|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
8 Apr 2007, 19:01 (Ref:1886590) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 683
|
Quote:
|
||
|
8 Apr 2007, 19:02 (Ref:1886591) | #27 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
|
The Porsche RS Spyder is expensive because it is a manufacturer built P2.
|
|
|
8 Apr 2007, 20:25 (Ref:1886692) | #28 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
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.
|
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
9 Apr 2007, 00:06 (Ref:1886872) | #29 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 683
|
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 |
|
|
9 Apr 2007, 06:28 (Ref:1886988) | #30 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
Why would the AIM deal give them money for a coupe?!! L.P. |
|||
|
9 Apr 2007, 17:05 (Ref:1887335) | #31 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
9 Apr 2007, 21:27 (Ref:1887529) | #32 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
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.
|
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
9 Apr 2007, 22:44 (Ref:1887593) | #33 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 683
|
well the Monza lms race hasn't gotten underway yet
|
|
|
9 Apr 2007, 23:59 (Ref:1887631) | #34 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,043
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Apr 2007, 06:19 (Ref:1887693) | #35 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
12 Apr 2007, 05:09 (Ref:1889457) | #36 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 52
|
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/ |
|
|
13 Apr 2007, 21:30 (Ref:1890738) | #37 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 182
|
I Like the idea of GT2 engines in LMP2 cars.
This can be mandated by Regulation of usable engines if they have a max of 4.000cc and a minimum production of around 1000 units. Would this make the engine costs less????? IMHO SCGT racing should be like; LMP1 -> Closed prototypes This class should be the main factory class with exellent marketing opportunitys for the mfg. Maybe with race car derived super roadcars for brand building in mind. (900 kgs with 700 hp) LMP2 -> Open prototypes Purely privateers class with main focus on costs. Prohibition of car mfg sponsorship. And clearly slower than LMP1 (production based engine with max 4.000cc and min 1000 units 700 kgs- 500hp) I believe that the mfg should be motivated by exellent marketing opportunities of closed prototypes, and demotivated by the cheap championship winning of LMP2 racing. |
||
|
13 Apr 2007, 21:51 (Ref:1890744) | #38 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
So maybe a bit more distinction as in tubs & chassies. P2 P2 must be built by indpendent auto ( small manufatures- less then 250 road going units per year ) / motorsports teams, min wt of 675 kg, Powerplant: 4,000 cc NA 2,700 tubocharged ( or what ever equivlent between the two ) Fuel: Petrol ( provided by Fuel sponsor ) Independent teams and small manufactures( max 15% ownership by major auto manufacture) as above Drivers: FIA B & C , third driver for races longer then 6 hours, FIA A, B or C P1 P1 tubs and chassies built by or built for major auto manufactures. Min Wt 900 Kg Power plants: to 6 liters diesel, 7 liters NA, 5 liters turbo. Fuel: Deisel and Petrol provided by fuel sponsor, alternative fuels to be approved by ACO / FIA and comercially avaible for 3 or more teams to run during the given race year calander. Manufactures, Manufacture supported, Indpendent teams Drivers: FIA A & B only Last edited by AU N EGL; 13 Apr 2007 at 21:54. |
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
13 Apr 2007, 22:41 (Ref:1890762) | #39 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
How to fix it.
It is amazing all the fix-its are just more fascist dictatorial hot-air, that seems to be blind to the fact that racers race where they want, for their reasons. If they do not like your rules they will either not show up, or leave. Of course when it gets down to the last man, why should that one leave, he is one eyed man in the land of the blind. Yep, we need more dictatorial edicts that can and will be ignored. It no longer amazing, but rather sad, that it was when the sanctions started telling teams and drivers how to do their job, that the air began to leak out of the balloon, quite quickly. As it stands now the ACO has no reason to worry as the only big competitors they have to worry about are in Europe just as they are, what happens in he US is totally irrelevant, but one would thnk the IMSA would seriously consider pulling its head out of its butt. The "analytical" piece was well written, but from a horribfly either: a horribly myoptic view or with a gross amount of naivete, ignoring reality. Bob |
||
|
13 Apr 2007, 22:46 (Ref:1890763) | #40 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
A few things have to happen for ALMS to be able to reasonably come back in line with ACO regulations, at least for the most part.
Obviously, the diesel/petrol equivalency MUST be corrected. This would hopefully encourage more LMP1 entries. With an appreciable LMP1 category, you could rein in LMP2 a bit, and still actually have a race at the front of the field. Not to dig up any unpleasantness, but one other thing that should happen is pssible GT1 entries should be assured that IMSA will work to ease restrictions to allow them to compete with the Corvettes, while making it clear to P&M that the Vettes will not be hobbled in the process. And I wouldn't mind a few exceptions being made to allow the Saleen, Mosler, and Maserati to run in GT1, at least over here. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
13 Apr 2007, 22:55 (Ref:1890768) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
I forgot to include this in the last post.
I really do enjoy the concept of have prototypes running close that run to different weights/horsepowers. The Lotus strategy definitely appeals to me. I don't think there were so many complaints about class structure when 2-litre Porsches (907, 910), 4-litre Ferraris (330 P3/4), and 7-litre Fords (GT40 MkII(B), Mk IV) could all finish in the top five overall. Do people have a problem with this sort of thing now? If so, it's kind of sad, imo anyway. Finally, Bob, if you feel that way, what is your solution, because something NEEDS to happen to correct this current state of affairs? Last edited by Purist; 13 Apr 2007 at 22:57. |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
13 Apr 2007, 23:09 (Ref:1890773) | #42 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
IT was NOT the dictatorial malaise that tells team owners, and worse yet, car builders how to do their job. that exists now. Write rules in the form of the previous style, the mid-nineties--we are god--attitude is a dismal failure. Bob |
|||
|
13 Apr 2007, 23:32 (Ref:1890780) | #43 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 785
|
What you guys seem to forget with your proposals is a team like Pescarolo. Where do they run? Certainly not LMP2, especially if those struggle against GTs and are mandated to run a boxy chassis to move away from the F1 look some don't like.
If LMP1 is for manufacturers, they don't belong there unless somebody gives them an engine... Peugeot didn't even do that with a team that was an ex-partner and that was the closest to Audi in the last years. And just because you edict rules that drive away anybody but manufacturers in LMP1 doesn't mean manufacturers will come in numbers to play and be part of the losers against one winning manufacturer. And finally, I'm not too sure either about LMP1s with boxy chassis that don't make them look like "single-seaters with fenders" and a closed cockpit that will always look wrong no matter how you write the rules. Think Tampolli SR2 (or is it too sculpted around the front wheels?) with a jetplane canopy; sexy... and so streetcar'ish! |
||
|
14 Apr 2007, 04:25 (Ref:1890836) | #44 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 338
|
I find it ridiculous at this point that anybody should wait until the "diesel equivalency" is addressed by the ACO. Instead of being pleased that a P2 Porsche/Acura can even run with a P1 Audi, people complain about "reigning in" P2. Good grief.
The prototype race at Le Mans this year will be boring, no matter what happens with Peugeot. Sad, but true. |
||
|
14 Apr 2007, 10:54 (Ref:1890957) | #45 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
14 Apr 2007, 11:51 (Ref:1890992) | #46 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 530
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
14 Apr 2007, 12:33 (Ref:1891022) | #47 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 613
|
Yeah do not think a P2 Porsche can be considered reliable enough to last for 24 hours!!! I suspect this is why none have been bought for the LMS ?
|
|
|
14 Apr 2007, 13:53 (Ref:1891090) | #48 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 52
|
Quote:
Last edited by sportscanyltics; 14 Apr 2007 at 14:00. |
||
|
14 Apr 2007, 13:59 (Ref:1891094) | #49 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 52
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Apr 2007, 14:45 (Ref:1891111) | #50 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,936
|
erm pescarolo are already in LMP1 as are creation as well, dyson were in LMP1 last year but choose the wrong engine package and fell way short of the mark.
|
||
|
|
|
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 |