IMSA DPi Discussion

[August]

Originally Posted by TF110

Fake outrage! Arggh! Manufacturer teams in lmp2 is a no-no. Go to lmp1 if you're a manufacturer. That's how I see it. DPi is yet to exist, so how is it balanced with lmp2? It's not. And as seen in IMSA, they bop everything anyway. So you want to run with a p1-private car? They'll let you as long as you play by their rules. ACO expects the same. DPi has manufacturer support and engines, but it's non-hybrid. Go to the private lmp1 class, then.

OEM brands have still been represented in LMP2 as engine suppliers. And I can't see any problem with that. I don't think adopting the DPi rules for the LMP2 machinery would've been any different from that.

[chernaudi]

Biggest hang ups seem to be ECUs (ACO wants the spec Gibson/Cosworth ECU, while IMSA wanted it to be open), BOP over different bodywork, and the fact that the ACO LMP2 class is geared towards privateer teams with gentleman drivers, while IMSA wanted a semi-works, all-pro biased set up.

The latter item is probably actually the biggest contention among teams and other stake holders outside of the sanctioning bodies.

[Akrapovic]

Allowing DPi and pro-squads into LMP2 to compete with ELMS/WEC teams would be the equivalent of allowing Corvette and Ford works squad into GTE-Am just because they're from the other side of the pond, playing to IMSAs rules for most of the year.

LMP2 is amateur. IMSA can do what they want with them, but then they shouldn't expect to allow their modifications into someone else's game.

[Rcz]

Plus the ACO was worried that the IMSA Ps class would take manufacturers and teams from P1

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Allowing DPi and pro-squads into LMP2 to compete with ELMS/WEC teams would be the equivalent of allowing Corvette and Ford works squad into GTE-Am just because they're from the other side of the pond, playing to IMSAs rules for most of the year.

LMP2 is amateur. IMSA can do what they want with them, but then they shouldn't expect to allow their modifications into someone else's game.

That is a load of hog wash! The cars are tightly regulated, and all cars/teams going to Le Mans would have to follow the 'driver' rules for the class in which they participate.





L.P.

[August]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

That is a load of hog wash! The cars are tightly regulated, and all cars/teams going to Le Mans would have to follow the 'driver' rules for the class in which they participate.





L.P.

Yeah, the driver-rating requirements are the same for everybody so I don't think the IMSA teams would have an advantage in that sense. And I don't think IMSA teams would be at an advantage to WEC regulars; let's not forget a WEC-regular team beat the IMSA regulars at Daytona and Sebring this year.

[Akrapovic]

The cars are tightly regulated. Agreed. So why would GM and Mazda spend a lot of money developing engines and body kits and marketing the teams and getting pro drivers, only for them to be BOP'd down to amateur levels?

LMP2 is an Am class. IMSA wants pro teams. These are not compatible without comprising one or both sides. They should be in LMP1L at best. Otherwise IMSA teams would have to lose drivers and performance. Or P2 teams won't be happy they lose to professional outfits not running in the professional class.

However, IMSA should not be deciding what the ACO rules are. It's the ACOs game and the ACOs rules and if they don't want to play by the rules then they don't get to change them. Blancpain doesn't get to change the rules in IMSA to get more cars into GT3.

[chernaudi]

If they come over to Le Mans. And that's a big if, as only a handful of IMSA teams in the prototype classes have even bothered to run LM outside of Audi Sport, and that was pre-2009 for Audi.

I'd suspect that any IMSA DPI team that wants to run LM will do just like a couple of have done in recent years and just rent or barrow a car from an existing WEC/LMS team or run as a joint venture with a WEC/LMS team.

[FormulaFox]

Love how everybody's crapping on the ACO over this when it's IMSA's fault for not being willing to work with the ACO on it whatsoever. IMSA wanted their own way and wouldn't hear of anything else, no matter what concerns were brought up about fairly balancing the cars.

[August]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The cars are tightly regulated. Agreed. So why would GM and Mazda spend a lot of money developing engines and body kits and marketing the teams and getting pro drivers, only for them to be BOP'd down to amateur levels?

They wouldn't be in DPi in the first place if they wanted to spend a lot. As long as you're reasonably competitive, BoP takes care of a more-or-less level playing field. And the bodykits are just gonna be a marketing thing and tested in a windtunnel to ensure they won't give an advantage.

[August]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Love how everybody's crapping on the ACO over this when it's IMSA's fault for not being willing to work with the ACO on it whatsoever. IMSA wanted their own way and wouldn't hear of anything else, no matter what concerns were brought up about fairly balancing the cars.

Because IMSA didn't really have any other option. You can't imagine IMSA's top class without OEM involvement.

Then again, keeping the engine regulations more or less the same they currently are would've probably been fine for IMSA. That would've enabled manufacturer involvement in the class. And I don't think that manufacturer involvement has been detrimental for LMP2 in any way.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The cars are tightly regulated. Agreed. So why would GM and Mazda spend a lot of money developing engines and body kits and marketing the teams and getting pro drivers, only for them to be BOP'd down to amateur levels?

LMP2 is an Am class. IMSA wants pro teams. These are not compatible without comprising one or both sides. They should be in LMP1L at best.

However, IMSA should not be deciding what the ACO rules are. It's the ACOs game and the ACOs rules and if they don't want to play by the rules then they don't get to change them. Blancpain doesn't get to change the rules in IMSA to get more cars into GT3.

GM and Mazda are NOT spending lots of money on engine devel, the same GM engine will be used that is already in use. The Mazda is a reconfigured engine from previous use (Mazda is not a HIGH budget effort at all) other DPi OEM's would use their GT3 engines so not a huge amount of devel involved directly for DPi there either. Which is the same reason that IMSA will utilize an open ECU policy so as to make that the OEMs can use the same ECU that they have already packaged with their GT3 engines.
They are marketing their product by building stylized body kits to fit on basically spec chassis that are/were designed for P2. They already knew that the 'body kits' would not be allowed at Le Mans.
IMSA went into this as partners with the ACO/FIA so it was supposed to be a cooperative collaboration from the start, ACO proved that incorrect!









L.P.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Love how everybody's crapping on the ACO over this when it's IMSA's fault for not being willing to work with the ACO on it whatsoever. IMSA wanted their own way and wouldn't hear of anything else, no matter what concerns were brought up about fairly balancing the cars.

BULL!






L.P.

[Matt]

In all seriousness, when they speak of aero-matching bodywork, does that mean that the front and rear downforce levels are the same, or is more involved?

[HORNDAWG]

MP's take....

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/13088...r-dpi-hopefuls









L.P.

[Akrapovic]

I didn't mean Mazda and GM would spend the same as a P1 team. But it would cost more to develop a DPi than a standard P2 team would spend on buying it. So again I ask - why would they spend any money when they will get BOP'd down to the level of the base car anyway?

The bottom line is, there is a clearly defined place at Le Mans for car manufacturers. LMP2 is not it. If thy want to plug in a Gibson and stock bodywork and compete like everybody else then fine, but works modified cars in LMP2? That isn't what LMP2 is about.

If IMSA doesn't like it then it's the ACOs game and the ACOs rules. Say what you want about a collaboration or whatever, but IMSA has no say in Le Mans. You can say bull, or hogwash or whatever other thing you want, but I see no logical reason that anybody should be allowed to turn up with a car that's outside the P2 rules and manufacture backing and race at Le Mans in the LMP2 class.

Sorry if that urinates on the DPi bonfire, but I do like the DPi idea for IMSA. I just don't see why it has to fit at Le Mans.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I didn't mean Mazda and GM would spend the same as a P1 team. But it would cost more to develop a DPi than a standard P2 team would spend on buying it. So again I ask - why would they spend any money when they will get BOP'd down to the level of the base car anyway?

The bottom line is, there is a clearly defined place at Le Mans for car manufacturers. LMP2 is not it. If thy want to plug in a Gibson and stock bodywork and compete like everybody else then fine, but works modified cars in LMP2? That isn't what LMP2 is about.

If IMSA doesn't like it then it's the ACOs game and the ACOs rules. Say what you want about a collaboration or whatever, but IMSA has no say in Le Mans. You can say bull, or hogwash or whatever other thing you want, but I see no logical reason that anybody should be allowed to turn up with a car that's outside the P2 rules and manufacture backing and race at Le Mans in the LMP2 class.

Sorry if that urinates on the DPi bonfire, but I do like the DPi idea for IMSA. I just don't see why it has to fit at Le Mans.

Horse manure! A variety of OEM engines have been in P2s forever including this year! And had/have their name on the car. Without the body work and meeting the class driver requirements makes a DPi team no different than the current P2 team structure and would utilize the same exact chassis as ALL P2s. The point being it was supposed to be a joint effort, sorry if that urinates on the omnipotent ACO's P2!









L.P.

[Akrapovic]

Lol horse manure. Ok.

I agree. There has been plenty of examples of lots of engines and custom builds in LMP2. HPD engine and SMP BR01 are great examples of this. I could not agree more that this fits very well with the DPi philosophy and the current P2 regulations.

However this is not what the LMP2 regulations are going to be in 2017. Whether or not this is a good thing or not is a completely different debate and I think we'd end up agreeing that the 2017 rules package is not ideal. But it is what it is unfortunately. Since Le Mans is an FIA WEC round and the cars compete under the FIA WEC rules, I don't see how the DPi cars fit into that. They will, quite literally, not be legal in LMP2.

Now you could argue they would be legal in LMP1 as a private entry. The problem of manufacturer backing would still be there but technical regulation wise, it's closer.

The only proper solutions to this are forcing teams to obey the LMP2 rules (that is a Gibson engine and stock bodywork), or an invitational DPi class at Le Mans.

But right now, as much as I love the DPi concept for IMSA, it would be completely unfair to allow manufacture backed efforts, even if BOP'd down, into LMP2, whilst ELMS and WEC teams are forbidden from having this. Le Mans has a place for manufacturers, and P2 isn't it. And as much as you don't like it, the ACO quite literally holds all the cards for this one. They don't have to allow anything in they don't want to. It's their game, and IMSA doesn't get a say unless the ACO lets them have a say.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Lol horse manure. Ok.

I agree. There has been plenty of examples of lots of engines and custom builds in LMP2. HPD engine and SMP BR01 are great examples of this. I could not agree more that this fits very well with the DPi philosophy and the current P2 regulations.

However this is not what the LMP2 regulations are going to be in 2017. Whether or not this is a good thing or not is a completely different debate and I think we'd end up agreeing that the 2017 rules package is not ideal. But it is what it is unfortunately. Since Le Mans is an FIA WEC round and the cars compete under the FIA WEC rules, I don't see how the DPi cars fit into that. They will, quite literally, not be legal in LMP2.

Now you could argue they would be legal in LMP1 as a private entry. The problem of manufacturer backing would still be there but technical regulation wise, it's closer.

The only proper solutions to this are forcing teams to obey the LMP2 rules (that is a Gibson engine and stock bodywork), or an invitational DPi class at Le Mans.

But right now, as much as I love the DPi concept for IMSA, it would be completely unfair to allow manufacture backed efforts, even if BOP'd down, into LMP2, whilst ELMS and WEC teams are forbidden from having this. Le Mans has a place for manufacturers.

What is this notion of BoPed down to P2? They will be raced as a single class in IWSC under the same rules so there is no BoP difference as they are under the same rules already!

I will say this one last time. The 2017 P2-DPi package was entered into as a cooperative effort by both sides involved(IMSA and ACO). The ACO has chosen to back out of any cooperative intentions and efforts whatsoever. Period!





L.P.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by August

Because IMSA didn't really have any other option. You can't imagine IMSA's top class without OEM involvement.

Wrong focus. I'm talking about the lack of allowance for their engines at Le Mans, not anything they do on their side of the fence. IMSA pretty much wanted their cars unaltered to be allowed in with no balancing whatsoever, even if it's clear their machinery would decimate the rest of the P2 field.

You don't go into someone else's playground and demand they play by your rules. After months of discussion to try and work out a compromise, the ACO responded to IMSA's demands rather appropriately.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Wrong focus. I'm talking about the lack of allowance for their engines at Le Mans, not anything they do on their side of the fence. IMSA pretty much wanted their cars unaltered to be allowed in with no balancing whatsoever, even if it's clear their machinery would decimate the rest of the P2 field.

You don't go into someone else's playground and demand they play by your rules. After months of discussion to try and work out a compromise, the ACO responded to IMSA's demands rather appropriately.

That assumption is totally wrong. The engines would be balanced to the P2 Gibson, which to this point has been the plan in IWSC. I doubt that will change going forward, but one never knows what a scorned supposed partner will do.






L.P.

[Rcz]

In the end, are we all honesty surprise?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

What is this notion of BoPed down to P2? They will be raced as a single class in IWSC under the same rules so there is no BoP difference as they are under the same rules already!

I will say this one last time. The 2017 P2-DPi package was entered into as a cooperative effort by both sides involved(IMSA and ACO). The ACO has chosen to back out of any cooperative intentions and efforts whatsoever. Period!





L.P.

Sorry but, same rules? That just isn't true. A DPi is not legal in P2. That is the problem. Quite literally the cars are not competing under the same technical regulations. You can say that they'll balance the engine, but the fact is that engine isn't legal under WEC rules. Sorry, that's how it is.

Now I'll agree with you that it isn't necessarily a good thing, but it is not correct to allow cars competing under a different rule book into a championship event in WEC.

And I never said they didn't enter an agreement. I said that the ACO makes the Le Mans rules. Which they do. They do not have to listen to IMSA and they don't have to have an agreement with them. Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying that's just how it is.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

And I never said they didn't enter an agreement. I said that the ACO makes the Le Mans rules. Which they do. They do not have to listen to IMSA and they don't have to have an agreement with them. Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying that's just how it is.

The point being that the ACO agreed to enter into this as a cooperative effort and have welched on their word at the 11th hour! It is a steaming pile of dog poop, Period! That is how it is.






L.P.

[Maelochs]

It’s funny, but DPi instead of P2 is one of the best decisions IMSA could have made.

IMSA is a North American series. It needs to do well in North America. Le Mans is fine as is ... ACOO doesn’t give a fish if IMSA exists or not. Juast as with ALMS, FIA-ACO simply don’t care about the “feeder” series; they have their premier series and their premier race and that is what matters to them.

North American sports car racing Cannot be beholden to rules made by a sanctioning body which doesn’t care about it. And if we had full P2 here ... I cannot imagine how loud everyone here would howl: Spec Racing! Anathema!

DPi was sort of a desperate attempt to create an affordable class (P2 and DPi) and still maintain some factory interest/investment and some fan interest. I think IMSA was smart enough to know how offended we’d all have been by identical cars with identical motors (look how many fans PC has.)

IMSA had to tell FIA “We’re going our own way.” And they said all this way early in the process, recognizing that IMSA’s top class couldn’t be FIA’s third-rank pro-am spec class. And this will probably save IMSA from going broke in a few years.

Seriously, how many of us would pay good money or spend good time following a spec sports car series? Well ...we might go to a local track to catch spec Miata, but who thinks Sebring would sell out if the field was all glorified PCs?

IMSA did the math and realized that it could live without Le Mans just as ACO-FIA could live without IMSA at Le Mans. Whoever anyone wants to blame, what’s the point? Each sanctioning body has different needs and protected its own property, as only makes sense.

And seriously ... are we that eager for More BoP? Because not only would the engines need to be BoP’d so would the aero—and likely the DPis would need aero help but have an engine edge. (Yes, I heard that IMSA was going to BoP everything down to Gibson levels ,.... but I don’t believe it, unless the Gibson really does put out 650 bhp.) Basically, DPIs Cannot run on par with P2s any more than DPs can run on par with P2s nowadays ... and aren’t we all sick of this endless BoP-modulated series where the winner is pickled by the sanctioning body before each race?

I frankly don’t want to see Le Mans insulted by that kind of BoP chicanery (more than it already is, with fuel equivalency allowances and such in P1.) I don’t want to watch a stage-managed “race” between emasculated DPis and restricted P2s, or any variation on that theme. They are not the same class, they cannot run head-to-head with a bunch of BoP—which means it is not motor racing but politicking which would decide the winner.

I am thoroughly sick of that.

Le Mans has its rules, and I can accept that. I love the race, and I will watch every second of it I can depending on the vagaries of streams and my ability to tolerate Fox Sports.

IMSA 2017 should be a decent series, hopefully mostly free of the stupid race-to-race BoP we are cursed with now. I can accept that.

What is this fascination with forcing these two disparate things to be the same?