IMSA DPi Discussion

[chernaudi]

IMO, either IMSA and the ACO should adopt a common or at least less fixed platform (especially the ACO in this case), or just go their own ways.

I don't think that very many teams in IMSA prototypes will be banging down the door of the ACO and FIA for a LM invite, and if they did, they can just barrow or rent a car.

Putting the DPI cars into the LMP1 privateer sub-class is one of the more stupid ideas that the ACO has proposed in a while, and they've had plenty over the years in their own right. I don't think that the DPI stock block engines can be modded to have the same power as a purpose build racing engine. Let alone those guys committing to it for just one race a year.

So I say either get on the same page and have BOP testing to sort out/find even ground on the ACO LMP2/IMSA DPI issue, the ACO throw out the spec engine stuff, or just agree to disagree. I can understand the ACO being spooked by what HPD and especially Porsche did with having ultra-expensive cars by LMP2 standards and all-pro driver line ups in the ALMS, but that generation has passed aside from the DPI format still allowing for all pro driver line ups.

IMO, it's put up or shut up time for both the ACO and IMSA on this issue, and time's running out.

[Matt]

Don't the LMP1-L engines make like 580hp?

Super doable with a GT3 base.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMO, either IMSA and the ACO should adopt a common or at least less fixed platform (especially the ACO in this case), or just go their own ways.

I don't think that very many teams in IMSA prototypes will be banging down the door of the ACO and FIA for a LM invite, and if they did, they can just barrow or rent a car.

Putting the DPI cars into the LMP1 privateer sub-class is one of the more stupid ideas that the ACO has proposed in a while, and they've had plenty over the years in their own right. I don't think that the DPI stock block engines can be modded to have the same power as a purpose build racing engine. Let alone those guys committing to it for just one race a year.

So I say either get on the same page and have BOP testing to sort out/find even ground on the ACO LMP2/IMSA DPI issue, the ACO throw out the spec engine stuff, or just agree to disagree. I can understand the ACO being spooked by what HPD and especially Porsche did with having ultra-expensive cars by LMP2 standards and all-pro driver line ups in the ALMS, but that generation has passed aside from the DPI format still allowing for all pro driver line ups.

IMO, it's put up or shut up time for both the ACO and IMSA on this issue, and time's running out.

IMSA has already put up!
"IMSA has a ton of work to complete as it liaises with DPi manufacturers (who've yet to publicly announce their respective P2-based 2017 programs), and according to Raffauf, the four constructors and the manufacturers they're linked with have all the rules and specifications needed to design and build cars."On the IMSA front there are two distinct paths here," Raffauf said. "There's the LMP2 car, which is the WEC car, and then there's the DPi version, which is the IMSA's branch off that tree for the application here. Where we are with the chosen constructors on the DPi project, is they are very clear on everything they need to know to proceed on the projects, which has been ongoing since the fall for a number of potential clients. I'm not going to say who they are and who is hooked up with who.

"On that side, we're pretty comfortable with the basic car regulations, though not finalized by the FIA; I was just [in France] Monday for another meeting on the detail stuff. But the basic parameters of the car the constructors need to know to produce a DPi car are pretty much set, fixed, in their hands, and they know what it is and they know if there are questions, who to ask about what, whether it's aerodynamics or installations."

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/12732...ational-update





L.P.

[chernaudi]

My view is more of "should IMSA parrot or placate the ACO all the way, or just go and do their own thing like 1980-1993"?

There's already quite a bit of "in between" with having different BOP for IMSA and ACO spec GTLM cars, along with IMSA having a GT3 based class and a spec prototype class, with the ACO having dedicated Pro and Pro Am GT classes and a spec engine supplier in LMP2 starting next year.

[TzeiTzei]

I think it could be interesting to see the DPis race the ACO classes. It doesn't really matter to me what class they are in. But the french are probably too proud to let that happen.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

My view is more of "should IMSA parrot or placate the ACO all the way, or just go and do their own thing like 1980-1993"?

There's already quite a bit of "in between" with having different BOP for IMSA and ACO spec GTLM cars, along with IMSA having a GT3 based class and a spec prototype class, with the ACO having dedicated Pro and Pro Am GT classes and a spec engine supplier in LMP2 starting next year.

At this point IMSA has stated it's intention of doing their own thing.
At this juncture it would be STUPID to step away from the agreed upon 'global platform' that will underpin the DPi. As to the next Gen of IMSA prototype, that is yet to be determined, and influenced by the ACOs/FIAs actions on this supposed joint venture. 5 - 6 years from now when there will be another chassis decision to be made by IMSA it could very well move in a singular direction. We may see an opening up of the DPi rules, if the ACO insist on not allowing any variation from their P2, to run at Le Mans.






L.P.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

I think it could be interesting to see the DPis race the ACO classes. It doesn't really matter to me what class they are in. But the french are probably too proud to let that happen.

I really do not think it matters to the teams that would do it either, as long as it was in an existing class and they were allowed/BoPed/able to compete for the win within that class.





L.P.

[Danathar]

Originally Posted by Rcz

You know we could just, not have protoypes at all.

Ask me this question, can the GT cars carry the series?


We can't have a P1 series in the same way we can't have a American based F1 series, can we?

I've often thought of that myself. I LOVE prototypes, but honestly if GTLM were the top category I think the series would be fine.

[Ephaeton]

Wow, the ACO opposition comes at a surprise. I thought the political, big picture terms (DPi races in P2 at Le Mans, engine BoP, bodies) were agreed upon by both sides.

Then again, I have no problem seeing un-ACO-bopped, american-body-wearing, non-gibson-engine-powered P2 bases (aka "the DPi") racing P1s. Doesn't IMSA want to target a higher performance envelope with its DPi than ACO does with the (yes, even the renewed!) P2? I always got that impression, as in, the american cars would be slowed down to compete with the LM P2s at Le Mans. If I was on the right track with that impression, the DPi will have a way better home in P1.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I really do not think it matters to the teams that would do it either, as long as it was in an existing class and they were allowed/BoPed/able to compete for the win within that class.





L.P.

IMO they shouldn't be BoPed at all. Just throw them in there and see what happens. Not competitive? Tough luck.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Danathar

I've often thought of that myself. I LOVE prototypes, but honestly if GTLM were the top category I think the series would be fine.

I disagree! I am a huge GTLM/GT-1 ..... top class , Werks Racing team class fan. But the fickleness of OEM racing programs is not something I wish to base the top class on in/of a series in which I wish long term health. There are plenty of GT only series to watch/follow if that is what a person wants, this is not that! This is multi class, multi type, sports car endurance racing in which the privateer must play a large roll in the top class to ensure long term survival which leads us to the DPi. A cost friendly prototype that the privateer can afford and still have the chance for a win with it.





L.P.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

IMO they shouldn't be BoPed at all. Just throw them in there and see what happens. Not competitive? Tough luck.

So, all the other cars in a particular class have a chance to win, via that they are built to the same rule specifications for said class. But a team from IMSA using a DPi is not to be afforded the same chance? That's horse manure!






L.P.

[chernaudi]

It seems that this "joint venture" is becoming rather dis-jointed. Wasn't it not too long ago that the ACO and IMSA were fairly on the same page?

Of course, this disagreement can't come at a much worse time when the new cars should be coming online shortly and the rule books are due to be written. This whole thing hitting a snag on engine/bodywork/BOP issues reeks of the same problems that IMSA had when the ALMS and Grand Am merged.

The devil might be in the details, but these are fairly big details. DPIs might not be able to race, or at least race competitively, at LM, and the Gibson engine and LMP2s built around that spec might not race, at least competitively, in IMSA competition.

Maybe having the DPIs in LMP1 privateer at LM might make some sense, but after 2017, the privateer LMP1 cars are reportedly due a huge power increase. So that might not work either with the DPI stock block engine format.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

IMO they shouldn't be BoPed at all. Just throw them in there and see what happens. Not competitive? Tough luck.

You mean in LMP1 Privateer?

Le Mans 2015 Fastest Q
LMP1 Privateer 3:26.874
LMP2 3:38.032

For arguments sake, lets take say 3-4 seconds from DPi-P2-2017-whatevers time to meet up with the proposed power increase. So around 3:34-35. That still gonna be eternity way, like the gap between Hybrid LMP1 and Non-Hybrid LMP1 now, but probably even bigger.

And if they were to BoP down the technologically superior P1s down to meet the needs of some dumb, spec, fake-branded P2-wannabes, that would be about as farcial.

Guys, as I said, this (the LMP1 reference) must be an Aprils Fools Joke.

[Matt]

[Deleted]

Grain of salt or not, it's still a bit more worrying (and as I said, insulting) quote to come out from the of head of ACO, than if it was just random half-serious side remark from some lowly positioned or third party source.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

Wow, the ACO opposition comes at a surprise. I thought the political, big picture terms (DPi races in P2 at Le Mans, engine BoP, bodies) were agreed upon by both sides.

They were. But the details weren't, apparently. The ACO is fine with the idea of allowing IMSA engines in concept, but they are not okay with the implementation. It's a pretty goofy thing too, as standardized ECUs are basically de rigueur in current motorsports everywhere but LMP1, why IMSA would go against that in their managed competition class is hard to fathom.

There's nothing particularly silly about them running in P1L, a P2 with modified bodywork and a non-spec engine is actually a P1L car under ACO rules.

I feel like people are forgetting that Mazda is running a P1 engine in their car too.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

There's nothing particularly silly about them running in P1L, a P2 with modified bodywork and a non-spec engine is actually a P1L car under ACO rules.

I feel like people are forgetting that Mazda is running a P1 engine in their car too.

The "Mazda" Lolas don't count as they've been run illegally (per ACO LMP2 rules) in the States for years anyway.

At LM, it's one thing to have needless artificial sub classifications, a la LMGTE-AM and LMP1-NH/L/P. But when you start throwing LMP2 cars (and yes they are still LMP2s even with non standardized engines and bodies) into LMP1 it's absurd. It's like having LMP3s in LMP2 and Renault Meganes in LMGTE.

If there's one thing worse than dividing single regulatory classes into multiple sub classes because of "feelings" and "everyone needs to win" attitudes, it's integrating two entirely different classes in philosophy into one. Just like has happened with DP and LMP2, and what a glorious success that mess has been.

[Akrapovic]

Got to agree that DPi has no place in P1. Just because IMSA allows Mazda to run with a P1 engine doesn't mean ACO should let it in. IMSA also run the DW and DPs. I don't see them being allowed in P1 at Le Mans either.

[Rcz]

“Today P2 works very well,” he said. “Our first [goal] is to not break that. If there is a risk to break this good balance, we will not do that.

This is what that ACO guy Fillon or whatever his name is, actually said. Yes seriously.



When IMSA has said everything on what they were going to do with their P class, the ACO was fine with it. They are taking the spine of a P2 car to be use with stock blocks.

So what really changed? Maybe because all that manufacturers support. Or least interest.

They might take sponser away from WEC and put it in that little regional minor league series.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Chiana

yes they are still LMP2s even with non standardized engines and bodies

Considering the current P1L class already consists of cruder versions of existing P2 cars with AER engines, what does that change exactly?

There's no "allowing" DPis into P1L, they flat out fit the rules as long as they run to the fuel flow limit.

[Matt]

The ACO is probably not happy that Audi is interested and might see it as a threat to their participation in the WEC.

Remember that the maximum displacement for V10's in the DPi is 5.2l. Not 5.0 or 5.5, but 5.2, which happens to be the exact size of the Audi/Lamborghini GT3 V10.

[Deleted]

It would be pretty awful form to have had GT500s blatantly rejected from mere Fuji 6 Hours even as just unclassified entries, but then you'd have some "Cadillac" and "Mazda" bodied spec Rileys and Dallaras allowed to enter LMP1 in the world's biggest motor race.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Considering the current P1L class already consists of cruder versions of existing P2 cars with AER engines, what does that change exactly?

There's no "allowing" DPis into P1L, they flat out fit the rules as long as they run to the fuel flow limit.

No they don't. You are reading into some kind of myth.

Originally Posted by Matt

The ACO is probably not happy that Audi is interested and might see it as a threat to their participation in the WEC.

What are you talking about?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Got to agree that DPi has no place in P1. Just because IMSA allows Mazda to run with a P1 engine doesn't mean ACO should let it in. IMSA also run the DW and DPs. I don't see them being allowed in P1 at Le Mans either.

Really? Since when is the MZ 2.0TT (not MZR.R) a P-1 engine, other than they allow everything under 5.5l in the class? Or is the Judd in the ACOs P2s a P1 engine also? Gimme a break. DPs and the DW, we are talking about the future chassis/car known as the DPi here are we not? It amazes me how these things take left field tangents all the freaking time!





L.P.