Lites / LMP3

[knighty]

Originally Posted by rdjones

That is a great post and I agree with you you 100% as I said in another said in another thread I really think that the ACO have missed a trick here a young driver could go all the way from a Junior Championship to Le Mans driving the same make of car.

Now that in my view is a good business model....

I have to say just on looks alone, the Ginetta LMP3 gives me the impression of a dodgy caterham-7 replica like locost, MK or Tiger, but for sure Ewan Bauldry does know his onions and last year it appeared to compete well with the Ligiers, I didnt see a huge performance defecit unless I'm missing something?.......it just looks cumbersome and lacking detail.......whereby the Ligier looks like the genuine child of an established LMP2 manufacturer, which really is exactly what it is.......I notice 1 off Ginetta LMP3 will now run in ELMS, but like said above, it looks like Lawrence Tomlinson has already cut and run onto his next venture which is a chevy powered track version, it looks like Radicals version now has GT3 homologation which I dare say opens up a huge potential market, therefore Ginetta must be closely looking at that

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

My eyes! Now that is an ugly looking car.

Yep, that's a dog. Reminds me of the early DPs.

[knighty]

Heres the link about the Radical GT3 racer, I can now imagine Radical will sell a ton of these GT3 type cars......Ginetta will probably follow suit as the GT3 market is far bigger than LMP3

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-britishcars/radical-rxc-turbo-approved-for-gt3-racing/33725

.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by knighty

Heres the link about the Radical GT3 racer, I can now imagine Radical will sell a ton of these GT3 type cars......Ginetta will probably follow suit as the GT3 market is far bigger than LMP3

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-b...3-racing/33725

.

That might change quickly!

[Deleted]

So there WAS Ginetta entered for ELMS, but ACO rejected it because some Onroaks got ahead of it in the artificial waiting list. Oh for ****
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/0...ns-series.html

[Coach Ep]

Euh, "delay in submitting paperwork" - who's fault is that?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Euh, "delay in submitting paperwork" - who's fault is that?

But that can be interpreted in two ways, that the paperwork was submitted after the actual closure of the entry deadline, or after the self-invented grid cap was filled. Granted we don't know which

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Yep, that's a dog. Reminds me of the early DPs.

Hey, don't insult the DPs like that!

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

My eyes! Now that is an ugly looking car.

Things could be worse......

2016 is not looking like the best year for prototype beauty

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda

Things could be worse......





2016 is not looking like the best year for prototype beauty

Could be one of the reasons why some manufacturers prefer GTs.

[Mike E]

Originally Posted by knighty

Heres the link about the Radical GT3 racer, I can now imagine Radical will sell a ton of these GT3 type cars......Ginetta will probably follow suit as the GT3 market is far bigger than LMP3

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-b...3-racing/33725

.

Ginetta already sells the G55 V8 as a nationally homologated GT3. And their LMP3 is a long way from being road legal, unlike the Radical.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

Could be one of the reasons why some manufacturers prefer GTs.

Nah you can design LMP cars pretty if you want even on current ruleset. Audi is amongst exceptions of course with that horror tank...

[Coach Ep]

And let's hope they'll put the other coloring button back in the next release/update of their design application...

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Nah you can design LMP cars pretty if you want even on current ruleset. Audi is amongst exceptions of course with that horror tank...

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.... There's a reason the fastest cars tend to be the ugliest.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.... There's a reason the fastest cars tend to be the ugliest.

This comment makes no sense, plenty of fastest prototypes in recent years have been pretty, and there have been plenty of ugly ones at the bottom of timesheets as well. Functional and elegant can work together, not only separate.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Chiana

This comment makes no sense, plenty of fastest prototypes in recent years have been pretty, and there have been plenty of ugly ones at the bottom of timesheets as well. Functional and elegant can work together, not only separate.

The comment makes perfect sense. First of all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder - what you find aesthetically pleasing will not necessarily be shared by others.

Secondly, and most importantly, even those gorgeous cars of recent years were NOT designed to look good. They were designed to go fast, and they just happened to turn out good-looking.

Once you design something to prioritize aesthetics over performance, you begin making compromises. Once you begin making compromises, you limit the areas where you can optimize performance. Once you limit the areas where you can optimize performance, you make it harder to achieve performance goals. Once you make it harder to achieve performance goals, you make it less likely you're going to win races.

At the end of the day, ALL motorsports regulations enable manufacturers to make good-looking cars. However, NO manufacturer has ever set a goal of making a car look good - they always build their car to be as fast as they can make it.

Just because they CAN make something that looks good doesn't mean they SHOULD. They should -and do- make cars that PERFORM to their needs. Everything else is secondary.

[Coach Ep]

When is your birthday FF? I'll try to get you a keyboard without caps lock then!

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

When is your birthday FF? I'll try to get you a keyboard without caps lock then!

Reported. Despite what you may think, I am not a retard. I know an insult when I see it.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Chiana

But that can be interpreted in two ways, that the paperwork was submitted after the actual closure of the entry deadline, or after the self-invented grid cap was filled. Granted we don't know which

It was the former - no conspiracy theories necessary!

[Deleted]

ADESS P3 is not dead* as the former GT1/LMP2 team plans (hopes) to field one.
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/0...dess-lmp3.html

*Well at least outside ACO racing that is.

Of course it's possible that AAI just handled them very badly in the ASLMS.

Not sure what CPB Sport is up to with their ADESS that never materialized for ELMS in the end, perhaps they sold it to DKR? And whether AAI still owns their chassis?

[jan bot]

http://www.motorsport.com/endurance/...-racer-678612/

[Deleted]

ADESS has evolved?

[Bcarr6]

Does anyone else feel less interested in this category now it is basically a single make series?

I dunno there was something exciting about the prospect of 5 different cars fighting.

[Deleted]

If IMSA had been less stubborn and ditched the granny FLM09s, we could have had great global Riley presence against the Onroaks. But alas, no, and no-one has any reason to purchase American product instead now.

Anyway I think Dome, assuming it ever materializes, may niche-survive in the Asian market

[BrentJackson]

Originally Posted by Chiana

If IMSA had been less stubborn and ditched the granny FLM09s, we could have had great global Riley presence against the Onroaks. But alas, no, and no-one has any reason to purchase American product instead now.

The Riley isn't even built and tested yet. What makes you think they would have been out in numbers by now? Beyond that, we know why IMSA has no interest in LMP3s, and knowing Oreca's involvement with the LMP2 fiasco, I'd be inclined to make sure Oreca and Onroak DO NOT have any more involvement with IMSA beyond the DPi cars.