ALMS 2012 Discussion

[96290]

I think LMP2 will start filling out in LMS and ALMS as it's near full in the WEC.

I could only see a team guaranteeing a WEC slot if they entered P1, that could be the route some bigger teams take to avoid the lottery of missing out on the WEC/LeMans.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by 96290

I think LMP2 will start filling out in LMS and ALMS as it's near full in the WEC.

I could only see a team guaranteeing a WEC slot if they entered P1, that could be the route some bigger teams take to avoid the lottery of missing out on the WEC/LeMans.

The problem is that a team can only feel confident about getting to Le Mans if they compete full-time in the WEC. Some pay drivers/team owners, particularly in the US, don't care about Le Mans so that would not be a problem. For others, it is a major problems.

Anyway, ELMS P2 seems to be doing ok. It's the only ELMS class that is doing ok, but we'll see how many LMPCs show up there. The ALMS, well, we'll see. P2 is growing, but LMPC seems to be growing at the same rate or at a higher rate too.

[DeathOrGlory]

I like LMPC, but they need to be a bit faster than the GTEs in a straight line.

[Purist]

I'd like it if ALL the LMP classes had more straight-line speed in hand over the GTs.

BTW, that means speed up the LMPs, do NOT slow down the GTs!

[AGD]

Originally Posted by DeathOrGlory

I like LMPC, but they need to be a bit faster than the GTEs in a straight line.

I agree, but if you make LMPCs much more faster, they'll be knocking on the door of the front running P2 cars.

[DeathOrGlory]

Those power strangling rules were a mistake anyway.

[Maelochs]

"Can we have everything louder than everything else?"

Problem with limiting speed anywhere is some people hate the idea (not necessarily the result) of limiting speed. Problem with not limiting speed is that engineers (clever fellows they can be) will always find a way to go faster.

Drivers (those feeble humans) are limited by human reaction times. Talk to the Air Force---the fastest planes are kept stable by computers because humans can't respond quickly enough and instead would start oscillations resulting in crashes. It's why we have traction control---even the best drivers aren't quick enough and sensitive enough to control all the available (though drastically reduced) horsepower.

In the interest of both safety and not having computer-controlled cars, race organizers have to limit speeds. Has to be done. Humans can build cars too fast for humans to drive.

I wholly agree, prototypes should be able to pass on the straights, not be forced to squeeze by in the corners. Problem is, GT cars perform so well nowadays that prototypes can't get by on most straights.

Still, people demand that GTs not be slowed; instead, LMPs be made faster. Kind of at cross purposes there.

Humans can build cars capable of 250, 300 mph down the Mulsanne---have been able to for years. Humans can build cars that corner at more then 3 Gs. Humans can build cars that stop too quickly for humans to modulate the brakes and accelerate too forcefully for humans to modulate the throttle. Humans can build cars that go faster than humans can drive.

Only solution is to limit speeds. We all need to grow up enough to get away from the numbers and the hype (obviously if we need a new record every year, eventually we will be running up against the speed of light----exaggerated to be sure, but how can we possibly go faster every year? Do we Want computer-driven cars?)

Cars need to be limited to work within the ranges in which drivers can still show their skills. Maybe lap timers will be longer, average speeds slower, tires will be narrower, braking distances longer, and top speeds, a little higher (and drivers a little more important.)

Or maybe engines will be less powerful but wings and tires will be bigger, increasing cornering speeds, not top speed (so LMPGTs can't pass GTs.)

Whatever. Somewhere somehow cars have to be limited in speed, (or we need to build tracks twice times as big) or we will return either to the deadly Sixties and Seventies, or the computer-controlled era.

Personally, I'd prefer narrower rubber and smaller wings, plenty of top end and less traction---ACO seems to have gone for choking the engines and letting the aero (and cornering speeds) run wild. Either way, fans need to step up and accept that we are not ever going to see the fastest cars that can be built. We are going to see the fastest cars that can be safely raced.

Forget new records ... focus on good racing. See how fast cars can be made within the restrictions. Marvel at the skill of the drivers to drive flat-out lap after lap in traffic for hours at a time. Marvel at the way engineers keep finding speed despite the latest regulations to slow the cars.

But face it---from time to time we need to slow the cars. Maybe slowing GT is the best bet right now---LMPs have been slowed enough or a while maybe? But you can't have "everything louder than everything else" because that ends up with the crowd hushed and the loudest sounds being the rescue choppers and the ambulance sirens.

Just my opinion, but I don't see how we can keep making everything faster all the time without being forced to compromise either safety or driver involvement, so I'd rather compromise on speed.

[AGD]

Nobody is asking for 300 mph (though that would be pretty damn cool even if computer driven), but what we'd like to see are actual gaps between the classes and the P1s running with rules similar to 2010. If the ACO wants to move towards 300hp P1s, fine. There's no reason why American prototypes should be limited by the Mulsanne straight though. In fact, allowing faster class cars to pass slower class cars on the straights instead of in corners or braking zones could increase safety.

[Purist]

Allowing the LMPs to more readily pass the GTs on the straightaways WOULD increase safety.

Maelochs, you talk as if there is no additional performance envelope anywhere that can be exploited within human capacities. This is simply NOT true.

The Porsche 917ks and 917LHs, along with the Ferrari 512Ss and 512Ms, had similar power to present LMP1s, but they had no magical ECUs, ABS, or traction control. They were quite controllable by humans. They were scary, but controllable. And shouldn't any truly great competition car be capable of scaring its drivers with its ultimate potential?

I don't think the 1200hp (in racing trim) Porsche 917/30 had ABS or traction control either; computers weren't that advanced, or that small, heading into 1973. And yet, drivers controlled that monster, which depending on accounts, weighed 100-220lb LESS than the current, 900kg machines.

I'm alright with slowing the LMPs some in the corners, but I think they can go safely enough at very high speeds down the straights. Derek Bell said the same thing shortly after Allan McNish's crash, if you need someone closer to the game to listen to on the matter.

The problem is that there MUST be a certain amount of freedom in the rules, or else you will fail to attract enough people to the sport to make it viable. You simply cannot make the appeal of the sport too cerebral, or else "nobody" will care anymore. The trouble is, it seems like ALL the solutions being seriously discussed are solely in that cerebral realm. They do NOTHING for the visceral experience and enjoyment of the sport. If you want the sport to continue in a meanful fashion, that aspect MUST be included as well, period.

As intelligent a response as I can muster, even I still NEED those sensory and intangible elements of appeal to be there. I NEVER would have fallen for motorsport in the first place without them, and I cannot say with any confidence that I would be able to keep my love for the sport alive without them.

And going the "close racing" route is fatally flawed itself anyway. In that realm too, you eventually run up against the laws of physics, as we saw very graphically with the Indy Cars at Las Vegas. We have seen it as well, on numerous occasions, in NASCAR with countless "big ones", which seem to be coming to ever smaller and smaller speedways as time goes on.

As a final note, Maelochs, I naturally go to the cerebral end of things when that phrase "within the restrictions" comes up. I've had a lot of training as an engineer, so that's just what I do. The other problem is, it's rather like telling me that, since I have that reference that cars were going quicker in the past, that I'm just not as capable as those engineers, or not allowed to be as capable as them. With my limited eyesight, being told what I should or should not accept and what others think I can or cannot do is nothing new to me. However, I've been told too damn many times what lowered expectations I just should shut up and accept for myself, and so I'm not too receptive to being told that same thing again, particularly in a field that I am extremely passionate about. I'm not angry at you or anyone else in particularly, but this talk of "restrictions" and "limitations" does bring up some frustrations for me. I think this is a fair comment, and I don't think I've said anything unreasonable in this post or the last one, which you may have been refrencing.

[Dead-Eye]

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120220/ALMS/120229993

Single Alex Job Racing Lotus Evora from Long Beach onwards.

[KlBD]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120220/ALMS/120229993

Single Alex Job Racing Lotus Evora from Long Beach onwards.

Had suspected one of the GTE manufacturers entering from Long Beach was Lotus from Dagys' post a while back, but AJR is certainly a surprise!

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Single Alex Job Racing Lotus Evora from Long Beach onwards.

Well, I guess that is conformation of a ride that a lot of people saw coming in the last few weeks. I'm guessing the rendering on that page won't be the Job ALMS version, but maybe it'll keep a similar motif. Townsend Bell and Bill Sweedler as the drivers. I guess we'll see what Bell can do in one of these cars. Battery Tender is involved, no surprise there. I guess the surprise are the Yokohama tires. It seems like Yokohama always finds a way to end up on at least one ALMS GT car.

Anyway, I guess this makes ALMS GT that much more interesting. We'll have to see if the AMR Vantage comes to play along for a few races. I guess this means that the Ian Dawson Lotus thing is dead, but that is another thing that a lot of us saw coming.

[Speed-King]

Not sure if Mr.Job is doing himself any favors there... smells way too much of PTG's switch to Panoz for me, just with a less impressive driver lineup.

That said, good to have one more car in a non-spec class on the grid and a bit of an oddball at that. If anyone can get it up to speed it's probably AJR, but I really don't understand why they don't run it at Sebring, after all the program is already a year old. Either they have a serious upgrade coming and want to implement that first before throwing the car out there or they run on such a shoestring budget that they cut Sebring because it's probably the most expensive race on the calender.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120220/ALMS/120229993

Single Alex Job Racing Lotus Evora from Long Beach onwards.

NICE!!! Can't wait to see what Townsend can do with the Evora.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Not sure if Mr.Job is doing himself any favors there... smells way too much of PTG's switch to Panoz for me, just with a less impressive driver lineup.

That said, good to have one more car in a non-spec class on the grid and a bit of an oddball at that. If anyone can get it up to speed it's probably AJR, but I really don't understand why they don't run it at Sebring, after all the program is already a year old. Either they have a serious upgrade coming and want to implement that first before throwing the car out there or they run on such a shoestring budget that they cut Sebring because it's probably the most expensive race on the calender.

Well, it's better than GTC. It's a team upgrading and upgrading within the series. That's nice to see. As for why not Sebring, it could be the budget stuff. Maybe the ALMS has already capped entries for Sebring? I don't know. I would think that they could have shoehorned a full-time entry into the race if they wanted to.

I assume Townsend Bell is bringing the William Rast money. Is Sweedler connected to the Battery Tender money? I wonder if someone like Johnny Mowlem might be the 3rd driver for enduros. Is the Lotus Le Mans reserve car run by a team in Europe or might someone like Job be behind it if it ever gets off the reserve list?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by AGD

Is the Lotus Le Mans reserve car run by a team in Europe or might someone like Job be behind it if it ever gets off the reserve list?

Let me answer my own question (at least partially) by stating that there is a Lotus ELMS program. At least I think there is one. I assume that team (whoever it is) is behind the Le Mans reserve entry and not Job. That's just a guess.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Purist

Allowing the LMPs to more readily pass the GTs on the straightaways WOULD increase safety.

Maelochs, you talk as if there is no additional performance envelope anywhere that can be exploited within human capacities. This is simply NOT true.

The Porsche 917ks and 917LHs, along with the Ferrari 512Ss and 512Ms, had similar power to present LMP1s, but they had no magical ECUs, ABS, or traction control. They were quite controllable by humans. They were scary, but controllable. And shouldn't any truly great competition car be capable of scaring its drivers with its ultimate potential?

I don't think the 1200hp (in racing trim) Porsche 917/30 had ABS or traction control either; computers weren't that advanced, or that small, heading into 1973. And yet, drivers controlled that monster, which depending on accounts, weighed 100-220lb LESS than the current, 900kg machines.

I'm alright with slowing the LMPs some in the corners, but I think they can go safely enough at very high speeds down the straights. Derek Bell said the same thing shortly after Allan McNish's crash, if you need someone closer to the game to listen to on the matter.

The problem is that there MUST be a certain amount of freedom in the rules, or else you will fail to attract enough people to the sport to make it viable. You simply cannot make the appeal of the sport too cerebral, or else "nobody" will care anymore. The trouble is, it seems like ALL the solutions being seriously discussed are solely in that cerebral realm. They do NOTHING for the visceral experience and enjoyment of the sport. If you want the sport to continue in a meanful fashion, that aspect MUST be included as well, period.

As intelligent a response as I can muster, even I still NEED those sensory and intangible elements of appeal to be there. I NEVER would have fallen for motorsport in the first place without them, and I cannot say with any confidence that I would be able to keep my love for the sport alive without them.

And going the "close racing" route is fatally flawed itself anyway. In that realm too, you eventually run up against the laws of physics, as we saw very graphically with the Indy Cars at Las Vegas. We have seen it as well, on numerous occasions, in NASCAR with countless "big ones", which seem to be coming to ever smaller and smaller speedways as time goes on.

As a final note, Maelochs, I naturally go to the cerebral end of things when that phrase "within the restrictions" comes up. I've had a lot of training as an engineer, so that's just what I do. The other problem is, it's rather like telling me that, since I have that reference that cars were going quicker in the past, that I'm just not as capable as those engineers, or not allowed to be as capable as them. With my limited eyesight, being told what I should or should not accept and what others think I can or cannot do is nothing new to me. However, I've been told too damn many times what lowered expectations I just should shut up and accept for myself, and so I'm not too receptive to being told that same thing again, particularly in a field that I am extremely passionate about. I'm not angry at you or anyone else in particularly, but this talk of "restrictions" and "limitations" does bring up some frustrations for me. I think this is a fair comment, and I don't think I've said anything unreasonable in this post or the last one, which you may have been refrencing.

A very nice post, and we are 100% in agreement!

[Maelochs]

@Purist:

My point stands. At some point we have to accept that we cannot keep going faster.

You start off: “Allowing the LMPs to more readily pass the GTs on the straightaways WOULD increase safety.”

Oddly similar to my own statement, “I wholly agree, prototypes should be able to pass on the straights, not be forced to squeeze by in the corners.” So far, so good.

This is in fact really the crux of the issue. There is a limit to how fast cars driven by humans can race safely, and how to reach that limit safely is important. That is why I am against the current trend of choking engines while keeping cornering speeds unchecked. I think it is an unsafe way to limit the performance of the cars to safe overall speeds.

Then on to the 5-liter prototypes:

The Porsche 917s had more power than today’s cars and were in fact a lot Slower—just faster on the straights. Less aero, less tire—exactly the things I called for in the post to which you replied.

As I recall the Renault A442s were doing 240 mph on the Mulsanne, and were turning faster laps than the old Porsches—still slower lap times than today’s prototypes. Part of that increase in speed might have been driver aids like traction control; part better aero.

I quote: “I wholly agree, prototypes should be able to pass on the straights, not be forced to squeeze by in the corners. Problem is, GT cars perform so well nowadays that prototypes can't get by on most straights.”

So, we increase the top speed of the LMPs—how fast will they be cornering now? Then, as GTs get faster over the next few seasons, how much faster will LMPs have to be?

I am not even saying we should cut the cornering speeds. What I am saying is that we need to get away from the notion that we need to be setting speed records every year to have good racing. At some point, cars will be doing 300 mph down the Mulsanne at pulling 5 Gs through the corners and drivers will be unable to keep up with the cars at that point.

Sure, drivers controlled the 917—but if I suggested returning to those levels of performance I’d be calling for cutting speeds. Oops.

I think we agree about freedom in the rules—but when you say this: “it's rather like telling me that, since I have that reference that cars were going quicker in the past, that I'm just not as capable as those engineers, or not allowed to be as capable as them,” we diverge.

First off, lap times and speeds have been higher in the past few years than ever in history.

Part of the reason speeds are higher is better aero. Part is traction control. Part is just the excellence of engineers, getting more out of every car because of what their predecessors learned. And now we also have cars that are vastly safer than the 917s or even the A442s.

Again I ask, where does it end? How can we get faster every year without eventually exceeding either the bounds of safety or human performance? How long before we have to strap drivers into G-suits and have computers do most of the driving? Where is the excitement there?

Personally I find racing a lot more exciting when the drivers are doing the driving—the more capacity for driver error, the more skill needed. (One reason I don’t mind narrower tires and no traction control—all that power and speed is wasted if the driver can’t use it well, and longer braking zones would allow drivers more overtaking opportunities—some of that “visceral stuff you talk about.”)

Second, every engineer is working within a formula. Getting the most out of that formula is the challenge. You are falling for the same “Numbers must be Bigger every year!” idea.

Tell me, are you a better engineer than all those others, because cars today are faster than the old cars were? Or maybe, are you the best you can be and so were they, and the numbers don’t matter—what each does with the materials, knowledge, and rules of the day, makes the difference?

As far as “allowed to be as capable as them …” I’d say today’s engineers have to be just as capable, because they have to build cars that are not only fast but safe. No one is preventing you from being a better engineer. Are you saying that unless you can design 1500-hp engines in 600-kg chassis you are not being allowed to be as good? I’d say, design a 900-kg car with 500 hp that can hit 250 and corner just as fast, safely, as current cars and you will have proved your engineering chops.

As far as your emotional response to the terms “restrictions” and “limits” … can’t help you there, friend. Most people call them “the rules” and work within them, or find clever ways to work around them—those are the really good engineers.

Recap: Cars were Not “quicker” in the past, just faster on the straights.

Engineering skill is Not demonstrated by lap time or speed. The engineers a century ago were not cretins, just because the cars were slower.

There are always rules; good engineers get the most out of them.

And ultimately, at some point we will reach absolute limits of automotive performance under human control. Just as the IndyCar drivers found out at Texas Motors Speedway a decade ago, when many of them passed out from G-forces.

Already it is getting hard to keep cars from flying (hence the ugly holes and fins) because the speeds are so great, and the other forces so delicately balanced, that anything out of balance (like a car turning sideways) can cause flight.

The 917 didn’t have that problem—not with four inches of ground clearance, and relatively stodgy cornering performance. It was Not a quicker car. Put one on most tracks today and an LMPC could probably beat it.

So, if the ACO or the FIA changes the rules to slow the cars, people don’t need to throw fits. The cars will soon be going just as fast again, and the racing needn’t suffer.

By the way, are you saying people should have enjoyed racing less in the Fities and Sixties, because the cars were slower? Or in the middle seventies because the engines were smaller?

All I am saying is that the quest for ever greater speed is doomed eventually to reach a limit. All I am saying is rules-makers have constantly made rules to reduce speed and engineers have constantly found greater speed anyway, so there is no need to worry. All I am saying is, people might want Not to freak out when someone suggests slowing the GT cars a little.

That’s all.

[KA]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I really don't understand why they don't run it at Sebring, after all the program is already a year old. Either they have a serious upgrade coming and want to implement that first before throwing the car out there or they run on such a shoestring budget that they cut Sebring because it's probably the most expensive race on the calender.

Could it simply be a case of not being ready to run at Sebring? Although this deal has been rumoured for a while, if it's only just been signed and sealed, with Sebring little more than a month away, maybe they simply don't think they can have a car ready to roll in time.

If Lotus have done any major development work over the winter (and I really hope they have), then maybe AJR are waiting for a new 2012-spec chassis to be delivered...? As you suggest, if there has been a serious upgrade, I'm not sure I'd want to go into Sebring with a new car that the team had barely seen let alone tested...

Do JetAlliance still have the 2011 cars, or did they go back to Lotus?

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by KA

Do JetAlliance still have the 2011 cars, or did they go back to Lotus?

They've probably gone back to Lotus, Jetalliance have got themselves a LMP2 Lola.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by KA

If Lotus have done any major development work over the winter (and I really hope they have), then maybe AJR are waiting for a new 2012-spec chassis to be delivered...? As you suggest, if there has been a serious upgrade, I'm not sure I'd want to go into Sebring with a new car that the team had barely seen let alone tested..

It has been said that Ian Dawson's group was doing development work on the Evora back when they were planning on running it in the ALMS. I don't know if this is true and what the nature of the development that was done. I assume that Ian Dawson is no longer in the picture as far as Evoras are concerned, but I have no idea. I'm still not quite sure who is running the European operation.

One thing to remember is that the ALMS is pretty aggressive with BoP. The problem is that the car will have at least one "amateur" driver and the quality of the Yokohama tires is a bit unknown and presumed to be below that of the Dunlops, Falkens, and Michelins. Perhaps the Yokohamas are better than they are given credit for given that they have been on the old PTG Panozes, RSR Jags, the Miller Porsche, and the West Lambo the last few years. None of those were top shelf efforts.

[Deleted]

Fantastic news about the Evora, although I would've preferred proper Porsche campaign from Alex Job.

So on my count the situation in GT2 is now:


Confirmed
2x P&M Corvette
2x ESM Ferrari
2x FL Porsche
1x Falken Porsche
1x PMR Porsche
2x RLL BMW
1x AJR Lotus Evora (Long Beach onwards)

Likely / partial season
0-1x Risi Ferrari (only Sebring confirmed at this stage but full campaign still possible)
0-1x Krohn Ferrari (some rounds)
0-2x AMR Vantage (some rounds)

Maybe?
0-2x Robertson Ford (???)
0-1x West Lambo (???)
0-1x extra Falken Porsche (???)
0-? converted Audi R8 LMS (???)

Sebring-only / WEC
2x AFC Ferrari
1x Luxury Ferrari
1x Felbermayr Porsche
1x AMR Vantage
+7 GTE-AMs

Dead
RSR Jaguar
Abruzzi

[joeb]

Originally Posted by AGD

... the quality of the Yokohama tires is a bit unknown and presumed to be below that of the Dunlops, Falkens, and Michelins. Perhaps the Yokohamas are better than they are given credit for given that they have been on the old PTG Panozes, RSR Jags, the Miller Porsche, and the West Lambo the last few years. None of those were top shelf efforts.

I think the quality of the Yokohama tires is pretty well known. Look at the teams that have run them in the past, they all had a limited tire budget and therefore went with the Yok's. So unless Yokohama is trying to ramp up their GT tire program and will be developing new tires, I think we know a little about the funding of this program.

[Deleted]

It doesn't really matter what tyres or drivers they run because now that the Jags (and probably Lambos, Fords) are out the Evora is clearly the worst car of the bunch. I guess they'll be getting some further weight/restrictor breaks to compensate but they already received massive amounts of those from ACO in ILMC last year and were still pretty damn slow, so don't expect any miracles. I think their closest competitor is now the Paul Miller porkie.

Don't get me wrong, having AJR in actual GT class is still fantastic news

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by AGD

One thing to remember is that the ALMS is pretty aggressive with BoP.

Overrated aspect... the cars that received in-season BoP in ALMS GT last year were BMW (smaller restrictor which they deserved), Porsche (less/more weight) and if you count the fuel restrictors then Corvette also. Otherwise they were pretty much ACO spec.

If we count out pre-season ACO GT2 adjustments, the in-season ones in ILMC/LMS were: Aston was allowed to run with smaller gurney, Ford was allowed to run with bigger restrictor [at LM] and Lotus gained tons of adjustments. There might be even more because they never updated the BoP-list since May... actually I know it's the case as Lotus said it had lost some of it's breaks prior Silverstone

I like repeating this line: At least IMSA is kind enough to publish all the figures unlike LMS