IMSA DPi Discussion

[Coach Ep]

Rebadging the standard Gibson engine and putting stickers on one of the four approved chassis would have been even cheaper!

And perfectly in line with Nascar's holy grail anyway.

[Deleted]

You could argue on why would they want to limit the number of spec constructors to 4 if they're gonna performance balance them all to death anyway... but I suspect the reason for it is that it's gonna save IMSA/NASCAR total of 1,250 dollars a month in wind tunnel + RPM dyno maintenance costs due to lower usage, as well as monthly salaries of at least two additional BoP committee members.

[Bob Baldwin]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Rebadging the standard Gibson engine and putting stickers on one of the four approved chassis would have been even cheaper!

And perfectly in line with Nascar's holy grail anyway.

Coach Ep : AMEN !! +1 This just PROVES that the POWERS that be just don't UNDERSTAND the difference between NASCAR and SPORTSCAR Fans thinking
I have to sit on my hands to keep from clapping !! It will be SOOO exciting watching 4-5 DPI's competing for the overall victory . NOT

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Rebadging the standard Gibson engine and putting stickers on one of the four approved chassis would have been even cheaper!

Let's say they allow different engine configurations without balancing and it turns out that a light weight compact engine is at a distinct advantage because these teams can play around with their ballast while others can't.

What happens next? Either the disadvantaged manufacturers switch to the preferable engine layout or they pull out all together, especially if they don't have an appropriate engine in their line-up or don't want to promote that one. Where would Bentley get a four-banger from? Or Mazda a V8 if that's what is necessary to be competitive?

What you end up with is either a smaller number of manufacturers or everybody running the same engine configuration - probably both.

[Deleted]

The engines would still have to comply to the static restrictor-per-displacement regulations and types (which aren't really BoP as it's in the basics of actual rules)

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Chiana

The engines would still have to comply to the static restrictor-per-displacement regulations and types (which aren't really BoP as it's in the basics of actual rules)

None of that helps with being disadvantaged by a higher up center of gravity.

Personally, I'd rather have the series standardize the CoG than seeing them try to make up for it by throwing restrictor breaks at the conceptually disadvantaged manufacturers.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

In case anyone was still under the illusion that multiple engines in DPi represented any kind of technical freedom whatsoever
Remember this is a class called DP, they aren't just trying to balance lap times but make every aspect of car performance nearly identical.

Was anyone expecting something different? It's based on a spec class, right?

Originally Posted by Chiana

You could argue on why would they want to limit the number of spec constructors to 4 if they're gonna performance balance them all to death anyway... but I suspect the reason for it is that it's gonna save IMSA/NASCAR total of 1,250 dollars a month in wind tunnel + RPM dyno maintenance costs due to lower usage, as well as monthly salaries of at least two additional BoP committee members.

Maintaining their relationship with the ACO is the answer.

Originally Posted by Bob Baldwin

Coach Ep : AMEN !! +1 This just PROVES that the POWERS that be just don't UNDERSTAND the difference between NASCAR and SPORTSCAR Fans thinking
I have to sit on my hands to keep from clapping !! It will be SOOO exciting watching 4-5 DPI's competing for the overall victory . NOT

You're right! This is only a problem in North America and is 100% Nascar's fault! I'm moving to Europe where they don't have to deal with balance of performance in every single class of every single form of motorsport with the exception of F1! /s

My thought is that after no one brings a LMP2 to play, an opportunity to distance themselves from ACO prototypes will develop in the coming years. They could do something very cool with that opportunity. Will they? Recent history says, no. But this isn't just an IMSA or sportscar issue, it exist in every series and most types of motorsport across the world.

And no, series don't care what the fans think. You're not their customer. You're the track/promoters customer.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Let's say they allow different engine configurations without balancing and it turns out that a light weight compact engine is at a distinct advantage because these teams can play around with their ballast while others can't.

What happens next? Either the disadvantaged manufacturers switch to the preferable engine layout or they pull out all together, especially if they don't have an appropriate engine in their line-up or don't want to promote that one. Where would Bentley get a four-banger from? Or Mazda a V8 if that's what is necessary to be competitive?

What you end up with is either a smaller number of manufacturers or everybody running the same engine configuration - probably both.

BoP of course, that's happening either way. But oeople are "okay" with BoP if it means the cars have different strengths.

In an LMP1 or 2 car a tiny AER wasn't automatically preferable because of power delivery, but IMSA seems to be already committed to equalizing torque curves again so you have to equalize chassis characteristics too.

[chernaudi]

I find it ironic that Raffauf is/was an IMSA GTP guy (he was IMSA's competition director in the early 1990s). There was no lack of variety back then, and even though IMSA had a sliding scale of performance balancing based on displacement vs weight and was ultimately based on slowing down the rate that the cars got faster each season, at least the GTP rules allowed for pretty open development.

This is becoming the exact opposite of that.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

Was anyone expecting something different? It's based on a spec class, right?



Maintaining their relationship with the ACO is the answer.



You're right! This is only a problem in North America and is 100% Nascar's fault! I'm moving to Europe where they don't have to deal with balance of performance in every single class of every single form of motorsport with the exception of F1! /s

My thought is that after no one brings a LMP2 to play, an opportunity to distance themselves from ACO prototypes will develop in the coming years. They could do something very cool with that opportunity. Will they? Recent history says, no. But this isn't just an IMSA or sportscar issue, it exist in every series and most types of motorsport across the world.

And no, series don't care what the fans think. You're not their customer. You're the track/promoters customer.

Your last bit is out of touch with reality. Lmp1 has fuel flow and hybrid classes trying to equalize two fuels. Imsa wants to equalize EVERYTHING. From the chassis to the aero to the engine cog to the torque curve etc. Big difference between the two. One stifles innovation and performance gains, the other just tries to level two fuel technologies. Were not talking about every other series. Just one that tries to create a Nascar style prototype.

[Deleted]

Also current LMP2 (with unlimited chassis and engines) has zero BoP whatsoever.

In addition there's no BoP in LMP3 (alright it's much more spec but still) or -between- nonhybrid LMP1s

[HORNDAWG]

Good to see a clear plan, and that it is progressing apace of the schedule, for DPi and the IMSA P class!







L.P.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by TF110

Your last bit is out of touch with reality. Lmp1 has fuel flow and hybrid classes trying to equalize two fuels. Imsa wants to equalize EVERYTHING. From the chassis to the aero to the engine cog to the torque curve etc. Big difference between the two. One stifles innovation and performance gains, the other just tries to level two fuel technologies. Were not talking about every other series. Just one that tries to create a Nascar style prototype.

IMSA has to equalize everything to allow the incoming ACO-spec LMP2 cars to participate and compete. How is that creating a Nascar-style prototype? Seems to me that is creating an ACO-style prototype.

Every series I can think of has some form of performance balancing. Yes, LMP1 is the least BoP'd category in professional sports car racing, but there is still some balancing there. LMP2 was balanced and will be taken a step further next year. GTE/LM allows for some technological advancement, but any performance gains will be taken away. GT3 is based on BoP.

Indycar, Nascar, DTM, BTCC, WRC, you name it, has some form of performance balancing. They level the playing field by taking away innovations that lead to performance gains. I don't like it either, but that is the world of motorsport today.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Also current LMP2 (with unlimited chassis and engines) has zero BoP whatsoever.

In addition there's no BoP in LMP3 (alright it's much more spec but still) or -between- nonhybrid LMP1s

The formula IS the BoP. If I purchase a Ligier LMP2 and am struggling with front downforce, can I or the manufacturer put a newly designed splitter on? No I can't. To me that's a form of performance balancing. Obviously, better than changing restrictor sizes every week (etc.), but the flip side of that formula is that everyone comes up with the same answer. That's why everyone runs a Nissan engine and two chassis manufacturers dominate the sales of new cars.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

The formula IS the BoP. If I purchase a Ligier LMP2 and am struggling with front downforce, can I or the manufacturer put a newly designed splitter on? No I can't. To me that's a form of performance balancing. Obviously, better than changing restrictor sizes every week (etc.), but the flip side of that formula is that everyone comes up with the same answer. That's why everyone runs a Nissan engine and two chassis manufacturers dominate the sales of new cars.

I'm not saying the current LMP2 formula is perfect (and don't get even started on the awful dumb-o P2 of 2017), obviously with the tech freeze and shared components and lame pro-am it's infinitely more restricted than it was pre-2011 regs overhaul. But in comparison to the IMSA way of things it's like world apart. And even with the near-spec rules of ACO, at least the best manufacturer can still theoretically always win every race as it's non-forgeable, unlike in the North American political lottery show.

For LMP3, I guess it's bit of a miracle that IMSA doesn't seem to implement BoP on it for Lites. Yes the formula is 85% spec, but it's not like it's gonna be much smaller percentage for "DPi"/2017-LMP2 in the main series either.

Anyway, there is one completely free tech zone left, and that is Nonhybrid LMP1. Which is why I've been so loud in allowing them to run outside of just WEC. It's never gonna grow to anything in it's current isolation. But that category is the last heaven for non-spec, non- performance balanced (within the nonhybrid entries) vehicles.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

IMSA has to equalize everything to allow the incoming ACO-spec LMP2 cars to participate and compete. How is that creating a Nascar-style prototype? Seems to me that is creating an ACO-style prototype.

Every series I can think of has some form of performance balancing. Yes, LMP1 is the least BoP'd category in professional sports car racing, but there is still some balancing there. LMP2 was balanced and will be taken a step further next year. GTE/LM allows for some technological advancement, but any performance gains will be taken away. GT3 is based on BoP.

Indycar, Nascar, DTM, BTCC, WRC, you name it, has some form of performance balancing. They level the playing field by taking away innovations that lead to performance gains. I don't like it either, but that is the world of motorsport today.

Originally Posted by JHamilton

The formula IS the BoP. If I purchase a Ligier LMP2 and am struggling with front downforce, can I or the manufacturer put a newly designed splitter on? No I can't. To me that's a form of performance balancing. Obviously, better than changing restrictor sizes every week (etc.), but the flip side of that formula is that everyone comes up with the same answer. That's why everyone runs a Nissan engine and two chassis manufacturers dominate the sales of new cars.

L.P.

[Deleted]

Oh and by the way the reason everyone has invested into purchasing stock Orecas, stock Onroaks, is because they are the biggest suppliers with best resources and easiest service. Sure you could call SMP or Dome or HPD whomever but it's easier and usually cheaper to deal with the big guys. Same with engines.

Ultimately the thing is though, you are not automatically forced to do so. You can still dump your stock Nissan-Zytek for Judd or Honda whatever. Or Dunlop for Michelin. Or Oreca for Pillbeam if you really fancy that for some reason. Or purchase ancient Reynard-Zytek-Gibson, that still seems to go well against the new coupes. And the organizers aren't gonna penalise (or award) you for that switch in any way, it's your choice... in whatever purpose you might have.

Now the new dumb rules of 2017 will of course ruin most of that, but still it will be less artificial than in the States. Sticker-bodies on top or not. The 4 chassis will still have some superficial aero differences that won't get constantly performance balanced in wind tunnel and BoP committee's table like in IMSA. There will probably be some EVO packages in few years which will create subtle differences too (which again, is not particularly amazing scenario in this ever more lame-fied set of classes, but still it's not gonna be politically influenced and forgeable like in States)

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

If I purchase a Ligier LMP2 and am struggling with front downforce, can I or the manufacturer put a newly designed splitter on?

Yes. Not easily other than every 3 years, but yes.

Incidentally there's a fun loophole for the currently homologated ORECAs. The 03 was old enough that they could homologate a new car, which was the 03R so they could add a Le Mans aero kit (which older cars aren't allowed for some reason). But there's also an exception for switching to closed cockpit and 2014 LMP1 compliant cars like the ORECA 05, so they homologated two new cars at the same time.

Anyways the Endurance Committee can approve aerodynamic changes but I don't think anyone has ever attempted to use that mechanism. Rather they put off homologation of the car entirely like Dome and HPD. The requirement of the class being cost capped customer cars means there is no available development budget for an arms race anyways, if a new car is faster you just suck it up until your turn. Which is really no different than what happens on a weekend to weekend basis in F1, just stretched out over a longer timeframe to reduce expenses.

New LMP2 rules are extended the homologation time period to 4 years and in theory all the cars should come for renewal at the same time, but it's otherwise similar in that regard.

[WolfsburgRS]

The rule about being required to add ballast into the engine compartment if you have a lighter, more compact unit than the competition, so that there is no weight location or balance advantage, really bothers me.

[TF110]

It's the artificial crap like that to equalize these cars that go against the term "prototype" imo. At least for a series that wants to be seen as having top teams with manufacturers involved. No innovation is boring. No diversity aside looks is Nascar. How long until everything is spec?

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by TF110

It's the artificial crap like that to equalize these cars that go against the term "prototype" imo. At least for a series that wants to be seen as having top teams with manufacturers involved. No innovation is boring. No diversity aside looks is Nascar. How long until everything is spec?

There comes a point, when it just becomes manufactured racing, no different than NASCAR itself. I had been hoping that wouldn't be the case with the new rules, and even naively hoped they might even adopt more open LMP1-L rules, to put some excitement back in this. Oh well, shame on me. Back under a rock.

[Matt]

It's all done because of the ACO P2.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Matt

It's all done because of the ACO P2.

I don't remember ACO insisting on performance balancing prorotypes on round by round basis and dragging them to wind tunnel and RPM dyno to achieve (theoretically) clone performance curves all the time.

I also don't remember ACO telling (forcing) IMSA-NASCAR that more than four chassis undereath those fake bodyworks would be impossible to implement in North America. (They could change their minds even now, today, if they wanted, seeing as the relationship to the ACO is 80% dead already)

[Maelochs]

This discussion hinges on whether one views motorsports from the perspective of a fan or a business partner.

For people in the business of providing motorsports entertainment, the very least development and differentiation is the best. Lowest cost for the participants, level playing field to limit politicking and complaint, and a cheaper product means higher profit.

I spoke briefly with Scott Atherton and Scot Elkins at some function at Sebring several years ago, and they made it clear that they wanted Everything dictated by the rules ... not rules which allowed interpretation and development, but rules which mandated some stuff and forbade everything else.

it isn’t that they didn’t “understand” the North American sports car fan ... it was that they were going broke and realized that the business model was faulty.

As fans we want loose rules and lots of innovation. We want Jim Hall/Colin Chapman-type innovation, weird one-offs which don’t work except for that one which everyone copies for next season because it Does work ... while the innovators are going ervwen further, where the engineers spend all night looking for loopholes and the rules-makers spend all night trying to patch those loopholes.

We want to be surprised when we see the cars unload: “Did you see the new (splitter/fender profile/airbox/wing extension/JATO unit) on Car XX???!!!” We want not just drivers but designers and engineers and fabricators to be working to their limits. We want the engine guys to be always finding a little more power, or efficiency, or reliability.

Thing is, the low-hanging fruit has long been picked, and innovation for the tiniest gains costs huge dollars. Testing costs huge dollars. And failure costs even huger dollars.

No one wants to pay for all that—not fans, not sponsors, not manufacturers (and since motorsports is so far removed from the general consciousness I question if any involvement in racing has any benefit for manufacturers at all anymore. Even NASCAR, which is pretty much what most Americans think is “racing,” has no impact on sales.)

IMSA knows what the fans want. Their calculus is more, “How little can we give the fans for how little money and still charge them to attend and watch?” To IMSA “pleasing the fan” isn’t important. “Retaining fan income” is what they measure, and unless we all stop watching and attending, it is only going to get worse.

Manufacturers play into this. They want to know that they are always going to look good no matter how bad a product they produce. For them it is 100 percent advertising—and mostly internal, I suspect.

I’d bet the toughest battles are fought before board meetings where the guys who want to race stretch the truth as much as possible to make it look like racing makes sense, while the bean-counters prove time and again that all that “intangible benefit” stuff is pure BS.

The only way for a racer-type corporate exec to sell racing to a financial-type corporate exec is to prove that they really cannot lose—that the rules forbid them from building a losing car, because if they do, everyone else will be forced to lose just as badly.

IMSA knows all this, and they are tailoring their business to those realities. They figure there is a core of fans who will never leave, and a certain number who will watch on TV because nothing else is one—sio all they need to do is put Something on track.

The die-hards will swallow the crap and wish for a little more bread, and the casual fans will not have a clue what they are watching anyway—TV sports is 90 percent how good the broadcast crew makes each event sound, unless you are an aficionado and can already do your own play-by-play.

I am sorry folks, but Racing—racing as we once knew it, the Racing which inflamed our passions ... that is dead. Maybe we can find it at local tracks and club-racing events, where people only care about the sport ... but even there, the rules are restrictive and the budgets so tight that nothing much can be done ...

As far as the kind of innovation, and the freedom of competition which characterized the sport until the end of the 20th century or so .... No more can-Am or Camel GT or any of that. No more rules-bending Porsche 935s or homemade DeKon Monzas, no mare radical Shadows .....

Now we have “motorized vehicle entertainment product” where the hairstyle of the winning driver counts for more than the car or engine or anything else.

And sadly, I don’t see it Ever improving. Once people show they are willing to eat a little excrement, it is only a question of how much we will be offered ... and sadly, about 90-percent pure crap is acceptable to the largest motorsports audience in the nation—which means the most profitable motorsports-entertainment industry sets the standard and the rest are trying to reach it.

[Bob Baldwin]

Maelochs : DAM YOU !! Now I 'm Depressed