|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
24 Mar 2016, 23:32 (Ref:3626930) | #151 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,126
|
I'm about to post a whole bunch of irony that the Daytonized version of IMSA doesn't get. The connection to the ACO is very important in today's world. The WEC is light years ahead of IMSA in both technology and costs.
Here's some of the irony. In 1999 I was at a Don Panoz' sponsored media event at Road Atlanta. Super memory in my mind. As I was leaving, I got caught up in the traffic of a cross-country race involving university-sponsored solar raycers and they were headed to Georgia Tech for the weekend on their cross country endurance race. There was a whole lot of ADVANCED technology in this race and they had some BIG time sponsors (see photo below). I said then and I still say today that the best thing IMSA can do is to link up with these engineering geniuses. These kids are the brains and fans of the future. They might need a separate area from Green Park or they may transform it. After seeing these advanced endurance prototypes racing across the country using just the energy from the Sun, I checked out their sponsors. I think their sponsors would make most teams in IMSA drool. Another part of the irony. At Georgia Tech, rather than attempting to build an advanced endurance prototype in the spirit of the ALMS, they built one of the ugliest cars I've ever seen in the image of the newly created Daytona Prototype! If you are a team owner or manufacturer, would you like to have sponsors like these kid geniuses from across America had? This was back in 1999 but this caliber of sponsors is what is needed. You get the kid geniuses in the universities interested in your sport (if it is technologically relevant) and the sponsors will follow. |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 00:26 (Ref:3626935) | #152 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Quote:
I haven't heard about Microsoft sponsoring anybody except Level 5 (and how is That for irony?) Also ... some of those "sponsors" probably got to deduct their "sponsorship" which I don't think happens much in motor racing. Also ... how many of those sponsors are currently funding a WEC car, hybrid or not? I really don't think IMSA would have survived from then until now if it had switched its formula to single-seat, bicycle-tired solar-powered car which topped out at 55 mph ... and Sebring wouldn't have happened this year because it was overcast when it wasn't raining when it wasn't night. |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 02:29 (Ref:3626950) | #153 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,078
|
You know we could just, not have protoypes at all.
Ask me this question, can the GT cars carry the series? We can't have a P1 series in the same way we can't have a American based F1 series, can we? |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 02:54 (Ref:3626954) | #154 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,585
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
25 Mar 2016, 05:55 (Ref:3626966) | #155 | ||||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
The limiting of chassis options (such as in the proposed 2017 P2 rules) is idiotic. Natural selection can - and should - be what drives technical development. But being that the ACO has less interest in advancing the technical development of the P2 category than they do in sustaining the bank accounts of Oreca and Onroak, that didn't happen. And yes, IMSA is far too pricey for such a more open formula to work. But even with these rules, I rather suspect that if somebody went to IMSA and wanted in with a large enough check, IMSA's gonna cash the check and tell them to have at it. Quote:
And as far as the fans not accepting "another decade of tube-framed throwbacks", I'd bet money you and some other diehards care about it far more than anybody else does. I have nothing against ACO cars, but after thirteen seasons and a lot of development in every way possible, this crap about the DPs somehow being intrisically inferior to the LMP2s has got to stop. Seriously folks, if you've seen both, its rather obvious that both are different ways of accomplishing the same objective. |
||||
|
25 Mar 2016, 06:06 (Ref:3626969) | #156 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
LMP1 is ludicrously expensive, LMP2 is just for privateers and rich playboys (and the ACO has made it that much more so now) and LMP3 (is Europe and Asia, it's never coming to IMSA me thinks) is the same only slower and uglier. The ACO's absolutely infuriating demand that somebody be prepared to spend tens of millions of Euros to run in the world's biggest sports car race is going to one day come back to bite them in the backside. To answer your question, yes, I do think the GT cars can carry the series. Hell, make it possible to bring cars like the Ferrari LaFerrari, Porsche 918 Spyder, McLaren P1, Lamborghini Aventador and Pagani Huayra into the sport and you'd probably be making many fans forget all about the prototypes. But to get that, you'd need to allow hybrids, which is a whole new can of technical worms for both the series and the teams. That said, I think one that will end up being the case. I wouldn't be surprised if P1 dies entirely in the next five years, knowing just how ugly Dieselgate is gonna be for VAG and Toyota's history at Le Mans. Now, I'm not hoping for that and could be wrong, but the cost of them is awful high to make a real good business case, and they are impossible for all but the most financially well-endowed privateers to race with. |
|||
|
25 Mar 2016, 06:17 (Ref:3626971) | #157 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
There is an awful lot of ways you can go about the goal of lapping slower than street legal cars from the 90s after all.
Quote:
|
||
|
25 Mar 2016, 09:27 (Ref:3627005) | #158 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
WC Vision -the series' operators- have got things dialed in with GT racing in this country - the fields are so big they're actually causing problems. This is the sort of problem you WANT to have - it's easier to fix the problems stemming from oversized fields than undersized, after all(don't be surprised to see changes in the race groupings next year unless a lot of teams drop out). I have no doubt that PWC could take on and defeat IMSA in a GT-only environment. Besides that, there's just enough interest in prototype racing to support a series if it's well-run and well-promoted, even if it will never be the top dog of US motorsport. The only reason I see GT being a good top class for IMSA is if it were an in-name-only sort of class like late 90s GT1 or the 1970s GTX/Group 5 cars. |
|||
|
25 Mar 2016, 09:31 (Ref:3627009) | #159 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
25 Mar 2016, 09:44 (Ref:3627017) | #160 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Quote:
You can say it is cheap and easy, but Rolex couldn't do it, even using their cars for several seasons with minimal upgrades. Just because you think it should be cheap does not make it cheap. The fact that it hasn't worked here is not Internet discussion, it is observable fact. Where is Your LMP2? Maybe it isn't as cheap or easy as all that .... Quote:
Fact is, what we as fans think Should drive technical development is irrelevant. Money is what drives the whole sport, not the quest for technical development. Technical development is exceedingly expensive---ask any P1 team. The easy gains have been made long ago. In any case, P2 and WTSCC are Not about "technical development." P2 has been a nearly spec class all along, with variations on a Courage chassis mostly, and with very, very tight homologation rules and almost no development. In fact, many people on this board howled about "P2 vs DP" because they were both basically fixed classes, where teams couldn't modify or develop as the season went on ... basically show up in the spring and what you brought, is your car for the season. P2 and DP were both about Affordable racing, cost-contained racing (hence, um, Cost Containment) and about putting drivers in cars and cars on track for a much lower investment than P1. Also, "natural selection" as you put it, is a term about evolution ... it can be stretched to fit other topics. It is not a natural law of business development as it seems to be a natural law of species development. What you are really talking about is businesses should start up, make huge investments in parts and tooling, design, real estate ... and go broke. problem is, people refuse to invest in businesses if they think they are going to go broke. Species cannot opt not to enter into the process; business people often do. This is where a glance at IndyCar is instructive. When IndyCar wanted a new chassis, it sought bids from several manufacturers----two bids, one if they supplied the whole field and another if they produced just some of the three dozen chassis needed. And IndyCar set cost caps No one could afford to build a safe, modern, high-performance open-wheeler and make a profit building anything but the whole field of cars. To Not be the victim of "natural selection" manufacturers would have had to charge more than the teams could afford to pay ... so in that way, i guess, they were naturally not selected. Quote:
Quote:
Fact is, DPs had to be massively upgraded to keep up with even slowed-down P2s, because ... THEY HAD THE AERO OF THE 1990s. Have you not been following the story? Also, reinforced with whatever, they are also exceedingly heavy, but not commensurately strong. Memo Gidley's wreck showed that for all their weight, they are no stronger than a CF-tubbed car weighing a couple hundred kg less. because, for all the CF reinforcement, steel tubing is still not as strong for the weight as CF ... sort of why No One Else building a serious high-level racing car uses a steel tube frame. Let's see ... much heavier but no safer ... needed huge upgrades to even be able to compete with second-rate prototypes .... had the aero of the 1990s ... Dude, I had been watching and attending Rolex races for many years before the merger. No one seriously tried to propose that they were modern cars. They were never designed to be. There is a difference between showing bias and seeing reality. Quote:
Fact is the Rolex series survived only because of NASCAR money and never had more than a third of the fan base of the ALMS. Those are the fact derived from IMSA/TUSCC polling, as well as attendance at the tracks. ALMS had great racing but was badly run as a business. Rolex couldn't attract a fanbase sufficient to pay the bills. Sorry, but that is just how it was. So yeah ... people voted with their wallets against Rolex, just as teams voted with their wallets against ALMS. Fans didn't like DPs in sufficient numbers. Just an observable fact. And as far as P2 and DP just being two routes to the same goal .. sure but then why were P2 cars several seconds per lap faster at all the tracks where both raced, until the DPs were MASSIVELY UPGRADED and the P2s slowed? The numbers are out there. DPsd were much slower cars before the merger, and before the merger, Rolex had no interest in making them faster. Sorry, but those are verifiable facts. Google the lap times at tracks where both ran. Seriously, are we Still debating researchable fact and repeatedly rehashed ancient history? What's the point? |
||||||
|
25 Mar 2016, 10:02 (Ref:3627022) | #161 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
@BrentJackson: Driving technical development> I think we can both agree that efficiency is an important aspect of technical advancement.
P2s use less horsepower and thus less fuel to achieve equal or greater performance. I wholly agree that DPs Can be and Have Been upgraded to be on par in performance with P2s ... but they are still using more power to pull more weight ... and this is after they were updated. Right now the modified Gen-3 DP as used in WTSCC is on par in performance with a P2 ... a weighed-down P2 forced to run on uncongenial tires but a P2 nonetheless. Face it, though ... if You were going to design and build that “it’s not so expensive” chassis you were discussing, you’d never consider a tube frame, because a CF tub is lighter for the same strength. And “lighter for the same strength” is “technical development.” How about we limit the discussion to DPi and not rehash the old “ALMS vs Rolex” series of threads? I don’t hate DPs (I didn’t hate them even when they were exceedingly ugly) but that doesn’t mean I am blind. By the way ... the Gen-3 “manufacturer styling cue” bodywork was Less aerodynamically efficient than the ugly Gen-2 bodywork. again, google it. Then tell me about ”technical development” and how the less aerodynamically efficient car was better. |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 12:07 (Ref:3627058) | #162 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,903
|
Maelochs: The abridged version.
|
||
|
25 Mar 2016, 13:30 (Ref:3627088) | #163 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Abridged version: It is easy to say that building a modern sports racing prototype is cheap. Let’s see the proof.
P2 nor DP were ever about “technical advancement.” They are/were cost-capped economy series and mostly Pro-Am, because without the Am drivers forking over cash they teams couldn’t survive. “Natural Selection” is a biology concept, not a business concept. Business people survey the situation before deciding to start a business, and since so few chassis manufacturers are making any money, most business people do not want to start a race-car business and fail ... they naturally select a better investment opportunity instead. Daytona Prototypes were never as fast as P2s, Google it. Current DPs are about as quick as the IMSA version of P2, with more weight and the wrong tires—but the DPs need more power to achieve the same performance, which means they are less efficient, which is Not technical advancement. DPs’ tube frames weigh more than CF tubs but are no stronger. Less weight, same strength=technical advancement. Fans liked P2s more than DPs by a sizeable margin based both on IMSA polling and at-track attendance. None of this has anything to do with DPi. BrentJacksion hates the DPi rules, and I certainly don’t blame him, but for myself, I choose to try to understand instead of simply hating. I look at IndyCar and what they have been going through with their split and their search for a new chassis—they couldn’t afford even four options—and I realize that while the DPi rules are a painful compromise—as I have already stated repeatedly—I also realize that compromises are necessary if the series is to actually survive as a business. People looking for either Rolex 2.0 OR ALMS 2.0 are asking to repeat failed plans, which would be pretty dumb. If DPi works, then maybe in five or eight years there will be sufficient fan- and sponsor interest to support a top class which includes some kind of development. Right now, the money doesn’t seem to be there. I would sincerely love to be proved wrong ... so please, someone, write that multi-million-dollar check to find that new and improved top class. |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 13:52 (Ref:3627101) | #164 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,483
|
No matter how technically (non) relevant the new DPi formula is gonna be, if IMSA doesn't fix their FCY issues, their races will never be very attracting to sportscar fans (but maybe to stockcar fans instead?)...
|
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 15:22 (Ref:3627132) | #165 | |||
Racer
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 253
|
Quote:
The BOP to get every car equal needs fixing too. Use a table formula for track types like SRO, not the constant race by race formula. Also, the idea of every engine with identical power curves, aero, etc. is the philosophy of "pack racing". How is one supposed to pass or outbrake with identical power, acceleration, breaking, aero? Nascar had that one sort of backfire on them the last couple seasons when winning was determined by: Pit stops, drafting, or avoiding getting caught up in a crash - This is NOT RACING. And it sure isn't attractive |
|||
|
25 Mar 2016, 15:30 (Ref:3627134) | #166 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
You don't really even need bop (not that you need it in any case but...) when you have the lucky dog wave bys for phantom debris.
I guess the end of Sebring this year was exciting, but nowhere near as exciting as if the closeness of the cars had been achieved by non-manufactured pace. Caution clock probably isn't that far away. Then we get FCY every 20 minutes for 20 minutes to pack it up. 2016 - "Trucks" 2017 - Xfinity? 2018 - Sprint Cup? 2019 - K&N + Modifieds? 2020 - IMSA? |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 15:44 (Ref:3627139) | #167 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 86
|
|||
|
25 Mar 2016, 15:46 (Ref:3627141) | #168 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
While DPi cars may not be eligible in the LMP2 class, Fillon hinted that they could potentially be placed in LMP1 Privateer, as a non-hybrid prototype.
“The question is what is the best place for DPi? Is it for P2… or? We have to find a solution. NO. PLEASE NO. Do whatever you want with the spec-nonsense P2 of the future but do not come to ruin LMP1 too with your weird BoP crap and sub-sub cars! This may be the most retarded suggestion yet. I hate everything about it. It's an insult to even suggest it. Last edited by Deleted; 25 Mar 2016 at 15:55. |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 15:54 (Ref:3627144) | #169 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Quote:
It's an insult to use the word "retarded" as an insult. |
||
|
25 Mar 2016, 16:05 (Ref:3627151) | #170 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Anyway, if the ACO is ****ed off at IMSA, it means that IMSA is doing something right as opposed to the ACO when it comes to these chassis.
|
||
|
25 Mar 2016, 16:07 (Ref:3627152) | #171 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
I don't care to start nitpicking with you for the 3000th time.
All I can say, if you bring non-Zytek LMP2 cars to LMP1 under the pretense that it's somehow easier to have them there than with other LMP2, you as regulator are starting to get delusional. I don't understand how he could even bring this up, this is just horrendous. Having ruined LMP2 is one thing, but ruined LMP1 too quite another! Personally, much rather even have that previously brought up artificial "DPi" sub class, or not have non-Zytek LMP2s there at all on the grid, than this nonsense. This is the end of the line. |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 16:09 (Ref:3627154) | #172 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
It's not nitpicking, it's just called being a decent human being.
Sorry dude, not gonna let that one fly in 2016. |
||
|
25 Mar 2016, 16:15 (Ref:3627156) | #173 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/0...hybrid-or.html
The potential of accommodating the DPIs within the non-hybrid LMP1 regulations was also raised as a possible area for discussion but it was clear from the tone of the discussion that the distance between the parties involved is very considerable. The potential for a total split between the prototype fields in IMSA and the FIA WEC is a very real one indeed, and that could very well mean that DPIs may not have a future at the Le Mans 24 Hours . And should remain there. I pray this was just a bad, early April's Fool Joke they all laughed at the coffee table. |
|
|
25 Mar 2016, 16:20 (Ref:3627159) | #174 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Must be time to exclude those ugly frakking fins on the DPi!
L.P. |
||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
25 Mar 2016, 16:25 (Ref:3627163) | #175 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IMSA DPi/P2 vs WEC LMP1-L | Danathar | Sportscar & GT Racing | 7 | 5 Nov 2015 17:55 |
New Rules - Discussion | DKGandBH | Formula One | 28 | 19 Jan 2005 01:40 |