IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[Disraeli Eers]

There's a chance that teams that have defected to PWC for 2015 may miss endurance racing come 2016 and want to return to IMSA.

[Rcz]

Originally Posted by TRspitfirefan

World Challenge is actually run and owned by an independent group.
The SCCA is merely the sanctioning body.

Just like TransAm now a days. Now their booming under different management.




As for P1, you actually don't need P1 to be successful, just look at ELMS. I don't think it would work out in the whole 10 car schedule, but maybe for the NAEC races.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by canamman

I am glad I saw your post. I have been meaning to ask
if you knew of a parts shop called Automod in your neck of the woods
back in the day?

Are you speaking of Australia? I know there is a group that chose the name Cyber Motorsports down under and built custom car kits/parts. We started with the name first and our paths never really crossed. If this is who you are talking about, it is the first time the paths have crossed. That's the long answer, the short answer is, "No."

[joeb]

Rahal wants to continue working with BMW in GT's and is interested in the new M6. They aren't sure how that will work with the future gt regs if they want to stay in the top class in IMSA though:

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11345...h-bmw-s-new-m6

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by joeb

Rahal wants to continue working with BMW in GT's and is interested in the new M6. They aren't sure how that will work with the future gt regs if they want to stay in the top class in IMSA though:

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11345...h-bmw-s-new-m6

I don't see how IMSA can suddenly allow a *******ized GT3 in again. Then why not just scrap GTE and run a GT3 pro and GT3 class?

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by BullMan

I don't see how IMSA can suddenly allow a *******ized GT3 in again. Then why not just scrap GTE and run a GT3 pro and GT3 class?

GM (and Porsche) don't want GT3, and IMSA know who butters their bread....

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

GM (and Porsche) don't want GT3, and IMSA know who butters their bread....

Yes, they do!








L.P.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

GM (and Porsche) don't want GT3, and IMSA know who butters their bread....

Sorry, I meant to say, "If IMSA allows a GT3 BMW into GTE again, what's the point of GTE in the series?"

Audi and the rest could just push for some quick homologation to get into the class with all pro drivers.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by BullMan

Sorry, I meant to say, "If IMSA allows a GT3 BMW into GTE again, what's the point of GTE in the series?"

Audi and the rest could just push for some quick homologation to get into the class with all pro drivers.

I am still trying to figure out the point of having GTE and GT3 on the global scale. Both are full classes of performance balanced GT car.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda

I am still trying to figure out the point of having GTE and GT3 on the global scale. Both are full classes of performance balanced GT car.

One contains only letters and the other is alphanumeric.

[Deleted]

Yes it is moronic. Even the class names make no sense whatsoever, I don't understand why they've kept em. GTE a la GT Endurance isn't needed anymore (not that it was ever really) now that the SRO sprint world championship is gone AND it's not like the class is any more endurance based than any other out there. And GT3, as well as GT4 are obsolete today as GT1 is dead and GT2's been rebranded

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Yes it is moronic. Even the class names make no sense whatsoever, I don't understand why they've kept em. GTE a la GT Endurance isn't needed anymore (not that it was ever really) now that the SRO sprint world championship is gone AND it's not like the class is any more endurance based than any other out there. And GT3, as well as GT4 are obsolete today as GT1 is dead and GT2's been rebranded

Perhaps the name GTE goes away with rules refresh in 2016. hrug:

[Deleted]

ACO should just call it 'LMGT' and be done with it (as long as they want to carry on with unfortunate single class structure).

Even if GT3 was to stick to GT3 that would make sense.

Couple of years ago Ratel said somewhere that he still wants to keep reserve place for GT1 "just in case" or something so probably no rebranding to that

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by Chiana

ACO should just call it 'LMGT' and be done with it (as long as they want to carry on with unfortunate single class structure).

Even if GT3 was to stick to GT3 that would make sense.

Couple of years ago Ratel said somewhere that he still wants to keep reserve place for GT1 "just in case" or something so probably no rebranding to that

I still hope the new P2 class has a shot of being a GT1ish class with some road platform based hypercars.

[jasonjessica09]

Can you imagine if the GTLM cars go about 2 seconds a lap quicker at most tracks next year where the P cars still run the same pace. That will be awesome I think. I love to see P and GTLM run closer together. It will be easy to restrict the ride heights or air restrictors of the LMPC cars and just make them the slowest class behind the GT3 cars. Since it is a dying category anyway.

[Rcz]

I personally would leave P2 alone, but would love to have a gt1ish class as top class.

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by Rcz

I personally would leave P2 alone, but would love to have a gt1ish class as top class.

Same sentiments as you are! Having an ACO-style prototype and an IMSA GTP car is more exciting than putting Corvette bodywork onto a P2 chassis.

[jasonjessica09]

Originally Posted by Rcz

I personally would leave P2 alone, but would love to have a gt1ish class as top class.

Perhaps that is what IMSA with GM's backing has been pushing for so far?

[Fogelhund]

How exactly would having a GT1 and LMP2 category, be different than having a DP and LMP2 category. Still going to have BoP issues, upset entrants, upset fans... LMP2 needs to be the top category on it's own, or just go in their own direction completely, and drop LMP2.

[HORNDAWG]

And the object of the 2017 ruleset is that, a unified P-2 class.









L.P.

[Rcz]

With the elms getting so many p2 cars, I don't think the ACO will rock the boat with these so called united rule sets.

TUSC needs a top Proto class with tech diversity and the P2 cars don't have this. Their cost cap water down cars of the P1 class.

We can't have P1 cars yet, because they have become too expensive for privateers. Almost to F1 levels.

So I think a new Proto class with the support of factories manufacturers(which are banned in the P2 class) like Ford and Chevy, would be a good idea. The cost of these cars would probably be about a factory supported GTE car.

The GT body could be use to limit the areo dependence and focus on other technological aspects of the car such as battery tech.

Because if we just get limited tech p2 cars with Vette bodies, then we might as well just gone with the DTM rules.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Rcz

With the elms getting so many p2 cars, I don't think the ACO will rock the boat with these so called united rule sets.

TUSC needs a top Proto class with tech diversity and the P2 cars don't have this. Their cost cap water down cars of the P1 class.

We can't have P1 cars yet, because they have become too expensive for privateers. Almost to F1 levels.

So I think a new Proto class with the support of factories manufacturers(which are banned in the P2 class) like Ford and Chevy, would be a good idea. The cost of these cars would probably be about a factory supported GTE car.

The GT body could be use to limit the areo dependence and focus on other technological aspects of the car such as battery tech.

Because if we just get limited tech p2 cars with Vette bodies, then we might as well just gone with the DTM rules.

Might as well just keep DPs if you're going to go off on your own again.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Rcz

With the elms getting so many p2 cars, I don't think the ACO will rock the boat with these so called united rule sets.

The rules will change. That, in and of itself, 'will rock the boat'.






L.P.

[Rcz]

So you think those p2 manufacturers will conform to the whims of TUSC. I guess we will see...


As for keeping DPs, it's not really a good idea because they no longer fulfill their purpose of cheap prototype racing. That racing philosophy will be taken over by PC and the LMP3 class.

And going alone isn't a bad idea, the Group C cars and the IMSA GTP cars were similar but had very different racing philosophy to appease their respected racing audience.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by Rcz

So you think those p2 manufacturers will conform to the whims of TUSC. I guess we will see...


As for keeping DPs, it's not really a good idea because they no longer fulfill their purpose of cheap prototype racing. That racing philosophy will be taken over by PC and the LMP3 class.

And going alone isn't a bad idea, the Group C cars and the IMSA GTP cars were similar but had very different racing philosophy to appease their respected racing audience.

Based on the Vincent Beaumesnil interview, the ACO seems to be ready to "rock the boat" and totally ditch the current P2 class in favor of something faster.