IMSA DPi Discussion - Page 41

HORNDAWG · 17 Aug 2016, 20:04 (Ref:3666213)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makaze

Could HPD use the ARX-04b tub for their 2018 DPi?

With DPi now banned from Le Mans.(do not have to use the 4 allowed P2 chassis to race in IMSA)

HPD and Wirth are spending a lot time fixing the ARX-04b!

Put a NSX looking body on it and the more powerful NSX engine and you have a cheap way to a DPi.

I think they have 3 complete cars and 4 total.

No, the 4 chassis mfgs are still the only ones allowed.

L.P.

Makaze · 17 Aug 2016, 20:16 (Ref:3666215)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

No, the 4 chassis mfgs are still the only ones allowed.

L.P.

With NASCAR money talks and IMSA needs more DPi's!

HORNDAWG · 17 Aug 2016, 22:58 (Ref:3666233)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makaze

With NASCAR money talks and IMSA needs more DPi's!

Well.... maybe this will put forth the answer in a more succinct manner.

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/13323...gin-next-month

L.P.

Fogelhund · 17 Aug 2016, 23:22 (Ref:3666237)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Well.... maybe this will put forth the answer in a more succinct manner.

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/13323...gin-next-month

"But once you buy the [WEC P2] car, it is really just body panels and engines to install after that. You could use this car for four years and it could be three different things over four years quite easily."

Awesome

Makaze · 17 Aug 2016, 23:46 (Ref:3666242)

ACO gave IMSA and HPD the finger about the DPi and 2017 P2.So do you think IMSA would say no to HPD to them using their own tub that meets 2017 P2 specs?ARX-O4b was design to P1 specs.

HPD will have the more powerful NSX GT3(JC Series)engine to IMSA this year but will not have the Bodywork ready until late 2017.

Problems...

Ligier and Oreca chassis are expensive and Dallara and Riley already have partners.

And the two French manufacturers will be a tough working enviroment with Honda.
Honda and the French are both too thick headed too work together on a project like this.HPD wanted to work with Dallara because there is a relationship thru IndyCar.

Makaze · 18 Aug 2016, 00:03 (Ref:3666243)

I was told the test today with Shank using the ARX-04b was a tire test for the 2017 DPi tires.

HORNDAWG · 18 Aug 2016, 00:17 (Ref:3666244)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makaze

ACO gave IMSA and HPD the finger about the DPi and 2017 P2.So do you think IMSA would say no to HPD to them using their own tub that meets 2017 P2 specs?ARX-O4b was design to P1 specs.

HPD will have the more powerful NSX GT3(JC Series)engine to IMSA this year but will not have the Bodywork ready until late 2017.

Problems...

Ligier and Oreca chassis are expensive and Dallara and Riley already have partners.

And the two French manufacturers will be a tough working enviroment with Honda.
Honda and the French are both too thick headed too work together on a project like this.HPD wanted to work with Dallara because there is a relationship thru IndyCar.

1) Yes they would say no, and have said no!

2) New engine and body work would be expected for DPi.

3) Onroak does not seem to have a problem working with HPD, they already have HPD engines in them.

4) If HPD wants Dallara then they can use Dallara. There is no limit to how many OEMs one of the 4 constructors may partner with. The limit is on the OEM's for only a single constructor.

L.P.

HORNDAWG · 18 Aug 2016, 00:20 (Ref:3666245)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makaze

I was told the test today with Shank using the ARX-04b was a tire test for the 2017 DPi tires.

Yes, that is the major reason for the testing, but it was not the only.

L.P.

Makaze · 18 Aug 2016, 00:25 (Ref:3666246)

I put my money on Dallara for HPD's DPi because they have relationship thru Indycar.

Yes..new engine(HPD engine ready next month for IMSA test) and bodywork(HPD ready late 2017) is required for 2017 but if the ARX-04b tub meets 2017 P2 spec then HPD can ask IMSA to use it.

Arx-04 was design to P1 Specs so could meet 2017 P2 specs with little change?

HORNDAWG · 18 Aug 2016, 00:26 (Ref:3666247)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

"But once you buy the [WEC P2] car, it is really just body panels and engines to install after that. You could use this car for four years and it could be three different things over four years quite easily."

Awesome

And how many engines could be coupled up in P-1 and P-2 of the past, or present in P-1 privateer? It could change quite often, and did. Not to mention bespoke chassis with a different panel or 2.

L.P.

FormulaFox · 18 Aug 2016, 00:28 (Ref:3666248)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makaze

I put my money on Dallara for HPD's DPi because they have relationship thru Indycar.

Chevy is working with Dallara due to -presumably- the same relationship. I don't think IMSA wants two manufacturers on the same chassis unless they have more than four join up - though I've heard nothing concrete on that, it's just the vibe I get based on what I've heard.

Regardless, the rumor is that HPD has been talking to Onroak because they've had a minor relationship via ESM and MSR.

HORNDAWG · 18 Aug 2016, 01:59 (Ref:3666265)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Chevy is working with Dallara due to -presumably- the same relationship. I don't think IMSA wants two manufacturers on the same chassis unless they have more than four join up - though I've heard nothing concrete on that, it's just the vibe I get based on what I've heard.

Regardless, the rumor is that HPD has been talking to Onroak because they've had a minor relationship via ESM and MSR.

IMSA does not care about multiple OEMs on a constructor chassis, directly from the horses mouth.

L.P.

HORNDAWG · 18 Aug 2016, 02:00 (Ref:3666266)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makaze

I put my money on Dallara for HPD's DPi because they have relationship thru Indycar.

Yes..new engine(HPD engine ready next month for IMSA test) and bodywork(HPD ready late 2017) is required for 2017 but if the ARX-04b tub meets 2017 P2 spec then HPD can ask IMSA to use it.

Arx-04 was design to P1 Specs so could meet 2017 P2 specs with little change?

The ARX-04b is legal for 2017, but not 2018.

L.P.

Rcz · 18 Aug 2016, 02:05 (Ref:3666269)

If IMSA gave a wavier for Honda to run that AXR, maybe they can get rid of their aero woes with IMSA aero style rules.

Bcarr6 · 18 Aug 2016, 07:08 (Ref:3666302)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

The ARX-04b is legal for 2017, but not 2018.

L.P.

Is that quite simply because any 2016 legal P2 can run in 2017 through grandfathering?

Although the HPD package would be a DPi for all intensive purposes.

I say let them run the 04 for 2017 to keep Honda interested, and they can come back with a new car on a Dallara, Onroak, whatever chassis in 18

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FormulaFox · 18 Aug 2016, 09:18 (Ref:3666319)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

Is that quite simply because any 2016 legal P2 can run in 2017 through grandfathering?

Yes.

Coach Ep · 18 Aug 2016, 13:23 (Ref:3666344)

I thought it was only the current coupes built in '14-'16 that would meet that criterium, not the open top cars (Gibsons, Oreca 03s, OAK-Morgans)???

HORNDAWG · 18 Aug 2016, 14:56 (Ref:3666365)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

Is that quite simply because any 2016 legal P2 can run in 2017 through grandfathering?

Although the HPD package would be a DPi for all intensive purposes.

I say let them run the 04 for 2017 to keep Honda interested, and they can come back with a new car on a Dallara, Onroak, whatever chassis in 18

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it is legal through grandfathering.

L.P.

HORNDAWG · 18 Aug 2016, 15:18 (Ref:3666367)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

I thought it was only the current coupes built in '14-'16 that would meet that criterium, not the open top cars (Gibsons, Oreca 03s, OAK-Morgans)???

That is correct.

"Q. What cars are eligible in the 2017 WeatherTech Championship Prototype class?
A. DPi cars, 2017 LM P2 cars and closed-cockpit 2016 LM P2 cars with IMSA-homologated engines will be eligible. After the 2017 season, 2016 LM P2 cars no longer will be eligible."

http://sportscarchampionship.imsa.co...al-dpi-concept

L.P.

Lanky Turtle · 19 Aug 2016, 02:31 (Ref:3666480)

This new interview with Mark Raffauf mentions that IMSA has created it's own DPi already for baseline testing which I find pretty interesting.

http://www.racer.com/more/viewpoints...ll=&limitstart=

"All the P2 cars will be done as well in the same fashion on our model. The focus is DPi first, but our [DPi] car is considered to be relative to the data we have from those [four constructors] that have completed their own P2 model testing. Ours is the fifth [P2] design; you could take this car and build it and it would work. It is a totally functional 2017 P2 design."

carbsmith · 19 Aug 2016, 04:05 (Ref:3666488)

In case anyone was still under the illusion that multiple engines in DPi represented any kind of technical freedom whatsoever

Quote:

"In our manual, anybody with a light engine is required to ballast within that 640 mm space so that the mass in that area is comparable. It may not have precisely the same CG because as you said, one might be a V motor, one might be a straight motor, they've different CGs; we can't balance it that finely. But we're going to make every effort to give each part of the car the same dimension and the same mass considerations so they should end up being really close.

Quote:

So even when ballast has to be added to the car, we will specify that you cannot use that in certain places for the benefit of changing the balance of the car, it has to be located only in certain parts of the car

Remember this is a class called DP, they aren't just trying to balance lap times but make every aspect of car performance nearly identical.

MagVanisher · 19 Aug 2016, 04:48 (Ref:3666494)

I think that having "nearly-identical" specifications for DPi won't even matter when it's all about the politics involved.

Coach Ep · 19 Aug 2016, 12:57 (Ref:3666543)

Quote:

Originally Posted by carbsmith

In case anyone was still under the illusion that multiple engines in DPi represented any kind of technical freedom whatsoever.

Remember this is a class called DP, they aren't just trying to balance lap times but make every aspect of car performance nearly identical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Raffauf

"Not micromanaged, but pretty close."

It's way beyond micro.

I found the very insightful piece pretty depressing, there's no incentive whatsoever to come up with a competitive edge. It also almost sounds like IMSA has room for 4, maybe 5 (the extra one as a back up?) OEM at max. to participate in their DPi formula.

The only difference with fully spec are the costs - it's multiple times more expensive, no wonder IMSA needs all those mnf fees!

Overall it's more restrictions - and less liberty. Not a positive development for sportscar racing in general imo.

wdave0 · 19 Aug 2016, 13:26 (Ref:3666549)

Even more depressing is that the micromanagement leaves all the cars with identical characteristics, much to the detriment of interesting racing. What I can't understand is why a manufacturer would spend the big bucks for no possible advantage.

Speed-King · 19 Aug 2016, 13:29 (Ref:3666551)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdave0

Even more depressing is that the micromanagement leaves all the cars with identical characteristics, much to the detriment of interesting racing. What I can't understand is why a manufacturer would spend the big bucks for no possible advantage.

Look at it the other way around - why would they spend big bucks if they are at an obvious disadvantage?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
IMSA DPi/P2 vs WEC LMP1-L	Danathar	Sportscar & GT Racing	7	5 Nov 2015 17:55
New Rules - Discussion	DKGandBH	Formula One	28	19 Jan 2005 01:40