|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
8 Jul 2017, 23:12 (Ref:3749672) | #301 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,474
|
The fastest car in the race last week was a LMP2 car. Just throwing that out there.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk |
||
|
9 Jul 2017, 00:04 (Ref:3749677) | #302 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,593
|
|||
|
9 Jul 2017, 00:21 (Ref:3749678) | #303 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Quote:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=268 And here: http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=218 Whether or not you want to count this as opinion or rumor is up to you, but I'm not the only one saying this. In fact, I'm saying this because others have. |
|||
|
9 Jul 2017, 00:36 (Ref:3749681) | #304 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
And the biggest reason why a LMP2 car did set fastest race lap was because of BOP. We already know earlier this season that the DPIs, especially the Cadillac, could smoke a LMP2 with ease. And it's not like the LMP2s are slow, as we saw at Le Mans.
Even if you give a factory a customer car as a base, they'll modify it within the rules to attempt to gain an advantage. Whether or not IMSA intended for this to happen or not is up for discussion, but what happened, happened. My only argument against it is why spend the money that GM did (even if it's a piddly amount even to what Audi used to spend in the ALMS, which in 2008 was quoted as being nearly $15 million a season) just to get pegged back? I know that IMSA can't really do much to speed up the LMP2 cars (their agreement, gentleman's agreement or contractual or otherwise, with the ACO). I also understand that this is also supposed to take away the requirement/incentive to spend tons of money on what is supposed to be a relatively cheap program. But you still have one factory out-spending a lot of the field to get ahead. And we well know how cost cutting ends up working in racing; if they don't spend their budget on the program itself, or testing, or whatever, they'll just spend that money somewhere else. It's sort of like government budgets. If you come in under budget, if you need more money, the check writers and bean counters aren't as likely to funnel more money, so you blow what you have left over on something else. IMO, not ideal in government or racing, but it works. When one sees how expensive LMP1 became since 2014 especially (not that it was cheap beforehand--that's definitely a relative term there), you can't blame teams looking at DPI or even LMP2. But I do have to ask this: if you have an equal chance of winning and you're a team owner, why not buy a LMP2 and save some money over a DPI? IMO, IMSA are on a bit of a tight rope. They don't want to alienate manufacturers who want to come into DPI with a program, but also right now, they can't just shaft the LMP2 teams without giving them something in return. Problem is it's a battle of "what ifs". If IMSA loosens the leash on DPI, could more teams join in? If IMSA creates a pro-am LMP2 class, could more teams enter that are looking for a class victory and don't want to race directly against all pro driver line ups? There are those in favor or a split, and those who aren't. But if you're a numbers person, it won't look good if IMSA just takes one class and makes two smaller ones out of it, not unless they're guaranteed a boost in numbers. And as we've seen in racing, there's very few guarantees. |
||
|
9 Jul 2017, 00:58 (Ref:3749686) | #305 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,208
|
Quote:
|
||
|
9 Jul 2017, 01:33 (Ref:3749692) | #306 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Need I remind you that Penske was PO'd at Grand Am over the BOP against Porsche after Brumos won the Daytona 24 in '09? And that some of the guys in charge back then are still in charge at IMSA. Even if it's what HPD wants (the Penske history of him using as much of other interested parties' money as possible and using as little of his own), that still has to factor in.
And even if HPD are the ones who want no BOP to LMP2s, why would IMSA be inclined to bend over backwards for them over anyone else? Unless there's more DPI teams knocking on the door or they get a surge of LMP2 teams that want a pro am class, there's little justification for a split right now. I'm in favor of a split since I don't think that BOP between DPI and LMP2 makes a ton of sense, but my opinion doesn't count here, IMSA's does. |
||
|
9 Jul 2017, 15:01 (Ref:3749784) | #307 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
In a way, Pesnke got shafted by Both halves of modern IMSA.
He had a good thing going with his P2 Porsche Spyders, where he could compete for overall wins with Audi on a much smaller budget... but ALMS shut that down. In Grand Am, he got shafted as Chernaudi mentions. Penske is seeing a situation where he tried joining the second class and fighting the top class, and he tried joining the top class ....neither worked. Now, if he is going to join the top class (DPi) he wants it to be the Top Class. He doesn't want to play the role of Audi, getting beat by the P2s. And he doesn't want to build a fast car and get hamstrung by BoP, so he can watch cheaper cars kick his butt. Of course he wants a split in the top class. But Penskle has never looked long-term for the good of any series he was involved in (Look at his history with CART and IRL.) He goes where it benefits Penske Racing. So ... his desire to see two P classes might be disastrous for IMSA, but Penske doesn't care so long as he gets to win a title or two before the series goes broke. |
|
|
9 Jul 2017, 15:13 (Ref:3749787) | #308 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Need I mention that Penske was the only LMP2 team in IMSA at the time that was considered a full factory team, even with HPD/Acura there? And that the RS Spyder is probably the most expensive LMP2 ever made and one of the most expensive LMP cars ever offered for customer sales? Unlike other programs, Porsche only recovered a fraction of the investment that they made on it. And the ACO eventually told Porsche to move to LMP1, or pound sand, because they contributed heavily to rising costs in that platform.
But even that backs up that Penske wants his ROI, wants it quick, and as long as he gets what he wants, screw things short term when he leaves. IMSA survived his pull out, so did Grand Am. It was Audi and Porsche pulling advertising dollars out of the ALMS that killed it, and also not having that money--and especially fan base--in the first place that killed Grand Am. |
||
|
9 Jul 2017, 16:55 (Ref:3749833) | #309 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 914
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
9 Jul 2017, 17:27 (Ref:3749853) | #310 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,911
|
What was done to shut down the Porsche Spyder?
|
|
|
9 Jul 2017, 17:39 (Ref:3749863) | #311 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 914
|
|||
|
9 Jul 2017, 17:41 (Ref:3749866) | #312 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,911
|
Not sure how VAG was responsible for that (VAG includes Porsche too remember). P2 car counts were pretty low. Going Pro-Am was an attempt to raise the car count, which worked a treat in Europe.
|
|
|
9 Jul 2017, 18:55 (Ref:3749984) | #313 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
But in the present day, I just think that it's kinda stupid that DPIs are allowed performance upgrades in a BOP class. Good thing that Cadillac haven't really done anything since Daytona, because ESM and Mazda are doing upgrades.
I can understand reliability updates, but allowing performance upgrades is asinine when BOP is supposed to do the same thing, hopefully for cheaper. |
||
|
9 Jul 2017, 19:02 (Ref:3749987) | #314 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Quote:
That lead to the contrived LMP1 vs LMP2 battles in the ALMS. It made for good racing, but it was artificially created due to factory involvement in LMP2. That lead to things like weight increases for LMP2s, a gentleman's agreement in the LMS and LM that LMP2 teams had to have a gentleman driver (which ultimately became an official ACO mandate), and the 2011-present cost cap based formulas in LMP2. Also, there was a deal it seems at Volkswagen Group that at the time, Audi and Porsche couldn't directly compete against each other in the same class. But ultimately what killed the Penske ALMS program was Porsche ending the RS Spyder as a factory deal and it became a customer car deal, and then it was totally ended when the cost capped rules for LMP2 came in and Porsche were working on what would become the 919. It should be noted that like the Acura ARX-01 (which HPD replaced with a new car based on it), the RS Spyder could've in theory been run as a LMP1 car from 2011-2013. |
|||
|
9 Jul 2017, 19:59 (Ref:3750016) | #315 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
The 2009 BoP was an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction. While IMSA's BoP efforts have not been perfect since the merger, they've mostly only been applied when an actual discrepancy is present. Even then, the whole debacle may have been forgivable if the BoP had been rolled back after the subsequent race. Penske will be well aware of all this, as well as one thing that's often forgotten about the '09 BoP debacle; Penske was able to remain fairly competitive throughout it. They were the only Porsche powered DP team to do so, showing the strength of his organization. That'll give some confidence that they can overcome IMSA's BoP. |
|||
|
9 Jul 2017, 20:11 (Ref:3750021) | #316 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,123
|
Quote:
The LMP2 aspect/rule set was akin to the sweeping rule changes of the past. Clear the board, create wild cards, manage the result. ? |
|||
__________________
You live and learn. At any rate, you live. Douglas Adams |
9 Jul 2017, 22:49 (Ref:3750052) | #317 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,143
|
So since it looks like this Penske Honda thing is happening,I wonder what's going to come from Mike shank.will he have a customer Honda program?msr nsx is only a one year deal so unless he gets customers the nsx isnt going to stick around.will he move to dpi?
|
||
|
9 Jul 2017, 23:14 (Ref:3750058) | #318 | |
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 135
|
Penske/Honda PR on Tuesday.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2017, 01:06 (Ref:3750066) | #319 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
|
|
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
10 Jul 2017, 02:04 (Ref:3750072) | #320 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
So I suspect we'll see him running at least one GTD NSX for at least another season. |
|||
|
10 Jul 2017, 02:50 (Ref:3750074) | #321 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 734
|
Hi, I have not been prowling these forums for at least the past 3 or 4 months as frequently as I normally would be. Forgive me, but has anyone caught on to these two news stories? These articles seem to have fallen through the cracks from what I have seen elsewhere.
Tullman Walker Racing sets Daytona GTD plans http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/14211...tona-gtd-plans This is an certainly a different one! Saavedra, AFS pressing ahead with IMSA plans http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/14193...hing-imsa-move Does anyone have any more insight into these? *BUMP* I also wanted to ask anyone on this forum in the know of the goings on with Starworks Motorsport and Peter Baron's plans? Last I heard, (which was around the time or during or after Sebring), he was looking into a DPi program, but have not heard any other stories regarding that topic since then. Last edited by Nick Woodbury; 10 Jul 2017 at 02:58. |
||
|
10 Jul 2017, 08:50 (Ref:3750102) | #322 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
The last time I heard ANYTHING about Starworks in DPi, they were connected to the Honda plans. But that was way back around Daytona/Sebring 2016, and it's pretty clear that it would be overly generous to refer to the likelihood of that association as being "slim."
I have heard nothing about Starworks specifically, but when generalized statements are made about unnamed parties being allegedly aiming to join IMSA via ACO-spec P2s next year, I'm sure that Starworks is one of them as I strongly doubt Peter Baron has given up on being a top class entrant. Doesn't mean he has anything sorted or likely, though. |
||
|
10 Jul 2017, 09:37 (Ref:3750107) | #323 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
Only you forgot the bit about the supposedly famous Penske motto, "Finding the unfair advantage". Translated means, being allowed to cheat by the governing body, or we won't play in your sandpit. |
||
|
10 Jul 2017, 12:57 (Ref:3750166) | #324 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,593
|
Quote:
The Saavedra move would be interesting as well. If Visit Florida is looking for a sponsor I could see them trying to woo him with the promise of a car upgrade for 2018. As for Starworks they were mentioned as being an early team to agree to buy a Riley. I can't remember if they ever actually got the chassis or not, but if they did I'd assume it is a bit of buyer's remorse at this point. |
|||
|
10 Jul 2017, 13:29 (Ref:3750172) | #325 | |
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 284
|
||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GTE / GTLM 2018, on the way to a new GT1 era | hondafan37 | ACO Regulated Series | 540 | 11 Jan 2019 15:04 |
[WEC] BMW confirmed in GTE in 2018 | AkioAsakura95 | ACO Regulated Series | 264 | 13 Sep 2017 16:52 |
2018 New Manufacturers | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 60 | 28 Nov 2016 03:56 |
Hockenheim secures new deal until 2018 | jab | Formula One | 13 | 2 Oct 2009 00:25 |