Ganassi Ford GT Drivers for 2016

In the case of FORD, "spending other people's money" doesn't necessarily means having to rely on pay drivers, but more likely making sure to have rich sponsors onboard.

I dare to think US corporations would queue up to contribute to the effort.
Am I wrong?

 

Don't know the answer to that question.

However the constant balancing of performance between the various manufacturers with weight given and taken plus allowing more air or less in some motors is like chasing mercury around on a piece of glass.
All this performance 'balancing' meant the Corvettes were 4-5 seconds slower than the Ford GT and Ferrari cars at LeMans this year. The crash by one of the Corvettes could be blamed on trying too hard with what the driver had been given to work with...

 

I am not against BOP per se, but it has to be very transparent.
At Le Mans, it wasn't not.
The ACO allowed a massive break to the new Ford GT without checking its true potential.
It made the same mistake when it allowed the first AUDI Diesel, completely destroying the petrol opposition for years.

I think BOP works well in the FIA GT3 series, for example, with very few arguments.
It must be say that there are few factoiry teams there ...

 

Now when you say "massive break," I assume you just mean it was not penalized sufficiently for it's inherent superiority.

The GT was already running significantly less horsepower than the 488 prior to the final BoP issued on Friday night. The final BoP allowed the 488 to retain the maximum boost pressure it already had, and the GT was reduced further throughout the entire usable RPM range. The actual amount of horsepower and boost the GT was running during the race was comically low.

Overall, I think there isn't much to complain about. Four tenths separated the #68 GT and #82 Ferrari's best lap over 8.4 miles. The two cars had the exact same maximum speed at 303 kph, both of which trailed the aged Aston Martin at 304.7 kph. All the cars ran in the same fuel window.

 

Oh ye of little historical knowledge...

T'was, egads, the Ford Honker!!! Holman and Moody ran it , Mario
(key word here>)attempted to drive it but there's more history to be had.
Not much public knowledge of it because it did suck, I witnessed the piece of doo-doo.


Google: " honker and the can am " for more stuff. There's some info out there...

 

Oh ye of little historical knowledge...

T'was, egads, the Ford Honker!!! Holman and Moody ran it , Mario
(key word here>)attempted to drive it but there's more history to be had.
Not much public knowledge of it because it did suck, I witnessed the piece of doo-doo.


Google: " honker and the can am " for more stuff. There's some info out there...

 

And also the 429er

 

The 429er , if I recall correctly, was a privateer effort, unlike the Honker, which was Ford.

I also meant to post, if recollection serves correctly, the Honker's tub was based on the MkIV's.

You've now got me on a mission to be sure...

edit: Yup, the 429er was just Holman/Moody's effort. 'Stuffed a 429 (bored and stroked to 494) in a McLaren M6B for the last few races of '69 with Mario, again, on board. 'Faired a little better with a fourth (laguna Seca) and a third (Riverside). Nuttin' so far on the MkIV/Honker connection but I'm pretty sure...

 

The first break was to allow the car to race in GT, when it’s not yet marketed. Enzo Ferrari used to play that game to push for his cars to be homologated when he had no intention to produce the quota required (Ferrari SWB, GTO, 250 LM ...).

The Ford GT is a LMP chassis with a GT body; that's what you call "inherent superiority".
It puts the GT at a huge advantage against modified production cars like the Ferrari 488, the Corvette, the Porsche or the Astons that are derived from street cars. I know that they are built like from the ground up like prototypes to race, but they have kept the DNA of the street model.

I was surprised the GT was allowed by the ACO to compete in the WEC, and no protested immediately by the true GT manufacturers.
For example, Jim Glickenhaus isn’t allowed to race his cars at Le Mans. The SCG3 are built under the same principles as the Ford GT: a race chassis clothed with a GT-looking body. The ACO refused a Le Mans entry to the SCG3, but allowed the Ford GT. Why ?

Regarding BOP; not only power and top speed are to be considered. The frontal area, the weight distribution, the coefficient of penetration, the suspension, and mostly the aero all influence the performance. Judged alone, top speed means nothing.

Yes, the Ford wasn’t restricted enough, in my view, when put against real GT. Bar incident, I expected it to win.

 

I think the difference is that there is no question that Ford will be able to sell enough road cars to meet homologation, whereas that might not be true for the SCG003.

 

I get that allowing it to race before the commencement of production is a break, but I don't think it's a big deal. In the context of allowing cars to exceed displacement limits or run powertrains that have little to do with their production counterparts, it's not a huge break and obviously the Ford 50th anniversary is a big draw, which is good for the entirety of racing. Lots of buzz around the car at every race I've been to this year.

I think a total production that is a 4 digit number is certainly sufficient to call it a production car. It's not a bare-minimum, 100-unit homologation special. And everything about the car is class legal, no waivers required. The penalty Ford will incur is that the road car will be hardcore by modern standards.

I agree with your overall sentiment on BoP, as you are one of the few people on the internet I've seen that recognizes that power/weight/fuel alone does not make for equivalence. I'm sure GT will be penalized further, but it makes for good marketing. The GT has total aerodynamic superiority, and I will happily drive around the new GT road car knowing it is absolutely useless for carrying golf clubs but fantastic as the basis for winning race car.