IMSA DPi Discussion

[Akrapovic]

Hey it was somebody else who talked about the Mazda engine and the legality of it. I'm just pointing out that just because IMSA allows something, doesn't mean the ACO should. And I don't see how this changes for DPi. They aren't LMP1s and shouldn't be in there. And this'll only get more complicated when a manufacture backed team wants into LMP1, as the non-hybrid cars are meant to be private only.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Chiana

No they don't. You are reading into some kind of myth.



What are you talking about?

Isn't the R1 chassis very similar to the Oreca 05?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by joeb

Isn't the R1 chassis very similar to the Oreca 05?

R1 is basically Oreca 04.

Yeah they are similar, but not the same, different ideologies. Kinda like the old Lola LMP1s and P2s. And in any case we shouldn't be comparing old regs to new ones.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Chiana

R1 is basically Oreca 04.

Yeah they are similar, but not the same, different ideologies. Kinda like the old Lola LMP1s and P2s. And in any case we shouldn't be comparing old regs to new ones.

It's the 05, not the 04.

[Maelochs]

Okay.

First off, IMSA has decided (quite wisely IMO) to depart from the ACO specs. As I have been pointing out and as Mark Raffauf also emphasized, IMSA needs a top class, not a low-cost pro-Am filed-filler class like P2 ends up being.

Great. So, when IMSA goes to France, it cannot complain that ACO sticks with its own classes ... or sticks DPi in some adjunct class like P1-privateer. Why should ACO make a bunch of bother to fit willfully non-compliant cars into their existing structures? If IMSA teams want to play on ACO’s court, they need to play by ACO’s rules.

Likewise if ACO/WEC teams bring their cars here, shouldn’t they run by IMSA rules? if a WEC?ELMS team brings a Multimatic-Gibson with an all-pro line-up, illegal in Europe, we wouldn’t have any problem with that, right? Play by the rules of the series where you are racing.

No way the ACO can let DPis race head-to-head with P2s, for the same reason IMSA can’t let P1s race with DPis ... it would make the class look bad and steal all the glory from the regulars. For the good of the teams which support WEC and ELMS, DPis cannot be run as P2s ... unless they want to buy Gibson engines and stock bodywork.

I don’t see the issue with sticking DPis in with p1 privateers ... after all, IMSA cars need to accommodate ACO rules, not the other way around. Maybe they won’t have a chance to win ... but if they Really wanted a class win at Le Mans, they should have rented a le mans-legal car ... Just like any WEC/ELMS car coming to North America will need a DPi to compete for overall wins in IMSA races.

Basically, everyone has to make choices. people who want IMSA to be independent (and not put a field of identical cars out there in 2107) need to accept that this means they are not running ACO-compliant cars.

Some people here seem to want it all one way: ACO adapts to IMSA rukles for Le Mans, and ACO lets IMSA run its own rules at home.

At the same time, if ACO said IMSA needed to run ACO rules at Le Mans And in WTSCC, we hear nothing but protest and complaint.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

It's the 05, not the 04.

???

Oreca 01 = Oreca 01 LMP1 (derived from Courage LC70)
Oreca 02 = Oreca FLM09 LMPC (derived from Courage LC75)
Oreca 03 = Oreca 03 LMP2 (derived from Courage LC75)
Oreca 04 = Rebellion R-One Coupe LMP1
Oreca 05 = Oreca 05 Coupe LMP2

"Official" Oreca 02 LMP1 (2011) obviously got canned in stillborn state so that above is just my semi-reasonable numbering take on it, as is "Oreca 04" to logically fill the gap between the old open top and 05 LMP2. But the R-One is different to 05, that's clear

[Maelochs]

Further ... to me the biggest deal with a common platform is not that every car is eligible in every series everywhere in the world. Individual sanctioning bodies need to put on a show which suits the fans of that region. Blindly following France in North America didn’t work to well in the recent past, eh?

The big benefit of the common platform is that it keeps costs down at a time when interest in and thus investment in racing seems not to be particularly robust.

I am NOT a fan of cost-containment ... as a fan. As a fan I want unlimited development, radical changes in every car for every race, people dreaming up weird new ways to escape the rules and find a few more horsepower or a few fewer seconds per lap.

Jim Hall, the various F1 six-wheelers, the Shadows ... the sucker-fan F1 Alfa, while it lasted .... I love that stuff.

However, the realist in me says, “If sports car racing costs more than it makes, only NASCAR will be left.” ‘Nuff said?

Sure, multi-billionaires from Russia can evade cost-cap rules and build non-production one-off P2s, and a lot of different companies released variations on the old Courage L-75 or whatever, and adapted them for an extra decade of life ... but there just aren’t that many companies willing to do the development, supply the parts, and take the business risk involved with producing a sports car chassis, knowing the competition is intense and the rules change so frequently that last year’s product might not be saleable next year. (HPD ARX-04, anyone?)

Not saying I agree with or approve of the ACO solution, but it makes sense. Four companies should be enough to meet the needs of all the various P2 teams, and hopefully only one of them will go broke because everyone likes the others.

Actually of course, none of them will actually go broke because they all have multiple revenue streams ... which is real excellent, because it means they will still be around to manufacture spares and design upgrades for the life of the chassis.

Like DPi rules, new P2 rules are a compromise ... but a necessary compromise. The sport needs to survive as a business, and it needs to be lean enough to survive in the lean years so it is around to take advantage of the better times.

Fans should be fans ... but it helps if at times they can also be realists. it helps ... The Fans, because if they cannot accept the realities of the times they will be bitter and caustic and ... fit right in here at Ten-Tenths.

[Rcz]

Bring back Can-Am!

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

No way the ACO can let DPis race head-to-head with P2s, for the same reason IMSA can’t let P1s race with DPis ... it would make the class look bad and steal all the glory from the regulars. For the good of the teams which support WEC and ELMS, DPis cannot be run as P2s ... unless they want to buy Gibson engines and stock bodywork.

Yet, somehow this magically wouldn't apply to Le Mans if you had the US-OEM-whatever-P2s competing against/with privateer LMP1s?

Originally Posted by Maelochs

I don’t see the issue with sticking DPis in with p1 privateers ...

Because they would be LMP2 cars racing in LMP1. I don't care how far the truth is being squeezed with the whole DPi thing, but that's the reality. Enough with the sub-sub classes and unnecessarily complex integrations. Also

Scenario 1)
BoP is not applied and the American cars are hopelessly crap against the non-hybrid P1s, leaving to endless moaning from Americans.

Scenario 2)
BoP is moderately applied and it becomes same wildly bouncing fiasco as it has been between DP-P2, leaving to endless moaning from everybody.

Scenario 3)
BoP is heavily applied, probably to the level of handicap-spec-rules for non-hybrid P1s, and the technological supercars are turned into jokes against cheap second hand spec cars running fake stickers, leaving to endless moaning from P1s (and ACO fans)

Then you would have the Euro LMP2 teams, and maybe some of the IMSA teams buying into the spec rules in the actual LMP2 class, they would cry why some Americans can get higher in overall hierarchy than them, free of charge even, plus run some components of their own choosing. Even though those teams actually would fully nod to the ACO and not have the "we do whatever we want" attitude like the "DPis".

And lastly you would have, even if in very mild form, factory-supported P2s in your LMP classification, which has been for years what ACO has been attempting to prevent.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Basically, everyone has to make choices. people who want IMSA to be independent (and not put a field of identical cars out there in 2107) need to accept that this means they are not running ACO-compliant cars.

They may then also be ready to cut this timeframe, and the promises inside it in half
http://www.racer.com/wec-le-mans/ite...-for-six-years

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Further ... to me the biggest deal with a common platform is not that every car is eligible in every series everywhere in the world. Individual sanctioning bodies need to put on a show which suits the fans of that region. Blindly following France in North America didn’t work to well in the recent past, eh?

I thought it did for the most part

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Actually of course, none of them will actually go broke because they all have multiple revenue streams ... which is real excellent, because it means they will still be around to manufacture spares and design upgrades for the life of the chassis.

Just because there's less chassis options to choose from doesn't mean automatic dollar signs. Especially in States where you will place fake body on top of it that hides the real car somewhere, and it's all performance balanced anyway, there's no specific reason to buy say Dallara over Oreca or whatever. It isn't quaranteed to sell half or even third of the amount of the French.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Like DPi rules, new P2 rules are a compromise ... but a necessary compromise. The sport needs to survive as a business, and it needs to be lean enough to survive in the lean years so it is around to take advantage of the better times.

What necessary compromise? Nobody (in Europe) wanted this, except the certain involved parties cashing in of course.

Old LMP2 was doing just fine and you even had decade old open tops still running, and with almost no hatred as you had with DPs on the other side of the pond.

[jee]

Why not just allow them to run in the DPi class at the LeMans 24?
Other than there is a new class not starting with LM in its name, it should not be much of an issue?
That way they could also work round driver restrictions (no bronze in LMP1 and required bronze/silver driver in LMP2)

[Matt]

holy moly you are salty about something that doesnt affect your daily life one iota.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by jee

Why not just allow them to run in the DPi class at the LeMans 24?
Other than there is a new class not starting with LM in its name, it should not be much of an issue?
That way they could also work round driver restrictions (no bronze in LMP1 and required bronze/silver driver in LMP2)

I wouldn't like yet another sub-sub-class, like we already have in LMP1 and LMGTE, but certainly this would be less pathetic than directly fielding them against LMP1 non-hybrid.

You could call the class LMGTP again. If NASCAR can title them DPis even though they are obviously LMP2s under the hood, then ACO can call them whatever they want too in their own backyard.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Matt

holy moly you are salty about something that doesnt affect your daily life one iota.

Internet forums: serious business.

[Rcz]

If the DPi are no longer P2 compliant, then they shouldn't have to use the 4 chassis limit rule then. That was the agreement, yes?

I feel some limits are necessary. Do we really want a aero war for example? It already cost HPD. Even P1 has some limitations.

[Deleted]

You know, if IMSA says they don't want to respect the ACO rules too much, yet still insist on just having the same four selected chassis makers, it indeed really does show middle finger to the likes of HPD that don't care a dime about their OEM-bodywork plans, and would like to field a real car of their own instead.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Rcz

If the DPi are no longer P2 compliant, then they shouldn't have to use the 4 chassis limit rule then. That was the agreement, yes?

I feel some limits are necessary. Do we really want a aero war for example? It already cost HPD. Even P1 has some limitations.

The 4 chassis constructors was for the 'economics of scale' considerations and won't be changed.





L.P.

[Deleted]

Except if you're Deltawing of course.

[MaskedRacer]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Except if you're Deltawing of course.

I got fingers crossed that they go with a new Panoz GTR1 to race.

[Deleted]

They would probably be allowed to run the 90's GT1 car in "Prototype" if Don just asked during dinner.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by MaskedRacer

I got fingers crossed that they go with a new Panoz GTR1 to race.

Grandfathering..... if anything.







L.P.

[carbsmith]

A 2017 LMP2 car is in all but the smallest details a homologated and cost capped 2016 LMP1 running a spec engine and a higher weight limit. There are some small safety changes being made to the tubs for 2017 LMP1s but the current cars will be grandfathered at least a year anyways. A DPi running custom bodywork is that car with a non-spec engine and broken (ACO) homologation, what does that make it by default?

It's a ridiculously pedantic argument. We've had LMP675s and LMP2s corralled into LMP1 twice before already when the two were much more distinct.




Anyways the FIA and ACO have made plenty of effort to make this work
http://www.fia.com/news/2017-lmp2-re...ctors-selected
They went out of their way to pick a North American builder and make sure the cars would be available in time for IMSA even. But the problem right now is that IMSA wants to do something that interferes with their ability to BoP the engines accurately, and they're not going to let them show up with factory backed cars and spank the WEC, ELMS, and AsLMS teams because they managed to cheat the process. They can go chase Bykolles in P1 cars that are worse than P2s in every way but horsepower instead.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

It's a ridiculously pedantic argument. We've had LMP675s and LMP2s corralled into LMP1 twice before already when the two were much more distinct.

The first instance was due to entire LMP class structure overhaul. The reasoning give here isn't nonsensical like this supposed P2/"DPi"-P1 integration is. There is a correlation where they slot into.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2004LMP12.pdf
+ (plan)




The second point is meaningless as that 2010 rule was for ALMS only, not in official ACO rules, and even in the ILMC race at Petit (+Sebring earlier in the year) the combined-LMP class splitted into official ACO LMP1 and LMP2 again with all the cars slotting to their own places.



As for the other points in your posts, I don't agree with any of them

[TF110]

DPi could be p1. But the aco want manufacturers to run hybrids. Some makes don't feel they should do that. Plus Audi spends so much money you'd have to get a billion dollar budget just to compete. Along comes imsa's dpi invention for manufacturers to enter their top class on the cheap. Yeah, it's easy to see why the aco gets a little ****ed at that. Imo, they would work in p1, but not with the rules as they are. It's too bad that both parties cant come together on this.

[CyberMotor]

I don't think the purpose is to replace P1 but I do think DPi could join the 21st century and get into the game of designing and building mega-efficient automobiles. It does not have to be as exotic and advanced as ACO P1 but I think the DPi concept without any acknowledgement of hybrid is old-school, out-dated and a bit foolish.

If IMSA is attempting to start a new offshoot, it should have 21st century technology if it wants to be taken seriously.

I can understand not wanting to duplicate the stratospheric costs of P1, but there is a lot of room between P1 and DP.

One example I've thought of is putting photovoltaic arrays on top of the transporters so that they can generate enough electricity to mostly power the team during a weekend. Add a few wind turbines for the cloudy times and you have a mobile power station.

For a sport that touts itself as leading-edge, relevant and being a test-bed of new technologies, there are many possible ways for the sport to do so. It would make for some good press which the millennials (your future fans) would understand.

[BrentJackson]

Originally Posted by Rcz

They might take sponser away from WEC and put it in that little regional minor league series.

And THIS is why the ACO is ****ed off about the DPi getting manufacturer interest - they feel that interest belongs in €100 million P1-H programs and in the WEC.

And its precisely why, if this really is what the ACO is demanding, that IMSA should go its own way in its entirety. Stay with the basic dimensions so the four chassis can compete, along with any and all current closed-roof P2 cars, and allow anybody else who has an interest into the category.