No more LMP1 coupes (sort of)... (merged)

chernaudi · 5 Apr 2007, 20:27 (Ref:1884422)

Remember the proposed ACO rules for 2010 that virtually made coupes manditory in LMP1? And remember the rumors that the ACO may only partly implement it(make GTP coupes an option). Well, Endurance Info reports that the ACO has scrapped the LMP1 GTP plan, but plan to implement an LMGTP class separate but equal to LMP1 in 2010. It's just like 1999 again.

I wonder what this means for the ALMS and JLMC though.

The359 · 5 Apr 2007, 20:35 (Ref:1884428)

If they're equal, why make a seperate class?

JHamilton · 5 Apr 2007, 22:52 (Ref:1884513)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the case now? It was for the Bentley's.

Zurbert82 · 6 Apr 2007, 01:07 (Ref:1884569)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHamilton

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the case now? It was for the Bentley's.

Nope, not anymore. That was back when there was LMP900, LMP675, and LMGTP. The Peugeot 908 is in the LMP1 class.

JHamilton · 6 Apr 2007, 02:01 (Ref:1884579)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zurbert82

Nope, not anymore. That was back when there was LMP900, LMP675, and LMGTP. The Peugeot 908 is in the LMP1 class.

Thanks for the clarification. Was 2003 really still the LMP900 days? Crazy...seems longer ago than that.

canam · 6 Apr 2007, 06:01 (Ref:1884649)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHamilton

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the case now? It was for the Bentley's.

It is the case now; however, the Bentley ran to a different set of regs and, particularly, ran with a 675 tyre not a 900 tyre.

Having a different class in 2010 will allow them to vary the rules in favour of this class (for overall victories etc) if they want to.

HORNDAWG · 6 Apr 2007, 06:15 (Ref:1884654)

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam

It is the case now; however, the Bentley ran to a different set of regs and, particularly, ran with a 675 tyre not a 900 tyre.

Having a different class in 2010 will allow them to vary the rules in favour of this class (for overall victories etc) if they want to.

So are they going to be GTP-1's or GTP-2's or both??

L.P.

Félix · 6 Apr 2007, 15:41 (Ref:1884962)

The way I read it, it's more like almost everybody disagrees with banning the current LMP1s in 2010 so they will introduce an equivalancy formula between the current cars and the news coupés. If the "equivalancy" formula is as good as the diesel one, you know what that means for older cars... We might get an idea of what the rules are technically at Le Mans this year.

There's also an interesting point about the P1 class being for manufacturers and cost control being irrevelant there but being essential in GT2 and LMP2...

I see a P1 class for Audi against Peugeot against Acura against whoever has an unlimited budget and a P2 class with cars a few notches down in technology compared to what we have now. I don't see where Pescarolo fits in. And I can see a Porsche P2 now equiped with the GT2 engine and with a much squarier tub...

chewymonster · 6 Apr 2007, 18:49 (Ref:1885069)

I don't really like the frequent complete rule changes. I think many manufacturers don't want to enter a series that has unstable rules.

JAG · 6 Apr 2007, 20:54 (Ref:1885132)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewymonster

I don't really like the frequent complete rule changes. I think many manufacturers don't want to enter a series that has unstable rules.

P900 cars raced almost unchanged for 10 or so years.

Current P1's hit the tracks in 2004 and will be going strong past 2010, only coupes will have significant changes.

Purist · 6 Apr 2007, 21:34 (Ref:1885144)

Obviously, the GT2 engines are too large for the current regs, and Porsche wouldn't agree to this proposal. While P2 was envisaged as budget racing, that Porsche insists on running as a factory there is very telling. Porsche will NOT have a factory effort, except in P2, until the diesel/petrol regs in P1 are "fixed" (not to be confused with the unlevel playing field type of fixed). Also, if you drop the power in the P2s much , they'll get run over by the GT1s on the straights (which could be a real issue on tight temporary circuits).

Félix · 7 Apr 2007, 02:21 (Ref:1885235)

The P2/675 cars have gone throught carnages most of the time in the last years because the rules are changed too often. The ROC car was (mostly) reliable in its 2nd, 3rd and 4th participation in P675 but more extreme 675s were already there by then. When Dyson, Intersport, Creation and Zytek got their 675 cars mostly reliable, they were in their last year of legality and had to be replaced. The first year of P2 was horrendous but then in 2005 the C65s were numerous and quite reliable. But they were hybrids and had to be replaced by newer cars that have to be made reliable on 2 years... to be pushed aside by the next ACO rule change in 2010 or maybe earlier if they don't like what P2 is becoming... or to be pushed aside by faster P2s from factory teams that are very tough to compete against... Viscious cercle uh?

If you don't want to see that phenomenom of customer cars becoming dated as soon or even before they are reliable, you have to fix some parts of the rules to introduce a spec-racing twist in it. I think sportscar racing is one of the very few forms of motorsport where everything hasn't been "spec'ed" in the last few years. It should stay free and diversified, but also full of small teams running on affordable budgets.

While not politically realistic, the simplest way to control it all would be to stop excessive progress from making the customer cars obsolete by limiting very strictly what's new from the manufacturers and making it available to everyone, and that in every class...

Purist · 7 Apr 2007, 03:10 (Ref:1885239)

The P675s, for all intents and purposes, had six seasons in Europe (2001-2006), and are in their seventh over here. The official P2 rules were announced in 2003, and a few manufacturers built interim cars. If teams bought what they knew was an intermediate step in machinery (that was only going to be legal for a few years), that's their own fault for not thinking longer-term. As for 2010, that is just for the top class by all appearances.

Something important to note is that many of the early P675s were in fact old SRP2s/WSCs (which came out in 1995). They would have been so well sorted that a newer, faster machine was going to need a hell of a lot of development to stand a real chance. Also though, I have a feeling that the heavier weight of the P2s over the P675s has led to inherently, substantially better reliability. This, obviously, has helped the privateers.

In P2 right now, it's Acura I'd be worried about. Porsche is selling plenty of quick customer machinery, for Dyson, Cytosport (spelling), and a few others. I think this could work out quite well. By the time the diesel regs may change, and Porsche moves to P1, Porsche will have stocked P2 with plenty of well-sorted privateer cars.

Flat12-Aircool · 7 Apr 2007, 19:07 (Ref:1885583)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purist

By the time the diesel regs may change, and Porsche moves to P1, Porsche will have stocked P2 with plenty of well-sorted privateer cars.

I agree, Factory involvement in LMP2 is not necessaraly a bad thing so long as the Manufacturer's don't stick around too long.

A 2-3 year Factory presence in LMP2 can going forward provide Privateer teams with a very good second-hand car to enter the series with.

chewymonster · 8 Apr 2007, 19:02 (Ref:1886591)

The Porsche RS Spyder is expensive because it is a manufacturer built P2.

Purist · 8 Apr 2007, 20:25 (Ref:1886692)

The Porsche would NEED a serious re-work to put the flat-6 in. The car has a V8 right now. With the 6, you'd have to raise the engine to keep the lower cylinder banks from interfering with the undertray tunnels, diffuser, etc. That, in turn, would require a re-work of the rear-end aerodynamics to make sure they were getting adequate airflow over the rear wing.

bil588 · 9 Apr 2007, 00:06 (Ref:1886872)

how could the AIM deal not give them the money needed for a p1 coupe?

http://www.the-paddock.net/sportscar...iew/240885/49/

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjan07.html

HORNDAWG · 9 Apr 2007, 06:28 (Ref:1886988)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bil588

how could the AIM deal not give them the money needed for a p1 coupe?

http://www.the-paddock.net/sportscar...iew/240885/49/

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjan07.html

Why would the AIM deal give them money for a coupe?!!

L.P.

bil588 · 12 May 2007, 07:05 (Ref:1911449)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Why would the AIM deal give them money for a coupe?!!

L.P.

they've got another sponsor...

Aviaxess and Creation are joining forces for this years Le-Mans weekend, you and your friends can beat the traffic queues and get a helicopter transfer from Paris to Le-Mans in about an hour.

http://www.creationsport.co.uk/

Hammerdown · 12 May 2007, 09:39 (Ref:1911505)

The car looks great in that colour (on the press release linked above)

JAG · 9 Apr 2007, 17:05 (Ref:1887335)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purist

The Porsche would NEED a serious re-work to put the flat-6 in. The car has a V8 right now. With the 6, you'd have to raise the engine to keep the lower cylinder banks from interfering with the undertray tunnels, diffuser, etc. That, in turn, would require a re-work of the rear-end aerodynamics to make sure they were getting adequate airflow over the rear wing.

I'm mot saying modify the RS Spyder, but have P2 regs for 2010 that insist on GT2 spec engines (or heavily restricted race engines), and a minimum weight of 850kg.

A halfway house between LMP2 and Grand-Am DP.

If you have RS Spyder money, there's no reason why you cannot run in P1.

broadrun96 · 9 Apr 2007, 23:59 (Ref:1887631)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

I'm mot saying modify the RS Spyder, but have P2 regs for 2010 that insist on GT2 spec engines (or heavily restricted race engines), and a minimum weight of 850kg.

A halfway house between LMP2 and Grand-Am DP.

If you have RS Spyder money, there's no reason why you cannot run in P1.

exactly what i was thinking except the the money thing will only work if the aco forces customer cars. i'm ok with a 2 year intro period before making the teams sell chassis to TRUE privateers to run as well, no requirement that they (the manufacturer) stay in the class after selling the chassis. but who knows my ideas tend to get ripped in secs after posting.

Spyderman · 10 Apr 2007, 06:19 (Ref:1887693)

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadrun96

exactly what i was thinking except the the money thing will only work if the aco forces customer cars. i'm ok with a 2 year intro period before making the teams sell chassis to TRUE privateers to run as well, no requirement that they (the manufacturer) stay in the class after selling the chassis. but who knows my ideas tend to get ripped in secs after posting.

No Problem with all of this. The ACO can regulate the P2's into oblivion as long as the rules for P1 are modified and corrected.

sportscanyltics · 12 Apr 2007, 05:09 (Ref:1889457)

Highly relevant to this discussion, I thought it would be appropriate to post a link to Sportscar Analytics' "The Le Mans Prototype: Where Things Went Wrong, and How to Fix It."

Both parts I and II are up, so hopefully it will add something to this discussion!

http://sportscaranalytics.wordpress.com/

Purist · 9 Apr 2007, 21:27 (Ref:1887529)

Yeah there is. NOBODY is selling customer P1s that are likely to touch the Audis (and likely the Peugeots as well). And not even Porsche is looking at building one with the rules as they are. The privateers don't want to be pulverized by the diesels, which they can't buy even if they have the money (because Audi isn't selling R10s, period); Champion is by no means a privateer in the sense you guys are thinking.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Coupes from 2010	isynge	Sportscar & GT Racing	427	20 Aug 2008 19:54
LMP Coupes	ss_collins	Sportscar & GT Racing	18	11 Mar 2007 22:22
Sort of off topic but sort of not..	ECW Dan Selby	Formula One	3	21 Feb 2006 13:54
Coupes in the DTM	Mopar	Touring Car Racing	4	4 Dec 2003 11:04