ACO silence on 2017 LMP1-L Regs?

[Akrapovic]

The DPi concept requires the purchase of a homologated P2 chassis and encourages manufacturer involvement with bodykits and engines. The P-1L concept encourages privateer development and no manufacturer involvement. The manufacturer involvement is a massive massive issue that would devalue the private entries in P-1L and undermine the ACOs attempt at encouraging manufacturers to experiment with new technology in P-1H.

I for one do not want P-1L to turn into a playground for manufacturers like Mazda and Nissan who don't want to invest in the series like Toyota and VAG have. You can argue P-1H is too expensive, and you may be right. But that's because it's ground breaking and pushing the boundary of technology, rather than making funny shaped cars advertised with hashtags or an old defunked prototype with an engine taped in. DPi will be great in the states. It isn't needed in WEC. If P-1L dies then it dies. DPi isn't the fix the ACO is looking for.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The DPi concept requires the purchase of a homologated P2 chassis and encourages manufacturer involvement with bodykits and engines. The P-1L concept encourages privateer development and no manufacturer involvement. The manufacturer involvement is a massive massive issue that would devalue the private entries in P-1L and undermine the ACOs attempt at encouraging manufacturers to experiment with new technology in P-1H.

I for one do not want P-1L to turn into a playground for manufacturers like Mazda and Nissan who don't want to invest in the series like Toyota and VAG have. You can argue P-1H is too expensive, and you may be right. But that's because it's ground breaking and pushing the boundary of technology, rather than making funny shaped cars advertised with hashtags or an old defunked prototype with an engine taped in. DPi will be great in the states. It isn't needed in WEC. If P-1L dies then it dies. DPi isn't the fix the ACO is looking for.

Choke, die, what is the difference? Who is the entitled one? So evidently P-1l is just to much trouble for the ACO to care about. So be it, let it die! Onward and upward, who cares.....








L.P.

[Akrapovic]

I didn't say let it die, I said if it does it dies and that DPi isn't the fix that is needed because it's incompatible the overall philosophy that the ACO is pursuing. I don't see what is entitled about being able to see the big picture of what the ACO is trying to do, and not thinking that DPi has some sort of right to appear in WEC/LM.

However seeming to think that IMSA should have any say in how the ACO does things, whilst having to utilise the ACOs own homologated equipment...

[carbsmith]

I think the real delusion is believing allowing DPi cars into LMP1L will have any meaningful impact on the health of the class anyways. It might add like 3 cars at Le Mans (which for the ACO is a worthless pursuit compared to trying to get the current factories to run third cars), it will do nothing for the rest of the season.

The only reason it was brought up was to pacify protests over IMSA teams buying ineligible cars, but that doesn't even matter because it turns out privateer teams that actually have interest in going to Le Mans can't buy a DPi anyways.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I didn't say let it die, I said if it does it dies and that DPi isn't the fix that is needed because it's incompatible the overall philosophy that the ACO is pursuing. I don't see what is entitled about being able to see the big picture of what the ACO is trying to do, and not thinking that DPi has some sort of right to appear in WEC/LM.

However seeming to think that IMSA should have any say in how the ACO does things, whilst having to utilise the ACOs own homologated equipment...

Who said IMSA had any say in how the ACO does things, wow, WAY between the lines. The concept, is just that, a concept. But it is clear that is not acceptable to some.





L.P.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

I think the real delusion is believing allowing DPi cars into LMP1L will have any meaningful impact on the health of the class anyways. It might add like 3 cars at Le Mans (which for the ACO is a worthless pursuit compared to trying to get the current factories to run third cars), it will do nothing for the rest of the season.

The only reason it was brought up was to pacify protests over IMSA teams buying ineligible cars, but that doesn't even matter because it turns out privateer teams that actually have interest in going to Le Mans can't buy a DPi anyways.

The delusion is that this was about anything other than what the title of the thread stated, P-1l regs and what is, or isnt, happening with them. I think P-1l would gain several teams if a concept such as DPi were introduced into ACO series. As for the assertion that it was only about IMSA's DPis not being eligible for Le Mans, that's a crock! Many, most really, IMSA teams of late (except werks teams) have rented cars anyways so what is so different? That dog don't hunt.







L.P.

[joeb]

Before this thread gets too far gone, lets remember people are entitled to their own opinions on the matter. Laughing at somebody else's opinion does not foster discussion. Keep it civil please.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Many, most really, IMSA teams of late (except werks teams) have rented cars anyways

That's an outright falsehood. Corvette doesn't rent cars. Ganassi doesn't rent cars. Risi doesn't rent a car. ESM doesn't rent cars. Krohn doesn't rent a car. Riley, 8 Star, Level 5, and Starworks didn't rent cars. Shank may not have used the same chassis but it's not a rental per se. The exception is Dempsey ride buying with another team in a completely different class.

You're even blatantly contradicted by all of those prototype teams specifically buying the cars they did so they could race them at Le Mans, in some cases including their 2017 cars.

[chernaudi]

Well, if the ACO considers traction control a "chassis system" (I don't know how, since it's part of the ECU, which is an engine electronics system), why not ban traction control in LMP1 (and maybe DPI and LMP2) across the board? Audi had a 700bhp/900lb-ft torque diesel in 2006 that lived most of the season without it. Audi also lived without traction control on their front wheel drive hybrid system until this season.

Besides, if a simple ASR system is all that's legal under ACO and IMSA regs, that shouldn't be a problem. From what I've seen, ASR is rather ineffective given how easy it is for even pros to spin out on their own at times.

This goes along with the split between the ACO and IMSA over the spec ECU. Engine makers in IMSA wanted to use their own, while otherwise they'd have to use the Cosworth ECU, which in its basic form is set up for the Gibson GK428 V8. Between engines of different displacement, NA vs turbo, et al, I'd still think that the Cosworth/Gibson ECU would still have adjustable parameters, like the McLaren semi-spec ECU has in F1, and the McLaren/Freescale quasi-spec ECU in NASCAR Cup does. But then again, car makers it seems even want to run their own ASR traction control system.

This whole deal is basically everyone egos getting in the way, and sometimes that spill over onto this board, too. Which is why I'm slowly but surly drifting away from social media of all types.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

That's an outright falsehood. Corvette doesn't rent cars. Ganassi doesn't rent cars. Risi doesn't rent a car. ESM doesn't rent cars. Krohn doesn't rent a car. Riley, 8 Star, Level 5, and Starworks didn't rent cars. Shank may not have used the same chassis but it's not a rental per se. The exception is Dempsey ride buying with another team in a completely different class.

You're even blatantly contradicted by all of those prototype teams specifically buying the cars they did so they could race them at Le Mans, in some cases including their 2017 cars.

An outright falsehood? Hmm, do you know what 'werks' implies? Corvette and Ganassi are just that! ESM (WEC), Krohn runs in the ELMS full time not IMSA. Shank did rent/lease the car, at least according to him. Others have as well, Keating comes to mind....






L.P.

[Maelochs]

P1L seems to be a dead class. The only question about the class at any race is when will the Kolles break, and will one or zero Rebellions make it to the finish—or if they both finish, will one or both lose a lot of laps to some mechanical issue?

No one else want to join, and there really isn’t any benefit I can see. It is such a non-issue class that there can’t be any real PR benefit. I think both Rebellion and Kolles are the classic “We want to race and we can write some of it off as advertising, so let’s go;” except neither team has the budget to do enough testing to field reliable cars.

I have nothing against the class, but if a class with three cars from two teams and Zero prospects for expansion isn’t a defunct class ....

FIA could use a DPi-based ruleset: modified P2 chassis with free bodywork and motor, and no factory teams. AXR is sort of a Chevy team, but wouldn’t get the benefit of being called a Chevy team, any more than AER gets any benefit from Rebellion.

Mazda couldn’t enter at all ... but it could provide an engine and tech support for the engine—as I am sure AER does. A way to manage that would be to set a max engine lease price, and specify that the engine provider could only provide engineering support.

The hope wouldn’t be that WSC cars—or teams—cross the pond, but that some teams might want to step up to a class which allowed a little more engineering freedom than P2 (which will be 100% spec) without the overwhelming cost of P1H.

Are such teams out there? I have no idea. But such a class wouldn’t be far from current P1L, and might be a little cheaper (assuming a P2 chassis would be cheaper than the modified P1 chassis the class uses now.) if it flopped ... well P1L has been flopping for a few seasons anyway, so trying something new literally couldn’t hurt. ACO has basically nothing to lose because the class is effectively null already.

Of course, there would be some issue regarding rules for Le Mans--probably the only race where P1L would matter to WSC teams. The benefit might be that a team like AXR or Wayne Taylor or ESM might be able to see some benefit to running nearly identical cars on both sides of the pond, which they wouldn't be able to do in P2 (they'd need different engines and bodywork.)

Might be a crappy idea. I don't care. it is all pointless musing about a dying class which seems to me to be a failure---and I don't care if it stays the same, goes away, or becomes something else.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

An outright falsehood? Hmm, do you know what 'werks' implies? Corvette and Ganassi are just that! ESM (WEC), Krohn runs in the ELMS full time not IMSA. Shank did rent/lease the car, at least according to him. Others have as well, Keating comes to mind....

Ben Keating is a ride buyer that wants to put the car in his collection when it's retired, not a team owner. He was forced to buy a ride with a European team when the team he ride buys with in IMSA didn't get an entry with their ACO eligible car. Next year he's probably going to buy a ride in an ACO spec P2 from the same team.

Shank is technically a rental, but it's a rental of an identical IMSA chassis because they can't have the same car in two places at once, if it wasn't for IMSA's scheduling they would have used their own car. That chassis raced in the US two weeks later.

I'll give you that ESM actually rents a car for IMSA because the Nissan engine is uncompetitive under special snowflake rules. No other team would go this far though, they just wouldn't show up.

[BrentJackson]

I'm just gonna say this up front: the fact that we have this debate is EXACTLY why the ACO should NOT have changed the P2 rules. But they did, and now we're seeing the result - a whole pile of Michelin-shod, Gibson-powered, Cosworth-controlled Oreca and Onroak spec cars. It didn't have to be this way, but it is now and it is almost certainly because of what looks like nepotism on the part of the ACO.

That said, the simple reality is that there is nobody in the world foolish enough aside from those there now to run in P1-L. No exposure, no chance of actually winning anything with three factory teams with hybrid cars around and a monumental cost increase compared to LMP2. So teams are either going to LMP2 and buy the spec cars (as the ACO wanted) or do as what it looks like SMP is gonna do and race GT cars instead. For those teams who want to do better than the spec cars and wish to stay prototype racing, they have no options aside from bankrupt themselves trying in ridiculous fashion to run with the factory teams. How does that many any sense?

How do you get around this? Well, if you're IMSA, you toss out the four-chassis limit and let 'em rip.

If you're the ACO, well....you don't and hope the losses to Blancpain and IMSA aren't too awful.

[MagVanisher]

I think that the worst case scenario should the LMP1-L is already abolished is having one or two manufacturers dropping out of LMP1-H. That leaves the top class in jeopardy if that happens.

Sure, ACO wants manufacturers in LMP1 but they can't make a plan to attract privateers, including those from the IMSA. I think a compromise would be a good option after the LMP2 debacle.

[BrentJackson]

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

I think that the worst case scenario should the LMP1-L is already abolished is having one or two manufacturers dropping out of LMP1-H. That leaves the top class in jeopardy if that happens.

Sure, ACO wants manufacturers in LMP1 but they can't make a plan to attract privateers, including those from the IMSA. I think a compromise would be a good option after the LMP2 debacle.

I agree, but how do you do that? LMP1 is too pricey, LMP2 is a spec class that mandates amateur drivers and DPi is all manufacturer-linked. How does one get around this problem, particularly after the ACO killed the old LMP2 rules?

[MagVanisher]

Semi-works team would be a good option, but ACO won't allow that as they're forcing manufacturers to either compete in GTE or LMP1-H.

While GTE is somewhat healthy at the moment, I'm worried about the shrinking size of LMP1 grid. I feel that ACO should abolish the mandated hybrid system for marques like GM, Nissan, Mazda, and Ferrari, but that's another story...

You know, I wish both LMP1 and DPi have a common LMP1 tub. LMP2's chassis tub is more spec than LMP1 to me.

[wolfhound]

I think the reason why the ACO want to have LMP1-L is to ensure there are a number of top class cars in the event of some works teams pulling out. If some bean counters took over at VAG and threw a fit after seeing what they spend on racing and chopprd the whole thing, where would LMP1 be?
The ACO needs a strong private class for when the manufacturers go as they always do. At the moment LMP1-L does not have the numbers but I can see the logic of the class, as LMP2 would only be a stop gap in the event of a manufacturer pull out whereas LMP1-L could be built upon.

[carbsmith]

I don't think the cost to just participate in LMP1H is that high for a semi-works entry, but the money being spent to win is pretty insane. But a semi-works team isn't eligible for the private teams trophy.

You might think the private teams trophy isn't a big deal but I'm pretty convinced it's the only reason Rebellion actually files entries for two cars, since there is a minimum of three for the trophy to be awarded.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

You might think the private teams trophy isn't a big deal but I'm pretty convinced it's the only reason Rebellion actually files entries for two cars, since there is a minimum of three for the trophy to be awarded.

Do they not get the trophy for the rest of the season when they have 1 car entered vs the 1 Kolles car?

[carbsmith]

I imagine they officially entered (and paid the entry fee for) for all of the races at the start of the season so it doesn't particularly matter if they no show half of them.

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

I don't think the cost to just participate in LMP1H is that high for a semi-works entry, but the money being spent to win is pretty insane. But a semi-works team isn't eligible for the private teams trophy.

That's true at the current side of things. Gotta say, saving the LMP1-L class is harder than I thought such as attracting IMSA prototype teams to the sub-class after being screwed by ACO over the new LMP2 regulations.

As for awarding private teams, ACO should just give those WEC regulars like Rebellion and some IMSA teams like Extreme Speed Motorsports and Michael Shank Racing. Then again, they'll compete in LMP2 instead as they're okay with it except for GM-backed teams where they'll rather compete at home than in Le Mans.

[Victor_RO]

It's dead Jim.

http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/r...witch-to-lmp2/

[Mike E]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

It's dead Jim.

http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/r...witch-to-lmp2/

Aaaaah, no.

[Mike E]

“The pace of these new LMP2 cars is forecast to be significantly quicker than the current cars and with high levels of competition between the teams and the cars, the challenge is very attractive to Rebellion Racing, we are looking forward to this new adventure.”

Translation: the new LMP2s will be faster than our LMP1.

[Giba]

Well the ACO need to rethink again the privateer P1 again. Doubtful it would happen but there's a number of DPIs being built and could feel the gap if the ACO are willing to have them