IMSA DPi Discussion

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

plus

Don't be surprised to see the allowed* OEM engines at a (significant) BoP disadvantage compared to the spec Gibson one.
(* for LM only- I seriously doubt the ACO will let the Nissan 'P1' in after last year's debacle for example.)

From the day one the new rules were announced it was clear as day that

Le Mans = Crap BoP for the OEM engines because they discredit the ACO philosophy
America: Crap BoP for the non OEM engines because they're not political series "partners" and don't throw cash around

But I doubt many non-Zytek engined cars will appear at LM, as they will very likely do just what MSR does this year... don't even bother to tear apart their OEM bodies and engines, but rather just rent some another second hand Oreca or Onroak in Europe and run that there. Because it's easier.

[Coach Ep]

Don't be surprised to see the M6 appear at La Sarthe next year.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by Chiana

From the day one the new rules were announced it was clear as day that

Le Mans = Crap BoP for the OEM engines because they discredit the ACO philosophy
America: Crap BoP for the non OEM engines because they're not series "partners" and don't throw cash around

I think that will all depend on the number of new DPi cars ready to take the green. At the Rolex 2017 at least.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

[/B]

I think that will all depend on the number of new DPi cars ready to take the green. At the Rolex 2017 at least.

Indeed, but if you have a scenario where no-one but GM has (again) produced the body, I think they will just let the standard P2s run the non Zytek engines. In that scenario I would think that the OEM/body+engine would get priority in BoP, then the OEM/engine, and lastly the ACO spec.

Let's say standard Oreca were to enter Sebring 2017 or whatever, IMSA couldn't even call them the "Nissan Prototype" or "Nissan Oreca" like they could the Dragonspeed this year, they'd just have to call it "Oreca" or "Gibson" which doesn't mean anything to the agenda they are pushing.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by wdave0

So, even IF ACO would accommodate an IMSA car with FIA bodywork, how would an all pro driver line-up work?

Why not a separate DPI category in Le Mans? They had GTP, GTO, GTX, WSC in the past. All pro driver line-up could be compensated with the Continental tires in DPI.

[Coach Ep]

For 2 or so cars?

Originally Posted by Chiana

Indeed, but if you have a scenario where no-one but GM has (again) produced the body, I think they will just let the standard P2s run the non Zytek engines. In that scenario I would think that the OEM/body+engine would get priority in BoP, then the OEM/engine, and lastly the ACO spec.

I highly doubt that will happen.

GM and Mazda seem to be safe bets at this point so no need to open the door for 'partial' manufacturer (engine only) participation (as HPD seems to prefer) from IMSA's perspective anyway.

[Deleted]

Well we already have fake sub classes for LMP1 and LMGTE, it's only matter of time we got one for LMP2 too.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda

Do you guys think there is any chance that IMSA goes with DPi Pro/Am to replace PC. Shank and AXR already fit the needs with Pew/Curran. Starworks bought a Riley. CORE & PR1 have looked at the step up to P2 in the past. This idea could also attract Krohn, Brown, and Ricardo Gonzalez back to the US and makes more sense for WEC/ELMS Pro/Am teams to do the 36 Hours of Florida.

Well, the ACO LMP2 is designed for Pro-Am teams, just like the purpose of PC is. So in a way, it would make sense to have the PC class consisting of ACO-spec LMP2s with Pro-Am crews and then allow all-pro crews and OEM engines/bodyworks (i.e. DPi's) in the P class with no Le Mans eligibility.

But I assume IMSA wants a cheaper platform for PC so ACO LMP2 probably isn't an option.

Originally Posted by hondafan37

Why not a separate DPI category in Le Mans? They had GTP, GTO, GTX, WSC in the past. All pro driver line-up could be compensated with the Continental tires in DPI.

As nice as just allowing the IMSA P class to Le Mans without need for car/line-up modifications, I can't see it happening. ACO doesn't want OEM involvement in prototype classes outside P1.

[DeezPutz]

DSC has a blurb about the whole DPi thing. It sounds like there's major manufacturer backing for the class that's making IMSA reconsidering even tying the cars to Le Mans.

This would be great. IMSA needs to make their own mark and not care about one race a year that has no bearing at all on what goes on the rest of the season.

Let's continue to complain about the name, though.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by DeezPutz

DSC has a blurb about the whole DPi thing. It sounds like there's major manufacturer backing for the class that's making IMSA reconsidering even tying the cars to Le Mans.

This would be great. IMSA needs to make their own mark and not care about one race a year that has no bearing at all on what goes on the rest of the season.

Let's continue to complain about the name, though.

It's hard to say it needs to make it's own mark when the base they're using is the ACOs though. If we're to subscribe to the idea that IMSA should go do its own thing then maybe it should actually do its own thing rather than the DPi route. I thought the whole point in the DPi base was so teams can do both?

[Maelochs]

I wouldn’t say IMSA needs to “make its own mark” by separating itself from ACO ... I’d say that what it has always needed to do, and also has been trying to do, is create a prototype class which suits both its fans base and its teams.

I don’t think any of us are going to watch or attend or not, based on links to ACO, at this point. We really haven’t had an ACO-relevant top class in so many years ... as long as we have decent racing, that is a step up.

I also don’t think sponsors care about an ACO link. The manufacturers who want to contest Le Mans, do, and the sponsors who want to sponsor Le Mans teams have lots of options.

From some points of view, the current IMSA course makes a lot of sense. They maintain enough link with the ACO to stay friendly, but also enough independence that they aren’t tied to every bad decision ACO makes (I could posit reasonably that it was ACO’s constantly changing P1 regs which drove the class out of North America—only the biggest factories could afford major redesigns of chassis and/or engine every season.)

IMSA needs a top class which is Not spec (Rolex proved that) and Not astronomically expensive (ALMS proved that.) It also needs a top class which allows whichever domestic manufacturers who are interested to play a role without making a huge investment—the past several years have shown that most U.S. manufacturers simply aren’t that interested in prototype racing.

If IMSA really can get a few manufacturers onboard (GM and Mazda seem committed already, and maybe others are interested) then DPi should be a decent compromise: not all the cars will look and sound exactly the same or have exactly the same chassis or motor—much like Rolex—but the cars won’t be decades-old throwbacks.

To me the biggest improvement will be an end to the BoP BS. Right now I cannot say that ESM won the first two races ... any more than I can say AXR won the last to championships. I can say that <asterisk> those teams won, the asterisk noting that the rules might have favored those cars to the point where they would have won if they didn’t crash, regardless of the opposition.

That takes a lot of the post-race pleasure out of the series for me. it’s great to see who wins and places, but then the analysis starts, and ... No one like watching events which are fixed.

Hopefully 2017 will be the end of intrusive BoP.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It's hard to say it needs to make it's own mark when the base they're using is the ACOs though. If we're to subscribe to the idea that IMSA should go do its own thing then maybe it should actually do its own thing rather than the DPi route. I thought the whole point in the DPi base was so teams can do both?

Exactly. They are trying to persuade teams to use an ACO package but put some bodywork on it using their 'GT3' engines. That's not going their own route but altering a baseline already set for them. If they want to appease manufacturers, they should just forget about the LM eligibility. They may be able to stand on their own if they have all these alleged manufacturers interested.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by TF110

If they want to appease manufacturers, they should just forget about the LM eligibility. They may be able to stand on their own if they have all these alleged manufacturers interested.

It seems that debate is happening right now, and it doesn't seem like IMSA is willing to back down.

IMSA can do math. Very few IMSA teams want to go to Le Mans and those that do, can rent. On the other hand IMSA needs to please its corporate partners to run the races actually in its championship, and IMSA really doesn't want ACO determining its performance levels.

I am thinking the likely upshot is that IMSA teams will have to re-adjust their motors to compete at Le Mans ... those that don't already run or rent Euro-spec cars.

[Deleted]

The possible theoretical silver lining in the case of full on nuclear winter between IMSA/NASCAR and ACO, much to the way it has between SRO and ACO, is that we might have ACO establishing ALMS on their own (plus removing the right from utilizing Petit Le Mans) back. And do just their own thing, maybe getting current US teams on their side too.

But then again, even as I said that I rolled my eyes... if you had modern day ACO solely running it, you know with Fillion and Neveu and the other guys, you would get a series consisting of four events. "4 Hours of Circuit of the Americas, 4 Hours Indianapolis, 4 Hours of Montreal, 4 Hours of Mexico City". Proam categories all around...

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

It seems that debate is happening right now, and it doesn't seem like IMSA is willing to back down.

IMSA can do math. Very few IMSA teams want to go to Le Mans and those that do, can rent. On the other hand IMSA needs to please its corporate partners to run the races actually in its championship, and IMSA really doesn't want ACO determining its performance levels.

I am thinking the likely upshot is that IMSA teams will have to re-adjust their motors to compete at Le Mans ... those that don't already run or rent Euro-spec cars.

IMSA/ALMS always held onto their own performance levels! This is nothing new, only being taken a step farther now that the GA/DP OEM-Mfg involvement is in the mix of the new IMSA. That needing to be reflected/realized in the chassis of the Prototype class now.




L.P.

[DeezPutz]

Originally Posted by Chiana

The possible theoretical silver lining in the case of full on nuclear winter between IMSA/NASCAR and ACO, much to the way it has between SRO and ACO, is that we might have ACO establishing ALMS on their own (plus removing the right from utilizing Petit Le Mans) back. And do just their own thing, maybe getting current US teams on their side too.

Not only does this not make any sense it has even less chance of happening. Sometimes it's like the people posting here have never followed the sport or the politics.

The ACO is too busy propping up the ELMS with teams and drivers no one cares about. They don't have time for another.

[DeezPutz]

Originally Posted by TF110

Exactly. They are trying to persuade teams to use an ACO package but put some bodywork on it using their 'GT3' engines. That's not going their own route but altering a baseline already set for them. If they want to appease manufacturers, they should just forget about the LM eligibility.

This appears to be about the manufacturers not caring about eligibility. Try and keep up.

Originally Posted by TF110

They may be able to stand on their own if they have all these alleged manufacturers interested.

I'd say they're doing a find job of standing on their own as it is now. The WEC should worry about losing more P1 cars to NASCAR.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by DeezPutz

Not only does this not make any sense it has even less chance of happening. Sometimes it's like the people posting here have never followed the sport or the politics.

The ACO is too busy propping up the ELMS with teams and drivers no one cares about. They don't have time for another.

Yet somehow in addition to WEC and ELMS they had time for Asian Le Mans Series (and keep it on life machine when it had 6-8 car grids prior the boost of last year), the Asian Le Mans Sepang Sprint Series that premieres this year, Michelin Le Mans GT3 Cup that premieres this year, and last year they even discussed a possibility of introducing North American LMP3 series.

What did you say about not following the sport again?

[Dyson Mazda]

In the glory days of the ALMS, the P2 manufacturers and teams, Porsche (Dyson, Penske), Acura (Deferran, Andretti, Highcroft, Fernandez) and Mazda (BK Motorsports), had no desire to go race at Le Mans and the series still put on one heck of a show. I think that is where they are headed for 2017 and beyond.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by DeezPutz

This appears to be about the manufacturers not caring about eligibility. Try and keep up.



I'd say they're doing a find job of standing on their own as it is now. The WEC should worry about losing more P1 cars to NASCAR.

Another inflamatory post. You seem to have an agenda to do nothing but big up imsa and put down the wec. Last I checked, imsa is still on the fence about what to do with the regs. If they were doing such a great job alone, why are they using ACO style prototypes at all? Why even contemplate using lmp2 as a base? So it looks like all that talk about "keeping up" is premature since apparently nothing is decided.

[chernaudi]

He seems to be one of those guys who doesn't like European style endurance racing and wishes that IMSA would go their own way totally.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by TF110

Another inflamatory post. You seem to have an agenda to do nothing but big up imsa and put down the wec. Last I checked, imsa is still on the fence about what to do with the regs. If they were doing such a great job alone, why are they using ACO style prototypes at all? Why even contemplate using lmp2 as a base? So it looks like all that talk about "keeping up" is premature since apparently nothing is decided.

Inflammatory, now that is funny! And is this thread not about DPi which is the sole province of IMSA and their WSC series?






L.P.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by TF110

If they [IMSA] were doing such a great job alone, why are they using ACO style prototypes at all? Why even contemplate using lmp2 as a base? :

Because, economics.

Please do not see this as an "inflamatory" post, but I have to say this: It makes a Lot of sense to have a worldwide sportscar formula, because manufacturers cannot afford to build (or really, to research and design) many types of cars for many series, and teams cannot afford to pay for the research, testing, design, and construction when the construction run is so small.

This is one of the lessons we could and should learn from the past: fragmented competing series are no longer sustainable (if they ever were--not many sports car series have lasted a decade.)

To make racing make business sense in today's world, options have to be limited, as does development. I hate it, but I am not blind or entirely stupid, so I accept it.

It simply costs too much to build a competitive car to modern safety and performance standards. A Jim Hall-type character can't cook up some crazy idea in his back shed and conquer the sportscar world (or at least radically alter it.) No more chassis rails chalked out on garage floors, or fire-pump engines converted to F1. Sorry.

If we didn't go with ACO, where would we go in North America? Another generation of "cost-effective" DP dinosaurs? Sorry, the genie is already out of that bottle---fans have seen modern P2s and would never accept another decade of tube-framed throwbacks.

So ... who would be willing to build a run of cars for just one series? Only a single manufacturer who would get the guaranteed business of every team (see IndyCar for an example.) I assume we don't want to see eight or twelve identical cars .... but how many manufacturers are going to sign on to produce only three or four chassis? Not happening, not at a price the teams could afford.

What would have happened instead is the Gen-3 DPs would have been used another three seasons, and all the WEC and ELMS P2 castoffs would have been bought up by U.S. teams ... but parts would get expensive soon, so pretty soon we would be seeing the Gen-4 DP---and mildly updated version of the car which ruled TUSC and would soon again rule WTSC ... which would soon go broke as most fans left in disgust.

Sorry I cannot write more ... Steve McQueen's Le Mans is on TV. i don't want to look at those glorious cars while thinking of DPs.

[chernaudi]

The issue is IMSA specific bodies and engines. Currently, ACO rules have no allowance for that in their 2017 regs. Yet, they want to allow the cars to run at LM. But so far, all I've heard is that they'll allow IMSA DPI teams that want to run LM to run an ACO approved body for that chassis and BOP the engine.

The issue is that the new 4.2 Gibson V8 is supposed to make about 600bhp. That's at least 50 more than the current IMSA LMP2 spec cars are running, as well as the DP cars. And there's been concern about milking more power out of the IMSA stock block engines, and even GT3 engines are currently pegged to about 550bhp as well.

And yes, GT3 cars have done well in endurance races. But what effect will trying to get an extra 50 or so HP out of them have. And the (so to be) grandfathered old gen LMP2 engines, especially in IMSA spec, are taxing themselves and other powertrain parts.

The bodywork will be the easy part--since the cars have to share the tub and certain other parts with each other (gearbox assembly, front diffuser, floor, rear diffuser, related items). But the hang up is engines.

I'm not in favor of the ACO going with a spec engine. But even if the ACO change their minds, and go along with the DPI engine format, do they restrict the Gibson engine to about 550bhp instead of 600, or do they hope that the GT3 and grandfathered engines can make about 600bhp reliably?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The issue is IMSA specific bodies and engines. Currently, ACO rules have no allowance for that in their 2017 regs. Yet, they want to allow the cars to run at LM. But so far, all I've heard is that they'll allow IMSA DPI teams that want to run LM to run an ACO approved body for that chassis and BOP the engine.

The issue is that the new 4.2 Gibson V8 is supposed to make about 600bhp. That's at least 50 more than the current IMSA LMP2 spec cars are running, as well as the DP cars. And there's been concern about milking more power out of the IMSA stock block engines, and even GT3 engines are currently pegged to about 550bhp as well.

And yes, GT3 cars have done well in endurance races. But what effect will trying to get an extra 50 or so HP out of them have. And the (so to be) grandfathered old gen LMP2 engines, especially in IMSA spec, are taxing themselves and other powertrain parts.

The bodywork will be the easy part--since the cars have to share the tub and certain other parts with each other (gearbox assembly, front diffuser, floor, rear diffuser, related items). But the hang up is engines.

I'm not in favor of the ACO going with a spec engine. But even if the ACO change their minds, and go along with the DPI engine format, do they restrict the Gibson engine to about 550bhp instead of 600, or do they hope that the GT3 and grandfathered engines can make about 600bhp reliably?

This is a P2 or Le Mans specific issue. Not a DPi issue nor an WSC 'P' class issue.





L.P.