![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
![]() |
USCC in 2016 and 2017
Next year, is for all practical purposes a, let's see how this turns out, year.
In your opinion, how do you think the rules for 2015 or 2016 will differ, it they do? |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent ![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,042
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I don't think that there'll be a huge amount of change, but the key is getting the balance correct though.
Here's a question; not meant to start an argument... What's the general opinion on matching the two cars? For me, I don't expect the two cars to be equal at Daytona. Nor at Sebring. Nor at Mosport or Road Atlanta or Long Beach. I'd expect one of the types of car to have an advantage on one circuit and one on the other. Starworks' private testing showed that this difference wasn't as major as I'd suspected previously, but I'd still expect a few differences. And I'd be happy that way, seeing the P2 do well at Daytona, and a DP at Road Atlanta, should be an achievement, and consistency over the season would be key. However, from some discussions, including the entrants' comments, I get the impression that some people would rather see adjustments per race to balance the two types of P car to the individual circuit. For 2015 and 2016, I can't see many changes to the class structure. Personally I'm not a fan of the PCs, but that's not going to change and there's plenty else to keep me interested. 2016/2017 will hopefully see a bit more convergence with ACO rules, but that's a whole other thread... Thanks for this new topic ![]() |
||
![]() |
__________________
Eat Sportscars Sleep Sportscars Drink Gulf ![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Some amount of variation, based on the characteristics of the cars, is fine, and to be expected. The bigger sticking point to my mind will be that NOBODY will want to feel as though their type of car is effectively locked out of a top result, especially at the four endurance races: Daytona, Sebring, Watkins Glen, and Road Atlanta.
|
||
![]() |
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. ![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The two types of cars have to have the same lap times at every track.
Possibly one type will have a better chance to outrace the other (DPs on speed tracks, P2 on handling tracks) but the lap times have to be the same—otherwise, the race outcome is predetermined. Some tracks only DPs could win, some tracks, only P2. That is not racing. If only certain chassis types could win at certain tracks, then much of the season’s outcome would be decided when the schedule was made the Fall prior. Basically, at Petit the series would tell who would have a chance to win the championship based on which type of track was more prevalent. The idea that one track or another would work for only one chassis type or the other might sound okay now, but wait until fans, teams, and sponsors have to face a few races in a row without much chance of winning. Then complaints will surely come. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 397
![]() |
Quote:
Why does this prototype diversity (LMP2's and enhanced DP's) suddenly need to be addressed immediately in the USCC when it (hybrid versus gas-powered LMP1's) has existed in Europe for many years now? Certain tracks benefit certain cars. For example, it was no secret that in Grand-Am Daytona was a Porsche track and Lime Rock was a circuit that favored the Pratt & Miller Pontiacs and Camaros. That's just the way it is. It will be interesting to see which cars excel at which circuits next year. Andy Flinn Last edited by ACFlinn; 29 Nov 2013 at 20:00. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 83
![]() |
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,299
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Personally I hope there is no further diverge from ACO rules long term, a big part of the reason I started following sportscars was that I could see the cars from Le Mans race over here in person. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I hope/believe in 2017 we will see TUSC basically aligned with the ACO and run P (ACO P-2 eligible at the least), PC (P-3), GTLM (GT+) and GTD (GT). There will of course be the series distinct BoP differences. L.P. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent ![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,042
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Personally, I don't much care for championships (which is my problem with the WEC), I watch the individual races for enjoyment and I would be delighted to have a similar situation to that previous era, where the DPs play the role of the Audis and the P2s the role of....erm, the P2s. One powerful, robust and unbreakable, the other lightweight, nimble but fragile. With no BoP changes, I think a DP or, failing that, a GTLM would win at Daytona, I don't trust the P2's abilities to last the distance on such a tightly packed circuit (especially if one has the combustable Mazda turbo and the others are driven by Brown and Sharp!). This obsession with overall lap times doesn't show the bigger picture of races to me. |
|||
![]() |
__________________
Eat Sportscars Sleep Sportscars Drink Gulf ![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
![]() |
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,299
![]() ![]() ![]() |
That seems like the best case, most realistic solution (knowing P1 is not coming back over here). P3 would be better than PC - we would have diversity in the lower P class. P3 will not be eligible for the Le Mans but at least it will be a common rule set with ELMS to allow additional Euro entries at the big races. I would like to see all GTE cars for GT with a Pro class and an AM class like the WEC, but I really don't see that happening with how well received GTD has been. The key to GT will be what global rules are established and if TUSC decides to adopt them.
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
![]() |
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 704
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,042
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
__________________
Eat Sportscars Sleep Sportscars Drink Gulf ![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Rodger, there is a difference. LMP1 and LMP2 were different classes, and the ACO never intended the LMP2s to win overall, unlike, perhaps, was the case with LMP675. Also, until they ballasted them up, the LMP2s and LMP1s were pretty darn close on lap times at most tracks.
As it is, they're trying to "equalize" P2 and DP right now. They've already given the DPs more power and downforce, adding to the DP's strength, and mitigating the P2s' strengths. They also added weight to the P2s, further eroding its particular performance advantages. In addition, without courses like Sears Point, Lime Rock, Barber, Mid Ohio, and others, the schedule is more heavily weighted towards power than it was in 2006-08, and that applies to the schedules of both series. The Audi R10 would have slaughtered the field at Daytona, and Kansas as well. It would have a much better chance of winning on the longer Belle Isle configuration. The R10 probably would have won at VIR. It would likely be the same story at Austin. Indianapolis would be less overwhelming than those other two rovals, but I'd still expect the power car to win there. The conclusion at Road America is obvious, unless the Audis fight each other and hand the win to somebody else, like in 2007. Just the one, long "straight" a lap was enough for the R10 at Mosport in 2007; only the transmission almost dying in the leading car allowed Penske to take the win there. The tracks where I think the P2s would theoretically stand the best chance are Sebring, Laguna Seca, and Road Atlanta. The P2s will be further aided at Monterey, because the GTs are running separately, and therefore won't be out there, potentially breaking the P2's momentum. Belle Isle and Mosport probably won't treat them too badly either. It's harder to say just what the balance at VIR will be like. Watkins Glen is another tricky one, because there are a number of high-speed corners, but the run out of "the Ninety", through the Esses, and on to the Innerloop is uphill. So is the run from "the Toe" to "the Heel" of "the Boot". That hands a significant advantage, at least in those stretches, to the cars with horsepower. on their side. Austin is a new-build F1 circuit, and it tends to be the case that those don't have so many high-speed corners, unless you have a lot of downforce. So, again, power and torque will help here. It's also very difficult to negotiate traffic in the technical sections at Austin, which will further hinder the Prototypes, but moreso the P2s, because they're more a momentum car than the DPs. I like the individual races, but I also like the championship, for giving a more empirical picture of who has done the best job over the course of the season. I loved CART, because you had to be proficient on road courses, street circuits, AND a range of ovals, in order to obtain the title. Last edited by Purist; 2 Dec 2013 at 19:42. |
||
![]() |
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. ![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,126
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
"mitigating" sounds so innocuous. 'Castrated' sounds more like it, IMO.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
![]() |
Quote:
Not being governed by the ACO is at least part of the reason, although it is far more personality driven than that, GARRA and the Panoz/IMSA went in two directions. Panoz was infatuated with LeMans and the France family has always been infatuated with itself. That is why I am curious. I want to see how this Dallas type drama plays out. Sadly, I think road racing in the U.S. is still following Indy car racing into also ran status unless they stop making Mickey Mouse rules like CART and the IRL did and what is left still does. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
L.P. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent ![]() |
![]() |
#21 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 361
![]() |
I would hope they go to the GT convergence rules, with any grandfathering necessary to allow grid counts to survive transition and axe the prototype classes. The manufacturers with only a couple of exceptions, don't care for the DP or P2 classes, and the series is better served by one class with all the manufacturers, all the top drivers and teams. It's an easier sell for sponsors as well. The potential GT grid would be very diverse, and the overall spectacle would go up.
I realize I am speaking in the very small minority here, but one class, one set of popular rules, and then let the series grow. |
||
![]() |
__________________
have a nice diurnal anomaly... ![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 73
![]() |
I have always thought that arranging a rules set that allowed multiple classes the opportunity at overall victory (dependent upon track make-up, mostly) is a great idea. Have a GTP like class that allows for the manufacturer ROI in the way the cars look (think the porsche gt1) and have a GT class that allows for slightly faster speeds than they have now. This would allow teams that want to race a prototype that chance and gt teams to race gt cars. Go into it knowing that you may be racing against a car that is very different in make-up but similar speeds. Then for an am component, mandate an amateur driver in each car similar to what they have know. The fans will see a great race, the teams have more at stake.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
L.P. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent ![]() |
![]() |
#24 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 397
![]() |
Quote:
Sports car racing already has enough challenges without needlessly trying to reinvent itself every few years. Andy Flinn Last edited by ACFlinn; 7 Dec 2013 at 05:56. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | ||
![]() Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,488
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
More info on 2017 Proto regs:
http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/10880...t-taking-shape |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2016 Moto GP | macca | Bike Racing | 4 | 17 Mar 2016 22:36 |
IndyCar + LMP1 + Formula E -> IMSA CanAm 2017 | NaBUru38 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 26 Apr 2013 15:58 |
2013-2017 V8SA Tyre Tender | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 6 | 23 Mar 2011 20:39 |