IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[jasonjessica09]

Originally Posted by BullMan

Why in the world would IMSA remove 3 classes, 2 of which bring the most money to the series, out of the biggest races of the year? That doesn't make any sense and is not going to happen. IMSA might renege in their promise to keep LMPC until 2017 though.

Sorry for the misquote. 4 classes for the enduors. 3 for the regular TUSC races (P, LMPC, GTLM). While GT3 goes with the sprints.

[Coach Ep]

From a business point of view (as most team owners do) the current PC car is a money maker, investment done some 5 years ago, continuing with the current car will be financially sound for them. From a sporting - and fans - perspective not so much.

Some more insight in the proposed GT3 sprint series:

Rumors regarding the make-up of an IMSA-sanctioned GT3 sprint series make the rounds at Monterey. Suggestions included a capped field and a limited number of events, with between 20-24 cars and no more than six races being considered.

“I’ve asked the series a lot of questions on this, and a lot of us want to know how it would work, if our owners would be allowed to run in both races with our [GT3] car in the same event, and how it would work in all the other ways,” said another manufacturer rep. “They are looking at it very seriously, and I know they are extremely motivated to make it happen.”

Sounds to me like it's gonna happen then.

Nothing yet about the format of the races although a one hour maximum is guaranteed, possibly with a mandatory pitstop to accommodate potential driver changes - if so I'll expect it to be a fixed time stop (45 seconds or 1 minute for example) so that single drivers won't have an advantage over driving pairs. No refueling or tire changes needed. Very much like the Blancpain Sprint series format.

[Coach Ep]

Also, Toyo Tires might be looking into a future participation (GTLM):

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...-for-tusc.html

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Also, Toyo Tires might be looking into a future participation (GTLM):

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...-for-tusc.html

It would be nice to have some variety out there besdies Falken fighting the good fight. The GTE Alex Job Ferrari ran Yokohamas in 2013, and the BMWs switched from Dunlops to Michelins when they stopped running the M3. Continental could prove they're capable of making a not POS tire by going with a GTE team too.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by BullMan

Continental could prove they're capable of making a not POS tire by going with a GTE team too.

Agreed but if Conti wanted competition they should have opened the P class to other tire manufacturers. We would have seen more P2s as a bonus as well.

[Maelochs]

A dedicated Pro-Am P2 class would squeeze some of the Pro-Am P-Class teams—suddenly they would longer have even a chance at an overall (Shank Racing, for instance) or, if joining was optional, would still create a lot of traffic composed of nearly identical cars, so Pro-Am P-teams would no longer stand out visually—I am sure the Shank car gets a lot more eyeballs on it now than a 2017 version would, if it were one of a dozen-and-a-half.

The obvious solution, if there has to be a second prototype class, and not P1/P2, is to import P3, but I can certainly see why PC owners would be against that—the current PC class is very much not broken, and as Coach Ep noted, a real moneymaker for the teams which have paid off their cars (though the bill for spares .... )

If IMSA is so worried about making racing affordable, giving PC a mild makeover would be a lot smarter. As for fans liking closed cars better ... which fans? The ones who already watch and aren't going to much care one way or another, or the prospective fans, who aren't going to watch because of PC or P3?

[Danathar]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Agreed but if Conti wanted competition they should have opened the P class to other tire manufacturers. We would have seen more P2s as a bonus as well.

Sigh...

It WAS NOT Conti. They stated on several occasions they could and wanted to make P2 tire, and was concerned that their products were getting a bad rap because the wrong type tires were being used on P2 cars.

It was IMSA that mandated DP tires on P2 cars.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by Danathar

Sigh...

It WAS NOT Conti. They stated on several occasions they could and wanted to make P2 tire, and was concerned that their products were getting a bad rap because the wrong type tires were being used on P2 cars.

It was IMSA that mandated DP tires on P2 cars.

Contractual agreements between Conti and IMSA.

The mentioned comments you're referring to is PR talk (although I've never read they were "concerned that their products were getting a bad rap because the wrong type tires were being used on P2 cars." but I might have overlooked that.)

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Contractual agreements between Conti and IMSA.

The mentioned comments you're referring to is PR talk (although I've never read they were "concerned that their products were getting a bad rap because the wrong type tires were being used on P2 cars." but I might have overlooked that.)

They had said they were willing to make a P2 tire, IMSA blocked it.

The tire game is 100% IMSA. Conti are doing what IMSA asks, and what they are paying them for.

[Maelochs]

I'd go a step further ... Conti makes a 'good" tire, just not a 'fast" tire. What IMSA (and GA prior) wanted was a stable, long-lasting tire, Not necessarily a tire which gave peak performance. From what I hear, the DP Contis are a little hard but they don't have a narrow window of performance and then start to suck harder and harder, which means teams can set up a car and know it will work well throughout a stint.

I see no reason why Conti couldn't compete with Michelin and Dunlop if it chose to. And maybe Conti execs are just as happy that they don't have to spend as much as other companies to constantly develop faster, stickier tires to meet a wide range of track conditions ... but there is no reason to believe they couldn't if they wanted to.

[Deleted]

The Hoosier program in this series is no different to any other league utilizing spec tires. When there's no tire competition involved or even exclusive-secret-factory-deals like with Michelin in GTE and LMP1, there is no need to develop anything more than just standard product that works. By it's very nature. Except if you are Pirelli in that one series, but that is different. Also, since in this series you can have 1000 people at pitstops and multi-stinting tires is totally irrelevant, they don't need to last particularly long either - so the demands of IMSA for Hoosier aren't particularly high. Just build something so you keep the title next to the series title and we instruct people at track to keep praising how awesomely super your product is.

[jasonjessica09]

What will make way for the GT3 sprint series next year? I think no GTD in non-NAEC races thats what.

[Coach Ep]

Nothing is my guess. It'll be an additional racing series 'under the IMSA umbrella'. I expect no major schedule changes from this year.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Nothing is my guess. It'll be an additional racing series 'under the IMSA umbrella'. I expect no major schedule changes from this year.

Betting it'll be closer to Lamborghini Super Trofeo.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

I'd go a step further ... Conti makes a 'good" tire, just not a 'fast" tire. What IMSA (and GA prior) wanted was a stable, long-lasting tire, Not necessarily a tire which gave peak performance. From what I hear, the DP Contis are a little hard but they don't have a narrow window of performance and then start to suck harder and harder, which means teams can set up a car and know it will work well throughout a stint.

Their peak isn't very high, but the plateau on the tire is miles wide, and the decline is real shallow. It's part of the reason the P2 car still struggles until late in the stint, you have to have the weight on the car to make them work.

[Coach Ep]

(possible) Porsche GTLM and GTD (GT3) entry developments.

We might lose Falken (which would be a big bummer!):
http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11642...for-the-future

Expect to see a couple of the new GT3 challengers on the grid at Daytona:
http://sportscar365.com/gt/new-porsc...na-2016-debut/

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Expect to see a couple of the new GT3 challengers on the grid at Daytona:
http://sportscar365.com/gt/new-porsc...na-2016-debut/

It seems there is a possibility that there might not be any Porsches in GTLM for TUSC next year.

We’re taking our time to see what we do,” he said. “We’re checking at the moment on what has to be done to have the car ready in 2016. There’s now ongoing discussions with the sanctioning bodies.

“We then have to focus between the markets. Will it be more U.S. or more WEC?”

Walliser said it’s too early to make any indications on whether they will continue with factory GTLM/GTE efforts in both the TUDOR Championship and FIA World Endurance Championship next year.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

It seems there is a possibility that there might not be any Porsches in GTLM for TUSC next year.

3 factory programs (2 in WEC and 1 in TUSC) is clearly stretching Porsche's resources to a maximum, 4 (+GTD in TUSC) will be too much. If the GTLM factory program is ended, let's hope CORE wants to continue to run the cars, possibly as factory supported team.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

3 factory programs (2 in WEC and 1 in TUSC) is clearly stretching Porsche's resources to a maximum, 4 (+GTD in TUSC) will be too much. If the GTLM factory program is ended, let's hope CORE wants to continue to run the cars, possibly as factory supported team.

I did find it odd the mention that Porsche will have a GTD factory entry at Daytona next year. I suspect it will be Daytona, and maybe Sebring only, to prove the cars, as typically GTD level is where they look to generate sales from, and competing as a factory entry against potential customers, might cost customers at such a level. I do agree they are stretched, and wonder where they think they would find the most value, if they continue any GTLM entry. You would think it would be LM itself, and then base decisions upon what bests prepares them for that, and how much regional budgets come into supporting and or developing the cars.

I'm certain CORE would like to continue to run the cars, but the problem will be raising the required Sponsorship. I think they might have problems coming up with such funding, unless it was someone like Toyo, as you just aren't going to be able to argue value to a major sponsor.

[Bob Baldwin]

Value in the context of Sponsorship leaves much open to debate . I can tell you that for GTLM prior to this years Rolex 24 that a certain Red car team had Sponsorship proposals out for 5.5 Million $$$ for full season in TUDOR . Now I guess the question is " What Value is it to my Company as far as getting a Return on Investment " ?
If anyone cares to see it PM me and I will send you a copy .

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

(possible) Porsche GTLM and GTD (GT3) entry developments.

We might lose Falken (which would be a big bummer!):
http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11642...for-the-future

Falken isn't exactly getting it done....neither is Core. Return on investment for TUSC has to be declining...

[Mike E]

A Bentley Daytona Prototype? Maybe Bugatti was right.

And what's this about homologating the Continental GT3 for GTLM?

http://sportscar365.com/imsa/tusc/ex...ions-for-2017/

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Mike E

A Bentley Daytona Prototype?

Well, from 2017 it would be a P2... and with the new rules, likely what it means is a Bentley sponsored car, or a Bentley skin over something else... But nothing really Bentley about it. The proposed rules are to have just four chassis manufacturers for P2, with likely the ability to "brand" them with different bodywork in TUSC. ACO rules call for a single engine for all P2, though it is probably going to be different in TUSC.

[MitchZ06]

Facebook is driving me mad and the same faff has shown up here, they're looking at a DP not a P2!

“It’s not decided yet on what will come in Daytona. My personal reading of the subject is that Daytona Prototypes will not die out. They will exist alongside the P2 class.

Pays to read ALL of an article...seems DPs may indeed hang around quite a bit longer yet, Chev/Ford/etc will be quite happy.

[TRspitfirefan]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Facebook is driving me mad and the same faff has shown up here, they're looking at a DP not a P2!



Pays to read ALL of an article...seems DPs may indeed hang around quite a bit longer yet, Chev/Ford/etc will be quite happy.

Pretty much all of our favorite teams from the ALMS days are gone..and now, the fan favorite Daytona Prototypes are probable going to continue for the life of the series.
And then they wonder why we quit watching/attending their races.


I kinda got excited when I saw the headline and the photo of the old Speed8 LMP1....oh well.