+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Opinion: Tube Framed Racecars vs. Unibody Racecars (/showthread.php?tid=6785)
Opinion: Tube Framed Racecars vs. Unibody Racecars - G.Irish - 12-12-2007
On the Speed Channel forums an argument that flares up every few months is the tube-framed racecar vs unibody racecar debate in regards to the Grand Am GT class.
Basically the issue is that in Grand Am GT there are two sets of rules. Prep 1 is for cars using the original chassis with a set of mods allowed for the suspension, engine, etc. The Prep 2 rules allow a team to build a tube chassis with fiberglass or carbon fiber body panels to make it look like a certain streetcar, as long as it runs an engine from the same manufacturer.
So what you end up with is Prep 1 Porsche GT3 Cup (slower than GT3R's) and the odd Ferrari 430 Challenge (slower than a 430GT) with a smattering of tube-framed cars like Mazda RX-8's, Pontiac GXP.R's, Corvettes, and GTO.R's.
My problem is that production-based racing is for production-based race cars. Not for piles of tubes running around with fake bodywork to look like street cars. It especially irks me in the case of the GXP.R because its supposed to be based on the G6 which is a FWD V6 grocery getter yet it is RWD and is powered by a LS2. Why on earth should that car be out beating Ferraris and Porsches?
Anyway I'm wondering if that makes sense to anyone. It seems to me that GT racing is for GT cars. If someone wants to race a Civic, G6, or Elantra they can build a touring car and race World Challenge. If someone wants to build a pile o' tubes they can race stockcars.
- .RJ - 12-12-2007
On one hand, I think its a big play of favoritism, as all of the teams that do the tube frame route, ask for rules allowances are only doing it in self-interest.
On the other hand, they've managed to keep a pretty level playing field in the series and have some pretty good TV coverage so its hard to fault the methods.
- G.Irish - 12-12-2007
I think everyone in racing asks for rules out of self-interest so I can't fault the tube-framers for that.
It seems like Grand Am has maintained parity fairly well, but I still don't watch it and I think it'd be kind of confusing for fans to watch. "Wait is that a Ferrari? Cool...but why is it losing to a Hyundai Elantra?"
- Evan - 12-12-2007
the ends justify the means.
in a perfect world it would be unibody only
but
if it results in better competition (instead of spec 911) then I dont have a particular problem with it.
it is a big problem if the production cars get pushed out of the class and it becomes nascar owned version of Trans Am.
ALMS went the other way, forcing GTS cars now to use the unibody and it seems to be working well enough but still seems to be a lack of variety.
- G.Irish - 12-12-2007
Yeah I guess it comes down to cost. In an ideal GT class you could have cars like the AM DBRS9, Vette, Viper, 430, 911, Gallardo, M6, etc. but stuff like the Gallardo and 430 are pretty expensive to run, followed by the DBRS9. Vettes, Vipers, 911's, and the odd BMW probably aren't crazily expensive though.
Maybe the tube-framed cars are cheaper to build and run than something like a Viper but somehow I don't think they are by much. I think just allows brands that don't have a GT car to compete.
At the very least though FWD grocery getter silhouette cars shouldn't be allowed.
- .RJ - 12-12-2007
G.Irish Wrote:At the very least though FWD grocery getter silhouette cars shouldn't be allowed.
Yes. Original engine/drivetrain layout should remain - IMO.