|
Cost-effective---teams need to be able to afford to race. Obviously having two wildly different chassis types made BoP impossible, and the alternative—more open rules—would cost much more than the series makes.
That is the driving force here: IMSA/NASCAR want WeatherTUSC to succeed as a business, which means the teams need to nee able to afford to compete.
There just isn’t a lot of profit in sports car racing in North America. The series which have survived are generally stock-based and low-cost (relatively.) There doesn’t seem to be a lot sponsorship money nor a lot of fan interest which might drive sponsorship.
With ACO going to a (basically) spec LMP2 class (really a variant of the old DP) it only makes sense for IMSA to adopt a similar standard.
The teams have a chance to buy a car which might actually have resale value, and could, with minor modification, be used in more than one series. Hopefully the chassis and motors costs will be kept affordable (in the context of available sponsorship dollars) which means the teams won’t be going out of business—or going to other series. ALMS had great cars, but never figured out how to make the series affordable for the teams.
Chassis manufacturers have a decent chance to sell enough chassis and spares to stay financially viable ... between the three series running the basic ACO-compliant LMP2 chassis, unless one of the chassis really sucks hard by comparison, all four manufacturers have a fair chance to succeed as businesses.
Full-on LMP1 cars simply do not work for North American manufacturers, not for most global manufacturers. Sales are strong enough without them, and since most carmakers sell mostly pick-ups, SUVs, and cheap econoboxes, top-tier sportscar racing does nothing for their brands.
If Ford or GM thought winning Le Mans overall would be a big PR boost and increase profits over time, they’d be there. They haven’t been there in decades, and I don’t expect them.
So what we get is a huge compromise ... but still a step up from ACO LMP2 (basically spec) and the old Rolex series (basically spec and outmoded.)
With IMSA we get reasonably modern cars and a variety of engines. Sure the engines are “balanced” to the point that none is better than any other but at least we get different engine notes.
The best teams are still going to win, but then, they are Always going to win. The best teams would get hired by the manufacturer willing to spend the most money and would win through dollars and skill if design and development were open. They will still win under current rules because they will maximize every benefit and minimize errors and faults.
As I see it, the proposed 2017 regs give IMSA a chance to establish a reasonably profitable series which remunerates teams sufficiently that they stick around, and rewards fans likewise.
The cars won’t be dinosaurs, and hopefully the teams won’t need subsidies. Hopefully the balance of racing excitement and cost-containment keeps the series viable.
Nobody is getting what s/he wants. NASCAR (Grand Am) wants one chassis/one motor and lots of crashes; the old ALMS guys want P1. One won’t sell to sports car fans, the other costs too much. But so far in 2016, IMSA has pulled off two very good races. No blunders, no stupidity, no unfair BoP (though of course some will argue this) and IMO some very entertaining on-track action.
I may be crazy but I have hopes for sports car racing in North America.
One further minor hope: With every team running one of four chassis, a handful of engines, and only a few sets of bodywork, maybe BoP could be set for Daytona, reset before Sebring, and left alone for the rest of the year? I am pretty sure teams would need waivers to put different-length shoelaces in the drivers’ boots, so one set of BoP regs should last all season ... which would maybe allow teams to win by strategy or skill or something ... I hear those things are factors in some sports.
|