IMSA DPi Discussion

[chernaudi]

Yet there was talk of the ACO giving hand outs to Toyota when they were behind the curve that Audi set in the first half of the 2013 WEC season, and there was a lot of BOP hand outs when Audi dominated the ALMS in '06, be it with the then new R10 or the several years old R8. Yet until the near IMSA/ACO fallout over the Maserati MC12 GT1, there was hardly any BOP in the ALMS until 2005.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Yay, more penalizing success. Don't worry about developing your car as much as Cadillac have, just show up unprepared like Mazda and he rewarded. There's got to be a better way to do this.....

Sorry, but this doesn't work in this case. In the case of GTLM it does, but DPi was designed as a BoP class. So you simply cannot leave it to development alone and allow it to be unbalanced. I do not like BoP and would love to see a proper prototype development class, but DPi was never meant to be that. So no, Caddy should be pulled back. That's exactly what IMSA said they would do, and it's what they have done.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Yay, more penalizing success. Don't worry about developing your car as much as Cadillac have, just show up unprepared like Mazda and he rewarded.

Not even close to accurate. Mazda hasn't shown up "unprepared" at all. IF they had, well, they'd be even more hopeless.

LEt me put it this way... If I entered this in an IMSA race...

(yes, I know the rules wouldn't allow that car, it's just an example to illustrate the point)

...BoP wouldn't be able to do JACK to make it competitive - not without slowing the Prototype class down to a level that makes Prototype Challenge look like an Audi LMP1, and obviously IMSA isn't going to go to such extremes.

For those unaware, that car is a Racekits Falcon, which runs in the 750 Formula class over in the UK. It has a 1.1-liter Fiat engine that, on a good day, MIGHT produce 100 horsepower.

Now, give me the tools, some turbos, and a couple of weeks and I'm sure I could squeeze 600+ horsepower out of that engine, but the thing would never be able to race because it'd be an absolute miracle if it didn't blow up during it's dyno test.

Dropping an engine more suited to the task won't work either as the chassis and aero simply are not designed for the kinds of speeds required by Prototype.

Now, I have obviously chosen a rather extreme example to make this point, but it illustrates said point loud and clear; Balance of Performance can only do so much, and it is up to the car designers and builders to create a machine that can perform within the performance window the class is meant to achieve. And if you can't reach that window, the series isn't going to help you get there.

You might be able to reach the needed lap speeds with the help of BoP. But that won't do any good if your engine blows up in the process.

And that's ignoring the issues of potential negative effects of BoP even when it's favorable to you. Remember late last year, the GTD controversy with the Porsches - two teams cut their seasons short after consistently competitive runs not because they felt the BoP was unfair, but because the way the cars were balanced had caused the Porsches and their unique rear-engine design to be dangerously unstable - they were quick if they got the setup perfect, and with good drivers, but the BoP was still causing them problems. (from what I hear some small changes have fixed these issues this year, though I'm not clear if they're BoP fixes or updates to the cars)

As for penalizing performance, SOME engineers relish the challenge of BoP, as it forces them to get creative to find ways around it. This is far from universal of course - some engineers absolutely hate BoP, and some merely appreciate that it stops them from needing to rush future developments, which can give them time to make them better.

There's nothing wrong with BoP done well. It's just that it's difficult to DO BoP effectively, even if you're trying to be legitimately fair. Creative engineers can work around the restrictions.

There's got to be a better way to do this.....

I'm sure there is. But I don't think any of us here are smart enough to think of it. Sure, we all have our ideas of what we want for our ideal series(Mine: Lay out dimension and safety rules, set a minimum weight, enforce a maximum engine power output that is regularly verified by the series and let everything else fall as it will), but I don't think any of us could truly come up with an irrefutably better BoP system given all the factors that need to be addressed - though I'm sure many have ideas.

As much criticism as we(rightly) give Conti over the tires, at least they remove an element from the equation to make the job a BIT easier.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Not even close to......

For the TL;DR... Conti rubber sucks, BoP is needed because GM does what they always do and run to a delta, the caddy will still be faster at Sebring... there are at least two more seconds in hand.... blah, blah, blah..

Oh... wait... that's my take. Errrr..... maybe you need to edit with a TL;DR?

[godlameroso]

.6 mm smaller restrictor and +44 lbs, all other cars are untouched.

The Cadillacs will still be faster than the other cars, they're just not going to be able to walk away at over 1.5 seconds per lap. Which means that with the plentiful yellow flags caused by the amateurs in Prototype Caution class, the other DPi's have a decent chance to stay on the lead lap bar an overabundance of brain farts.

This pleases me, it gives other DPi teams the chance to win if the planets align properly.

Watch come qualifying the Cadillacs will still find a way to do a high to mid 1:47, while the other's are stuck in the low 1:48's.

Also, come on now, the Cadillac DPi's main and obvious advantage has always been more power and torque than everyone else.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Sorry, but this doesn't work in this case. In the case of GTLM it does, but DPi was designed as a BoP class. So you simply cannot leave it to development alone and allow it to be unbalanced. I do not like BoP and would love to see a proper prototype development class, but DPi was never meant to be that. So no, Caddy should be pulled back. That's exactly what IMSA said they would do, and it's what they have done.

I understand there will have to be bop nowadays. Its kind of needed to keep manufacturers or teams from leaving all the time. But I definitely don't like seeing the faster cars penalized. Give the slower cars an area that they can improve on. Whether it's allowing more hp, less weight, better aero or whatever, give them an avenue to bring themselves up, without just handing it to them with restrictor breaks or penalizing the successful cars. And I know it's supposed to be pegged to aco p2, but slowing down to get there makes you look second rate. If you have faster cars than aco p2, be proud and show it off.

I will always wish that the only bop done is success ballast. I know that goes against my "penalizing the successful", but it doesn't outright force them to be slower, it forces them to work around extra weight. Also, it is clear, transparent, you can put the +/- weight on the windows so everyone sees it, and would create a better mix of finishes. Imagine Sebring with Taylor and the 5 axr being brought back to the lack a little, while the 31 still has most of all of its speed. Other cars would be quicker by shedding weight, too. One of the most annoying parts of bop is watching adjustments made to gtlm and seeing the order go Ford/Ford/corvette/corvette/Ferrari/Porsche/Porsche/bmw/bmw with the only variation beeing a car finding trouble. It makes the race completely artificial.

But I'll still enjoy sebring, and I understand that some adjustments are necessary, And while I hope to see successful races for Mazda (lol) and esm, I will feel a little icky if they magically show up to Sebring on the pace of the caddys. It will be insufferable then to hear doonan acting as if they've made a ton of progress in the last month while he brags on his car leading a meaningless lap early on in the race before it blows up.

[Coach Ep]

With the P2s in IMSA trim being on Contis, they'll be much slower than their WEC Dunlop (or Michelin) shod counterparts anyway so there's plenty of room for IMSA to speed up the other cars (P2 + other DPi-s)instead of pecking the Caddies back and not run into an argument with the ACO.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by godlameroso

Watch come qualifying the Cadillacs will still find a way to do a high to mid 1:47, while the other's are stuck in the low 1:50's.

FTFY.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

I understand there will have to be bop nowadays. Its kind of needed to keep manufacturers or teams from leaving all the time. But I definitely don't like seeing the faster cars penalized. Give the slower cars an area that they can improve on. Whether it's allowing more hp, less weight, better aero or whatever, give them an avenue to bring themselves up, without just handing it to them with restrictor breaks or penalizing the successful cars.

Problem is, slower teams cannot just "increase horsepower" even if the rules allowed it. In fact they might already be pushing the limit of reliable horsepower.

Less weight is great, but there is another balance here---if say, the Mazda loses out because the Cadillac has so much more torque, if the Mazda were made light enough to keep up out of the corners, it would have a huge advantage in braking and cornering ... and then the BoP would again be all wrong.

As for "better aero" ... how is that achieved? With the whole car designed as a unit and balanced as a unit, what kind of "better aero" could a team change trackside? Other than increasing or removing a gurney or some dive planes ... none of which would automatically give more competitiveness.

Again there is a trade-off. The Mazda is pretty slippery, but low on power and torque. Make it even more slippery ... and maybe it loses cornering speed, or even becomes unstable. Also, the aero has the Least effect exiting a corner, where the Mazda is at the greatest disadvantage.

Ultimately IMSA is Not trying to compare it self to ACO/FIA, or to any other series. if people like IMSA racing, they will watch IMSA racing, regardless of whether the cars are two mph slower on certain tracks ... tracks where FIA cars don't race anyway, so there really is no comparison.

Also, as noted above, IMSA uses exclusively lame Contis ... again, they are Not competing with FIA series for viewers. They are competing with every other racing series, every sports program on the internet or on cable, on the weekends when IMSA races. The only people who even know what ACO-FIA means, let alone how fast their cars are, already knows about IMSA and probably already watch.

This cannot be about "Our male member is longer than Europe's." It has to be about, "We put on compelling events which people in North America like to watch."

And sometimes, when One chassis/engine combination is notably quicker than Everyone else, it really does make more sense to slow the fastest one than to try to elevate the rest.

Seriously ... if IMSA Really wants every team to run as fast as possible, it should raise the funds so that every team can spend as much as GM. There is no way a one-car team with a small budget, or even a "manufacturer-backed" team with a very small budget, is Ever going to consistently beat a team with an almost unlimited budget.

Whatever. If IMSA wants all cars to perform near to some norm, and all of them do except one which is way over the norm, obviously the most efficient way to achieve that norm is to normalize the one car which exceeds it.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

With the P2s in IMSA trim being on Contis, they'll be much slower than their WEC Dunlop (or Michelin) shod counterparts anyway so there's plenty of room for IMSA to speed up the other cars (P2 + other DPi-s)instead of pecking the Caddies back and not run into an argument with the ACO.

The 'P' class baseline since day 1 has been the P-2 in it's 'International' set up.
When they change to the rubber the series requires, it does not mean they are going to change all of the other settings, from the 'International' P-2 settings, to equalize lap times between the 'rubber' being utilized. Cost capped, and functioning within the limitations of said cap is the reason for this. As well as it is easier for those wishing to run on both sides of the pond to do.






L.P.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

When they change to the rubber the series requires, it does not mean they are going to change all of the other settings, from the 'International' P-2 settings, to equalize lap times between the 'rubber' being utilized.

Right ... and since this is an actual case of "All other things being equal," the IMSA P2s will be slower than FIA P2s since the Continental tires offer lower performance---on any specific course, and if they don't share courses, no one would ever know.

On another hand, though, I am pretty sure teams will slightly vary suspension setups between Michelins or Dunlops of Contis--it's not like an IMSA team could just swap to Dunlops and expect the new tires to work exactly like the Contis.

And as for all this ... Whatever. BoP is part of IMSA racing, and I don't see it going away any time soon. The only way I could see it being fair would be to use independent testers ... but the cost would be unbearable.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

On another hand, though, I am pretty sure teams will slightly vary suspension setups between Michelins or Dunlops of Contis--it's not like an IMSA team could just swap to Dunlops and expect the new tires to work exactly like the Contis.

No, they'd be better right away. After the initial setup, it'd be like any other test or practice.. just faster. I feel bad for Rebellion... they won't realize how much better their car will be at the Prologue.

[carbsmith]

I think they'll be aware somehow.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

For the TL;DR... Conti rubber sucks, BoP is needed because GM does what they always do and run to a delta, the caddy will still be faster at Sebring... there are at least two more seconds in hand.... blah, blah, blah..

Oh... wait... that's my take. Errrr..... maybe you need to edit with a TL;DR?

That wasn't even remotely related to anything I said. If you're going to try and summarize what someone said, please actually take the time to read the post first.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

I think they'll be aware somehow.

Too bad they can't wear the same shoes at the race as they did there.

[Matt]

I don't see the big issue with the whole tire thing. Plenty of national series for many different types of cars run on control tires, I fail to see why that's a big deal when it comes to IMSA.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't see the big issue with the whole tire thing. Plenty of national series for many different types of cars run on control tires, I fail to see why that's a big deal when it comes to IMSA.

It's not.








L.P.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't see the big issue with the whole tire thing. Plenty of national series for many different types of cars run on control tires, I fail to see why that's a big deal when it comes to IMSA.

The question was never whether IMSA should allow tire competition, but whether it made sense to slow one chassis which was much faster, or to speed up the many chassis which were much slower.

My point is that there are so many reasons to be slow it is really difficult to speed up all those cars and maintain balance, but simply taking a little power from the far more powerful and faster car should slow it without much changing driveability.

No one things the Contis would be competitive with the other brands, but they don't have to be, if no team gets and edge through tires (as happened with the old DP/P2) then I think everyone is pretty satisfied with the tires for now.

Some folks really seem to want to see faster speeds all the time, but for me, I can't tell when a car is lapping a tenth slower than some other fictional car which isn't and never will be on that track. I can tell when a driver is trying harder than s/he was on previous laps, and that is exciting.

if ti was just numbers, I would only watch Timing and Scoring. if it was just speed, I'd ignore GTLM and GTD (I already pretty much ignore PC )

As it stands, it is Competition---how cars perform relative the other carts on the same track in the same class at the same race---which makes the show for me.

[TF110]

I thought it was established that the Dallara Caddy's got a lot more testing done on Continental's than the others, in addition to more testing in general.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't see the big issue with the whole tire thing. Plenty of national series for many different types of cars run on control tires, I fail to see why that's a big deal when it comes to IMSA.

I don't have so much issue with a spec tire as I do with the tire being awful and everyone knowing it's awful and no one in charge caring.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

I don't have so much issue with a spec tire as I do with the tire being awful and everyone knowing it's awful and no one in charge caring.

Awful compared to other tires, sure. We don't have other tires though, so why care? Everyones on the same stuff so it's equal.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Matt

Awful compared to other tires, sure. We don't have other tires though, so why care? Everyones on the same stuff so it's equal.

Yes it is equal and doesn't matter because of that. But your argument is like saying, yes that is brown water coming out of my tap, but it comes out of the tap of everybody in my town so why care? Well if you know the next town over has clean clear water, you would care about your brown water! And yes that was an analogy for tires!

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by joeb

Yes it is equal and doesn't matter because of that. But your argument is like saying, yes that is brown water coming out of my tap, but it comes out of the tap of everybody in my town so why care? Well if you know the next town over has clean clear water, you would care about your brown water! And yes that was an analogy for tires!

Eh apparently NASCAR, PWC, Indycar, and F1 are a land of muddy water. If it is safe enough and tastes good enough for them, I can drink it.

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by Matt

Awful compared to other tires, sure. We don't have other tires though, so why care? Everyones on the same stuff so it's equal.

Joeb answered you more cleverly, but when cars can't turn and prototypes are being passed by gtd cars as they're running off the road in the turns because of crap tires, which then led to an esm car wrecking out from the lead lap and 2nd place, I might start to care about the crap tires.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Joeb answered you more cleverly, but when cars can't turn and prototypes are being passed by gtd cars as they're running off the road in the turns because of crap tires, which then led to an esm car wrecking out from the lead lap and 2nd place, I might start to care about the crap tires.

Ummm ... what tires was it you think the GTD cars were running?