07 First ALMS(IMSA) Competition Bulletins of the season

[HORNDAWG]

IMSA Bulletin ALMS # 07-01 Adjustments Per Year
http://www.imsaracing.net/2007/alms/...in%2007-01.pdf

IMSA Bulletin ALMS # 07-02 GT Starting points
http://www.imsaracing.net/2007/alms/...in%2007-02.pdf

IMSA Bulletin ALMS # 07-03 Fuel
http://www.imsaracing.net/2007/alms/...in%2007-03.pdf



L.P.
Thanx jeff

[chewymonster]

Why bother making superior cars? How slow can we make the fastest car in each class go?

[Bob Riebe]

Pathetic.

I hope Chevy leaves, and leaves these boys to figure out what the hell went wrong.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Pathetic.

I hope Chevy leaves, and leaves these boys to figure out what the hell went wrong.

I agree, even though it looks like IMSA wants all cars to be within a second of each other (which has potential to make for some great racing) it will be hard to justify spending money for factory teams as it is very much possible that race victories will be just taken away from you. Of course I am sure in the end the quicker car will win the championship, there will be time period when your car is likely to lose a race because of the adjustments. And the potential adjustments can make a car very much slower.

[The359]

At least they are limiting their changes to performance balancing by apparently only allowing 2 changes two a class per season.

So even if they make a change, teams will still have to overcome their problems for a couple races.

Also good that we are starting with the ACO's weights and regulations at the start of 2007. If Aston Martin or Corvette are falling behind, at the very least I hope that IMSA will decide to increase weight on the faster car, instead of decreasing weight on the slower car, so that both cars can remain within ACO regulations and not get screwed on auto invitations.

[broadrun96]

Def agree with the above recommendation about increasing weight but not decreasing the slower cars, no need to get anybody else excluded. But it does seem that doing nuttin or only a little (R10 for instance) or doing whatever they want(GT1) seems to just get everybody ticked off. Shouldn't the 1%, not 1 sec, rule allow for some decent flexibility for the rules making and still allow the teams to tweak to gain the restriction back again. Personally I think most adjustment, if not all, should be weight addition. That way should Corvette be faster and slowed with ballast, if they want to gain back some speed by dialing more power in and risking the engine they have an option. Engine restriction seems a little more a lack of ideas then a solution. Also, and I know this is the ALMS/IMSA rules page, but the restriction of LMP2 to being slower is just stupid. I think seeing the lighter, less powerful but maybe more nimble car mixing it up with the bigger brothers for the overall is a great idea. Le Mans would prob negate any chanceof the LMP2 challenge but at smaller tighter tracks we have already seen the Porsches take it to a, albeit restricted R8, LMP1 car.

[chewymonster]

The 1% target rule turns out to be around 1 second on any track give or take a few tenths. They did say that weight change will be the first change, before restrictor/boost, but only 25 kg at a time if I read that right. But, the rules do allow to make cars much, much slower or faster artificially. We will have to wait to see what happens, but I am sure a lot of teams/people won't be happy.

[The359]

I think the problem is that some classes like LMP1 really need it in my opinion, while classes like GT1 don't need it so much. So I think IMSA has at least tried to find a middle ground that can please people a lot more then it did last year with them making changes all the time.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Pathetic.

I hope Chevy leaves, and leaves these boys to figure out what the hell went wrong.

The wording was exactly what Chevy asked for.

Also note, GT1 starts exactly at ACO rules... no advantages for anyone. I don't expect that to change as the year goes on.

I would also agree with the ALMS position on the Diesel regulations. The ACO rules are biased to the Diesel, which achieves their target, but it isn't practical for a series.

[chewymonster]

I am sure the new adjustments will come into play in P2 and GT2 as well and possibly in GT1.

[The359]

Did IMSA change the regulations in LMP2 at all last year with Porsche dominating?

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

I am sure the new adjustments will come into play in P2 and GT2 as well and possibly in GT1.

They already had some adjustments last year.

The AER's were given bigger restrictors, as were the 996's.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by The359

Did IMSA change the regulations in LMP2 at all last year with Porsche dominating?

No, the Porsche was much quicker but broke often enough not to look demolishing of the other competition.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by The359

Did IMSA change the regulations in LMP2 at all last year with Porsche dominating?

Yes, they did. They gave the AER's a restrictor break... ONCE.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Yes, they did. They gave the AER's a restrictor break... ONCE.

But that wasn't that major of adjustment as the Porsche was still much quicker, about double the target set for this year.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

I agree, even though it looks like IMSA wants all cars to be within a second of each other (which has potential to make for some great racing) it will be hard to justify spending money for factory teams as it is very much possible that race victories will be just taken away from you. Of course I am sure in the end the quicker car will win the championship, there will be time period when your car is likely to lose a race because of the adjustments. And the potential adjustments can make a car very much slower.

I'm not sure why you've come to this conclusion. While the adjustments to GT1 were ridiculous last year, there was a specific reason for them. With Pirelli out of the picture, I think you'll find a pretty close, straight up fight for the year.

Any of the other adjustments had no real bearings on other race results.

The type of adjustments have been regulated, and I doubt you will see much movement in any of the classes this year.

[The359]

Assuming Aston Martin would go with Michelin...

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by The359

Assuming Aston Martin would go with Michelin...

There is no need to assume at this point. What else do you suspect they would go with?

[The359]

Just being facetious.

[Mal]

I wonder if we are missing the possibility that the diesel has been held back more than we realise.

Both the ACO and IMSA have included a regulation that th fuel used is to be provided by them and will be similar to that available for the highway.

I got the impression that the R10 was using a rather special fuel blend and therefore this regulation could affect its performance

[Hammerdown]

Interesting news on the bioethanol front. I reckon 115 litres should just about make it viable, along with an appropriate weight break to compensate for the extra fuel.

And for all those that seem to think that performance balancing is some horrible Euro-socialist plot to spoil the American Dream… get over it! It may be a bit artificial, but motor racing these days can't exist without it. All regulations are performance balancing of some kind. A rules free-for-all would be the quickest way to kill any series. You must be living in the past and/or a dream-world to think that it would work.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

IMSA Bulletin ALMS # 07-01 Adjustments Per Year
http://www.imsaracing.net/2007/alms/...in%2007-01.pdf

IMSA Bulletin ALMS # 07-02 GT Starting points
http://www.imsaracing.net/2007/alms/...in%2007-02.pdf

IMSA Bulletin ALMS # 07-03 Fuel
http://www.imsaracing.net/2007/alms/...in%2007-03.pdf



L.P.
Thanx jeff

IMSA has taken the position that the energy carried on-board the various cars in the series should be (approximately) equal. For the start of the 2007 season, one type of gasoline and one type of diesel fuel similar to premium types available for “highway use” will be provided at each American Le Mans Series event by IMSA for use by all competitors. During the season, a new ethanol based, blended fuel will be developed which will be similar to the “E85” ethanol blends that are becoming more commonly available across North America, and will be available as a third fuel option.

Highway use?? 93 Octane ( US measurements ) or do they mean the Sunoco 98 Octane ( pheusdo highway / race gas ) RON = 101.7 & MON = 89.1 Ok that is about 93 Octane

The US Highway Desiel may kill the audis advantage over a petrol based car.

E85 fuels,

c. The basic ethanol blended fuel system capacity is targeted to be 110 liters, plus or minus an adjustment of no more than five liters to accommodate the fuel energy values between the fuels used in the American Le Mans Series regardless of the energy content.

Most cars the run E85 get 1/2 the fuel milage then petrol cars. These cars use twice as much E85 then petrol. That is road going cars, not race cars. It will be intesting to see how these engine builders tune a race car to run on E85.

[Hammerdown]

Quote from Wikipedia:

"E85 will produce approximately 27% lower mileage than gasoline."

Full article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethanol

115 litre tank should be about right.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

Quote from Wikipedia:

"E85 will produce approximately 27% lower mileage than gasoline."

Full article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethanol

115 litre tank should be about right.

For normal road / street public owned vehicals. It will be interesting too see if anyone or team actully runs E85 in a race car.

[chewymonster]

Yep, normal cars get about 30% worse fuel economy on E85, so to run on 115 liters and be safe it would be closer to E80.