|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
24 Feb 2015, 04:09 (Ref:3508249) | #226 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
As to your assertion that the 'DP' in it's current iteration will be retained, ain't gonna happen. It has been stated repeatedly by both IMSA and the ACO that the target is to have a P-2/ P that can be utilized in any and all series concerned. L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
24 Feb 2015, 06:14 (Ref:3508266) | #227 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
I don't think I said DPs will be retained.
I just think that in the p2 class has been doing really well, especially in the ELMS and looks like a good field in the WEC. Why change that? To appease who? And besides, wouldn't it be better to have a fast and technological relevant cars as top class. Not something so capped. |
|
|
24 Feb 2015, 13:34 (Ref:3508385) | #228 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,473
|
||
|
24 Feb 2015, 15:24 (Ref:3508424) | #229 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
This is ridiculous! I wonder what's gonna happen to Dome, SMP Racing, and other small firms that trying to make a LMP2 car come 2017?
Anyways, this is sad as LMP2 became another Formula Le Mans/Prototype Challenge! |
|
|
24 Feb 2015, 16:05 (Ref:3508439) | #230 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
I think that 4 constructor rule will be put by the way side. Especially in the US if someone other than Riley wants to build a car for TUSC.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2015, 16:23 (Ref:3508445) | #231 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Yes, this is the proverbial turd in the punch bowl! I have a very hard time seeing this surviving on this side of the pond, the engine rule is already an exclusion for TUSC. I would imagine that the constructors on this side of the pond will NOT agree to this asinine proposal. So it seems we will have separate specs for P/P-2 if this is adhered to by the ACO/FIA side of the table.
L.P. |
||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
24 Feb 2015, 16:37 (Ref:3508453) | #232 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,491
|
Quote:
It's not beyond feasibility to see a similar [to the engine] clause extend to chassis as well. But then the proposals' goals of maintaining the viability of the class would have already been diminished by the allowances. Last edited by J Jay; 24 Feb 2015 at 16:43. |
|||
__________________
BoP is democracy for racing. |
24 Feb 2015, 16:37 (Ref:3508454) | #233 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
The ACO shooting themselves in the foot hahaha.
|
||
|
24 Feb 2015, 17:00 (Ref:3508466) | #234 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
||
|
24 Feb 2015, 17:36 (Ref:3508479) | #235 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,226
|
Hmmm, this is a little from out in left field isn't it?
I like the sound of V8s and more power, and at least some crossover of Euro / US racing, but what I don't like Spec engines and no new manufacturers' for 4 years. As for the later, I am not sure I quite understand why that would be proposed. And then there's this: Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"Knowing that it's in you and you never let it out Is worse than blowing any engine or any wreck you'll ever have." -Mike Cooley |
24 Feb 2015, 17:43 (Ref:3508481) | #236 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
Quote:
|
||
|
24 Feb 2015, 17:46 (Ref:3508482) | #237 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
24 Feb 2015, 17:48 (Ref:3508484) | #238 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,226
|
|||
__________________
"Knowing that it's in you and you never let it out Is worse than blowing any engine or any wreck you'll ever have." -Mike Cooley |
24 Feb 2015, 17:59 (Ref:3508489) | #239 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 148
|
Quote:
Just.... WHY ???! Today, LMP2 is one of the most dynamic category, with diversity : Oreca, Dome, Onroak, SMP, adess, gibson, HPD, Dallara, ... They want to kill diversity, it's just stupid. In my opinion, the cup is full... ACO must consider a divorce with IMSA |
|||
|
24 Feb 2015, 18:07 (Ref:3508491) | #240 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
24 Feb 2015, 18:08 (Ref:3508492) | #241 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,334
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
24 Feb 2015, 18:44 (Ref:3508502) | #242 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
||
|
24 Feb 2015, 19:04 (Ref:3508510) | #243 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,226
|
Fair point, but at that pace, they'll be into the slower classes lead battles. We'll find a way to complain about them, I am sure of it.
|
||
__________________
"Knowing that it's in you and you never let it out Is worse than blowing any engine or any wreck you'll ever have." -Mike Cooley |
24 Feb 2015, 20:29 (Ref:3508538) | #244 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
They trying to turn it into GP2.
Why? It's like the Porsche and Acura days. They're going to kill it just as its getting interesting. There's no way chevy and Ford pushed for this. Now I really hope Imsa goes in different direction. |
|
|
24 Feb 2015, 22:24 (Ref:3508576) | #245 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,925
|
I don't see IMSA pushing for this. Hell, it seems like most of the protests and questioning are coming from their side on this issue, at least as much as from the WEC/LMS side of things.
Personally, I think that the ACO/FIA are pushing to have LMP2 replace LMP1-L, and they also might be using this as an excuse to build up LMP1 by having more engine suppliers and factory teams who can't sell their wares in LMP2. Which that won't work, not at least in the US, where there's no plans for there being a LMP1 class resurrection in the foreseeable future. |
||
|
24 Feb 2015, 22:28 (Ref:3508581) | #246 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Told you so.
I am not surprised at all by this. FIA wants to make LMP-2 into a cheap pro-am customer class—cheaper than it is now—to get the rich sportsmen and unfunded pros into the series, but doesn't want anything except P1 at the head of the class. P2 has basically been a 'spec" class all along, as the engines are sealed and the bodywork homologated. When mention was made of a common tub, it was plain that FIA envisioned something between DTM and Formula Le Mans/PC—identical low-cost cars with minimum adjustability and identical (though I figured everyone would get to make their own) low-stress/low-output motors for even lower operating costs and everything simplified so privateers wouldn't complain too much. Single-make spec engine is a way to get someone to pay the series for promotion—makes good business sense for FIA—because they have LMP-1. My point all along has been that FIA really doesn't give a crap about P2 because all it has ever been is a low-cost, cost-capped, pseudo-spec class for rich businessmen. FIA has LMP-1 and GTE and the other classes are there to fill grids and pay entry fees. This could kill TUSC, because U.S. fans would be stuck with essentially more DPs—low-tech spec cars where innovation is limited to livery and performance is fixed by the factory prior to sale. Of course, the folks at NASCAR probably think this will work just fine—after all, they have kept the DP around for a dozen years and apparently think it has always been just fine. Here is another thought: NASCAR basically owns Coyote chassis, as far as I know, and only one American chassis maker is supposed to be one of the four. |
|
|
24 Feb 2015, 23:20 (Ref:3508602) | #247 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 914
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
24 Feb 2015, 23:27 (Ref:3508605) | #248 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Lol, maybe Coyote could sue TUSC for denying it a fair business opportunity?
|
|
|
24 Feb 2015, 23:29 (Ref:3508606) | #249 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 914
|
Yeah maybe. I bet Riley get the chassis. Coyote gets the GM bodywork. I think I remember somewhere along the line that Coyote has no experience making carbon fiber chassis and they were going to need a partner.
|
||
|
25 Feb 2015, 00:25 (Ref:3508623) | #250 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Spec engine is fairly in line with the intent and the spirit of the category. Just think of it as a Cosworth DFV.
Manufacturer limit is entirely at odds with it and generally some revived IRL/Grand-Am suicidal nonsense. Reasonably there's no reason to believe Daytona would have a problem with this as long as they're allowed their own engines as such, overmanaging everything is what they love. Really the only thing P2 has going for it is that all the small constructors that used to make P1s are there, otherwise the specification and performance level is rather boring. So while this takes that away, pushing people back into P1 isn't so bad. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2016 Moto GP | macca | Bike Racing | 4 | 17 Mar 2016 22:36 |
IndyCar + LMP1 + Formula E -> IMSA CanAm 2017 | NaBUru38 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 26 Apr 2013 15:58 |
2013-2017 V8SA Tyre Tender | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 6 | 23 Mar 2011 20:39 |