IMSA Makes Significant BoP Changes for Rolex 24

Photo: John Dagys

Photo: John Dagys

IMSA has released the expected final Balance of Performance prior to next weekend’s WeatherTech SportsCar Championship season-opening Rolex 24 at Daytona, with significant changes having been made in all four categories.

Here’s a rundown of the changes since the initial 2016 BoP, which was utilized at the Roar Before the Rolex 24 earlier this month.

Prototype:

*BR Engineering BR01 Nissan: 10kg weight reduction (890 to 880kg), confirmed fuel (76 liters) and refueling restrictor (33.0mm)

*DeltaWing DWC13 Coupe: 5kg weight increase (515 to 520kg), 0.19 reduction in boost ratio

*Ligier JS P2 Honda: 10kg weight increase (940 to 950kg), slight reduction in boost ratio at selected RPM levels

*Ford Riley DP: Slight reduction in top-end RPM boost ratio

*Lola B11/80 Mazda: Reduction (0.026-0.126) in boost ratio, 8-liter increase in fuel capacity and defined 33.0 mm refueling restrictor

*Dinan Riley DP: 2mm larger restrictor (74 to 76mm x 2)and 2-liter increase in fuel capacity (79 to 81 liters)

*Corvette DP: No changes

Prototype Challenge:

*Revised rear wing position (P6 to P4), new minimum angle of -9.8 degrees and -19.8 degrees for the flap. IMSA will issue a specific bulletin describing the rear wing measurement

GT Le Mans:

*BMW M6 GTLM: Reduction in boost ratios, larger Gurney (5 to 15mm), 9-liter increaase in fuel capacity (95 to 104 liters), 33.5mm refueling restrictor

*Corvette C7.R: 0.2 mm smaller air restrictor (30.1 to 29.9mm x2), 6-liter increase in fuel capacity (86 to 92 liters), 32mm refueling restrictor

*Ferrari 488 GTE: Slight reduction in boost ratios, confirmed 78 liters fuel capacity and 29.5mm refueling restrictor

*Ford GT: Reduction in boost ratios, 3-liter increase in fuel capacity (95 to 98 liters), 35mm refueling restrictor

*Porsche 911 RSR: 6 liter increase in fuel capacity (85 to 91 liters), 32mm refueling restrictor

GT Daytona:

*Aston Martin V12 Vantage GT3: 10kg weight reduction (1260 to 1250kg), 1.3mm larger air restrictor (40.7 to 42mm x2 ), 13-liter increase in fuel capacity (90 to 103 liters)

*Audi R8 LMS ultra: 10kg weight reduction (1300 to 1290kg), 1.7mm larger air restrictor (52.3 to 54mm x2), 3-liter increase in fuel capacity increase (104 to 107 liters)

*Audi R8 LMS (new): 20kg weight increase (1280 to 1300kg), 2mm reduction in air restrictor (40 to 38mm x2), 4-liter increase in fuel capacity (86 to 90 liters)

*BMW M6 GT3: 10kg weight increase (1300 to 1310kg), reduction in boost ratios, 9-liter increase in fuel capacity (95 to 104 liters)

*Dodge Viper GT3-R: 20kg weight reduction (1340 to 1320kg), 1mm reduction in air restrictor (39 to 38mm x2), 4-liter increase in fuel capacity (103 to 107 liters)

*Ferrari 458 Italia GT3: 20kg weight reduction (1300 to 1280kg), 200 rpm reduction (8400 to 8200 rpm)

*Lamborghini Huracan GT3: 20kg weight increase (1260 to 1280kg), 2mm smaller air restrictor (39 to 37mm x2), 1 liter increase in fuel capacity (89 to 90 liters)

*Porsche 911 GT3 R: 1 liter reduction in fuel capacity (85 to 84 liters)

89 Comments

  1. Pierce

    January 21, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Wholesale changes wow. I expected it but virtually every car has a change. Hope the balance is right.

    • Scott

      January 21, 2016 at 5:38 pm

      Well there are a lot of brand new cars in both GT classes, so it’s to be expected. In Prototype, all of the LMP2s are different from last year (HPD has a new engine as does Mazda). Not entirely surprising.

    • Gregg

      January 23, 2016 at 11:06 am

      Porsche has remained the same as last year. We all know how IMSA made sure that worked out in Porsche’s favor. This is just more of the same . IMSA BOP’S the results.

  2. Jack

    January 21, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    I love that ganassi did not receive any BOP in there favor. I saw this coming tho, they were by far the best car last year.( at Daytona)

    • Matthew

      January 21, 2016 at 1:15 pm

      It appears that sandbagging may have paid off. Think these guys are smart enough to not show all their cards before the race????

      • Jack

        January 21, 2016 at 2:21 pm

        How did it pay off when they received a negative adjustment.

        • GTurner38

          January 21, 2016 at 5:30 pm

          The Corvette DPs were sandbagging and every car that was quicker than them got a weight increase or a power reduction.

          • Jack

            January 21, 2016 at 6:47 pm

            They fastest corvette dp went the same speed as they did at last years roar, of course they are not getting an adjustment. They were the least competitive package out of the cars that a realistic chance of winning.

    • Robby

      January 25, 2016 at 11:22 am

      Not true. The Shank P2 was the fastest car in the field last year….depending on the driver. When Allmendinger was behind the wheel, it was the fastest car on the track…when it was any of the other 3 clowns on that team, it was way off the pace.

      Hell, AJ set fast lap of the race AFTER John Pew wrecked it.

  3. Matty

    January 21, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    I still question Beaux Barfield’s philosophy of continuing to make it near impossible for LMP-2 cars to win.

    • Bakkster

      January 21, 2016 at 1:23 pm

      Because the car that set the fastest trap speed at the Roar (Mazda) got a tiny boost reduction (basically from 2.567 to 2.541), and the car with the second fastest trap speed (BR01) got even lighter?

      • Jack

        January 21, 2016 at 2:23 pm

        Those two cars were 4 minutes mph off of the fastest dp’s. The 01 and 5 car knocked off 195 in the third session

        • Bakkster

          January 21, 2016 at 2:35 pm

          Check again, fastest trap speed in session 3 was 191.164MPH from both Joel Miller in the #70 Mazda and Christian Fittipaldi in the #5.

          • Jack

            January 21, 2016 at 6:52 pm

            Maybe I was wrong about the session, but check Twitter, just sent you a screen grab of the AXR doing 195.7

          • Jack

            January 21, 2016 at 6:52 pm

            Same session 02 car did 193.7

    • SB

      January 21, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      Hey there, for what its worth, the current gen of DP cars will always add heat in the tires more quickly, because of its larger surface area and weight as compared with current P2 cars. So I don’t think it’s all Beaux. I could be wrong; the gallery will let me know.

    • Scot

      January 21, 2016 at 5:40 pm

      Barfield has ZERO to do with BOP

  4. Matt

    January 21, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    Wow…why is there a 17 liter capacity difference between this year’s and last year’s R8?

    • Jack

      January 21, 2016 at 2:23 pm

      More drag with a gt3 rear wing, maybe

      • Joao

        January 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm

        the old R8 is the FLM ,which is full GT3

    • slow

      January 21, 2016 at 5:39 pm

      Because the new R8 is a rocket ship compared to the old R8 GT3.

  5. Sean G

    January 21, 2016 at 12:40 pm

    Imagine that.. No changes on the Vette DPs. Shocking.

    • Steven

      January 21, 2016 at 1:06 pm

      Yep, gonna be a parade of the Corvette DP’s in the front once again. The sandbagging paid off.

    • Jack

      January 21, 2016 at 2:24 pm

      It wasn’t needed, they didn’t even qualify in the top 5 last year

      • Olivier Shulk

        January 21, 2016 at 2:38 pm

        The #5 AXR qualified 4th last year

        • Jack

          January 21, 2016 at 6:54 pm

          Yup, I thought the delta wing out qualified them

      • racefan101

        January 22, 2016 at 6:26 am

        Qualifying means nothing in a 24 hours race. Only bragging rights!

    • Mike S.

      January 21, 2016 at 8:50 pm

      Yeah. Shocker. What is terrible for those prototype changes is that they have to adjust to the new changes. The ‘Vette DP’s whether sandbagging or not at the Roar they dont’ have to adjust to anything and thus lose no setup/adjustment time when unloading and running their first laps off the rig. We will see I guess. If it is all ‘Vette DP’s in the top 5 I will chuckle.

  6. GORDON

    January 21, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    NOW I KNOW WHY SOME MIGHT HAVE BEEN SANDBAGGING

  7. Jess

    January 21, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    So much for a so called balanced field. The DP teams sandbagged the entire weekend of the Roar and spent a good portion complaining about the Shank car. As expected IMSA cut them back and added weight. At least I won my bet.

    • Race Fan

      January 21, 2016 at 12:56 pm

      To be fair, the Ligier was much faster than the entire prototype class, not just the DPs. They were at least 1/2 a second faster than the other non-Dp teams such as the Br01, Detawing and Mazdas.

      • Gordon

        January 21, 2016 at 1:10 pm

        Why should one be penalized for being faster? is it not what racing is about

        • Bakkster

          January 21, 2016 at 1:24 pm

          It’s not a penalty, it’s balance of performance.

          Welcome to sports car racing, you must be new here.

          • Gordon

            January 21, 2016 at 1:57 pm

            I am not new to sports car racing. I have been following and attending races for 55 years and kept record of 28 championships world wide and I say BOP is a way of penalizing the faster car just to have a artificial close race. Why not allow the best manufacturer win by ten laps they worked for it

          • SB

            January 21, 2016 at 2:01 pm

            It is a penalty. Balancing of performance is not a sporting consideration, its driven by a business need. If you chose to participate, you accept the rules and that includes BoP. But it’s a success penalty if you take a faster car and slow it down for reasons of parity. It is a form of managed competition and some folks just don’t like that. I see their point. Just because IMSA says it must be so, does not mean you have to like it or accept it.

          • Bakkster

            January 21, 2016 at 2:14 pm

            @Gordon: then surely you remember that classes where a manufacturer consistently won by large margins never survive long. You’d never get 7 different OEMs in a GT class otherwise, the slower OEMs would leave, and with them any teams who couldn’t afford the fastest brand. Remember when LMGT1 was down to just Aston and Corvette, with the occasional Saleen?

            @SB: It’s not a penalty when the car was sped up originally for parity… the BoP giveth, and the BoP taketh away.

          • vanillachinchilla

            January 21, 2016 at 6:51 pm

            both fair points. I think the sport needs to think outside the box a little bit as well and come up with something better. Of course I’m no engineer, this is much easier said than done, but ideally regulations could be found to minimize the need for BoP, bc to some extent a manufacturer should have to pony up and actually develop some speed on their own innovation. That’s the danger of BoP in my mind, especially for a category like GTE, where theoretically/historically teams use the platform for relevant development and innovation. Fair racing and healthy grids are, of course, as important as ever, but it would be a shame if teams no longer had the incentive to improve their cars. Some say this doesn’t matter anymore, I disagree.

        • Jack

          January 21, 2016 at 2:25 pm

          I’m responding to your next comment, look up the 1998-1999 gt1 class, no BOP, fastest car won. What happened the next year of that class, it disappeared due to costs

          • Jack

            January 21, 2016 at 7:38 pm

            Negri was within the same tenth as pla. Think he was faster than Negri as well

          • Jack

            January 21, 2016 at 7:38 pm

            Negri was within the same tenth as pla. Think he was faster than AJ as well

      • Steven

        January 21, 2016 at 1:13 pm

        Maybe it was more in part with AJ and Pla behind the wheel.

      • GTurner38

        January 21, 2016 at 5:33 pm

        So why were the Deltawing and Mazdas also slowed down?

      • racefan101

        January 22, 2016 at 6:30 am

        But to be fair also, these are just times over a few laps. The P2s will not carry that kind of speed for the race. Shank win the pole last year and look what that got him! The DPs do a lot better over an endurance race, and in my opinion, this should be a consideration when adjusting BOP.

        • JohnRamella

          January 22, 2016 at 3:53 pm

          You think it may have something to do with Pew?? The year they won they got lucky he kept the car clean for the strong finish by AJ.

  8. Kirk

    January 21, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Looks like IMSACAR now has the nicely orchestrated Corvette DP walkover they want. I guess sandbagging pays off.

  9. Maurice

    January 21, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    I am curious as to how some people on here figured out the Corvette DPs were sandbagging, however IMSA, with access to the actual data, can’t seem to figure it out?

    • Max

      January 21, 2016 at 4:02 pm

      Shhhh… I know what I know, don’t you dare confuse me with facts.

    • Joel

      January 22, 2016 at 10:41 am

      Witchcraft!!!

  10. jeff

    January 21, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    qualifying should be the true tell on any sandbagging by the bowtie DP cars

    • KirkWH

      January 21, 2016 at 3:13 pm

      Not really. It’s not like qualifying for a 24 hour race means anything. Plus, since IMSA has said it would severely penalize any team caught sandbagging, there’d be no incentive to go slow at the Roar and fast in qualifying.

      • Bakkster

        January 21, 2016 at 4:26 pm

        They never said you had to go fast at the Roar, they said you couldn’t exceed expected performance. Sandbagging to fool the other teams (and fans) is OK, as long as you don’t fool IMSA.

      • GTurner38

        January 21, 2016 at 5:36 pm

        Of course, if you just run a little off the pace in the Roar, you can take advantage of everyone else being slowed down without looking like you are massively faster in the race.

        • Jack

          January 21, 2016 at 6:57 pm

          Ike stuns telemetry on these cars, they know when you are lifting off

  11. Adrian

    January 21, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    “Corvette DP: No changes”
    Shocker…

    • Jack

      January 21, 2016 at 6:58 pm

      Corvette dp, was not competitive to the ligier or ford at Daytona last year.

      • racefan101

        January 22, 2016 at 6:36 am

        let me adjust your comment Jack 🙂 Corvette DPs were not competitive to the Ligier at Daytona last year in qualifying. In the race, they were more than competitive.

        • JohnRamella

          January 22, 2016 at 3:54 pm

          Huh?? The Ford absolutely blew the doors off the Corvette DP last year. What race were you watching?

  12. Jason

    January 21, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    “LMPC: Revised rear wing position (P6 to P4), new minimum angle of -9.8 degrees and -19.8 degrees for the flap.”

    What effect does this have?

    • Jack

      January 21, 2016 at 6:59 pm

      Top speed

  13. Milton

    January 21, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    IMSA, look no further than the comments section…you’re obviously doing BoP wrong.

    Anyways, seems pretty clear either the GTE’s were quite a bit faster than expected or they had to make a change to one car which meant making to the others.

  14. Mike

    January 21, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Is the “Ecoboost” engine that inefficient that the Ford GT needs 20 more liters of fuel per stop versus the Ferrari??????

    • Bakkster

      January 21, 2016 at 6:15 pm

      Good question. Actually, it looks like the teams now get to declare how rich they want to run their engine. Ford is running their engine 10% rich, while Ferrari is running their engine 10% lean.

    • twl1978

      January 21, 2016 at 9:13 pm

      IT’S A FORD they’re not the best in actual fuel economy but yea that EcoBoost should do a lot better when you look @ the displacement it’s right there with the 911s which also allows them to run a 6speed (also like the 911s) instead of a 5speed like the vettes & vipers

      • Jack

        January 21, 2016 at 9:23 pm

        Wrong, read the comment above

  15. DEANO

    January 21, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Looks like the sandbagging by the dp’paid off no change to them Iwas at the roar for all but the last session the mazda was running hard to really see what they had the dp’s not on it hard having been at many races for the last 40 years the sanctioning body wants the favorite sons (DP’S) TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE WE WILL SEE ON THURSDAY AND THEN ON SAT AND SUNDAY

    • someone

      January 21, 2016 at 6:39 pm

      LOL the Mazda’s were not running hard… most of the time they were cruising in the 1:43’s. I was there with live timing in my hand watching them. You’re delusional if you think they were all out ever. I even talked to Piggot and all he would do was smile when I asked how hard they were pushing.

    • Ted

      January 21, 2016 at 9:03 pm

      JUST LET THEM GO ALL OUT AND NOT WORRY ABOUT BEING PENALIZED

      • KirkH

        January 21, 2016 at 10:38 pm

        You mean have teams work on their cars to improve them and then race them as hard as they can to see who wins? What a concept!! That sounds like a great idea! Hey IMSA, did you hear that? Someone is proposing a real racing series instead of one where everybody goes to a “test” to see who can go slowest so they can avoid being penalized.

        I try to remain excited about IMSA, but everything they do leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Usually when I taste something bad I quit drinking it, but giving up US sports car racing is hard since it’s something I’ve enjoyed for 35+ years – till now. BoP is a sad joke and takes the “racing” out of auto racing. All IMSA races are these days are mobile car shows with each race having predesignated “winners”.

  16. twl1978

    January 21, 2016 at 8:59 pm

    Did y’all even watch the race last year the Corvette had a chance of winning it last year but that cc mistimed what should’ve been their last pitstop forcing them to make a pitstop in the last 30m which forced them to take a penalty pitstop after the caution of course that wouldn’t have been an issue if the crew member that pointed it out had spoken up sooner.

    • Jack

      January 21, 2016 at 9:24 pm

      They had a chance because of yellows, the ford dp’s were the class of the field.

      • Robby

        January 25, 2016 at 11:27 am

        Looking at the times, The 60 Shank Ligier was the class of the field….the issue with that team is that the drivers are sub-par compared to all the platinum and gold guys driving the DP’s.

        When Allmendinger drove it was the fastest car on the track, but the slowest of the DP’s when Pew drove it.

        Shank is trying to run a pro-am team in a pro divison.

  17. Ted

    January 21, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Let them RACE. What you want is slot car racing. What is the sense of so many rules? To make good racing, BS. Nascar is horrible and sports car racing is getting just as bad. Wouldn’t it much better to see Ford and Chevy really race instead of having to worry about who is sandbagging and who isn’t

    • Bakkster

      January 21, 2016 at 9:46 pm

      It would be great, up until the loser quit, then the winner had nobody to race against and quit as well. See: GT1, et al.

  18. Tucker

    January 21, 2016 at 10:46 pm

    Need to make sure those antique DPs can still win. Nascrap is doing its best to ruin real endurance racing. And frankly, I don’t think the real racing world gives a damn who wins at the Rolex 24 Hour. There was a time, but not now.

  19. Mike D.

    January 22, 2016 at 12:16 am

    It’s almost like IMSA has a whole bunch of telemetry that allowed them to make these changes and the people in this thread have a bunch of whingy conspiracy theories.

    As I’ve pointed out elsewhere on the ‘net, the important thing is that IMSA didn’t change both ways. Corvette DPs were fixed because that’s where IMSA wants the times, they don’t want to be pushing 1:38s and down. They will gain an immediate advantage in race situations with higher traffic density and restarts, but still are down or even on pace with the P2s. None of the changes made were that drastic, all sub-1% which, surprise surprise, at 1:40 equates to exactly 1 second, which is about what the DPs were averaging slower.

    • Jon

      January 22, 2016 at 11:34 am

      Like most sports,the team that spends the most money wins more often.In Nascar and Imsa that happens to be Chevy,so the BOP changes will attract the conspiracy theories.
      BOP is not perfect but as others have mentioned,you do not have a series without it.

  20. Jaymondo

    January 22, 2016 at 7:40 am

    “Corvette DP no changes”, there goes the chances of an interesting race, just a case of which one, unless they are very unlucky. Time to put the DP dinosaur to bed…

  21. Doug

    January 22, 2016 at 9:56 am

    The biggest problem with the DP’s is that their lower end acceleration and ability to warm tires allows them to toast P2 cars on every restart.

    the P2’s may be faster with nobody on track and in qualifying trim, but in race conditions the DPs in their current BoP will kill them every time.

    • racefan101

      January 23, 2016 at 8:42 am

      I agree with Doug, we saw lots of times last year, including Daytona and Sebring, where the P2s were faster than the DPs in practicing and qualifying, but when it comes down to racing, DPs were always better.

  22. Milton

    January 22, 2016 at 10:29 am

    P2’s have had durability issues. I think this year is different.

  23. Jordan

    January 22, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    NBA: Balance of Performance Tables released

    The results from the first half of the regular season are in and the NBA has made a number of Balance of Performance changes for the teams.

    The Golden State Warriors at 39-4 received a 10kg weight increase. All members of the Golden State Warriors must now play the game while wearing 10kg ankle weights.
    The NBA also moved Golden State’s 3 point-line back 2 feet.

    The San Antonio Spurs at 37-6 received a 10kg weight increase. All members of the San Antonio Spurs must now play the game while wearing 10kg ankle weights.

    The Cleveland Cavaliers at 30-11 and the Oklahoma City Thunder at 32-12 received a 5kg weight increase. All members of these teams must play the game while wearing 5kg ankle weights.

    At 6-38, the Philadelphia 76s received a bigger basket that is now a foot larger in width. The NBA also increased Philadelphia’s shot-clock from 24 seconds to 30 seconds.

    At 9-36, the Los Angeles Lakers received a bigger basket that is now 6 inches wider in width.

    The NBA also announced a “Reset Clock” where at the end of every 20 minutes, the score will blindly reset back to zero.

    Says Commissioner Adam Silver, “I think these BOP changes will make sure that no one is better than anyone at anything in the league.”

    Asked about the “Reset Clock”, Silver replied, “Our analysis shows that our fan’s attention spans average 20 minutes so we changed the game to suit their expectations. Our analysis also shows that our fans think that they are entitled to a close game so that is why we reset the score back to zero after every 20 minutes in order to make the game artificially closer and more interesting.”

    • edh5

      January 22, 2016 at 4:28 pm

      Are you not familiar with the salary cap?

      • Jordan

        January 22, 2016 at 5:10 pm

        You mean the salary cap that lets you build the best team and assemble the best talent that you can for ~$65 million?

        • edh5

          January 22, 2016 at 7:12 pm

          Yes, the one which was designed to create parity among the teams.

          • Jordan

            January 22, 2016 at 8:28 pm

            If you have a better team due to TALENT, SKILL and TEAM CHEMISTRY, the NBA (or any other organization besides racing) doesn’t make the better teams wear ankle weights or other gimmicks to slow them down to make the game artificially closer.

            If the Golden State Warriors at full strength play the Philadelphia 76ers, the 76ers will lose badly as well as they should.

            No one else (besides certain racing fans) believe that they are entitled to a close game or match.

  24. edh5

    January 22, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    Kind of like how we’ve seen teams win time and time again even after a reduction in performance due to pitstops, better tires, better strategy, basic physics of weight distribution in low grip situations, or taking risks?

    In no sort of academic environment can you take a sample of 30 and apply it down to 5,6, or 8 without removing the outliers.

    You’vne attempted to make your point with a hilariously unquantifiable statement. When you do some research you can pencil me into the “prefers close games” column, until then I’ll be enjoying the race.

    • Jordan

      January 23, 2016 at 8:50 am

      Rules themselves aren’t BOP as along as everyone plays to the same rules.

      In F1, everyone has to build an engine that is a 1.6L Turbo charged V6. Everyone also has only 100kg of fuel to use during the race and the cars have to weight around 700kg. What would be BOP or socialist is seeing how much better Mercedes is than everyone else and making Mercedes run at 725kgs of weight in order to artificially slow them down.

      Same thing applies to the NBA. Everyone plays to the same rules. Each team can spend up to around ~$65 million. Each team has to shoot into the same size basket, has the same 24 second shot clock, the same distance 3 point line, etc. What would be BOP or socialist in the NBA is the NBA seeing how good Golden State can shoot 3 pointers, so the NBA moves Golden State’s 3 point line back 2 feet, while every other team keeps the previous shorter distance.

  25. David

    January 25, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    I understand that parity spec racing is there to have close exciting racing without the car makers having to produce outrageous street cars for the sake of homologating race cars. We have the same thing in our racing categories here in Australia. Ford makes a better car and the parity review committee makes adjustment to allow Holden (Aussie General motors) to be competitive. Often they are over compensated so they dominate, Holden then use their results as marketing draw card for their road cars. Complete joke, I say

  26. Thomas Bucher

    February 2, 2016 at 6:04 pm

    Gordon and SB said it all. BoP is an artificial, profit-driven decision that discourages innovation and talent. BoP would have had Jimmy Clark driving one handed to give his competitors ” a chance to do what they might not have been able to do on a level playing field.” And Mark Donohue would have never been inspired to write “Unfair Advantage.” Ferrari and Michael Shoemacher would have been just one of the pack. NASCAR is loosing its fan base IMHO because the cars are all chained together by BoP. So, perhaps, ultra tight racing is boring and the fans say so with their absence from races and media broadcast of races. Just say in’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *