IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by August

I think the Ligier is perfectly competitive vs. the DPs, they've had some mechanical issues costing them the chance to win plus an all-pro lineup would help them.

As for the P class future, we'll see what it's gonna be like. The new P2 rules don't sound too exciting, it's like a DP built on a P2 chassis. And I'm worried about the car count, where would new teams come from? Adding P1 wouldn't sound like a solution, it'd probably be a lead class with even less cars (apart from occasional appearances from WEC teams).

It's surely a strange situation you have now that manufacturers' main interest is in GTLM despite that there are the prototype classes. Maybe if the 2017 regulations don't get more manufacturers to the P class, IMSA should consider becoming GT-only. Or maybe keep P but get rid of PC which feels like a class that doesn't generate interest at all. Maybe that would make some more teams to enter P.

As for American fans desire for P1s, what if IMSA dropped Sebring from their own calendar and hosted WEC there. American fans would get what they want, IMSA/NASCAR/whatever as the track owner would have a good event, and maybe of IMSA teams at least Corvette would join WEC there. It's a race that could be something special, yet as an IMSA race it really isn't.

if the 2017 P class will be a failure, IMSA should think about to merge with PWC... it would be a sort of pre 2010 FIA GT with GTLM as first class and GT3 as second class!

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by August

I think the Ligier is perfectly competitive vs. the DPs, they've had some mechanical issues costing them the chance to win plus an all-pro lineup would help them.

As for the P class future, we'll see what it's gonna be like. The new P2 rules don't sound too exciting, it's like a DP built on a P2 chassis. And I'm worried about the car count, where would new teams come from? Adding P1 wouldn't sound like a solution, it'd probably be a lead class with even less cars (apart from occasional appearances from WEC teams).

I think that the new P class is the blend that was promised from the merger announcement and will be popular with the teams, and the fans that are not undone by not having P-1.

It's surely a strange situation you have now that manufacturers' main interest is in GTLM despite that there are the prototype classes. Maybe if the 2017 regulations don't get more manufacturers to the P class, IMSA should consider becoming GT-only. Or maybe keep P but get rid of PC which feels like a class that doesn't generate interest at all. Maybe that would make some more teams to enter P.

Once again it seems that the more liberal IMSA/TUSC rules about the common rule chassis will/could draw mfgs. Mazda and Chevy already sit atop non werks chassis and Honda may join as well as Bentley. AMR used that model with their P-1 built atop a generic Lola chassis.

As for American fans desire for P1s, what if IMSA dropped Sebring from their own calendar and hosted WEC there. American fans would get what they want, IMSA/NASCAR/whatever as the track owner would have a good event, and maybe of IMSA teams at least Corvette would join WEC there. It's a race that could be something special, yet as an IMSA race it really isn't.

Sebring is one of the icons of N. American racing, they are not going to give it up to the WEC.








L.P.

[BrentJackson]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I too wish that the P class had an open tire rule, or at least a P-2 chassis specific Conti tire to go along with the other spec tire.

L.P.

If I was to start running IMSA today, the Conti P2 tires would be the first thing changed. Literally, the first dang thing. And 2016 would allow open tires for those classes and a choice of Continental or Pirelli rubber for GTD, as a peace offering to the PWC.

[BrentJackson]

Originally Posted by August

I think the Ligier is perfectly competitive vs. the DPs, they've had some mechanical issues costing them the chance to win plus an all-pro lineup would help them.

Even without the all-pro drivers, that car is still an absolute rocketship, and the guys at MSR have managed to move forward with it in amazing ways. Who is gonna forget Ozz Negri driving for two hours plus without power steering at Mosport and finish on the podium? He deserves a bloody medal for that. Sooner or later, those boys are gonna get lucky, and when they do they'll get a win for the Ligier.

Originally Posted by August

As for the P class future, we'll see what it's gonna be like. The new P2 rules don't sound too exciting, it's like a DP built on a P2 chassis. And I'm worried about the car count, where would new teams come from? Adding P1 wouldn't sound like a solution, it'd probably be a lead class with even less cars (apart from occasional appearances from WEC teams).

It's surely a strange situation you have now that manufacturers' main interest is in GTLM despite that there are the prototype classes. Maybe if the 2017 regulations don't get more manufacturers to the P class, IMSA should consider becoming GT-only. Or maybe keep P but get rid of PC which feels like a class that doesn't generate interest at all. Maybe that would make some more teams to enter P.

It's not a solution. I love those cars too and would give much to see them tear up Mosport, but I know that can't happen at the expense of the rest of IMSA. People keep demanding their return, not realizing that they died off for a very good reason. IMSA does not have the exposure to justify the costs of them, and allowing them back will allow the one or two who could justify it to own the series at everyone else's expense. They are WEC only until such time as either their costs come down massively or IMSA massively grows the sport's exposure.

As far as the new P2 rules go, I think they are absolutely putrid. They are absolute garbage, and the 'manufacturer bodywork' IMSA claims to allow so far pretty much is just headlights and sidepods, which is going to satisfy nobody aside from maybe Mazda. The original Daytona Prototypes had such a rules provision as well, and that went no further than this will. I see these rules causing a slow death of the P field until either GTE cars are winning races outright or IMSA finally bites the bullet and either makes their own prototype class or goes GT-only, and frankly I'm quite open in saying I believe in the latter option.

Selling new fans on cars like Ligiers and Orecas and Rileys is possible, but selling them on racing BMW M4s, Ford Mustangs, Nissan GT-Rs, Audi RS5s and Acura NSXs is rather easier. The Class One idea IMO has far more potential for growth and would fit easier for IMSA, using IMSA-spec engines rather than the four-bangers of Super GT and DTM (though I would allow somebody who wants to race those engines to do so) and toning down some of the excesses of the two series, like the Super GT tire war. A Class One chassis with a 650+ horsepower IMSA engine derived from existing GT engines would probably run just as fast if not faster than current P cars, and the tube frame ends and bigger bodywork would probably result in easier turnaround for teams in the event of accidents and possibly lower costs if IMSA can keep those under control.

Originally Posted by August

As for American fans desire for P1s, what if IMSA dropped Sebring from their own calendar and hosted WEC there. American fans would get what they want, IMSA/NASCAR/whatever as the track owner would have a good event, and maybe of IMSA teams at least Corvette would join WEC there. It's a race that could be something special, yet as an IMSA race it really isn't.

IMSA would never give up its best attended event to the WEC, and the WEC is never gonna take on a track as rustic in facilities as Sebring is. The WEC shows no sign of backing off of their demands that WEC events be held on FIA Grade 1 tracks, which limits their North American event choices to COTA, Mexico City (when the track's upgrades are done), Indianapolis and Montreal. Unfortunate, perhaps. But its not gonna change.

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

if the 2017 P class will be a failure, IMSA should think about to merge with PWC... it would be a sort of pre 2010 FIA GT with GTLM as first class and GT3 as second class!

I wouldn't merge with them (can you see the ranting here at that? NASCAR buying the PWC would send a lot of people here into geosynchronous orbit), but I would loudly kill the GT3 sprint series idea and allow the Pirellis that the PWC guys use into the series, so that a World Challenge team can drop by an IMSA event totally at will.

I just state what I've said before. Top Class is GTO, which is made up of Class One chassis, fitted with either big production based engines or smaller racing engines, with price limits on both of those. The second class is GTE, which is ACO-spec GTE just as now. Third class is GTS, which is PWC/Blancpain spec GT3, while also allowing Super GT GT300 cars built on their GT300 mother chassis and upgraded Grand Am GT cars, so cars like the Stevenson Camaro, APR Toyota Prius, ARTA Honda CR-Z and the R&D Sport Subaru BRZ can race, as well as others who want to build cars like them. The only class that would mandate spec tires is GTS, and that spec would be a choice between IMSA-spec Continentals or PWC-spec Pirellis. All classes would all pro-pro driver lineups, but each class would also have a separate point system to amateur drivers with its own trophies. Teams who bring unique cars in any of the classes (that defined as at most two of a kind in the class) get a special bonus for doing so. The whole idea would be to get as wide a variety of cars as possible, while keeping costs at a level that teams can accept at current levels of series exposure so that future growth can go towards expanding the field and giving more opportunities for guys to move into the big series.

The links with the ACO would be maintained with the GTE class, and events that collide with Le Mans qualifications would be without the GTE class to allow those teams to run at Le Mans. PWC would be invited to host sprint races at NAEC events if they wish, and IMSA would make it as easy as possible for both series to exchange entrants, along with partnership with both the ITR and JAF for the Class One cars and with the SRO for the GT3 cars. IMSA would invite Super GT and DTM entrants for the NAEC events (the way the 2015 Super GT schedule is, a Super GT team could do Daytona and Sebring before the SGT season starts, Watkins Glen during the summer break in the schedule and Petit Le Mans during the winter break between the rounds at Sugo and Autopolis) and Blancpain entrants would also be encouraged to try out IMSA events.

[Dyson Mazda]

nm

[jasonjessica09]

Not heard much about IMSA's GT3 series idea lately haven't we. Also was PWC going to have a SRO format GT3 only series in 2016 themselves? Which one of these is coming to fruition?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by BrentJackson

If I was to start running IMSA today, the Conti P2 tires would be the first thing changed. Literally, the first dang thing. And 2016 would allow open tires for those classes and a choice of Continental or Pirelli rubber for GTD, as a peace offering to the PWC.

What are the odds that Conti will update the compounds for the new 2017 cars? Or how about the GTD compound for next year with the new gt3's coming in?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by jasonjessica09

Not heard much about IMSA's GT3 series idea lately haven't we. Also was PWC going to have a SRO format GT3 only series in 2016 themselves? Which one of these is coming to fruition?

I forgot about the imsa gt3 series. Also forgot about the pwc "endurance" series.

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by joeb

What are the odds that Conti will update the compounds for the new 2017 cars? Or how about the GTD compound for next year with the new gt3's coming in?

As long as it is a spec series they don't have to do a thing other than make sure the tires are safe. Why waste time and money on speed when you only beat yourself?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by wdave0

As long as it is a spec series they don't have to do a thing other than make sure the tires are safe. Why waste time and money on speed when you only beat yourself?

Maybe the series asks them to optimize the tire for the new proto platform?

[Rcz]

Guys, tire are really really really but here is an idea.

Cost capped tires.

Any tire company can join but can't go over the cap.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Rcz

Guys, tire are really really really but here is an idea.

Cost capped tires.

Any tire company can join but can't go over the cap.

Then we just end up with granite hard, DOT rated crap.

[BrentJackson]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Then we just end up with granite hard, DOT rated crap.

If the price is dirt cheap, perhaps. But what if the price is fairly reasonable (say, $800-1000 a corner) and anyone who wants to buy the tires can (thus limiting the available compounds to what the team is can produce in numbers and is willing to bring to the track in numbers), then that idea might work.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Then we just end up with granite hard, DOT rated crap.

You're all for pushing technology, right?

An open, cost capped tire would be able to improve those rock hard tires in a trickle down effect etc etc.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by joeb

What are the odds that Conti will update the compounds for the new 2017 cars? Or how about the GTD compound for next year with the new gt3's coming in?

Odds are the tires will stay they same crappy tires they are now. The series needs to keep that gap between GT3 and GTE cars. The new GTE regs will speed them up and the real GT3 aero should slow the cars in a straight line slightly, but they'll gain a fair bit of handling capability. Crap Contis should slow them back down in the corners some and keep the class gap.

[wdave0]

It is hard for me to understand how a spec tire can be "crap" just because they are slow. The requirements are safe, consistent and uniform, speed is not part of that equation. The only place speed might creep in would be slight yearly incremental speed ups so the sanctioning body could tout new records. Granted, the tires don,t work so well for the P2s, especially as there is no benefit to double or triple stinting, but that is IMSAs fault, not the tires.
It's like calling the fuel crap because its only 100 octane, not 110.
Sadly, the US is the land of spec tire , Indy,NASCAR,PWC, Mazda and all of the support series etc. LMGT stands out as unique because of that and now Falken is leaving.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by wdave0

It is hard for me to understand how a spec tire can be "crap" just because they are slow. The requirements are safe, consistent and uniform, speed is not part of that equation. The only place speed might creep in would be slight yearly incremental speed ups so the sanctioning body could tout new records. Granted, the tires don,t work so well for the P2s, especially as there is no benefit to double or triple stinting, but that is IMSAs fault, not the tires.
It's like calling the fuel crap because its only 100 octane, not 110.
Sadly, the US is the land of spec tire , Indy,NASCAR,PWC, Mazda and all of the support series etc. LMGT stands out as unique because of that and now Falken is leaving.

The tires are bad because compared to other tires, they're bad. It makes no difference that the series wants them to be like that. They're still crappy. Toyota builds a Corolla to a price point and they're complete **** because that's the way Toyota wants them to be. It doesn't change the fact that they're awful cars compared to so many others.

In Grand-Am when Continental came in and Pirelli left, the cars went 3 or seconds a lap slower than the previous year. The cars didn't change. The tires did. They got worse.

[Accident]

Following the Corolla example though, even if the Corolla is crap it doesn't mean that Toyota is crap as a whole... It often sounds as though people are implying that Continental is a crap brand based on their spec tire that is used.

We have people here that say they wouldn't buy Continental tires for their street car based on the "crap" spec tire that is used in the series, as if it is Continental's fault that the tire that Grand Am wanted isn't fast enough.

As was said above, it's important that the tires are safe and consistent, and it seems the Continentals have gotten both of those right. I suppose another thing that might play into the equation is how enjoyable they are to drive on (if you are relying on gentleman drivers for half of your classes and/or two thirds of your grid anyway), and I can't speak for that.

The speed "problem" is another thing and seeing as we don't work for Grand Am or Continental we will probably never know... Were the tires slower and Grand Am was just okay with that because they met other targets, or did Grand Am want the tires slower/harder? If the former is the case, then obviously more of the blame falls on Continental. If the latter is the case, then it doesn't matter what brand would have been chosen, the tires would have been harder and slower as that's what Grand Am wanted. Had Michelin gotten the deal and made the same compound of tire to please Grand Am, would we all be calling Michelins crap now?

[TF110]

The Corolla is probably not such a good car for an analogy when speaking of a "crappy" control tire! Its the best selling car ever. Continental is not so much of a sales king

[carbsmith]

The spec tire deal is primarily about making the series money off of selling the sponsorship rights, not reducing purchase costs for the teams.

Grand Am GT sped up three seconds a lap when Hoosier was replaced with Pirelli and slowed back down three seconds a lap when they switched back to Hoosiers with Continental branding, that's probably not exactly a coincidence.

[Mike Hedlund]

Read back through my twitter posts after I tested both the Pirelli's and Continentals back to back on my 458 GT3 at Road Atlanta about a month ago.

Basically, the Continentals are not very good because the specific tires available don't suit enough cars. The rear tires were so bad I thought something was broken after putting the Continentals on. I'm sure they could make a better tire more suitable to each chassis, but as far as I know IMSA won't let them.

ps: The front Continental tire was better than the Pirellis. But the car was over 1s faster on the Pirellis because they worked as a unit on the chassis.

-mike

[Rcz]

Interesting about people's opinions on the tire cost cap idea. Some like it, some don't and don't trust it.


I think it's good idea because it helps small teams and you get better faster tires with different brands. But would manufacturers bite?

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

The spec tire deal is primarily about making the series money off of selling the sponsorship rights, not reducing purchase costs for the teams.

Grand Am GT sped up three seconds a lap when Hoosier was replaced with Pirelli and slowed back down three seconds a lap when they switched back to Hoosiers with Continental branding, that's probably not exactly a coincidence.

The Pirellis had their share of problems as well, though. They were faster, but IIRC there were lots of issues with blistering, etc. So going back to Hoosier/Conti was a bit of a "slowly but surely" move.

[DeezPutz]

Pirelli shows up at races with a truck and some guys to sell tires then goes home.

Continental promotes the series and does fan interaction at races.

Which brand do you think is more valuable to a sanctioning body?

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Matt

You're all for pushing technology, right?

An open, cost capped tire would be able to improve those rock hard tires in a trickle down effect etc etc.

Cost capped and open formula don't go together.

If you want to push technology, you can't constrain it via budget.