IMSA DPi Discussion

[TF110]

Originally Posted by ATLFalconsFAN

First look at testing of a DPi chassis:

DPi, dookey p*** international. The real "down the toilet" series

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by ATLFalconsFAN

First look at testing of a DPi chassis:

Not sure what the hell is going on in there, but I'm already way more interested and invested in that than the "DPi" prospect!

[Deleted]

S365says "Mazda" won't announce the "DPi" for at least few months.

[merlot brougham]

Originally Posted by skycafe

I have heard the same thing 'on the record,' as long as it is kept 'off the record.' I believe that they are considering a weed eater based effort in PC too, but confirmation of that is likely not forthcoming unless the rumors get out.

I don't know who your sources are but it is actually based on the Gator 4x6 to compete against the soon to be announced Polaris RZR DPi program.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by skycafe

I have heard the same thing 'on the record,' as long as it is kept 'off the record.' I believe that they are considering a weed eater based effort in PC too, but confirmation of that is likely not forthcoming unless the rumors get out.

Anyone have a cymbal crash GIF?

[Deleted]

Just as I was gonna like (ish) the guy, Shank says to be the supporter of having "DPi"s in the LMP1 privateer at LM
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/leman...t-24h-le-mans/

Also, "Then we won’t have to do anything except load our stuff up and take it to Le Mans" is a load of crap, they would need gargantuan BoP breaks and other nonsense to close a 10 second gap.

[seanyb505]

I say the same thing I said 3 years ago. Let them run dp against other cars as is. Then see if in a few months anyone wants to continue with the chassis when they get monstered.

2013 dp & 2013 p2
2017 dp & 2017 rebellion. It'll be loads of fun

[Deleted]

I think they should allow the as-it-is BMW M6 GTE to Le Mans, but so that we wouldn't have to mess around with regulative & political details and such, allow them to LMP2 instead, performance balancing them to the pace of others. It's the simplest solution and works for everyone.

And while we are at it, Deltawing to LMGTE-AM.

Why have rules and classes in the first place?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Just as I was gonna like (ish) the guy, Shank says to be the supporter of having "DPi"s in the LMP1 privateer at LM
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/leman...t-24h-le-mans/

Also, "Then we won’t have to do anything except load our stuff up and take it to Le Mans" is a load of crap, they would need gargantuan BoP breaks and other nonsense to close a 10 second gap.

How're you coming to this conclusion? DPi will have comparable power to p1 privateers next year. Might as well jump in the same class. I think the biggest difference between the new P2's and P1 privateers will be all-pro drivers in the latter and weight (50kg). So what do you think Rebellion and Kolles are at power wise, 700hp?

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by TF110

How're you coming to this conclusion? DPi will have comparable power to p1 privateers next year.

You'd best cite a source, because IMSA's been saying VERY differently about that lately, and I've not seen anything to indicate differently. (I don't trust them to keep things truly level, but I do trust that their claims that they plan to use ACO P2 as the base BoP level)

[TF110]

You don't need a source. We all know next year lmp2 is getting a rise in power to 600hp. That's basically where Rebellion and Kolles are at now.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by TF110

You don't need a source. We all know next year lmp2 is getting a rise in power to 600hp. That's basically where Rebellion and Kolles are at now.

First of all, how do we know that? The engine's not done yet, and the rise in power is far from a guarantee.

Second, Rebellion and Kolles have a good 100 horsepower more than the 600 LMP2 will supposedly get.

Third, it's more than just power involved in the matter - one thing that springs immediately to mind is that P1 runs wider tires. (and the fuel requirements to get DPi to the needed power...)

Last, and most importantly, LMP1 privateer is set for a 2018 overhaul that is meant to get them closer in performance to the factories. This creates a larger gap for the DPi cars to cover.

Trying to meld LMP1 and DPi is a terrible idea. It just doesn't work without basing DPi on LMP1 to begin with, and that creates a cost problem for the teams that IMSA simply cannot afford.

Just focus on the P2 performance level and toss the delusions of grandeur into the trash bin already. DPi is meant to make LMP2 work in a series that needs to move beyond it's restrictions, but can't afford to go full LMP1. That's all it is, that's all it ever will be, and that's all they should be focusing on making it.

[TF110]

Look for the multiple articles confirming the power increase. Every major sportscar news outlet has the same story. Even the series bosses speak of the power increase. Lmp1 privateer right now is three cars. Two are based off the Oreca 05, which is designed for the new lmp2 rules. How is it a terrible idea when most of the class is running near identical equipment to a future lmp2 (chassis)? It's pretty obvious that this way forward is easy and both parties don't know how to get along.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by TF110

Look for the multiple articles confirming the power increase. Every major sportscar news outlet has the same story. Even the series bosses speak of the power increase.

So....? That's the GOAL. I'm sorry to pop your bubble with the needle of reality, but goals aren't always successfully reached. Until the engine is finished and actually producing the intended power, DO NOT assume it will happen as planned.

Lmp1 privateer right now is three cars. Two are based off the Oreca 05, which is designed for the new lmp2 rules.

And? News flash: They're still considerably pricier than the P2 cars due to what IS different about them.

How is it a terrible idea when most of the class is running near identical equipment to a future lmp2 (chassis)?

Apparently you missed that whole thing about the upcoming overhaul to LMP1-L that's going to put them closer to LMP1-H performance.

Trying to match pace with a class that is not only beyond the price range of most of the teams, but which will soon no longer exist in the form you're trying to match, is indeed a terrible idea. It's a waste of resources and will needlessly raise the cost to run a class that's full of teams that are already on the edge budget-wise.

The DPi idea, balanced with LMP2, is a good one if they'd just make a couple small tweaks to the bodywork requirement. Trying to make the cars run with LMP1-L is foolish.

[carbsmith]

I think about 90% of the additional cost of the R-One is just the fact there is only two of them. I'd be shocked if Rebellion's development budget compared favourably with the ORECA 05's.

There is certain things that cost capped LMP2s generally skip out on to make the price point with the least compromise to lap time but given the sad state of LMP1-L I wouldn't assume any car in that class is exactly "fully featured"

[Matt]

Oh look, FormulaFox getting into more arguments with basically everyone.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

So....? That's the GOAL. I'm sorry to pop your bubble with the needle of reality, but goals aren't always successfully reached. Until the engine is finished and actually producing the intended power, DO NOT assume it will happen as planned.



And? News flash: They're still considerably pricier than the P2 cars due to what IS different about them.



Apparently you missed that whole thing about the upcoming overhaul to LMP1-L that's going to put them closer to LMP1-H performance.

Trying to match pace with a class that is not only beyond the price range of most of the teams, but which will soon no longer exist in the form you're trying to match, is indeed a terrible idea. It's a waste of resources and will needlessly raise the cost to run a class that's full of teams that are already on the edge budget-wise.

The DPi idea, balanced with LMP2, is a good one if they'd just make a couple small tweaks to the bodywork requirement. Trying to make the cars run with LMP1-L is foolish.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TF110

How're you coming to this conclusion? DPi will have comparable power to p1 privateers next year. Might as well jump in the same class. I think the biggest difference between the new P2's and P1 privateers will be all-pro drivers in the latter and weight (50kg). So what do you think Rebellion and Kolles are at power wise, 700hp?

You're seriously suggesting LMP2s to be doing high 20' lap times next year at LM??

[chernaudi]

If the ACO do have a target for 600bhp out of the Gibson engine, we do have to remember that the cars are still cost capped and will be heavier than LMP1 cars.

I can see the LMP2 cars being several seconds a lap faster under the new specs, but they'd at best probably be doing 2000 LMP900 lap times.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by TF110

Actually, it's not.

Well, the whole thing about not relying on the engine power goal being met and the can be considered such(as can my beliefs that DPi based on P2 is a great idea if they'd just tweak their bodywork rules a bit), but the LMP1 privateer overhaul and the higher cost of running such cars is not mere opinion.

The LMP1 privateer overhaul claims comes straight from one of the many entities considering a privateer P1 program. Their program is contingent on the promise they got from the ACO of an overhaul that will allow them to attempt to challenge the factories should they build a good enough car.

Even if the promised improvements to take o nthe factories does not come to fruition, it's abundantly clear that the ACO will be speeding up the privateer P1s come 2018.

So, I ask, what is the point of trying to run cars in step with a more expensive class that will be made even more expensive and faster just a year later(completely obsoleting your class in the process) when you have a cheaper option that can be made to suit the needs of your serious just fine and will be around for at least three years before you'd need to worry about another overhaul?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TF110

It's pretty obvious that this way forward is easy and both parties don't know how to get along.

[Maelochs]

it seems to me that DPis will be about equivalent to P2s. P2s will probably have better aero (based on how the Gen3 DP bodies were less efficient than the Gen2s) and power will probably be about equivalent, with DPi probably having a slight edge.

There is no way DPi would ever be equivalent to P1-privateer (I won't call it P1-L because some nitpickers will complain.) DPi could be heavily modified---more power (assuming the engines could stand it foe 24 hours) and weight removed (and hopefully the overall balance not radically altered) and the suspensions redesigned to handle wider tires (that should be easy, right? )

The only reason to stick DPi into the P1-privateers class would be to get them on track at Le Mans---no other reason. The two cars could never compete---but neither could DPi and P2 compete, because FIA-ACO wouldn't want to see P2s get beat, and probably doesn't want to wade into the BoP swamp where IMSA lives. Two different cars, even if based closely off the same chassis, are still different cars.

Add to that, the DPis would have to run Michelin or Dunlop rubber, and again, the suspension geometries might not suit those tiers ... so the tires might blow up, wear out, or not perform ... but certainly wouldn't perform on a equal basis with the tires on the P2s, which had spent time tuning the cars to the tires.

Further, FIA-ACO wants to speed up P1-Privateer---so are we to assume that there is hardly any difference between P1-privateer and P2? So little that with some "tweaks" a P2 could keep up with a P1-Privateer? Really?

Considering the speed differential now, I'd say the new P2 chassis and motor would have to be exceedingly exceptional (and that sounds ridiculous for a reason) if the combo is going to equal current P1-Privateer speed ... let alone the increased pace coming in 2018. And since DPi is likely to be very similar to P2 performance (a little more power, maybe, and a little worse aero) how is DPi supposed to keep up? Ridiculous.

Only justification for combining DPi and P1-privateer is to give DPi a way to run without screwing up FIA-ACO's structure---not to give DPi a chance at a class win.

For the third or fourth time: DPi cannot expect to run in P2 because it is not a P2. Rules are rules. If DPi wants to run at Le Mans, where it doesn't fit into any of the existing classes, it needs to take what it can get. Rules are rules.

As I mentioned earlier also, imagine what IMSA would say if P1-H teams came over and wanted to run in IMSA? The first time I asked this, someone erroneously claimed that they had ... but the fact is, when P1s were the same in both series, they ran together on a level field, a single set of rules. When ALMS insisted on running its P1 class by slightly different rules, the Euro teams ran in their own class ...

Want to run Le Mans? Follow the ACO rules. Don't want to follow ACO rules? Take what they offer or take it elsewhere.

Lots of people who would completely freak out if ACO or FIA wrote IMSA rules, seem to expect IMSA to be able to dictate to FIA-ACO.

[carbon_titanium]

until lmp1 private will follow fuel flow route, will be impossible for street derivated engines (that will power dpi) achieve the same fuel efficency. AER spent years to develope the P60 engine from a clean sheet and is still far from perfection... a ford, HPD, GM twin turbo V6 very unlikely will develope the same power with the same fuel flow figures.

But, as the dude would say... just my opinion.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

(I won't call it P1-L because some nitpickers will complain.)

I don't hear you calling LMPC as FLM, or GTLM/GTE as GT2?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Chiana

I don't hear you calling LMPC as FLM, or GTLM/GTE as GT2?

Here's the thing, regardless of what anyone calls it, we all know what's being referred to, so there's no need for the continuous corrections.