Lites / LMP3

[FormulaFox]

So the debut race of LMP3 is complete. Thoughts?

[Victor_RO]

Cars are still waaay underdeveloped, but there's a ton of potential in this class.

[bella]

i find them quite difficult to keep track of visually on track, they're too similar to the lmp2 cars. obviously once you've figured out the paintjobs it's fine but to the casual viewer it's hard to make them out.

they're pretty good though aren't they? if a few more constructors join in and perhaps a few more single seater teams see value in a crossover (and do a good sales pitch on the drivers) it has a lot of potential. it would be interesting to hear whether it's a good car to work on and with.

[Akrapovic]

Potential is there, but they do seem very slow. They all seemed to run reliably, but to be last, even behind the GTCs was surprising.

[outnumbered]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Potential is there, but they do seem very slow. They all seemed to run reliably, but to be last, even behind the GTCs was surprising.

Given that the cars were only completed this week, and hadn't run before the weekend, I'd hope that there is more to come. And they're not really behind the GTCs, but mixed in with the faster ones...

[Bob Baldwin]

Hopefully some improvement for the next event

[Bob Baldwin]

Give them a Chance

[FormulaFox]

Finally saw the race myself, and I'm impressed with what I saw. And I now want these cars in TUSCC.

I've never been overly concerned with replacing PC in TUSCC because I always felt the big, thundering V8s in the back made for a unique marketing possibility in America. It's not really a selling point in most of the world, but the combination of an exotic prototype chassis and thundering American V8s certainly had a unique appeal over here.

But that Nissan engine in the P3 cars has a very similar type of thunder to it that could still produce some of that appeal. The fact that it's not American-made would surely disappoint some, but to most potential fans it wouldn't be a deal-breaker(after all, MOST American race fans who would walk away from that love NASCAR to the exclusion of all else).

So I can now say I'd love to see the P3s come into TUSCC come 2017. Maybe they could be performance balanced alongside the current PCs for a year or so.

[Rcz]

I would just open the regs to any 5L engine...

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Rcz

I would just open the regs to any 5L engine...

If this were meant to be a top-tier class, I'd probably agree. But as an entry-level prototype class, I have no issues with it being restricted. Opening it up, even to something so specific, could be problematic when it comes to running costs.

[Rcz]

But your putting them in a top tier series then you shouldn't have them spec. If they have to be spec then put them in a lower tier.

Fans don't like spec cars like the PC class or the GTC Porsche cup class that were in ALMS and they don't like them now in top tier racing series. It's a plague in racing.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Rcz

But your putting them in a top tier series then you shouldn't have them spec. If they have to be spec then put them in a lower tier.

There is nothing wrong with a spec class in a top-tier series as long as it's promoted as an undercard class. Personally I think the entry-level prototype class should be the third tier class in the main show rather than the second(the top tier P and GT classes should both be faster than the second-tier prototype, IMO). So why make a stink about it being spec? They're interesting cars, they put on a good show, and they attract enough entries to give the field a seriously decent boost.

Honestly, some people make too much of a stink about spec racing. It has it's place, and as long as the top tier class isn't the spec class most people aren't concerned with it. As an entry-level class, it makes perfect sense, and there's nothing wrong with an entry-level class in a multi-class series.

I like that P3 has an open chassis design, making it more like GTL/C2 just with a spec engine. Just unfortunate that out of three announced chassis designs, only two are confirmed to race at this ponit and only one has yet debuted. But that's a side effect of the late confirmation of the specifications rather than any issues with the class itself.

Fans don't like spec cars like the PC class or the GTC Porsche cup class that were in ALMS and they don't like them now in top tier racing series. It's a plague in racing.

Now, that's where you're wrong. Partially. The GTC class was largely regarded as the joke of a field filler it was, but the PC class was actually very well-liked for making up for it's spec nature by putting on some very good battles. Even now, it's still regularly identified as the best class for close-quarters racing excitement.

Spec racing isn't a plague. It's a necessity. TUSCC at least seems to know where that place is.

[Rcz]

But fan seem to me don't care for the PC class. They seem to roll their eyes to it.


I think there should be an engine choice because people more identify with engine manufacturers then they with the chassis. A Ford Vs Chevy or a BMW vs Nissan is more easier to sell then a Rilley vs Oraca or whoever builds the cars. And the rules can be restricted so it's not necessary to go with a single supplier.

Plus, if your a Chevy team in another class for example, it would be easier for that team to expand to the P3 class with Chevy support or whoever the team.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Rcz

But fan seem to me don't care for the PC class. They seem to roll their eyes to it.

I have to ask; Have you been to a race with the PC class present? I've only been to a couple, but in both cases the fans really liked the PCs, mainly for the very reasons I mentioned. While the haters tend to gripe the loudest, when talking to people online I tend to encounter more people who like it than hate it.

But there is a growing consensus among everyone, haters and supporters alike, that they're past their sell-by date and should be replaced.

I think there should be an engine choice because people more identify with engine manufacturers then they with the chassis. A Ford Vs Chevy or a BMW vs Nissan is more easier to sell then a Rilley vs Oraca or whoever builds the cars. And the rules can be restricted so it's not necessary to go with a single supplier.

I've found that people are pretty evenly split between those who are concerned with it and thsoe who aren't.

Plus, if your a Chevy team in another class for example, it would be easier for that team to expand to the P3 class with Chevy support or whoever the team.

You're assuming the manufacturer would be concerned about it. Your example, Chevy, doesn't really support the PC as is - the engines in those Orecas are just crate engines that anyone can buy, after all. They also don't build any 5-liter V8 engines and aren't likely to build one just for P3.

Ford is more concerned with their Ecoboost turbos now, so they're not gonna care. Their focus is on the top P and GT classes anyway; They're not concerned with second-tier classes.

The thing is, the manufactuers aren't as concerned by the second-tier classes as they are the top ones. GTE and GT3 are both top-tier GT classes, so they get manufacturer support. P3 is just an undercard class meant for new teams.

Even Nissan is only BADGING the Oreca-built engine.

And that's ignoring the problems of keeping costs in control that would be created if they opened up the engine to other builders. Restrictions can only keep costs so low when dealing with complex machinery. The chassis is the part they left open because it's the part that's easier to keep cheap across manufacturers with restrictive rules.

[Rcz]

If its true that manufacturers don't care, then the price of those crate engines isn't a problem. Just let the team choose what 5L engine to run.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Rcz

If its true that manufacturers don't care, then the price of those crate engines isn't a problem. Just let the team choose what 5L engine to run.

Actually, it is a VERY big problem. For several reasons.

1) Ford is the only company(AFAIK) that produces a 5-liter V8 crate engine. 5-liter isn't a well-liked displacement size - it's far too big for high economy, a bit too small for high power, and nowhere near a happy medium between the two. What few 5-liter crate engines are out there that aren't Ford's V8 are 6-cylinders. Which brings us to the next problem...

2) Balancing. An entry-level class is more in need of performance balancing than a top-tier class. Even if there is more than just Ford's V8, each one will have different torque and top-end power outputs that would need to be balanced out. And if you have Ford V8s vs a variety of 5-liter V6 and I6 engines, things get even MORE nightmarish.

3) Chassis fit. By having a single engine for the class, the costs of the chassis themselves are kept even lower because the engine bay does not need to be designed to accept a variety of different engines. Even at the same displacement, every engine would have different mounting requirements that the car would have to be built to adapt to. This raises development costs.

4) Development. Crate engines are what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no room to develop them, which in the long term means changing engines frequently, re-adapting the cars to the new motor, and in doing so driving up costs to run. The bespoke single-make engine can be developed so that it will have a long life, and the development costs get offset by the large number of customers Oreca has for it, so the cap on the engine never becomes an issue. To use P2 as an example, the Nissan engine is so widely used because it's cheap and reliable. While there isn't much more development to be squeezed out of it, the large number of customers it has enabled it to be developed to it's current point(it was regarded as underpowered when it debuted, remember) without it's price tag going up. In fact, it's price tag has gone DOWN over it's competitive lifespan, and it remains the only P2 engine sold UNDER the cost cap.

A single engine really is the best solution for a class like LMP3. But it is NOT a good solution for a class like LMP2. There's a reason someone(we don't yet know who) has threatened legal action over the proposal to make P2 in Europe a single-engine class, whilst nobody involved has raised a stink over the same in P3.

The sad truth is, variety is the enemy of cost saving. Even if you try to keep it simple, there will be little things that must be changed and will drive up the costs. Imagine how much cheaper P3 could be if it was a pure spec class. But the ACO didn't want that, so they had to give it some variety, and they decided to give that variety to the chassis. In part because that variety was visible, and in part because that was the cheaper way to provide variety.

[Speed-King]

Why not just take the Trans-Am TA2 engines? That class seems to be really taking off right now, so I guess they must be doing something right and IIRC costs are very reasonable. BoP doesn't seem to be a problem either.

3) Chassis fit. By having a single engine for the class, the costs of the chassis themselves are kept even lower because the engine bay does not need to be designed to accept a variety of different engines. Even at the same displacement, every engine would have different mounting requirements that the car would have to be built to adapt to. This raises development costs

That's the one point I would give you, but even there you could go the middle way of doing a "closed-variety" formula, i.e. only homologating 2 or 3 engines.

[Rcz]

Originally the DPs used 5L V8 Chevy, Ford, Lexus, BMW engines which seem to be still in use. BOPing wasn't perfect, but it did get close racing. And I didn't say V6 should be allowed, only 5L V8s stock blocks, perhaps around 410-420hp range.

Also if the P3 cars can't accept any engine besides the Nissans, that's very shortsighted on the part of the FIA and/or ACO.

To just continue with a single engine manufactur is silly.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Rcz

Originally the DPs used 5L V8 Chevy, Ford, Lexus, BMW engines which seem to be still in use. BOPing wasn't perfect, but it did get close racing.

And those engines were all EXTREMELY expensive thanks to all their needs.

And I didn't say V6 should be allowed, only 5L V8s stock blocks, perhaps around 410-420hp range.

Here's the thing with "stock block" engines; It does not guarantee cheapness, reliability, or that the engines are simple to source.

A cheap stock block will likely sacrifice reliability to get the needed power. A stock block powerful enough and reliable enough will likely cost more than a purpose-built engine built for the same job.

The important thing to remember is "Stock block" does not mean "unmodified crate engine"(though it IS an accurate term for such) or anything else along those lines.

It only means that the block STARTED as a production block. The Chevy 5-liter DP engine was built on a bored-out 4.8-liter block from an engine which is no longer in production(ceased production in 2006).

Thank you for reminding me of the BMW and Lexus engines, though; They're the ones that were itching in the back of my mind. Both are still in production, though the roadgoing version of the BMW engine is no longer used by BMW themselves in any application(they just supply them to Ascari for the A10). Despite this, the DP versions are not bone stock. They have unique cylinders, cylinder heads, fuel injection, etc. To adapt them for racing, even in an LMP3, would be too expensive to keep the costs down in the class.

Incidentally, the power output you suggest is exactly what LMP3 runs. Sure, the roadgoing engines can produce that kind of power easily....But they're not designed to do it AT ALL TIMES, which is the reason the expensive alterations are needed.

Also if the P3 cars can't accept any engine besides the Nissans, that's very shortsighted on the part of the FIA and/or ACO.

Not at all. The class was made for a specific purpose, so it was made to accept a specific engine. If the needs change down the line, they can be altered to accept something else, but building them all to accept only one specific engine as the era demands makes perfect sense.

To just continue with a single engine manufactur is silly.

It's not silly at all. If it's so silly, then why has ANYONE bothered to join up? For all the reason I've already noted, it makes perfect sense - for an entry-level class. And several prospective teams agree, hence why the class has managed to garner enough entries, despite the late confirmation of specs, to push Ginetta's production ability to the limit(IIRC, there are still two teams awaiting delivery of the cars, plus the one car expected from LAS).

[bella]

great post, ffox.

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

It's not silly at all. If it's so silly, then why has ANYONE bothered to join up? For all the reason I've already noted, it makes perfect sense - for an entry-level class. And several prospective teams agree, hence why the class has managed to garner enough entries, despite the late confirmation of specs, to push Ginetta's production ability to the limit(IIRC, there are still two teams awaiting delivery of the cars, plus the one car expected from LAS).

i agree wholeheartedly with this. the point in this class isn't to increase the pace, develop technology etc etc, it's to provide a lower cost starting point for teams and drivers to get involved in prototypes. not everybody wants to run a gt car, and changing from those to lmp2 can take a bit of time anyway.

visually what divides elms, wec and le mans from gt racing is the prototypes, so it's good sense to develop that area of the field when the blancpain series are blindingly popular. it's obvious too that lmp2 is too costly and pointless for smaller teams to take part in. it makes a lot of sense to add a base class to the series with another of the components that drive up costs removed from the equation.

even if you put in a cost cap for engines and open up the market, some manufacturers will choose to run the programme at a loss to develop an advantage in the class. at least by keeping the chassis component of the class open you're maintaining a non-spec series approach.

the key to the class' success is going to be marketing it to the guys competing in the two litre eurocup (and perhaps f3) in single seaters. that's where the equivalent level of experienced mechanics and drivers are lurking around now, and where they'll find the appropriate level of budget for drivers and teams to transfer across.

until they do that, they're kind of stuck with the not-massively-serious ex-single seater guys to go with the gentleman drivers. nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make for a sustainable line of business.

[Deleted]

The only problem with LMP3 now (besides the teething issues that should be fixed relatively shortly anyway) is that the upcoming cheaper & spec & still pro-am/cost-cap/privateer LMP2 regulations are effectively mimicking the same route, making the distinction between the classes shady.

[bella]

i daren't find out what nonsense they're planning for lmp2. it'll make me angry, and there's zero point in getting angry about things you can neither change nor influence.

it may well be echoing something that happens a lot in my current place of work. ask people for ideas for new project. no ideas are forthcoming. issue off the wall and unworkable proposal purely to provoke actual real life workable ideas from people.

lmp3 has seemed well thought out and sensible from the start, so i'll cling onto that for a little longer as a sign of rational thinking and common sense from the aco.

[B96v6]

I actually had to join Ten/Tenths in order to join this conversation.

I've been a huge supporter of LMP3 since the class was announced a while ago. I think the idea, organization and cost of the class will be a huge boon to the ELMS in the future. I've been competing in Prototype Lites in both the ALMS and Tudor series since 2006 and would love to see the inclusion of this class. But, maybe not in the same way others do.

My ideas for the future classes all hinge on the LMP2 regs that are being developed for 2017. We all know what is expected to come and I won't dwell on that topic. With new chassis being developed, car sales will be at a high and so will the opportunity for cost reduction. Best way to do that? Sell more cars. So, I think the most beneficial class structure would be to have a top-tier Pro category for the new LMP2 cars, run as delivered. Next would be a Pro-Am category, utilizing the same chassis as the Pro category, but with less horsepower (say 100 less) to help differentiate the Pro/Pro-Am classes. Less horsepower should also, theoretically, result in longer engine life for the class. So teams would benefit from both reduced cost due to more car sales and longer engine life in the Pro-Am class. GT classes would remain the same as the upcoming 2016 change in the rules - GTLM for factory supported GT2 cars and GT3 cars in the lower GT class.

I think that LMPC has had its time. The chassis are dated and don't really have the appealing look of the new generation of prototype, and the costs are probably not that much less than the budget of a 2017 P2 car. Equipment, travel, and personnel are about the same, minus an engine and gearbox technician since PC is supported by Katech and Xtrac. So, why not morph the class into the new Pro-Am prototype category?

This leaves the inclusion of LMP3 that I mentioned above. Considering the price point of the cars, I think they should be the new Lites category. A current L1 spec Elan DP02 is $165k so a jump to a $207k car (current Euro to Dollar exchange rate) is not out of the question. And to keep the parity between the top-tier prototype classes and P3, run a spec V6 engine with moderate horsepower (about 350 or so) - this won't stress the drivetrain and should lead to long engine life. Nissan could be a good choice here, as well. The VQ37 based engine run in Conti Sportscar Challenge achieves these numbers already. And they sound great! Couple this with a longer race format and I think the platform would lead to train drivers and crew more effectively for the step to the next level. I've already been campaigning with IMSA for a change of race format to a more endurance race length rather than sprint race length. Two 1-hour races per weekend could be worked into the current schedules without much effort and would help keep drivers from pulling desperate moves.

Perhaps i'm biased about the whole situation, but I think all the above could be beneficial to the Tudor series and sportscar racing in the US in general.

[joeb]

Welcome to the forum, its always good to hear from racers!

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Chiana

The only problem with LMP3 now (besides the teething issues that should be fixed relatively shortly anyway) is that the upcoming cheaper & spec & still pro-am/cost-cap/privateer LMP2 regulations are effectively mimicking the same route, making the distinction between the classes shady.

Word is legal action has been threatened over the planned P2 engine rules, so I have my doubts THAT part of it will go through, which is good news. The chassis limits aren't as big a deal as many have tried to make them out to be(particularly if it turns out the limit is 6 chassis; It's sounding like the limit of 4 was never seriously considered and it will likely be 5 or 6).

I actually wouldn't be bothered by the single P2 engine idea if it was being considered ONLY for the non-Le-Mans WEC rounds(I wouldn't LIKE it, but I wouldn't find it work complaining about). In WEC P2 is closer to what P3 is meant to be in the ELMS, but in both ELMS and TUSCC P2s will be the headline classes. They deserve a little something extra.