LMP2 Manufacturers and Engine Suppliers - Page 55

Richard C · 16 Jun 2015, 14:37 (Ref:3551177)

I am not defending what they are doing at all, but I think there are clear answer to your questions that are in sync with what FIA/ACO is doing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Why reduce mechanical grip? I can't imagine there is anyone out there that wants less mechanical grip?

FIA/ACO does?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Narrowing the cars also would make them slightly more unstable compared to the same car of an increased width.

Less stable solution helps the racing? Less on rails means more mistakes, more passing opportunities. I will not argue if this actually is true or not in recent history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I really struggle to understand the narrowing of the cars at all. They look far worse, they go faster in a straight line (something the ACO doesn't really want), less mechanical grip, and they are more unstable.

I think I have read elsewhere that recent attempts by FIA/ACO have been focused on reducing cornering speeds but maybe even allowing higher speeds on straight lines. Overall laptime is still important to ensure the correct order of the classes as well as to ensure the cars are not overly fast with respect to lap times. I think they are less concerned about straight line speed as long as the cars are stable at those speeds?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The thing is, we have seen this before. It doesn't work. All the teams will do with narrower cars is run with even more downforce, because they can afford to do so thanks to the less drag the car will have down the straights.

I guess that is somewhat true, but given that power limits ends up being part of the equation somewhere, you can't have it all.

You could continue to increase downforce to increase cornering speeds, but you will sacrifice straight line speed and I think that you are not going to get that all back (high DF with low drag) with just a narrow car. At some point if the rule makers juggle things just right they could force cars to have a lower cornering speed.

Richard

Starfish Primer · 16 Jun 2015, 22:28 (Ref:3551370)

So much discussions about the new LMP2 rules and seems that the results will do the work for the ACO.

The top 5 has only Ligier, Oreca and Gibson chasis all of them with Nissan engine. To find the first non Nissan you have to look at the 7th, ESM HPD, 19 laps down.

Deleted · 18 Jun 2015, 18:01 (Ref:3551938)

Those results are irrelevant.

Anyway, Zytek-Gibson and Wolf join Dome as officially withdrawn chassis suppliers
http://www.racer.com/wec-le-mans/ite...-lmp2-licenses

Also we are indeed 100% dead sticked to the lame 4x limitation:

One clarification that was given, though, was that there will not be any more than four licenses eventually issued whatever the quality of the submissions.

Pontlieue · 18 Jun 2015, 18:09 (Ref:3551940)

We can only hope that LMP1 stays as healthy as it is. Because LMP2 is no longer a backup option with the 2017 regulations coming. It's like DPs with a modern look. Isn't it ironic how IMSA P2 will have more variety in 2017 than ACO/FIA P2?

Coach Ep · 18 Jun 2015, 18:28 (Ref:3551945)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiana

Those results are irrelevant.

Anyway, Zytek-Gibson and Wolf join Dome as officially withdrawn chassis suppliers
http://www.racer.com/wec-le-mans/ite...-lmp2-licenses

Also we are indeed 100% dead sticked to the lame 4x limitation:

One clarification that was given, though, was that there will not be any more than four licenses eventually issued whatever the quality of the submissions.

Why are those results irrelevant?

It looks like Ginetta, Riley + Multimatic? and Dallara might be competing for 2 spots (if Dallara actually submitted an entry), I don't believe HPD moved forward with their intention for a chassis license but I won't rule out an engine one. A bit surprised Gibson (Zytek) hasn't submitted an entry for the engine license yet, imo they would be the favorites to get it.

Giba · 18 Jun 2015, 19:09 (Ref:3551954)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Why are those results irrelevant?

It looks like Ginetta, Riley + Multimatic? and Dallara might be competing for 2 spots (if Dallara actually submitted an entry), I don't believe HPD moved forward with their intention for a chassis license but I won't rule out an engine one. A bit surprised Gibson (Zytek) hasn't submitted an entry for the engine license yet, imo they would be the favorites to get it.

As one manufacturer is going to be from North America I think Riley will get that. Still not sure in the 4th manufacturer now that Gibson is not applying

mariantic · 18 Jun 2015, 19:12 (Ref:3551955)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giba

As one manufacturer is going to be from North America I think Riley will get that. Still not sure in the 4th manufacturer now that Gibson is not applying

Note they don't have to be an existing LMP2 manufacturer; hint - hint...

Mariantic

Victor_RO · 18 Jun 2015, 19:12 (Ref:3551957)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariantic

Note they don't have to be an existing LMP2 manufacturer; hint - hint...

Mariantic

Oh hell, not another Dallara.

Rodger Davies · 18 Jun 2015, 19:15 (Ref:3551960)

In what world are the ACO sat, where they're seeing manufacturers like Gibson, who have been supporting this class for years, pull out, unlikely to ever return, and thinking "yep, we're doing the right thing here"?

Clearly they weren't paying enough backhanders.

WMUCarGuy · 18 Jun 2015, 20:14 (Ref:3551980)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariantic

Note they don't have to be an existing LMP2 manufacturer; hint - hint...

Mariantic

Ginetta...

I suspect we wind up with
Oreca
Onroak
Riley
Ginetta

Would be cool if they went with Dallara instead of one of the two French companies, just for geographical diversity, but we all know those two are more-or-less locked in... Too bad they won't just allow a 5th...

carbon_titanium · 18 Jun 2015, 20:19 (Ref:3551984)

to me the big 4 will be: oreca, onroak, riley and dallara; with the first 2 mainly involved in ELMS and WEC, the other mainly involved as chassis supplier of TUSC. Am I wrong or TUSC p2 will be able to use custom bodywork?

mariantic · 18 Jun 2015, 20:58 (Ref:3551998)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WMUCarGuy

Ginetta...

I suspect we wind up with
Oreca
Onroak
Riley
Ginetta

Would be cool if they went with Dallara instead of one of the two French companies, just for geographical diversity, but we all know those two are more-or-less locked in... Too bad they won't just allow a 5th...

That's my thought too. But I'm thinking Dallara will be in with Riley as part of the American option. With their base in Indy and considerable production facilities there I reckon they look good...

Mariantic

HORNDAWG · 18 Jun 2015, 22:13 (Ref:3552013)

Quote:

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

to me the big 4 will be: oreca, onroak, riley and dallara; with the first 2 mainly involved in ELMS and WEC, the other mainly involved as chassis supplier of TUSC. Am I wrong or TUSC p2 will be able to use custom bodywork?

Yes, TUSC P cars will not be required to run the 4 mfgs original bodywork.

L.P.

MagVanisher · 19 Jun 2015, 05:25 (Ref:3552060)

About Multimatic, I guess they're already withdrawn from the selection due to their commitment with the Ford GT program.

WMUCarGuy · 19 Jun 2015, 18:54 (Ref:3552231)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

About Multimatic, I guess they're already withdrawn from the selection due to their commitment with the Ford GT program.

Multimatic is an enormous company, easily capable of handling both (although I suspect it'd be Multimatic probably just laying the tubs and Riley actually building the cars).

They've said companies affiliated with a major manufacturer are not eligible, but I don't think they mean that more as a case of they don't want major manufacturers involved directly. They don't want another RS Spyder coming through. I think Multimatic would still definitely be eligible.

MagVanisher · 20 Jun 2015, 09:45 (Ref:3552376)

Okay, but if I'm running Multimatic, would it be nice if they bought either ORECA or OAK in order to grab a spot at the LMP2 manufacturers?

If they're big, they should take over one French firm even though ACO would get angry at Multimatic.

Speed-King · 20 Jun 2015, 10:16 (Ref:3552383)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

Okay, but if I'm running Multimatic, would it be nice if they bought either ORECA or OAK in order to grab a spot at the LMP2 manufacturers?

If they're big, they should take over one French firm even though ACO would get angry at Multimatic.

I don't think either is for sale... Oreca is pretty massive in their own right and the owner of Oak is Jaques Nicolet, i.e. the guy that bought the Pescarolo Sport team and gave it back to Henri for purely sentimental reasons.

Dyson Mazda · 21 Jun 2015, 01:09 (Ref:3552573)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

Okay, but if I'm running Multimatic, would it be nice if they bought either ORECA or OAK in order to grab a spot at the LMP2 manufacturers?

If they're big, they should take over one French firm even though ACO would get angry at Multimatic.

I could see a company like Multimatic doing the bodywork for a Mazda or Ford IMSA Prototype (the same is true for Coyote and a Chevy program).

MagVanisher · 21 Jun 2015, 02:26 (Ref:3552591)

Well, Multimatic can do that but making bodywork to cover either the ORECA or OAK's Ligier chassis tub is like a consolation prize to them.

jc_nl · 21 Jun 2015, 12:21 (Ref:3552691)

It would be a surprise if Ginetta would not be selected given the way they have jumped onboard LMP3. It would seem that they and Oak are the main supporters of the "LMP pyramide" at this time.

Also could it be that Gibson decided against building a chassis because they are after the engine deal?

HORNDAWG · 2 Jul 2015, 18:46 (Ref:3555435)

Here is the current info coming out of the TWG....

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/11870...=1&limitstart=

and here....

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...gulations.html

L.P.

TF110 · 2 Jul 2015, 19:50 (Ref:3555447)

So this confirms theres only certain areas for open development. But theres no incentive to develop these areas because the cars will be 'standardized' like they are now. No aero gain can be made because theyll bop you up or down to their 'norm'. This isnt much better than what they have now. At least different engines can be run. Those will be equalized too, so all were left with is sound and sight differences. Imo, more of the same except a different type of car, P2 instead of DP.

Rcz · 2 Jul 2015, 20:36 (Ref:3555460)

The engine regs are interesting. It suggests Chevy and Audi want to play. But who has a 4.5Liter V6? I think that's a misprint and should be 3.5Liters.

I was hoping that 4Liter V8s Turbos were going to be included because many manufacturers have gone in that direction. And no V12s, come on really?

Deleted · 2 Jul 2015, 20:37 (Ref:3555462)

IMSA-LMDP2 would have been perfect title. Though then again with all of this heavy restricting and balancing there shouldn't be a word "prototype" in title when the new regs are as they both here and in ACO land. So LMD2

RPM-based balancing on turbos sounds so Grand-AM

Deleted · 2 Jul 2015, 20:49 (Ref:3555467)

So stupid question. It says that the following items are 'stock' for their chosen chassis and IMSA DP... I mean P2 bodywork builders cannot touch them:

Rear wing + mounts
Engine cover fin
Splitter
Floor
Diffuser

Are they also spec for the four approved chassis makers? As in Oreca has to have identical floor to Onroak?

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