IMSA DPi Discussion

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Umm... No. Put simply, if you can't see those tiny details, how do you know where to fill things in differently to make them visible?

If 5 minutes in photoshop got an accurate recreation of every tiny aero detail, then the camo designer needs to be fired because he sucks at his job.



Not true. As I like to say, "air is air" - while different groups will focuses on moving it in different ways, it behaves the same way for GM and Dallara as it does for Riley/Multimatic and Mazda. A tiny detail may have been designed to work with one chassis, but that doesn't mean it won't work on another - in fact, with the wild differences in the chassis design, a small detail that was overlooked by Constructor A until they saw Constructor B try it could work considerably BETTER for Constructor A's car.

You could say it won't matter because of BoP, but even that's not necessarily true - we've already gone over in this thread why you still need to do your aero right even with the assistance of BoP, after all, but there's also the fact that anything thought up for a DPi could still influence something on the LMP2 chassis. OR an LMP1(if the constructor is considering one down the road).

The dazzle camo is well known to do it's job in hiding these little details - if it didn't, nobody would ever use it.

I mean... when you've seen the render, and the Dallara beforehand...this makes the camo useless.

As I said, and I'll reiterate... the 'little places' that could be considered advantageous can't be touched, so, it's not necessary. This isn't some crazy gender bending excercise... GM barely touched the stock Dallara kit.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

I mean... when you've seen the render, and the Dallara beforehand...this makes the camo useless.

No, it doesn't. As I will reiterate, those renderings cannot be trusted to contain those details. They are, more often than not, simplified. Chances are very high that the car on track has details the renders do not.

And yeah, we've seen the Dallara beforehand... But we have also seen that the Caddy has altered front fenders, rear fender pontoons, and slightly different bodywork in between the front fenders. There can be any number of other tiny differences that are both hidden by the camo, AND deliberately left off of the rendering.

The point is not to hide everything, it's to make it extremely difficult to extrapolate the fine details. Dazzle camo is proven to do this, and nobody of sound mind is going to try and extrapolate those details from a rendering that will in all likelihood leave off the details the camo is trying to hide.

As I said, and I'll reiterate... the 'little places' that could be considered advantageous can't be touched, so, it's not necessary. This isn't some crazy gender bending excercise...

Actually, they can be. Anytime prior to the official homologation of the chassis, those details can be altered. And even after that, research towards the revisions after the homologation expires can begin immediately. The less time your opposition has to consider your ideas, the more benefit you can gain from it both short and long term.

GM barely touched the stock Dallara kit.

In the big picture, yes - while there are some obvious differences, they are not as hugely different as many had hoped(in fact, I'm pretty sure it's the bare minimum that IMSA will allow). But any aero engineer will tell you that tiny details can make a HUGE difference, and they'll want to make any less obvious details as hard to find as possible because of that.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

No, it doesn't. As I will reiterate, those renderings cannot be trusted to contain those details. They are, more often than not, simplified. Chances are very high that the car on track has details the renders do not.

And yeah, we've seen the Dallara beforehand... But we have also seen that the Caddy has altered front fenders, rear fender pontoons, and slightly different bodywork in between the front fenders. There can be any number of other tiny differences that are both hidden by the camo, AND deliberately left off of the rendering.

The point is not to hide everything, it's to make it extremely difficult to extrapolate the fine details. Dazzle camo is proven to do this, and nobody of sound mind is going to try and extrapolate those details from a rendering that will in all likelihood leave off the details the camo is trying to hide.



Actually, they can be. Anytime prior to the official homologation of the chassis, those details can be altered. And even after that, research towards the revisions after the homologation expires can begin immediately. The less time your opposition has to consider your ideas, the more benefit you can gain from it both short and long term.



In the big picture, yes - while there are some obvious differences, they are not as hugely different as many had hoped(in fact, I'm pretty sure it's the bare minimum that IMSA will allow). But any aero engineer will tell you that tiny details can make a HUGE difference, and they'll want to make any less obvious details as hard to find as possible because of that.

Okay. I wasn't talking the public renders.. but W/E.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Okay. I wasn't talking the public renders.. but W/E.

What other renders would you be referring to? The manufacturers aren't going to be sharing the private in-house stuff, after all.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

What other renders would you be referring to? The manufacturers aren't going to be sharing the private in-house stuff, after all.

Not publicly.

[Maelochs]

Another expansion on the contrast between discussion and bickering.

As I said, it's not like the other manufacturers are going to change their bodywork with two weeks until the Daytona test ... and Everything (including sand capacity) will be revealed at Daytona.

As far as I know, all bodywork had to be approved by IMSA and is homologated in its submitted form, ... so I cannot see any reason to hide any details ... but other people have different ideas ... maybe it (camo) is simply GM standard practice, and they do it if it matters or not.

I have to wonder if there might be other directions to take this discussion.

[carbsmith]

The camo was just in case the car was caught testing before its public debut, so as to obscure whether they were running with DPi bodywork or not and protect the reveal. I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Not publicly.

They're not going to be sharing that stuff privately, either. Only a moron gives their opponents information like that.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

The camo was just in case the car was caught testing before its public debut, so as to obscure whether they were running with DPi bodywork or not and protect the reveal. I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise.

People think otherwise because dazzle camo is used all the time on cars that don't need to protected in that way. The reasons for dazzle camo are extremely well known and I find it very surprising that so many people refuse to comprehend the reason for it.

[Coach Ep]

Whatever. Tiring. Again.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

People think otherwise because dazzle camo is used all the time on cars that don't need to protected in that way. The reasons for dazzle camo are extremely well known and I find it very surprising that so many people refuse to comprehend the reason for it.

No. it's exactly the reason that carbsmith said it was for... it was for pre-release photos only.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

No. it's exactly the reason that carbsmith said it was for... it was for pre-release photos only.

Then would you please care to explain why so many companies continue to use them well after renders are released so often? GM, BMW, Honda, Porsche and Mercedes have all done so and those are just the ones I can recall from the top of my head.

You don't have to answer, though, because we all know the answer. I've been pointing it out the entire time; It's because the purpose of them is to hide small details - nothing more, nothing less. Different companies have different ideas of when the time is right to drop the camo, but that's the entire reason why it's done. When a company chooses to drop the camo does not change this. And to say it doesn't work is just plain wrong - if it didn't work, it would never be done. Ever.

With that said, I think we're starting to annoy others. I've said all that needs to be said on my point, so post your followup if you choose to and let's move on.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Then would you please care to explain why so many companies continue to use them well after renders are released so often? GM, BMW, Honda, Porsche and Mercedes have all done so and those are just the ones I can recall from the top of my head.

You don't have to answer, though, because we all know the answer. I've been pointing it out the entire time; It's because the purpose of them is to hide small details - nothing more, nothing less. Different companies have different ideas of when the time is right to drop the camo, but that's the entire reason why it's done. When a company chooses to drop the camo does not change this. And to say it doesn't work is just plain wrong - if it didn't work, it would never be done. Ever.

With that said, I think we're starting to annoy others. I've said all that needs to be said on my point, so post your followup if you choose to and let's move on.

GM is incredibly sensitive with their PR department. This could have been stock Dallara bodywork(and by all accounts, it nearly is) and they'd still use it. They aren't hiding anything, nothing here is proprietary nor is worth thinking there is some magical solution that needs to be hidden.

The rules that these kits have been built to are well defined and it severely limits the options for extensive aero development. The DPi concept was designed to provide for styling ONLY not drastic performance enhancements especially as they potentially move forward into customer program options.

Perhaps you are unaware, but NASCAR like parity... the stakeholders and IMSA have been well aware of what others are doing, and have done to keep this as level as possible. IMSA will deny or approve the design of the current and future manu's based on what may or May norm be advantageous, along with styling aesthetics to ensure it meets marketing goals for their organization.

[FormulaFox]

Okay, I think I've figured out why we're in disagreement over something that should be obvious given what you've just said...

YOU were limiting your assessment to this particular situation. *I* have been talking dazzle camo in the overall big picture sense.

I still do not agree with your assessment based on everything I've heard and everything I know about racecar design and the need to keep secrets(just because this is for DPi doesn't mean there can't still be many tiny changes that GM wants to keep hidden).

While I strongly doubt it, you could be correct in regards to the narrow focus you've apparently been applying.

With that settled, I think we genuinely can move on to other matters now.

[ATLFalconsFAN]

Yes, move on. Please stop this incessant, annoying bickering!

[Coach Ep]

good read: http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorspo...e-same-series/

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by ATLFalconsFAN

Yes, move on. Please stop this incessant, annoying bickering!

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Whatever. Tiring. Again.

x2

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

good read: http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorspo...e-same-series/

Indeed a good read, and I have yet to tire of looking at the new prototypes.

[Maelochs]

Yup. If IMSA doesn't shoot itself in the man-parts with non-stop BoP fiddling, this could be the start of a major new era in prototype racing.

Friend of mine said, "Let 'em race, and if they lose, tell the to up their games."

Imagine that. Cars actually Racing again ... we haven't seen that in a while.

Someone tell IMSA, if the manufacturers want to buy wins, they can, but they cannot buy fans. Let them race, win or lose,. and they will have all the fan support they could ever want.

Shoot ... I am a huge Mazda fan, and that car has Never won. A manufacturer doesn't need trophies to gain supporters.

Let them race, win or lose. Watch the series grow in popularity. Repeat, each successive season. End of equation.

[pach233]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Yup. If IMSA doesn't shoot itself in the man-parts with non-stop BoP fiddling, this could be the start of a major new era in prototype racing.

Friend of mine said, "Let 'em race, and if they lose, tell the to up their games."

Imagine that. Cars actually Racing again ... we haven't seen that in a while.

Someone tell IMSA, if the manufacturers want to buy wins, they can, but they cannot buy fans. Let them race, win or lose,. and they will have all the fan support they could ever want.

Shoot ... I am a huge Mazda fan, and that car has Never won. A manufacturer doesn't need trophies to gain supporters.

Let them race, win or lose. Watch the series grow in popularity. Repeat, each successive season. End of equation.

Been (mostly) agreeing with what you've written for several years now but this specifically should be told again and again to IMSA management. They seem to have found an opportunity with this DPi concept, here's hoping they let them race and don't try and control absolutely everything (GTLM.)

[carbsmith]

That's a non-possibility. All of the manufacturers that are in DPi are there because they have the expectation of BoP, it isn't like GTE where BMW and Porsche exploit it and Ferrari and Corvette just suck it up to have competition.

[TF110]

Maybe they could lessen the bop? Maybe try to get a set of rules established first then open up the rules on things like engine cog and that extra technical crap.

[Accident]

It's going to happen, but I don't even really mind much if they tinker a little here and there to help bring the cars a bit closer. I just don't want this crap where they change it after almost every race and it swings back and forth, with one car getting slowed while the other car is sped up and each race has a somewhat obvious favorite going into it.

Get a baseline and get them close to that baseline and leave them alone.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by Accident

It's going to happen, but I don't even really mind much if they tinker a little here and there to help bring the cars a bit closer. I just don't want this crap where they change it after almost every race and it swings back and forth, with one car getting slowed while the other car is sped up and each race has a somewhat obvious favorite going into it.

Get a baseline and get them close to that baseline and leave them alone.

Exactly what I've been thinking.

[Damian Baldi]

Originally Posted by Accident

It's going to happen, but I don't even really mind much if they tinker a little here and there to help bring the cars a bit closer. I just don't want this crap where they change it after almost every race and it swings back and forth, with one car getting slowed while the other car is sped up and each race has a somewhat obvious favorite going into it.

Get a baseline and get them close to that baseline and leave them alone.

Yeah, I totally agree, because this way you know which car is better in some kind of track and which one is better in others. If they change the BoP at every race you don't know what to expect, and you can't think about next race because it will change again.

A bit of calm on the regulations will be enjoyable.