IMSA: USCR 2018

[broadrun96]

Or they establish the tank and displacement devices must match the spec they tested. The problem arouse from Land using their displacement blocks to maximize fuel flow. Thus their time to fuel was faster than the rest of the Audis.

[carbsmith]

Finding a much more complicated and expensive means of accomplishing the same thing does sound like the IMSA way.

[chernaudi]

Yet their system and car passed tech pre and post race. Just like the argument when Porsche were doing the same thing basically in the WEC. Exactly fair? Not really. Illegal? Not per letter of the rule as written at the time.

Either change the rule for the next race or let everyone do the same. BTW, I'm not in favor of a minimum pit stop time, but it seems simpler than trying to BOP pit stops.

[JHamilton]

Yes, as broadrun stated, all you need to do is close the loophole. Similar situation with the P2 car at LM last year that drilled the hole in the bodywork to beat on the starter.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Finding a much more complicated and expensive means of accomplishing the same thing does sound like the IMSA way.

No, actually making everyone use the same system to set the volume in their fuel tank would be easy and dirt cheap. The flow analysis that Land performed couldn't be cheaper than doing NOTHING.

[carbsmith]

Not as cheap as a stopwatch. I actually can't imagine a simple or fast process for regulating the way the fuel tank is filled inside, especially given the fuel tank size getting fiddled around with throughout the season. The refueling restrictor testing and approval process is already an impressive piece of bureaucracy itself.

Drilling holes in LMP2 bodywork was never a loophole, it was clearly and explicitly illegal.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Not as cheap as a stopwatch. I actually can't imagine a simple or fast process for regulating the way the fuel tank is filled inside, especially given the fuel tank size getting fiddled around with throughout the season. The refueling restrictor testing and approval process is already an impressive piece of bureaucracy itself.

Drilling holes in LMP2 bodywork was never a loophole, it was clearly and explicitly illegal.

ANY expense past them establishing a baseline means it costs more even a couple dollar stopwatch; and in order to establish a BOP, not a bs random minimum time, for fuel use and stint length costs more money. As the fuel fill time is set by the length of the stint and fuel use for make X laps and stopwatch would require each time to have a different time, instead of them just I don't know, using the spec they actually tested to come up with that balance. You can hate BOP all you want, and if you do I invite you to head the remaining successful non-spec, non-BOP series out there, but it is NOT leaving IMSA any time soon. So the whining and moaning about how it has corrupted a series which has always had it is like a rocking chair, gives ya something to do but doesn't get you anywhere.


As for the hole in the bodywork, the fact that the ACO said nothing during the race means they obviously did not care until the end of the event. To me, that is an outright and overt acceptance of the actions during the race and then fake outrage after. Especially as they are not allowed to run without the homolgated bodywork but were allowed back out on track how many times after they punched a hole in the bodywork?? IMSA addressed their problem in race and explained why much better than the ACO and their usual BS it's our race and our rules, until we need them to change.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Not as cheap as a stopwatch. I actually can't imagine a simple or fast process for regulating the way the fuel tank is filled inside, especially given the fuel tank size getting fiddled around with throughout the season. The refueling restrictor testing and approval process is already an impressive piece of bureaucracy itself.

Drilling holes in LMP2 bodywork was never a loophole, it was clearly and explicitly illegal.

Horse ****. All you have to do is close the loop hole.

[seanyb505]

We could probably solve a lot of the confusion by implementing a mandated pit stop time and a mandated lap time. That way if you go faster, it is obvious you are cheating.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

Horse ****. All you have to do is close the loop hole.

It's not a loophole. If you took two cars from any manufacturer in the field they'd all refill at a slightly different rate from each other. Even in true spec series where everyone has to use the same fuel cell there's significant variance in the actual capacity of each and thus different amounts of packing material required to meet the regulated amount.

Originally Posted by broadrun96

As the fuel fill time is set by the length of the stint and fuel use for make X laps and stopwatch would require each time to have a different time.

Not really though.

http://sportscar365.com/sro/blancpai...pit-stop-time/

“If we find a way to regulate the refueling time at an affordable cost, we will get rid of the [minimum pitstop time].

“We have the solution, it’s only a question of an economical cost.”

Pit times were still used in 2017, so evidently they didn't find an affordable way.

“Our goal is to regulate refueling times,” he said. “That’s the problem because GT3 is production cars and the architecture of each tanks is different.

Pretty much the way you have to do it is chuck the refueling restrictor for real time electronic flow regulation, but that's adding a pretty disproportionate amount of cost to the fuel rig.

[Articus]

At first I concluded a minimum pit stop time is the easy way out. But implementing this eliminates any strategy calls based on short filling. In series there is a bit of a cutoff time limit. Stops shorter than, are not timed, but stops longer than, are timed. Or "joker" pit stops. But look at how the 66 and the 67 Ford's swapped places in the pits late into the 24 at Daytona (which turned out to be a race winning call). The trailing car short filled. Still a long stop. But just a bit less than the team car, and they came out with the lead, and never let it go.

How can that type of strategy take place in a "minimum pit time" environment? Actually in that type of environment, you eliminate fueling strategy or pit crew performance from the equation. Is that good or bad? The answer is both... It's helping to reduce cost, but not much other benefit. Just guarantees that cars exit the pits in the same position that they enter. No more "race on pitlane"

I can understand why IMSA wants to get the fuel flow rates corrected, instead of enforcing minimum fuel time. Keep the race on pitlane alive.


Another odd way to consider this: Make tire changes longer than the refueling time. The GT3 cars don't double stint (or make sure they don't). Whether that means 1 crew member does all 4 tires, or "pumped" as opposed to gravity fed fuel refilling.

[Mike Hedlund]

Originally Posted by Articus

At first I concluded a minimum pit stop time is the easy way out. But implementing this eliminates any strategy calls based on short filling. In series there is a bit of a cutoff time limit. Stops shorter than, are not timed, but stops longer than, are timed. Or "joker" pit stops. But look at how the 66 and the 67 Ford's swapped places in the pits late into the 24 at Daytona (which turned out to be a race winning call). The trailing car short filled. Still a long stop. But just a bit less than the team car, and they came out with the lead, and never let it go.

How can that type of strategy take place in a "minimum pit time" environment? Actually in that type of environment, you eliminate fueling strategy or pit crew performance from the equation. Is that good or bad? The answer is both... It's helping to reduce cost, but not much other benefit. Just guarantees that cars exit the pits in the same position that they enter. No more "race on pitlane"

I can understand why IMSA wants to get the fuel flow rates corrected, instead of enforcing minimum fuel time. Keep the race on pitlane alive.


Another odd way to consider this: Make tire changes longer than the refueling time. The GT3 cars don't double stint (or make sure they don't). Whether that means 1 crew member does all 4 tires, or "pumped" as opposed to gravity fed fuel refilling.

Gravity fed refueling is already a means to reduce cost. It's cheaper than any 'pumped' solution.

Minimum pit stop time doesn't reduce costs, it just keeps costs form increasing... which isn't the problem rite now. (it's already increasing way more than any effect this would have)

Not all the cars use tires in the same way as others, so you're penalizing some more than others.

The current rules are pretty good, they just need to stop being idiots and close the (few) loopholes that hungry teams find.

-mike

[carbsmith]

My feeling is that pit road battles are a bit out of place in a GT3 Pro-Am category anyways. Amateur driving but professional pit stops.

Anyways the fuel rigs do have the hardware to at least measure delivery time against the amount of fuel so having a minimum pit time per unit volume without changing anything about the actual way the car is filled is technically feasible if not necessarily logistically simple. IMSA specifically denied Land just pretending to fuel the car for a couple more seconds and made them fiddle with the cut off valve though.

[MaskedRacer]

Two things going into Sebring I hope we see:

1. Continued long green flag runs. And maybe we can avoid the debree cautions for which 2 of the 4 at Daytona ended up being.

2. GTLM to be much closer this time. Porsche, BMW, and Ferrari all need to up their game. Corvette is right there if Ford gets a BoP hit which they might take.

I feel Ford is aware that they will get BoP hits from time to time. The key for them is to have it be favorable for the right races which for them is Le Mans and Daytona. They'll be willing to sacrifice the rest for those 2 events.

[chernaudi]

Already posted in the WEC 2018/19 thread, but the ACO have confirmed that Fuji will move back to its original date and will clash with Petit Le Mans unless IMSA moves their date.

[Coach Ep]

Weird that the WEC 'super season' only has 5 races in 2018 but yet there are 2 race weekend clashes with IMSA... (Mid-O and now Fuji again)

[MaskedRacer]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Weird that the WEC 'super season' only has 5 races in 2018 but yet there are 2 race weekend clashes with IMSA... (Mid-O and now Fuji again)

WEC thinks that their lord and savior Fernando is bigger than sportscar racing as whole and any of the great drivers in it.

[MaskedRacer]

I think it would be cool of R.L.L changed their BMW car numbers to #81 and #82 starting at Sebring now that we know the WEC BMW car numbers. Having continuity is neat. Looks like the paint job will be the same. Just like how Porsche and Ford do it across the board as well.

[TheMightyM]

And IMSA says “no” to moving Petit Le Mans — IMSA’s response to Racer:

Due to some factors such as television coverage, IMSA's year-end banquet on the same weekend and competitor and manufacturer logistics already being in place among others, it was determined there were too many hurdles to overcome to move the event. Therefore the 2018 Motul Petit Le Mans at Road Atlanta will take place as scheduled Oct. 10-13.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MaskedRacer

WEC thinks that their lord and savior Fernando is bigger than sportscar racing as whole and any of the great drivers in it.

I can't tell you how many times I have read this today. People keep repeating it like it's true when it's not. Alonso brings a huge fan base and viewership. That alone is a boost to any series he participates in. Fuji was already going to clash with PLM before the first date change. Before he was even in the hunt for a seat with Toyota for anything but a test and possible LM drive. It's not ideal but there's no doubt that imsa would do the same thing. Any series would.

[RWill2073]

There really is no excuse for a series with like 8 events spread out over more than a year to conflict with the regional series it shares occasional entrants and drivers and teams with. The wec has consistently seemed to comoete against the American series, but now with their current states, maybe they should rethink that strategy.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by TF110

I can't tell you how many times I have read this today. People keep repeating it like it's true when it's not. Alonso brings a huge fan base and viewership. That alone is a boost to any series he participates in. Fuji was already going to clash with PLM before the first date change. Before he was even in the hunt for a seat with Toyota for anything but a test and possible LM drive. It's not ideal but there's no doubt that imsa would do the same thing. Any series would.

No way IMSA would knowing it would bone 15-20 drivers.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Matt

No way IMSA would knowing it would bone 15-20 drivers.

I don't believe that at all. Say if Nascar superstar would do a full season in a DPi on top of Nascar with a 5 round schedule in IMSA, there is no doubt that they would try to avoid any conflicts with the Cup series. It's not all about Alonso, but it is about the eyes he brings. Jeff Gordon brought a following when he was in the Cadillac and lots of Nascar media. Alonso is doing the same thing for the wec. It's sad that there's a conflict, but I don't know why anyone thinks it'd be different in another series with such a limited schedule. That's how I view it at least.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

There really is no excuse for a series with like 8 events spread out over more than a year to conflict with the regional series it shares occasional entrants and drivers and teams with.

Yes there is... And it's the same reason IMSA cannot change their date to accommodate it: Tracks don't just sit silent all the time. They have other commitments including driving schools, club events, etc. Not all of these events can just be moved around at will.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Yes there is... And it's the same reason IMSA cannot change their date to accommodate it: Tracks don't just sit silent all the time. They have other commitments including driving schools, club events, etc. Not all of these events can just be moved around at will.

A club event or driving school can be moved by a week or two over a year out. That is a lot simpler than moving the date of a series where participants are spending millions of dollars and have to sort out logistics of moving equipment and personnel across countries.