Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing > North American Racing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 30 Sep 2014, 16:36 (Ref:3458927)   #76
Speed-King
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Wuerzburg,Germany
Posts: 7,325
Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiana View Post
In my eyes they in fact only become 'generic' once they receive the DP makeover and get bopped according to that attribute...
I think you're getting overly hung up on the term 'generic'... in this case it simply means "non-OEM-branded"...


Quote:
Anyhow I'm not sure if Shank understands the concept of LMP2 in the first place.
What's there not to understand?
And actually, Shank is pushing FOR the traditional option here... right now, neither Dallara nor Coyote supply teams with unbranded bodywork, which would of course an issue when trying to have teams competing on both sides of the pond. Sure, Shank is the forum's favorite whipping boy, but maybe you guys shouldn't assume that absolutely everything he says is just evil non-sense.

Speed-King is offline  
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam.
Quote
Old 30 Sep 2014, 17:22 (Ref:3458938)   #77
Rcz
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
United States
Posts: 1,078
Rcz should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I'm fine with it as long it's just the nose part right? And if they open up these cars. Ground effects, active suspension, maybe batteries latter on, ect...


I understand somebody got to pay for it. If the manufacturer really wants to pay for it. Why stop them?

I just based these IMSA manufacturer supported cars on the current P1 or P2 chassises and then have regular P2 cars replacing PC.
Rcz is offline  
Quote
Old 30 Sep 2014, 18:16 (Ref:3458955)   #78
Maelochs
Veteran
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
Maelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Short version: IndyCar, AMA, Rolex have proven that "cheap" does not equal "profitable" and that spending a little more to have variety and open rules is more profitable than trying to sell spec crap to race fans.


Too Long Version:



I see this is a way sort of like where IndyCar is stuck right now.

IndyCar had a spec (single manufacturer) chassis and engine--rich teams spent millions on things like mirror supports, because nothing else was developable.

Eventually IndyCar attracted one and one-eighth new engine suppliers, so teams could use Chevy or Honda (or briefly and painfully, Lotus) but the chassis is totally spec—nothing top-tier about it.

Thing is, IndyCar screwed up its business for so long, it doesn't have the money to afford anything else. It can barely make a profit running spec crap.

TUSC seems to be crying poor (despite NASCAR seemingly willing to subsidize teams through most of the Rolex era) so the series is pushing for its "cheaper" generic platform—which was proven during Rolex days not to be cheaper and not to attract fans. It Didn't Make Money, so even if it cost a dollar it cost too much.

Thing is, TUSC still seems to think that a spec chassis is a cheaper, more profitable option. AMA failed, IndyCar almost failed, and TUSC can thus clearly see that that is the path to follow.

In order to attract race fans—an essential part of the audience—the cars need to be cool. And spec chassis with sealed motors just aren't cool.

P2 had its critics for that very reason—but at least P2s were close to state-of-the-art. But P2 was meant to be a cheap, entry-level class—the place or teams which really didn't have the cash for a real full-on racer.

Now TUSC is locked in to spec chassis and sealed motors, at least until 2017. Thing is, if it doesn't move away from there, it will find (as did those other series) that cheap doesn't make money—a little less cheap does, and actually works out to be cheaper. These guys haven't made a profit in sop long they forget that it is supposed to be income minus cost leaves profit; they have been essentially giving a ay their product for no profit and thus focus only on limiting cost.

Rcz is on track. Instead of trying to cheap out and only pay for "branded bodywork" and making no money, manufacturers should be laying out a little more up front and making a little more profit (when fans who are leaving because of the crap start coming back and bringing friends.)

Let the real factory-funded LMP-1 efforts in WEC do the NASA-level experimentation. I think most North Americans would be just fine with modern chassis with modern motors, and a little freedom to develop. Let Jon Field turn the boost up and exciter everyone for three laps. Let HPD bring a car with rear tires up front. let teams tune the motors, let them buy different chassis that are actually different. Let them play with air scoops and winglets. As long as they aren't cutting up the safety cell, who cares?

Well, We care. Fans care. Fans, who want to tune in to each race waiting to see if anybody added a new fender shape, or a couple strakes on the diffuser or whatever. Fans who are okay if now and then a car wins by half a lap because That Is Racing, and because they know that at the next race, everyone will try whatever thing the other guy tried.

The rules committee, instead of cheesing out and writing rules to pretend no one ever gets lapped, could write rules limiting areas of development—no exotic materials, minimum service life for certain parts, rules focused on keeping teams from making huge gains with huge investments. It won't be easy, but if they want easy jobs, they can work at 7-11.

Seriously, if they used existing P2 chassis and just opened up valve timing, ignition advance, maybe allowed cylinder head mods so long as the existing head was used as the base, and allowed small aero aids—I think that would satisfy most fans.

Maybe some folks would only show up if the multi-million-dollar Audis and Toyotas showed up, but plenty of people were satisfied when it was a bunch of Lolas and Hondas with a mix of Judds, AER and such ...

Muscle Milk with a stock-based Aston motor, Autocon, Drayson, and Intersport with Judds turbo and not, Highcroft with the latest HPD, Dyson with an AER ... Even those same chassis with current P2 or DP motors, if they weren't sealed, would be a sufficient P-class field to get fans back to TUSC. And I really doubt any of those teams were doing extensive, high-budget development work ... just little tweaks which might give a little edge.

If TUSC pushes FIA-ACO to go to a basically spec car for 2017, then a few years later it will be going broke and looking for ways to get out of the hole enough to open up the rules again. FIA-ACO can afford it for its second class—TUSC cannot, for its premier class.

You'd think after Rolex, those guys would know that cheap does not equal profitable. I hope they don't take us all into the abyss learning that.
Maelochs is offline  
Quote
Old 30 Sep 2014, 18:22 (Ref:3458959)   #79
Speed-King
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Wuerzburg,Germany
Posts: 7,325
Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!
I don't think we know enough about the plans for new regs to make a qualified comment on them just yet.

For all we know, a shared tub might actually lead to more variety, allowing a broader range of potential chassis builders to be active in the class. Think of it as the ACO's/IMSA's version of BTCC's unbranded engine - without it, half the cars seen in BTCC today wouldn't be on the grid and everybody would gravitate towards the same two or three makes because they don't have the budget for the development of a bespoke engine.
Speed-King is offline  
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam.
Quote
Old 30 Sep 2014, 20:53 (Ref:3458999)   #80
Bob Riebe
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location:
Minnesota
Posts: 2,351
Bob Riebe User has been fined for unsportsmanlike behaviour!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed-King View Post
I don't think we know enough about the plans for new regs to make a qualified comment on them just yet.

For all we know, a shared tub might actually lead to more variety, allowing a broader range of potential chassis builders to be active in the class. Think of it as the ACO's/IMSA's version of BTCC's unbranded engine - without it, half the cars seen in BTCC today wouldn't be on the grid and everybody would gravitate towards the same two or three makes because they don't have the budget for the development of a bespoke engine.
Contrived competition is same poo different pile no matter how one want to rationalize it.
Bob Riebe is offline  
Quote
Old 30 Sep 2014, 21:12 (Ref:3459004)   #81
Maelochs
Veteran
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
Maelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMaelochs will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed-King View Post
For all we know, a shared tub might actually lead to more variety, allowing a broader range of potential chassis builders to be active in the class.
I don't care how many different companies make the exact same thing, it is still the exact same thing.
Maelochs is offline  
Quote
Old 30 Sep 2014, 21:36 (Ref:3459013)   #82
Speed-King
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Wuerzburg,Germany
Posts: 7,325
Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
I don't care how many different companies make the exact same thing, it is still the exact same thing.
The tub is the same thing, the bodywork, suspension, engine packaging could be drastically different.... just think how many different cars were based on the old Courage C-60-tub!
Speed-King is offline  
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam.
Quote
Old 30 Sep 2014, 22:00 (Ref:3459017)   #83
jasonjessica09
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,109
jasonjessica09 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridjasonjessica09 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
More horsepower to GTLM/GTE please for 2016!
jasonjessica09 is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Oct 2014, 00:50 (Ref:3459033)   #84
Rcz
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
United States
Posts: 1,078
Rcz should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I'm fine with the bumber nose branding and stock block engines just to give the Manufacturers a bone. It would give the makes something to gloat about when they win races with something that's connected with their street cars.

Plus with the restrictions on the nose it would help get rid of aero dependence(they can get the downforce from ground effects tunnels and moveable aero wings and flaps). Just remember to open everything thing else.

I think the cost capped concept doesn't work. At least for the P2s, because look at the WEC. The class is being eaten by the LMP1 light class(and by the ELMS).

And here in the states, the PC class is eating (or going to) the Proto class.
Rcz is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Oct 2014, 01:44 (Ref:3459040)   #85
ptclaus98
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
United States
Posts: 1,767
ptclaus98 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
If only there were a worldwide ruleset for cars as fast as LMP2 and with manufacturer branding and multiple manufacturers...


That'd be pretty sweet.
ptclaus98 is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Oct 2014, 02:09 (Ref:3459041)   #86
Rcz
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
United States
Posts: 1,078
Rcz should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Would that be Class 1 touring cars sir?
Rcz is offline  
Quote
Old 1 Oct 2014, 06:53 (Ref:3459088)   #87
MagVanisher
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
MagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridMagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rcz View Post
Would that be Class 1 touring cars sir?
That would work, but they won't get the Le Mans/ACO connection if IMSA forgoes with DTM/Super GT.
MagVanisher is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Oct 2014, 08:37 (Ref:3459433)   #88
Accident
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 901
Accident should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridAccident should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridAccident should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
I'd hate to see things go down that "Class One" route. Spec tubs don't bother me too much, but such tight engine regs would be terrible. One of the things I've loved about sportscar racing is the different sounds, and if we lose those it will absolutely kill whatever small amount of enthusiasm I have left for the "upper class" in this series.

With the rumors of Ford returning with a factory GT effort, it would be the perfect time to just go all GT...

Yes, I know, it won't happen... but I can daydream about it.
Accident is offline  
Quote
Old 2 Oct 2014, 08:58 (Ref:3459440)   #89
MagVanisher
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
MagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridMagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
TUSC will just compete (and fail) with PWC in terms of GT-style racing if they ditched the prototypes.

If you don't want the "Class One" approach just because everything is spec including the engine (except for other extras like DRS and hybrid options), that's okay. But we can just ask DTM and Super GT to open up engine regulations. I'm one of those people who hated the current engine regulations despite being faster than its predecessors. And you're right, variety is needed.

Last edited by MagVanisher; 2 Oct 2014 at 09:04.
MagVanisher is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Oct 2014, 18:33 (Ref:3459898)   #90
ptclaus98
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
United States
Posts: 1,767
ptclaus98 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accident View Post
I'd hate to see things go down that "Class One" route. Spec tubs don't bother me too much, but such tight engine regs would be terrible. One of the things I've loved about sportscar racing is the different sounds, and if we lose those it will absolutely kill whatever small amount of enthusiasm I have left for the "upper class" in this series.

With the rumors of Ford returning with a factory GT effort, it would be the perfect time to just go all GT...

Yes, I know, it won't happen... but I can daydream about it.
The P class is a few flat crank V8's, a ton of crossplane V8's and a few V6T's. The sound variety comes from GT, which wouldn't go away with Class 1. But I too wouldn't care one bit if the series went to GT only.
ptclaus98 is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Oct 2014, 18:35 (Ref:3459899)   #91
ptclaus98
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
United States
Posts: 1,767
ptclaus98 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagVanisher View Post
That would work, but they won't get the Le Mans/ACO connection if IMSA forgoes with DTM/Super GT.
They don't really give a damn about that connection anyway and it's going to be tenuous at best, so it's not really realistic to hold that up as an end-all argument against Class 1.
ptclaus98 is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Oct 2014, 18:41 (Ref:3459904)   #92
ptclaus98
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
United States
Posts: 1,767
ptclaus98 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagVanisher View Post
TUSC will just compete (and fail) with PWC in terms of GT-style racing if they ditched the prototypes.

If you don't want the "Class One" approach just because everything is spec including the engine (except for other extras like DRS and hybrid options), that's okay. But we can just ask DTM and Super GT to open up engine regulations. I'm one of those people who hated the current engine regulations despite being faster than its predecessors. And you're right, variety is needed.
How in the world would an IMSA GT with a better TV contract, bigger names, bigger races fail in the face of PWC? If an IMSA GT went GTE and straight up GT3, PWC would be the one to fold.

And the engine regulations will be what they are. They've finally agreed to it after a lot of politicking and IMSA wouldn't fight it as it would give Ford and GM an ability to show off their turbo four capability.
ptclaus98 is offline  
Quote
Old 5 Oct 2014, 18:15 (Ref:3460925)   #93
Speed-King
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Wuerzburg,Germany
Posts: 7,325
Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!
Mike Newton on chassis regs in LMP3:

Quote:
“The final specification is at best perplexing. The latest LMP3 seems to carry all the increased cost elements of an LMP2 package (18″ wheels, 900kg, Coupe / aircon ) but for less than a third the budget excluding engine. Apparent cost savings such as round section suspension arms, just guarantee that no shared IP carries over.”

“It will either take someone like Ginetta creating volume with some related one make style series, or perhaps multiple chassis manufacturers taking a leaf out of the production automotive world and sharing a chassis platform.

“It’s no surprise that people like Ligier have pulled back so much at the current spec and cost cap. Especially when the revised LMP2 Coupe cost cap has just moved into a more viable zone.”
With the bold part in mind, I wouldn't assume that the push for more spec-parts in future-P2 is exclusively coming from IMSA, it could also be the ACO's way of helping the smaller constructors to stay in the game by spreading the cost for chassis design. Especially when they are trying to reduce running costs by 30%, which necessarily also means decreasing the cost of consumables...
Speed-King is offline  
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam.
Quote
Old 6 Oct 2014, 02:51 (Ref:3461093)   #94
TRspitfirefan
Veteran
 
TRspitfirefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
United States
Posts: 1,250
TRspitfirefan should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridTRspitfirefan should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridTRspitfirefan should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridTRspitfirefan should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed-King View Post
With the bold part in mind, I wouldn't assume that the push for more spec-parts in future-P2 is exclusively coming from IMSA, it could also be the ACO's way of helping the smaller constructors to stay in the game by spreading the cost for chassis design. Especially when they are trying to reduce running costs by 30%, which necessarily also means decreasing the cost of consumables...
That may be so, but it really doesn't matter who is pushing for this spec tub/brakes/dampers/radiators/engine ECU, vision of the P2 class.
If the 2017 car ends up following this proposed path, IMSA will end up having a prototype class made up of nearly identical cars. Sort of an INDYCAR with fenders and a roof.
Maybe costs do need to be cut significantly, but is it really worth sacrificing any real freedom of design? Variation of the different cars within the class is what makes LMP cars special!
TRspitfirefan is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Oct 2014, 05:23 (Ref:3461111)   #95
MagVanisher
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
MagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridMagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Then, is LMP2 having a manufacturer-specific bodywork counts as variation?
MagVanisher is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Oct 2014, 07:34 (Ref:3461142)   #96
lms
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
lms should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagVanisher View Post
Then, is LMP2 having a manufacturer-specific bodywork counts as variation?
no, it doesnt
lms is offline  
Quote
Old 6 Oct 2014, 10:46 (Ref:3461193)   #97
Speed-King
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Wuerzburg,Germany
Posts: 7,325
Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!Speed-King has a real shot at the podium!
I'd say it depends on whether the mfg specific body is performance optimized or not... if it does it very much counts in my book...
Speed-King is offline  
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam.
Quote
Old 6 Oct 2014, 11:32 (Ref:3461205)   #98
MagVanisher
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
MagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridMagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I guess so. However, it doesn't matter if a P2 car was draped in manufacturer-specific bodywork as it'll be balanced to the point of either being even with other competitors or being better/worse than the rest.

Seeing the Corvette DP this year, despite not having any noticeable aerodynamic advantage, winning most of the race is a far-cry to the sport where you have to be faster and efficient.
MagVanisher is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Oct 2014, 18:26 (Ref:3461847)   #99
BullMan
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
BullMan should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
It begins. DP-style bodywork, spec parts.

http://sportscar365.com/industry/201...e-regulations/

Also, what does "commercial tires" even mean? P2 teams don't have bespoke tires now anyway.
BullMan is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Oct 2014, 18:37 (Ref:3461852)   #100
blankfile
Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 291
blankfile should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
i did fully expect spec parts but not the bodywork outside us!
blankfile is offline  
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.