|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
30 Sep 2014, 16:36 (Ref:3458927) | #76 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,336
|
Quote:
Quote:
And actually, Shank is pushing FOR the traditional option here... right now, neither Dallara nor Coyote supply teams with unbranded bodywork, which would of course an issue when trying to have teams competing on both sides of the pond. Sure, Shank is the forum's favorite whipping boy, but maybe you guys shouldn't assume that absolutely everything he says is just evil non-sense. |
||||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
30 Sep 2014, 17:22 (Ref:3458938) | #77 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
I'm fine with it as long it's just the nose part right? And if they open up these cars. Ground effects, active suspension, maybe batteries latter on, ect...
I understand somebody got to pay for it. If the manufacturer really wants to pay for it. Why stop them? I just based these IMSA manufacturer supported cars on the current P1 or P2 chassises and then have regular P2 cars replacing PC. |
|
|
30 Sep 2014, 18:16 (Ref:3458955) | #78 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Short version: IndyCar, AMA, Rolex have proven that "cheap" does not equal "profitable" and that spending a little more to have variety and open rules is more profitable than trying to sell spec crap to race fans.
Too Long Version: I see this is a way sort of like where IndyCar is stuck right now. IndyCar had a spec (single manufacturer) chassis and engine--rich teams spent millions on things like mirror supports, because nothing else was developable. Eventually IndyCar attracted one and one-eighth new engine suppliers, so teams could use Chevy or Honda (or briefly and painfully, Lotus) but the chassis is totally spec—nothing top-tier about it. Thing is, IndyCar screwed up its business for so long, it doesn't have the money to afford anything else. It can barely make a profit running spec crap. TUSC seems to be crying poor (despite NASCAR seemingly willing to subsidize teams through most of the Rolex era) so the series is pushing for its "cheaper" generic platform—which was proven during Rolex days not to be cheaper and not to attract fans. It Didn't Make Money, so even if it cost a dollar it cost too much. Thing is, TUSC still seems to think that a spec chassis is a cheaper, more profitable option. AMA failed, IndyCar almost failed, and TUSC can thus clearly see that that is the path to follow. In order to attract race fans—an essential part of the audience—the cars need to be cool. And spec chassis with sealed motors just aren't cool. P2 had its critics for that very reason—but at least P2s were close to state-of-the-art. But P2 was meant to be a cheap, entry-level class—the place or teams which really didn't have the cash for a real full-on racer. Now TUSC is locked in to spec chassis and sealed motors, at least until 2017. Thing is, if it doesn't move away from there, it will find (as did those other series) that cheap doesn't make money—a little less cheap does, and actually works out to be cheaper. These guys haven't made a profit in sop long they forget that it is supposed to be income minus cost leaves profit; they have been essentially giving a ay their product for no profit and thus focus only on limiting cost. Rcz is on track. Instead of trying to cheap out and only pay for "branded bodywork" and making no money, manufacturers should be laying out a little more up front and making a little more profit (when fans who are leaving because of the crap start coming back and bringing friends.) Let the real factory-funded LMP-1 efforts in WEC do the NASA-level experimentation. I think most North Americans would be just fine with modern chassis with modern motors, and a little freedom to develop. Let Jon Field turn the boost up and exciter everyone for three laps. Let HPD bring a car with rear tires up front. let teams tune the motors, let them buy different chassis that are actually different. Let them play with air scoops and winglets. As long as they aren't cutting up the safety cell, who cares? Well, We care. Fans care. Fans, who want to tune in to each race waiting to see if anybody added a new fender shape, or a couple strakes on the diffuser or whatever. Fans who are okay if now and then a car wins by half a lap because That Is Racing, and because they know that at the next race, everyone will try whatever thing the other guy tried. The rules committee, instead of cheesing out and writing rules to pretend no one ever gets lapped, could write rules limiting areas of development—no exotic materials, minimum service life for certain parts, rules focused on keeping teams from making huge gains with huge investments. It won't be easy, but if they want easy jobs, they can work at 7-11. Seriously, if they used existing P2 chassis and just opened up valve timing, ignition advance, maybe allowed cylinder head mods so long as the existing head was used as the base, and allowed small aero aids—I think that would satisfy most fans. Maybe some folks would only show up if the multi-million-dollar Audis and Toyotas showed up, but plenty of people were satisfied when it was a bunch of Lolas and Hondas with a mix of Judds, AER and such ... Muscle Milk with a stock-based Aston motor, Autocon, Drayson, and Intersport with Judds turbo and not, Highcroft with the latest HPD, Dyson with an AER ... Even those same chassis with current P2 or DP motors, if they weren't sealed, would be a sufficient P-class field to get fans back to TUSC. And I really doubt any of those teams were doing extensive, high-budget development work ... just little tweaks which might give a little edge. If TUSC pushes FIA-ACO to go to a basically spec car for 2017, then a few years later it will be going broke and looking for ways to get out of the hole enough to open up the rules again. FIA-ACO can afford it for its second class—TUSC cannot, for its premier class. You'd think after Rolex, those guys would know that cheap does not equal profitable. I hope they don't take us all into the abyss learning that. |
|
|
30 Sep 2014, 18:22 (Ref:3458959) | #79 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,336
|
I don't think we know enough about the plans for new regs to make a qualified comment on them just yet.
For all we know, a shared tub might actually lead to more variety, allowing a broader range of potential chassis builders to be active in the class. Think of it as the ACO's/IMSA's version of BTCC's unbranded engine - without it, half the cars seen in BTCC today wouldn't be on the grid and everybody would gravitate towards the same two or three makes because they don't have the budget for the development of a bespoke engine. |
||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
30 Sep 2014, 20:53 (Ref:3458999) | #80 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
30 Sep 2014, 21:12 (Ref:3459004) | #81 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
||
|
30 Sep 2014, 21:36 (Ref:3459013) | #82 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,336
|
The tub is the same thing, the bodywork, suspension, engine packaging could be drastically different.... just think how many different cars were based on the old Courage C-60-tub!
|
||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
30 Sep 2014, 22:00 (Ref:3459017) | #83 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,109
|
More horsepower to GTLM/GTE please for 2016!
|
|
|
1 Oct 2014, 00:50 (Ref:3459033) | #84 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
I'm fine with the bumber nose branding and stock block engines just to give the Manufacturers a bone. It would give the makes something to gloat about when they win races with something that's connected with their street cars.
Plus with the restrictions on the nose it would help get rid of aero dependence(they can get the downforce from ground effects tunnels and moveable aero wings and flaps). Just remember to open everything thing else. I think the cost capped concept doesn't work. At least for the P2s, because look at the WEC. The class is being eaten by the LMP1 light class(and by the ELMS). And here in the states, the PC class is eating (or going to) the Proto class. |
|
|
1 Oct 2014, 01:44 (Ref:3459040) | #85 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,767
|
If only there were a worldwide ruleset for cars as fast as LMP2 and with manufacturer branding and multiple manufacturers...
That'd be pretty sweet. |
|
|
1 Oct 2014, 02:09 (Ref:3459041) | #86 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
Would that be Class 1 touring cars sir?
|
|
|
1 Oct 2014, 06:53 (Ref:3459088) | #87 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
||
|
2 Oct 2014, 08:37 (Ref:3459433) | #88 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 901
|
I'd hate to see things go down that "Class One" route. Spec tubs don't bother me too much, but such tight engine regs would be terrible. One of the things I've loved about sportscar racing is the different sounds, and if we lose those it will absolutely kill whatever small amount of enthusiasm I have left for the "upper class" in this series.
With the rumors of Ford returning with a factory GT effort, it would be the perfect time to just go all GT... Yes, I know, it won't happen... but I can daydream about it. |
|
|
2 Oct 2014, 08:58 (Ref:3459440) | #89 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
TUSC will just compete (and fail) with PWC in terms of GT-style racing if they ditched the prototypes.
If you don't want the "Class One" approach just because everything is spec including the engine (except for other extras like DRS and hybrid options), that's okay. But we can just ask DTM and Super GT to open up engine regulations. I'm one of those people who hated the current engine regulations despite being faster than its predecessors. And you're right, variety is needed. Last edited by MagVanisher; 2 Oct 2014 at 09:04. |
|
|
3 Oct 2014, 18:33 (Ref:3459898) | #90 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,767
|
Quote:
|
||
|
3 Oct 2014, 18:35 (Ref:3459899) | #91 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,767
|
They don't really give a damn about that connection anyway and it's going to be tenuous at best, so it's not really realistic to hold that up as an end-all argument against Class 1.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2014, 18:41 (Ref:3459904) | #92 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,767
|
Quote:
And the engine regulations will be what they are. They've finally agreed to it after a lot of politicking and IMSA wouldn't fight it as it would give Ford and GM an ability to show off their turbo four capability. |
||
|
5 Oct 2014, 18:15 (Ref:3460925) | #93 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,336
|
Mike Newton on chassis regs in LMP3:
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
6 Oct 2014, 02:51 (Ref:3461093) | #94 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,250
|
Quote:
If the 2017 car ends up following this proposed path, IMSA will end up having a prototype class made up of nearly identical cars. Sort of an INDYCAR with fenders and a roof. Maybe costs do need to be cut significantly, but is it really worth sacrificing any real freedom of design? Variation of the different cars within the class is what makes LMP cars special! |
||
|
6 Oct 2014, 05:23 (Ref:3461111) | #95 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
Then, is LMP2 having a manufacturer-specific bodywork counts as variation?
|
|
|
6 Oct 2014, 07:34 (Ref:3461142) | #96 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
||
|
6 Oct 2014, 10:46 (Ref:3461193) | #97 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,336
|
I'd say it depends on whether the mfg specific body is performance optimized or not... if it does it very much counts in my book...
|
||
__________________
Ceterum censeo GTE-Am esse delendam. |
6 Oct 2014, 11:32 (Ref:3461205) | #98 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
I guess so. However, it doesn't matter if a P2 car was draped in manufacturer-specific bodywork as it'll be balanced to the point of either being even with other competitors or being better/worse than the rest.
Seeing the Corvette DP this year, despite not having any noticeable aerodynamic advantage, winning most of the race is a far-cry to the sport where you have to be faster and efficient. |
|
|
7 Oct 2014, 18:26 (Ref:3461847) | #99 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
It begins. DP-style bodywork, spec parts.
http://sportscar365.com/industry/201...e-regulations/ Also, what does "commercial tires" even mean? P2 teams don't have bespoke tires now anyway. |
|
|
7 Oct 2014, 18:37 (Ref:3461852) | #100 | |
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 291
|
i did fully expect spec parts but not the bodywork outside us!
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2016 Moto GP | macca | Bike Racing | 4 | 17 Mar 2016 22:36 |
IndyCar + LMP1 + Formula E -> IMSA CanAm 2017 | NaBUru38 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 26 Apr 2013 15:58 |
2013-2017 V8SA Tyre Tender | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 6 | 23 Mar 2011 20:39 |