|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
8 Jan 2016, 16:11 (Ref:3603093) | #2576 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 251
|
|||
|
8 Jan 2016, 19:37 (Ref:3603162) | #2577 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 857
|
Mazda prototype engine specs: http://nasportscar.com/mazda-prototy...z-2-0t-engine/
|
||
__________________
North American SportsCar |
8 Jan 2016, 19:44 (Ref:3603164) | #2578 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
“We gained immense knowledge from three years of racing a stock-block diesel engine. That knowledge will improve the next generation of Mazda diesel engines. But, with the impending rules changes in 2017 [which will not allow a diesel-fueled option], a purpose-built racing engine was our best choice to reach our long-term goals and contend for race wins and championships."
Ahahahahah as if diesel was legal in LMP2 even when you were running it... Yes, the horrid performance of the diesel had nothing to do with the switch to the "new" petrol |
|
|
8 Jan 2016, 19:49 (Ref:3603167) | #2579 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
It was legal in 2014. Or 2013.
|
||
|
8 Jan 2016, 19:52 (Ref:3603168) | #2580 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
||
|
8 Jan 2016, 19:56 (Ref:3603169) | #2581 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Quote:
2014 LMP2 regulations allow for diesel engines. |
|||
|
8 Jan 2016, 19:56 (Ref:3603171) | #2582 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,952
|
It was legal until Lola went bust and Mazda killed an actual ACO-spec LMP2 program. At which point the ACO said screw diesel for LMP2, since the only car maker that wanted such a program no longer showed interest outside of GA/IMSA.
Notice that there's currently no regs for rotory engines in either LMP1 or LMP2? That could change if Mazda sold the concept to the ACO. But that won't happen as their racing program lacks the money for such an effort on such a scale. |
||
|
8 Jan 2016, 20:08 (Ref:3603172) | #2583 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Here is the correct one REVISED, Check ART 5 + 6 + 17 http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...%202014-dc.pdf |
||
|
8 Jan 2016, 20:10 (Ref:3603174) | #2584 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
8 Jan 2016, 20:10 (Ref:3603175) | #2585 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
||
|
8 Jan 2016, 20:15 (Ref:3603178) | #2586 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
9 Jan 2016, 13:10 (Ref:3603290) | #2587 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,952
|
And again, why are they banned? Because no one's throwing money and positive press at the ACO over their inclusion. Why do we have diesel engines? Audi pushed for both diesel and ethanol engines in talks with the ACO in 2002, and the ACO saw an opportunity to get either Renault or Peugeot back to LM. Renault didn't bite, but Peugeot did in 2005 (though they didn't race until 2007). And we still have diesel engines because of Audi Sport pumping money and press into diesel engines in racing.
I'll bet that if Audi go back to running a gasoline engine in 2018, the ACO might give up on diesels just like they did when Mazda backed out of LMP2. In short, the ACO will probably allow anyone to run any engine concept they want at LM and other series where ACO tech rules apply. But only if they're either a car manufacturer or OEM, or someone else who want to put their money and press where their mouth is. |
||
|
9 Jan 2016, 13:24 (Ref:3603292) | #2588 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,236
|
|||
__________________
"Knowing that it's in you and you never let it out Is worse than blowing any engine or any wreck you'll ever have." -Mike Cooley |
9 Jan 2016, 15:20 (Ref:3603310) | #2589 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,591
|
|||
|
9 Jan 2016, 16:08 (Ref:3603318) | #2590 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,470
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
“We’re trying to close the doors without embarrassing ourselves, the France family and embarrassing (the) Grand American Series,” he said in the deposition. “There is no money. There is no purse. There’s nothing.” |
10 Jan 2016, 00:42 (Ref:3603406) | #2591 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
This is just my view, but I think IMSA ought to go with the Class One cars INSTEAD of the DPi and tell the ACO where to shove it. IMSA P2s already don't fit ACO rules (both the Mazda and the Shank Ligier both don't fit for engine rule reasons) and the 2017 P2 rules are a disaster in the making. IMO, they'll have far better odds of getting out of the skid they find themselves in by realizing the ACO doesn't give a toss about them.
|
||
|
10 Jan 2016, 01:15 (Ref:3603410) | #2592 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,938
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Jan 2016, 01:41 (Ref:3603413) | #2593 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
My view of the state of IMSA is that the series' exposure doesn't come close to justifying the cost of competing in it, and that needs to change. LMP2s, by their very nature and design, cannot do this. As the Class One is meant by both the ITR and JAF to be a top-class rocketship, it stands a far better chance of being that special style of car. My IMSA-rules Class One would allow the DTM/Super GT two-liter turbocharged engine, but would be focused on production-based engines of roughly 650-700 horsepower. As the ACO doesn't give a toss about privateer racers unless they want to bankrupt themselves in LMP1 or saddle themselves with rich amateurs and psuedo-spec cars, IMSA needs to walk on them and go their own way. |
|||
|
10 Jan 2016, 02:29 (Ref:3603416) | #2594 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,592
|
Class 1 (gt500) cars are ballasted to 1020kg. They're not that much heavier.
|
|
|
10 Jan 2016, 03:45 (Ref:3603423) | #2595 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
@BrentJackson
Yes that I want Class One to be included in the IMSA series, but my problem is that both the IMSA nor ITR are procrastinating on promoting and implementing it. Only the JAF/GTA are the ones who are promoting the rule unification other than putting their cars to Le Mans. |
|
|
10 Jan 2016, 05:43 (Ref:3603428) | #2596 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,592
|
It's like Super GT got sold on a grand idea they're new 'dtm like' cars could race in Japan, Germany (Europe) and America. But it's yet to happen. At this rate it won't happen because of the unwillingness of the two other series'. It's almost a perfect alternative to lmp in semi-spec racing because it's relatively cheap but still open enough. Plus it benefits manufacturers where the cars can resemble their street counterpart but still do prototype lap times. It sounds like a dream now.
|
|
|
10 Jan 2016, 09:38 (Ref:3603446) | #2597 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
@TF110
Agreed to that. Let's face it, both IMSA and ITR are busy dealing their respective national series that there's no time for something called "rule unification". And speaking of IMSA's United Sportscar Championship, they should act fast on their prototype class or drop it altogether in favor of GTs. I mean, GTE (or GTLM) are becoming like GT1 lately. |
|
|
10 Jan 2016, 09:41 (Ref:3603448) | #2598 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
Yes, Class 1 is going to save everything! I can't wait for GM to built the world beating Chevy Cruze for C1! Personally I don't think IMSA would bring the Japanese interpretation of C1 to the states but rather the cost saving German one.
I always thought C1 could be a good sprint series similar to trans-am and contrast to IMSA other longer running series. |
|
|
10 Jan 2016, 10:20 (Ref:3603452) | #2599 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,592
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Jan 2016, 10:23 (Ref:3603453) | #2600 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
The problem is Class 1 is not very cheap at all and for how well they do with them in GT500 the cars are ultimately fairly flawed. If you could have had an open wheel series buy into the engine formula like Japan it might work but it would basically bring most of the problems of the current DPs plus a few new ones on its own.
The immediate benefit was having 5 manufacturers already involved in the series with cars (Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Lexus) but one of them has basically bailed on sports car racing and you're left with 2 DTM, 2 GT500 and rule unification nowhere particularly in sight. If the US class has to stand on its own it just isn't going to work. Maybe the answer is to look at what made the 80s work. Back then the WSC was as now, an endurance racing championship consisting almost entirely of ~6 hour races while IMSA was primarily a sprint racing series with 2-3 hour races, so while Group C and GTP were similar in technology and speed they both had their own reasons you might enter a top class car in one, the other, or both. Just throwing your hands up and assuming WEC has killed your ability to attract those kinds of cars isn't something that history says has to happen. You'd need to work out what the heck is going on with LMP-1L though. GM would obviously want to have an ATS Class 1 car considering it is a rear driver that comes with a turbo 4 and directly competes against 4 out of 6 of the cars currently run in the class. That is the one US Class 1 car that makes any sense. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2016 Moto GP | macca | Bike Racing | 4 | 17 Mar 2016 22:36 |
IndyCar + LMP1 + Formula E -> IMSA CanAm 2017 | NaBUru38 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 26 Apr 2013 15:58 |
2013-2017 V8SA Tyre Tender | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 6 | 23 Mar 2011 20:39 |