[Deleted]

Originally Posted by CTD

In this case, I think you have to prove that statement more than I have to prove mine.

Umm.

Originally Posted by DSC - Graham Goodwin (from representatives)

Here are a selection of quotes – anonymized at the request of those who supplied them:

“No sensible and justifiable reason has been fielded to explain why such a swingeing set of proposals has been made so there remains more than a whiff of self interest here.”

“There is the definite potential for most of the current chassis, engine and tire suppliers involved in the class to be counted out of future competition at a stroke. That’s a huge step to take in the commercial interests of one or two larger constructors and suppliers.”

“I am stunned that this is even being considered without a full disclosure to all concerned about the reasoning, and worse still with zero involvement of the teams, who, after all, are spending the money and are actually the ACO’s customers!”

“I have been working for many months on a commercially sustainable P2 project that would be rendered immediately defunct by this plan. It’s staggering that the organizing body is turning away new blood from their series, ending a formula that can only be seen as a success with a leap into the unknown with a formula that nobody has asked for and which few have had the chance to even discuss with those proposing it.”

“There are very few potential winners here. One or two chassis manufacturers who are strong in any case and the governing body themselves through any potential sanctioning fees for their fixed suppliers.”

“It seems we are, in effect, being blamed for ORECA’s inability to make enough money in LMP2. The penalty for this is likely to mean our exit from the industry. How wrong can they get this?”

“Competition on as many levels as possible is a good thing for the whole sport and the whole industry. The more ‘spec’ you make something, the less relevant it is for more and more people. This doesn’t work on a developmental, promotional, or competitive front. It brings a formula that has been well thought out and delivered by the ACO down to the level of a mid ranking single seater championship – And we know how successful they are at the moment, don’t we!”

“Not a word has been said to us by the ACO or FIA about these proposals. No information, and certainly no consultation. It does not exactly get you to the point of being considered as a valued stakeholder.”

“When I read your story (on DSC) I checked it wasn’t 1 April! From what I can see there is no benefit to the teams aside from a vague potential reduction in some peripheral costs. That’s not enough to offset the massive reduction in choice for us in the future marketplace.”

“With young drivers with budget being attracted here as part of a development curve leading potentially to LMP1 things were looking up but this removes, immediately, much of the justification of that. No tire development, a single engine and a supply chain that are not exactly going to be rushing to develop the cars. This set of proposals is more ‘P3’ than the actual LMP3 regulations are!”

“There’s a theory in the business that this is designed to force more of the bigger teams to move up to LMP1 – That’s just not going to happen. And certainly not in these circumstances – an opportunity to spend twice as much after having your principal racing assets devalued is not an appealing proposition for anybody.”

“There seems to be an assumption that we will all tag along and go wherever the regulations take us. All I can say is that one of my customers told me that this makes a move to GT3 very much more likely for us and them where we have a wide choice of cars and tires around the world. It seems to me that there’s been a fundamental failure to understand the motivation of many of those pouring huge amounts of money into the sport – and it stands to lose them as a result.”

Supporters of the proposals have been few and far between with Oreca’s Hugues de Chaunac alone thus far in confirming to DSC that the proposals have his support

Originally Posted by DSC - Darren Cox

“I don’t normally rush to judgement on things and I’ve been trying to figure out if I’ve missed something, but I really can’t see the logic behind these proposals and I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s a good idea. As the ELMS race at Silverstone shows, there’s really nothing wrong with P2 right now. Okay, it went through a tough time in the WEC, but it’s on the up again and a strong ELMS will give you a strong WEC P2 class as teams and drivers move up. We love P2 – we think we have the three best drivers from there in our P1 car this year in Pla, Tincknell and Mardenborough.”

Originally Posted by Motorsport.com - Tim Greaves

"I am actually more pessimistic rather than optimistic' for the future of the category. -- I actually understand and get what the FIA and ACO want to do and achieve with LMP2 but the rules are already in place to control the number of manufacturers today. -- It specifically says that a manufacturer must produce six cars but it has never been implemented. If they are implemented properly then there is not a reason to make such a sweeping change."

The reality is that it is highly likely only one of the four chosen manufacturers will get orders. .. I call it the 'Dallara-effect', which is what happened in single-seater racing over the last twenty years. Naturally one package will be quicker than the other and that will be found out quickly. Then what happens to the others? All of a sudden it becomes a one-make class. That is how I think it could play out in LMP2."

Originally Posted by S365 - Steve Eriksen

“Like other manufacturers who made P2 coupes, we signed up expecting this was a six-year program and three years through there would be a ‘minor adjustment’ and that doesn’t look like that’s the way it’s panning out. I think for all of the manufacturers to have to re-tool for a brand-new car is a pretty tall order. I would much prefer to see us continue the existing P2 car or the existing P2 car with some changes such as bodywork for recognition of certain styling elements.”

Originally Posted by S365 - Mike Newton

“Based on the latest proposals, namely only four manufacturers in 2017 in LMP2, which for me is a huge disappointment, and the complete lack of interest on the part of anyone either renting the HPD no matter the price, I have no choice but to put the LMP2 project on hold. -- The ACO may be right in saying that there are too many chassis manufacturers for the new regulations would work from an economic point of view but what’s wrong with the prior cost containment regulations?