IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[MoMedic9019]

He says this...

“At this moment all of those scenarios are possible,” Atherton told Sportscar365. “We haven’t ruled out anything and we made any final decisions.

“We know for sure that our top Prototype category is going to embrace the next generation prototype as of January 2017.

“What surrounds it, if anything, is yet to be determined.”

Then this...

“We have made it clear that the future Prototype formula for us is in line with the ACO/FIA prototype, what the ACO will be running as an LMP2 and what will be our top prototype.

“So that’s not in line with the current Daytona Prototype specifications. I think somewhere there’s a wire crossed.

“I can’t speak for Mr. Durheimer, but I’d be surprised if that was a serious consideration at this point, knowing that its lifespan right now is relatively brief.”

So. Which is it Scott? You either know, or you don't.

I hate to sound like I'm going to tear this apart like a lawyer, which I'm not, but, I'd get shredded in court if I said..

"Patient is being treated with standard acute coronary syndrome protocols due to apparent cardiac complaint" and then followed it up with "uncertain if patient suffering cardiac complaint, needs further review"

Either the DP is staying as is, or it's going away. One person, who heads up a manufacturer who you've spoken with on multiple occasions says it is... then you come back and say, "no, it's not, but, it might be an option that we have yet to determine, but, as we've said, it's totally going away....maybe...we haven't decided yet, but our plan is to follow the ACO... maybe.."

This is purely damage control rambling from someone caught off guard by Durheimer.

[wdave0]

Yes, looks like Durheimer forgot about the non-disclosure agreement. TUSCC is in prototype trouble - the field keeps shrinking and the survivors are DP's - for now. Ganassi is probably going LMGT leaving a total of 3-4 competitive "prototypes" as the headline class. It will probably continue as is - FIA P2 welcome, for appearance sake, DP continued for cost reasons if nothing else, just so they have some entries.
Note Durheimer also mentioned a bespoke chassis, makes you wonder what went on behind closed doors.

[seanyb505]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

So. Which is it Scott? You either know, or you don't.

If he only knew what he knew...

I might be interpreting this incorrectly, but I'd wager that Durheimer was simply referring to "whatever the top class is in the US in 2017." There will be a top proto class in 2017, and they'll likely view rovals as the pinnacle of motorsport, hence the continuation of the DP name. It'll just be referred to as Gen whatever - now with less tube frame!

[HORNDAWG]

I think the “What surrounds it, if anything, is yet to be determined.” comment is in reference to what chassis will fulfill the current PC class. Do they use the P-3 chassis, or do they continue with the current constructors that build the DPs and slot those chassis into PC. Can a DP chassis be produced at the same price point as a PC that includes a cf safety cell? Or do the current DP constructors just build P-3s like Riley is exploring?







L.P.

[Damian Baldi]

P1 privateer is the key to go to Le Mans and let the P1 privateers from the WEC can run at Daytona and Sebring. Each one help the other.

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by Damian Baldi

P1 privateer is the key to go to Le Mans and let the P1 privateers from the WEC can run at Daytona and Sebring. Each one help the other.

I can support that, but IMSA already committed to LMP2 cars with manufacturer-specific bodywork as options.

Meanwhile, I think IMSA should add Class One in TUSC... if they don't mind 4-cylinder engines:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119060

[Damian Baldi]

This is a lost opportunity.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

If he only knew what he knew...

I might be interpreting this incorrectly, but I'd wager that Durheimer was simply referring to "whatever the top class is in the US in 2017." There will be a top proto class in 2017, and they'll likely view rovals as the pinnacle of motorsport, hence the continuation of the DP name. It'll just be referred to as Gen whatever - now with less tube frame!

While plausible, it requires a fair amount of assumption. And, what is that new chassis going to cost?

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I think the “What surrounds it, if anything, is yet to be determined.” comment is in reference to what chassis will fulfill the current PC class. Do they use the P-3 chassis, or do they continue with the current constructors that build the DPs and slot those chassis into PC. Can a DP chassis be produced at the same price point as a PC that includes a cf safety cell? Or do the current DP constructors just build P-3s like Riley is exploring?

I think if that's what he meant, he'd have said it. Two completely different topics.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

I think if that's what he meant, he'd have said it. Two completely different topics.

He did. It is all about the Prototype topic as concerns 2017 and what Prototypes will be on the TUSC grid, the entire grid!








L.P.

[seanyb505]

I would sooner believe Atherton, someone who likes to speak in such a way that no absolutes can be drawn lest he get called out, got his words mixed up. The "what" in his sentence I think should be heard as "what details." I think he's basically saying, "Man, we have no idea what's going on. We haven't decided anything on the top proto class."

Lane by your reasoning we don't even know if there will be a gt class in 17! By "anything" I think he's speaking on the details surrounding the top class, not the other actual cars on the track. I see what you're getting at, but I still think it's a stretch to say he's alluding to the P3/PC decision.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

I would sooner believe Atherton, someone who likes to speak in such a way that no absolutes can be drawn lest he get called out, got his words mixed up. The "what" in his sentence I think should be heard as "what details." I think he's basically saying, "Man, we have no idea what's going on. We haven't decided anything on the top proto class."

Lane by your reasoning we don't even know if there will be a gt class in 17! By "anything" I think he's speaking on the details surrounding the top class, not the other actual cars on the track. I see what you're getting at, but I still think it's a stretch to say he's alluding to the P3/PC decision.

So you actually think that P-3 and P-2 will make up the P class in 2017? Sorry, I DO NOT nor do I think it was intended to be thought as such by his statements! And as they were clearly included in the conversation as to what would surround the P-2 in the top class........





L.P.

[seanyb505]

Lol Where did you get that idea? No, I said, clearly in the post, what I think:

" I think he's basically saying, "Man, we have no idea what's going on. We haven't decided anything on the top proto class."

I also went on to propose that his statement would have to be stretched for it to have anything to do with P3.

Either we're on completely different topics...I don't know what else.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

Lol Where did you get that idea? No, I said, clearly in the post, what I think:

" I think he's basically saying, "Man, we have no idea what's going on. We haven't decided anything on the top proto class."

I also went on to propose that his statement would have to be stretched for it to have anything to do with P3.

Either we're on completely different topics...I don't know what else.

Well that is not what took from your original post, but after this explanation I would say we are closer rather than farther apart in thought on the matter.







L.P.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

He did. It is all about the Prototype topic as concerns 2017 and what Prototypes will be on the TUSC grid, the entire grid!








L.P.

No. He was talking about the prototype class. Not PC.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

No. He was talking about the prototype class. Not PC.

Well that certainly seems to be your take on it, but it most asuredly is not mine.








L.P.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Well that certainly seems to be your take on it, but it most asuredly is not mine.

Clearly... I usually tend to agree with you on many points, but, this one, I just don't. And that's fine. We will just have to wait and see how it plays out. I think he's been caught completely off guard and his typical, "can't nail me down to anything" way of dealing with stories and the press has caught him in a pickle.

[Akrapovic]

Seems to be a lot of arguing about the wording of a statement from a man who's said that they haven't made decisions.

Just make it the same as ELMS. P2 and P3 as prototypes, and GTE / GT3 as GT cars (or GTC or whatever it's called this week). Bin DPs and Bin GTD.

Sportscar Racing is horrible to understand. My wifes been getting into motorsport with me for the last year and a half and struggles with all the different classes and the lack of standards. Make it accessible.

[Bob Baldwin]

I agree Sports Car Racing is very hard to Understand . For those of us that have followed it for many years we Get It . Though trying to explain it to a NASCAR fan or even Worse a Potential Sponsor in this Day and Age is Quite the Challenge

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Seems to be a lot of arguing about the wording of a statement from a man who's said that they haven't made decisions.

That pretty much sums it up!

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Seems to be a lot of arguing about the wording of a statement from a man who's said that they haven't made decisions.

Just make it the same as ELMS. P2 and P3 as prototypes, and GTE / GT3 as GT cars (or GTC or whatever it's called this week). Bin DPs and Bin GTD.

Sportscar Racing is horrible to understand. My wifes been getting into motorsport with me for the last year and a half and struggles with all the different classes and the lack of standards. Make it accessible.

Arguing? Friendly banter.

US sportscar racing is impossible to understand for new viewers. Mostly because it's a hot mess.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Bob Baldwin

I agree Sports Car Racing is very hard to Understand . For those of us that have followed it for many years we Get It . Though trying to explain it to a NASCAR fan or even Worse a Potential Sponsor in this Day and Age is Quite the Challenge

Regular conversation with my wife goes along the lines of trying to explain the classes of the different series we watch. For ELMS it was:

"LMP2s, which are the same as P2s in WEC, LMP3 which is new and fits in below LMP2, GTE which is the Le Mans spec GT cars, and GTC, which is GT3, so Blacnpain spec GT cars"

"Why are the GTC cars not just called GT3?"

"...I don't know."

Try explaining the mess that is TUSCC. My wifes a smart cookie. But she sometimes struggles with the classes because it's just a mess of stuff which doesn't appear to fit together properly. Prototypes that aren't LMPs, LMPCs, GTD...

My idea, and I know it's radical - classes:

LMP1
LMP2
LMP3
GT1 (What was GTE)
GT2 (What was GT3)

Series pick which classes they want to take and run them. Then it's quite simple as to what fits where.

[seanyb505]

It gets a lot easier to understand if you throw out the need to have everything under one umbrella.

At the moment, GTC=/GTD=/GT3. There are similarities for sure, but they're not the same, and that's an ok conclusion. Not great for the sport to have classes that aren't interchangeable, but as spectators, I think we can understand if we view the myriad of classes as part of a story, like how we got here. What's difficult is how far do you want to go back?

It's possible to rank in terms of speed, strengths and weaknesses, specness vs more open rule book, but honestly I think it's more difficult to explain than it is to understand. And really it's only difficult to explain because individually we don't always have an intimacy with the rule book like say we would with our own job. I can explain all the processes we have at the office no problem, and it would be easy to understand because it's logical, and the listener expects that. If I knew the exact differences between GTC and GTD and Grand Am GT(I don't, so it's difficult to explain), I would have no issue explaining, and if the listener knew that they don't all fit in the same box, they could understand it no problem.

At the moment, it's a little more abstract than preferable. Accept that, and it's you can see a little more clearly. If you can visualize this heirarchy, and that there are different classes and different interpretations based on if your country dumps tea over taxation issues or not, it becomes easier to understand the landscape.

Top prototype class
Cheaper prototype class
Cheaper Spec prototype class
Top GT class
More open, anything goes GT class
More restricted, neutered GT class
Spec, one make type GT series'
Closer to production GT class
Various compact/economy car series
Miatas

[MitchZ06]

GTD isn't GT3, yet. Next year it will be.

[seanyb505]

Correct. =/ essentially means "is not equal to."

GTC is not equal to GTD, which is not equal to GT3.

Sorry for confusion. Continue your regularly programmed "friendly banter."