IMSA DPi Discussion

[joeb]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

I'm thinking IMSA has hired a brain to share and are willing to allow an engine with bodywork to come. And they have mentioned a few companies are working toward introduction at a later date. I know we all dismissed it but maybe there's something there with Nissan and not as much coming from HPD. But with the NSX coming in 2017 any HPD kit could be delayed and ESM needs something sooner than 'in the future.'

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

I'm deeply confused by this, I thought "DPi" required custom bodywork...

Me too. I know Nissan gas said nothing about an official DPi, But I also wonder if Nissan would let them use a racing engine without approval. I guess it is safe to say there will be more info forthcoming.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

I'm deeply confused by this, I thought "DPi" required custom bodywork...

They do. And although there's been a rumor of one-year delay being talked about for it, it is not looking likely that IMSA will be shifting their position anytime soon.

[TF110]

Maybe we'll just see a red Ligier with Nismo gtr lights and a big Nissan sticker on the fin.

[Matt]

I think he's just referring all IMSA P cars as DPi's instead of splitting them to DPi and P2.

[DeezPutz]

Yeah, it's just the way the article is written. It's really a non-issue except for people who obsess over crapping on IMSA.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Matt

I think he's just referring all IMSA P cars as DPi's instead of splitting them to DPi and P2.

That doesn't clear up the matter AT ALL.

Originally Posted by DeezPutz

Yeah, it's just the way the article is written. It's really a non-issue except for people who obsess over crapping on IMSA.

Wanting clarification of what's going on with this equals crapping on IMSA? That's an interesting way to view things.

The article as written implies that it's engine only, which goes against IMSA's stated plan: Either engine AND bodywork, or you run the Gibson V8. It's not at all strange to want more information to clear up this matter, and it's certainly not "crapping on" anybody to point out the reasons it doesn't make sense.

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Either engine AND bodywork, or you run the Gibson V8.

That's my understanding as well. I tend to call the members of the DPi platform which opt for the former a "DPi" and the latter a (ACO) P2. So I'm surprised to see someone announcing (maybe) running with a different engine without mention of bodywork from said engine manufacturer as well. It is my understanding that IMSA will not accept such a "DPi". Mentions that I've seen so far say that going for a P2 is a good thing, as it can be "easily" converted into a DPi, but that does require installation of a different (non-ACO-spec Gibson) engine as well as custom bodywork that is "recognizably" different (I seem to remember a statement from within IMSA saying that just minor aesthetic rebrushes aren't good enough for qualifying for manufacturer-cued styling). So I end up confused by the ESM story.

[Maelochs]

On another hand, if any team was going to get a rules break, I could see it being the team which is funding the North American Endurance Cup ....

It was my understanding that the "custom bodywork" had to come from a manufacturer, thus a company which had paid the "partner's fee." I didn't think just anyone could create some custom bodywork and call the result a "DPi."

It would get pretty hard for IMSA of aero-BoP all the bodywork if any shop could produce "custom" DPi panels. Also, I think the whole point of the rule was to force factories to pay to play---so if Nissan wanted to brag about winning and IMSA race with its Nissan V8-Ligier or Nissan-Oreca, it would have to pay the fees and submit the bodywork Like all the other manufacturers in DPi.

What a storm it would set off if Nissan could claim victories with its independently built "Nissan-Ligier" while GM had to pay big bucks to enter its "Cadillac DPi."

Sadly we will have to wait not just for the details of this rumor, but also to see if this rumor is even true, or if it is a rumor based on an exploration which will not pan out.

I've got to say, 2018 is looking to be a really big year for IMSA ....

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

(...)
It was my understanding that the "custom bodywork" had to come from a manufacturer, thus a company which had paid the "partner's fee." I didn't think just anyone could create some custom bodywork and call the result a "DPi."
(...)
I've got to say, 2018 is looking to be a really big year for IMSA ....

From Panoz' statement on the DPi progress (won't happen, because other manufacturers don't see Panoz as manufacturer, and partner fee) that seems to be the case, indeed.

And can we agree that "the year after" will be a really big year for IMSA as we keep updating the actual number for some years now already

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by TF110

Maybe we'll just see a red Ligier with Nismo gtr lights and a big Nissan sticker on the fin.

That certainly brings up an interesting point... how involved does the manufactuer bodywork need to be? If the Ligier, for example, has the aero they like with some improvments, could it be just as easy as stylizing the headlight bucket and changing the taillights?

I mean, thats a pretty cheap way to get around the manu specific aero kit.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

That certainly brings up an interesting point... how involved does the manufactuer bodywork need to be? If the Ligier, for example, has the aero they like with some improvments, could it be just as easy as stylizing the headlight bucket and changing the taillights?

I mean, thats a pretty cheap way to get around the manu specific aero kit.

Good point really. Do you even need to change the lights? The Alpine is just a chassis plate on an ORECA. Will we see that?

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Good point really. Do you even need to change the lights? The Alpine is just a chassis plate on an ORECA. Will we see that?

AFAIUI, no.

[Maelochs]

I am pretty sure the manufacturers (read: GM) who pushed for "styling cues" bodywork are not going to be pleased if any other factory gets to play for less pay.

This could mean a couple things, though; Maybe if Nissan ponied up the "Partner" fee GM would be okay with minimal mods ("Hey, it's their lost potential ad impact") or might demand a more sizable investment---but I have no clue what the fine details of the rules actually specify, so this is all "Ten/Tenths Fact"--that is, wild speculation.

I also don't know how long GM's lobbying arm reaches, nor how committed Nissan might be, if at all.

I am pretty sure GM doesn't want to be giving up wins to Nissan (a well-proven power plant) unless Nissan jumps through every rule book hoop GM can imagine or interpret (same thing, really.)

[Damian Baldi]

This is a very interesting situation, and I think it's a key point. If you ask me, I think the idea to force teams to use a bodywork with the shape of a manufacturer's brand isn't a good idea, because it close the door for projects like this (the ESM) because it's a lot more expensive to build a bodywork, than just to install an engine with their cooling needs on a chassis.

When all this of the DPi started, I thought that just manufacturers should be forced to use manufacturer's bodywork, letting the teams use the standard bodywork of the chassises with they prefered engine on the back, because it's a lot more simple, and we could see several different engines.

Now, what I have read some days ago, is that some manufacturers could start 2017 with the standard chassis bodywork, because time schedule issues. So, IMSA could allow teams (for some time) to use standard bodywork and DPi engines even for Mazda or GM at least for Daytona.

[broadrun96]

From sportscar365 this morning:

*Honda is unlikely to enter the DPi ranks next year, with the focus primarily on the Acura NSX GT3 development and factory race program. “Our focus is on getting this thing launched,” HPD VP/COO Steve Eriksen told Sportscar365. “That’s the key thing. The NSX is such an exciting vehicle that we want to make sure we get it right.”

Makes sense as to why ESM have a Nissan package, no word on how they could though.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Good point really. Do you even need to change the lights? The Alpine is just a chassis plate on an ORECA. Will we see that?

I've texted a few friends in the journalism world, hoping for clarification. I'd imagine you won't be able to get away with running the pure stock bodywork and adding a sticker. But, how different it needs to be? That's the question.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

I've texted a few friends in the journalism world, hoping for clarification. I'd imagine you won't be able to get away with running the pure stock bodywork and adding a sticker. But, how different it needs to be? That's the question.

I believe the series has the right to review and approve/disapprove any manufacturer suggested edits. So of the series doesn't think the changes are enough they can send you back to the drawing board.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Good point really. Do you even need to change the lights? The Alpine is just a chassis plate on an ORECA. Will we see that?

Raffauf has said repeatedly it will require actual physical changes to the bodywork, just slapping stickers on a constructor chassis will not be acceptable.







L.P.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by joeb

I believe the series has the right to review and approve/disapprove any manufacturer suggested edits. So of the series doesn't think the changes are enough they can send you back to the drawing board.

Yep, he has also stated this as well.







L.P.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yep, he has also stated this as well.

Right, see my post above.... it's a matter of how much.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by joeb

I believe the series has the right to review and approve/disapprove any manufacturer suggested edits. So of the series doesn't think the changes are enough they can send you back to the drawing board.

Which, is really quite gray. Even changing just a handful of things will leave a ton of it open for interpretation.... this could get a bit interesting.

How does one clarify "what is enough"... It's an easy argument to say.

Well, Manufactuer A did XYZ to make their bodywork have "cues" We here at Manufactuer B think we have met our "cues" through this XYZ.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Which, is really quite gray. Even changing just a handful of things will leave a ton of it open for interpretation.... this could get a bit interesting.

How does one clarify "what is enough"... It's an easy argument to say.

Well, Manufactuer A did XYZ to make their bodywork have "cues" We here at Manufactuer B think we have met our "cues" through this XYZ.

Exactly what I was trying to say, it is up to the black box that is "series management".

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by joeb

Exactly what I was trying to say, it is up to the black box that is "series management".

Luckily the "series management" has a history of making the right calls, treating every entrant equally and consistently, plus planning well and communicating clearly.

[/sarcasm]

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by joeb

Exactly what I was trying to say, it is up to the black box that is "series management".

You really think that the OEM's are not aware of the requirements or that they do not have to submit renders for approval?







L.P.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

You really think that the OEM's are not aware of the requirements or that they do not have to submit renders for approval?







L.P.

Did you read my previous post about the series getting to review and approve the plans?