IMSA 2014 Petit Le Mans Discussion

[TRspitfirefan]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

There is absolutely nothing to argue here.

The pit rules are a problem when you have this level of pressure to make up time, and places in the pit lane. We've had no issues until now. And now that we've seen what can happen, it's time to change the rule. It affected the GTE race significantly, and a chassis was written off with thousands of dollars in damage to others...why?

Because you have to find ways to remove stationary time. Loose, or partially done belts is one way. Totally unsafe, but, it clearly happens. There was massive potential for injury in this incident.

It's time to go back to ACO rules. It's the safest, amd IMO, the only way.

Personally as a fan, I really miss the ACO style pitstops.
I particularly liked the requirement to shut the motor off while refueling and the tire double/triple stinting strategy elements.

[Gulf]

Originally Posted by TRspitfirefan

Personally as a fan, I really miss the ACO style pitstops.
I particularly liked the requirement to shut the motor off while refueling and the tire double/triple stinting strategy elements.

I miss having the tire strategy that comes with ACO pit stops. I guess Conti is good enough to double stint.

[Maelochs]

I guess the case of the missing pit-lane pile-up penalty can be solved as such: TUSC in the control booth in the final high-profile race of the season saying "Whatever else, we aren't going to penalize the wrong car this time."

I have been trying to figure out whatever I can about how I think and feel about the race, the weekend, the season, the future ... Never have I missed Noerth American sports car racing so little, never have I had less hope for the future (even less than 2014, which I would have thought impossible) and never have i felt so completely uninspired by PLM.

Even the Rebellion romp of 2013 was more moving. Event he rain-out of 2009 was more moving (possibly because I wasn't there that year--but that race had more stimulation in five hours than 2014 did in ten.)

When I heard on the PA than the DWing had pushed the Oak off in T1 I only felt mild disgust and mild resignation--the question was only ever which car would do it, and the Oak never had a chance anyway.

To be honest, the Falken win was a big thing ... and the GTLM battle was not too disappointing, though losing the three quickest cars in class pretty much deflated that fight. Still, i am a Falken fan, and hard as it was to believe they won last year, it was even harder to imagine they'd repeat.

The late-race ruining of the 8Star PC was another groin-shot. I don't care much about PC, but they top drivers put on a good race at PLM while the rest were trying their best to recreate Sebring 2014. I haven't heard much aboput what happened to Sean rayhall except that he was pushed off, hit hard, but still walked a way from the wreck of the car which was well on its way to a class victory.

I am a Starworks fan more than 8Star (because Dalziel drove for them) but that wasn't an exciting win, it was a deflating loss.

I see No hope that ACO pit stop procedure will be adopted; it doesn't help "The Show," and only anoraks even know what "strategy" is in racing--so no one who matters, cares.

I spent the end of 2013 hoping P2 and DP would be balanced, 2014 hoping P- and GTLM classes would be balanced (not BoP'd) and the whole time since the merger was announced hoping to see real racing in 2017.

Looks like the only way I will see real racing in 2017 will be to watch other series, as TUSC will be the new NASCAR, with second-rate spec chassis. Between now and 2017? Replay 2014 repeatedly.

All I can really hope for is that IMSA will stream every race live, and not offer Only a two-hour highlight reel the next day.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

When I heard on the PA than the DWing had pushed the Oak off in T1...

Everybody's favorite whipping boy.

The Oak dive-bombs the DW while trying to get past the Porsche, the DW, already way over on the right, tries to leave room, gets up on the curb which gets it loose and causes the back end to step out, and it's the DW's fault. If Yacaman had been a bit more patient, he wouldn't have gone out. If the drama had occurred in the middle or toward the left edge of the track, it would be fair to blame the DW, but scrunched-down on the right against the curbing, that's not fair.

I know you like to see some variety on the grid, I just think the DW tends to get blamed for any incident that occurs around it, whether it is at fault or not.

I realize the disappointment of the only remaining P2 with any chance getting knocked out, but when the Daytona Mafia took over, I had no doubt the table would be tilted so the championship would go to a DP. I didn't realize they would be so ham-fisted about it though.

For me, having one car on the grid that isn't a clone of all the rest actually made it a lot more interesting and gives me hope for the future. For the Daytona Mafia, there is this one car that attracts a lot of attention, so they are happy to let it race. That's better than what we get out of FIA currently.

That car and the fact it had decent prospects this year is the only reason I watched the race. I feel oddly out of synch with the other former ALMS fans. I was resigned to what would happen with this "merger". For me, it was deja vu, having been a former CART fan when the remnants of CART "merged" with Indycar.

Unlike that situation, with American sportscar racing, I see a glimmer of hope for the future.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by miatanut

For the Daytona Mafia, there is this one car that attracts a lot of attention, so they are happy to let it race. That's better than what we get out of FIA currently.

What's that supposed to mean?

And we all know why the DW has really been allowed to take part for so long...

Also, if the DW is the only "non-clone", what are the P2s then? Certainly not spec stock cars as the Dayton prutos

[Maelochs]

Miatanut just needs some coffee.

Miatanut ... go look at the DWing thread and see what I actually think about the DWing instead of what your disassociated fantasies want me to think about it.

I didn't see the accident, but i have seen a bunch of replays. I do not blame the Oak ... but it is okay if our opinions differ.

But seriously, go read the DWing thread. see what's up.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I know you like to see some variety on the grid, I just think the DW tends to get blamed for any incident that occurs around it, whether it is at fault or not.

I know what you think about the DW.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Miatanut just needs some coffee.

Miatanut ... go look at the DWing thread and see what I actually think about the DWing instead of what your disassociated fantasies want me to think about it.

I didn't see the accident, but i have seen a bunch of replays. I do not blame the Oak ... but it is okay if our opinions differ.

But seriously, go read the DWing thread. see what's up.

Based on the vids, what else could the DW have done? The Oak was way over on the right and left no room. Trying to move even farther to the right to get out of the way, the DW got loose. The Oak could have waited and stayed in the race.

[brandscooper]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Miatanut just needs some coffee.

Miatanut ... go look at the DWing thread and see what I actually think about the DWing instead of what your disassociated fantasies want me to think about it.

I didn't see the accident, but i have seen a bunch of replays. I do not blame the Oak ... but it is okay if our opinions differ.

But seriously, go read the DWing thread. see what's up.

You do realize the Oak car was a lap down don't you? The DW was lapping it.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I know you like to see some variety on the grid, I just think the DW tends to get blamed for any incident that occurs around it, whether it is at fault or not.

Originally Posted by miatanut

I know what you think about the DW.

Quoting and answering to yourself as that was some other person?

[Maelochs]

it's funny ... I have never heard the DWing blamed for any on-track incident. i have heard people decry the fact that it has basically no regulation, that it is ugly, that it isn't a sports car ... but I have never heard it blamed for Anything, Ever.

DP drivers? Heard them blamed for all sorts of stuff--almost all of which they actually did. PC drivers? Same deal only it's usually not to win the race, just to stop it for a while. DWing? never heard any of that.

What I saw was the Oak trying really hard to get back onto the lead lap---it was the fastest car on track, pretty much, but bad luck timing pit stops and transmission failure in quali relegated it to a losing position. But I defy anyone to show in which post I seriously attacked the DWing for deliberately wrecking other cars--or pretty much Any post by anyone blaming the DWing for deliberately wrecking other cars.

Enough of all this. now and then a poster steps in it and instead of stepping back out, tracks it all around, loudly denying ever having stepped in anything. I do it too.

Petit 2014 ... I am still trying to come to terms with this race. It was a very good Rolex race--no major fender-bashing or bump-and-run, good battles in all classes ... too many yellows called too soon, when the spun car simply drove away, but at least no one was penalized for something someone else did.

Still ... not quite as good as the year prior, and nothing like the years prior. How much of that is my personal bias and how much is due to slower, duller cars in the top class, I can't say. Given what they had to work with TUSC officials did a fair job, I'd say ... except for that GTLM pit collision.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Quoting and answering to yourself as that was some other person?

The first quote was where I acknowledged in the original post, which would be this one: http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=779 that he wasn't a DW hater.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

it's funny ... I have never heard the DWing blamed for any on-track incident.

A race at Laguna Seca where it supposedly ruined everybody's race bringing a caution out in the last laps of the race is one I can specifically remember. I suppose the other comments have been more of the nature it balked somebody, from the perspective that it shouldn't be on the track in the first place, so it's basically the DW's fault for existing.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Also, if the DW is the only "non-clone", what are the P2s then?

One of these things is not like the others...(Sesame Street)

[Maelochs]

Funny I thought I was looking at an HPD P1, and HPD P2, and an LMPC ... so none of those things were like any others.

[Coach Ep]

The driver in the first pic is a crowd funder, the other two not (?)

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by miatanut

One of these things is not like the others...(Sesame Street)

Haha nice try. Not.

I suppose you want a series full of non-regulated protos then?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Funny I thought I was looking at an HPD P1, and HPD P2, and an LMPC ... so none of those things were like any others.

I suppose there would be a hand full of people who could identify them before they were painted.

A lot more could tell these two apart before painting:



But that was before the attack of the clones.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Chiana

I suppose you want a series full of non-regulated protos then?

Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens.

[Maelochs]

Much as I hate to keep this going ... with any prototype it is very difficult to tell them apart at speed except by livery ... in photos one looks for the details, like the Very Obvious difference in air intakes, fender/hood relationship, shape of glass and pillars, aero details ...

At first glance I thought the second pair were the same car posted in different liveries as a trick. Then I looked a little and saw they were as different and the Oreca FLM09 and HPD ARX-03b and HPD ARX -02a up above.

Frankly, I doubt I could identify most prototypes from most eras unpainted ... maybe some of the really freakish shadows, and couple with really distinctive shapes, and some like the 917s, maybe 907, 908, 910, Ferrari P3/4, 512M, 512S ...

The idea isn't just that the cars should Look different (otherwise livery would be enough) but that we, as fans, know we are seeing a variety of answers to the question of "How do I build the fastest car using this rule set?"

You know what's funny--so many ALMS prototypes were clones, all based on the Courage LC-75 chassis (or some other Courage chassis) ... you picked a couple which weren't. (Had you picked an earlier HPD, though ... )

And while the DPs are arguably clones as well ... they don't look like either the HPD or the Ligier.

None of these things are much like the other:

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Much as I hate to keep this going ... with any prototype it is very difficult to tell them apart at speed except by livery ... in photos one looks for the details, like the Very Obvious difference in air intakes, fender/hood relationship, shape of glass and pillars, aero details ...

At first glance I thought the second pair were the same car posted in different liveries as a trick. Then I looked a little and saw they were as different and the Oreca FLM09 and HPD ARX-03b and HPD ARX -02a up above.

Maybe you weren't a fan at that time. Maybe the photo didn't do them justice. In person, they were very easy to tell apart. The Mazda RX7-92P was the most beautiful prototype I have ever seen, to this day. The swoops on the door, based on the production RX7 of the time, were gorgeous. The greenhouse was more dome and less teardrop shaped than the other cars. The Eagle, much more successful, was not so good looking. Maybe some of the things that made the Mazda beautiful made it less successful. They were a LOT more different that the clones we have now. Even the roll hoops are clones now.

The Porsche 962 and the Electramotive Nissan were quite easy to tell apart before paint. The Intrepid was probably the ugliest prototype of the era, and most fans of the time could have identified that one relative to its competition without the paint, no problem. Some cars had swoops between the front and rear wheels. Others were nearly straight. Some had sculpted sides, others had slab sides. Some had very sculpted front ends. Others were fairly workmanlike.



Now we have cars in different classes that I couldn't tell apart without the paint on them.

Simply a result of over-restrictive rules that send everybody down the same path, except for power unit.

The DW is the only one that most people could tell from the others, and interestingly, it can race with the others using less than 3/4 of the fuel. The whole field would be going the speed they go now on less than half the fuel they use now if the rules allowed the designers to design. And, they would look a lot more different, as different cars would be based on different concepts.

Fortunately, there is one car that is allowed to run "outside the rules" to point us toward a future with more variety.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I suppose there would be a hand full of people who could identify them before they were painted.

A lot more could tell these two apart before painting:



But that was before the attack of the clones.

You are trolling, right? This is such a slanted and ridiculous comparison it's laughable.

You're complaining cars that are all the 962s of this generation are similar (despite being nose shots when they all have rather different noses) then post the Mk.III and a blatant Mk.III clone? Complaining cars in different classes look similar when they're different class versions of the same car/maker?

I'd be asking yourself the questions if you can't tell these cars apart without stickers





The lack of variety you see in American prototype racing is an indictment of the state of the sport, not a reflection of FIA rulebooks.

Oh, and the new LMP1s are using 3/4 of the fuel already.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

You are trolling, right? This is such a slanted and ridiculous comparison it's laughable.

You're complaining cars that are all the 962s of this generation are similar (despite being nose shots when they all have rather different noses) then post the Mk.III and a blatant Mk.III clone?

How is the Mazda a clone of the MK III? On the most simplistic level, one is beautiful and the other ugly, but very functional, but beyond that, one is very curvy, the other somewhat blocky.

In the 90's, "rather different noses" meant some had the fenders higher than the middle, others were kind of a shovel nose. Some had rather steep fronts, others more laid-back. Now "rather different noses" means a different slat here, a little wider hole there.

If those cars are all different class models of the same car by the same manufacturer, I wasn't aware of that and I would agree, that is the cause if the sameness that I think has made the prototypes so uninspiring these days. So uninspiring that Petit was the only race I watched this year, after the ZEOD going out before I even woke up on the Pacific coast freeing up my Le Mans weekend this year.

But, a single manufacturer selling most of the cars in three different classes would still go back to rules. One manufacturer found the best solution to narrowly drawn rules and everybody is now buying their car. Even during the 962's heyday, there were other cars on the track.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

then post the Mk.III and a blatant Mk.III clone?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

The lack of variety you see in American prototype racing is an indictment of the state of the sport, not a reflection of FIA rulebooks.

For the most part, the state of the art IS the FIA rulebook.

The former GARRA rules, and ACO games, are no better but no worse.

[Dodge_Swinger]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Maybe you weren't a fan at that time. Maybe the photo didn't do them justice. In person, they were very easy to tell apart. The Mazda RX7-92P was the most beautiful prototype I have ever seen, to this day. The swoops on the door, based on the production RX7 of the time, were gorgeous. The greenhouse was more dome and less teardrop shaped than the other cars. The Eagle, much more successful, was not so good looking. Maybe some of the things that made the Mazda beautiful made it less successful. They were a LOT more different that the clones we have now. Even the roll hoops are clones now.

The Porsche 962 and the Electramotive Nissan were quite easy to tell apart before paint. The Intrepid was probably the ugliest prototype of the era, and most fans of the time could have identified that one relative to its competition without the paint, no problem. Some cars had swoops between the front and rear wheels. Others were nearly straight. Some had sculpted sides, others had slab sides. Some had very sculpted front ends. Others were fairly workmanlike.



Now we have cars in different classes that I couldn't tell apart without the paint on them.

Simply a result of over-restrictive rules that send everybody down the same path, except for power unit.

The DW is the only one that most people could tell from the others, and interestingly, it can race with the others using less than 3/4 of the fuel. The whole field would be going the speed they go now on less than half the fuel they use now if the rules allowed the designers to design. And, they would look a lot more different, as different cars would be based on different concepts.

Fortunately, there is one car that is allowed to run "outside the rules" to point us toward a future with more variety.

I like the DW. I thought it looked better as an open cockpit car, but it's the "most prototype" of all the protos in TUSCC.

[Deleted]

It would be more of a true prototype if there was a regulated class for lightweight solutions with different approaching methods. Now it's just some extra special allowance for PR reasons and keeping Don happy