IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[HORNDAWG]

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.

Certain mfgs. will whether or not it is exactly lined up with the ACO's version (strictly) or not. I suspect that many if not all will be capable of being raced in all ACO and partner series.
As to your assertion that the 'DP' in it's current iteration will be retained, ain't gonna happen.
It has been stated repeatedly by both IMSA and the ACO that the target is to have a P-2/ P that can be utilized in any and all series concerned.






L.P.

[Rcz]

I don't think I said DPs will be retained.

I just think that in the p2 class has been doing really well, especially in the ELMS and looks like a good field in the WEC. Why change that? To appease who?

And besides, wouldn't it be better to have a fast and technological relevant cars as top class. Not something so capped.

[Coach Ep]

Boom!

http://sportscar365.com/industry/sco...017-lmp2-regs/

The bomb is dropped....

[MagVanisher]

This is ridiculous! I wonder what's gonna happen to Dome, SMP Racing, and other small firms that trying to make a LMP2 car come 2017?

Anyways, this is sad as LMP2 became another Formula Le Mans/Prototype Challenge!

[BullMan]

I think that 4 constructor rule will be put by the way side. Especially in the US if someone other than Riley wants to build a car for TUSC.

[HORNDAWG]

Yes, this is the proverbial turd in the punch bowl! I have a very hard time seeing this surviving on this side of the pond, the engine rule is already an exclusion for TUSC. I would imagine that the constructors on this side of the pond will NOT agree to this asinine proposal. So it seems we will have separate specs for P/P-2 if this is adhered to by the ACO/FIA side of the table.









L.P.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yes, this is the proverbial turd in the punch bowl! I have a very hard time seeing this surviving on this side of the pond, the engine rule is already an exclusion for TUSC. I would imagine that the constructors on this side of the pond will NOT agree to this asinine proposal. So it seems we will have separate specs for P/P-2 if this is adhered to by the ACO/FIA side of the table.

That's the word I was looking for, thanks.

It's not beyond feasibility to see a similar [to the engine] clause extend to chassis as well. But then the proposals' goals of maintaining the viability of the class would have already been diminished by the allowances.

[Matt]

The ACO shooting themselves in the foot hahaha.

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by Matt

The ACO shooting themselves in the foot hahaha.

Exactly what I'm thinking right now... What'll be next, putting fake bodywork apart from spec engines outside TUSC?

[fieldodreams79]

Hmmm, this is a little from out in left field isn't it?

I like the sound of V8s and more power, and at least some crossover of Euro / US racing, but what I don't like Spec engines and no new manufacturers' for 4 years. As for the later, I am not sure I quite understand why that would be proposed.



And then there's this:

Existing LMP2 and DP cars, meanwhile, are expected to be grandfathered into 2017 for one year

One more year of DP? Oh man.......

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Hmmm, this is a little from out in left field isn't it?

I like the sound of V8s and more power, and at least some crossover of Euro / US racing, but what I don't like Spec engines and no new manufacturers' for 4 years. As for the later, I am not sure I quite understand why that would be proposed.



And then there's this:

One more year of DP? Oh man.......

That doesn't mean a DP or an old P2 will be competitive.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

And then there's this:

One more year of DP? Oh man.......

And when have we ever seen a new ruleset come in that did not grandfather everything that was current in the old ruleset for at least a year? Not that unexpected really.






L.P.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by BullMan

That doesn't mean a DP or an old P2 will be competitive.

No but it does mean one more year of complaints.

[Michel Vaillant]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Boom!

http://sportscar365.com/industry/sco...017-lmp2-regs/

The bomb is dropped....

Just.... WHY ???! Today, LMP2 is one of the most dynamic category, with diversity : Oreca, Dome, Onroak, SMP, adess, gibson, HPD, Dallara, ... They want to kill diversity, it's just stupid.

In my opinion, the cup is full... ACO must consider a divorce with IMSA

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Michel Vaillant

In my opinion, the cup is full... ACO must consider a divorce with IMSA

What, you think this asinine decision is brought about by IMSA? That is just so misplaced I am not sure I can fully respond as it would cause me to get a displeasing note from the administration!







L.P.

[Speed-King]

In my opinion, the cup is full... ACO must consider a divorce with IMSA

It doesn't really look as if that is coming from the IMSA side of things... after all, IMSA would keep engine diversity under the proposed rules.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

No but it does mean one more year of complaints.

If they've been knocked back to 2 ro 3 seconds off the pace, I don't care that they're out there for another year. The top teams won't be running them.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by BullMan

If they've been knocked back to 2 ro 3 seconds off the pace, I don't care that they're out there for another year. The top teams won't be running them.

Fair point, but at that pace, they'll be into the slower classes lead battles. We'll find a way to complain about them, I am sure of it.

[Rcz]

They trying to turn it into GP2.


Why? It's like the Porsche and Acura days. They're going to kill it just as its getting interesting.

There's no way chevy and Ford pushed for this.

Now I really hope Imsa goes in different direction.

[chernaudi]

I don't see IMSA pushing for this. Hell, it seems like most of the protests and questioning are coming from their side on this issue, at least as much as from the WEC/LMS side of things.

Personally, I think that the ACO/FIA are pushing to have LMP2 replace LMP1-L, and they also might be using this as an excuse to build up LMP1 by having more engine suppliers and factory teams who can't sell their wares in LMP2.

Which that won't work, not at least in the US, where there's no plans for there being a LMP1 class resurrection in the foreseeable future.

[Maelochs]

Told you so.

I am not surprised at all by this. FIA wants to make LMP-2 into a cheap pro-am customer class—cheaper than it is now—to get the rich sportsmen and unfunded pros into the series, but doesn't want anything except P1 at the head of the class.

P2 has basically been a 'spec" class all along, as the engines are sealed and the bodywork homologated. When mention was made of a common tub, it was plain that FIA envisioned something between DTM and Formula Le Mans/PC—identical low-cost cars with minimum adjustability and identical (though I figured everyone would get to make their own) low-stress/low-output motors for even lower operating costs and everything simplified so privateers wouldn't complain too much.

Single-make spec engine is a way to get someone to pay the series for promotion—makes good business sense for FIA—because they have LMP-1.

My point all along has been that FIA really doesn't give a crap about P2 because all it has ever been is a low-cost, cost-capped, pseudo-spec class for rich businessmen. FIA has LMP-1 and GTE and the other classes are there to fill grids and pay entry fees.

This could kill TUSC, because U.S. fans would be stuck with essentially more DPs—low-tech spec cars where innovation is limited to livery and performance is fixed by the factory prior to sale. Of course, the folks at NASCAR probably think this will work just fine—after all, they have kept the DP around for a dozen years and apparently think it has always been just fine.

Here is another thought: NASCAR basically owns Coyote chassis, as far as I know, and only one American chassis maker is supposed to be one of the four.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Told you so.

I am not surprised at all by this. FIA wants to make LMP-2 into a cheap pro-am customer class—cheaper than it is now—to get the rich sportsmen and unfunded pros into the series, but doesn't want anything except P1 at the head of the class.

P2 has basically been a 'spec" class all along, as the engines are sealed and the bodywork homologated. When mention was made of a common tub, it was plain that FIA envisioned something between DTM and Formula Le Mans/PC—identical low-cost cars with minimum adjustability and identical (though I figured everyone would get to make their own) low-stress/low-output motors for even lower operating costs and everything simplified so privateers wouldn't complain too much.

Single-make spec engine is a way to get someone to pay the series for promotion—makes good business sense for FIA—because they have LMP-1.

My point all along has been that FIA really doesn't give a crap about P2 because all it has ever been is a low-cost, cost-capped, pseudo-spec class for rich businessmen. FIA has LMP-1 and GTE and the other classes are there to fill grids and pay entry fees.

This could kill TUSC, because U.S. fans would be stuck with essentially more DPs—low-tech spec cars where innovation is limited to livery and performance is fixed by the factory prior to sale. Of course, the folks at NASCAR probably think this will work just fine—after all, they have kept the DP around for a dozen years and apparently think it has always been just fine.

Here is another thought: NASCAR basically owns Coyote chassis, as far as I know, and only one American chassis maker is supposed to be one of the four.

Think the American Manufacturer is going to be Riley, with the other 3 being HPD-Wirth, OAK, and Oreca with a HPD international power-plant.

[Maelochs]

Lol, maybe Coyote could sue TUSC for denying it a fair business opportunity?

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Lol, maybe Coyote could sue TUSC for denying it a fair business opportunity?

Yeah maybe. I bet Riley get the chassis. Coyote gets the GM bodywork. I think I remember somewhere along the line that Coyote has no experience making carbon fiber chassis and they were going to need a partner.

[carbsmith]

Spec engine is fairly in line with the intent and the spirit of the category. Just think of it as a Cosworth DFV.

Manufacturer limit is entirely at odds with it and generally some revived IRL/Grand-Am suicidal nonsense. Reasonably there's no reason to believe Daytona would have a problem with this as long as they're allowed their own engines as such, overmanaging everything is what they love.

Really the only thing P2 has going for it is that all the small constructors that used to make P1s are there, otherwise the specification and performance level is rather boring. So while this takes that away, pushing people back into P1 isn't so bad.