USCC (leave your axe outside)

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

Back onto the subject of memories...

The 2003 Spring 2003 Grand Prix of Atlanta was a favorite of mine. There was a factory and a privateer Audi with Champion. The spring race had not been held for many years and this was a great return of that race. Surprisingly, it only happened one time.

http://www.lasersol.com/CyberMotor/gp_atlanta_2003/

Actually it did return in 2005 with ALMS

Also if you count last year's Spring Grand-Am race.

[seanyb505]

I read the DiZinno piece. CN:
- Slams Scott Mayer in particular for being a terrible driver, and IMSA should tell him to sit out for a while
- Slams some Civic in the Continental race for more poor driving standards.
- DiZinno quotes his cousin's landlord's gardener's prosecutor's second cousin on his mother's side (twice removed) who apparently is a decent race fan. “Why were there so many cautions? Why do they take so long? Why are there so many classes?”

He says it requires half an hour of explaining to someone already accustomed to racing to explain all these. I will now attempt to do the same in under three minutes. Let me know if you think an eighth grader could follow along:

So many cautions - Cars crash during racing. Safety first. Some drivers aren't as good as others, so they crash more frequently.
Why do they take so long - The rule makers made a bunch of rules to keep the racing close. It takes time to reorganize the running order for entertainment.
Why are there so many classes - The goal is wider audience and more entries for more series revenue. Having different kinds of cars appeals to a wider fan base. More fans = more money. To keep grid numbers higher, rule makers allowed racers with less money to be part of the big show. More entries = more money.

I really don't understand why some people perpetuate the idea that fans of average intelligence are completely unable to understand having more than one or two class. No, we don't have minor league teams playing the world series champions. No, F1 and Formula Ford don't race at the same time. No, Sprint Cup and ARCA don't race each other. Multi class racing is common in sports cars. It adds an element of difficulty, precision and strategy required.

I will say ILMC Sebring was a unique situation that no longer happens. The idea of Prototype and GT with Pro and AM divisions really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Once you start looking WEC, IRL, and TUSC driver rankings, it can get confusing without knowing the ins and outs of each set of rankings. I don't think that most race face are immediately aware of something like that during their first introduction.

Ball and stick sports require more knowledge of the intricacies of the rules just to get through one game. I see no reason that a below average intelligence person can't sit fence side at a race without having a psychological meltdown because they absolutely can't understand why one Viper blew past another. Cars as a whole are more complicated than the class system. Now I agree it could be simpler, but then again so could the US tax code. It's the product of many years of revisions.

[Deleted]

More BoP cause we love it so.

Before:
http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...D%20073114.pdf

2.1.1. IMSA may make an initial change within 30 days from the completion of the first Event and then up to three additional adjustments, which may occur at any time during the season. These changes are class specific. Individual Car types that enter late in the season, or that have not competed regularly in the Series, may receive an additional adjustment at any time, which shall not count as a change within the class.

Now:
http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...0%2314-121.pdf

2.1.1. IMSA may make an initial change within 30 days from the completion of the first Event and then up to four additional adjustments, which may occur at any time during the season. These changes are class specific. Individual Car types that enter late in the season, or that have not competed regularly in the Series, may receive an additional adjustment at any time, which shall not count as a change within the class.

[Maelochs]

"We know we only have one .... er, three .... I mean, of course, Four chances to get this right."

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

"We know we only have one .... er, three .... I mean, of course, Four chances to get this right."

And actually it's more than that... in addition to those four mentioned there's the "initial change within 30 days from the completion of the first Event" + obvious preseason adjustments between Roar and 24h (and Petit-Roar...). So that's six to seven

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Chiana

More BoP cause we love it so.

Before:
http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...D%20073114.pdf


Now:
http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...0%2314-121.pdf

So the question begs to be asked, what car do they need to change? No other bulletins have come out since that one, but I suspect they put that one out so they can make a change, right?

[Maelochs]

Subpoena TUSC's bank records and see who wrote then the last big check.

My money is on Corvette--they want to make sure they win the championship, so maybe they are saying the last weight-bump was too big given how many breaks everyone else got.

Or .... they were scared by the D-Wing's performance at Road America and want to make sure it cannot beat the "Corvette" DPs.

[MagVanisher]

If the IMSA are letting the Corvette DP win against other prototypes this year, I wonder if they'll do the same thing next year, against new LMP2 cars like Ligier and such?

Come to think of it, NASCAR is letting Chevrolet win in the Sprint Cup series all the time! It's time to stop supporting one manufacturer over the other in TUSC.

[Danske]

Well, the competitors apparently want BoP adjusted for every track so they can qualify on pole and lead every lap at every race. There's a little problem with giving everybody that, though.

[TRspitfirefan]

Originally Posted by Chiana

More BoP cause we love it so.

Before:
http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...D%20073114.pdf


Now:
http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...0%2314-121.pdf

I was under the impression that IMSA had already changed the rule, so as to allow them to change the BOP whenever they felt like it.
I guess that I was mistaken!
I'm glad to hear that BOP interference is limited to 4 times a season.

[Rcz]

Everyone keeps saying the Bop is wrong.

Well thanks to the fans, IMSA will now have more chances to fix bop until their favorite car wins.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TRspitfirefan

I was under the impression that IMSA had already changed the rule, so as to allow them to change the BOP whenever they felt like it.
I guess that I was mistaken!
I'm glad to hear that BOP interference is limited to 4 times a season.

They can still BoP the classes after every single race, it's just that individual model may just receive those four additional adjustments (or 6-7 as explained before). I mean GTD as a whole has received more than four tweakings after the "initial" post-Daytona bulletin

Also I don't think the constant Ford Ecoboost turbo boost changes count for this as those bulletins are titled differently.

There's interesting section in the IMSA rules

2.1.9. For the 2014 Race Season IMSA may require multiple changes for balance in the P class, these RULES shall not apply to this circumstance.

[TRspitfirefan]

Originally Posted by Rcz

Everyone keeps saying the Bop is wrong.

Well thanks to the fans, IMSA will now have more chances to fix bop until their favorite car wins.

BOP is REALLY close in every class except the "prototype" class.
The parity that has been achieved in GTALMS and GTD proves that a good balance can be found, even among vastly differing designs.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by Rcz

Everyone keeps saying the Bop is wrong.

Well thanks to the fans, IMSA will now have more chances to fix bop until their favorite car wins.

I was all for leaving the cars as they were before the 'merger' without any modifications. If it was legal and met the specs before the merger, keep them the same. Would've been a whole lot cheaper, more entertaining and a whole lot fewer complaints from teams, drivers and fans... I think.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by CyberMotor

I was all for leaving the cars as they were before the 'merger' without any modifications. If it was legal and met the specs before the merger, keep them the same. Would've been a whole lot cheaper, more entertaining and a whole lot fewer complaints from teams, drivers and fans... I think.

Yeah the only people who would've complained about that would've been the DP team owners (mere class wins don't interest them) and all 27 Grand-Am fans

[Rcz]

Ford and Chevy support the series more DPs more then manufactures of P2s, and probably had more money behind the DP class as well.

[Deleted]

Yeah but at the same had P2 been the sole headliner class you could've also seen increased efforts from HPD etc as well as more teams joining in generally, this BoP battle really isn't that inviting. ELMS also got slight boost in P2 interest when P1 was (foolishly) dropped

[Salamus]

Originally Posted by TRspitfirefan

BOP is REALLY close in every class except the "prototype" class.

I disagree with this. The P2 qualifying results show that both P2s and DPs are very close in overall pace. All IMSA has to do is make P2s competitive sooner during an actual race. And one of the easiest way to do this is to allow Conti to make proper P2 tires.

The only other thing that IMSA should change is the fuel mileage. It makes no sense that DPs can go farther than P2s.

[Salamus]

I disagree with this as well.

Originally Posted by Chiana

Yeah but at the same had P2 been the sole headliner class you could've also seen increased efforts from HPD etc

We are already seeing increased efforts from Honda. They are introducing a new car next year after all. And OAK coming to NA is as much effort as anyone can ask for.

Originally Posted by Chiana

as well as more teams joining in generally,

Maybe Muscle Milk and Dyson. Who else? I doubt any Euro teams would have come. At the same time, making DP the secondary class would have angered some teams and given them a reason to ditch USCC.

Originally Posted by Chiana

this BoP battle really isn't that inviting.

We could potentially get 2-4 new teams in the P class nest year.

[Rcz]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Yeah but at the same had P2 been the sole headliner class you could've also seen increased efforts from HPD etc as well as more teams joining in generally, this BoP battle really isn't that inviting. ELMS also got slight boost in P2 interest when P1 was (foolishly) dropped

But if you had deals with Chevy and Ford, you have to dropped them because guess what? You can only put a Honda engine in a HPD P2car.

Another problem is, I believe most P2 manufactures are based in Europe. So there's no American P2 maker here so getting spare cars and parts would be challenge. Compound the fact there's is no American engine support for these cars. So you have to deal with an European tuner most likely to get your engine with no support from the manufactures. Unless it's Honda of course.

Good news is though, is that Riley and Coyote said they have become interested in making p2 cars in the future.

[Mike Hedlund]

Originally Posted by Salamus

I disagree with this. The P2 qualifying results show that both P2s and DPs are very close in overall pace. All IMSA has to do is make P2s competitive sooner during an actual race. And one of the easiest way to do this is to allow Conti to make proper P2 tires.

The only other thing that IMSA should change is the fuel mileage. It makes no sense that DPs can go farther than P2s.

Tires were not a factor in P2's losing at Watkins Glen or Road America. Being completely outclassed under acceleration down a long straight was the main factor.

-mike

[Rcz]

So they got to Bop the Vette DPs down again.

[Ken_T]

One thing I will never understand is the attitude of defeat from IMSA saying the DPs and P2s are just too different to balance. Horse Pooey. The ACO can balance GTE with mid engine, rear engine, and front engine 6 cyl, and 8 cyl. There is even a 10 cyl. in TUSC. The aero is very different along the range as well, but IMSA can't balance 2 tightly controlled platforms?

Back in the day Grand Am balanced the Porsche 6 with the V8s from BMW, Ford, Lexus and Chevy. They controlled every aspect of the horsepower and torque curve. Apparently they lost the capability to modify the torque curve of the current 2 engines (leaving out the Honda for now). That is what is needed to fix the start issue.

Wayne Taylor used to get so mad at being down 2 mph from a Ganassi car that he would shake in interviews. They were able to adjust then but now its impossible? Add a bit more drag, adjust the balance and pay for the new diffuser/splitter parts while tweaking the torque curve. After seeing how the power was added and the diffuser was added preseason with so little testing, why is there such a reluctance to change now? Remember that diffuser was designed by a team and suggested to the series and there series said "Cool, we'll try it."

Look at what the ACO did in LMP1 this year with such varying options for teams but we can't balance P2 to DP? If every series felt this way there would only be spec series.

[Salamus]

Originally Posted by Mike Hedlund

Tires were not a factor in P2's losing at Watkins Glen or Road America. Being completely outclassed under acceleration down a long straight was the main factor.

-mike

I don't see how that is a problem though. DPs are supposed to be faster on the straights, that is their advantage. My problem is that the P2s aren't able to capitalize on their strengths, which is in the corners. P2s aren't able to get up to speed quick enough. Take RA for example, the Shank car got past the ESM on the straight, which is fine. But the ESM car couldn't get back ahead, and it was the polesitter. If tires can't fix that problem, then what can?

And I don't want IMSA to try and make DPs and P2s react the exact same way on a race track. One should have clear advantages at some parts and vise versa at other parts of the tracks. At least that is what I imagine this class to be like.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by Salamus

I don't see how that is a problem though. DPs are supposed to be faster on the straights, that is their advantage. My problem is that the P2s aren't able to capitalize on their strengths, which is in the corners. P2s aren't able to get up to speed quick enough. Take RA for example, the Shank car got past the ESM on the straight, which is fine. But the ESM car couldn't get back ahead, and it was the polesitter. If tires can't fix that problem, then what can?

And I don't want IMSA to try and make DPs and P2s react the exact same way on a race track. One should have clear advantages at some parts and vise versa at other parts of the tracks. At least that is what I imagine this class to be like.

Maybe decrease the min. weight for lmp2 to 850kg or less? this surely will improve acceleration of lmp2 gaining some km/h of top speed too