|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
9 Sep 2016, 08:35 (Ref:3671207) | #1 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 207
|
ACO silence on 2017 LMP1-L Regs?
After the flurry of announcements both at Le Mans and post the race, regarding what has been proposed for the LMP1-L class for 2017 onwards, there has since been deafening silence from the ACO!
Curious to know if anyone out there has heard anything new? It would be wonderful to have a few more running in this class, other than a single Rebeliion now and Kolles. |
|
|
9 Sep 2016, 09:35 (Ref:3671217) | #2 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,157
|
They don't have any idea what to do with it. No one seems to have.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2016, 13:31 (Ref:3671243) | #3 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 207
|
||
|
9 Sep 2016, 14:27 (Ref:3671253) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,932
|
|||
|
9 Sep 2016, 15:33 (Ref:3671261) | #5 | |
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 284
|
We've been assured by Various Online Experts that P1-L is just fine and by 2018 will have more entrants than P2 because all of these teams really want the technical freedom afforded them, even if it means spending eleventy billion euros to only get on TV when you're on fire.
"Just Wait 'Til Next Year!" |
|
|
9 Sep 2016, 15:55 (Ref:3671267) | #6 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
Would it be better if ACO let DPi teams race in LMP1-L class after snubbing them in LMP2?
Technical freedom might be needed, but also major manufacturers who can't afford to make a hybrid system and beat the likes of Volkswagen Group and Toyota. |
|
|
9 Sep 2016, 16:19 (Ref:3671269) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,932
|
Yes, I like the idea of DPI with Technical freedom in LMP1-L
|
||
|
9 Sep 2016, 16:52 (Ref:3671273) | #8 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
||
|
9 Sep 2016, 17:07 (Ref:3671276) | #9 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
9 Sep 2016, 21:03 (Ref:3671312) | #10 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
So ACO should be willing to accommodate LMP2-"DPi"s into LMP1 Nonhybrid, yet IMSA wouldn't have to give LMP1 Nonhybrids opportunity to race within their own LMP2-"DPi"... yeah sounds totally fair tradeoff
|
|
|
9 Sep 2016, 21:46 (Ref:3671317) | #11 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
The ACO are struggling to provide incentive enough for privateers to subscribe to P-1l (mainly cost), as the new P-2 are compliant to their new regs it would behoove the ACO IMO to adopt the DPi formula concept to populate their P-1l class. I do not believe it needs be an exact duplication of IMSA's, but, it would better suit the ACO's customers if it were to be compatible with it. Either an uptick for the IMSA DPis to compete at Le Mans or a slight de-tune for P-1l to race in IMSA rounds. Fairly simple and certainly doable if the ACO wish to, but we all know how that goes.... And yes, we ALL know you loathe the idea. L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
9 Sep 2016, 22:20 (Ref:3671322) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,094
|
ACO wants manufacturers to fund proper P1 efforts and push the boundaries of technology. Not buy an old Lola and tape an engine in the back and call it a Mazda. THAT is why DPi won't fit in LMP1-L. They want to see an actual Audi and not a P2 car with a GT engine and some stickers.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2016, 22:40 (Ref:3671323) | #13 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,575
|
Quote:
|
||
|
9 Sep 2016, 23:02 (Ref:3671324) | #14 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
"LE MANS" PROTOTYPE 1 category includes:
http://www.fiawec.com/presentation/classes.html Or are the 4 IMSA/ACO/FIA constructors considered manufacturers in your book? IMSA's OEM (manufacturer) body work must be sold through their constructor partner. L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
10 Sep 2016, 03:43 (Ref:3671363) | #15 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Remember the whole nonsense over Honda and friends refusing to use generic engine management? They are definitely running their own traction control. Plus you know, the whole funding teams thing.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2016, 04:33 (Ref:3671365) | #16 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,157
|
So we will fix privateer LMP1 class by filling it with LMP2 cars.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2016, 07:23 (Ref:3671374) | #17 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,575
|
||
|
10 Sep 2016, 07:40 (Ref:3671375) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,094
|
Quote:
You say it's no different but it's actually completely different given the manufacturer involvement IMSA is trying to achieve. I for one have no desire to see teams like Mazda competing in WEC or Le Mans until they decide to do it properly. On a side note, the entitlement some IMSA fans show is astounding. Like ACO should be grateful for IMSAs involvement and give them everything they want. DPi sounds great...for IMSA. But it isn't a fix for LMP1-L. Last edited by Akrapovic; 10 Sep 2016 at 08:04. |
||
|
10 Sep 2016, 10:59 (Ref:3671397) | #19 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
I'll be okay if LMP1-L has semi-works teams like Action Express Racing, of course that wouldn't count right because ACO wants GM to spend money on making a hybrid LMP1 car?
|
|
|
10 Sep 2016, 14:22 (Ref:3671426) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,084
|
Quote:
The only fix for LMP1-L is to take it out back and kill it. There's less than zero interest in anything other than a watch company burning up the profits from insanely expensive timepieces. Kolles is a dumpster fire in sportscars as they were in F1, often an actual fire too. Nothing against the team guys but think they are hamstrung by their budget and resources. |
||
|
10 Sep 2016, 15:30 (Ref:3671440) | #21 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,094
|
Lol that post right there is exactly what I'm talking about. "Hope the ACO chokes". What a nice grown up rational response. No entitlement there at all. I never said the ACO can do no wrong. Not thinking DPi is the second coming of Jesus does not make the ACO perfect so let's drop that nonsense.
LMP1-L is for private teams. Not werks (I can spell it wrong too, totally cool), not werks backed. Private. If Mazda doesn't want to spend money to be in LMP1 and fight the big teams then that's fine, they don't have to. But it doesn't mean they should be allowed into a private class to pick on the privateers. This goes for Action Express and other GM backed teams too. Now if you propose binning LMP1-L completely and introducing DPi then that's another kettle of fish all together and maybe worth talking about. DPi itself is a fine idea and suits IMSA down to the ground. But mixing that with what's a 100% private class isn't a good idea and will mean private teams will lose out to companies like Mazda and Nissan who don't want to spend money to fight with the big teams. Edit: this goes for Alpine too. Get out of the amateur private classes. |
|
|
10 Sep 2016, 16:20 (Ref:3671462) | #22 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
As for the entitlement goading comment and the oh so witty retort post to the response to it... What a nice grown up rational response. As to the assertion that DPi is the second coming, maybe you should try reading the post, as it said "it would behoove the ACO IMO to adopt the DPi formula concept to populate their P-1l class". Not to wholesalely adopt IMSA's DPi, but then again who cares about the ACO right? Or the fact that there is supposed to be a bond/link/relationship between the 2 most popular endurance sports car series. L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
10 Sep 2016, 16:44 (Ref:3671470) | #23 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,094
|
Indeed the money required to run in LMP1 is rather high. However that doesn't change anything I said. P1-L is meant for private teams. Not werks or works or manufacturer funded. Private teams either building there own car or buying a chassis. As soon as you allow DPi entries then you're going to have teams like Mazda, Nissan and semi works GM teams lining up for entries in a class that they aren't meant to be in.
Once again, DPi is a fine concept. But it's trying to achieve a different thing to P-1L. DPi is wanting manufacturer involvement for cheap. P-1L is wanting privateers to build there own cars. These concepts are not directly compatible as a single class. |
|
|
10 Sep 2016, 16:54 (Ref:3671474) | #24 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
10 Sep 2016, 17:04 (Ref:3671478) | #25 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,084
|
Chokes on is in reference to them stuffing the bs line of everyone wants this down our throats. Why shouldn't I wish they choke on their own stupidity that they thought we'd all think was so great? I don't think IMSA's DPis are any better of an idea but it has a better chance of sticking around.
The rest of us have figured out one car is not a class. Strakka isn't building their car and who else has even been hinted at as having true funded interest? Even Rebellion is seemingly questioning the class and they are pretty much guaranteed a win there every event. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LMP1 Privateer entries by 2017-18, your prediction? | Deleted | ACO Regulated Series | 197 | 27 Jul 2017 12:09 |
IndyCar + LMP1 + Formula E -> IMSA CanAm 2017 | NaBUru38 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 26 Apr 2013 15:58 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
should IMSA take a step away from ACO regs? | cybersdorf | North American Racing | 20 | 4 Oct 2005 15:10 |