|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
14 Nov 2017, 11:17 (Ref:3780370) | #5226 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
Now, most of those parts are restricted under current DTM/SGT rules but they're still manufacturer-built, and I would hope that if they went this route LMP1 wouldn't be terribly restrictive. (but it is the ACO we're talking about) So the idea's not exactly speccing up the class so much as taking the big expensive part that manufacturers are least likely to be bothered by not controlling out of the development equation. I could get behind it, but the way the stars would have to align to make this happen.... |
|||
|
14 Nov 2017, 19:11 (Ref:3780437) | #5227 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...road-car-looks
The idea would borrow a key element from the latest GTE regulations introduced ahead of the 2016 WEC season. Competing manufacturers would be given an aerodynamic performance window in which their car would have to sit to ensure a level playing field. Oh **** no. Please ACO do not **** this up, just when LMP1 was getting great again. Same with spec tubs. |
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 19:18 (Ref:3780439) | #5228 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,946
|
If we're just doing BoP, then just do DPi. DPi is great. The only reason I don't want it for LMP1 is because all it is is prettied up LMP2s with a BoP. So if we're going down the route of BoP and artificially good looking cars, then don't reinvent the wheel - just use DPi. It already works.
I'd rather have an actual performance class as LMP1 then LMP2s in drag. But if that's the route we're going, then I don't see the point in not using DPi. |
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 19:32 (Ref:3780444) | #5229 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
I despise "DPi" just as much as I do GTE-model so I'd be indifferent in both cases. Just give me honest prototypes, as in P-R-O-T-O-T-Y-P-E-S.
Why do they feel the need to reinvent the wheel all the time, just push the next cycle back to 2025 or whatever and let's just see how this evolves. We have great LMP1 field forming up now for 2018 and beyond, with real cars and not artificial BoP lottery or other sticker spec engineering nonsense. They always babble on about stability, so have that then! I mean sure the mfgs want new shiny trendy things but they always do. At the end they are there to just win Le Mans anyway, whatever the concept behind. You can implement those things through evolutions rather than revolutions anyway. |
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 20:02 (Ref:3780448) | #5230 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
Yes, there's been a lot of talk of manufacturers evaluating programs, but program evaluations ultimately mean nothing - any manufacturer with a motorsport program will evaluate ANY class that has even the remotest possibility of fitting their program goals. If evaluations meant anything, the sheer number of DPi evaluations would have generated at least two more programs than we've gotten. Combine that with the impending 2020 rules revamps, and unless we get an announcement within the next couple weeks(allowing for the sort of timeframe the ESM program had) I don't think we'll be seeing any more manufacturers in DPi. IMO, the issue that keeps a lot of manufacturers from committing to DPi is that a pretty big chunk of them want to build their own cars, not just do engine and limited aero work - but they don't want building their own car to cost P1-H prices. I can see how a spec tub where they build the entire rest of the car can be appealing, especially if the tub design allows for them to go for road car styling OR pure prototype. I think there'd be a fair few manufacturers in LMP1-L if they were allowed in that class. |
|||
|
14 Nov 2017, 20:19 (Ref:3780452) | #5231 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,946
|
Yes evaluations mean nothing - actual projects mean something, and there are 4 DPi manufacturers. Nobody believes the rumours posted on S365, we're talking about actual products - and DPi is a much more popular one than anything else right now. We can sit and say that manufacturers want to build there own cars, but there's very little evidence of this. We could say LMP1-H got too expensive so isn't a good example, but before that we weren't overflowing either.
I don't want a BoP Drag class as the top sportscar class in the world. But if the ACO does decide that a BoP drag class is what they want for LMP1, then DPi already exists and is a perfectly good product that fits those parameters. I don't see the point in using a different set of rules if you're using the same philosophy. |
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 20:43 (Ref:3780454) | #5232 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
Every manufacturer in DPi was already involved with either DP or LMP prior to the creation of DPi. Honda had P1 and P2 cars, Mazda was running a P2 car, GM had the Corvette DP, and Nissan was the least involved by merely providing the most popular P2 engine for WEC and ELMS(which makes it unsurprising that they're least involved in their DPi program - Ed Brown and Ligier have put more money into the program than Nissan). When you consider that it's not a poor assumption to conclude that DPi's success isn't so much about being attractive to manufacturers as it is that it's the only class that made any sense for such programs to be shifted to. It's even believed that the delay in Honda starting their DPi program had much to do with initially wanting to build their own car; GM and Mazda obviously weren't concerned with that, after all, both of their programs relied on cars built by other dedicated chassis manufacturers. But the most widely popular classes historically for manufacturer participation HAVE been build-your-own-car classes. GTP, GT1, DTM, Super GT, etc. Whether true GTs or prototypes or prototypes disguised as GTs, history shows us that manufacturers do for the most part want to build their own cars. History also shows us that the moment the costs get too high they'll abandon ship faster than you can snap your fingers. |
|||
|
14 Nov 2017, 20:56 (Ref:3780456) | #5233 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Ginetta could enter as GINETTA if they wished. Or whoever else. The old artificial restrictions have been axed away for this cycle. Out of necessity yes, not because it's what they they wished, but in any case they are no longer there. Besides "LMP1-L" hasn't existed for 3 seasons now, and even the "privateer trophy" has been demolished for good finally, wisely. |
||
|
14 Nov 2017, 21:05 (Ref:3780458) | #5234 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,946
|
I'm not sure what your point is. IMSA made an attractive class, regardless of where the manufacturers came from.
Using the same metric of retaining manufacturers, Le Mans lost Peugeot, Audi, Porsche and Nissan. You could argue costs were too high, but when it was cheaper we weren't tripping over manufacturers either. Historical data like that ignores the lack of manufacturers in LMP1/LMP900, on both sides of the pond. Also ignores that DTM is at deaths door with a record low manufacturer entry. So it can be rationalised anyway someone wants, saying "Well what manufacturers ACTUALLY want is this", but recent history disagrees - DPi is the most popular manufacturer based prototype series in the world right now (even if you include GT500). So theory based on history is great. But practically, DPi is doing great. So if we're going to go down the route of a purchased chassis, some branded drag bodywork, and a balance of performance, then DPi seems just fine. Anything else is overkill - the idea of spending money to build your own car just to have it BoP'd down is particularly silly. Personally I'd rather see more traditional racing with actual manufacturer cars (with a healthy amount of private cars somewhere in there too). I'd personally make spec hybrid systems to make them more accessible. But if we're going down the route of BoP's a branded drag body work, then I don't see a reason to not use DPi. Edit: and Chiana is spot on - there's no requirement to run a hybrid as a manufacturer in LMP1 for 2018. Last edited by Akrapovic; 14 Nov 2017 at 21:10. |
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 21:12 (Ref:3780460) | #5235 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
ANYWAY. How can anyone in their right mind claim that the manufacturer participation in "DPi" is anything more than smokes and mirrors? Just because they supply you an engine and put forward the most modest of "efforts" possible doesn't really scream any participation to me, it just says, I don't know, cheap corporate sponsorship. It's just like Formula E or NASCAR to me, wolf under sheeps clothing, ILLUSION of manufacturer interest and participation while in reality there's really nothing but cars made by other people run by small to medium sized privateer teams. Public relations nonsense. Even half-hearted Toyota alone in LMP1 is more mfg participation than every rebadge name showing up in "DPi" put together. |
||
|
14 Nov 2017, 21:15 (Ref:3780461) | #5236 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,396
|
DPi is 'great' because it's cheap and easy. You take a p2 chassis that's readily available, put some makeup (stickers, nose job and/or blade wing) on it, throw your engine in the back that comes from another race car and viola! Look at my Nissan, Acura, Cadillac, Mazda 'DPi', which is actually a mildly modified lmp2.
As for the new lmp1 rules, I think the performance window means the cars need to be doing 3:20's at Le Mans and make a such and such amount of downforce/drag. I don't see them doing the bop route IMSA has taken when they have a perfectly fine fuel flow system in place. |
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 21:21 (Ref:3780463) | #5237 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,325
|
So Joest and Penske are medium sized privateers for you?
|
||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
14 Nov 2017, 21:21 (Ref:3780464) | #5238 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Nov 2017, 21:31 (Ref:3780466) | #5239 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Sure some of them are high end. But even those, if they are not backed by full or even semi-full mfg support but rather just given the nod to run the cars with stickers and sponsorship and some basic assistance, then I cannot really rank them up there with even privateer LMP1 teams.
Does anyone really think that someone like Mazda is throwing large sums of money at Joest after screwing around with Speedsource for millenia... |
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 21:51 (Ref:3780469) | #5240 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,325
|
Quote:
I'm not suggesting anything insane, but I don't think it's too different from what they had to work with for their ALMS campaigns. Sure, there is no need for megabucks R&D-programs, but if we look at the pure running costs we probably aren't too far away from anything we've seen e.g. in the latter R8 years in ALMS once there was no true factory competition. |
|||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
14 Nov 2017, 21:54 (Ref:3780471) | #5241 | |||||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
DPi is clearly not as widely attractive as it's being made out to be. Quote:
And no, DTM is not at a record low. AS it stands now it looks like Audi and BMW will stick around, which makes two manufacturers - The exact number that were active when the series relaunched in 2000 up until 2004, and which they had again from 2007 through 2013. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But as for specifically why not to use DPi... It's because the manufacturers have so little they're allowed to do. It's clearly not what the bulk of the manufacturers actually want, it's only suited to the few that are involved, only one of which(Honda) was involved a less restricted class of prototypes prior to DPi's existence. DPi is NOT a long-term solution. It's was a short-term idea thrown together to meet the needs of a few specific manufacturers. Without the "build off of an LMP2 tub" aspect, DPi is literally non-hybrid LMP1. That class isn't attracting any real interest(despite Chiana's statement earlier, we do NOT appear to have a "great" LMP1 field building for 2018), so what makes one think DPi would do any better? Consider this: IT has been made clear now that manufacturer branding is part of the talks for the next LMP1 rulebook. Obviously manufacturer branding is appealing or the talks wouldn't move in this direction. But it's clearly not the end-all-be-all of the matter, or DPi would be getting a ton more interest than it has. This means there's something that prospective LMP1 manufacturers want that DPi doesn't have. And the only thing I can think of is that it's because they can't build their own car, and what they CAN do to the base P2 chassis is extremely limited. |
|||||||||
|
14 Nov 2017, 22:07 (Ref:3780474) | #5242 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
But moreover as I allured earlier, if Mazda really paid almost nothing for the IMSA Speedsource program (proven especially for how long they dragged along those ancient Lolas), why would they suddenly want to make such a big budget jump now? I mean sure they finally needed a new team to replace that terrible Rocketsports-esque band of fools running things, but I highly doubt the budget itself was skyrocketed all of a sudden. They know just as everyone else that these are performance balanced spec cars, and the only things that really matter are A) engine reliability B) caution lottery C) personnel running the vehicles. As for Penske, again he's been saying for years he wants to go back to sportscars. In fact there have been rumors from time and time again that he'd like to do LMP1, not only at Le Mans (as it's top class) but also NA. But as there's nothing else but "DPi" now - which is what you want instead of barebody LMP2 because of some additional sponsorship and also OEM BoP bargaining tool - he sticks to that now. It's somewhat difficult to draw comparisons to old ALMS as the economic situations were so different back then, but I guess that's fair Anyway I don't follow IMSA anymore so I don't really know all the newer details really |
||
|
14 Nov 2017, 22:17 (Ref:3780478) | #5243 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,635
|
I’m sure it is a lot less than the Audi money they used to get, but it’ll have to be worthwhile for Joest. Especially as, if this is true, they had lots of offers. https://www.autosport.com/imsa/news/...ore-mazda-deal
Penske, he may well have wanted to go back to sportscars, but it is well known that Penske does not enter into any motorsport if there is no return. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
14 Nov 2017, 22:22 (Ref:3780481) | #5244 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Penske could really be wanting to lock on to that Oreca relationship, maybe he'll enter Le Mans with Oreca LMP1 now that there's actually realistic shot of winning the whole thing for the next 2-3 years?
|
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 22:46 (Ref:3780487) | #5245 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
DPi is really cheap as pro level manufacturer racing programs go. I'd have to think Corvette Racing costs GM more than the Cadillacs with Le Mans in their schedule, let alone IndyCar.
|
|
|
14 Nov 2017, 23:07 (Ref:3780489) | #5246 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Well you know it's basically the old hated DP concept but with LMP2 cars. "DPG4". IDK why everyone loves it, I really don't. I mean yes they're faster and better looking and have modern components in them now, but that's about it.
Ganassi run in Grand-Am for years with DPs and that's about as prestige-level team as Penske and Joest right? It's gotta to be not that much higher cost with these even if they're not tube frame anymore Performance balancing and spec vehicles ensure easiness for everyone around. Probably the biggest reason OEMs throw around ANY money in the first place is because A) IMSA/NASCAR demand it in order to get the rebranded title (remember when Onroak was -demanded- to do more "Nissany things" to their body when it was clear it was basically just the barebody Oak chassis) B) More OEM money into the series, the better chances of being friends with the BoP committee Last edited by Deleted; 14 Nov 2017 at 23:15. |
|
|
15 Nov 2017, 05:32 (Ref:3780514) | #5247 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,396
|
I was confused by that as well. I'm not sure if that was a quote from the one's in the know, or if it was a guess/observation from the reporter? I never read anything else saying there would be a 'performance window' that would involve bop.
|
|
|
15 Nov 2017, 06:11 (Ref:3780516) | #5248 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,209
|
LMP Future Regulations (was Le Mans EVO rules)
Come full circle. |
|
|
15 Nov 2017, 12:01 (Ref:3780548) | #5249 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,946
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[citation needed] for quite a lot. If we're going the BoP route (which I'd rather not have), I see no valid reason to not use DPi. If we're not going the BoP route, then DPi doesn't really work. |
||||
|
15 Nov 2017, 12:50 (Ref:3780553) | #5250 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
Toyota Motorsport GmbH technical director Pascal Vasselon explained this idea clearly: "make sure the bodywork supports better the manufacturer's products". "At the moment an LMP1 is a kind of generic prototype and you have to paint it to put your mark on it," he said. "The idea could be to go towards bodywork that is clearly closer to real cars — it could interest manufacturers who at the moment who are not interested in a generic LMP." Vasselon suggested that the styling would be much more extensive than in IMSA's Daytona Prototype international class in North America. The CEO of Aston Martin manifested several times the interest in these cars and I am sure that Ferrari, Porsche, Corvette, Ford and McLaren are interested in these GT1 style cars too. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Glickenhaus Hypercar | Akrapovic | ACO Regulated Series | 1603 | 12 Apr 2024 21:24 |
[WEC] Aston Martin Hypercar Discussion | deggis | ACO Regulated Series | 175 | 23 Feb 2020 03:37 |
[WEC] SCG 007: Glickenhaus Le Mans LMP1 Hypercar | Bentley03 | ACO Regulated Series | 26 | 16 Nov 2018 02:35 |
ALMS Extends LMP Regulations | tblincoe | North American Racing | 33 | 26 Aug 2005 15:03 |
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? | Garrett | 24 Heures du Mans | 59 | 8 Jul 2004 15:15 |