The ideal for prototype racing?

[DanJR1]

My view is that they should be one class "LMP" but with two homologation divisions:

The larger cars (i.e. LMP900, LMP1) for manufacteurs. Coupes with larger power outputs and higher weight

then

Smaller cars (ie lmp675, LMP2) for privateers. Spyders with smaller weight and output

The homologation should keep a clear distinction between the divisions (i.e. Porsche and Acura wouldn't be allowed to complete in smaller classes as they are now). The inherent balance would mean that the larger cars would have the edge at Le mans, but the smaller cars should be able to compete with them at the tighter tracks.

[AU N EGL]

That is almost the idea. However, the FIA and ACO does not have a distinction on Who is or who is not a manufacture or works team.

Manufactures know the rules quite well too. Giving lots of support to an indpendet team, does that make that team a manufacture or works team?

ie. Penske is an indpendent team, they find and have their own sponsors and budget. Yet Penske is also a heavely technically supported by Porsche, no cash, no free cars, or parts. Lots of technical support. Yet Penske is a manfactures team.

The question comes down ( Or in my mind) what is a Works or manufactures team?

If it comes down to money, then there are very few works teams.

[DanJR1]

i think the rule makers/organisers should have some discretion when it comes to things like this. Porsche is favouring one team, therefore making that team a "works" team. Any team having any form of input from a major manufacteur is a works team

[zac510]

What you have outlined is exactly what we have. Though the speed differential between factory and privateer chassis blurs the division a little.

Although this is getting OT, all the changes Porsche made to the Spyder Evo have been passed onto the customers Dyson, Horag, Essex, Van Mechelen... So what's the problem?
All the privateers report that Porsche is extremely helpful in even providing base settings at new tracks - clear evidence of the Penske team feeding the Porsche factory chassis program.
Isn't Porsche acting precisely as the regulations state. The problem for the fans is that it's a very good chassis

[broadrun96]

I gotta agree with zac there, I had heard a couple of times that Porsche is very supportive of getting the RS Spyders to the front of the grid, and it was the engine package last year that was the difference in the Penske vs Dyson cars. Supposedly Dyson had an engine that required fewer rebuilds and so was down a little in the power department but it seems to be able to keep pace decently this season. And Acura is pretty much run the same way; here's a car, find a way to run it and we want to know how well it works and what helps it go fast.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

That is almost the idea. However, the FIA and ACO does not have a distinction on Who is or who is not a manufacture or works team.

Manufactures know the rules quite well too. Giving lots of support to an indpendet team, does that make that team a manufacture or works team?

ie. Penske is an indpendent team, they find and have their own sponsors and budget. Yet Penske is also a heavely technically supported by Porsche, no cash, no free cars, or parts. Lots of technical support. Yet Penske is a manfactures team.

The question comes down ( Or in my mind) what is a Works or manufactures team?

If it comes down to money, then there are very few works teams.

Penske in this case is not an 'independant team'.
Penske is the "exclusive partner" to Porsche in regards to the LMP2 program. Motorsport programme in North America intensified
click the <start search> box and find link title.

L.P.

[Purist]

Dan, your strict definition wouldn't work out very well at all. Every full-time LMP2 entry in the ALMS (that includes Dyson and B-K) gets factory input; Dyson has at least one Porsche factory engineer working with them on a regular basis, and B-K obviously gets some support from Mazda.

[Purist]

As to GTs, is a team that gets factory drivers a "works" team, as in the case of AJR when they ran Porsche 911s? And of course Porsche and Ferrari take feedback from their top teams to improve the product that everyone gets, and certainly provide some level of technical assistance to their teams.

And therein lie the problem because there is not a clear-cut point at which one can draw the line, and one simply can't ban all factory input as every manufacturer provides some input. The only exception would be privateers running prototypes from constructors rather than major manufacturers. And even that line can be blurred (Lola-MG/AER, Lola-Aston Martin, Courage/Lola-Mazda/AER).

[johntt]

I'd suggest 3 classes:

LM-P1: As per usual, open or closed top cars permitted, as are F1 style aero on the nose. Manufacturers can only supply engines, chassis must be made by specialist constructors such as Lola, Dallara, Creatioon etc. Customer or semi-works teams only.

LM-GTP: Same as P1 except manufacturers only. Must be closed top cars with road style front ends. Think Porsche 911 GT1 '98, Merc CLR aesthetics. Cars can be operated by privateers on a customer basis as well as a works/semi-works basis.

LM-GTP and LM-P1 will be equalised in a manner similar to the way GTPs and LMP900s were in the early 2000s

LM-P2: As it is currently, full works teams not permitted.