IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

You mean bodywork requirements for OEM interests?

Entrants running without OEM support can run a completely standard LMP2 on a level performance platform as manufacturer DPi's (level in theory)

If you are suggesting DPi would be more appealing to OEM's without a bodywork rule id disagree. Why spend your money on supporting a factory based team in DPi and not bother making it look a little like your road cars... I can't think of any OEM who wouldn't want the race car to look like their road cars


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmm, did Bregman let slip that they are working on a DPi in this video interview? About the 50 sec. mark.

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/13287...man-on-17-lmp3





L.P.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Hmm, did Bregman let slip that they are working on a DPi in this video interview? About the 50 sec. mark.

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/13287...man-on-17-lmp3

Flip a coin. They're building an LMP2 so it would be no surprise they've talked to someone and looked into a DPi, but whether there's active development is another matter entirely.

IIRC, Ligier is the manufacturer that HPD was rumored to be working with before it began to look like HPD was backing away from DPi.

[Makaze]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Flip a coin. They're building an LMP2 so it would be no surprise they've talked to someone and looked into a DPi, but whether there's active development is another matter entirely.

IIRC, Ligier is the manufacturer that HPD was rumored to be working with before it began to look like HPD was backing away from DPi.

Onroak= 2018 HPD DPi and 2017 1/2 Ligier DPi

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Makaze

1/2 Ligier DPi

Elaborate, please.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Elaborate, please.

I think the smiley at the end means the comment was tongue in cheek. In other words, he wasn't serious. In other words no further explanation needed.

[MagVanisher]

By the way, I was wondering if IMSA will lower the manufacturer fees to attract more? Sure that they needed the money to run the series, but the fees are too high!

Also, why making some roadcar-inspired bodywork (other than GM) when it won't help on gaining an edge in the race nor attracting potential buyers anyway?

[carbsmith]

The complication to the bodywork requirement right now is that there are no cars available yet so the only way to have manufacturer bodywork on a car for 2017 is to partner with (read: pay) one of the chassis manufacturers. You can't just buy a car and do it yourself.

[Speed-King]

Additionally, you're focusing purely on factory-backed teams when you don't need to be factory backed to want a different engine in your car. If IMSA allowed it, several GT3 manufacturers(the ones involved in GTD at the very least) would almost certainly be glad to sell or lease engines to Prototype teams if they didn't have to develop bodywork to go along with it.

Why would any non-factory-backed hassle of adopting a GT3-engine to their chassis if they could simply run with the Gibson? Look at ELMS - everybody is running the Nissan and almost everybody has been doing that for a while. Adapting a chassis to a new engine-package is a lot of work and teams need a very good reason to bother doing that - nobody's going to run a GT3-engine just for the sake of being special.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Why would any non-factory-backed hassle of adopting a GT3-engine to their chassis if they could simply run with the Gibson? Look at ELMS - everybody is running the Nissan and almost everybody has been doing that for a while. Adapting a chassis to a new engine-package is a lot of work and teams need a very good reason to bother doing that - nobody's going to run a GT3-engine just for the sake of being special.

Why didn't everyone who bought an Alba or a Spice back in the 80s all use the same engine? Some teams would rather use engine B than engine A, some think engine Y will give them better performance than engine Z.

And yeah, I know IMSA has Balance of Performance today, but they had it back in the 80s as well and it didn't stop anyone. Besides, are you seriously going to blindly trust IMSA to fairly balance the DPi with the Gibson-powered P2s? They're trying to force maximum variety with the DPi plan. They don't want half the field running the Gibson engine.

It actually doesn't take that much effort to fit a new engine to a prototype like these(when Doran Racing when they dropped a Judd engine in their Ferrari 333SP all they needed was a single spacer to make it fit), particularly since the chassis makers are already going to be designing the chassis to fit different engines as part of their work with IMSA(and the likely trashing of the single engine supplier after a year or two).

Originally Posted by carbsmith

The complication to the bodywork requirement right now is that there are no cars available yet so the only way to have manufacturer bodywork on a car for 2017 is to partner with (read: pay) one of the chassis manufacturers. You can't just buy a car and do it yourself.

That's how IMSA always wanted it, regardless of chassis availability. They wanted the DPi manufacturers to partner with one of the P2 manufacturers, making their bodywork chassis-specific.

[carbsmith]

Having different rotary displacement limits is not BoP, the things flat out aren't measured in a comparable way.

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

It actually doesn't take that much effort to fit a new engine to a prototype like these(when Doran Racing when they dropped a Judd engine in their Ferrari 333SP all they needed was a single spacer to make it fit)

You're completely wrong here
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/ferrari333-3.html

While seemingly a straight forward engine swap, the Judd needed spacer plates added front and rear as it was shorter than the Ferrari V12. "It was a big project, very few teams could complete. We did it though, without modifying the tub or the gearbox," says Doran

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

That's how IMSA always wanted it, regardless of chassis availability. They wanted the DPi manufacturers to partner with one of the P2 manufacturers, making their bodywork chassis-specific.

Generic bodywork on a P2 car is impossible, none of the hard points are the same car to car. What Pescarolo, HPD, Prodrive, etc. did is not.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Why didn't everyone who bought an Alba or a Spice back in the 80s all use the same engine? Some teams would rather use engine B than engine A, some think engine Y will give them better performance than engine Z.

And yeah, I know IMSA has Balance of Performance today, but they had it back in the 80s as well and it didn't stop anyone.

We have many more recent examples of teams not going the extra-mile, so I am not sure how valid that point is.

Besides, are you seriously going to blindly trust IMSA to fairly balance the DPi with the Gibson-powered P2s? They're trying to force maximum variety with the DPi plan. They don't want half the field running the Gibson engine.

If no other manufacturers bite, the Gibsons will have to do. And Grand Am never had a problem with most of their field running Pontiacs...

It actually doesn't take that much effort to fit a new engine to a prototype like these(when Doran Racing when they dropped a Judd engine in their Ferrari 333SP all they needed was a single spacer to make it fit), particularly since the chassis makers are already going to be designing the chassis to fit different engines as part of their work with IMSA(and the likely trashing of the single engine supplier after a year or two).

That's N/A to N/A and as outlined by Carbsmith wasn't particularly straight forward either. But the trend in GT3 seems to be going towards turbo-engines and adapting a chassis for that takes even more of an effort.

Furthermore, the P2-constructors probably won't have plug-and-play options for that... How many cars can they realistically sell in IMSA? Around a dozen probably - and that's split between four constructors. Europe and Asia are much bigger markets for the new P2-cars and people can only run the Gibson there, hence the cars will be optimized for that.

I am sure you can get Onroak or Oreca to help you out with the adaption to turbo engines, but they won't do it for free...

[schmidder]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

We have many more recent examples of teams not going the extra-mile, so I am not sure how valid that point is.



If no other manufacturers bite, the Gibsons will have to do. And Grand Am never had a problem with most of their field running Pontiacs...


That's N/A to N/A and as outlined by Carbsmith wasn't particularly straight forward either. But the trend in GT3 seems to be going towards turbo-engines and adapting a chassis for that takes even more of an effort.

Furthermore, the P2-constructors probably won't have plug-and-play options for that... How many cars can they realistically sell in IMSA? Around a dozen probably - and that's split between four constructors. Europe and Asia are much bigger markets for the new P2-cars and people can only run the Gibson there, hence the cars will be optimized for that.

I am sure you can get Onroak or Oreca to help you out with the adaption to turbo engines, but they won't do it for free...

Completely agree with this. All the non factory backed p teams aren't going to spend money and developing a custom, gt3 engined p2, that is not the landscape of North American racing anymore, the 80s examples do not apply now. Even if someone did, the potential bop would be just as bad as the gibson..as the factories that did bodywork would not be happy losing to some privateer.

Now, if they did away with the bodywork thing...maybe some other manufacturers would spend to drop their gt3 engines in..maybe.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[MagVanisher]

@schmidder
Hope so, but GM will force teams to have Corvette-based bodywork not unlike Mazda where they just give the team with their engine.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Having different rotary displacement limits is not BoP, the things flat out aren't measured in a comparable way.

IMSA GTP and GTL had a formula of rules for weight based on a mixture of engine power and displacement. The formula was adjusted when certain cars showed a distinct advantage.

That is Balance of Performance. You can try to paint it in a different light if you want, but any system that is meant to keep the performance of multiple wildly different cars within a certain window and which gets adjusted in-season is BoP.

Generic bodywork on a P2 car is impossible, none of the hard points are the same car to car.

If they wanted to, the manufacturers could still build variants of their bodywork for each chassis design if IMSA allowed it.

Originally Posted by schmidder

Completely agree with this. All the non factory backed p teams aren't going to spend money and developing a custom, gt3 engined p2,

First of all, I already know of at least one team that would do EXACTLY that if IMSA allowed it.

But more importantly, they won't have to spend money "developing" it any more than they need to spend money "developing" the Gibson-engined cars. The cars are already going to be built with the installation of other engines in mind because of the DPi matter. The cars are either going to need generic mounting systems or conversion kits to make DPi engines -expected to be GT3-derived themselves- fit to begin with.

I used the 333SP deal as an extreme example, but it's simply not going to apply here.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

IMSA GTP and GTL had a formula of rules for weight based on a mixture of engine power and displacement. The formula was adjusted when certain cars showed a distinct advantage.

The sliding weight scale isn't even relevant when 95% of the cars to ever run in the class were 1.3L rotaries or 3L 4 valve piston engines.

[MoMedic9019]

JDC-Miller have jumped first and put down an order for at least one P3 chassis.

Expect many more to follow suit...

[MaskedRacer]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

JDC-Miller have jumped first and put down an order for at least one P3 chassis.

Expect many more to follow suit...

LMPC only runs 8 races in 2017 (thank goodness). Teams with the will and the cash could do both WeatherTech and the PC series.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by MaskedRacer

LMPC only runs 8 races in 2017 (thank goodness). Teams with the will and the cash could do both WeatherTech and the PC series.

Agree. It's a business venture for them.. PC has been profitable for many, P3 will be too. Another increasingly viable option on a world stage, much like GT3 cup.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Generic bodywork on a P2 car is impossible, none of the hard points are the same car to car. What Pescarolo, HPD, Prodrive, etc. did is not.

Hard points aside, the way it's molded and where the fitment points are would be completely different. It's stupid to even suggest it.

Could it be done? I guess. Would it be easy, economical, or aero similar? No. Not in the least.

[Bob Baldwin]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

JDC-Miller have jumped first and put down an order for at least one P3 chassis.

Expect many more to follow suit...

Do you know which MFG they ordered it from ?


Have not heard recently how the Riley / Tony Ave P3 project is coming along Any info ?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by MaskedRacer

LMPC only runs 8 races in 2017 (thank goodness). Teams with the will and the cash could do both WeatherTech and the PC series.

The Lites series doesn't adopt P3 until 2018, so there wouldn't be a conflict anyways (if I'm interpreting your post correctly). But it could possibly same the teams money to buy a new car. I do wonder what a team could charge a gentleman driver for a season of current PC vs a season of 2018 Lites?

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by joeb

The Lites series doesn't adopt P3 until 2018

Ehhhhhh..... No. It's 2017.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by joeb

The Lites series doesn't adopt P3 until 2018, so there wouldn't be a conflict anyways (if I'm interpreting your post correctly). But it could possibly same the teams money to buy a new car. I do wonder what a team could charge a gentleman driver for a season of current PC vs a season of 2018 Lites?

That is incorrect Joe. "In 2017, the Mazda Prototype Lites presented by Cooper Tires will evolve and be rebranded as IMSA Prototype Challenge presented by Mazda. The sprint-race series will feature two, 45-minute races per event weekend with a two-class format including Le Mans Prototype 3 (LM P3) race cars in the “PC1” class, and cars that currently race in the Prototype Lites L1 class will comprise the “PC2” class. Existing Prototype Lites L2 class cars no longer will be eligible after the 2016 season is completed."










L.P.

[TheMightyM]

Originally Posted by Bob Baldwin

Do you know which MFG they ordered it from ?

Have not heard recently how the Riley / Tony Ave P3 project is coming along Any info ?

It was an Onroak-built Ligier JS P3. Imagine that. See this Racer article.

The Riley/Ave P3 is close to having homologated and is expected to make its debut at an upcoming ELMS race (Paul Ricard or Spa, accounts vary).

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Bob Baldwin

Do you know which MFG they ordered it from ?

Ligier. Don't be surprised if most of the people who go for it use the Ligier - they seem to have the market cornered right now.

And given what I learned about LMP3 in VdeV today, I hope IMSA plans to give the P3s a power boost, or there could be embarrassing times ahead. In two of four race weekends this year, the P3 cars were two seconds slower than the CN cars. In the two where P3 was faster, one was by less than two seconds, the other just short of five seconds. It's pretty clear that the track layout and surface conditions has a pretty big influence on this matter.

As I've noted before, CN cars generally post similar lap times to the Elan DP02, so unless US circuits are VERY suitable to the P3s, the "lower" class could be fighting for the overall win rather frequently without a boost to the P3s. If that happens, we end up coming right back around to the question of what's the point of P3 in Lites? Of course this serves to reinforce the notion that P3 shouldn't be in WSC unless they REALLY boost the speed, as well.