Enduros: Mandatory Stop Rumours? Huh?

[Steven Scala]

I've been hearing grumblings lately that mandatory stops are being considered for the 3hr races. To be honest, I'm having trouble seeing how this could benefit either the competition or budgets.

Now I understand that a critical consideration is whether refueling or driver changes are allowed during mandated stops. If neither is allowed, then this would end up being little more than a make-work project for officials, which we can assume the race committee's not really aiming for.

If driver changes are allowed during mandatory stops, I'd assume they'd also have a minimum duration to ensure that belts are put in properly, etc. (A minute, likely.) If this is the case, then the measure would handicap cars that normally do not require a driver change. Ultimately, this would encourage multi-driver teams, spreading costs among drivers and lowering car counts.

As for refueling, the only way to go 3 hours is to put a big fuel bladder in an efficient car. If refueling is allowed during mandatory stops, all other competitors (the bulk of the field, admittedly) can count their range-defined fuel stops as their mandatories, so the long-range cars would be handicapped, coming in to sit idle. The greatest benefit goes to the fastest (and arguably least efficient) limited-range cars, such as the hundred-thousand dollar car that's won the last four or five enduros at this point. Though long-range cars have become an increasing factor on the podium, a mandatory refueling stop would put an end to that, ultimately benefitting the fast guzzlers.

This last bit has a couple of critical implications:

a) While a number of members don't see the increasing importance of this factor, there's a big benefit in terms of optics and public goodwill in having efficient cars challenging big-power cars on an equal footing. If instead we were to manipulate the regulations to encourage long runs inefficient cars, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.

b) In the case of Mosport, enduro winners have averaged around 1:40 with stops. With fuel stops, this implies laptimes in the 1:32-1:33 range. We're now seeing sub-$15K cars capable of circulating at 1:40 without stopping, challenging equipment costing more than twice (and in some cases ten times) as much. As it currently stands, the lower half of the GT Sprints running order could stand to compete for overall endurance wins with little more than a ~$1K safety equipment upgrade. A mandatory fuel stop, however, would stifle sales of $800-$1,200 fuel bladders (Jenn? Are you reading this?), and encourage ten times the expenditure in speed upgrades. Uncool all around.

Unless there's a glaring benefit that I'm missing in terms of mandatory fueling stops, I can't see the race committee imposing such a counterproductive measure, so I'd say there's nothing to worry about there. As for mandatory stops with driver changes, who knows?

[Eric H]

It does not make sense to discourage low budget teams from participating.

[DEK]

Speaking "unofficially" from a Race Committee perspective, I have not seen this item on the agenda for any YTD 2009 meetings. Whether it's on a future agenda or on BEMCs agenda for Sept, I do not know. Perhaps BEMC could make a statement here regarding their intention regarding mandatory Pit Stops for September.

DAVE KING

[Bill Lobban]

The CASC Race Rules for Enduros are silent on mandatory stops. These were added to standardise enduro rules this year.
Any changes would have to be in the event supplementary rules.
I agree with Steven's logic here.
By definition, having mandatory stops destroys the whole concept of an endurance race surely.

[CAllen]

I can't speak for BEMC on this, since I don't actually know the answer to whether or not manadatory stops have been added to the Sup. Regs. for the Indian Summer Trophy Races. I will check into this and post a message back here regarding the Sups, or any plans for mandatory stops. I am a member of BEMC.

[shamrock]

I find this a strange conversation. How can anyone say pitstops are detrimental to an endurance race. Thats what these races are all about. Team work, changing drivers, fans love watching it, low budget race teams with small cars and fuel cells. High fives in the pits for a good job well done.
If there are no pitstops our team wouldn't be able to compete. We need to refuel and we race on the cheap because we split the entry and costs. Endurance races at the regional level are supposed to be fun. Not some guy with a 22 gallon cell, some piggy back tank and driving by himself never coming in. What endurance race have you ever watched that didn't have pit stops.

In fact there should be mandatory pitstops. At least two. This allows for at least a three man race team. If your using only two drivers the second stop evens the playing field. Its supposed to be fun!!! Sheesh.

[Eric H]

There has to be a balance (which I believe already has been achieved with one mandatory stop). Diversity is a good thing... besides, the car with the huge tank is not going to be very quick for the first half of the race with all that extra fuel.

[racer-025]

During our 3-hour event at AMP, if someone has to refuel, its a mandatory 5 minute stop. My race partner & myself won it last year with a 1989 Honda CRX with a SOHC 1.6L and a OEM fuel tank. It was fast enough to stay within reach of the top runners but maintained the necessary fuel mileage to do it with one stop. When those hungry front runners had to do their 2nd stop, I easily passed them all and took the win.

So, if your going to race a car thats fuel hungry, it needs to be very fast to win.

[Matt Graham]

Steven,

I think you're missing a couple of crucial scenarios in your reasoning. While it's true you can compete for an overall win with a slower car and a larger fuel cell, what you have effectively done by not requiring a pit stop and allowing large cells is told competitors that they can "buy" a class win by spending the money and installing a large cell.

Consider the case of a GT4, GT5 or GT6 car that is normally quite competitive in sprint races. This car has a range of somewhere between 75-100 minutes on a single (OEM) tank of fuel. With a mandatory stop, they are now competitive for class wins, and have spent NO additional money to modify the car for endurance racing. If the same car is competing against a car that HAS spent the money to install the larger fuel cell, it has little chance for a class win, as the car with the larger cell has a considerable advantage.

In addition, with our current bracket racing setup, adding a mandatory pit stop will discourage racers from entering a lower class for fuel mileage reasons. Consider the case where a car that normally runs in GT2 in sprint races installs a large fuel cell and now can't quite make 3 hours on a single tank running at GT2 speeds. So instead, the car enters GT4, runs 3 hours on a single tank at 7/10s, and collects a class win. While this is certainly a viable strategy, wouldn't we all just like to drive as fast as we can (as consistently as we can) for 3 hours? Put in that mandatory pit stop, and let Mr. GT2 Driver go hell-bent-for-leather for 3 hours and still compete for class wins.

Having said all that, I've raced in plenty of endurance races without mandatory pit stops (including 24hr races), and literally dozens of shorter enduros (90 minutes - 180 minutes) WITH mandatory pit stops. In the shorter races, I kinda like a mandatory stop. I think it levels the playing field somewhat. In the longer races, I think mandatory stops are unnecessary as the length of the race dictates you'll HAVE to stop sometime.

Just my $0.02. (And it ain't worth even that).

-Matt

[speedmerchant]

Instead of the mandatory stops, as I agree with Steven, that take away from the heart of the event, why don't we just cap the fuel tank capacity. Find the car in the field with the biggest OEM tank (likely the Porsches) and cap it at that. (lets remember the cars with the biggest tanks usually don't get the best mileage). Cars using fuel cells are easy to regulate and inspect with some simple mathmatics. Done. The the rule would be written something like "Cars operating with OEM fuel tanks must run with a tank that was originally installed in such car. Car running fuel cells are regulated to X amount of litres" and make that amount equivelant to the biggest OEM tank capacity. I think most endurance Championships level the playing field this way. And yeah you can say that they have regulated engine sizes etc etc which play into all of this but lets face it the guy running in GT5 with his 4 cyl isn't running against V8's. It's a good enough rule for our purposes.

Either that or limit the amount of fuel a team can use during the race, which may be a bit more difficult but still effective.

[Steven Scala]

So James, would you therefore turn away a car with cells that are larger than the maximum in the 'test group' of cars on a given day? I think that would be a sad strike against the 'all-comers' nature of the Enduro and Sprints regs.

Besides that, the only surefire way to equalize any race field is to increase the race distance. Seems counterintuitive, then, to exclude cars from longer races based on their potential as giant-killers.

Matt, I hadn't thought about class standings at all, and certainly haven't since I first saw Kuno nearly take the overall win last year in a Civic. There's a growing number of us who consider bracket standings as little more than consolation prizes when it comes to the big races. Maybe we'll register as GT1 to prove a point.

[DEK]

Steve, re-read my post and Colene's. I've heard NOTHING about this at Race Committe, and Colene will try to find out what will be in BEMCs Supp Reg. Don't get bent out of shape yet !!!!! LOL
DK

[Crusher45]

Originally Posted by DEK

Steve, re-read my post and Colene's. I've heard NOTHING about this at Race Committe, and Colene will try to find out what will be in BEMCs Supp Reg. Don't get bent out of shape yet !!!!! LOL
DK

Steve's always bent. Shape, that's a different story and Steve usually lasts what, 1 lap maybe 2 as his teammate wrecks his ride?

[Eric H]

Originally Posted by Steven Scala

There's a growing number of us who consider bracket standings as little more than consolation prizes when it comes to the big races. Maybe we'll register as GT1 to prove a point.

Yup, and recognition for the overall top three would be nice!

[slucas]

The fewer rules the better. Meet the safety specs and go racing.