IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[Bob Riebe]

Next year, is for all practical purposes a, let's see how this turns out, year.

In your opinion, how do you think the rules for 2015 or 2016 will differ, it they do?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Next year, is for all practical purposes a, let's see how this turns out, year.

In your opinion, how do you think the rules for 2015 or 2016 will differ, it they do?

Just some BoP stuff, nothing major until the new rule set in 2017.







L.P.

[Rodger Davies]

I don't think that there'll be a huge amount of change, but the key is getting the balance correct though.

Here's a question; not meant to start an argument...

What's the general opinion on matching the two cars? For me, I don't expect the two cars to be equal at Daytona. Nor at Sebring. Nor at Mosport or Road Atlanta or Long Beach. I'd expect one of the types of car to have an advantage on one circuit and one on the other. Starworks' private testing showed that this difference wasn't as major as I'd suspected previously, but I'd still expect a few differences.

And I'd be happy that way, seeing the P2 do well at Daytona, and a DP at Road Atlanta, should be an achievement, and consistency over the season would be key. However, from some discussions, including the entrants' comments, I get the impression that some people would rather see adjustments per race to balance the two types of P car to the individual circuit.

For 2015 and 2016, I can't see many changes to the class structure. Personally I'm not a fan of the PCs, but that's not going to change and there's plenty else to keep me interested.

2016/2017 will hopefully see a bit more convergence with ACO rules, but that's a whole other thread...

Thanks for this new topic

[Purist]

Some amount of variation, based on the characteristics of the cars, is fine, and to be expected. The bigger sticking point to my mind will be that NOBODY will want to feel as though their type of car is effectively locked out of a top result, especially at the four endurance races: Daytona, Sebring, Watkins Glen, and Road Atlanta.

[Maelochs]

The two types of cars have to have the same lap times at every track.

Possibly one type will have a better chance to outrace the other (DPs on speed tracks, P2 on handling tracks) but the lap times have to be the same—otherwise, the race outcome is predetermined. Some tracks only DPs could win, some tracks, only P2. That is not racing.

If only certain chassis types could win at certain tracks, then much of the season’s outcome would be decided when the schedule was made the Fall prior. Basically, at Petit the series would tell who would have a chance to win the championship based on which type of track was more prevalent.

The idea that one track or another would work for only one chassis type or the other might sound okay now, but wait until fans, teams, and sponsors have to face a few races in a row without much chance of winning. Then complaints will surely come.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The two types of cars have to have the same lap times at every track.

Possibly one type will have a better chance to outrace the other (DPs on speed tracks, P2 on handling tracks) but the lap times have to be the same—otherwise, the race outcome is predetermined. Some tracks only DPs could win, some tracks, only P2. That is not racing.

If only certain chassis types could win at certain tracks, then much of the season’s outcome would be decided when the schedule was made the Fall prior. Basically, at Petit the series would tell who would have a chance to win the championship based on which type of track was more prevalent.

The idea that one track or another would work for only one chassis type or the other might sound okay now, but wait until fans, teams, and sponsors have to face a few races in a row without much chance of winning. Then complaints will surely come.

How is this different from Le Mans and the WEC where the few teams with hybrid technology set-ups - particularly the Audi diesels - have dominated their gasoline-powered LMP1 rivals (what's left of them) for more than a decade now?

Why does this prototype diversity (LMP2's and enhanced DP's) suddenly need to be addressed immediately in the USCC when it (hybrid versus gas-powered LMP1's) has existed in Europe for many years now?

Certain tracks benefit certain cars. For example, it was no secret that in Grand-Am Daytona was a Porsche track and Lime Rock was a circuit that favored the Pratt & Miller Pontiacs and Camaros. That's just the way it is. It will be interesting to see which cars excel at which circuits next year.

Andy Flinn

[Vepe]

Originally Posted by ACFlinn

How is this different from Le Mans and the WEC where the few teams with hybrid technology set-ups - particularly the Audi diesels - have dominated their gasoline-powered LMP1 rivals (what's left of them) for more than a decade now.

Why does this prototype diversity (LMP2's an enhanced DP's) suddenly need to be addressed immediately in the USCC when it (hybrid versus gas-powered LMP1's) apparently hasn't been a problem in Europe?

Andy Flinn

But it is a problem. Ever since the diesels came, there were complaints about the balancing of diesel and petrol.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Just some BoP stuff, nothing major until the new rule set in 2017.







L.P.

Agreed. They need to find a good compromise and stick with it to give teams confidence they have a chance and invest in machinery so there are decent grids until the compromise years are over. I hope they can find a way for DP and P2 to race well so in 2017 there is something worth saving. My other fear is that all classes eventually go to spec tires. In the long run the 2 pro classes should be open tires and fuel IMO.
Personally I hope there is no further diverge from ACO rules long term, a big part of the reason I started following sportscars was that I could see the cars from Le Mans race over here in person.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

Agreed. They need to find a good compromise and stick with it to give teams confidence they have a chance and invest in machinery so there are decent grids until the compromise years are over. I hope they can find a way for DP and P2 to race well so in 2017 there is something worth saving. My other fear is that all classes eventually go to spec tires. In the long run the 2 pro classes should be open tires and fuel IMO.
Personally I hope there is no further diverge from ACO rules long term, a big part of the reason I started following sportscars was that I could see the cars from Le Mans race over here in person.

I agree.

I hope/believe in 2017 we will see TUSC basically aligned with the ACO and run P (ACO P-2 eligible at the least), PC (P-3), GTLM (GT+) and GTD (GT). There will of course be the series distinct BoP differences.







L.P.

[Rodger Davies]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The two types of cars have to have the same lap times at every track.

Possibly one type will have a better chance to outrace the other (DPs on speed tracks, P2 on handling tracks) but the lap times have to be the same—otherwise, the race outcome is predetermined. Some tracks only DPs could win, some tracks, only P2. That is not racing.

In my personal opinion (and I completely respect you having a different one), I couldn't disagree more. My favourite time in any racing in the last decade was the P1 v P2 ALMS races 2006-2008, where the beauty to me was that in some tracks the Audis would win and on some the Acuras and Porsches would be able to beat them.

Personally, I don't much care for championships (which is my problem with the WEC), I watch the individual races for enjoyment and I would be delighted to have a similar situation to that previous era, where the DPs play the role of the Audis and the P2s the role of....erm, the P2s.

One powerful, robust and unbreakable, the other lightweight, nimble but fragile.

With no BoP changes, I think a DP or, failing that, a GTLM would win at Daytona, I don't trust the P2's abilities to last the distance on such a tightly packed circuit (especially if one has the combustable Mazda turbo and the others are driven by Brown and Sharp!).
This obsession with overall lap times doesn't show the bigger picture of races to me.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by ACFlinn

How is this different from Le Mans and the WEC where the few teams with hybrid technology set-ups - particularly the Audi diesels - have dominated their gasoline-powered LMP1 rivals (what's left of them) for more than a decade now?

Why does this prototype diversity (LMP2's and enhanced DP's) suddenly need to be addressed immediately in the USCC when it (hybrid versus gas-powered LMP1's) has existed in Europe for many years now?

Certain tracks benefit certain cars. For example, it was no secret that in Grand-Am Daytona was a Porsche track and Lime Rock was a circuit that favored the Pratt & Miller Pontiacs and Camaros. That's just the way it is. It will be interesting to see which cars excel at which circuits next year.

Andy Flinn

I don't know why this has to be repeated: Audi doesn't win time and again because the rules favor them. They win because they're the best team with the best engineering and the best equipment. Having a car that is a world beater is REWARDED in WEC.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I agree.

I hope/believe in 2017 we will see TUSC basically aligned with the ACO and run P (ACO P-2 eligible at the least), PC (P-3), GTLM (GT+) and GTD (GT). There will of course be the series distinct BoP differences.







L.P.

That seems like the best case, most realistic solution (knowing P1 is not coming back over here). P3 would be better than PC - we would have diversity in the lower P class. P3 will not be eligible for the Le Mans but at least it will be a common rule set with ELMS to allow additional Euro entries at the big races. I would like to see all GTE cars for GT with a Pro class and an AM class like the WEC, but I really don't see that happening with how well received GTD has been. The key to GT will be what global rules are established and if TUSC decides to adopt them.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

That seems like the best case, most realistic solution (knowing P1 is not coming back over here). P3 would be better than PC - we would have diversity in the lower P class. P3 will not be eligible for the Le Mans but at least it will be a common rule set with ELMS to allow additional Euro entries at the big races. I would like to see all GTE cars for GT with a Pro class and an AM class like the WEC, but I really don't see that happening with how well received GTD has been. The key to GT will be what global rules are established and if TUSC decides to adopt them.

They would pretty much have to adopt the GT convergence rules. It would be pure stupidity to take GT/GT+ cars and alter them instead of letting them run as-is. They could put the pro-am class cars on the Conti crap tires like they do now and there would be plenty of separation.

[Mike Hedlund]

Originally Posted by BullMan

It would be pure stupidity to take GT/GT+ cars and alter them instead of letting them run as-is.

Like taking GT3 cars and altering them?

-mike

[Rodger Davies]

Originally Posted by Mike Hedlund

Like taking GT3 cars and altering them?

-mike

don't think you'll get many arguing with your implication here!

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Mike Hedlund

Like taking GT3 cars and altering them?

-mike

I'm pretty sure all but a few "interesting" people here will agree that was very stupid as well.

[Purist]

Rodger, there is a difference. LMP1 and LMP2 were different classes, and the ACO never intended the LMP2s to win overall, unlike, perhaps, was the case with LMP675. Also, until they ballasted them up, the LMP2s and LMP1s were pretty darn close on lap times at most tracks.

As it is, they're trying to "equalize" P2 and DP right now. They've already given the DPs more power and downforce, adding to the DP's strength, and mitigating the P2s' strengths. They also added weight to the P2s, further eroding its particular performance advantages.

In addition, without courses like Sears Point, Lime Rock, Barber, Mid Ohio, and others, the schedule is more heavily weighted towards power than it was in 2006-08, and that applies to the schedules of both series.

The Audi R10 would have slaughtered the field at Daytona, and Kansas as well. It would have a much better chance of winning on the longer Belle Isle configuration. The R10 probably would have won at VIR. It would likely be the same story at Austin. Indianapolis would be less overwhelming than those other two rovals, but I'd still expect the power car to win there. The conclusion at Road America is obvious, unless the Audis fight each other and hand the win to somebody else, like in 2007. Just the one, long "straight" a lap was enough for the R10 at Mosport in 2007; only the transmission almost dying in the leading car allowed Penske to take the win there.

The tracks where I think the P2s would theoretically stand the best chance are Sebring, Laguna Seca, and Road Atlanta. The P2s will be further aided at Monterey, because the GTs are running separately, and therefore won't be out there, potentially breaking the P2's momentum. Belle Isle and Mosport probably won't treat them too badly either.

It's harder to say just what the balance at VIR will be like. Watkins Glen is another tricky one, because there are a number of high-speed corners, but the run out of "the Ninety", through the Esses, and on to the Innerloop is uphill. So is the run from "the Toe" to "the Heel" of "the Boot". That hands a significant advantage, at least in those stretches, to the cars with horsepower. on their side.

Austin is a new-build F1 circuit, and it tends to be the case that those don't have so many high-speed corners, unless you have a lot of downforce. So, again, power and torque will help here. It's also very difficult to negotiate traffic in the technical sections at Austin, which will further hinder the Prototypes, but moreso the P2s, because they're more a momentum car than the DPs.

I like the individual races, but I also like the championship, for giving a more empirical picture of who has done the best job over the course of the season. I loved CART, because you had to be proficient on road courses, street circuits, AND a range of ovals, in order to obtain the title.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by Purist

They've already given the DPs more power and downforce, adding to the DP's strength, and mitigating the P2s' strengths. They also added weight to the P2s, further eroding its particular performance advantages.

"mitigating" sounds so innocuous. 'Castrated' sounds more like it, IMO.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I hope/believe in 2017 we will see TUSC basically aligned with the ACO and run P (ACO P-2 eligible at the least), PC (P-3), GTLM (GT+) and GTD (GT). There will of course be the series distinct BoP differences.

That is not real likely unless the France boy wants to play a Panoz and brown-nose the ACO.

Not being governed by the ACO is at least part of the reason, although it is far more personality driven than that, GARRA and the Panoz/IMSA went in two directions.
Panoz was infatuated with LeMans and the France family has always been infatuated with itself.

That is why I am curious.
I want to see how this Dallas type drama plays out.
Sadly, I think road racing in the U.S. is still following Indy car racing into also ran status unless they stop making Mickey Mouse rules like CART and the IRL did and what is left still does.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

That is not real likely unless the France boy wants to play a Panoz and brown-nose the ACO.

Not being governed by the ACO is at least part of the reason, although it is far more personality driven than that, GARRA and the Panoz/IMSA went in two directions.
Panoz was infatuated with LeMans and the France family has always been infatuated with itself.

That is why I am curious.
I want to see how this Dallas type drama plays out.
Sadly, I think road racing in the U.S. is still following Indy car racing into also ran status unless they stop making Mickey Mouse rules like CART and the IRL did and what is left still does.

Being aligned with the ACO and utilizing most of the same manufacturing/class rules is far from what you suggest!







L.P.

[juicy sushi]

I would hope they go to the GT convergence rules, with any grandfathering necessary to allow grid counts to survive transition and axe the prototype classes. The manufacturers with only a couple of exceptions, don't care for the DP or P2 classes, and the series is better served by one class with all the manufacturers, all the top drivers and teams. It's an easier sell for sponsors as well. The potential GT grid would be very diverse, and the overall spectacle would go up.

I realize I am speaking in the very small minority here, but one class, one set of popular rules, and then let the series grow.

[tkelland]

I have always thought that arranging a rules set that allowed multiple classes the opportunity at overall victory (dependent upon track make-up, mostly) is a great idea. Have a GTP like class that allows for the manufacturer ROI in the way the cars look (think the porsche gt1) and have a GT class that allows for slightly faster speeds than they have now. This would allow teams that want to race a prototype that chance and gt teams to race gt cars. Go into it knowing that you may be racing against a car that is very different in make-up but similar speeds. Then for an am component, mandate an amateur driver in each car similar to what they have know. The fans will see a great race, the teams have more at stake.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

I would hope they go to the GT convergence rules, with any grandfathering necessary to allow grid counts to survive transition and axe the prototype classes. The manufacturers with only a couple of exceptions, don't care for the DP or P2 classes, and the series is better served by one class with all the manufacturers, all the top drivers and teams. It's an easier sell for sponsors as well. The potential GT grid would be very diverse, and the overall spectacle would go up.

I realize I am speaking in the very small minority here, but one class, one set of popular rules, and then let the series grow.

The classes are set through to the new rule set in 2017, period. The pursuit of this folly does nothing but set one up for a fall, and then we get to listen to the resultant whining! This will never be a GT only series, Oy vey.






L.P.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by tkelland

I have always thought that arranging a rules set that allowed multiple classes the opportunity at overall victory (dependent upon track make-up, mostly) is a great idea. Have a GTP like class that allows for the manufacturer ROI in the way the cars look (think the porsche gt1) and have a GT class that allows for slightly faster speeds than they have now. This would allow teams that want to race a prototype that chance and gt teams to race gt cars. Go into it knowing that you may be racing against a car that is very different in make-up but similar speeds. Then for an am component, mandate an amateur driver in each car similar to what they have know. The fans will see a great race, the teams have more at stake.

I don't see how this would work, why the need for separate classes (if the prototypes and GT's are all to be capable of overall victory), how you could possibly develop a balanced rules set (unless that is not the objective), or - most importantly - when such a scheme has ever worked in the past.

Sports car racing already has enough challenges without needlessly trying to reinvent itself every few years.

Andy Flinn

[joeb]

More info on 2017 Proto regs:
http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/10880...t-taking-shape