Sportscar/GT (and Le Mans) Rumours and Repetition

[TRuss]

It wouldn't be until 2018 but, I really don't see what the big deal is. I'm pretty sure that ESM could run both WEC and IMSA, especially with backing from Honda. As for development of the aero kit I don't think that is a big deal either. If Indy car ends up freezing development or making any of the drastic changes to the aero kits that have been discussed then finding the money for DPi aero kits should be even easier and since Wirth handles all their aero development then it wouldn't take away from any NSX manpower either. I know that we have learned to not get our hopes up but, this one seems doable. Nothing to get excited about at this rumor stage but, certainly doable.

[Irie]

The issue cropped up last year, and the FIA announced a June 17/18 2017 date for the Le Mans 24 Hours several months ago in the hope that other championships could avoid it.
But in a draft 2017 F1 schedule seen by teams, once again it appears there will be a clash unless the FIA pushes for Baku's date to be changed.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fo...n-2017-816191/

Bernie at it again

[Matt]

Meh.

F1 starts after Le Mans is over, no big deal. If there wasn't the freak occurrence of Hulkenberg winning in 2015, it would be a total non-issue having the races on the same day.

[Fogelhund]

I guess the main downside of the clash, is that current F1 drivers can't participate at LM, even though that has been uncommon.

As someone who has been a big F1 far since the early seventies, I'd miss watching the F1 race, if LM was on anyway... so just a loss for Bernie.

With the F1 cash cow losing some of it's lustre, and reducing fan base, it shouldn't be a shock to see Bernie make moves to marginalize other motorsports.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Matt

If there wasn't the freak occurrence of Hulkenberg winning in 2015, it would be a total non-issue having the races on the same day.

Yeah right.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Makaze

The pit talk from Mexico is EMS going back to IMSA full year next year with two JS P217 HPD and RGR going to two cars in WEC next year with Oak Racing help.

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

ESM back to IMSA?

Let's also remember that they(Patron)went to the WEC for their own marketing goals and purposes. Unless those are completed, they have no reason to return to IMSA unless the operational costs are getting excessive, or the marketing strategy is pushing them back to NA.

From dailysportscar's LMP2 rundown:

"Extreme Speed Motorsport

No official statements as yet but whilst championship sources suggest ESM may return for a second full season, most believe that a return to a full season in IMSA is by far the more likely prospect. The team promise that an announcement will be made as soon as possible but likely not much before Petit Le Mans next month."



And judging by the way tequila has not exploded in Asia, China specifically, as whiskey/whisky did, that international marketing effort may not be getting the return the owners want. Remember Ed is not the owner, just the president who made Patron into the 'ultra premium' image/brand that they wanted. Most credit his marketing team with taking tequila's image in the US from cheap terrible shots in college to mature sipping liquor.

[FormulaFox]

Regarding ESM in IMSA: There is talk of allowing DPi engines without bodywork in 2017 ONLY as part of the grandfathering aspect of 2017. This would allow HPD to race one last season without having to rely on equipment deliberately bopped to uncompetitive levels while they evaluate 2018.

More likely, though, if ESM goes back to IMSA it'll be a grandfathered JSP2 with the engine HPD plans to use in the DPi and they'll make 2017 a public engine development run. They'd have no chance of running up front due to IMSA's BoP plan for older P2s, but there could be valuable engine data for 2018 to be gathered from such a program were it done right.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

And judging by the way tequila has not exploded in Asia, China specifically, as whiskey/whisky did, that international marketing effort may not be getting the return the owners want. Remember Ed is not the owner, just the president who made Patron into the 'ultra premium' image/brand that they wanted. Most credit his marketing team with taking tequila's image in the US from cheap terrible shots in college to mature sipping liquor.

Well aware of all of that. Without some additional help, running a grandfathered car just isn't happening. I'm fine being wrong on this right now, I've not talked with some of my friends at ESM in awhile.

[MagVanisher]

There's a rumor that a Peugeot LMP1 program will return... unless FIA/ACO will take care of the cost inflation.

Tavares: Two of Three Conditions Met for Peugeot’s LMP1 Return (via Sportscar 365)

So far, they put the company back from the black and they won the Dakar Rally.

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

There's a rumor that a Peugeot LMP1 program will return... unless FIA/ACO will take care of the cost inflation.

Sorry for nitpicking, but you mean if, don't you? Because if you do indeed mean unless, then I don't understand what you intended to be your message.

[MagVanisher]

Oh, Mistake!

Still, if the rulemakers did some tinkering on the LMP1 rules regarding cost, I think it'll be good for manufacturers and privateers.

[Acid09]

It might just be one last criteria but it is the most difficult to meet, perhaps even impossible to meet.

It's simply a paradox the LMP1 rules are caught in. As Peugeot mentions, it's the free reign of technology that makes the class attractive for manufacturers, but it also makes it expensive.

You can't have both, making it a lot cheaper will take the free reign of development away and basically rob the class of it's whole purpose in the racing world. There's plenty of series were you can race cheap spec cars, but only one where you can go all-out in terms of technology.

I'm not sure it would be a wise idea of giving up this unique selling point of the class, especially as long as we have a stable three entrants in it there is no reason to panic. It's understandable that the manufacturers want all the advantages for cheap, but it's also a bit of an unreasonable wish..you can't have both.

[MoMedic9019]

I tend to agree. They need to stop the huge spending. There are other manufacturers who want to play in LMP1, but don't have the ability to spend the cash needed to build, develop, and run a hybrid.

Nor the relevant road car to link it to.... which, once again, is a perfect place to have a non-hybrid class.

Or, to just ditch the hybrids all together. I'd fathom that all three current teams would remain.

[MagVanisher]

Ditching the mandatory hybrid requirements would be better that the Volkswagen Group and Toyota can use it, but it'll have a weight penalty.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

Ditching the mandatory hybrid requirements would be better that the Volkswagen Group and Toyota can use it, but it'll have a weight penalty.

Then nobody will use it. Why bother producing a cutting edge expensive hybrid system if you'll just get weighed down?

ACO has decided it's going down the hybrid route. As long as we have at least 3 manufacturers in, I don't see that changing.

[Matt]

Oh look, time to wheel out the almost biweekly Peugeot to return article.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Then nobody will use it. Why bother producing a cutting edge expensive hybrid system if you'll just get weighed down?

If you have a power advantage, it is possible to overcome a weight disadvantage so long as the extra weight is not impossibly large - which no sane sanctioning body is going to do unless they're deliberately trying to kill something off. A company that's dedicated to developing hybrid tech would not be stopped by rules that add weight to their car unless said rules were so poorly crafted as to make doing a competitive hybrid nigh on impossible.

It's no different than the BoP in GT3. Manufacturers have been developing some crazy cars for GT3 despite knowing they'll likely be balanced down to make it possible for every car to win.

People keep saying that performance restrictions will drive away interest, and yet the opposite keeps happening. Performance restriction, in and of itself, does NOT drive away manufacturer interest - poorly crafted performance restrictions that are impossible to overcome do.

It boils down to one thing that is often ignored by the ABB(Anti-Balancing Brigade): Engineers, by and large, LIKE a challenge. The best engineers in the business shine the brightest when they're forced to work around hurdles - they want to make their race cars competitive DESPITE being balanced down, not because others were balanced down, and overcoming that restriction becomes their new challenge.

I have even talked to more than a couple of racecar engineers who consider it a validation of their efforts to have a sanctioning body restrict their car.

[Ephaeton]

wrt weight vs. power, see also (repost 10/10s wise) this august DSC article here

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Matt

Oh look, time to wheel out the almost biweekly Peugeot to return article.

I was trying to think of some witty remark to this, you know something "DPi" related, but then I thought, **** it, honestly I'm tired of hearing that same old crap from/of Pug as well. Indeed.

[gert]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

If you have a power advantage, it is possible to overcome a weight disadvantage so long as the extra weight is not impossibly large - which no sane sanctioning body is going to do unless they're deliberately trying to kill something off. A company that's dedicated to developing hybrid tech would not be stopped by rules that add weight to their car unless said rules were so poorly crafted as to make doing a competitive hybrid nigh on impossible.

That depends upon your definition of 'poorly crafted rules'.

*IF* Non-Hybrid cars are permitted and the hybrids are 'ballasted' to allow the non-hybrids an equal shot at victory, then somebody at Audi, porsche and Toyota is eventually going to ask "Why are we spending x times as much $$$$ as Peugeot/BMW/whoever and still lose out on track?"

So yes, I think Akrapovic is right, BOP-ing (yuk!) potential non-hybrids would eventually kill the Hybrid projects. I don't think ACO will go down that route.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Chiana

I was trying to think of some witty remark to this, you know something "DPi" related, but then I thought, **** it, honestly I'm tired of hearing that same old crap from/of Pug as well. Indeed.

Then don't read it? It's an interview covering more than just Peugeot returning to lmp1. VW spend way too much on their programs. I think it's time for active aero and open fuel to hydrogen or maybe all electric with a quick battery swap instead of refueling? Charging takes much too long right now so that's a no go.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by gert

That depends upon your definition of 'poorly crafted rules'.

*IF* Non-Hybrid cars are permitted and the hybrids are 'ballasted' to allow the non-hybrids an equal shot at victory, then somebody at Audi, porsche and Toyota is eventually going to ask "Why are we spending x times as much $$$$ as Peugeot/BMW/whoever and still lose out on track?"

So yes, I think Akrapovic is right, BOP-ing (yuk!) potential non-hybrids would eventually kill the Hybrid projects. I don't think ACO will go down that route.

Adding weight is also contradictory of the ACOs efficiency push.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by gert

That depends upon your definition of 'poorly crafted rules'.

*IF* Non-Hybrid cars are permitted and the hybrids are 'ballasted' to allow the non-hybrids an equal shot at victory, then somebody at Audi, porsche and Toyota is eventually going to ask "Why are we spending x times as much $$$$ as Peugeot/BMW/whoever and still lose out on track?"

So yes, I think Akrapovic is right, BOP-ing (yuk!) potential non-hybrids would eventually kill the Hybrid projects. I don't think ACO will go down that route.

Again, I go back to GT3. If the manufacturers are so opposed to being balanced to equal terms, then why are so many(including ALL THREE current P1 manufacturers) so big on the class? Why do they spend so much on making their GT3s so good when everything is just going to be balanced out?

Trimming my initial post down does not mean the rest of it is not relevant to the statement you pose - in fact, it is still PERFECTLY applicable to the statements you made. It'd be one thing if these companies were actively avoiding forms of racing that are built around balancing the car, but all three of the LMP1 manufacturers are actively embracing just such a class.

BoP, in and of itself, is clearly NOT a concern to these manufacturers. Audi, for one, has made clear numerous times they use the LMP1 program to develop new technologies. It is unlikely that they would view any balancing in LMP1 in any different a light unless the balancing rules made developing that technology impossible.

What makes sense to you, and what you feel you would do in response to something, is not necessarily how the manufacturers, the teams, and the engineers view it.

[TF110]

GT3 is for customers, they're not factory ran (mostly) teams. Most of these customers are amateur drivers so the cars are bop'd to be close to each other. LMP1 is not for customers but factories. And it's to show relevant technology. There are no hybrid GT3's. The only bop lmp1 needs is a fuel flow. If were talking about non-hybrid, then they need to be lower weight with a higher fuel flow to compensate for the power the hybrid brings. I don't think any of the manufacturer's want to let in another that won't compete with a form of relevant technology. Neither do the rule makers.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by TF110

GT3 is for customers, they're not factory ran (mostly) teams. Most of these customers are amateur drivers so the cars are bop'd to be close to each other.

Most GT3 cars ARE, however, still DEVELOPED by the factory. Their money goes into their design, construction, and ongoing development. Their reputation is still on the line. Their ability to build a car that can win races despite BoP is often still a major determining factor in whether those teams will continue to use their car - and, in the process, how mcuh moeny they make from selling the racecars.

The specifics and reasons for it may be different, making money off of racecar sales rather than developing technology, but the basic attitude of the manufacturers and engineers is still the same; overcoming limitations speaks louder than almost anything else they could do.

LMP1 is not for customers but factories. And it's to show relevant technology. There are no hybrid GT3's. The only bop lmp1 needs is a fuel flow. If were talking about non-hybrid, then they need to be lower weight with a higher fuel flow to compensate for the power the hybrid brings. I don't think any of the manufacturer's want to let in another that won't compete with a form of relevant technology. Neither do the rule makers.

LMP1 is whatever the ACO decides it should be, and they're presently moving towards a class where manufacturer hybrids and non-manufacturer cars both hybrid and non-hybrid compete on the same level. They want the manufacturers that used to build for P2 building P1 cars.

But this does NOT mean it would no longer a place where technology can be developed.

Think of it this way; As has been REPEATEDLY noted, you have to add weight to the hybrids and open the fuel flow for non-hybrids to make things level. When it comes to the matter of technology and the development thereof in the class, the balancing just proves the superiority of the higher tech cars; They're able to do the same job with more weight and less fuel. For a company with the goal of developing new technology, this VALIDATES the effort. Like I said before, I've actually met engineers who consider it validation of their efforts when a sanctioning body has to restrict their car's performance - it's no different here.

This really isn't as strange a concept as people keep trying to make it out to be. As long as the class enables the development of new technology AND that is Audi's primary goal, nothing the ACO can do can invalidate Audi's efforts. Restricting them proves the superiority of their technology by showing they needed to be reigned in. Letting them run free proves the superiority of their technology by showing how much faster their technology makes them.

For any team trying to develop technology, it's a win-win.