LMP2 Manufacturers and Engine Suppliers

[lms]

we could have had 10 different cars:/

here is a summary :
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/05/30/lmp2.html

[Rodger Davies]

That is the really sad part; how many of these programmes have probably been attracted by relative rules stability, and as soon as they have the class figures out along come the ACO to kill it dead. Good luck ever seeing those who don't grease the ACO's palms well enough back in sportscars again.

[TheMightyM]

Originally Posted by lms

we could have had 10 different cars:/

here is a summary :
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/05/30/lmp2.html

I think it’s better to say that we could have had as many as 10 different companies that would be willing to build cars. Whether they would all have found customers is a different matter — and the answer to that is probably “no.”

[lms]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119274

Ginetta working on 2017 LMP2 project for WEC, ELMS, USC and Asia

British marque Ginetta has joined the race to become one of the four permitted manufacturers for the LMP2 category from 2017, confirming it has started work on a chassis project.

It has already started design and development work on a coupe LMP2 prototype, and company chairman Lawrence Tomlinson said Ginetta will be submitting an interest to Le Mans and FIA World Endurance Championship organiser, the Automobile Club de l'Ouest.

The ACO wants to slim the number of LMP2 chassis manufacturers down to just four from 2017-2020 in an effort to better control the costs of the category.

It has invited all of the current and prospective manufacturers to submit an expression of interest in becoming a licenced supplier by June 10.

Those four brands will be able to supply the WEC, European Le Mans Series, Tudor United Sportscar Championship and the Asian Le Mans Series.

Tomlinson, a former shareholder in the Zytek Engineering, told AUTOSPORT: "LMP2 really appeals to us as it extends Ginetta's current ladder of career options.

"We've learnt a lot from our LMP3 programme [pictured], and that car actually forms a very good basis on which to build an LMP2 car.

"The P3 is already crash tested to the same standards as LMP1, so we have all of that data ready to apply to a P2 project and by absorbing Juno [last year] we have access to a much wider scope of manufacturing and design tools.

"We have already started the design work and done some testing on a modified version of an LMP3 chassis, to see about the feasibility of a P2 project.

"Ginetta has vast experience of building GT cars, and we're also the only company to make LMP3 a reality.

"We feel that LMP2 would be the next step and it's something that we feel we can do very well with the resources we have. We will be expressing our interest to the ACO."

Ginetta will join rival brands Gibson, Ligier [Onroak], BR Engineering, ORECA, Wolf and HPD as the brands most likely to submit expressions of interest.

It last contested Le Mans back in 2010 when it ran a Ginetta-Zytek GZ09S for F1 world champion Nigel Mansell and his sons Leo and Greg. But the car retired after four laps when Nigel crashed.

[Giba]

As the company that is currently the whole LMP3 field, they would deserve one of the slots. Howeverthere are many constructors that would deserve to be selected.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Giba

As the company that is currently the whole LMP3 field, they would deserve one of the slots. Howeverthere are many constructors that would deserve to be selected.

Right, this is a tricky choice trying to make a decision on the 4 chassis. I would say Ginetta would have less of a chance since they do currently have so much of the LMP3 market. It would be more fair to allow another company to have a shot at making the LMP2. But that is actually my biggest problem with this whole deal. The LMP2 market is being decided by the ACO, and the normal market forces don't get to decide which companies survive to make a prototype.

[Damian Baldi]

It's the same with Ligier, doing P2 and P3 cars. Or Oreca, with 05 P2, and the R-one for Rebellion.

[J Jay]

For anyone listening to MWM this week, Hindhaugh and Goodwin have finally let rip. They did stop short of making direct accusations against the ACO but the FIFA scandal was mentioned...

[joeb]

Originally Posted by J Jay

For anyone listening to MWM this week, Hindhaugh and Goodwin have finally let rip. They did stop short of making direct accusations against the ACO but the FIFA scandal was mentioned...

I quite enjoyed that part of the show and have to say i agree with them.

I also found the talk of Dallara or Oreca being the US based chassis manufacturer, while excluding HPD at the last moment.....

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by joeb

I quite enjoyed that part of the show and have to say i agree with them.

I also found the talk of Dallara or Oreca being the US based chassis manufacturer, while excluding HPD at the last moment.....

I think everybody listening would have agreed with everything they said, it's just that they obviously had to hold their tongue until the situation looked concrete. Now that we are fairly sure about how things will proceed, there's no need to hold back.

As for the HPD "major manufacturer" exclusion, it has all the hallmarks of the ACO not wanting any big boys to potentially spoil their party. Of course, they will claim it's in the interest of keeping costs down ...

[Akrapovic]

Whilst the ACO can hardly be called fair, I don't think excluding HPD for manufacturer involvement is that bad an idea tbh. It never sat well with me that "Lotus" (in whatever form) had an LMP2 car. And I don't think the big boys should be allowed to spoil the party of LMP2.

If we're going down the route of manufacturers for LMP1, and privateers for LMP2 (and some brave guys in P1), then I don't think HPD has a place in P2, IMO.

[lms]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Whilst the ACO can hardly be called fair, I don't think excluding HPD for manufacturer involvement is that bad an idea tbh. It never sat well with me that "Lotus" (in whatever form) had an LMP2 car. And I don't think the big boys should be allowed to spoil the party of LMP2.

If we're going down the route of manufacturers for LMP1, and privateers for LMP2 (and some brave guys in P1), then I don't think HPD has a place in P2, IMO.

yeah, those "big boys" HPD. Their current lmp2 car simply destroys the competition.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by lms

yeah, those "big boys" HPD. Their current lmp2 car simply destroys the competition.

Whether the car is good or not doesn't matter. I don't think Aston Martin should be allowed in LMP2 either, but their prototype effort was poor, and that's being generous.

And this might not go down well, but if we're limiting the grid to 4 makes, then I don't want to see nationality being a deciding point. If the French provide the 3 best chassis, and the 4th best is a British one, I don't see why any of them should be dropped just to have an American, or German, or Japanese one in.

I thought this was about the best privateers.

[tigas]

I listened to the MWM podcast and I agree completely with those that are asking who benefits. "Cui bono?"

However, it seems to me that we have two sets of demands from ACO racing and IMSA racing that are impossible to satisfy with a single ruleset. Because they are fundamentally different ways of going racing.

ACO (and probably the FIA) would like to have a prototype class that could be driven in several championships around the world and on LeMans. They already have that in LMP2, in fact... Cost-controlled even, Russian oligarchs notwithstanding...

But ALMS has folded into IMSA, which has a problem with their Daytona Prototype business model. IMSA has always used that prototype class as a way of grabbing manufacturers and professional racers on the cheap, while the ACO has LMP1 for that (not cheap) and ACO LMP2 has been left for independent racing teams.

Now IMSA (NASCAR) has some teams that have experience with LMP2 racing, and space-frame prototypes are no longer acceptable as a top-level category, so they would like to have an LMP2-based class, but also continue to accommodate manufacturers used to silhouette racing and DP, by allowing "bodykits" (and corresponding aero development) over the prototype chassis, and bespoke engines. And they would like to come to LeMans like in the days of the ALMS...

As far as I can see, all of this could potentially be very bad for the ACO LMP2 teams, which right now do not have to invest in aero development because it has been totally done by the chassis manufacturer, and have almost as good as a "spec" engine in the Zytek-Nismo units.

What now?

IMSA will not adopt LMP1-H. And IMSA LMP1-L would be suicide for the ACO - it's still very expensive and then what happens when Ford comes to LeMans with their LMP1-L to race against the ACO LMP1-H? If LMP1-H is the pinnacle of ACO rules, LMP1-L can't be properly competitive with LMP1-H cars. So far it has been like that because ByKolles and Rebellion have nowhere near the resources of a Ford. But a cheaper, simpler IMSA LMP1-L Ford winning against an LMP1-H field would be a very big loss of face for the current LMP1-H manufacturers, who would almost certainly leave ACO racing. It would certainly be the end of LMP1-H. And Ford would not be coming to La Sarthe to play second fiddle.

What about having the current crop of ACO LMP2 teams adopt IMSA's rules, with these rules' aero investment and bespoke engines? Those rules have been made for a team like Riley, that has money from a main manufacturer supplying the engine and its own wind tunnel for aero development... In all probability, not even Strakka would be able to compete at that level.

Therefore, I believe the only point where FIA, ACO and IMSA were able to get to an agreement was to have a shared chassis. This was probably music to the ears of some chassis manufacturers that have a lot of weight with the ACO, and they must have opened several bottles of champagne (not signed by failed F1 drivers, I hope) - more buyers on the other side of the Atlantic, and a stark reduction in the European competition? Vive la France!

So what we seem to have here, in my understanding, is two classes with the same chassis: ACO LMP2 and IMSA GTP. GTPs would come to LeMans with BoP to compete with ACO LMP2. Having the same chassis would simplify a lot of homologation, scrutineering, and safety issues.

How effective would this BoP be? I don't know, but it seems to have been working for GT3. Exactly why the current LMP2 class can't be left alone is beyond my understanding, though. Let IMSA have their LMP2-based GTP class, just leave ACO LMP2 well alone.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by J Jay

For anyone listening to MWM this week, Hindhaugh and Goodwin have finally let rip. They did stop short of making direct accusations against the ACO but the FIFA scandal was mentioned...

I just listened to this weeks show last night and quite enjoyed GG and Hindy let rip about that. Let's face it, those points they raised had to be made especially the companies with the American bases and the different paths of IMSA v everyone else which makes the FIA/ACO argument of the new regs unifying everything a complete crock. Very valid. I doubt the FIA/ACO cares what they think but the more people talk about it publicly in this manner hopefully we see more common sense in the 2017 regs

[Dyson Mazda]

I sort of disagreed with some of what Hindy and Graham said in their very enthusiastic discussion this week. They said that TUSC was taking the P2/GTP in a totally different direction than the ACO. This statement was only half true. They will have all-pro lineups (though I think we are going to end up with GTP-Pro and GTP-Am), open manufacturer body work rules, and multiple engines. However, IMSA teams will still have the option of running the ACO spec engine, the ACO spec manufacturer body work, and both cars will share the same chassis. Thus, international teams have the option to show up in the 36 Hours of Florida with the cars they run in the ELMS/WEC if they agree to swap out the tires and that is a major piece that the series is missing at the moment.

[Damian Baldi]

In the Group-C GTP era, there were several difference in the rules. The factories and private teams they uses to attend races at both sides of the Atlantic, changing the floor of the car, turbo configuration and tires, but they were at what's today P1.

I still think that factories should race as P1 privateers and not at P2. The ACO should change the rules for P1 privateer to let factories get in without hybrid systems.

This way P2 rules remain intact, and races in US could be attended by P1 privateers as Rebellion, ByKolles and whatever new P1 team.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Damian Baldi

In the Group-C GTP era, there were several difference in the rules. The factories and private teams they uses to attend races at both sides of the Atlantic, changing the floor of the car, turbo configuration and tires, but they were at what's today P1.

I still think that factories should race as P1 privateers and not at P2. The ACO should change the rules for P1 privateer to let factories get in without hybrid systems.

This way P2 rules remain intact, and races in US could be attended by P1 privateers as Rebellion, ByKolles and whatever new P1 team.

I like your idea, but the problem is that P1 have open rules and free development and this values, Do not match with the Nascar values.

[Damian Baldi]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

I like your idea, but the problem is that P1 have open rules and free development and this values, Do not match with the Nascar values.

That's the problem I see. Teams from US don't want to develop and spend money, I respect that because they achieve good competition with stable rules. But if they don't want to spend money, they can't claim to be part of something that moves all the time forward.

If they want to have factory cars at a low cost, well, they can't claim to be at Le Mans. The problem I see, is that if they close their development, someday a standard P2 car from WEC will win Daytona and Sebring in their face.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by Damian Baldi

That's the problem I see. Teams from US don't want to develop and spend money, I respect that because they achieve good competition with stable rules. But if they don't want to spend money, they can't claim to be part of something that moves all the time forward.

If they want to have factory cars at a low cost, well, they can't claim to be at Le Mans. The problem I see, is that if they close their development, someday a standard P2 car from WEC will win Daytona and Sebring in their face.

What would be wrong with that?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

I like your idea, but the problem is that P1 have open rules and free development and this values, Do not match with the Nascar values.

Yeah, there are so MANY teams from all over the globe beating down the P-1 doors there isn't room for them all!






L.P.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda

What would be wrong with that?

Not a damn thing, that is why they are invited to come and join in.






L.P.

[Damian Baldi]

Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda

What would be wrong with that?

I think that's not the idea of IMSA. The party would be over. That's why currently the P2 cars are away from the DP cars because of the tires.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by Damian Baldi

I think that's not the idea of IMSA. The party would be over. That's why currently the P2 cars are away from the DP cars because of the tires.

Currently P2 cars are away from the DP's because they race Pro/Am driver lineups or terrible engines.

[BrentJackson]

People are a little hard on IMSA here with regards to rules stability. The main reason for the desires to keep the cars as development-limited as possible is not NASCAR or a desire to be like them, but rather sports car racing in North America has a rather limited fanbase and racing's economic in North America in general suck terribly - NASCAR is starting to suffer, Indycar is in a deep hole, the ALMS was bought out so that it wouldn't go broke. America's economics right now don't make finding sponsorship for racing easy, and for a fairly high-cost series trying to get sponsors right now is really hard, even for the cheaper pro-am classes.

I would dare say that if the teams could work with budgets like they could once get, they would. If they had the funds to be able to engage in lots of development, I'm sure most of the teams would. But its just not on the cards, so its better to keep the racing as close as possible, hence fairly restrictive rules.