[Speed-King]

I am not sure if I agree with all the conclusions of that article:

1. Continue to utilize ACO rules as the base set for LMP chassis.

Not the worst idea on its own, but I think it's either this or conclusions (3) and (5)

2. Freeze chassis regulation changes for a period of four or five years, ignore the tinkering rules changes of the ACO that are costly.

Nothing wrong with that either, as long as there is a possibility for rules changes made necessary by glaring mistakes in the rulebook, e.g. cars going flying, etc.

3. Allow the cars to be faster. Drop weights back down to 675kg, and allow current P1 size tires. Increase restrictor sizes. The goal should be to field the fastest road racing cars in North America.

Not a bad idea on its own, but as I said above: Why use ACO-chassis then? If you go that way, an ACO LMP1 weighting in at 900kgs will not be competitive with the American cars. While it is a possible to run a customer chassis like the Lola and Zytek at vastly different weights, I don't think that's the case with manufacturer cars, which are designed with a certain target wirght in mind (remember the Peugeots being actually a bit overweight) and without the compromises necessary to ensure maximum adaptability for privateer chassis. Manufacturers would have to built bespoke cars for racing in North America and would not be able to compete there with their Le Mans cars.

4. Create engine rules for those above eight cylinders, and greater than 3.4 liters. Fans want V8’s, V10’s and 12’s to be making those glorious noises, and to be competitive.

Another potential can of worms. Either those bigger engines would necessitate the manufacturers building special engines to race in America or we have once again into look into balancing two classes of engines built to different rule sets. Remember the complaints about the GT1-Aston-engines in the Lolas? I supposse we'd see a lot more of that.

5. Create the “crashed tested tub” base. Basically anyone can build a car, based upon any existing tub that has been crash tested, without requiring homologation through the ACO. As long as the car passed inspection for safety and rules, it can be modified as you like, or changed from the original manufacturer, as you like.

The class of cars proposed in this article will run at speeds a good deal faster than the speeds achieved by the ACO's cars. So will ACO-certified chassis be safe enough for accidents at those higher speeds? I supposse there are some "reserves" in the ACO-crash-specs, but shouldn't the cars run under the hypothetical North American ruleset not have the same reserves?
Mandate your own crash testing specs and have the ACO or the manufacturers adept those if they have to; not the other way around.

6. Ensure that all engine capacities, fuels etc. have an equal chance of winning in principle.

Within reasonable limits, I agree.

If you want to separate yourself that far from the ACO's rules, go it all the way and create a completely new ruleset of your own. A ruleset like the one proposed in Mr. Farrel's article will eliminate any chance of a crossover from European teams, and for those fans who are especially drawn to the ALMS because its connection to Le Mans, this would be an issue.
Personally, I'd have no problem with that as I like diversity and fret at the thought of seeing the same cars race all over the world, but others probably think different.
Keeping an, however loose, connection to the ACO would only set this new class of cars back in terms of safety and parity of engine concepts and will most probably not bring any actual benefits.