|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
5 Jun 2015, 02:54 (Ref:3545064) | #1301 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,179
|
Quote:
So, for me, it's easier to make the ACO change current P1 privateers class than to change P2 class. At P1 privateers today, you have all Pro drivers, custom bodywork and no spec engine, but factories should spend more money. I'm not saying this is the solution, but for me this is easier than try to change all the P2. |
|||
|
5 Jun 2015, 03:05 (Ref:3545067) | #1302 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,179
|
Quote:
I don't know if it's about america's economy or about the public taste. I been following IMSA and Indycar since 1989 and watching Nascar too. Since mid 90s Nascar grow up so much that I think new generations don't know what was IMSA and Indycar in the past. And that's why there isn't enough money to run IMSA and Indycar as they deserve. Don't take me bad, it's the same here, where we have the most popular series running crappy cars while we lost Sudamerican F3 and others good series are far to be what they were against the most popular. I think it's a generational change. |
|||
|
5 Jun 2015, 03:19 (Ref:3545070) | #1303 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
I am still trying to figure the angst towards TUSC in this matter. TUSC wants a common platform (chassis) with the ACO in P and P-2 so as to make it possible for the two like classes/chassis to compete on both sides of the pond. It is the ACO who is trying to limit the number of chassis mfgs and pushing a spec engine, not IMSA.
L.P. |
||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
5 Jun 2015, 03:30 (Ref:3545071) | #1304 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,179
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
5 Jun 2015, 03:49 (Ref:3545072) | #1305 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
I'm still of the opinion that IMSA needs to accept that their cost-to-exposure problem requires a different approach, that they will get nowhere with these rules and the BoP approach of balancing out DP and P2 chassis isn't earning them much in the way of positive news. I still think that the best option from IMSA now is to kill the American DTM idea for good and use the Class One as the top of the series in IMSA, Class One chassis with current-generation engines. IMSA's biggest problem is the fact that its cost to exposure ratio is horrible (even worse than Indycar, and Indycar is very, very bad at that) and that there isn't a lot of way of hacking costs down now short of tossing one of the NAEC races. Thus, IMSA has to expand the series, and the ugly, fragile, expensive P2 formula is never going to get that acceptance. Time for IMSA to become the world's greatest GT series. Why would teams accept spending at least 2-3x the cost for the same exposure and getting run over by the factory LMP1s? Nobody is going to do it who isn't doing so already, and I don't expect Kolles' effort to be a long-time commitment knowing his history. Brun and Joest had a chance with the cars they had to win, which Rebellion and any other privateer racer hasn't got. Privateer P1s won't happen short of the factory teams all leaving, and even then it would be a long shot. |
|||
|
5 Jun 2015, 12:22 (Ref:3545169) | #1306 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
Quote:
Honestly, a mix between LMP2 and Class One cars will be a compromise instead! |
||
|
6 Jun 2015, 04:09 (Ref:3545404) | #1307 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
As far as Le Mans goes, since the ACO clearly has no consideration for professional privateer racers, there is little reason IMO for IMSA to care about them. The ALMS ultimately was failing, and aside from the (admittedly absolutely brilliant) LMP1 category, where are the ACO rules working? Their P2 proposal is a horrific joke and they've lost the ability to advance GT racing to Ratel and the GT3 formula. I'm quite happy to have the GTE cars remain in IMSA, but at this point IMSA walking out on the P2 rules would probably kill them stone dead, which may end up being a huge benefit to both sides. Hindy said on MWM that he knows that people will end up run out of the sport because of those moronic rules, and on this side of the Atlantic he's even more right than he is for those in Europe. If the ACO wants to turn P2 into psuedo-spec cars to allow Oreca and Onroak to make more money, that's their call. But IMSA cannot and should not have anything to do with that insanity. With the P2/DP BoP battles having ultimately done bupkis for IMSA save cause them all kinds of political problems and angered fans and sponsors, I say just dump LMPs altogether and let the ACO figure that mess out on their own. |
|||
|
6 Jun 2015, 08:00 (Ref:3545434) | #1308 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
As for GTE... its a joke. Porsches racing Ferraris just like 10 years ago, and nothing has advanced since then, except in NA where they allow more cars (like the dodge viper or bmw z4) to race with 50 million waivers (just wait for the M6 GTE ), while gt3 is flourishing. And that common lmp2 platform that has no common elements between Europe and the IMSA cars except the chassis.... no comment... |
||
|
6 Jun 2015, 10:36 (Ref:3545484) | #1309 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
Class One? Would using something that they are not in control be any better then what the ACO controls?
|
|
|
6 Jun 2015, 11:03 (Ref:3545493) | #1310 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
Quote:
Now back to the main topic, I feel that the current LMP2 regulations should become the next LMP1-L class. But then again, I already mentioned it many times. Oh well, the class is already screwed up anyway past 2017... |
||
|
6 Jun 2015, 19:04 (Ref:3545610) | #1311 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Quote:
There's no stability and there's no cost savings. Half the teams in the class in 2013 dumped their program and bought another car they could afford to race because it cost more money to upgrade one DP than buy two LMPCs, all it did was force some people to buy more parts from the series to keep their manufacturer support. Meanwhile Ganassi was throwing money down a bottomless hole to get that turbo to work too, so so much for not spending money on development. You'd think with all the complaining about the ACO and ORECA being in bed somebody might care the entire DP format serves pretty much entirely Jim France's own interests. They got sped up so he could still win his own races with his own car, it ruined the class for everyone else and pushed budgets up to where they're probably around the bottom of P1 where Muscle Milk and Dyson were sitting lately. |
||
|
8 Jun 2015, 05:06 (Ref:3545997) | #1312 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
Well P1 in America was a dead class walking much like GT1, on two very outdated P1 cars and a DW.
P2 wasn't much better either. I do find the irony in DPs costing more now since they were the PC class of Grand-Am. Well I do wish IMSA had their own Proto rules much like GTP, I hope the IMSA P2 evolved into this. With a variety types of engines and chassis. I hope someone say this: I'm going to make a chassis for IMSA in America! ACO:But you can't race that in Lemans. Manufactur: I don't care! Wishfull thinking I know. |
|
|
8 Jun 2015, 17:11 (Ref:3546197) | #1313 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,179
|
|||
|
8 Jun 2015, 18:16 (Ref:3546220) | #1314 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
It's was pretty much expected.
|
|
|
8 Jun 2015, 21:33 (Ref:3546280) | #1315 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 932
|
||
|
9 Jun 2015, 12:41 (Ref:3546476) | #1316 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,736
|
I have to imagine at this point, the only real question is whether we'll see a car from Ginetta or Gibson.
I have to think Oak, Oreca and Riley/Multimatic are shoe-ins. Strakka and Wolf are out. HPD fluked with their new P2 coupe and BR Engineering is only just debuting their first P2 this year. That leaves Oak, Oreca, Riley/Multimatic (it's believed they're going in on a P2 design together), Gibson and Ginetta as candidates. Makes you wonder why they couldn't just have 5 instead of 4 as all are capable and currently build a good product. |
|
|
9 Jun 2015, 13:14 (Ref:3546494) | #1317 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
While Riley is eyeing to have a spot in LMP2, I think that the company should team up not just with Multimatic but Coyote too.
Then again, Coyote as a company is just dead weight for Riley as they can only make tube-frame chassis instead of carbon fiber ones. |
|
|
9 Jun 2015, 13:43 (Ref:3546506) | #1318 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,736
|
Quote:
If Riley and Multimatic are teamed up, I see little chance that anyone other than them gets the North American bid. |
||
|
9 Jun 2015, 14:10 (Ref:3546513) | #1319 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,240
|
Quote:
|
||
|
9 Jun 2015, 17:16 (Ref:3546576) | #1320 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,483
|
IF Multimatic (with or without Riley) becomes one of the 'happy few' chances are we're gonna see a Ford powered prototype at some point in the future.
|
|
|
9 Jun 2015, 20:01 (Ref:3546630) | #1321 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,042
|
I doubt it's that straightforward. Riley built the Vipers but their DPs never had a Dodge engine. Multimatic currently makes the Mazdas. I'm not sure they're linked in any way.
Such a pity they won't consider opening it up just a little bit, to allow one or two more additional constructors. If the demand is that great that ten are applying, then surely five or six could be chosen and still turn a profit. Admittedly, there'd be much less valuable kickbacks that way...... |
||
__________________
Eat Sportscars Sleep Sportscars Drink Gulf |
9 Jun 2015, 23:58 (Ref:3546698) | #1322 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
The P3s future seems to get better and better.
I wonder if P3 will eat away the support of the new p2? |
|
|
10 Jun 2015, 02:09 (Ref:3546717) | #1323 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 156
|
Quote:
That would be ironic, right? P3 attracts the gentleman and privateer, so who's left for P2? ... The manufacturers ... Oh wait you're not allowed! No, what will save P2 from P3 is the fact that only P2 can go to Le Mans. |
|||
|
10 Jun 2015, 02:28 (Ref:3546718) | #1324 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,179
|
Quote:
Let the factories to choice between P1 or P2. |
|||
|
10 Jun 2015, 05:33 (Ref:3546738) | #1325 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
I think there would have been more P2 cars in ALMS had there been no PC class...
It's just my theory, no basis in fact, just my opinion. PC however was pretty much the same thing as P2 just cheaper and a bit slower. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Judd LMP2 engine | Mike_Wooshy | Sportscar & GT Racing | 19 | 3 Feb 2011 22:21 |
New LMP2 engine - and (more) rule changes | ss_collins | Sportscar & GT Racing | 42 | 4 Oct 2008 14:49 |
Manufacturers propose new engine regs | Marbot | Formula One | 20 | 20 Oct 2007 12:17 |
LMP2 engine changes? (merged) | JAG | Sportscar & GT Racing | 31 | 20 Jun 2006 10:20 |
Engine Suppliers Championship? | Mr V | Formula One | 4 | 29 May 2002 09:46 |