|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
7 Jul 2015, 21:23 (Ref:3556617) | #1401 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
|
||
|
7 Jul 2015, 23:26 (Ref:3556645) | #1402 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 477
|
REALLY +1
|
||
|
8 Jul 2015, 15:44 (Ref:3556785) | #1403 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,449
|
With current P2 on a high right now, how much sense would it make for IMSA to embrace the current cars and grandfather them into their new P regs for 2017 and 2018?
|
|
|
8 Jul 2015, 15:57 (Ref:3556790) | #1404 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
||
|
8 Jul 2015, 15:59 (Ref:3556792) | #1405 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 253
|
I'm all for it. One of the successes of club racing is making multiple classes and/or a rules set that allows a variety of cars to compete. Keeps the fields healthy
|
||
|
8 Jul 2015, 16:14 (Ref:3556794) | #1406 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,449
|
||
|
8 Jul 2015, 17:07 (Ref:3556813) | #1407 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,671
|
|||
|
8 Jul 2015, 18:03 (Ref:3556818) | #1408 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
Exactly. The way to ensure that the new cars are adopted is to either ban the old ones, or peg the old ones back so they have no chance to win.
The new cars are going to be faster than the current P2 cars, which are pretty much at their maximum power level currently. There is no way they could BoP the old ones. |
|
|
8 Jul 2015, 18:05 (Ref:3556819) | #1409 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,671
|
I think some weight could be taken out of the current p2's but I don't know how much ballast they have.
|
||
|
8 Jul 2015, 18:06 (Ref:3556820) | #1410 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
This isn't club racing. It's a professional series. When NASCAR switched to their current body style, they didn't allow poor teams to keep running the old COT bodywork. IndyCar didn't let teams run the IR-05 when they went to the DW-12.
|
|
|
8 Jul 2015, 18:06 (Ref:3556822) | #1411 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
||
|
8 Jul 2015, 19:50 (Ref:3556833) | #1412 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
Grandfathering current spec cars increases the chances of bigger grids, especially if the supply of to be manufactured new cars is slow off the line (not a overly unrealistic scenario with Daytona being so early in the year). Second, it somewhat protects the investment teams made when they bought a current spec P2 recently (Shank, Krohn, others) who might otherwise be forced to look at other non P2 options. Or be forced out. No grandfathering of the current spec P2 could result in a very tiny prototype grid come the Rolex 24 in 2016. Edit: WEC and ELMS are grandfathering current cars for 2017 and 2017+2018 respectively: see http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...ey-points.html Last edited by Coach Ep; 8 Jul 2015 at 20:07. |
||
|
8 Jul 2015, 20:07 (Ref:3556839) | #1413 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Make the old, new, P-2s the new PCs in '17.
|
||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
8 Jul 2015, 20:46 (Ref:3556854) | #1414 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 372
|
Well, plenty of opportunities to run them in AsLMS.
It's one aspect of this 2017 debacle which is looking positive and that grid should flourish. |
|
|
8 Jul 2015, 20:58 (Ref:3556857) | #1415 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,449
|
Until 2019 I don't see much incentive to run a current spec P2 in Asia instead of Europe.
|
|
|
9 Jul 2015, 13:01 (Ref:3556987) | #1416 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
The only incentive to go there is to get auto entries when no one else shows up
|
|
|
9 Jul 2015, 15:08 (Ref:3557007) | #1417 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 723
|
Onroak, Oreca, Dallara and Riley-Multimatic have been selected as LMP2 manufacturer for 2017.
http://sportscar365.com/industry/aco...-lmp2-in-2017/ |
||
|
9 Jul 2015, 15:32 (Ref:3557010) | #1418 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 402
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
9 Jul 2015, 15:47 (Ref:3557014) | #1419 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Also mr Fillion: “Thanks to the decisions taken jointly by the ACO, IMSA and the FIA we have managed to bring together a high-quality pool of constructors which reinforces the interest in the series and its glowing future prospects -- These new regulations and the provisions that result from them, the first of which is the selection of the four chassis constructors, will lead to more competitive cars, an efficient, cost-capped, viable economic model, a global market for cars that can race in North America, in Asia and in Europe allied to an excellent level of service for the entrants.” |
||
|
9 Jul 2015, 15:59 (Ref:3557019) | #1420 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
I'm starting to get a bit tired of the ACO bashing for the new LMP2 rules.
When thinking back, the last time ACO made a poor choice in regulations was with the 3.5L rules (which were FIA's idea). Granted killing the GT1's, removed some interested cars, but was natural. ACO haven't done this because they want to toss up the cards in the air and see where they land. They do it because they feel it is necessary, and have done it in close partnership with the manufactures and teams. What I feel is missing is some proper argumentation to why they change the regulations, instead of promises for the future. |
||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
9 Jul 2015, 16:08 (Ref:3557022) | #1421 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
According to who? When the initial headlines were made last winter, 90% of the parties seemed surprised/shocked to hear ACO were even cooking this mess in the owen. And then Fillion said every manufacturer out of 30 (or something) thought it was great idea. Yeah, I'm sure! Even though only Hughes de Chaunac had had anything positive to say about it, because he was going to make lots more money. Among the other three that paid for the ACO to get more money in the future. Everybody else has hates it.
|
|
|
9 Jul 2015, 16:16 (Ref:3557025) | #1422 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
9 Jul 2015, 16:34 (Ref:3557029) | #1423 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,909
|
I don't mind the 4 manufacturer rule, admittedly id like to see smaller companies being able to step up and make their own cars like ginetta...but the thing I have an issue with is 1 engine supplier....id rather see 3 or 4 engines so you get a bit of variety in the sound.....otherwise its just going to sound like a formula 3 drone all the time....especially with the American market in mind a v6 and v8 engine option would be a good thing....
|
||
|
9 Jul 2015, 17:04 (Ref:3557031) | #1424 | |||||||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
|
9 Jul 2015, 17:21 (Ref:3557038) | #1425 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 477
|
Not too many happy campers
I am beginning to sense that the ACO has been FIBBING to us |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Judd LMP2 engine | Mike_Wooshy | Sportscar & GT Racing | 19 | 3 Feb 2011 22:21 |
New LMP2 engine - and (more) rule changes | ss_collins | Sportscar & GT Racing | 42 | 4 Oct 2008 14:49 |
Manufacturers propose new engine regs | Marbot | Formula One | 20 | 20 Oct 2007 12:17 |
LMP2 engine changes? (merged) | JAG | Sportscar & GT Racing | 31 | 20 Jun 2006 10:20 |
Engine Suppliers Championship? | Mr V | Formula One | 4 | 29 May 2002 09:46 |