IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Just some BoP stuff, nothing major until the new rule set in 2017.







L.P.

Agreed. They need to find a good compromise and stick with it to give teams confidence they have a chance and invest in machinery so there are decent grids until the compromise years are over. I hope they can find a way for DP and P2 to race well so in 2017 there is something worth saving. My other fear is that all classes eventually go to spec tires. In the long run the 2 pro classes should be open tires and fuel IMO.
Personally I hope there is no further diverge from ACO rules long term, a big part of the reason I started following sportscars was that I could see the cars from Le Mans race over here in person.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

Agreed. They need to find a good compromise and stick with it to give teams confidence they have a chance and invest in machinery so there are decent grids until the compromise years are over. I hope they can find a way for DP and P2 to race well so in 2017 there is something worth saving. My other fear is that all classes eventually go to spec tires. In the long run the 2 pro classes should be open tires and fuel IMO.
Personally I hope there is no further diverge from ACO rules long term, a big part of the reason I started following sportscars was that I could see the cars from Le Mans race over here in person.

I agree.

I hope/believe in 2017 we will see TUSC basically aligned with the ACO and run P (ACO P-2 eligible at the least), PC (P-3), GTLM (GT+) and GTD (GT). There will of course be the series distinct BoP differences.







L.P.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I agree.

I hope/believe in 2017 we will see TUSC basically aligned with the ACO and run P (ACO P-2 eligible at the least), PC (P-3), GTLM (GT+) and GTD (GT). There will of course be the series distinct BoP differences.







L.P.

That seems like the best case, most realistic solution (knowing P1 is not coming back over here). P3 would be better than PC - we would have diversity in the lower P class. P3 will not be eligible for the Le Mans but at least it will be a common rule set with ELMS to allow additional Euro entries at the big races. I would like to see all GTE cars for GT with a Pro class and an AM class like the WEC, but I really don't see that happening with how well received GTD has been. The key to GT will be what global rules are established and if TUSC decides to adopt them.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

That seems like the best case, most realistic solution (knowing P1 is not coming back over here). P3 would be better than PC - we would have diversity in the lower P class. P3 will not be eligible for the Le Mans but at least it will be a common rule set with ELMS to allow additional Euro entries at the big races. I would like to see all GTE cars for GT with a Pro class and an AM class like the WEC, but I really don't see that happening with how well received GTD has been. The key to GT will be what global rules are established and if TUSC decides to adopt them.

They would pretty much have to adopt the GT convergence rules. It would be pure stupidity to take GT/GT+ cars and alter them instead of letting them run as-is. They could put the pro-am class cars on the Conti crap tires like they do now and there would be plenty of separation.

[Mike Hedlund]

Originally Posted by BullMan

It would be pure stupidity to take GT/GT+ cars and alter them instead of letting them run as-is.

Like taking GT3 cars and altering them?

-mike

[Rodger Davies]

Originally Posted by Mike Hedlund

Like taking GT3 cars and altering them?

-mike

don't think you'll get many arguing with your implication here!

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Mike Hedlund

Like taking GT3 cars and altering them?

-mike

I'm pretty sure all but a few "interesting" people here will agree that was very stupid as well.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I hope/believe in 2017 we will see TUSC basically aligned with the ACO and run P (ACO P-2 eligible at the least), PC (P-3), GTLM (GT+) and GTD (GT). There will of course be the series distinct BoP differences.

That is not real likely unless the France boy wants to play a Panoz and brown-nose the ACO.

Not being governed by the ACO is at least part of the reason, although it is far more personality driven than that, GARRA and the Panoz/IMSA went in two directions.
Panoz was infatuated with LeMans and the France family has always been infatuated with itself.

That is why I am curious.
I want to see how this Dallas type drama plays out.
Sadly, I think road racing in the U.S. is still following Indy car racing into also ran status unless they stop making Mickey Mouse rules like CART and the IRL did and what is left still does.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

That is not real likely unless the France boy wants to play a Panoz and brown-nose the ACO.

Not being governed by the ACO is at least part of the reason, although it is far more personality driven than that, GARRA and the Panoz/IMSA went in two directions.
Panoz was infatuated with LeMans and the France family has always been infatuated with itself.

That is why I am curious.
I want to see how this Dallas type drama plays out.
Sadly, I think road racing in the U.S. is still following Indy car racing into also ran status unless they stop making Mickey Mouse rules like CART and the IRL did and what is left still does.

Being aligned with the ACO and utilizing most of the same manufacturing/class rules is far from what you suggest!







L.P.

[juicy sushi]

I would hope they go to the GT convergence rules, with any grandfathering necessary to allow grid counts to survive transition and axe the prototype classes. The manufacturers with only a couple of exceptions, don't care for the DP or P2 classes, and the series is better served by one class with all the manufacturers, all the top drivers and teams. It's an easier sell for sponsors as well. The potential GT grid would be very diverse, and the overall spectacle would go up.

I realize I am speaking in the very small minority here, but one class, one set of popular rules, and then let the series grow.

[tkelland]

I have always thought that arranging a rules set that allowed multiple classes the opportunity at overall victory (dependent upon track make-up, mostly) is a great idea. Have a GTP like class that allows for the manufacturer ROI in the way the cars look (think the porsche gt1) and have a GT class that allows for slightly faster speeds than they have now. This would allow teams that want to race a prototype that chance and gt teams to race gt cars. Go into it knowing that you may be racing against a car that is very different in make-up but similar speeds. Then for an am component, mandate an amateur driver in each car similar to what they have know. The fans will see a great race, the teams have more at stake.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by tkelland

I have always thought that arranging a rules set that allowed multiple classes the opportunity at overall victory (dependent upon track make-up, mostly) is a great idea. Have a GTP like class that allows for the manufacturer ROI in the way the cars look (think the porsche gt1) and have a GT class that allows for slightly faster speeds than they have now. This would allow teams that want to race a prototype that chance and gt teams to race gt cars. Go into it knowing that you may be racing against a car that is very different in make-up but similar speeds. Then for an am component, mandate an amateur driver in each car similar to what they have know. The fans will see a great race, the teams have more at stake.

I don't see how this would work, why the need for separate classes (if the prototypes and GT's are all to be capable of overall victory), how you could possibly develop a balanced rules set (unless that is not the objective), or - most importantly - when such a scheme has ever worked in the past.

Sports car racing already has enough challenges without needlessly trying to reinvent itself every few years.

Andy Flinn

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

I would hope they go to the GT convergence rules, with any grandfathering necessary to allow grid counts to survive transition and axe the prototype classes. The manufacturers with only a couple of exceptions, don't care for the DP or P2 classes, and the series is better served by one class with all the manufacturers, all the top drivers and teams. It's an easier sell for sponsors as well. The potential GT grid would be very diverse, and the overall spectacle would go up.

I realize I am speaking in the very small minority here, but one class, one set of popular rules, and then let the series grow.

The classes are set through to the new rule set in 2017, period. The pursuit of this folly does nothing but set one up for a fall, and then we get to listen to the resultant whining! This will never be a GT only series, Oy vey.






L.P.

[Danathar]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

That is not real likely unless the France boy wants to play a Panoz and brown-nose the ACO.

Not being governed by the ACO is at least part of the reason, although it is far more personality driven than that, GARRA and the Panoz/IMSA went in two directions.
Panoz was infatuated with LeMans and the France family has always been infatuated with itself.

That is why I am curious.
I want to see how this Dallas type drama plays out.
Sadly, I think road racing in the U.S. is still following Indy car racing into also ran status unless they stop making Mickey Mouse rules like CART and the IRL did and what is left still does.

I guess you never saw Jim France waving the Flag at the premier ACO event (LeMans).

Jim bought the ALMS partially to be part of the global sports car club and at the ACO big table.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Danathar

I guess you never saw Jim France waving the Flag at the premier ACO event (LeMans).

Jim bought the ALMS partially to be part of the global sports car club and at the ACO big table.

You may believe that if you wish to.
The ACO big table -- -- where everyone else gets cement overshoes

The France family does not care about anything beyond the France family.
Big Bill was a racer and gear-head, that died with him.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The France family does not care about anything beyond the France family.

I don't buy that. Jim France has long loved sports cars (does the word "Camel" connect any circuits?) and has lately (last couple years) been spending a lot of attention on FIA officials.

I am not saying Jim France is in love with the tradition of sports car racing and recognizes that it started in Europe, and that sports car racing really needs to be international because its fan base is international and cosmopolitan---but at he very least he is an astute businessman who recognizes that his easiest path to success is allying himself with--and thus gaining influence with--the worldwide heads of the sport, which would be the ACO and the FIA.

Here in the U.S. NASCAR can be the 800-lb gorilla, but on the global stage, FIA and ACO can jack him up or shut him down. If he wants to be the North American Emperor of Sports Cars the way Brian France is the North American Emperor of Stock Cars (and pretty much profitable professional racing generally) then Jim France has to kiss the ring of the Pope, Jean Todt.

Pretty smart move--instead of competing with the oldest, biggest and best known sports car power structure in the world, Jim France becomes an ally, and gains a seat on the council.

Since he has NASCAR's financial success to back him up, he can preach crap like common P2 chassis with "styling cue" bodywork, and similar crap. And since he has a relationship with the U.S. manufacturers, he can swing their weight--something even the FIA-ACO would be foolish to ignore. He can set himself up as the gatekeeper to the American manufacturers---Very Powerful Position.

I think Jim France very much wants a seat at the global sports car table--if only because that is the first step to sitting at the head of that table.

Jim France is no fool--he realizes sports car racing in North America is never going to be a huge sport. But if he can get his fingers in the global pie--he can eat much higher on the hog, to mess up some metaphors. And if he can get his hands on the global hog, he might one day ride astride it--or at least eat the biggest portion.

Global sports car ham and bacon--the true goal of Jim France.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

I don't buy that. Jim France has long loved sports cars (does the word "Camel" connect any circuits?) and has lately (last couple years) been spending a lot of attention on FIA officials. -- Camel GT was the work of Jim Bishop and Bill France Sr.

Here in the U.S. NASCAR can be the 800-lb gorilla, but on the global stage, FIA and ACO can jack him up or shut him down. If he wants to be the North American Emperor of Sports Cars the way Brian France is the North American Emperor of Stock Cars (and pretty much profitable professional racing generally) then Jim France has to kiss the ring of the Pope, Jean Todt. -- U.S. racing does not need anyone or thing from Europe any more than Europe needs the U.S.
The only makes the average U.S. fan knows are Ferrari and Porsche; while if they do not show, no one truly cares, nor do or will they save, or destroy, U.S. racing.

I think Jim France very much wants a seat at the global sports car table--if only because that is the first step to sitting at the head of that table. -- That is possibly correct.

Jim France is no fool--he realizes sports car racing in North America is never going to be a huge sport. -- Sports car racing in the U.S. was once the Big Show.
Bigger than Indy cars and NASCAR.
If they could get Detroit interested again, with cars that are not contrived spec. bs, it could happen again.
That is the only way.

``