disagree...

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 14 April 2018 - 15:26.

[SamoanAttorney]

Henri

 

I am sure that you have a very valid point. The TV coverage would have been a factor that would make or break a Championship. Videovision's Brian Kreisky was not the easiest of people to deal with and no doubt cheesed off Bernie at some point, he had considerable form for that kind of behaviour.

 

Bernie would have been quite ruthless in dealing with the SWC and the ACO in pursuit of his goals with regard to Formula 1.

 

As the saying goes, "It was business, not personal."

 

There was no love lost between the ACO and J-M Balestre, so getting him to stick the boot in would not have been difficult.

 

Group C also became a spending war between manufacturers, so less appealing to privateers, who even up to 1986 could beat the factories. (I know Joest won at Dijon in 1989 but that was down to the Goodyear tyres as I recall.) The cost of paddock hospitality rocketed when the new management moved in. I remember that for example Hydro Aluminium would bring maybe 1,000 or more guests to some events like Monza, suddenly the price increased the following year so the same budget would only cover 100. 

 

The combination of all this plus the regulation changes and the insistence that competitors enter all the races in the Championship or face a $250k fine per event pushed Group C over the cliff. There was also a major economic downturn at the beginning of the '90s, car companies and sponsors had to pull their horns in to survive.

 

In the interests of balance it should be recorded that Bernie and Max made significant contributions to the success of the FIA GT Championship a few years later.

 

Bernie pulled off a great TV deal from DSF in 1997/8 which pleased BMW, Mercedes and Porsche, he even got them to pay for it. It also made a lot of money for Ratel and SRO, this got them through the difficult times in 1999 after the demise of GT1. 

 

Max came up with the idea of Balance of Performance back in 1992, and this is still in use in a modified manner today. He also pushed through the FIA the concept of Technical Passport rather than Manufacturer Homologation, without it the Prodrive Ferrari 550 Maranello would never have seen the light of day. There would probably have been no deal with Eurosport, the FIA WTCC and no Super Racing Weekend. GT Racing might not have survived a second cessation.

 

It is a complicated dynamic but fascinating.

Edited by SamoanAttorney, 16 April 2018 - 06:07.

[Charlieman]

Bernie pulled...

 

Max came up...

 

It is a complicated dynamic but fascinating.

And I know when to stop observing.

[Henri Greuter]

Henri

 

I am sure that you have a very valid point. The TV coverage would have been a factor that would make or break a Championship. Videovision's Brian Kreisky was not the easiest of people to deal with and no doubt cheesed off Bernie at some point, he had considerable form for that kind of behaviour.

 

Bernie would have been quite ruthless in dealing with the SWC and the ACO in pursuit of his goals with regard to Formula 1.

 

As the saying goes, "It was business, not personal."

 

There was no love lost between the ACO and J-M Balestre, so getting him to stick the boot in would not have been difficult.

 

Group C also became a spending war between manufacturers, so less appealing to privateers, who even up to 1986 could beat the factories. (I know Joest won at Dijon in 1989 but that was down to the Goodyear tyres as I recall.) The cost of paddock hospitality rocketed when the new management moved in. I remember that for example Hydro Aluminium would bring maybe 1,000 or more guests to some events like Monza, suddenly the price increased the following year so the same budget would only cover 100. 

 

The combination of all this plus the regulation changes and the insistence that competitors enter all the races in the Championship or face a $250k fine per event pushed Group C over the cliff. There was also a major economic downturn at the beginning of the '90s, car companies and sponsors had to pull their horns in to survive.

 

In the interests of balance it should be recorded that Bernie and Max made significant contributions to the success of the FIA GT Championship a few years later.

 

Bernie pulled a great TV deal from DSF in 1997/8 which pleased BMW, Mercedes and Porsche, he even got them to pay for it. It also made a lot of money for Ratel and SRO, this got them through the difficult times in 1999 after the demise of GT1. 

 

Max came up with the idea of Balance of Performance back in 1992, and this is still in use in a modified manner today. He also pushed through the FIA the concept of Technical Passport rather than Manufacturer Homologation, without it the Prodrive Ferrari 550 Maranello would never have seen the light of day. There would probably have been no deal with Eurosport, the FIA WTCC and no Super Racing Weekend. GT Racing might not have survived a second cessation.

 

It is a complicated dynamic but fascinating.

 

Well, one thing that didn't help GpC either in the late 80s was when the 956/962 was no longer the best car in the field and the Jaguars and Saubers taking over Supremacy.

 

But save one or 2 older cars, little to no HJags and Saubers ended up in customer hands.

And other manufacturers didn't supply them either.  Even if a team had money at hand, what could be obtained to replace the 962 with and become competitive again?

 

Henri

[Charlieman]

Well, one thing that didn't help GpC either in the late 80s was when the 956/962 was no longer the best car in the field and the Jaguars and Saubers taking over Supremacy.

 

But save one or 2 older cars, little to no HJags and Saubers ended up in customer hands.

And other manufacturers didn't supply them either.  Even if a team had money at hand, what could be obtained to replace the 962 with and become competitive again?

Perhaps that was the fallacy of Group C?

[Henri Greuter]

Perhaps that was the fallacy of Group C?

 

Certainly a factor I believe.

But  even then, there still was interest from the factories in the years 87-89 and even more than in the early years of  Gp C when there were only Porsche and Lancia.

Nevertheless, even those factories interested and participating were then royally screwed by the greed of Ecclestone as SamoanAttorney explained.

[SamoanAttorney]

This discussion started by considering why there were no GT cars at Le Mans in the late '80s and early '90s, I hope that is answered, at least in outline.

 

Questions as to why Group C ultimately failed are more complex. Perhaps the question should be why it succeeded and prospered in the '80s as opposed to the similar championships in the '70s? The availability of the 956/962 which was both competitive and affordable would go a long way to explaining this reversal. Porsche continued to develop the car until 1987 and the teams such as Joest, Kremer, Brun and RLR also made many improvements to the base car. But eventually this workhorse grew outdated compared to the fresh factory efforts.

 

The arrival of the manufacturers completely changed the playing field, especially Mercedes who took over the Sauber effort. They could, and did, outspend everyone, and they spent their budgets wisely. The smaller constructors from the early years such as Rondeau, Nimrod, WM, Cougar or Lola could not really compete with the Porsche, let alone the Jaguar/Mercedes/Toyota/Nissan juggernaut. By 1990 only Spice were challenging in C1 and they were under resourced. There were also bigger changes going on under the surface as the world (and motorsport) moved from analogue to digital which the manufacturers were better placed to adjust to this revolution with their marketing/development budgets. Formula One also stole all the limelight to the virtual exclusion of other forms of motor racing.

 

Perhaps Group C was doomed to stagnation and decay even without the engine rules change though that did accelerate the process.

 

Manufacturers come and go, we have seen that only too clearly with the recent departures of Peugeot, Audi and Porsche from the FIA WEC.

 

I fear that motor sport as we know it is not guaranteed to last. It was noticeable at this year's Geneva Show that there was no hint of motor racing on the stands of Audi, Bentley, Lamborghini and Porsche, despite considerable success on the tracks during 2017. Even Mercedes hid Hamilton's F1 winner behind some awful G-Wagen instead of trumpeting their victory. In contradiction of this trend Toyota had five competition vehicles on their stand. The fact that Akio Toyoda, President of Toyota, is a real car-guy and has raced in the Nürburgring 24 Hours may have something to do with this........where is Ferdinand Piëch when you need him?

 

Easy on a Sunday morning..................

Edited by SamoanAttorney, 15 April 2018 - 09:10.

[Jager]

Don't forget that the Spice SE86 (and the subsequent iterations of the SE87 and SE88) were originally designed for Pontiac to compete in the IMSA Championship and were designed to resemble the Pontiac Fiero car in silhouette. There were 6 entered in 1988 and 9 in 1989. These were perhaps the closest things to road cars at the time, even if the original GM V6 was replaced by a Cosworth V8.

[BRG]

It is only the Gp C era that did not see production cars at Le Mans. 

 

Up until then, they were always there, from the earliest days when it was for essentially road cars, through the years where MGs and Cunninghams and such like ran, the years of 911s in profusion, the years that saw BMW 635s and Cologne Capris racing and so on.  Even the GT40s and Ferrari P4s were cars you could buy if you had the funds. 

 

And since Gp C, we have seen production cars (albeit very expensive ones like the McLaren F1) win the event.  Personally, I find the current breed of so-called 'prototypes' rather false and would prefer a return to more production based machinery.  Although I wouldn't want to volunteer to try to frame the rules!

[Henri Greuter]

It is only the Gp C era that did not see production cars at Le Mans. 

 

Up until then, they were always there, from the earliest days when it was for essentially road cars, through the years where MGs and Cunninghams and such like ran, the years of 911s in profusion, the years that saw BMW 635s and Cologne Capris racing and so on.  Even the GT40s and Ferrari P4s were cars you could buy if you had the funds. 

 

And since Gp C, we have seen production cars (albeit very expensive ones like the McLaren F1) win the event.  Personally, I find the current breed of so-called 'prototypes' rather false and would prefer a return to more production based machinery.  Although I wouldn't want to volunteer to try to frame the rules!

 

635s never ran at Le Mans. But since you list them in one sentence with the Cologne Capris I assume you had the `batmoblie` winged CSL's in mind.

 

Shal we not drag up our old disasgeements about what qualifies as a production car or not into the discussion? Though I have read once that the 1979 winning 934K3 was probably the winning cars closest based on to what was a genuine, fairly affordable production car.

And because of that making the 911 in all its shapes and varieties probably the car that has been the most victoriour car at the most differnent venues and kinds of racing ever?? (911 won at Le mans, Daytona ant won MonteCarlo rallies, almost the Safari as welll as Paris-Dakar)

 

Henri

[SamoanAttorney]

635s never ran at Le Mans. But since you list them in one sentence with the Cologne Capris I assume you had the `batmoblie` winged CSL's in mind.

 

Shal we not drag up our old disasgeements about what qualifies as a production car or not into the discussion? Though I have read once that the 1979 winning 934K3 was probably the winning cars closest based on to what was a genuine, fairly affordable production car.

And because of that making the 911 in all its shapes and varieties probably the car that has been the most victoriour car at the most differnent venues and kinds of racing ever?? (911 won at Le mans, Daytona ant won MonteCarlo rallies, almost the Safari as welll as Paris-Dakar)

 

Henri

 

Henri

 

I understand that this forum is about respecting the other participants, it is part of the attraction of the place in the brave new world of social justice warriors, a refuge from the shrill and the uninformed.

 

However I would beg to offer a different opinion backed by the evidence.

 

The Whittington Brothers Porsche 935 K3 from 1979 had nothing to do with being either "affordable or a genuine production car". It took inspiration from the werks 935-78 from 1977 and was an out and out racer built by the Kremer brothers. It had little or nothing in common with the 911s that Porsche were selling at the time.

 

You would have to go back to the very early '50s and the Mercedes and Jaguars to find a road legal car that could win outright at La Sarthe. 

 

With one exception............

 

McLaren claimed at the time that the F1 GTRs that dominated the 1995 edition of the 24 Hours were "95% the same as the road car". While I am sceptical at this hype, it is a fact that the Harrods McLaren is registered to drive on the public highways here in the UK, as are a number of other former racing F1 GTRs.

 

McLaren should not have won, but a combination of the foul weather and the chaos in the Courage operation when Andretti tripped up over a back marker gave it a golden opportunity.

 

"Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero"

[Henri Greuter]

Henri

 

I understand that this forum is about respecting the other participants, it is part of the attraction of the place in the brave new world of social justice warriors, a refuge from the shrill and the uninformed.

 

However I would beg to offer a different opinion backed by the evidence.

 

The Whittington Brothers Porsche 935 K3 from 1979 had nothing to do with being either "affordable or a genuine production car". It took inspiration from the werks 935-78 from 1977 and was an out and out racer built by the Kremer brothers. It had little or nothing in common with the 911s that Porsche were selling at the time.

 

You would have to go back to the very early '50s and the Mercedes and Jaguars to find a road legal car that could win outright at La Sarthe. 

 

With one exception............

 

McLaren claimed at the time that the F1 GTRs that dominated the 1995 edition of the 24 Hours were "95% the same as the road car". While I am sceptical at this hype, it is a fact that the Harrods McLaren is registered to drive on the public highways here in the UK, as are a number of other former racing F1 GTRs.

 

McLaren should not have won, but a combination of the foul weather and the chaos in the Courage operation when Andretti tripped up over a back marker gave it a golden opportunity.

 

"Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero"

 

 

 

If you don't mind, I've had enough discussions about that McLaren F1 being put up against production cars of its time. To me, the F1 was just too much away from a genuine production cars like the Venturi, Ferraris, Porsches etc that were built in larger numbers and were more affordable and obtainable then that thing that had more in common (technologically at least) with a Gp C. Even if it was in some kind of production, technically it simply didn't fit in with the cars it was put up against. Because of being in production, it dei not break the rules but it bend them too far for me. Hence why i can't blame Porsche and Mercedes to bend the rules even further.

 

Please let's keep it here, OK? I've had enough troubles with moderators about that car and my opinion about it as a `ehum' cough cough (oops that was a piece of my lung) production car rated equal to a 911Turbo and contemporary cars of the time and because of that slaughter the entire GT category as we knew it at the time.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 16 April 2018 - 19:25.

[SamoanAttorney]

Rather than extend this discussion which seems to inflame some members of this forum I will lay out a few facts, not opinions, and let others draw their own conclusions.

 

There is no question that the McLaren F1 was always planned to to be only a road car and not intended for competition. Road cars were sold to customers from 1993 to 1998, 71 in total if one includes the LM and GT models.  

 

Doug Nye's book "Driving Ambition" is very clear on this topic. Read Chapter 18 and there can be no doubt. There was no plan to go racing, the car would have been a very different animal in that case.

 

Sometime in 1994 Ray Bellm and Thomas Bscher, both F1 road car owners, wished to compete in the newly formed BPR series with a McLaren, much like Michel Neugarten did with his Ferrari F40. Ray can be very persuasive, and eventually Ron Dennis agreed to investigate the possibilities.

 

The first race of a McLaren F1 GTR was February 1995 in Jerez, I was there. Indeed in 1992 and 1993 there was no series for GT cars to compete in Europe...........other than at Le Mans in 1993 when they reintroduced a GT class following the destruction of Group C. So there would have been nowhere for the McLaren to race other than creating something along the lines of the Jaguar XJR15 competition.

 

The regulations for BPR were drawn up and cars were either eligible or not, simple. The McLaren complied with the rules otherwise it would not have been allowed to race.

 

At that point there was no attempt to balance performance between the various eligible cars, it was run what you brung as long as it was in the rule book.

 

Interestingly Max Mosley had speculated about the BoP concept in an interview with L'Equipe in October 1992. The same article discussed the possibility of GT racing between the McLaren, the F40 and the Bugatti EB110.............

 

As to the 911 GT1 and the CLK-GTR, the situation was the complete reverse, they were racing cars first and then reverse engineered to comply with the regulations for the road. The McLaren F1 GTR that finished third at Le Mans in 1995 (#06R) is registered to drive on the road. The last GT car to win the great race, Porsche 911 GT1 98 (#003) is not.

 

It was an exciting time to be part of, just like it is today.

[Henri Greuter]

Rather than extend this discussion which seems to inflame some members of this forum I will lay out a few facts, not opinions, and let others draw their own conclusions.

 

There is no question that the McLaren F1 was always planned to to be only a road car and not intended for competition. Road cars were sold to customers from 1993 to 1998, 71 in total if one includes the LM and GT models.  

 

Doug Nye's book "Driving Ambition" is very clear on this topic. Read Chapter 18 and there can be no doubt. There was no plan to go racing, the car would have been a very different animal in that case.

 

Sometime in 1994 Ray Bellm and Thomas Bscher, both F1 road car owners, wished to compete in the newly formed BPR series with a McLaren, much like Michel Neugarten did with his Ferrari F40. Ray can be very persuasive, and eventually Ron Dennis agreed to investigate the possibilities.

 

The first race of a McLaren F1 GTR was February 1995 in Jerez, I was there. Indeed in 1992 and 1993 there was no series for GT cars to compete in Europe...........other than at Le Mans in 1993 when they reintroduced a GT class following the destruction of Group C. So there would have been nowhere for the McLaren to race other than creating something along the lines of the Jaguar XJR15 competition.

 

The regulations for BPR were drawn up and cars were either eligible or not, simple. The McLaren complied with the rules otherwise it would not have been allowed to race.

 

At that point there was no attempt to balance performance between the various eligible cars, it was run what you brung as long as it was in the rule book.

 

Interestingly Max Mosley had speculated about the BoP concept in an interview with L'Equipe in October 1992. The same article discussed the possibility of GT racing between the McLaren, the F40 and the Bugatti EB110.............

 

As to the 911 GT1 and the CLK-GTR, the situation was the complete reverse, they were racing cars first and then reverse engineered to comply with the regulations for the road. The McLaren F1 GTR that finished third at Le Mans in 1995 (#06R) is registered to drive on the road. The last GT car to win the great race, Porsche 911 GT1 98 (#003) is not.

 

It was an exciting time to be part of, just like it is today.

 

 

Nothing personal to you, SamoanAttorney, really really not.

 

Thanks for your insights as well as the facts they contain.

But there is a proverb within my country that says: He who doens't speaks out approves.

 

I won't go any further than saying that if this indeed the truth then I can feel acceptance for the fact that GT1 was killed off by the German companies as it was and that the rule makers of BRP got what they asked for and deserved as well.

Action leads to reaction.

Ratel&Co got approval of that and after your explanations how things went, now I feel way less sorry for then to see their series collapse..

 

 

Respectfully

 

Henri

[sabrejet]

I seem to recall a BMW M1 in 1986, then no road-based cars from then until the start of the GT era (1992/3?); in 1990 there were (55?) C1 and C2 cars and nothing else: similar in 1991 when it was (on the face of it) all C1 (but this time a mix of atmo and old school C1 cars). I doubt we'll ever see such extensive grids of prototypes, and I have to admit that when the road-based cars crept back in I despaired. "Why not just sit next to the M25?" was a familiar comment among the like-minded.

 

But i have to say that over the years I've come to appreciate the various GT categories and now look forward to seeing them. I don't think that more than 30% GT is a good idea but so long as racing standards can be reasonably maintained - and there have been a few graphic exceptions - then long may they be a feature. 

[SamoanAttorney]

Henri,

 

I meant to get back to you earlier but went over to Monza for a very agreeable weekend of GT Racing...........the only thing that could have improved this would have been a trip down the Autostrada to Imola and the historics......ah well.

 

BPR was essentially killed off by Bernie asserting his control of the TV rights. Either the three partners joined him or he would force the matter. Stéphane joined him, Jürgen and Patrick did not. The FIA GT Championship was born in 1997 and nearly died the following year. Many lessons were learned from this debacle and the proof of this is the packed grid for the Blancpain Endurance race at Monza, 53 cars on the grid.

 

BPR also made a few mistakes in 1996 which alienated their customer base.

 

I wrote about it at the the time and was banned for my troubles. I can see why now as I was somewhat unprofessional as a journalist and did not give BPR right of reply. Later they admitted I was for the most part right and we are all friends now.

 

http://www.doubledeclutch.com/?p=10162

 

So your understanding of the role of Mercedes/Porsche/BMW and the mistakes made by BPR causing the end of the series is broadly correct. 

 

Sabrejet

 

you are indeed correct in saying that the final Group B entry at Le Mans was the M1 in 1986.

 

However I would suggest that the 2018 edition of Le Mans should focus more on the GTE PRO class than whether Toyota finally wins outright against Ginetta, Kolles or the LM P2 brigade.

 

4 Ford GT

4 Porsche 911 RSR

3 Ferrari F488 GTE EVO

2 BMW M8 GTE

2 Corvette C7.R

2 Aston Martin Vantage AMR

 

17 cars, 51 top line professional drivers............the world's greatest race...............what's not to like?

 

It will be a fascinating struggle both on the track and off with BoP and tyres all open to interpretation.

 

I look forward to it.

Edited by SamoanAttorney, 25 April 2018 - 10:19.

[GazChed]

Given Toyota's record at Le Mans who would bet against them snatching defeat from the jaws of victory !

[sabrejet]

SamoanAttorney: quite agree: GTE AM or PRO I don't mind: some great racing in those classes the last few years. So long as an Aston wins either or both then I'm good.

 

Meanwhile there's NO WAY that Toyota will fumble it for overall victory this year . It will however be a shame in many ways: that '91 Mazda victory is still for me an example of try, try and try again until you get it right.

 

But I'd still love to see Ginetta or Rebellion get top spot.

[GazChed]

In 1991 Mazda in many ways received a performance break with the 3.5 litre cars too fragile to complete the distance ( only the Japanese Fedco sponsored Spice was classified ) , the turbo cars were handicapped by their weight limit of 1000 kg while rotary engined cars were given a weight of 830 kgs thus paving the way for Mazda to win .

In 1994 Toyota were within 90 minutes of victory when with Jeff Krosnoff at the wheel , in what should have been Group C's last hurrah the Toyota's gear linkage broke leaving the pits . Although Krosnoff effected repairs to get the car around the circuit and back to it's pit , the time lost handed victory to the GT1 class Dauer Porsche .

[Henri Greuter]

In 1991 Mazda in many ways received a performance break with the 3.5 litre cars too fragile to complete the distance ( only the Japanese Fedco sponsored Spice was classified ) , the turbo cars were handicapped by their weight limit of 1000 kg while rotary engined cars were given a weight of 830 kgs thus paving the way for Mazda to win .

 

 

 

If I remember right, in 1991 the old style Gp C cars were indeed handicapped with weight, save one of the Options eligible for Gp.C.

For the current F1 fans who complain about F1 cars getting so heavy: Gp C started out at 800 kg in '82 but they were 1000 kg in '91.

The only option withn the old style Gp C that wasn't handicapped that much extra at all that year was the Rotory option: thus the Mazda.

Read a story in a Dutch magazine that, once the honcho's at Mazda found out that they were gettign no additional handicaps that they instantly realized that this was their one and only chance left as well as the best chance ever..

But remember.....

They still needed a Sauber-Mercedes that lead their lead car with three laps to retire first before the upset could take place....

So it isn't fair to say that they did it all on thier own and on their own powers and force: Sauber assisted.....

 

Henri

[Henri Greuter]

 

Henri,

 

I meant to get back to you earlier but went over to Monza for a very agreeable weekend of GT Racing...........the only thing that could have improved this would have been a trip down the Autostrada to Imola and the historics......ah well.

 

BPR was essentially killed off by Bernie asserting his control of the TV rights. Either the three partners joined him or he would force the matter. Stéphane joined him, Jürgen and Patrick did not. The FIA GT Championship was born in 1997 and nearly died the following year. Many lessons were learned from this debacle and the proof of this is the packed grid for the Blancpain Endurance race at Monza, 53 cars on the grid.

 

BPR also made a few mistakes in 1996 which alienated their customer base.

 

I wrote about it at the the time and was banned for my troubles. I can see why now as I was somewhat unprofessional as a journalist and did not give BPR right of reply. Later they admitted I was for the most part right and we are all friends now.

 

http://www.doubledeclutch.com/?p=10162

 

 

 

SamoanAttorney,

 

I was not aware of Ecclestone being involved in this BPR disaster too. But with hindsight, it doesn't surprise me at all that he was. Yet another reason why BPR eventually failed. Name me one series other than F1 that wasn't really hurted one way or another, if not going extinct once he got involved with it.

Though if you ask me, Ecclestone had it easy to `score for open goal` on this one. His input to sink BPR really wasn't necessary I think. The series was doomed by the time he got involved with it already.

 

BTW I entirely agree with your opinion that the input of Barth within BPR was most questionable given all caps he wore. Other matters I could say about that, better to not do so.

 

Best regards,

 

Henri

[chr1s]

Thank you  everyone for your contributions so far, particularly SamoanAttorney for a very detailed explanation. I watched highlights of the 1993 race the other day and the program synopsis said "After a rule change the 1993 Le Mans saw a re introduction of a GT class". So at some point the GT class was out lawed, possibly during the Group C era?

[SamoanAttorney]

Thank you  everyone for your contributions so far, particularly SamoanAttorney for a very detailed explanation. I watched highlights of the 1993 race the other day and the program synopsis said "After a rule change the 1993 Le Mans saw a re introduction of a GT class". So at some point the GT class was out lawed, possibly during the Group C era?

GT cars were allowed in the Group C era of 1982 to 1992, they could run under the rules known as Group B. Aside from the Porsche 961 and the Ferrari GTO Homologato no cars were built to these regulations, as far as I know. This pair never competed under Group B regulations. The reason was simple.............it was cheaper to buy and run a Group C1/C2 car. In the early years BMW M1s and Porsche 930s raced as Group B entries but that soon fizzled out. 

 

By 1992 Le Mans sank to a low point of just 28 cars on the grid. 48 hours after the race the ACO gave FISA notice that the 1993 edition of the 24 hours would be run outside the Sportscar World Championship.

 

A month or so later the ACO published their proposed regulations that included Category 4 for Grand Touring cars.

 

After the horrors of just 8 cars taking the start at Magny-Cours SWC round later that season and no prospect of new entries on the horizon FISA announced the termination of the World Championship, due to lack of interest from the manufacturers.

 

Incidentally at this time the ACO sued FISA for six million francs for 'damages'. 

 

It was a grim old time...............

[GazChed]

Didn't the Porsche 961 run at Le Mans as an IMSA GTX ? Sorry didn't read the line after Porsche 961 and Ferrari GTO .

Edited by GazChed, 26 April 2018 - 06:59.

[GazChed]

My first Le Mans was in 1985 and competing that year was a four car Group B class consisting of three BMW M1s and a Porsche 911 SC . My memory tells me that they ran at the back of the field , way off the pace but in reality the class winning BMW of Doren , Birrane and Libert were 15th of 24 finishers just five laps behind the C2 class winning Spice and only 31 laps behind the first non-turbo C1 , the EMKA Aston Martin . In qualifying, the quickest BMW outqualified several C2 cars and even the odd C1 .

Admittedly in the race the Group C cars were handicapped by the fuel consumption rules but I can't remember if the Group B cars were also regulated by fuel consumption . However Group B was to peter out in 1986 and GT cars didn't appear at Le Mans again until 1993 .

[Henri Greuter]

 

Henri,

 

(snip)

 

I wrote about it at the the time and was banned for my troubles. I can see why now as I was somewhat unprofessional as a journalist and did not give BPR right of reply. Later they admitted I was for the most part right and we are all friends now.

 

http://www.doubledeclutch.com/?p=10162

 

So your understanding of the role of Mercedes/Porsche/BMW and the mistakes made by BPR causing the end of the series is broadly correct. 

 

 

 

 

SamoanAttorney,

 

I just found out that an earlier version of the article you linked above was used in a piece at sportscarworld.com  titled  1996 And All That.

Page is no longer at internet anymore.....

 

It featured two articles of two authors: one Pro McLaren F1, one Pro 911GT1, though in fact it was more a case of being Anti McLaren F1 because had that one been kept out of PBR there had been absolutely no reason for everything that followed.

Your (linked) article was the pro McLaren.....

 

Guess three times who you were up against article-wise .......

 

 

 

Henri

[SamoanAttorney]

Henri

 

I am willing to bet that it would be my old friend Malcolm Cracknell. It certainly has his modus operandi..............

 

jb

[Henri Greuter]

Henri

 

I am willing to bet that it would be my old friend Malcolm Cracknell. It certainly has his modus operandi..............

 

jb

 

 

Close...

 

It was his site but that article up against yours was by me.....

[SamoanAttorney]

Small world.............

[Henri Greuter]

Small world.............

 

Yup,

 

Friend nowadays????

 

 

Henri

[SamoanAttorney]

Malcolm and I?

 

Oh yes, I am involved in bringing his book to the market later this year............

 

And it is a pleasure recalling those days...........

 

jb

[PAUL S]

Off on a total tangent, but with the 288 and 959 being mentioned as Group B racers, there was actually another. Ford homologated the 3dr Sierra Cosworth initially for group B until such time as they got to the 5000 examples being build so it could enter as a group A racer and then ultimately the RS500 as an evolution of such.