IMSA DPi Discussion

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by joeb

I've been wondering about the tires myself, will Conti make a new better tire for the DPi cars? Or just stick to what they currently have?

Obviously not. And any teams going to Le Mans will obviously dump the Hoosier-Contis at once and acquire either Dunlops or Michelins (and no, that is one part of the equation that won't be spec in Europe), you know because you don't want to make yourself to look like a clown.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

I'm not sure I understand all the complaining about subclasses of classes. Didn't Sebring used to have like 10-15 different classes some years? I don't see a problem with P1-H, P1-L, DPi, P2, GTE, GTE-Am at Le Mans.

The podium ceremony at Sebring that year (2011 I believe) lasted almost three hours. It was almost a “here’s your participation trophy” situation.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

The ACO is doing its best to ruin sportscar racing.

ACO is Not trying to ruin sportscar racing. They have made some bad business decisions ... but every sports car sanctioning body since whenever seems to have done the same. And ACO didn’t “ruin” ALMS.

ALMS (read “Dr. Don”) didn’t want to spend money for promotion when the series was really rocking (2005-2007 or ’08.)

When competition costs and constant rules changes (which ALMS accepted) coupled with weak TV ratings (because the TV broadcasts were fragmented and disjointed so as to be unfollowable due to constant commercial breaks, stupid sponsor puff pieces, and retarded segments like Pat long in an Army APC and film of traffic on an LA highway to help viewers understand ... traffic. For real) coupled with which competition costs started driving teams away.

Adrian Fernandez won P2 in a Lowes-sponsored Acura and had to withdraw the team the next year because he couldn’t find a sponsor. That’s a pretty sad comment on the appeal of the series.

P2 was altered so it could no longer compete for overall winds (an ACO choice—but one ALMS accepted just long enough to sink its top two classes) and the downward spiral was accelerated. Porsche (no cheap overall wins any more) and Audi (no TV numbers to back the overseas investment meant no more cash from the head office in Germany) both left because there was no RoI, and there went most of ALMS’s hope for a future.

ALMS then stepped away from ACO rules and ran their own rules, combining P-classes (which kind of worked) but also adding spec classes (which brought in money, but cash from PC teams didn’t help the teams or the series much, and Porsche money for GTC couldn’t carry all the rest of the teams which couldn’t find sponsors.)

ALMS couldn’t get a decent TV contract because even Rolex outdrew it. The series still had a big and enthusiastic fan base but they wouldn’t suffer through the abominable broadcasts. ALMS couldn’t cut the crap out of the broadcasts because that had become the major profit center. So, ALMS went with its “bleeding edge” online presentation, and sustained further blood loss.

None of that was ACO’s fault. ACO/FIA were busy trying to keep their own series profitable in the face of constant change and then, global economic collapse.

ACO didn’t dictate what ALMS did. ALMS agreed to it, to retain the “Le Mans” link. How did that work out for them?

Originally Posted by RWill2073

They openly competed with the ALMS and contributed to its demise. (I realize they didn't need much help).

Well, ACO has managed to survive since what, 1923? They didn’t “compete” with ALMS, they made decisions they thought would keep their brand alive.

ILMC didn’t help matters, but by then ALMS was pretty much crippled anyway. And ILMC (which is now WEC) seems to me to be a pretty good thing, anyway. ACO never had an obligation to help ALMS survive. And if ACO hadn’t done Something to keep factories at Le Mans .... IMSA would probably be running North America and Europe and we’d have Gen-3 DPs as the top class everywhere.

You want to look at who Directly competed with ALMS for TV time, regional and national sponsors, manufacturer dollars ... that’d be Grand-Am’s Rolex Sportscar Series, funded by NASCAR. Ask IndyCasr how it goes when to series compete for the very small pool of fans and sponsors.

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Interesting that ACO takes a dump on IMSA right as they begin gaining momentum. They just had two highly entertaining endurance races, without needing the ACO, and were progressing with apparent interest from manufacturers in the DPi's, and all of a sudden the ACO decides to go back on their agreement. The sooner there's a change in leadership and direction in the ACO, the better.

I think this has been coming for a long time. IMSA management are not idiots ... NASCAR isn’t what it is because it is run by morons. IMSA officials realized that they could not put a bunch of identical P2s on a grid and make any money (Rolex proved that.) They knew that from before the 2017 regs were ever formulated ... in fact, it has been IMSA’s biggest issue since Day One: How to make a top class which was both affordable for teams and exciting for fans”

ACO never wanted to allow any leeway and still allow Le Mans participation because it Has to protect its own investment (stupid not to, and just as IMSA has to.) So this impasse was coming way down the road .... and as IMSA made it more clear that its top class would be exceedingly divergent from FIA P2, ACO had to tend its own garden—which includes keeping out predators.

FIA P2 teams need to do well at Le Mans to justify their sponsorship, so ACO couldn’t let IMSA DPis come in a take all the podium spots. Just common snese.

IMSDA couldn’t run FIA P2s because they would have been slower, not faster than the existing cars, and IMSA was afraid of losing its fan base, which IMSA has been struggling to hold for the two years of DP dominance.

ACO’s issues with DPis have nothing to do with IMSA’s success at Daytona and Sebring. These issues are Way older than that. The announcements came out then ... because it is the start of the season and that is when the rules are announced.

As for changing ACO leadership? Really? Why?

To suit IMSA” That’s absurd. ACO has its own fiefdom and has been ruling it with varying degrees of success for 35 years longer than there has even been sports car racing in the U.S. ACO has no reason to change itself on behalf of IMSA, ALMS, USRRC or any other failed or semi-successful North American sanctioning body.

It makes just as much sense to say IMSA management needs to be dumped to put in a slate more congenial to ACO.

These are two separate sports car sanctioning bodies doing distinctly different things, cooperating fairly wisely to help make non-factory prototype racing affordable on all sides of both oceans.

Going with a common P2 standard is a very wise idea ... and for IMSA, modifying that standard is also a very wise idea. Both are sound business decisions which could help stave off further losses in a class or racing (prototypes) which doesn’t get a lot of manufacturer dollars (except in P1H and even there, only two factories are involved really.)

The idea that IMSA cars, built to IMSA rules, should automatically be eligible at Le Mans is ridiculous. If IMSA had kept variations small enough ... Maybe. But IMSA had to make decisions in its understanding of the North American business climate.

FIA/ACO has to make decisions to suit the business climate in Europe and Asia and parts of the Middle East. it cannot kowtow to IMSA’s needs any more than IMSA can kowtow of FIA/ACO.

Look, if a Canadian Rules Football team wanted to join the NFL, it would have to play by NFL rules. If an NFL team wanted to expand by starting a Canadian-Rules league team, that team would have to play by Canadian rules. If IMSA wants its cars to eligible at Le Mans ... it hads to make its cars eligible for Le Mans. it made a (sound IMO) business decision Not to sacrifice north American fans for the off chance that two or three teams might want to visit La Sarthe, and here we are.

No conspiracy, no transoceanic hatred ... just two business entities in related fields adapting to their specific customer and supplier bases and varying business climates.

Dude, if ACO wanted to kill sportscar racing ... it could shut down the race and not let anyone else use the track. Sorry, no logic there.

[BullMan]

I think this has been coming for a long time. IMSA management are not idiots ... NASCAR isn’t what it is because it is run by morons.

Under Brian France's reign, NASCAR has taken sharp dives in attendance and TV viewership, and now they don't even field full fields in Cup! Decisions have been made on the competition side that they have been reversing little by little.

Also, the morons who ran ALMS into the ground and the morons who had no clue how to run Grand-Am have teamed up. I still don't trust them based on decisions made in the past two years. It looks as though they might be turning a corner, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The podium ceremony at Sebring that year (2011 I believe) lasted almost three hours. It was almost a “here’s your participation trophy” situation.

2012.

And that was entirely down to ACO-FIA-IMSA all together stupidly not agreeing to combine the classes as they had done in the three previous ILMC outings. If they had respected the old system, the class count would've been split by half and the race would've been million times more sensible looking (and certain mr Hindhaugh wouldn't have branded it the worst race ever or whatever he has later said). The brand new separate artificial sub classification for ACO LMP1 Privateers of course didn't help either, adding yet another ceremony, nor IMSA's stubborness to keep spec filler classes of LMPC and GTC on the grid at full force when the paddock capacity limit was nearing. These are the real reasons why Sebring got canned from WEC the following year, the greedy needs of all three organizations not meeting middle ground. I blame FIA most on this instance, as Sebring was not their "standards", and they didn't want "guest classes" to interfere with their brand new series.

[carbsmith]

I feel like it's important to note that it's been announced multiple times in the last year that IMSA would use the same spec ECU as Gibson, including the announcement that Cosworth would supply the ECU for all 4 series.

But now they're turning their backs and it's the ACO's fault? Running non-spec ECUs adds basically nothing to a class as unsophisticated and BoP heavy as DPi. It won't make the cars faster, it's ostensibly anti-cost cutting, and nobody will even know they're different considering I have not a single clue who is providing the ECU for any car in IMSA right now. It's the IMSA manufacturers *coughhondacough* being provincial.

There's also indications that the IMSA and its manufacturers *coughhondacough* have decided to ignore the engine "box" to fit everything under the stock bodywork that was announced way back at the beginning as well, so once again if you can't meet the requirements what do you expect? Maybe this one was less realistic to start with, yet the rules also don't stop HPD from bringing back out their purpose built V8 or trying to use the more compact IndyCar V6 to make it happen.


You can hate the 2017 LMP2 regulations, but don't act as if the FIA or ACO has done anything worthy of fresh vitriol here by stating that IMSA has decided to ignore the common ground they had for Le Mans eligibility and they have to decide what to do about it.

[Deleted]

Yes.

Btw you can now see how this was already beginning to rumble in January
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=1635

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

I feel like it's important to note that it's been announced multiple times in the last year that IMSA would use the same spec ECU as Gibson, including the announcement that Cosworth would supply the ECU for all 4 series.

But now they're turning their backs and it's the ACO's fault? Running non-spec ECUs adds basically nothing to a class as unsophisticated and BoP heavy as DPi. It won't make the cars faster, it's ostensibly anti-cost cutting, and nobody will even know they're different considering I have not a single clue who is providing the ECU for any car in IMSA right now. It's the IMSA manufacturers *coughhondacough* being provincial.

There's also indications that the IMSA and its manufacturers *coughhondacough* have decided to ignore the engine "box" to fit everything under the stock bodywork that was announced way back at the beginning as well, so once again if you can't meet the requirements what do you expect? Maybe this one was less realistic to start with, yet the rules also don't stop HPD from bringing back out their purpose built V8 or trying to use the more compact IndyCar V6 to make it happen.


You can hate the 2017 LMP2 regulations, but don't act as if the FIA or ACO has done anything worthy of fresh vitriol here by stating that IMSA has decided to ignore the common ground they had for Le Mans eligibility and they have to decide what to do about it.

That in incorrect! This is from July 02, 2015.

"The use of anti-stall technology is mentioned as an item to remove from the regulations, and the ECU solution will be the subject of further discussion as it's listed as either the spec ACO/FIA unit or open, per IMSA's defined regulations. The use of sonic air restrictors would continue in IMSA for its NA motors in 2017, but in a change from current practice, turbo engines would operate without restrictors, and boost levels would be RPM-based to balance some acceleration advantages turbos have compared to NA engines."

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11870...=1&limitstart=





L.P.

[August]

Depending on ACO's decision on DPi eligibility at Le Mans, I'd possibly like IMSA to allow companies outside the chosen four to build DPi chassis.

If ACO really allows the DPi chassis+engine to be used at Le Mans in LMP2, then DPis should naturally be as close to LMP2s as possible, with the OEM engines and bodykits as the only difference.

But if ACO eventually decides against DPis' eligibility in LMP2, then I see no reason to limit the approved chassis constructors. I know, with less constuctors, each will build more chassis and the design cost per chassis is lower. But I doubt it makes much of a difference if you had two Ligier-Hondas less and instead two HPD-Hondas in the IMSA field. Anyway, BoP would take care of chassis parity so you shouldn't be afraid of anybody outdeveloping the ACO chosen four by outspending them.

As for the DPi/LMP2(/1-Private) eligibility, it's hard to have an opinion on that. I don't really like ACO/FIA's spec engine requirement outside Le Mans; if a non-Gibson team won at Le Mans, it'd look like the WEC regulars were at a disadvantage. Or if the Gibson-powered LMP2s totally outperformed the non-Gibson cars, it'd look like ACO failed badly in achieving a fair BoP.

I hope there will be a fair way to balance the LMP2s powered by Gibson and other engines (in case there will even be DPi teams going to Le Mans). If the DPis were too quick in LMP2, they'd also surely be too slow in privateer LMP1, so I can't imagine that as a possibility unless somebody wants to do Le Mans so badly despite no chance for a class win. A DPi class might be the fairest solution but let's talk about that only once there are at least six DPi cars willing to participate Le Mans. And even then, I doubt ACO wants to give a class for those manufacturers who chose IMSA instead of WEC.

But if there can't be a fair way to balance the Gibson-powered ACO chassis and the non-Gibson-powered IMSA chassis, then I'm fine with excluding the IMSA chassis from Le Mans, in which case leasing an ACO P2 would be the IMSA teams way to race at Le Mans. And logistics might make that the preferred option anyway.

[wdave0]

So IMSA is trying to come up with a class we and the competitors will like while skating on the edge of ACO rules. ACO is now unhappy with the impurity of the IMSA interpretation. Neither body can really afford to back down. We discuss LMP1-L as a remote possibility and then comes news of an FIA rework of LMP1-l allowing manufacturer engines - just like DPi. Could it be that they are trying to defuse the situation by making DPi a natural fit for LMP1-L? No more issues for ECU, pro lineup, bodywork and now factory engines.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by August

Depending on ACO's decision on DPi eligibility at Le Mans, I'd possibly like IMSA to allow companies outside the chosen four to build DPi chassis.

If ACO really allows the DPi chassis+engine to be used at Le Mans in LMP2, then DPis should naturally be as close to LMP2s as possible, with the OEM engines and bodykits as the only difference.

But if ACO eventually decides against DPis' eligibility in LMP2, then I see no reason to limit the approved chassis constructors. I know, with less constuctors, each will build more chassis and the design cost per chassis is lower. But I doubt it makes much of a difference if you had two Ligier-Hondas less and instead two HPD-Hondas in the IMSA field. Anyway, BoP would take care of chassis parity so you shouldn't be afraid of anybody outdeveloping the ACO chosen four by outspending them.

As for the DPi/LMP2(/1-Private) eligibility, it's hard to have an opinion on that. I don't really like ACO/FIA's spec engine requirement outside Le Mans; if a non-Gibson team won at Le Mans, it'd look like the WEC regulars were at a disadvantage. Or if the Gibson-powered LMP2s totally outperformed the non-Gibson cars, it'd look like ACO failed badly in achieving a fair BoP.

I hope there will be a fair way to balance the LMP2s powered by Gibson and other engines (in case there will even be DPi teams going to Le Mans). If the DPis were too quick in LMP2, they'd also surely be too slow in privateer LMP1, so I can't imagine that as a possibility unless somebody wants to do Le Mans so badly despite no chance for a class win. A DPi class might be the fairest solution but let's talk about that only once there are at least six DPi cars willing to participate Le Mans. And even then, I doubt ACO wants to give a class for those manufacturers who chose IMSA instead of WEC.

But if there can't be a fair way to balance the Gibson-powered ACO chassis and the non-Gibson-powered IMSA chassis, then I'm fine with excluding the IMSA chassis from Le Mans, in which case leasing an ACO P2 would be the IMSA teams way to race at Le Mans. And logistics might make that the preferred option anyway.

IMSA will not step away from the common chassis and the 4 specified constructors. That is an 'economy of scale' decision to keep the series healthy on the supply side. I would like to see the fin go away and add some more under car aero if there were to be a change, if this schism fully develops, but I do not see the schism becoming a major obstacle (full divorce) between the sanctioning bodies. Nor do I, unfortunately, see IMSA deviating any farther than they have already laid out, for those same 'economy of scale' reasons. It is also a very familiar plan to the new IMSA, as that is how the GA side's top class was set up before the merger.





L.P.

[Deleted]

I don't understand the arguments behind economy of scale, or whatever you want to call the force mandate of spec supply deals.

[Danske]

Originally Posted by Chiana

I don't understand the arguments behind economy of scale, or whatever you want to call the force mandate of spec supply deals.

If someone is going to sell only one or two cars they have to sell everything for more to make up the cost of development. So the theory is that if teams have a limited selection of cars to select from, more of each car will be sold and they will cost less. IIRC, that's what killed the Riley P2. They couldn't get enough pre-orders at a price that would cover finishing the development.

[Coach Ep]

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/0...gines-drs.html

Reading between all the lines it almost sounds like DPi would be the most sensible option to replace P1 privateer/light if IMSA is willing to open up the chassis constructor limit. That way privateers and manufacturers can compete at LM, WEC and IMSA if they choose to. And not bother the P1 hybrids for the overall wins at both LM and WEC and don't compete directly with the P2s as well.

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/0...gines-drs.html

Reading between all the lines it almost sounds like DPi would be the most sensible option to replace P1 privateer/light if IMSA is willing to open up the chassis constructor limit. That way privateers and manufacturers can compete at LM, WEC and IMSA if they choose to. And not bother the P1 hybrids for the overall wins at both LM and WEC and don't compete directly with the P2s as well.

Earlier today - this thread

So IMSA is trying to come up with a class we and the competitors will like while skating on the edge of ACO rules. ACO is now unhappy with the impurity of the IMSA interpretation. Neither body can really afford to back down. We discuss LMP1-L as a remote possibility and then comes news of an FIA rework of LMP1-l allowing manufacturer engines - just like DPi. Could it be that they are trying to defuse the situation by making DPi a natural fit for LMP1-L? No more issues for ECU, pro lineup, bodywork and now factory engines.

[DeezPutz]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/0...gines-drs.html

Reading between all the lines it almost sounds like DPi would be the most sensible option to replace P1 privateer/light if IMSA is willing to open up the chassis constructor limit. That way privateers and manufacturers can compete at LM, WEC and IMSA if they choose to. And not bother the P1 hybrids for the overall wins at both LM and WEC and don't compete directly with the P2s as well.

That's all on point, but the ACO knows LMP1-H isn't sustainable. They can't now allow IMSA to bring DPi over as LMP1-L which will fill the void when Audi leaves for tintops.

[Deleted]

Even if Audi leaves that will still leave 4-6 factory cars from Porsche and Toyota (depending on whether they bring back 3rd LM cars), and that is assuming no other manufacturer steps in as 'replacement'. We know the interest from few manufacturers, Pug and BMW etc. The situation where you will only have one manufacturer left standing is highly unrealistic, and even in such scenario the others will realize that winning LM will be "easier" than in the past and they will want to join then.

[Irie]

Originally Posted by wdave0

Earlier today - this thread

So IMSA is trying to come up with a class we and the competitors will like while skating on the edge of ACO rules. ACO is now unhappy with the impurity of the IMSA interpretation. Neither body can really afford to back down. We discuss LMP1-L as a remote possibility and then comes news of an FIA rework of LMP1-l allowing manufacturer engines - just like DPi. Could it be that they are trying to defuse the situation by making DPi a natural fit for LMP1-L? No more issues for ECU, pro lineup, bodywork and now factory engines.

Can I ask what is the meant with manufacturer engines? I was under the impression that you could whatever engine you want into an LMP1 it just musn't exceed the allowed capacity. Wasn't the Toyota engine of Rebellion a "manufacturer engine" as it was from a manufacturer? Or am I missing something and it is something different?

Edit: and the rules allow for

single supply of engines, services relating to these engines or commercial support

from a manufacturer for private LMP1 teams

[Deleted]

Check the WEC thread for info.

Also yes, you could have always acquired manufacturer engines, and manufacturer chassis in LMP1 Privateer, if the manufacturers wanted to sell them.

[Irie]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Check the WEC thread for info.

Also yes, you could have always acquired manufacturer engines, and manufacturer chassis in LMP1 Privateer, if the manufacturers wanted to sell them.

Thanks for the hint.

[joeb]

Mariantic has a good summary website of the DPi progress:

http://www.mariantic.co.uk/lmp/DPI.asp

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Check the WEC thread for info.

Also yes, you could have always acquired manufacturer engines, and manufacturer chassis in LMP1 Privateer, if the manufacturers wanted to sell them.

But not branded engines.

[HORNDAWG]

Doonan (Mazda) confirming they are moving forward with DPi....


2017 in approaching and there’s a lot of talk about DPi. Where does Mazda currently stand on its potential/likely involvement in the prototype class for next year?

“We’re committed to racing in 2017 and beyond with the new rules, but we can’t share any details right now. We believe the development of the new engine will only make us more competitive next season.”


http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/co...t-john-doonan/







L.P.

[Maelochs]

Mazda is firmly committed to winning at Le Mans in some prototype class, or at least taking a very serious shot. I have no idea what year they would plan to go over, but they will continue to run two cars here until then, I'd figure .... maybe until they can get some kind of WEC waiver for their two-liter. You know .... Audi-style, buy the regulations they need.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Doonan (Mazda) confirming they are moving forward with DPi....


2017 in approaching and there’s a lot of talk about DPi. Where does Mazda currently stand on its potential/likely involvement in the prototype class for next year?

“We’re committed to racing in 2017 and beyond with the new rules, but we can’t share any details right now. We believe the development of the new engine will only make us more competitive next season.”


http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/co...t-john-doonan/







L.P.

No he doesn't say anything about "DPi", just that they will be there with the "new rules", which can be interpreted as anything.

[DeezPutz]

Originally Posted by Chiana

No he doesn't say anything about "DPi", just that they will be there with the "new rules", which can be interpreted as anything.

They have yet to make a decision on what to do for a 2017 car. I would imagine they don't have one until 2018. That would be another year of putting bandaids on their car, but it's the most probable outcome.