|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
1 Aug 2017, 10:04 (Ref:3756641) | #126 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
Quote:
Even most of the VAG cars in the US that were recalled--even early ones--are now back on the road. And the US is where dieselgate was the biggest problem for VAG (where they actually broke both the letter and spirit of the laws--the EU couldn't make things stick under the letter of their laws at the time, hence the whole anti-trust and anti-competition allegations of basically everyone in the EU. In other worlds, think of Al Capone's tax evasion conviction). But then again, that's basically what Graham said. It wasn't as much about saving money (though I believe that that and issues with the rules and the ACO contributed to some degree), but saving face. It's not even about the $25 billion that they set aside to settle lawsuits and claims, and VAG even after that was still making profits. It's all about PR and being seen as fixing the problem from a public relations and consumer advocacy stand point. And it doesn't help that you can probably learn quite a bit about EV and hybrid drive systems in FE for a fraction of the cost of a LMP1 program. And I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Toyota end up in FE somehow. And for the same reasons that LMP1 is a dying formula, and that Toyota would be seen as saving face from a cost/benefits stand point. |
|||
|
1 Aug 2017, 10:40 (Ref:3756648) | #127 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Quote:
I think LMP-1 was turning into a monster, consuming mass quantities of cash and offering insufficient return, and from all signs the rules were going to keep getting more ridiculous. FIA was on a manufacturer-funded power trip, and the manufacturers were tired of what they were getting in return. I am not sure a lot of people even knew Audi and Porsche were spending gigantic sums on P1 .... I know I can talk about P1 with almost anyone, anywhere, and get a blank look. But in the circles where people do pay attention ... like the accounting department and PR department ... I'd bet dieselgate was almost welcomed ... a good chance to axe those pointless, expensive dinosaur sports cars. As you say ... FE offers much more focused, much less expensive research opportunities and comes with a green-wash certificate right in the box. It is easy to say "It was cost," or "It was dieselgate," but I doubt multi-billion-dollar decisions involving tens of thousands of people and a bunch of power-hungry department heads is Ever a simple decision. On the corporate level dieselgate might have been a trigger .... cost might have loaded the gun ... or cost might have been the target ... likely a bunch of people had different and complex reasons for favoring the end of LMP1-H. Frankly, I welcome that end. The cycle begins anew ... a cheaper formula, more privateers, one or two factories become dominant, the rulesmakers wend the rules to help those factories to suit the factories (in return for "PR contribution" or whatever they call bribes in France,) the factories get into spending wars, eventually they realize what fools they've been, cycle restarts. The sun also rises ... someone said. |
||
|
1 Aug 2017, 10:55 (Ref:3756655) | #128 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
That's why I also think that we're selling the decisions makers short, because even though we might not like their decisions, I doubt that there was just one reason to make them.
I doubt that people from these organizations have been 100% straight up with the guys from DSC and SC365 and other sites (not that they need to be). There are undoubtedly the public reasons, which undeniably played a part. But you also have to look at cost/benefit, that you could be costing people their jobs unless you can shuffle them elsewhere (most of the people from the Audi Sport LMP1 program have been retained, with many of them still at Audi Sport for example; Porsche Motorsport also it seems want to follow that example), what other departments say that have ties to the program. All of that factors in, which, granted, we probably don't need to know about because we all ready know that fact. I doubt that these organizations had an easy time to kill their programs, and I do bet that the decision to do so was carefully planned in advance. I see neither the Audi Sport or Porsche LMP1 program cancellations being a knee-jerk reaction, unlike Peugeot's pull out. Unlike the ACO's reactions, which are IMO knee-jerk, because they didn't plan for what could happen. And when you know what could happen, if you fail to plan, you're pretty much planning for failure. |
||
|
1 Aug 2017, 11:16 (Ref:3756663) | #129 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,491
|
|||
|
1 Aug 2017, 13:17 (Ref:3756712) | #130 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 549
|
I think all of us and ACO got a bit content with Audi. If we look at the history of sportscar racing Manufacturers tend to join in for 3 to 5 years and then they drop out.
Audi is probably the only manufacturer to be present for almost 20 years and be competitive all throughout that period. The only other manufacturer that comes close is Porsche at the end of the 70s up until the late 80s. Even then they relied on customers. Maybe the organisers(and us the fans) have started to take for granted manufacturer involvement and expect them to be involved for a long period of time and have forgotten that manufacturers tend to stay for short periods(get in-develop-win-retire on high or get in-develop-lose-retire) Hopefully this is a wake up call and in the future the ACO will be more wary of how they plan future rules and the championship and take into account that manufactures do not tend to stay for long. Yes manufacturers prefer stability(current rules until 2020) but that is not a guarantee that they will stay. ACO now has the issue of having only 1 manufacturer in LMP1 up until 2020 - nobody will joinbefore hand-there is no point. |
||
|
1 Aug 2017, 13:25 (Ref:3756714) | #131 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,247
|
I can understand why they would be a bit p*ssed off though. Around Le Mans alone, the paint is only just dry on the Porsche signs and buildings that have replaced the Audi ones...
|
||
__________________
You're either at Le Mans, or waiting for Le Mans. ('86, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91, '93, '94, '95, '97, '98, '00, '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, '06, '07, '08, '09, '10, '11, '12, '13, '14, '15, '16, '17, '24) |
1 Aug 2017, 14:39 (Ref:3756722) | #132 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
FIA is peed off because their cash cow left and took its cash calf with it. Now they might have to get real jobs ... like running a successful racing series ... and we know they aren't prepared to do that.
|
|
|
1 Aug 2017, 16:31 (Ref:3756732) | #133 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,608
|
How can a company take a hit in penalties and recalls that equals a third of the entire company's value and this not have anything to do with cost?
It cost more than a billion dollars to bring one new model to market. That is what the R&D budget is for. You could argue that the reason they are pulling out now is to "save face" but it was going to happen either way. Those that contribute directly to the bottom line will always supersede those that have to justify their return. |
||
|
1 Aug 2017, 16:42 (Ref:3756736) | #134 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,026
|
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
1 Aug 2017, 20:41 (Ref:3756783) | #135 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
Seb Buemi and Lucas DiGrassi are calling for a shift in emphasis in LMP1 away from Hybrids and focus possibly on EVs in the future, but currently hybrids need to be toned down to increase affordability.
It should be remembered that both are Formula E drivers and FE drivers' champs: http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/d...t-regulations/ Also, since we also have a LMP1 future regs thread, could we have a merger of this one and the LMP1 future regs thread since these threads basically talk about the same thing? |
||
|
1 Aug 2017, 21:34 (Ref:3756799) | #136 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,026
|
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
2 Aug 2017, 02:51 (Ref:3756820) | #137 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
Quote:
No, they need to add red to that Hybrid4 livery that never ran. |
||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
3 Aug 2017, 02:32 (Ref:3757098) | #138 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,567
|
Quote:
What can you learn from F-E that you can't in lmp1? It's a spec battery, a spec chassis, spec this, spec that... you can develop the drivetrain. Whereas in lmp1 you can develop everything. Anyone who pays attention to how the world is pushing this 'green' idea knows that the move to F-E is a cheap PR win. |
||
|
3 Aug 2017, 03:18 (Ref:3757099) | #139 | ||||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
The class, as we know it, has hit the end of the line. They can adapt the DPi and any LMP1-L cars to race together, but ignoring DPi at this point is foolish. |
||||
|
3 Aug 2017, 05:15 (Ref:3757117) | #140 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,567
|
Don't think ByKolles is the only privateer team that will be in the lmp1 class next year. As shown by this year's race, any well put together privateer p1 that had a clean run would have easily taken the 24 hours of Le Mans. Imo, that should increase the interest to run one or two from Ginetta or SMP/Dallara.
|
|
|
3 Aug 2017, 08:34 (Ref:3757158) | #141 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Of course, the ACO is so afraid of "spec cars" winning races that they'll run those same "spec cars" in another class, it makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
3 Aug 2017, 16:11 (Ref:3757223) | #142 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
The ACO should change it's mind because they've spent years shafting the privateer teams because they only concerned themselves with factory team money. And ignoring the fact that they were creating a house of cards situation where they basically encouraged teams to spend tons of money quickly.
Allow me to bring up this point. The Audi R10 program was undoubtedly expensive. As was Peugeot's program with the 908. But those programs were able to spread out the cost over a longer period. When you have a longer period to spend a roughly similar budget, that's clearly more palatable to the bean counters. We also have to look at LMP900 and in a more contemporary context, GT3 racing. In those formulas, you have customer car programs. Lola, Dallara, Riley, Reyard/Zytek and others were not just selling cars, but spare parts to teams at an affordable price and were probably making some money off of it. Even Audi Sport were running R8s primarily as a customer focused program. And they probably made some money off of that in the end. In GT3 racing, that's all there is. Even the factory teams are customers in a supply and demand formula. There's a demand, car makers are supplying it, and making money off of a relatively affordable formula. LMP1, especially when there's no chance or opportunity to sell customer cars, be it as a car supplier or a car maker, will always be a money loser. Without corporate sponsorship and merchandising, NASCAR and F1 would be big money losers, and I'd bet that most teams still lose some money until the FOM payments come out, and even then several in the back half the of the field are losing money or at best barely breaking even. In things like that, it's definently a case of "wanna be a millionaire? Start out as a billionaire". And because of the technology in a modern factory LMP1, even if someone wanted to sell the cars, who could afford one? It's not like LMP900 or first generation LMP1 where some rich dude can just buy a car, maybe get an engine supply program and go race. Or even (as with the R8) buy a car from the factory, get a support package and go race. Those days said "good bye" at least 7-8 years ago. I know that I'm probably repeating points here, but that goes to show how much times have changed. And we as human beings tend to not like change. Especially when you don't see something as a change for the better. When you see something seemingly (or in actuality) going to hell in a handbasket, that's where the rose tinted glasses comes in, and perhaps one gains a new appreciation for what they had in the past. That's why I stressed that if you enjoy what you're seeing now, enjoy it while it lasts because things can change quickly. The bubble burst in GT1 basically in 2006. AMR/Prodrive left the ALMS as an entry because of lack of a full season sponsorship package (which is why they ran those junk Pirelli tires that season, because of Pirelli's offer of sponsorship). Afterwards, they concentrated on doing LM basically as a one off, and I find it no coincidence that such focus on LM paid off since AMR won GT1 in both '07 and '08. LMP1 peaked in 2015. And once you peak, you can only go up, stagnate, or go back down. I think that LMP1 (like GT1 late in it's life) got too expensive, too fast. Technology was pushed too hard, too fast. That scared off other car makers and left us with VAG and Toyota. And given any excuse, to save money, save face, looking for other opportunities, whatever, they could--and did--leave. Now the ACO have to save face and admit that they messed up, and try and make admends. Sadly, that might take Peugeot coming in and getting what they want--which according to RCE means things like a 4MJ cap, basically taking hybrids back to 2013 levels among other concessions--to get things sensible again. You don't have a healthy formula IMO when you price out privateers and price out otherwise willing entries. Then you become reliant on one or two OEMs to prop up the class. And as we've seen, that can easily put you in a vulnerable position. And now, basically, Al Swearengen is calling, and it's time to pay up, even if only metaphorically. |
||
|
3 Aug 2017, 18:41 (Ref:3757237) | #143 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
I just found this a few minutes ago and posted it in the Porsche thread because part 1 of the article deals explicitly with Porsche.
Part 2 is an opinion piece on how the LMP1 class can be saved as far as factory involvement (hit, the author is beating the DPI drum for 2020 onwards): http://www.automobilemag.com/news/ar...p1-withdrawal/ Granted, the article's worth here is probably moot and perhaps meaningless, since several others are also pushing a pro-DPI agenda in their editorials. Either they're arguing for DPI as it is with a speed boost, or DPI with open development and LMP1 like performance. But I'm of the opinion that DPI as is won't work. The article also seems to advocate LMP1 being phased out of the WEC and making it be a LM exclusive (not sure how that would work or how well that'd sit with the ACO and FIA). Last edited by chernaudi; 3 Aug 2017 at 18:50. |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 12:48 (Ref:3757357) | #144 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 Aug 2017, 16:25 (Ref:3757397) | #145 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
The problem with DPI is can anyone name one manufacturer involved in IMSA right now who'd want to run LM? Only one's I can name are privateer teams that are running ACO spec LMP2s. It's clear to me that DPI is going to be a national/regional formula as long as Cadillac/GM, ESM (and whatever money they do get from Nissan) and Mazda want to stay in IMSA and don't have any LM ambitions.
Not to mention that in their current form DPIs would maybe be barely faster than LMP2 cars at LM and the tracks the WEC races on. I don't know how much more power they can get out of basically GT3 homolgated engines (or the Caddy's Chevy small block) without sacrificing reliability. Only thing I can think of is have LMP1s given 700+bhp and fuel flow meters or air restrictors to match, and a lighter weight. There also needs to be less emphasis on hybrids and no more of the "go big or go home" mentality that the ERS Incentive enforced. I think it says something that no privateer team seriously looked into running a hybrid. Let alone a better balance between hybrid classes and hybrid vs non-hybrid. |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 17:32 (Ref:3757419) | #146 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Quote:
Quote:
When people say some of this stuff (like the other guy who goes on about how privateer P1 teams couldn't last) I point out that until the hybrid rules came into play .. Everyone ran a gasoline-fueled engine and got big power and good speed. From the end of LMP-9000, and well, GTP/Gropup C ... and all of LMP1 until the diesels arrived ... Everyone had a petrol engine and was fast and lasted (well, not every car from every team every time ...) Given advances in direct injection, engine management, aero .... i find it hard to believe that n one could build a safe, fast, reliable P1-L or DPi. Why Not? Even when the diesels form Peugeot and Audi were mostly leading the field at every race, there were still privateer petrol P1s almost equaling the pace and lasting the race (Didn't Highcroft come second or third at Sebring with a car they took possession of a week before ... 2012 maybe?) We might not see any speed records broken ... but it that's all peopel want, design a spec for that. If people want good racing ... Old LMP1 gave rpetty good racing before the FIA started giving Audi and Peugeot whatever they wanted and before the ridiculous hybrid era. |
|||
|
4 Aug 2017, 18:02 (Ref:3757423) | #147 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
Problem is that no stock block engine has been run to 700+bhp in quite a while, and even AMR were blowing engines at LM in 2009 and 2010.
The Judd V10s were purpose built engines designed for racing from the outset, as was the Audi R8's engine. The were reliable, but designed for the task. I'd bet that even the GM 6.2 liter V8 might have trouble getting an extra 20% horsepower being coaxed from it for a 24 hour race. You do have to remember that we're still talking production based engines here for DPI. And no matter how much you modify them, they still have their limitations. That's why the switch happened in NASCAR from old production based 350-360cid engines to purpose built ones over the past decade. The whole diesel deal was to get Renault or Peugeot back to LM--probably with little thought that Audi Sport would steal their march a year early. Hybrids were to get Porsche and Toyota back in, and probably keep Audi Sport (initially) happy. Gasoline engines are cheap because it's a technology that's been done to death. Hybrids and even diesels haven't received much factory attention until the past decade or so. And new technology will always cost more to implement and use, until it's done to death and costs come down. Look at traction control. One of the reasons why several series defended banning it was to "humanize" the sport and bring cost down. Now, a simple ASR TC system (the only such thing that's legal in ACO and IMSA competition) is very cheap and also marginally effective. Most road cars have more effective TC than race cars do, and it's just as cheap. |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 18:02 (Ref:3757424) | #148 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
LMP2 is a modern LMP900 spec car. The problem is going faster than that because to make a class size gap you need either something like 800hp or 800kg, neither of which is all that trivial. (Even when the LMP2 weight limit was 750kg very few cars could make it to close to 800kg, and that was with open top cars running compact engines.) Now before you say they had 800hp cars in the 80s or whatever, that's 800hp with some sort of vaguely acceptable fuel economy and a reasonable engine weight by modern standards. Not just for the environmental angle but because if you're carrying a much heavier fuel load than an LMP2 car to run the same stint length or can't meet the minimum weight we're back where we started. Don't take this as a comparison in any other way but the target technical level of LMP1 these days is much closer to what it was with 3.5L Group C than the old LMP900 "junk formula", and the ongoing existence of LMP2 pretty much forces their hand on it remaining that way unless they want to alienate 30 or so happy LMP2 teams with technical changes.
|
|
|
4 Aug 2017, 18:15 (Ref:3757429) | #149 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,608
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 Aug 2017, 18:26 (Ref:3757432) | #150 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
I'm well aware of that. But even then 7 liter big blocks were legal until 1980. And the engines had to be production based stock block engines until 2007 (by which time GM stopped making the 350 and Ford the 351 Windsor for years in production cars).
When Toyota came in, they didn't have a pushrod V8 to run in NASCAR, so NASCAR allowed them to build one. That's when the whole 4.5 inch max bore spacing came in, and GM, Dodge and Ford all by 2010 designed engines around that spec, with GM being the first to do so in 2007. None of the current NASCAR V8s share any features or parts with a production engine. And that's pretty much because NASCAR moved away from having engines based on out of production stock block V8s, to engines purpose built for the job. The stock block engines had significant design limitations, not to matter being obsolescent for many years. That's also why we almost never see stock block engines in prototype racing unless it's mandated. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
Joest Porsche LMP1 | Megatron | Sportscar & GT Racing | 6 | 31 Oct 2003 10:28 |
2004 Riley & Scott LMP1???? | Tim Northcutt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 8 | 12 Oct 2003 10:48 |
To clear up the 675/LMP2/LMP1 for next year... | Megatron | Sportscar & GT Racing | 14 | 11 Aug 2003 21:38 |