|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 Apr 2016, 16:01 (Ref:3635170) | #501 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
- No LM Test Day conflict - EXACTLY the same chassis spec and general procedure rules as the other ACO series - You can align yourself with the tire manufacturer of own choice instead of Conti-Hoosier force feed (that you'd have to ditch anyway if you want to not suck at LM) - No BoP crap - No politics crap I don't agree with ELMS policy of mandated pro-am, and the "necessity" to have them as top class instead of LMP1 privateer which REALLY should have that slot by all logic in the world, even more now with the spec rules, but otherwise it makes more sense for me. If I were LMP2 owner that is. You can then always freely enter Daytona/Sebring/PLM as one-off quest of course if you have extra budget |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 16:12 (Ref:3635173) | #502 | ||||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
- Exactly the same spec, OK, you can have that point. - You can align yourself with a tire manufacturer only if its Michelin or Dunlop, and next year it will be just Michelin, so this hating on Continental is kinda a case of pot-meet-kettle, no? - BoP happens everywhere. It just so happens that because IMSA didn't have the audacity to tell all the DP teams to scrap their million-dollar investments and they were woefully behind the curve at sorting out the initial BoP that people still, even now after a P2 won both the first two NAEC rounds in convincing fashion, stick to the viewpoint that IMSA favors the DPs. - No politics crap is because IMSA is wedged between a rock and a hard place and has made an incredibly bad decision in sticking with the ACO's idiotic spec-car P2s and then is making it worse by trying to paint the DPi as a manufacturer class. If they'd done the right thing and given the ACO the finger a year ago this would not be so much of a problem. Quote:
Chiana, really, you know better on the LMP1 Privateer point - its dead, its not coming back, if it was going to come back the teams being pushed around in the LMP2 category would be trying to do it but none of them can make the economics work. Having them be the top class in ELMS or IMSA would just be screwing everyone else there aside from the one or two incredibly rich teams who can afford them. |
||||
|
20 Apr 2016, 16:30 (Ref:3635175) | #503 | |||||||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Add to that the extra complication of possibly having the need to get two chassis to work it out, like with MSR this year. They have Oak to help them out so it's not impossible task, but for teams without direct companion help it's different. So you see, who's fault it is for having the same on both weekend doesn't really matter in the end if you are doing LM anyway. It's less complicated with the other series Quote:
WTF on the "next year it will be just Michelin", it's still 100% free tire choice in all of ACO LMP2 next year. The initial fear was for spec-tires too, but that has been cleared out to be free again. No question whatsoever. And btw, it's not restricted to Michelin or Dunlop by law, if Yokohama or whomever wants to come up or partner with someone it's entirely possible. And as I said, if it was a Conti spec series like IMSA, no-one in their right mind would bring their spec tires to Le Mans, as they'd be blown out of the water. Even the spec-Dunlop-LMGTE tire (that is not half-bad) is being switched to Mics by most LMGTE teams doing LM, because tire performance does matter on this side of the pond. Quote:
I'm not talking of the DP-P2 BoP fiasco, but the inter-P2 BoPping that is and will go on in IMSA. Ask Dragonspeed how they felt at Sebring. Effectively, you could theoretically win all the races of the season without being bopped down "just because". Quote:
Quote:
The real problem is that ever since 2011/12 they've been lured into thinking they are the first-catered class, which they shouldn't be. Quote:
It wouldn't work in IMSA but it could in ELMS (again). Last edited by Deleted; 20 Apr 2016 at 16:43. |
|||||||
|
20 Apr 2016, 20:34 (Ref:3635241) | #504 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
First off, I cannot see any benefit to ELMS to let P1-L into the field. The P2 teams have their own little playground, the rich guys get to have all the fun they want, and maybe even get a shot at a win or podium.
Let in three P1-L cars and suddenly P2 is first-loser class. Besides, why would any team which could afford a P1-L want a P1-L? To get embarrassed at WEC? If you can do P1-L you can get all the same benefits by running P2. On top of that, why even mess with ELMS, which seems to be doing things right these last several years (since its near-bankruptcy.) As for IMSA telling FIA-ACO to eff off ... and run what? Which factories are cranking out prototype chassis which aren’t LMP2? Right now there are a few companies which could make more Gen3 DPs ... wouldn’t that be wonderful? Which other manufacturers have even show any interest in designing and building cars just for IMSA? And you would need to have at least three ... or two, like we have now (basically DP-clones and Ligier (whoops, three ... I forgot Lola, who is out of business. (And yes, I know Multimatic bought the remnants ... how many new cars are they building?))) Which two chassis manufacturers are falling all over themselves to design, test, and then manufacture cars for a series with maybe (Maybe) four potential customers, and absolutely no chance of using the chassis anywhere else in the world? IndyCar tried this, and they found that lots of companies were willing to build eight or ten IndyCar chassis ... but not at a price the teams could afford. Now cut the customer base in half, and how do the economics work out? What I see here is people simply refusing to learn from the errors of the past, and willing to ignore all common sense to try to revive some “Golden Age” when they seem to forget, there was a Lot more money floating around. Might I point out that what so many are asking for ... was Exactly the Rolex Sports Car Series. Cars which were unique to the series, nothing to do with FIA-ACO .... yeah, that worked out. Almost everyone hated it and it would have gone completely broke without huge helpings of NASCAR money. Most people here hated the cars ... and except for minor differences, the cars were identical. Yeah, DP1 is really DP Gen4 ... but the differences are huge. For one thing, the base chassis is actually a modern chassis. For another thing, the manufacturers are all committed to the class, because they are also building cars for LMP2 series (WEC, ELMS, AsLMS) which means they aren’t going to go away soon, (one of them might ... depends who buys what) and also, this brings the price down. I hear a lot of what I consider to be really bad plans ... mostly people saying, “We should do exactly what has failed so badly repeatedly in the past.” I see people saying “The economics would work out” but I don’t see anyone offering evidence of How they would work out. Look, I don’t want DPi .... the only thing I want less would be 2017 LMP2. But I Do want a financially viable, fan-rewarding North American sports car series, so I can go watch some races. Most people here are at least familiar what IndyCar went through with its split, which lasted even longer and also did huge damage. IndyCar fans are a lot like sports car fans, it seems ... they all love some particular period from the past, and want somehow for the series to time-warp back to that era, while magically finding the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to fund the changes. The few reasonable fans realize that IndyCar has to start from where it is—not many fans, not many sponsors—and slowly build, adding in as much design freedom and variety as possible without overtaxing the teams or destroying the racing so that the fans simply stop caring. IMSA is in a similar situation. Yeah, we all wish we could have a North American version of WEC, except with six more factory teams in P1, with GTLM not getting screwed up, and even more manufacturers joining there (Maserati, McLaren, Lamborghini, and a fill-time Aston team would be nice.) Maybe P2, no need for P3 or PC because the grids would be full of better cars. Huge fan attendance trackside, gigantic TV ratings, more sponsorship dollars than the teams or series can spend. Nice fantasy. And it might even happen, someday ... but right now, IMSA, which was literally on life support just a couple seasons ago and is just starting to look even mildly healthy, doesn’t have a lot of good business options. IMO. Last edited by Maelochs; 20 Apr 2016 at 20:42. |
|
|
20 Apr 2016, 20:51 (Ref:3635243) | #505 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Just because they wouldn't be aligned with the ACO, doesn't mean they couldn't use the 4 new P2 chassis in their series.
IIRC, IMSA in the 80's and 90's wasn't an ACO series, yet used ACO style cars that were heavily modified if you so chose. Nothing is stopping the same thing from happening. IMSA would set it's rules up to include the 4 designated P2 chassis, along with anyone else willing to build a car for the ruleset. I'm bd with explaining things through text, so I hope that made sense. |
||
|
20 Apr 2016, 21:21 (Ref:3635250) | #506 | |||||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, at the start, there would be some crying from the teams, and maybe losing couple of cars. But you need to think of the categories on long term, and beyond just ELMS. The primary reason ELMS still gets strong backing is because of luring ACO to give them the Le Mans invites, and the LMP2s would still have that in their dedicated class. Beyond that, they would still get the same prize money, class championships and LM auto invites at the end of the year, just not the overall honors (unless the P1s melted from the top or Hungaroring 2010 happened again). The P2s would still be the top class in ASLMS. Why can't LMP1 privateer be the top in at least something, instead of meaningless WEC sub class no-one cares about? Why is it that LMP2 is allowed to get all the protection it can get, but LMP1 not? Before 2012, LMP2 couldn't even win any series overall, and suddenly it's some kind of sacrilege to even suggest blocking just one of those routes? Wouldn't the overall top placed prototype classification be quite neat actually, in the much-talked "pyramid of endurance"? WEC - LMP1 Hybrid ELMS - LMP1 Non Hybrid ASLMS - LMP2 ASLMS Sprint - LMP3 And then obviously IMSA with it's weirdo P2 mess again. That's still plenty of reason to purchase LMP2 of choice. Quote:
- Quaranteed LM entry - No proam driver restriction force feed crap - No spec chassis force feed crap - No spec component force feed crap - No spec engine force feed crap - No $$$ cost cap force feed crap - No freezed specs technology and denied innovative development force feed crap And why do you think I'm saying they should be in ELMS (in addition to WEC if they want)... because there they wouldn't be "embarrassed", on top of the other reasons incl having that customer market finally available and teams capable of scoring overall wins. The only thing LMP1 privateer and LMP2 really share in open-ness are the tires, and lack of inter-class BoP. Quote:
In any case, there is no danger from this series "credibility perspective" even if you only ended up having couple of cars in your lead class for a while. It's a series under 99,9% peoples radar. Last edited by Deleted; 20 Apr 2016 at 21:39. |
|||||
|
20 Apr 2016, 22:46 (Ref:3635262) | #507 | |||||||
Racer
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 253
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
|
21 Apr 2016, 04:52 (Ref:3635307) | #508 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
Can't just go back to the good old days where you print some rules in a pdf and give them to the manufacturers for them to build. Instead you have some kabuki dance and a sacrificial ritual with the aco just to get it on the track.
Look, I'll give the DPi cars a chance. I just want incredible fast cool looking cars. |
|
|
21 Apr 2016, 06:31 (Ref:3635328) | #509 | ||||||||||||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And if Grand Am had wanted to go faster, they could have. When the merger was happening, the original plan was to close the gap between the P2 and DP racers by speeding the DPs some and slowing the P2s some. Then Spirit of Daytona went out with their tuned-up Coyote at Road Atlanta and blew that idea to hell. I'd wager if you were willing to spend more money, you could probably pick up the pace on the DP a lot more - more power, sticker tires, larger wings and more underfloor aero, seven-speed gearboxes, you get the idea. It was just costs that didn't need to be. If you put a NASCAR motor in the back of a DP and strengthened the drivetrain to handle it, that alone would probably blow a P2 car into the weeds. The slower pace was for cost reasons, nothing more. Quote:
Seriously, this "the DPs are ancient technology!" crap has got to stop. People who have actually looked at the things without seeking to make fun of them know better. Yes, they are tube-framed cars. But so are Class Ones outside of the center tub. So are a lot of GT cars. So were most road-going supercars until only the last ten years. Quote:
2) Several makers of chassis were put out of business for arbitrary reasons, and their interest in the sport either eliminated or massively reduced as a result. Does running interest out of the sport seem in any way, shape or form intelligent? If one chassis or engine becomes dominant due to natural selection, that's fine. But doing it because French chassis builders want to make money is ludicrously stupid. 3) The reduced price is a fantasy. Oreca and Onroak have all but said so. The new cars will be no cheaper, and I'll be surprised if the engines are cheaper either, because Gibson has to make up for all the money they lost when they could no longer do chassis for any form of ACO racing unless they want to bankrupt themselves in P1 cars. So the cheaper point holds no water. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IMSA in this situation needs MORE freedom for what the ACO demands, no less. If they must go the prototype route - and I'm willing to say quite only that they shouldn't - they need to be able to let anybody who wants to make a DPi make one, allow the manufacturers to modify the bodywork in any way they dang well please, and allow teams to drop whatever engine fits in the back of their cars. In a BoP series, there is no excuse whatsoever for limiting design freedom as they have. They need to be able to make what the fans want to see and what the teams want to race, not follow the edict of the corrupt, arrogant organization in France that spends far more time and effort trying to grow its showcase event and the two series that directly feed it with 80% of its entries - the WEC and ELMS. Quote:
That's a fantasy, always has been, always will be. IMSA is better off on their own, and better off using what international formulas work for them. GTE and GT3 most certainly do and it shows in the numbers and caliber of those involved. LMP2, especially the sort of LMP2 cars that will race in the ELMS and WEC next year, do not. And the longer they let this situation stand, the more it will hurt them. It's time to move on. IMO. |
||||||||||||
|
21 Apr 2016, 07:30 (Ref:3635338) | #510 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
21 Apr 2016, 07:45 (Ref:3635340) | #511 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
I think the most shocking thing among "fixing LMP1 Privateer" discussion is that no team has made public suggestion towards re-expanding LMP1 beyond WEC. Even though Rebellion has said they could potentially look at ELMS with forced P2 switch in the future if it meant the chance of being to win overall again. But I bet/fear at this pace by 2019 or whenever you will still have just WEC eligible for them, and you have two car grid running to much more restricted cost cap rules 10 seconds off the pace of factories, only to be dumbed down with "DPi" at Le Mans Last edited by Deleted; 21 Apr 2016 at 07:51. |
||
|
21 Apr 2016, 20:11 (Ref:3635513) | #512 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,560
|
Reintroducing p1 to elms would probably hurt the fact they have all those p2 entries. Not to mention that there's going to be that 4 chassis constructor limit to choose from. That's not going to force those semi-pro teams to p1. Then the driving standards comes into play as well. Plus the aco need those guys to fall back on if lmp1-h loses a manufacturer.
|
|
|
21 Apr 2016, 22:34 (Ref:3635546) | #513 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,190
|
We just can't have a discussion about IMSA DPi, can we?
|
||
__________________
Q: How to play religious roulette? A: Stand around in a circle and blaspheme and see who gets struck by lightning first |
21 Apr 2016, 22:49 (Ref:3635553) | #514 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
22 Apr 2016, 04:47 (Ref:3635588) | #515 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
|||
|
22 Apr 2016, 06:05 (Ref:3635600) | #516 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
The same reason people rather talk about weather instead of taxes or holocaust to half-strangers, it's not quite as depressing?
Last edited by Deleted; 22 Apr 2016 at 06:16. |
|
|
22 Apr 2016, 11:14 (Ref:3635644) | #517 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,075
|
Quote:
There is no reason why Detroit HAS to conflict with the Le Mans test day. I understand wanting to run Detroit, but is there some reason it HAS to be the same day as the Le Mans test? And if it was that big a deal, why isn't GTLM going? A series wants to cater to Detroit automakers. Two of those are GM and Ford, and yet the works cars won't be there? I'm sure they feel REALLY catered for, not getting to race there. |
||
|
22 Apr 2016, 11:22 (Ref:3635648) | #518 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
GM and Ford have their fake proto brandings in the lead class so they don't necessarily need the GTEs there Last edited by Deleted; 22 Apr 2016 at 11:29. |
||
|
22 Apr 2016, 11:34 (Ref:3635650) | #519 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,075
|
And between IMSA and IndyCar they can't work out how to move a date if it was THAT important to the car makers?
I'm sure Ford and Chevy would like to show off their GT Cars too, especially with the money sunk into the Ford GT and the Le Mans effort. Basically, this big amazing Detroit race that is to cater for the big makers doesn't actually seem to be that important when you look at the whole package. If it was that important then we'd have a different weekend and we'd have GTLM there too. Chevy would love the potential of a win in P, PC (by default), GTLM and maybe even GTD too. |
|
|
22 Apr 2016, 11:39 (Ref:3635652) | #520 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
|
||
|
22 Apr 2016, 11:42 (Ref:3635654) | #521 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Actually .... Ford and Chevy realize that in terms of advertising impact, racing in Detroit is the same as not racing in Detroit, but racing at Le Mans plays a small part in their annual advertising strategy.-----DPi.
As Akrapovic notes, IndyCar (and mostly Roger Penske, who was the prime mover for the race) determines the date of the event; IMSA just piggy-backs along just to take advantage of the availability of the course (and because it is such a great market .... "America's Urban Appalachia" I think, is the region's motto.) ----------DPi. As for why people still dream of a better future for P1-L (or whatever FIA has decided to call it this season, I truly don't care .... ) I don't see any logic in any of these proposals. I don't see any teams asking for it, and right now in The Entire World there are only three on track ... and rarely that many.----DPi. ELMS could add the class, and screw with what is (right now) working well for it ... and the predictions of doom and gloom next season seem unfounded, as their really is only one engine supplier and four chassis as it stands. I don't understand the rush to break what isn't .... oh, we're talking sports car racing. My bad.---------DPi. Other than that, I can't really think of much else that warrants discussion. |
|
|
22 Apr 2016, 11:50 (Ref:3635657) | #522 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
I'll ask you again in moments time when you will see the top class of ELMS consisting solely of like 5 clone proam Orecas and 7 clone proam Onroaks, all running Zytek power
Last edited by Deleted; 22 Apr 2016 at 11:56. |
|
|
22 Apr 2016, 13:27 (Ref:3635675) | #523 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,482
|
When do we think somebody is actually going to announce their DPi plans for next year? I'm still waiting for an announcement from a manufacturer saying:
Quote:
|
|||
|
22 Apr 2016, 13:50 (Ref:3635678) | #524 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,473
|
I fully expect Mazda's announcement at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca.
And GM/Cadillac at Detroit of all places. After that, all of our patience will be tested hard I'm afraid... |
|
|
22 Apr 2016, 14:51 (Ref:3635689) | #525 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 253
|
Let me ask all of you a two questions related to DPi.
1. Do you want to continue to see the race by race BOP? Yes or No 2. Do you want to see standard torque and power curve for the engines? Yes or No And give me your reasons why. Go! |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IMSA DPi/P2 vs WEC LMP1-L | Danathar | Sportscar & GT Racing | 7 | 5 Nov 2015 17:55 |
New Rules - Discussion | DKGandBH | Formula One | 28 | 19 Jan 2005 01:40 |