IMSA: USCR 2018

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

I'm amazed at how many people are confused by this matter. Even without your clarification, the releases I've seen all quite explicitly state it the time to fill an EMPTY fuel tank. That alone should make it clear they're not going to make a car sit for 40 seconds when it just needs a quick splash, but I've had to point this out to no less than ten people across various sites. What's your count at on this?

Not trying to be an arse or anything, but people are confused because not all the details are provided in everything IMSA has said. If "the releases you've seen" all explicitly state it then you clearly didn't click the link in my post, as that doesn't say it - it just says refuelling times.

People are confused because it's an odd rule that's been rolled out poorly. Almost like they took ACOs advice on this one or something.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Accident

I thought it was put into place to equalize fill times on different sized tanks, so that tank size didn't allow teams to get faster pit stops because they filled faster.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Not trying to be an arse or anything, but people are confused because not all the details are provided in everything IMSA has said. If "the releases you've seen" all explicitly state it then you clearly didn't click the link in my post, as that doesn't say it - it just says refuelling times.

People are confused because it's an odd rule that's been rolled out poorly. Almost like they took ACOs advice on this one or something.

So accident responded to my post with the quote above. Now I'm more confused and wonder if someone can clear this up. I apologize, I don't follow all the minutiae of bop, and honestly, as I've posted on here before, I think that makes things more enjoyable.

But my understanding was that imsa used fuel flow as a form of bop, where some cars filled faster, while cars that maybe had a little performance advantage filled slower. Accident says it was that they equalized different size tanks.

So, to this new rule, if they are just doing what Matt and formulafox are saying, then imsa would actually be taking away a form of bop? By just mandating every team take the same amount of time to refuel, cars with larger tanks would benefit from this, but it takes it off the table as a means to adjust refueling times for bop purposes? It seems odd if that is the intent, imo.

If all the rule does is say it takes a certain amount of time to fill an empty tank, and teams are still able to short fill as they please, then how is it any different to before the rule? They had a set fuel flow prior to this rule, the Audi just used a loophole to get around it. Why does the new rule only address fuel flow time, which was bop'd previously, and not the loophole the Audi used, which was what caused all this to begin with?

Again, for someone that doesn't dig into the rulebook (by choice) to that level, this has been presented in a very unclear manner.

[YZFrider]

Good Post RWill. Now that makes me confused too. Not to get too far off topic, my understanding of this whole tank size/fuel flow were as follows:

Certain cars had better fuel mileage than others (Ferrari 458 comes to mind when they implemented their Direct Fuel Injection). In order to equalize cars to go the same distance before coming into the pits, they shrunk the tank size on said cars. Now, seeing as the tank volume is smaller, it indeed takes less time to fill vs a larger tank, ergo it has an advantage of leaving the pits faster. In comes the fuel flow restrictions to equalize that. You may be right in that they later used tank size/flow to alter other performances as well, altering tank sizes affects weight (fuel is heavy after all) and/or balance.

If what I read was correct, Land Audi played with played with fuel rig location in combination with fuel tank/nozzle throat location (all legal) to give it the optimum fueling time.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Not trying to be an arse or anything, but people are confused because not all the details are provided in everything IMSA has said. If "the releases you've seen" all explicitly state it then you clearly didn't click the link in my post, as that doesn't say it - it just says refuelling times.

It was clear enough to be reported as being about empty fuel tanks by every news site out there. That's clear enough to me.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

It was clear enough to be reported as being about empty fuel tanks by every news site out there. That's clear enough to me.

So ... you believe the mainstream media?

Based on experience ... I am not surprised IMSA couldn't clearly write a rule which does what they want to do and explain what they wrote.

What I don't like is that a team which innovates withing the rules to gain an edge is penalized for ... "improving the breed."

I was told when the merger was announced that Scott Atherton and Scot Elkins wanted was Zero innovation and everything completely codified. Well ....

"Racing Finances the Breed," I guess.

[WolfsburgRS]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

So ... you believe the mainstream media?

This is sportscar racing, not politics... pretty sure there is no mainstream media.

[MaskedRacer]

In the S365 podcast, John Dagys has interesting thoughts about ideas to help the GTD costs. Two main things:

1) Mandate bronze drivers for every car. Not silver.
2) Reduction of the number of races that GTD runs to 9. Implied that one of them cut should be Laguna.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by MaskedRacer

In the S365 podcast, John Dagys has interesting thoughts about ideas to help the GTD costs. Two main things:

1) Mandate bronze drivers for every car. Not silver.
2) Reduction of the number of races that GTD runs to 9. Implied that one of them cut should be Laguna.

How much of the team budget is spent on the Silver who would be dropped though? Is it really enough to bring the budgets down from running GTD being pretty close to running an LMP2 (or DPi if you can get one) program? Seems like dropping a race might save some but it feels like it is every little thing is adding up to big the numbers. It seems like PWC has a GT3 problem so it feels like it is a US GT3 use problem. But I will admit I know nothing about how the Euro/worldwide GT3 series work to minimize costs so maybe their methods are not as applicable in US series.

[Mike Hedlund]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

How much of the team budget is spent on the Silver who would be dropped though? Is it really enough to bring the budgets down from running GTD being pretty close to running an LMP2 (or DPi if you can get one) program? Seems like dropping a race might save some but it feels like it is every little thing is adding up to big the numbers. It seems like PWC has a GT3 problem so it feels like it is a US GT3 use problem. But I will admit I know nothing about how the Euro/worldwide GT3 series work to minimize costs so maybe their methods are not as applicable in US series.

The point of mandating a Bronze driver isn't to reduce the cost of the "paid Silver", it's to make sure each team is funded by an Am driver and not a manufacturer.

-mike

[broadrun96]

How would that impact the costs? I'm guessing the manufacturer cash is a pretty penny but what is it used for? I'm assuming not to line the team owner's pockets.

I have nothing against the rule, and think the driver rankings are necessary but think a 2 stream path might be a better solution to avoid, maybe minimize, that sneaky silver problem of maturing Silver 'pros' and good Am Silvers.


Honestly curious and glad to have someone who posts and is never afraid to shoot straight.

[Coach Ep]

It will only be a matter of time before the first 'sneaky bronze' turns up. Could be from this program:

“To have a closer link to the factory, that’s one idea."

http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/po...river-program/

How about it Mike?!

[MaskedRacer]

Sebring entry is here

https://sportscarchampionship.imsa.c..._entrylist.pdf


BAR1 guys could not make it
AF Corse/Dalla Lana alliance did make it in GTD
No Chan/Jota and Grasser as expected

I think we could have ourselves another race of few full course yellows eh?

[Rodger Davies]

Spirit of Daytona Cadillac is missing Long Beach apparently

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Rodger Davies

Spirit of Daytona Cadillac is missing Long Beach apparently

Second year in a row they won't get to race at Long Beach due to crash damage.

This is one of the things I dislike about carbon cars.

A tube-framer coulda easily been rebuilt in time.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by Matt

Second year in a row they won't get to race at Long Beach due to crash damage.

This is one of the things I dislike about carbon cars.

A tube-framer coulda easily been rebuilt in time.

I hear M1-A Abrams racing is the coming thing. More pits stops but endurance won't be an issue and crash damage ... Lol.

Anyway, that was karma's fist mashing Tristan Vautier. No way to dodge that.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Matt

Second year in a row they won't get to race at Long Beach due to crash damage.

This is one of the things I dislike about carbon cars.

A tube-framer coulda easily been rebuilt in time.

I'm rather fine with the car missing the race rather than Vautier missing it because he's in the hospital, personally. Maybe recognized safety standards aren't American enough for you though.

[chernaudi]

That's why you buy or find access to a spare tub. Besides, it's just as easy in a bad enough accident to write off a tube frame car, look at all the NASCAR stock cars or Trans Am cars that get totaled every year. Just about as easy to destroy a tube frame car in such an accident or at least damage it to the point where it's cheaper/easier to buy another chassis anyways.

Either that or SDR is low on cash since they lost Visit Florida as their primary sponsor that they can't spring for a new tub from Dallara. You have to remember that AXR got a new tub before COTA last year after they damaged a car beyond immediate repair at Long Beach.

IMO, probably also a wise move to skip at least Long Beach. We know of that track's reputation for accidents and collisions, especially with a large field.

[MaskedRacer]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

That's why you buy or find access to a spare tub. Besides, it's just as easy in a bad enough accident to write off a tube frame car, look at all the NASCAR stock cars or Trans Am cars that get totaled every year. Just about as easy to destroy a tube frame car in such an accident or at least damage it to the point where it's cheaper/easier to buy another chassis anyways.

Either that or SDR is low on cash since they lost Visit Florida as their primary sponsor that they can't spring for a new tub from Dallara. You have to remember that AXR got a new tub before COTA last year after they damaged a car beyond immediate repair at Long Beach.

IMO, probably also a wise move to skip at least Long Beach. We know of that track's reputation for accidents and collisions, especially with a large field.

Agreed, between being a short street race and being on the west coast. They took discretion. Probably a good idea.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMO, probably also a wise move to skip at least Long Beach. We know of that track's reputation for accidents and collisions, especially with a large field.

Particularly since A) the have no West Coast sponsors and B.) they aren't in the championship hunt.

and ... Vautier.

[TF110]

Maybe a tube frame car is easier to replace because it's cheaper... but if it's a write-off it's a write-off, tube frame or carbon.

[Maelochs]

As far as tube-frames go ... I was at Daytona when Memo Gidley slammed that slow Ferrari.

Pretty sure that for the weight CF moncoques offer more protection than steel tubes.

Anyway ... It would suck for Spirit of Daytona to fix the old car or buy a new one for LB and get caught up in something there ... not that there is a higher rate of accidents at Long Beach or anything ...

[joeb]

DPi's are being slowed again for Long Beach

http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/dp...or-long-beach/

Caddy gets a 0.6mm smaller restrictor, 2 liters less fuel
Mazda will have boost lowered, 10kg weight increase, and loses 7 liters of fuel
Acura and Nissan lose 3 liters of fuel and have their boost lowered

In GT news
BMW loses boost and loses 4 liters of fuel

[skycafe]

wow, 7 liters of fuel.

[kvenom]

Mazda got absolutely killed.

[RWill2073]

Lol, yeah, that's a big penalty for just competing for a win. Should have just left it alone. It was good racing. Now who knows if the racing will be good or not? At least we know the Mazda won't be winning...