LMP2 Manufacturers and Engine Suppliers

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by joeb

It does seem odd to limit the market to 4 companies if they don't bother to offer chassis. Are the conditions that made the ACO move to a limited construction basis a few years ago still in place? or has the sportscar and economic world moved to a place where other scenarios should be considered?

the 4 lmp2 manufacturers have been assigned in 2015 if I recall correctly, since none else recently approached ACO, guess ACO just renewed them without thinking twice. At the moment lmp2 is an oreca monopoly, lmp3 is an onroak monopoly and it's quite impossible to expect some changes for next lmp2 gen, also because dallara doesn't probably care at all since they are more involved on producing and supply >200 cars a year between indy, F2, F3, FE, superformula, spare chassis and parts for haas cars demolished by mick schumacher etc. Multimatic is tied with porsche and they got too big to pay attention on private teams racing programs.

[tux]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Are you asking if the ACO is in touch with the 'real racing world'? Cause if so I have 3 letters (well actually 2 letters + 1 number haha) in response for you!

The watchmaker will just come up with something new like LMP3 chassis with manufacturer badges on them. LOOK AT MY LOVELY Oreca LMP3 Nissan-Renault

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The conditions are in place yeah. 4 constructors and you're only allowed 1 upgrade package to your car. So the cars are what they are now, and that's it.

Realistically you can't buy anything but ORECA because the demand for the cars is so low that building and servicing them isn't worth Dallara/Ligier/Multimatics time.

By limiting who is licensed to build them, and disallowing upgrades during the lifetime of the car (apart from the one joker), you force everyone to take the best car and that's it. LMP2 was varied before because people would then come along a year or two later with a better car - costs were fine because there was so much choice there was always an option. The costs now are higher as everyones cars cost the full cost cap and that's it.

There's a nice conspiracy to be had with it being ORECA too of course. This car started life in the old regulations, was upgraded to P1, and then adapted to a P2. ORECA had a big head-start on everyone else.

Thus we'll get the semi-annual AoP for the next gen. Sadly it is really the only option to get the desired goals of cost restraint (millions rather than 100s of millions) and multiple chassis. Have to wonder if the biggest pusher of that was actually Oreca, although only having one GTP car and in IMSA only with no mention of customer sales will help.

[Coach Ep]

The new Ferrari GT3 program will bring in boatloads of revenue for Oreca in the foreseeable future. Don't worry about Hugh de Rockenfeller!

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

The new Ferrari GT3 program will bring in boatloads of revenue for Oreca in the foreseeable future. Don't worry about Hugh de Rockenfeller!

That's what I meant, Oreca has other things to do and higher profit margins in GT cars. They want the others to sell and take some complaints from them when they tell a guy shove off for spares for his Oreca.

[Mike E]

Oreca will also be the base for the Alpine LMDh

[Koenigsegg]

Originally Posted by canaglia

the 4 lmp2 manufacturers have been assigned in 2015 if I recall correctly, since none else recently approached ACO, guess ACO just renewed them without thinking twice. At the moment lmp2 is an oreca monopoly, lmp3 is an onroak monopoly and it's quite impossible to expect some changes for next lmp2 gen, also because dallara doesn't probably care at all since they are more involved on producing and supply >200 cars a year between indy, F2, F3, FE, superformula, spare chassis and parts for haas cars demolished by mick schumacher etc. Multimatic is tied with porsche and they got too big to pay attention on private teams racing programs.

Ginetta was quite vocal about them not being allowed in, since there wasn't a tender process.

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...gen-lmp2-regs/

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Koenigsegg

Ginetta was quite vocal about them not being allowed in, since there wasn't a tender process.

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...gen-lmp2-regs/

Didn't know that, well not a big loss anyhow.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Didn't know that, well not a big loss anyhow.

The Ginettas (nee Zyteks) were very competitive in the pre-cartel P2 era before the constructor was shafted by the ACO and it turned its focus to the good-looking but poorly funded LMP1 effort. There's no reason to believe Ginetta wouldn't have been able to deliver a quality P2 product if given an equally fair opportunity like the other four constructors.



And you can add BR/SMP to that same short list as well.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

The Ginettas (nee Zyteks) were very competitive in the pre-cartel P2 era before the constructor was shafted by the ACO and it turned its focus to the good-looking but poorly funded LMP1 effort. There's no reason to believe Ginetta wouldn't have been able to deliver a quality P2 product if given an equally fair opportunity like the other four constructors.



And you can add BR/SMP to that same short list as well.

As detectable in this very forum, I've always been very critical about most if not basically every decision that ACO took in the last 10 years, but honestly this time I can't blame ACO if they didn't take seriously the lmp2 supplier candidature of a company that struggled a lot even to produce and put on grid a couple of cars for their own racing program...

About BR, they designed and made only 4 chassis of BR01 (the lmp2 car) that in the initial plans had to be a shared lmp2/lmp1 platform, but since the car wasn't that great at all, then they dropped everything in favour of a dallara designed/made car (BR1 lmp1). Beyond anything technically related, we won't see stuff from russia for a long while anyhow. (As it should be).

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by canaglia

As detectable in this very forum, I've always been very critical about most if not basically every decision that ACO took in the last 10 years, but honestly this time I can't blame ACO if they didn't take seriously the lmp2 supplier candidature of a company that struggled a lot even to produce and put on grid a couple of cars for their own racing program...

About BR, they designed and made only 4 chassis of BR01 (the lmp2 car) that in the initial plans had to be a shared lmp2/lmp1 platform, but since the car wasn't that great at all, then they dropped everything in favour of a dallara designed/made car (BR1 lmp1). Beyond anything technically related, we won't see stuff from russia for a long while anyhow. (As it should be).

You have your timeline mixed up - the Ginetta/Zytek/Gibson P2s pre-cartel era were genuine contenders in the hands of Jota, Greaves and Strakka. Wins at Le Mans in 2011 and 2014 + the ELMS title in 2011 are testament to that claim. Only after the 2017 rule change to limit the number of P2 constructors to four, Ginetta got in troubled waters with their infamous P3 Oreca engine quarrel and the ill fated P1 program.

And for what it's worth, the BR P2 came up strong right in the second year of its short lifespan (which was cut short dramatically by the new regulations) with a pole at the 2016 Rolex 24H and a late ELMS season podium finish.

Neither constructor deserved to be left out based on their credentials, especially given the fact that neither Dallara and Riley/Multimatic had been active in the P2 market at that point.

Anyways, it's all water under the bridge now.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

You have your timeline mixed up - the Ginetta/Zytek/Gibson P2s pre-cartel era were genuine contenders in the hands of Jota, Greaves and Strakka. Wins at Le Mans in 2011 and 2014 + the ELMS title in 2011 are testament to that claim. Only after the 2017 rule change to limit the number of P2 constructors to four, Ginetta got in troubled waters with their infamous P3 Oreca engine quarrel and the ill fated P1 program.

And for what it's worth, the BR P2 came up strong right in the second year of its short lifespan (which was cut short dramatically by the new regulations) with a pole at the 2016 Rolex 24H and a late ELMS season podium finish.

Neither constructor deserved to be left out based on their credentials, especially given the fact that neither Dallara and Riley/Multimatic had been active in the P2 market at that point.

Anyways, it's all water under the bridge now.

Trust me, it's you the one who is mixing up things, throwing on the table unaccurate things that are completely unrelated to the actual topic... anyway,

1) the open ginetta lmp2 cars you're mentioning that competed during 2011-2016 years were actually zytek Z11SN (later rebranded gibson 015S). Those cars were nothing else than old 09 chassis updated to new specs, so in this case it wasn't about a more "inclusive" lmp2 market... it was about updated old cars running around for some longer.

2) I suggest you to dig deeper in your data because you're ignoring that br01 got daytona 2016 pole for the simple reason that the more powerful riley, corvette dp and ligier-HPD were barely able to stay on track because of the rain... performance-wise that car was nowhere at daytona.
And anyway... well if SMP dropped BR in favour of dallara... guess there was a reason.


3) in general I think that the 4 manufacturers rule is not fair, but watching the reality, as always happens also in other contexts, at the end it's the market that creates its own rules... in a way or another oreca would have got its monopoly even if there were 10 lmp2 manufacturers involved. But if you ask me, I think ginetta of last 5 years was nowhere in the position of being a reliable manufacturer... it's true, dallara and multimatic hadn't much interest in lmp2, but ginetta was (and probably still is) simply broke. How could ACO be positive about a manufacturer that barely managed to produce their own chassis and relying every time on paying drivers?

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Trust me, it's you the one who is mixing up things, throwing on the table unaccurate things that are completely unrelated to the actual topic... anyway,

1) the open ginetta lmp2 cars you're mentioning that competed during 2011-2016 years were actually zytek Z11SN (later rebranded gibson 015S). Those cars were nothing else than old 09 chassis updated to new specs, so in this case it wasn't about a more "inclusive" lmp2 market... it was about updated old cars running around for some longer.

2) I suggest you to dig deeper in your data because you're ignoring that br01 got daytona 2016 pole for the simple reason that the more powerful riley, corvette dp and ligier-HPD were barely able to stay on track because of the rain... performance-wise that car was nowhere at daytona.
And anyway... well if SMP dropped BR in favour of dallara... guess there was a reason.


3) in general I think that the 4 manufacturers rule is not fair, but watching the reality, as always happens also in other contexts, at the end it's the market that creates its own rules... in a way or another oreca would have got its monopoly even if there were 10 lmp2 manufacturers involved. But if you ask me, I think ginetta of last 5 years was nowhere in the position of being a reliable manufacturer... it's true, dallara and multimatic hadn't much interest in lmp2, but ginetta was (and probably still is) simply broke. How could ACO be positive about a manufacturer that barely managed to produce their own chassis and relying every time on paying drivers?

SMP is BR, that's the damn owner of SMP Racing, Boris Rotenberg. He didn't drop anything, the BR01 was no longer eligible as it wasn't within the regs. If you want to pretend you're the bastion of knowledge you should at least have a clue what you're spouting off about

[canaglia]

PS. forgto to mention that you wrote another thing not true

"in the second year of its short lifespan (which was cut short dramatically by the new regulations)"

that's simply wrong, br01 lifetime wasn't short cut strongly by the new regs, because br01 chassis was made according to 2014-2019 lmp1 regs... infact as I've written, 4 chassis were made because according to their plan, br01 had to be a shared platform for the br01 lmp2 and the next br01 lmp1.
It's SMP/BR that short cut its life, because disappointed by their own made car.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

SMP is BR, that's the damn owner of SMP Racing, Boris Rotenberg. He didn't drop anything, the BR01 was no longer eligible as it wasn't within the regs. If you want to pretend you're the bastion of knowledge you should at least have a clue what you're spouting off about

BR01 was only designed by Catone hired by BR, the car itself was actually made by ARS Tech according to lmp1 2014-2019 regs. In SMP initial intention br01 had to be used as lmp2 first and as lmp1 later.
Please stop your childish crusade against me... can't you realize it's just you among over 100 users here who are having this silly and hostile attitude?
You're just making a fool of your self beyond idiotic (your own word). If you're through any psychological problem, I could suggest you to ask for help... don't know some anger management treatment program maybe... these issues should be healed instead of projected on some online forum completely stranger person as I am for you... what do you really aim to achieve acting like this? Do you think I or all other users here may really care of all this low effort hostility of yours?

[joeb]

Alright people enough about who knows what. There is a whole section of the forum dedicated to motorsports history, if you want to talk about who made what take it over there.

https://tentenths.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=75

[Graham Goodwin]

OK - some facts - from the horses mouth as it were (ie from within the BR organisation)

The BR01 would have carried on with development if the regs had not changed for 2017 - that's the only reason SMP switched to the Dallara chassis btw

They built more than 4 chassis - in fact five were sold to BBM Sport and their backers for onward sale

Ref the Daytona pole - The DPs and LMP2s were BoPed together - it is not correct to say that the LMP2s were uncompetitive - in fact LMP2 cars won three of the four enduros that year. It was indeed wet for qualifying at the Rolex - in fact the Prototype pole time was slower than the GTLMs which qualified before the rain came.

The BR was hobbled in its early life by an inability to run on the then-dominant Dunlops - a legacy of sanctions against Boris Rotenberg - That changed into its second season and the car was instantly on the pace.

The BR and the Strakka Dome S103 were the cars that persuaded the ACO to implement the changes to the LMP2 formula for 2017, they were concerned that a motivated team or individual could dominate by funding a factory-level effort in a class designed as high-level customer racing.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

OK - some facts - from the horses mouth as it were (ie from within the BR organisation)

The BR01 would have carried on with development if the regs had not changed for 2017 - that's the only reason SMP switched to the Dallara chassis btw


what does this mean? 2017 lmp2 regs were decided in 2014 and made official in 2015, br01 was already designed and made to be lmp1 compatible, and as far I recall no changes were made in 2017 for lmp1.


They built more than 4 chassis - in fact five were sold to BBM Sport and their backers for onward sale

Ref the Daytona pole - The DPs and LMP2s were BoPed together - it is not correct to say that the LMP2s were uncompetitive - in fact LMP2 cars won three of the four enduros that year. It was indeed wet for qualifying at the Rolex - in fact the Prototype pole time was slower than the GTLMs which qualified before the rain came.


if you're writing about the ESM and MSR ligier-HPD, that car wasn't an ACO lmp2 because it was powered by the 3.5L HPD with a dp comparable power level bop. In general ACO lmp2 never were competitive during 2014-2016 IMSA convergence years. Br01 daytona pole was given by unsual circumstances because of the heavy rain.


The BR was hobbled in its early life by an inability to run on the then-dominant Dunlops - a legacy of sanctions against Boris Rotenberg - That changed into its second season and the car was instantly on the pace.

The BR and the Strakka Dome S103 were the cars that persuaded the ACO to implement the changes to the LMP2 formula for 2017, they were concerned that a motivated team or individual could dominate by funding a factory-level effort in a class designed as high-level customer racing.

honestly have big doubts about this, 2017 lmp2 rules were decided long before and I don't think they were done for this reason... not to mention that strakka dome s103 was a failure car that had a nightmare development, it was one of a kind in good and bad.

Replies in bold, I want to clarify that if I rebut about something it's not a direct attack to the person/user.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

The BR and the Strakka Dome S103 were the cars that persuaded the ACO to implement the changes to the LMP2 formula for 2017, they were concerned that a motivated team or individual could dominate by funding a factory-level effort in a class designed as high-level customer racing.

Thanks Graham for providing adequate background info. Wasn't there a cost-cap in effect already for P2 prior to 2017?

[Graham Goodwin]

Ref the HPd etc BoP - BoP is BoP - HPD engined cars ran in ACO series against the Judds and Nissans

Ref the timing of the regs - remember that ACO will have been aware of the plans of the potential entrants from Dome/ BR before the rules for 2017 were finalised - I can tell you that it was VERY clear indeed that these were 'unwelcome' projects.

Ref plans for LMP1 version of the car - and there was a parallel plan for the Strakka car - I can speak to the Stakka reasons for not going forward - and wrote about it https://www.dailysportscar.com/2020/...103b-lmp1.html

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Ref the HPd etc BoP - BoP is BoP - HPD engined cars ran in ACO series against the Judds and Nissans

Ref the timing of the regs - remember that ACO will have been aware of the plans of the potential entrants from Dome/ BR before the rules for 2017 were finalised - I can tell you that it was VERY clear indeed that these were 'unwelcome' projects.

Ref plans for LMP1 version of the car - and there was a parallel plan for the Strakka car - I can speak to the Stakka reasons for not going forward - and wrote about it https://www.dailysportscar.com/2020/...103b-lmp1.html

Sorry, but no, ESM and MSR ligier-HPD that ran in IMSA 2016 used the HPD 3.5L V6 turbo, an enlarged version of the 2.8L engine used in ACO lmp2, the same engine later used in acura dpi. Both are enlarged and racing tuned version of an old unit used in cars like honda accord iirc.
That 3.5L engine was used only in IMSA because it wasn't allowed in ACO WEC/ELMS/LM where the only engines allowed were the nissan-zytek 4.5L V8, the bwm-judd 3.6L V8 and the HPD 2.8L V6 turbo.
ACO nissan/bmw/HPD powered lmp2 were in the range of 500-520hp, the ESM/MSR ligier-HPD were by bop in the same dp range of 550-560hp, that's why that car wax extremely competitive during 2016 IMSA and it isn't comparable to ACO lmp2 cars.
Unlike BR01 data that is not so easy to discover around, you can fact-check the IMSA ligier-HPD in a couple of minute.

You're writing nothing new... dome, zytek, wirth and many others revealed lmp1 and lmp2 coupè projects in early-mid 10's but none of them managed to see the sunlight. I usually don't comment things I don't know, and of course ACO made the 4 manufacturers rule to make lmp2 class more somehow standardized, cost controlled and overall better organized. I just find unlikely they made that because they were scared by failure private projects like dome-strakka, kind of cars that ACO couldn't however prevent to run in lmp1 if they were made with homologable chassis since there have been lmp2 with lmp1 specs chassis before 2017 like oreca05, adess lmp2 and br01.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong about this, it's I just can't give a better opinion.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Sorry, but no, ESM and MSR ligier-HPD that ran in IMSA 2016 used the HPD 3.5L V6 turbo, an enlarged version of the 2.8L engine used in ACO lmp2, the same engine later used in acura dpi. Both are enlarged and racing tuned version of an old unit used in cars like honda accord iirc.
That 3.5L engine was used only in IMSA because it wasn't allowed in ACO WEC/ELMS/LM where the only engines allowed were the nissan-zytek 4.5L V8, the bwm-judd 3.6L V8 and the HPD 2.8L V6 turbo.
ACO nissan/bmw/HPD powered lmp2 were in the range of 500-520hp, the ESM/MSR ligier-HPD were by bop in the same dp range of 550-560hp, that's why that car wax extremely competitive during 2016 IMSA and it isn't comparable to ACO lmp2 cars.
Unlike BR01 data that is not so easy to discover around, you can fact-check the IMSA ligier-HPD in a couple of minute.

You're writing nothing new... dome, zytek, wirth and many others revealed lmp1 and lmp2 coupè projects in early-mid 10's but none of them managed to see the sunlight. I usually don't comment things I don't know, and of course ACO made the 4 manufacturers rule to make lmp2 class more somehow standardized, cost controlled and overall better organized. I just find unlikely they made that because they were scared by failure private projects like dome-strakka, kind of cars that ACO couldn't however prevent to run in lmp1 if they were made with homologable chassis since there have been lmp2 with lmp1 specs chassis before 2017 like oreca05, adess lmp2 and br01.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong about this, it's I just can't give a better opinion.

Ref the LMP1 point - read the Strakka article linked - it makes it clear that the economies of scale accelerated away from affordability

Ref the motivations - try this for size - when the new proposals for 2017 were published the ACO called a meeting to discuss them with teams - Neither Strakka nor SMP were invited

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Ref the LMP1 point - read the Strakka article linked - it makes it clear that the economies of scale accelerated away from affordability

Ref the motivations - try this for size - when the new proposals for 2017 were published the ACO called a meeting to discuss them with teams - Neither Strakka nor SMP were invited

As said, I don't think you're wrong, I think we're seeing same thing on a different perspective... I think that ACO already decided to move to the 4 manufacturers lmp2 anyhow, the fact they cut off unwanted potential partners was a consequence of the decision, not the cause.
I mean it's not ACO long term plans were influenced by another dome-strakka like that barely could keep pieces together.
And about lmp1, yes economical affordability, technical issues and in general the fact none was ever going to buy those private lmp1 was the main reasons of those project never went beyond conceptual stage.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by canaglia

As said, I don't think you're wrong, I think we're seeing same thing on a different perspective...

In that case, perhaps we can move on......

[Mike E]

'“We will make an adjustment twice a year, just to adjust the performance of the car, but it’s not BoP. We will play just with power probably.

“It is the case in LMP3. We want that all have the same chance to win in the long term.”'

Will power adjustment be enough? Seems optimistic. But maybe the starting point of this next generation will be more equal.

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...chance-to-win/