Sportscar/GT (and Le Mans) Rumours and Repetition

[chernaudi]

The problem with the current LMP1 rules--and above all how the ACO administer them--is a big catch 22. The ACO want new tech to be the new blood in the WEC. Problem is that to get teams to commit, you have to incentive it. If it makes the car go faster, teams will spend what they feel they need to spend to get the performance.

If you wanna seriously reduce cost, you gotta cut back on the tech. The thing where I think that the ACO really screw the pooch is that they, as rules makers and a sanctioning body, are obsessed to doing too much too fast. Stable rules promote growth and interest in racing series, and any economic venture, for that matter. Making huge, often near-whole scale changes in short time frames, causes huge problems, and hinders, rather than helps.

I do think that if the ACO wasn't so gung-ho aggressive with phasing in rules packages and would slow down and take a more moderate approach--slow down rules phase in and spread them out over wider periods of time--a lot of the cost hikes in LMP1 over the past few years probably would've been contained.

And sadly, you can't blame other car makers for not wanting to get involved right now, just as you can't blame Audi, Porsche, and Toyota even for spending what they're spending as a side effect of trying to be successful under the rules packages as set up by the ACO right now.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by TF110

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.

Because that's going to be cheap. You can't have it both ways; either VAG spend too much on propulsion systems (where the majority of the resources are used) so they should be simplified to reduce cost, or they don't spend too much so more diverse powertrain options can be considered despite the cost of initially developing/modifying them for endurance racing.

Chernaudi's said it kinder than I would have, but the ACO have stuck themselves between a rock and a hard place. The performance that these regulations have produced has been incredible, but that same performance compels the ACO to try and reign it in, and all that does is funnel the resources into narrower avenues of development. Other manufacturers look at the situation and decide they don't want in unless they can get the same breaks for their technology, because they won't be able to catch up now without spending even more.

[TzeiTzei]

I doubt that you're ever going to get much more than three factory teams in a class that is basically a spending war. Someone has to finish last, and for big budget factory teams that's not an option. But I'm okay with that. The best team wins. I would never want to see LMP1 turn in to the BoP merry-go-round that GT racing is.

[Mal]

In reality the ACO is controlling costs now by restricting it to Hybrids. Once they go down the route of adding in Hydrogen and all electric - surely costs will rise again.

In this period of manufacturers racing to find an energy source to superceed fossil fuels surely holding back costs is the wrong path for the top class at the moment.

There is plenty of spec racing elsewhere is people want to race to a budget.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Because that's going to be cheap. You can't have it both ways; either VAG spend too much on propulsion systems (where the majority of the resources are used) so they should be simplified to reduce cost, or they don't spend too much so more diverse powertrain options can be considered despite the cost of initially developing/modifying them for endurance racing.

Chernaudi's said it kinder than I would have, but the ACO have stuck themselves between a rock and a hard place. The performance that these regulations have produced has been incredible, but that same performance compels the ACO to try and reign it in, and all that does is funnel the resources into narrower avenues of development. Other manufacturers look at the situation and decide they don't want in unless they can get the same breaks for their technology, because they won't be able to catch up now without spending even more.

Formula E is inexpensive and they manage to run all electric at a decent speed. That's with a spec chassis and battery supplier. I don't see how it's going to be so expensive for an lmp1 to do something like that but instead of car swapping, they change the battery pack during a pitstop.

Manufacturers have the means to do it. It's up to the rule makers to allow it. And costs of the 'relevant tech'. Well there's a $40k street car running on hydrogen. Ford Focus's have a form of active aero and they run less than $30k.

If a manufacturer is worried about not being competitive then they speak to the same rule makers about the cost to be competitive. There's already rules for new competitors in lmp1 such as more testing days and more engines allotted. There's already Toyota running on something around half the budget of Audi. There are new regulations coming that allows only two aero packages. Imo, if they do much more than that, the series stifles innovation or competition.

I agree with you somewhat on expenses, but you need to spend some money in whatever you're racing. If it's a series where you can show off your innovation, it's not going to be as cheap as doing a gt3 or a spec series. But those aren't the same pedigree nor have the same following.

[Akrapovic]

Formula E is rarely over 120mph and is spec parts. Thats like comparing Apples and Footballs. Very slow Footballs at that.

You might one day get spec battery systems in LMP2. But if LMP1 becomes spec parts then the whole thing is pointless.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Formula E is rarely over 120mph and is spec parts. Thats like comparing Apples and Footballs. Very slow Footballs at that.

You might one day get spec battery systems in LMP2. But if LMP1 becomes spec parts then the whole thing is pointless.

That's the point I was making. With the spec battery, they're respectable in terms of speed. In testing this year they broke the donington track record. So just imagine how much better they would be if the battery was open (like in the wec) and its power wasn't capped. It just takes one manufacturer to say they want to prove their own battery technology can compete and ask for a chance. Tesla S is no slouch, hitting 60mph in under 3 seconds and that car is over 2 tons. Maybe it's closer than we think.

[blankfile]

Did they not only break the formula e track record?

doubt those things can beat superkarts.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by blankfile

Did they not only break the formula e track record?

doubt those things can beat superkarts.

Yeah, it must be their own record, which isn't saying much. FE is going to have to go some to beat either the National 57s record of BOSS or whatever open wheeler it was, or Senna's 1:18 GP lap record. They are most certainly not respectable in terms of the speeds we'd be expecting (I'm taking the 3:30 ACO target LM lap as my benchmark). While the Tesla S is no slouch, it's also not cheap. Before you say it's cheaper than similarly performing cars from the prestige brands, that's not down to the tech - that's the badge(s) talking. So yet again, performance costs money, both on the road and on track.

The "$40k hydrogen car" is an enticing figure, but it ignores the challenges of adapting road tech for racing - electric hybrids can be bought for £20k here, but that hasn't translated into relatively inexpensive powertrains for the current factory cars. There is very little to connect the prices of road-going powertrains and their endurance racing counterparts because of how different the conditions and requirements are.

On active aero, I agree completely. To me it's a no-brainer - it satisfies the efficiency requirements and won't cost that much to implement. I've been banging this drum for a while now.

I should clarify, I'm actually not that bothered by big spending in LMP1 - it's where the big boys show off and the marketing is what drives the participation anyway so the cash is going to be flashed whatever the ACO does. I'm just wary that the topic is being used as a stick to beat VAG with, and of the comments that peg TMG's budget as an ideal figure just because it is (significantly) less than Audi & Porsche.

[TF110]

The F-E guys were doing 1:28's. But the cars run a spec battery and have a power limit. There's no doubt that the batteries in the TS050, R18 and 919 are better. Remember the Drayson B12 lola lmp1? There's potential in the idea of pure electric imo.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that someone is beating VAG with a stick. They are the biggest spending auto company in terms of r&d, by quite a margin ($15billion vs Toyota 2nd at $9billion). Imo, teams are looking at the wec but see VAG throw up these numbers and get cold feet. Of course you gotta pay to play, but f1 sized budgets shouldn't be needed or encouraged. I think the rules can change to help reduce budgets such as freer aero. That's where most of the money is spent. Perhaps even with the powertrain.

[Akrapovic]

As much as I love Tesla (Model S is my dream car currently!), the power and performance comes at a cost. There's a reason they cost well over double other mass manufactured electric vehicles, and Tesla still operate at a loss. And that's before you talk about the range drop when pushing the car, which would become a huge issue with a racing vehicle. Quick swap batteries don't mean much when it's every 3 laps of Le Mans.

Full electric is a nice idea. But it's the same as hydrogen - the cost of development is monumental. You can't open P1 regulations up further, and decrease costs. Unfortunately, if you want cutting edge technology and big manufacturers to develop it, it'll come at a cost. I personally love the idea, but I don't think it'll end well.

I guess we have different ideas of what we consider respectable speeds in regards to Formula E. The cars look embarrassingly slow. The helicopter shots look like milk floats.

[chernaudi]

And we know that Toyota are more than capable of matching VAG's racing budgets. They outspent most of the field in IMSA GTP, and at LM in the late 1990s (only ones who came close to matching Toyota's budget at LM in '99 were Audi, who entered four cars across two classes vs TMG doing three cars in the LMGTP class). But Toyota got burned by their own corporate mismanagement of TMG in F1 and their whole F1 program.

Of course, this being gun-shy on spending what is probably actually needed to be competitive in LMP1 is having the side effect of TMG being basically always half a step behind Audi and Porsche the past couple of years, and throughout much of 2013.

But at the same time, if Audi and Porsche weren't there, TMG would be destroying Rebellion because Rebellion's budget is a small sliver of what TMG's currently is and TMG have the backing of Toyota.

[GasperG]

Yeah, like 2014 didn't happen.

100 kWh battery would be good for ~7 laps at LMP1 speeds ... if it would not make the car so heavy.

From what we see electricity can provide power but energy will still have to be provided by something different than battery for quite some years to come (~10?).

[chernaudi]

TMG got lucky for the most part in 2014 by being in the right place at the right time like Jaguar were in 1991. They had an early advantage that held them in good steed for most of the year. But once Audi and Porsche caught up in early 2015, it was basically game over. And Toyota have had to play catch up ever since, probably without the corporate support from the home office in Japan that they probably should've been getting.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

I doubt that you're ever going to get much more than three factory teams in a class that is basically a spending war. Someone has to finish last, and for big budget factory teams that's not an option. But I'm okay with that. The best team wins. I would never want to see LMP1 turn in to the BoP merry-go-round that GT racing is.

Yes. I'd rather even have Audi alone than the alternative from the far opposite side of the spectrum.

As I've said before, I'm all in for unlimited budgets. Cost capping sucks *** and achieves only skirmishes. The plans of the factories change so often anyways, and the landscapes change with the economy and politics, that you can never really create stable ground for the top class at LM.

[FormulaFox]

There will be two additional DPi entries in IMSA for 2018 - the result of a team deciding to push back a P2 program for IMSA due to several reasons:

1: Lack of trust that IMSA will fairly balance the DPis with the base P2s.
2: A desire to use an alternate engine without bodywork - they suspect the bodywork requirement will be gone by the end of 2017.
3: Even if the bodywork requirement stick around, their preferred partner will not be able to have bodywork ready before 2018.
4: Debuting their DPi program alongside their GT program with the same manufacturer.

Why, yes, this IS the same team I'm in line to join. How did you guess?

They will have a testing program going through 2017 with an engine from their intended partner instead of the Gibson, so it's going to be difficult for them to keep things secret(particularly once the main facility is completed in April - it's hard to keep this stuff secret in Charlotte), but until I'm allowed to say more I will only say what I'm allowed to say, and until it can be concretely confirmed I will only expect you all to consider it a rumor.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by TF110

Of course you gotta pay to play, but f1 sized budgets shouldn't be needed or encouraged.

Forgive me if I'm about to sacrifice the sacred cow, but why not? These cars are at least the equal of F1 cars tech-wise, and they're within a few seconds on the circuits shared by both (and that's with at least 200 kg more and a small ICE deficit due to lesser fuel flow). It would make sense that the budgets are in the same order of magnitude as the better F1 teams.

[Deleted]

I would love to have Pug back.

But not if it came as result of even further cost capping to accommodate them. That's just lobbying and trapping. Come if you can meet the terms, if not, don't bother with factory involvement but rather invest pennies in providing conventional customer chassis/engines for LMP1 privateers or something.

Toyota and FIA reshuffling have resulted in far enough restrictions already, let it not go beyond what we have now. It's not the fault of the "over spending" that F1 has fallen into oblivion in the last few years, quite contrary.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Chiana

It's not the fault of the "over spending" that F1 has fallen into oblivion in the last few years, quite contrary.

It is partially the fault of overspending, and overspending without results meant manufacturers jumping ship to save face when the economic crisis hit hardest in 2008-2010.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

It is partially the fault of overspending, and overspending without results meant manufacturers jumping ship to save face when the economic crisis hit hardest in 2008-2010.

Due to the horrific garbage results Toyota and Honda probably would have jumped the ship sooner or later anyway even if they have had "mere" 100 million budgets instead of 300-400 or whatever mega millions they spent. BMW dunno but by 2009 they weren't exactly thriving either

In any case, at that stage they were already moderately cost capping it by restricting testing and introducing more spec parts etc, and as we all know that never works as the flow of budget is just moved to other areas of development.

[Makaze]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

There will be two additional DPi entries in IMSA for 2018 - the result of a team deciding to push back a P2 program for IMSA due to several reasons:

1: Lack of trust that IMSA will fairly balance the DPis with the base P2s.
2: A desire to use an alternate engine without bodywork - they suspect the bodywork requirement will be gone by the end of 2017.
3: Even if the bodywork requirement stick around, their preferred partner will not be able to have bodywork ready before 2018.
4: Debuting their DPi program alongside their GT program with the same manufacturer.

Why, yes, this IS the same team I'm in line to join. How did you guess?

They will have a testing program going through 2017 with an engine from their intended partner instead of the Gibson, so it's going to be difficult for them to keep things secret(particularly once the main facility is completed in April - it's hard to keep this stuff secret in Charlotte), but until I'm allowed to say more I will only say what I'm allowed to say, and until it can be concretely confirmed I will only expect you all to consider it a rumor.

Stop talking about it or we will stick the Colombian on you.

[YZFrider]

Laguna Seca released a preliminary schedule for 2017. IMSA in September and PWC in October. And yet....there is a TBD for May, the previous slot for IMSA. Words "exotic Sportscar event" are being used as description. Hmmmm

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Makaze

Stop talking about it or we will stick the Colombian on you.

NO! When information I can safely provide is available I will provide it. YOU CAN'T STOP THE SIGNAL!!!!!

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by YZFrider

Laguna Seca released a preliminary schedule for 2017. IMSA in September and PWC in October. And yet....there is a TBD for May, the previous slot for IMSA. Words "exotic Sportscar event" are being used as description. Hmmmm

It's not the WEC. I'd suggest the Vintage event has moved from August to May.

[YZFrider]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

It's not the WEC. I'd suggest the Vintage event has moved from August to May.

You're right it's not the WEC, wishful thinking on my part

http://www.mazdaraceway.com/homepage...year-long-60th

The Motorsport Reunion keeps it's place in August. Which makes me curious. I can't see the track calling Ferrari Challenge days "exotic sportscar event"

The only thing I can think of is the Porsche Rennsport, which has been around twice in 3 years, typically in the month of October. Now that the events in the Fall have been occupied, a move to May is not out of the ordinary. I just find it a bit odd they wouldn't just say it is the Rennsport, that event has been a success...unless of course it's just a formality and nothing can be definitive until official.