IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

Despite his good points about BOP being more than numbers, I still left with a "suck it up" attitude that Hindy mentioned when he was playing devil's advocate.

Can't drive the car as quickly as required to be competitive? Buy another car, or become a faster driver. You're racing in a so called top flight racing series. Or play the lobby game, by lobbying more/harder/in a more annoying tone of voice, or just quit the year. Because for some reason everything will be better in 4 months at Daytona.

I'm sure this is quite far from reasonable. Hedlund will be on in a second telling me how wrong I am.

I have to agree.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

Despite his good points about BOP being more than numbers, I still left with a "suck it up" attitude that Hindy mentioned when he was playing devil's advocate.

Can't drive the car as quickly as required to be competitive? Buy another car, or become a faster driver. You're racing in a so called top flight racing series. Or play the lobby game, by lobbying more/harder/in a more annoying tone of voice, or just quit the year. Because for some reason everything will be better in 4 months at Daytona.

I'm sure this is quite far from reasonable. Hedlund will be on in a second telling me how wrong I am.

I agree!
It is not a BoP debacle as MM9019 said it was. it is the Ams not being able to drive the car. The DRIVERS are not what gets BoP, the CARS do. The issue is with the Porsche and is Porsche's to resolve to keep their customers happy driving the car. Which is almost a moot/sticky point as a new Car is on the way from Porsche.






L.P.

[chernaudi]

Unless it's based on the mid-engined GTE car, good luck with that. The 991 911 GT3 is barely a year old.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I agree!
It is not a BoP debacle as MM9019 said it was. it is the Ams not being able to drive the car. The DRIVERS are not what gets BoP, the CARS do. The issue is with the Porsche and is Porsche's to resolve to keep their customers happy driving the car. Which is almost a moot/sticky point as a new Car is on the way from Porsche.

Uh. It isn't? You've just lost two cars to BoP. Insert whatever term you'd like. It's a problem. Either the car has become undrivable within a safe window for the AM's, or the car has had problems that the BoP has pushed into a different level.

Having said that, most cars only get faster the more aggressive you go with the setup provided you have someone who can get the time out of the car, in this scenario... It's fairly obvious those who've decided to walk

A; provide the funding, and

B; can take their car elsewhere.

So, if they want to leave, they will leave. If they don't like how the BoP makes the car drive, that's their prerogative. It's kinda nice to be able to make that choice at a whim... You know... Because they are funding it and are paying for that.

And what exactly it Porsche supposed to do? Help them with a car that's outside the BoP limits? Lol....

Should IMSA cave to them? No. But perhaps they need to revise their BoP... But they won't. They've never listened when people have complained about driving unsafe cars. Goes all the way back to the short wing with Saleen.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Uh. It isn't? You've just lost two cars to BoP. Insert whatever term you'd like. It's a problem. Either the car has become undrivable within a safe window for the AM's, or the car has had problems that the BoP has pushed into a different level.

Having said that, most cars only get faster the more aggressive you go with the setup provided you have someone who can get the time out of the car, in this scenario... It's fairly obvious those who've decided to walk

A; provide the funding, and

B; can take their car elsewhere.

So, if they want to leave, they will leave. If they don't like how the BoP makes the car drive, that's their prerogative. It's kinda nice to be able to make that choice at a whim... You know... Because they are funding it and are paying for that.

And what exactly it Porsche supposed to do? Help them with a car that's outside the BoP limits? Lol....

Should IMSA cave to them? No. But perhaps they need to revise their BoP... But they won't. They've never listened when people have complained about driving unsafe cars. Goes all the way back to the short wing with Saleen.

NO it is not! 1 car (model) that some of the Ams feel uncomfortable driving on the edge does not make a debacle, period! Is it a bummer? For them,yes. For us, somewhat. You can not balance every driver, in every car, PERIOD! Unless of course you want to mandate pit stop time lengths and make it so the cars can have their setup changed during said stops. It is absolutely not something that IMSA should or will do.







L.P.

[jjvincent]

I'm not buying the setup argument. Just so you all know, every one of these Pro-Am lineups operate like this. Pro goes out and sets up the car. Then the Am gets in and drives it because he knows it's fast. Having this thing where you trim the car out makes it go faster with a Pro as opposed to the AM is not right. A low grip car that's all over the place is not fast unless you are running a wingless sprint car on dirt.

When a team tells everyone that they have to run at 100% all of the time to even be remotely competitive makes no sense at all. They act like every other team is farting around at 95% and winning races. This might have been true 10 years ago when we didn't log data on every single car with the same system and then have a multitude of timing loops. Now it's pretty easy to figure out who is running at 100% and who is not. Even if the manufacturer goes to all of their teams and tells then to sandbag, there's always one that won;t do it because they want to do was well as possible and not throw a race for the common good of the manufacturer. If you notice, one Porsche is left. I bet the other two were probably trying to convince them to bail too and they never went for it.

[Makaze]

911 can not compete with a very good MR or FR and to do so,it will take a very good pro-driver to do so.911 is handicap from the beginning with the engine behind the rear axle.

BOP kept the gentleman driver in the game in the past.

Porsche needs to move to a Cayman GT3 but they will not do that because that will kill 911 sales.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

NO it is not! 1 car (model) that some of the Ams feel uncomfortable driving on the edge does not make a debacle, period!

When you have teams leaving over BoP complaints, whether said complaints are legitimate or not, it IS a debacle as it indicates something in the process does not sit well with them.

I strongly doubt the 911 is somehow close to some unsafe edge -even for the Am drivers- considering that in GTD they're bopped down to be slower than normal GT3 speeds.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

When you have teams leaving over BoP complaints, whether said complaints are legitimate or not, it IS a debacle as it indicates something in the process does not sit well with them.

I strongly doubt the 911 is somehow close to some unsafe edge -even for the Am drivers- considering that in GTD they're bopped down to be slower than normal GT3 speeds.

Look up the word debacle! To use it to describe the current situation of the Porsche teams withdrawal is ludicrous (look that one up too).








L.P.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

When you have teams leaving over BoP complaints, whether said complaints are legitimate or not, it IS a debacle as it indicates something in the process does not sit well with them.

The point I made poorly earlier is it must be more than BoP alone. For AJR, picking up and leaving something they've been in essentially before the beginning over a single aspect doesn't make sense.

While a long standing team leaving is a concern, it's not a huge wave as being made out. It could the tip of an iceberg but I think it's an ice cube.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

The point I made poorly earlier is it must be more than BoP alone. For AJR, picking up and leaving something they've been in essentially before the beginning over a single aspect doesn't make sense.

While a long standing team leaving is a concern, it's not a huge wave as being made out. It could the tip of an iceberg but I think it's an ice cube.

I wouldn't look at it as AJR is leaving though. The guy paying AJR is unhappy, and has made the choice to leave, and AJR is doing what is necessary, to continue getting paid.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

I wouldn't look at it as AJR is leaving though. The guy paying AJR is unhappy, and has made the choice to leave, and AJR is doing what is necessary, to continue getting paid.

Good point which makes it even lesser of a big picture concern IMHO.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

The point I made poorly earlier is it must be more than BoP alone.

Oh, I agree, it likely isn't the BoP alone, particularly with one of the withdrawals being the car that finished second, but the matters of how it's handled involve so many different things that the entirety of the concerns could still be related to the BoP. That's why I make it a point to note "how it's being handled" rather than the BoP changes themselves when looking at it.

The process involves so many details that even someone who's benefiting from it could conceivably be bothered by it enough to leave from a lack of faith in how things could go down the road - though a consistently successful team wouldn't leave before an unfair BoP was applied unless they were run by idiots.

For AJR, picking up and leaving something they've been in essentially before the beginning over a single aspect doesn't make sense.

You really can't say that for sure - if it's been an ongoing issue they'd likely get sick enough of it eventually, even if it's just one issue.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Look up the word debacle! To use it to describe the current situation of the Porsche teams withdrawal is ludicrous (look that one up too).

While you've got that dictionary open, look up hyperbole....

IMSA has put themselves in this situation, the 911 is a beast to drive even for the best of drivers, even worse for an Am to drive on the absolute limit when it's been setup for a pro to go as fast as possible.

When you are footing the bill, and find yourself in a position where writing off the car, and or seriously injuring yourself is a VERY real possibility perhaps it's time to re-evaluate your choices... Especially when your life outside of racing from a corporate standpoint, and potentially your family's income might be drastically affected.

Could you buy a different car? Sure. Could you just drive slower? I guess.

But. Then why bother at all?

The long and short of this which, I'm sure you'll refute with impeccable levels of silly, is that these are rich guys doing what they want, and what they choose to do.

They've got honest concerns. They've voiced those concerns, IMSA doesn't care, and they've chosen to park it, or go elsewhere. That's an IMSA problem. They have the ability to go back to an earlier iteration of the BoP to make the car better, and adjust another area of the BoP table to account for the drivability issues.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

While you've got that dictionary open, look up hyperbole....

IMSA has put themselves in this situation, the 911 is a beast to drive even for the best of drivers, even worse for an Am to drive on the absolute limit when it's been setup for a pro to go as fast as possible.

When you are footing the bill, and find yourself in a position where writing off the car, and or seriously injuring yourself is a VERY real possibility perhaps it's time to re-evaluate your choices... Especially when your life outside of racing from a corporate standpoint, and potentially your family's income might be drastically affected.

Could you buy a different car? Sure. Could you just drive slower? I guess.

But. Then why bother at all?

The long and short of this which, I'm sure you'll refute with impeccable levels of silly, is that these are rich guys doing what they want, and what they choose to do.

They've got honest concerns. They've voiced those concerns, IMSA doesn't care, and they've chosen to park it, or go elsewhere. That's an IMSA problem. They have the ability to go back to an earlier iteration of the BoP to make the car better, and adjust another area of the BoP table to account for the drivability issues.

You can try, bloviation and obfuscation.

IMSA did not create this issue. It is a Porsche issue!

A BoP adjustment for the entire field to bring an Am into his comfort zone, in a GT3 car which is competitively balanced to the rest of the class? That is not going to happen. These GT3s are balanced against each other before they ever see this side of the pond. They are all within the envelope set by FIA for the class, it is incumbent upon Porsche to build a car that their customers can drive within that envelope without 'being in fear of injury'. They have voiced their concerns to IMSA and have been heard, to characterize IMSA as not caring is IMO horse manure. While I am sure they do not want this team, and this team in particular, to feel that they do not care, the reality of it is not their place nor responsibility to rectify the short comings of the Porsche beyond what is reasonable to expect as concerns BoP against the entire field and the GT3 class of cars as a whole.
So blaming it on IMSA, that Porsche's GT3 is on knife edge to be at the front of the field is just hyperbole. It is pretty much one the fastest car in the field, as proven statistically, in hands of a person with the skill to drive it, as BoPed for GT3.





L.P.

[carbsmith]

GTD ballast amounts from homologated minimum weight:

Aston Martin 20kg
Audi 65kg
BMW 20kg
Dodge 15kg
Ferrari 20kg
Lamborghini 50kg
Porsche 85kg

That is a pretty extreme amount of weight to be carrying in a frozen spec car. The Audis were carrying 90kg at Daytona mind you but besides no change for Aston Martin, every car besides Porsche has had their ballast reduced over the season (by as much as 45kg in one case) together with smaller restrictors while the 911 has had 35kg added and no air restrictor reductions. It's entirely possible that has pushed the car outside of its intended setup window into something that isn't very drivable, consistent, or even as reliable as it should be.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Oh, I agree, it likely isn't the BoP alone, particularly with one of the withdrawals being the car that finished second, but the matters of how it's handled involve so many different things that the entirety of the concerns could still be related to the BoP. That's why I make it a point to note "how it's being handled" rather than the BoP changes themselves when looking at it.

The process involves so many details that even someone who's benefiting from it could conceivably be bothered by it enough to leave from a lack of faith in how things could go down the road - though a consistently successful team wouldn't leave before an unfair BoP was applied unless they were run by idiots.



You really can't say that for sure - if it's been an ongoing issue they'd likely get sick enough of it eventually, even if it's just one issue.

Quite frankly, nobody likes BoP and this post seems a little contradictory; is or is it BoP alone? Or are you saying it could be but depends?

BoP, when unfairly or a better term being inconsistently applied, that's where I can get the frustration. Its not perfect anywhere and far from perfect in imsa, but I am still contending BoP is a convenient excuse.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

GTD ballast amounts from homologated minimum weight:

Aston Martin 20kg
Audi 65kg
BMW 20kg
Dodge 15kg
Ferrari 20kg
Lamborghini 50kg
Porsche 85kg

That is a pretty extreme amount of weight to be carrying in a frozen spec car. The Audis were carrying 90kg at Daytona mind you but besides no change for Aston Martin, every car besides Porsche has had their ballast reduced over the season (by as much as 45kg in one case) together with smaller restrictors while the 911 has had 35kg added and no air restrictor reductions. It's entirely possible that has pushed the car outside of its intended setup window into something that isn't very drivable, consistent, or even as reliable as it should be.

Thanks for posting that I tend to lose track of what has happened to what car over the course of the season

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

You can try, bloviation and obfuscation.

IMSA did not create this issue. It is a Porsche issue!

A BoP adjustment for the entire field to bring an Am into his comfort zone, in a GT3 car which is competitively balanced to the rest of the class? That is not going to happen. These GT3s are balanced against each other before they ever see this side of the pond. They are all within the envelope set by FIA for the class, it is incumbent upon Porsche to build a car that their customers can drive within that envelope without 'being in fear of injury'. They have voiced their concerns to IMSA and have been heard, to characterize IMSA as not caring is IMO horse manure. While I am sure they do not want this team, and this team in particular, to feel that they do not care, the reality of it is not their place nor responsibility to rectify the short comings of the Porsche beyond what is reasonable to expect as concerns BoP against the entire field and the GT3 class of cars as a whole.
So blaming it on IMSA, that Porsche's GT3 is on knife edge to be at the front of the field is just hyperbole. It is pretty much one the fastest car in the field, as proven statistically, in hands of a person with the skill to drive it, as BoPed for GT3.

This would be accurate. But. It isn't. The SRO BoP is vastly different than the IMSA BoP.

It's an IMSA issue, sorry.... You might not like that realization. But. They built their own BoP tables. I don't know how you can blame Porsche.

It's a bit like saying, "that table saw, yeah, I don't need the blade guard on it. Just makes it harder to operate." Then, when you go and lose a finger, you blame the manufacturer for you doing something stupid and operating the machinery outside of its safety parameter.

IMSA here has forced the teams to go with aggressive setups. And, I'll repeat myself again because you didn't seem to get it.

IMSA, the sanctioning body, who created the BoP table put the Porsche teams into this position. Not Porsche. Not AJR. Not Cooper. Not anyone else.

IMSA.

If they want to be competitive, that's the only choice they've been left with.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

This would be accurate. But. It isn't. The SRO BoP is vastly different than the IMSA BoP.

It's an IMSA issue, sorry.... You might not like that realization. But. They built their own BoP tables. I don't know how you can blame Porsche.

It's a bit like saying, "that table saw, yeah, I don't need the blade guard on it. Just makes it harder to operate." Then, when you go and lose a finger, you blame the manufacturer for you doing something stupid and operating the machinery outside of its safety parameter.

IMSA here has forced the teams to go with aggressive setups. And, I'll repeat myself again because you didn't seem to get it.

IMSA, the sanctioning body, who created the BoP table put the Porsche teams into this position. Not Porsche. Not AJR. Not Cooper. Not anyone else.

IMSA.

If they want to be competitive, that's the only choice they've been left with.

Well, we will just have to disagree on it!











L.P.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

This would be accurate. But. It isn't. The SRO BoP is vastly different than the IMSA BoP.

It's an IMSA issue, sorry.... You might not like that realization. But. They built their own BoP tables.

This. ALL OF THIS. It CANNOT be emphasized enough.

Personally, the only way I can see the differences between IMSA BoP and SRO/FIA BoP being a factor here is if GT3 cars are far more aero-dependent than I've been led to believe(since, as we know, IMSA's BoP slows the cars down from SRO/FIA - 2.1 seconds off at Road America), but we can NEVER dismiss the difference between the BoP tables when considering these matters.

[Bcarr6]

Could you suggest that the problems BOPing GTD cars in IMSA is in part down to the fact they bring the levels of the cars down from the GT3 standard?

As HORNDAWG said, these cars are carefully balanced by the FIA. Seems messing with that in any way can cause trouble.

I know the Porsche hasn't been a wild success worldwide though, Darrel OYoung in GT Asia, a really reputable driver has been struggling all year. The Pro Am car in Blancpain has been pretty but uneventful. Walkinshaw in Aus GT haven't done much!

The only real great drives we've had from it has been from Pat Long in PWC.

So maybe IMSA is messing with BOP too much, or they got it wrong, or the drivers aren't that fast.

But really, it kinda seems Porsche maybe just built a car that isn't quite as AM friendly as the Audi or Lambo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Well, we will just have to disagree on it!

There are two sides to an argument. The right one, and yours.

But seriously... IMSA has done a great job of screwing this up. The cars are totally fine in SRO BoP trim. SRO has worked incredibly hard to make it easy on any competent AM to go to work and be up to speed quickly.

This would have been the correct approach... IMSA, per ops normal, has to do their own thing to keep the classes balanced. Why? Because the DP still isn't quick enough, PC wasn't fast enough, and GTE wasn't fast enough...

Because GT3 in SRO trim IS fast enough. Perhaps for 2017 when PC is gone, P2 is quicker, and GTE could be sped up enough to gap GT3 without silly IMSA BoP.

[chernaudi]

I think that Porsche burned some teams by stalling so long on making the 991 GT3. Audi, M-B, Lamborghini, et al, have had 6 months-a year's worth of head start on Porsche. It also doesn't help that the 997 was made obsolescent due to it's age.

Also, though IMSA does use FIA/SRO regs as a guideline, IMSA's BOP is different than the SRO's. First, the GT3s are slowed in GTD to keep them from rivaling the speeds of the GTLM cars. We already know that the GTD's used to have the legs over the draggier GTLM cars at Daytona. So engine power reductions and sticking them on spec Continental tires vs the stuff that Michelin gives the GTLM teams that are built to each team's specs restricts their pace.

Also as posted, all the GTD cars are carrying ballast vs what their GT3 homologated weight is. This is both BOP and again, to slow them down compared to the GTLM cars.

Only way that IMSA can be blamed is if the power reduction vs Euro GT3 regs and the extra 85kgs of ballast has impacted how the car drives. Other than that, it seems to be a Porsche problem. Maybe the 991 GT3 struggles on spec tires? Maybe it's just not as well developed as the Audi, Lamborghini, and BMW GT3/GTD cars? Maybe it's the inherent flaws in the car being rear engined (weight distribution and difficulties with packaging the rear diffuser), which has lead the 2017 Porsche 991 911 GT3 RSR GTE/GTLM car to being redesigned to be mid-engined?

I also think that it's sort of telling how Magnus, a long time Porsche customer, defected to Audi this season. And when they went into GTD from GTLM, Paul Miller Racing switched to Audi, then Lamborghini, after several years of running Porsches.

[Accident]

So IMSA is supposed to change the ballast/restrictor on the Porsche so that it doesn't gain any laptime but is easier to drive...?

It's not IMSA's job to make sure manufacturer's cars are easy to drive for amateurs.

If they just speed up the Porsche then the #23 will probably run away with things, and the other two would be very quick with the pros in them at the end of the race... Which would just lead to more *****ing from other teams about the BoP being unfair and "we just can't compete with those Porsches" and so on. Then they can threaten to pull out of the series too and the process can repeat.