LMP2 Manufacturers and Engine Suppliers

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

The next generation of LMP2 chassis are looking quite promising IMO. 3 distinct styles between the Ligier, Dome, and HPD. I enjoy the looks of each of them.

That's always a winner if you're trying to bring in new fans, cars that look good and distinct.

Now if they can get a decent number of these shoe horned into TUSC grids in due course, that would certainly bolster the importance and significance of P2 worldwide!

[FstrthnU]

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/10296...totype-chassis
Some interesting comments on the possible 2017 prototype chassis

Will be a coupe with a carbon chassis, main discussions are on bodywork and engine formula.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by FstrthnU

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/10296...totype-chassis
Some interesting comments on the possible 2017 prototype chassis

Will be a coupe with a carbon chassis, main discussions are on bodywork and engine formula.

Elkins said he is interested in using a P2 like tub but with the ability to drop, for example, a Corvette DP body on it. I personally don't see the point. If you want a car that looks like a corvette, why not have a GT class that a corvette can run in? Are GM really pushing to have a brand identity in the top Tudor class in 2017? I can't see that being the case...

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by joeb

Elkins said he is interested in using a P2 like tub but with the ability to drop, for example, a Corvette DP body on it. I personally don't see the point. If you want a car that looks like a corvette, why not have a GT class that a corvette can run in? Are GM really pushing to have a brand identity in the top Tudor class in 2017? I can't see that being the case...

Leave it that to DTM 'cause even though it's a good idea having brand recognition, it would displace the real GT team.

[isynge]

Originally Posted by FstrthnU

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/10296...totype-chassis
Some interesting comments on the possible 2017 prototype chassis

Will be a coupe with a carbon chassis, main discussions are on bodywork and engine formula.

Highly bleak prospect in my view.

We've got healthy diversity in LMP2 with manufacturers interested in doing a lot more than body kits. Making it essentially a different flavour of DTM (and no disrespect to that series, but everything in its place) squeezes out the prospect for some of the different ideas that have emerged out of P2 over the last few years and limits the scope for ambitious designers to cut their teeth.

Seriously hope the ACO / FIA tells TUSC where to go on this one.

[Pontlieue]

Originally Posted by isynge

Highly bleak prospect in my view.

We've got healthy diversity in LMP2 with manufacturers interested in doing a lot more than body kits. Making it essentially a different flavour of DTM (and no disrespect to that series, but everything in its place) squeezes out the prospect for some of the different ideas that have emerged out of P2 over the last few years and limits the scope for ambitious designers to cut their teeth.

Seriously hope the ACO / FIA tells TUSC where to go on this one.

I agree. If manufacturers want brand recognition, there's GT racing. Prototype bodywork design should be about performance only. I think having the current LMP2 designs (Dome, HPD, Ligier) is much more interesting than having a prototype that remotely looks like a Corvette or some other road car.

[lms]

Originally Posted by isynge

Highly bleak prospect in my view.

We've got healthy diversity in LMP2 with manufacturers interested in doing a lot more than body kits. Making it essentially a different flavour of DTM (and no disrespect to that series, but everything in its place) squeezes out the prospect for some of the different ideas that have emerged out of P2 over the last few years and limits the scope for ambitious designers to cut their teeth.

Seriously hope the ACO / FIA tells TUSC where to go on this one.

what a bunch of ****ing *******s. they have ruined sportscar racing in NA and now they want to wreck the successful LMp2 class everywhere. ****ing idiots. The ACo and FIA should tell these losers to reap what they saw. "Corvette DP type of body" yeah try the same **** that doesnt work again and again and again why not? lol. losers. which is fine. as long as it stays in NA

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by Pontlieue

I agree. If manufacturers want brand recognition, there's GT racing. Prototype bodywork design should be about performance only. I think having the current LMP2 designs (Dome, HPD, Ligier) is much more interesting than having a prototype that remotely looks like a Corvette or some other road car.

Indeed, and with so many LMP2 machines popping up, you can't change them.

Let boutique manufacturers shine for the privateers, while major manufacturers like Ford and Chevrolet should go to DTM USA (if that one will materialize).

[jc_nl]

The way I read it (but I could be very wrong) is that that they are thinking about having a "DP: the next generation" chassis with multiple bodies that fits within the (new) LMP2 rules.

So not a single chassis for all P2 cars but a "DP: the next generation" that fits within LMP2 rules so that it can compete with the OAK, Dome and who else will be in P2, but still have that fantastic american sponsor driven muscle car look (no I am not a fan).

[Maelochs]

I definitely read it as a new "DP-style" chassis where everyone can build a basically identical chassis and then stick bodywork on it--exactly what never worked in the Rolex series.

I can't see all the P2 manufacturers going for it, and right now there really aren't any manufacturers but Ford and Chevy in DP---so we can have a DTM/Aussie V8-style series where there are only two or three makes, identical chassis and motors ... basically NASCAR with pointy noses.

"Following in the footsteps of the successful Grand America Rolex series, Tudor SportsCar Championship is lobbying for exactly what the fans don't want ..." Truth in advertising.

[MagVanisher]

In the perfect world, ACO-spec P2 cars wrapped in grand touring-style clothing would work in any series. Be it DTM, Super GT, TUSC, WEC, anything that accepts prototypes.

While ACO, FIA, and IMSA are working together, which is good. It would be nice it JAF and ITR are involved as well so you only need to make a universal chassis without making two or three.

[isynge]

Scott Elkins is backtracking somewhat on Twitter this evening, claiming that he's not talking about a spec chassis but that specifications for the tub should be the same, i.e. carbon tub to certain Min/Max dimensions and to certain tolerances. He likens it to current LMP1 regs where the tub has to conform to things like visibility requirements.

If this is actually what TUSC are suggesting then I'm a lot more comfortable with it.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by isynge

Scott Elkins is backtracking somewhat on Twitter this evening, claiming that he's not talking about a spec chassis but that specifications for the tub should be the same, i.e. carbon tub to certain Min/Max dimensions and to certain tolerances. He likens it to current LMP1 regs where the tub has to conform to things like visibility requirements.

If this is actually what TUSC are suggesting then I'm a lot more comfortable with it.

I followed this on twitter as well. Not the best platform for discussing such things if I'm honest. the character limit really messes with the overall message at times.

I get that he says it would be like current P1, but really current P1 is no different than current DP. In DP there are specifications that multiple chassis manufacturers have to follow - same as P1. The question is - could a R18 shell be fitted on Toyota's tub? I suspect not. Yet a Corvette DP can be built on any of the 3 chassis available.

I guess we just have to keep in mind that this isn't a settled issue. It is just the beginning of the conversation. I trust that Mr Elkins understands the wants of the fans, but also has to take into consideration the wants of the manufacturers. With that in mind, I think we will end up with a product we can all live with - but of course nobody will think is perfect.

[Maelochs]

The way I read his explanatory tweet is that he is considering setting chassis regs so that dimensions, seating, visibility all match current FIA P1 standards.

Theoretically this would allow re-engined non-hybrid P1 cars (e.g. Rebellion R1 with a stock-block Toyota motor,) and would also allow factories to build a single FIA prototype chassis for P1 and P2.

Audi, Toyota, and Porsche could sell customer cars with essentially GTE/GT3 (or whatever the GT+ motors will be) motors to both carry the corporate flag and inflate the corporate coffers.

P2 Penske Porsche, anyone?

All that seems really sensible to me, which makes me think I got it wrong.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The way I read his explanatory tweet is that he is considering setting chassis regs so that dimensions, seating, visibility all match current FIA P1 standards.

Theoretically this would allow re-engined non-hybrid P1 cars (e.g. Rebellion R1 with a stock-block Toyota motor,) and would also allow factories to build a single FIA prototype chassis for P1 and P2.

Audi, Toyota, and Porsche could sell customer cars with essentially GTE/GT3 (or whatever the GT+ motors will be) motors to both carry the corporate flag and inflate the corporate coffers.

P2 Penske Porsche, anyone?

All that seems really sensible to me, which makes me think I got it wrong.

Whether or not that is what he had in mind, I like that idea of using P1 chassis for P2 but with stock or gt engines.

[isynge]

While my heart says there should be a clear difference between P2s and P1s having core chassis commonality appeals in that it makes it a lot more feasible to have more P1s coming to the grid.

Given there's now just one place for them to run I don't see how it's possible to amortise private investment in an LMP1 at the moment, but if it could run readily in P2 then it's a lot more feasible, e.g. seeing a year old Rebellion R1 running with a P2 engine and aero in ELMS/AsLMS/TUSC next year is hard to argue with.

Equally let's posit that in a few years time hybrid engines are much more in the capability of a privateer to run - wouldn't it be great for them to be able to drop an off-the-shelf hybrid into a P2, do a bit of aero fiddling, and lo and behold have something capable of running as a P1?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by isynge

Equally let's posit that in a few years time hybrid engines are much more in the capability of a privateer to run - wouldn't it be great for them to be able to drop an off-the-shelf hybrid into a P2, do a bit of aero fiddling, and lo and behold have something capable of running as a P1?

Exactly. We could have the Dome or Ligier or HPD being built and sold for P2, but when the opportunity arises they could upgrade the engine and body to P1 and have at it.

[Maelochs]

Dyson ran a hybrid Mazola for a couple races in the closing days of ALMS, but didn't have the funds to do enough testing to get it to work right.

Coulda been a contender ...

[GT6]

i can't see the point of having a P! chassis and then putting a P2 engine in it, teams will always want to run in the top class if they can, and the engine is only a small part of the cost

[Maelochs]

Indeed, the real cost of P1 is the constant development looking for the constant upgrades and adjustments.

However ... as a constructor, if you could build a single chassis which could be easily adapted to both P1 and P2 use, have a single set of major molds and have two markets open to you, how would that be a bad thing?

If you were in business, would you want to develop two very expensive products for two exceedingly limited markets, or one product for a market twice as big?

We have to remember that while we, as fans, love seeing the kind of P2 variety we saw at Silverstone, those cars are on the grid because they were the products of long development before a cost cap was imposed.

If Zytek for instance had to develop a from-scratch P2 chassis, then build it and try to sell it, likely they wouldn't ... pretty dang likely considering they haven't.

The cost of developing a chassis is way more than any reasonable sale price---constructors are pretty much going to lose money on the chassis, and try to make it up with spares and updates over time.

The wider the market, the better chance that more constructors will take the risk.

The rules could allow many different chassis, but if only one manufacturer could afford the initial outlay, we'd have essentially a spec series.

That is precisely the benefit of chassis commonality. It won't save the teams much money (except for factory teams, where the factory is essentially the team and will benefit from selling customer cars.) It will save constructors money.

It could give teams (and fans) the chance to buy (and see) a few different cars on the grid.

Do we really hope for ten identical Oreca-Nissans on the grid? No one liked that when it was identical Oreca-Chevrolets.

I'd like to see Oak (Morgan, Ligier) Oreca, Lotus (Adess,) Zytec, Multimatic-Lola, Rebellion, Porsche, Audi, Toyota and Honda on the P2 grid---and maybe some privateer teams running P1 versions.

[isynge]

Originally Posted by GT6

i can't see the point of having a P! chassis and then putting a P2 engine in it, teams will always want to run in the top class if they can, and the engine is only a small part of the cost

But if you can't afford the time or financial commitments the WEC demands (see demise of Pecom) then LMP2 is the top class, and in an environment as competitive as the ELMS today teams may see an advantage in going with something derived from a P1 to give them the edge.

[nobster]

Yes but running in the top class means not only the engine but also all hybrid stuff to be competitive, Look at Rebellion, they drive in the top class but almost know for sure the highest they can finish is around fifth place, and for that they need cars to retire in the race before them.

[Maelochs]

I'd argue that the biggest deficiency at Rebellion is dollars. The factory can have however many people running countless simulations, testing all kinds of new ideas, constantly searching for that hundredth of a second, that pound of no-drag downforce, trying different combinations ...

Rebellion couldn't run with the factories when everyone was using ICEs--no one could, except when the factories broke or crashed. It was Audi/Peugeot, then Audi/Toyota, now it is Audi/Toyota/Porsche, and no one else expects to get to the podium unless there is attrition.

That's not because of hybrids, it's because of what has always made cars fast---cubic dollars.

A common prototype chassis would be a boon for the constructors more than the teams.

Imagine if Rebellion could raise money by selling its chassis to P2 teams--no extra development needed, just crate it up and ship it. We could than have more variety on the P2 grid, and maybe Rebellion could do a little better in P1 ... or maybe just stay in better hotels.

Either way, good for the constructors and good for the fans.

[GT6]

Well we will shortly see how good the rebellion R1 is, i hope it springs a few surprises

[isynge]

In a lot of ways having a degree of interchangeability between LMP1 and 2 isn't anything especially new. A Courage C60 P1 and C65 P2 weren't substantively different, nor was the Pescarolo that Kruse ran in LMP2 nor the T2M Dome.

It will no doubt however lead me to want to shout at commentators who insist on referring to "the little LMP2 car" when it's exactly the same size as the LMP1 - but that's not really much of a complaint...