ALMS 2011 Discussion

[chernaudi]

Maybe because the Radical is similar in performance to the FLM/LMPC cars, and that those cars are very similar to what IMSA and the ACO envision LMP2 cars becoming.

Also, it seems likely that IMSA will grandfather their 2010 regs next year for the non ILMC races (all events aside from Sebring and PLM). I don't know if IMSA is willing to open up the LMPC class like what they want to do with the GTC class, though.

[HORNDAWG]

LMPC was gauranteed for 3yrs to the teams that bought in!
P-1 and P-2 will be combined next year as P-1 in the ACO, exactly as the ALMS LMP class this year.
The rub comes when the ACO's new cost capped P-2 is ushered in. In the LMS, where there is no gaurantee of an FLM spec class on the main grid, and a series for the cars to go back to, it is not a problem.
Whereas the ALMS has the obligation to the teams in LMPC to keep the class, at LMPC spec.
Then it brings up what to do with the 2011 rules P-2s in the ALMS? At the moment, LMPC adjusted to a pace to keep clear of the GT class is faster than the 2011 rule P-2. The Libra P-2 is now already over spec with the restrictor adjustment given.



L.P.

[Speed-King]

and a series for the cars to go back to

Nope, that one has been killed off.

The Libra P-2 is now already over spec with the restrictor adjustment given.

If they want the 2011-P2s to stay out of the way of the GTs, they better give them the same (or more) adjustments next year.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Nope, that one has been killed off.
O.K.
If they want the 2011-P2s to stay out of the way of the GTs, they better give them the same (or more) adjustments next year.

But that goes against the performance envelope developed by the ACO for a/the cost capped class. That is the problem!




L.P.

[joeb]

Does increasing restrictor size actually cost teams more? It was my understanding that the lmpc teams were asking for the performance increases, so they must have not been worried about the cost to much. And that leads me to think the lmpc teams wouldn't care to much if they got to use the same equipment in a class called lmp2 instead of lmpc next year.

[Speed-King]

And that leads me to think the lmpc teams wouldn't care to much if they got to use the same equipment in a class called lmp2 instead of lmpc next year.

They will as soon as they'll find themselves left behind by the bespoke P2 cars of other manufacturers, which is bound to happen since these manufacturers are vying for sales and the only way to get them is success.
IMSA could of course say that the LMPCs stay the benchmark of the new combined class, but then the Porsche 997 Cup was suppossed to be the benchmark of FIA GT3 and look how many of them are running out there nowadays...

[Jonerz]

Or just give them trophies for LMPC victories even though realistically they will be more interested in the battle with the LMP2 cars. A la P1/P2 in the good ol' days.

Chris

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

They will as soon as they'll find themselves left behind by the bespoke P2 cars of other manufacturers, which is bound to happen since these manufacturers are vying for sales and the only way to get them is success.
IMSA could of course say that the LMPCs stay the benchmark of the new combined class, but we've seen in FIA GT3 how well this benchmark thing worked out...

Exactly. Well the FIA GT3 benchmark thing worked well because there weren't technical regulations as such for GT3 and manufacturers started creating supercars.

The risk of benchmark failure in the ALMS is different, yet equal to the FIA. To use the LMPC cars as a baseline for performance when those cars will not be (ought not to be, prove me wrong Oreca) developed any further whereas the Lola Roushes and Riley Hondas of the world will have a development curve to speed them up beyond the capabilities of an Oreca FLM09.

Of course, if you just do my idea from above and generally try to keep LMPC cars within reach of the LMP2 cars (more power? vs. increased costs etc. etc.) and maybe you have a happy balance.

Also, is FLM really dead? They're included in P2 this year because there wasn't enough demand. I'm sure if there is demand enough, or simply no room for them on LMS grids the ACO will run them separately. Heck, they ran them at Le Mans in '09 and that probably didn't do much to entertain the fans, so the precedent is set.

Chris

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

Also, is FLM really dead? They're included in P2 this year because there wasn't enough demand. I'm sure if there is demand enough, or simply no room for them on LMS grids the ACO will run them separately. Heck, they ran them at Le Mans in '09 and that probably didn't do much to entertain the fans, so the precedent is set.

Chris

From what I understand, allowing them into LMS was a the ACO's way of protecting the team's investment in those cars after the cancelation of the series. Things might have been announced in a different order, but press releases do not always tell the whole story, do they?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

Or just give them trophies for LMPC victories even though realistically they will be more interested in the battle with the LMP2 cars. A la P1/P2 in the good ol' days.

Chris

If Oreca produce a 2011 P2 car I'm sure it will be based off of the same tub as the current lmpc, so maybe an upgrade package would be available.

[HORNDAWG]

Maybe the ACO will not put the new P-2 rules class into action until 2012 or 2013. As evidenced by Oreca having problems with financial backing along with other of the Euro boutique mfgs being strained at the moment. Then run the FLM as a single class in the LMS and at Le Mans as done in the ALMS and bring in the new P-2 later. And grow GT!!!!!





L.P.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Maybe the ACO will not put the new P-2 rules class into action until 2012 or 2013.

L.P.

Why worry about 2013 since the world is ending on December 21, 2012!!

DK

[chernaudi]

The FLM/LMPC cars are basically what the ACO envision the future LMP2 cars being-cheap carbon tubbed cars with stock block engines in them (look at the LMP2 engine proposals)

Either IMSA may give ACO spec LMP2s performance ballacing breaks to make them roughly equal to the conbined LMP1/2 class, or may make LMP2 a stand alone class again, but I see the former being more likely to happen than the latter. Besides, since when has IMSA run to the full ACO regs? With the exception of 2009 and Sebring and PLM this year, it hasn't happened since Sebring 2006.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The FLM/LMPC cars are basically what the ACO envision the future LMP2 cars being-cheap carbon tubbed cars with stock block engines in them (look at the LMP2 engine proposals)

Either IMSA may give ACO spec LMP2s performance ballacing breaks to make them roughly equal to the conbined LMP1/2 class, or may make LMP2 a stand alone class again, but I see the former being more likely to happen than the latter. Besides, since when has IMSA run to the full ACO regs? With the exception of 2009 and Sebring and PLM this year, it hasn't happened since Sebring 2006.

The point being that if given the performance adjustments, it takes them out of the cost capped life cycle for which they were designed and gauranteed. And at the performance level dictated by ACO rule, in a proven chassis and power by a respectable engine builder, it is to slow!
It is not as simple of a fix as is being suggested! But then again I do not have a clue as to what I am saying!! Right Sean.



L.P.

[chernaudi]

IMSA has already issued the LMPC's a 10% larger air restrictor after Lime Rock, just as the ACO issued Rebellion and Signature Plus larger air restrictors after Le Mans and Algarve. Do the teams have to buy the restrictors off of IMSA or the ACO?

It says in every IMSA competition bulletian that IMSA reserves the right to performance ballance as they see fit. They felt that the LMPC's weren't fast enough down the straights, so they gave them a 10% larger restrictor. Did it cost the teams money, or did IMSA issue the restrictors for free?

There's nothing in the IMSA or ACO rules books preventing anyone from converting an Oreca FLM/LMPC car to a 2011 LMP2 as long as it meets the engine and car cost caps. To get the Corvette V8 down to 5.0 liters (the max capacity for LMP2 in 2011) is do like is done with the Grand Am engine: de-bore or de-stroke the engine.

And guess what, to complicate matters ever further, there'll be new FLM/LMPC cars next year from Oreca. Whether or not they'll be the same basic design overall or not isn't known, but if they are modified from the 2009/2010 spec cars, that'll cost money for the teams to update their older cars to 2011 specs if it uses the same tub and engine.

IMSA may be concerned about teams being forced to waste money, but that's what happens with you performance ballance and factory teams get involved, a la GT2/GT. And they could've stuck to the 2008 regs for LMP1 in 2009, but instead was goaded by the ACO to adopt the 1600mm rear wing on all LMP1s which cost teams up to if not over $150,000 in areo when a 5 or 10% air restrictor decrease would've had the same if not better results as far as slowing the cars for less money.

All I can say is that either IMSA is afraid of scaring off Oreca and their FLM machines or they're scared of their performance ballancing turning into the 2006 fiasco.

Maybe they should also go by something else Ian Dawson said, and ban factory teams from LMP2, they of course being IMSA and the ACO. It's probably much easier to peformance ballance teams when there's no real pressure to spend a ton of money to get back what the rulesmakers take away when a performance gap develops then when the factory teams are willing to spend money to get back what they had taken away and even make their cars faster than previously, a good example being the Audi R15.

Maybe the only option is to revive the LMP2 class and have the 2010 spec cars run in LMP1 and leave LMPC alone.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMSA has already issued the LMPC's a 10% larger air restrictor after Lime Rock, just as the ACO issued Rebellion and Signature Plus larger air restrictors after Le Mans and Algarve. Do the teams have to buy the restrictors off of IMSA or the ACO?

They got the 10% across the board. It is spec class and was put forth as such for 3yrs!

It says in every IMSA competition bulletian that IMSA reserves the right to performance ballance as they see fit. They felt that the LMPC's weren't fast enough down the straights, so they gave them a 10% larger restrictor. Did it cost the teams money, or did IMSA issue the restrictors for free?

Adjusting/balancing a class is one thing. Adjusting a class out of its COST CAPPED design/life cycle is another!!!!!!!

There's nothing in the IMSA or ACO rules books preventing anyone from converting an Oreca FLM/LMPC car to a 2011 LMP2 as long as it meets the engine and car cost caps. To get the Corvette V8 down to 5.0 liters (the max capacity for LMP2 in 2011) is do like is done with the Grand Am engine: de-bore or de-stroke the engine.

No there is not. But inversely, there is a gaurantee by the ALMS that the LMPC class will stay a spec class. That does not include adjusting 2011 P-2s to run in it!

And guess what, to complicate matters ever further, there'll be new FLM/LMPC cars next year from Oreca. Whether or not they'll be the same basic design overall or not isn't known, but if they are modified from the 2009/2010 spec cars, that'll cost money for the teams to update their older cars to 2011 specs if it uses the same tub and engine.

There will not be a new FLM/LMPC car from Oreca next year!

IMSA may be concerned about teams being forced to waste money, but that's what happens with you performance ballance and factory teams get involved, a la GT2/GT. And they could've stuck to the 2008 regs for LMP1 in 2009, but instead was goaded by the ACO to adopt the 1600mm rear wing on all LMP1s which cost teams up to if not over $150,000 in areo when a 5 or 10% air restrictor decrease would've had the same if not better results as far as slowing the cars for less money.

I repeat. A gaurantee, by IMSA/ALMS to LMPC teams, at inception of a 3 yr run of the spec class!

All I can say is that either IMSA is afraid of scaring off Oreca and their FLM machines or they're scared of their performance ballancing turning into the 2006 fiasco.

Maybe they should also go by something else Ian Dawson said, and ban factory teams from LMP2, they of course being IMSA and the ACO. It's probably much easier to peformance ballance teams when there's no real pressure to spend a ton of money to get back what the rulesmakers take away when a performance gap develops then when the factory teams are willing to spend money to get back what they had taken away and even make their cars faster than previously, a good example being the Audi R15.

Huh, what factory 2011 P-2s would those be?

Maybe the only option is to revive the LMP2 class and have the 2010 spec cars run in LMP1 and leave LMPC alone.

2010 P-2s will run in P-1 with the grandfathered 2010 P-1s in 2011, LMPC will be left alone. Back to the original rub, what the he_l to do with 2011 P-2s?!





L.P.

[ger80]

Run them together with LMPC - no other ways. IMSA just has to add that one engine to the 2011 LMP2 rules and balance the LMPC engine to the 2011 LMP2 engines.

[chernaudi]

The Honda/HPD engine and the Roush Yates/Ford engines are easy to performance ballance into LMP1 because of being turbocharged--just toy with the air restrictors and turboboost. Have HPD and Roush Yates blueprint/map the engines for the LMP1 class for the ALMS and de-tune them for the ILMC rounds.

However, the Honda engine is developed by HPD, the North American arm of Honda Racing, and the Roush Yates engine is developed as a joint venture between Roush Yates and Ford Racing. Hence, those are factory backed programs.

The Libra Nissan engine seems to be a private project that's recieved little to no factory backing from Nissan. If that Radical is expected to be competitive in the ALMS' lead LMP class, it'll a ton more help than Honda/HPD and Roush Yates/Ford will likely need.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The Honda/HPD engine and the Roush Yates/Ford engines are easy to performance ballance into LMP1 because of being turbocharged--just toy with the air restrictors and turboboost. Have HPD and Roush Yates blueprint/map the engines for the LMP1 class for the ALMS and de-tune them for the ILMC rounds.

However, the Honda engine is developed by HPD, the North American arm of Honda Racing, and the Roush Yates engine is developed as a joint venture between Roush Yates and Ford Racing. Hence, those are factory backed programs.

The Libra Nissan engine seems to be a private project that's recieved little to no factory backing from Nissan. If that Radical is expected to be competitive in the ALMS' lead LMP class, it'll a ton more help than Honda/HPD and Roush Yates/Ford will likely need.

They are engine suppliers, period! HPD, Roush/Yates, AER, Judd, IES (Nissan) and who ever else chooses to supply an engine for the class at the price tag dictated by the ACO. That does not equate into a "factory program", in the sense, that everyone on this board and the sanctioning bodies assign to that phrase.



L.P.

[chernaudi]

Somehow, I find it hard to equate the factory supported HPD and Ford engines as being simple crate motors.

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

They are engine suppliers, period! HPD, Roush/Yates, AER, Judd, IES (Nissan) and who ever else chooses to supply an engine for the class at the price tag dictated by the ACO. That does not equate into a "factory program", in the sense, that everyone on this board and the sanctioning bodies assign to that phrase.



L.P.

HPD was started with Honda NA seed money, they have their own budget but can lean on Honda's massive R&D if need be. Roush-Yates is the defacto Ford engine supplier for Racing engines. Sure you can be Elan or Lonozo Brothers but I rather have a Ford Racing engine built by Roush-Yates who have the latest technology PERIOD.

Somebody said AER no longer has its F1 influences inside the engineering department, that would hurt big time. Judd has been an also-ran in every series they have been involved with.

Nobody said the HPD or Ford efforts are "factory" but you have BIG time engine suppliers in a sport normally occupied with boutique engine builders (the have nots) and factory teams (the haves).

These two engine suppliers give factory level power, reliability and engineering at an affordable price point for privateer teams.

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Somehow, I find it hard to equate the factory supported HPD and Ford engines as being simple crate motors.

Yeah he don't get it, he would rather have these tiny cottage engine builders in the series. Tell Dawson that, he's going home because both his IES built Nissan engines have expired. If NIMSO USA or JP has any interest in building LMP2 engines I would be ON THE HORN to Japan or California in a hot second.

DNS don't help you effort to develop a car.

I'll bet Dog $100 right now neither Ford or HPD engine will have an engine related failure in 2011.

[chernaudi]

That's the problem: HPD and Ford are factories or have factory backing. AER and Judd and IES are privateers. The only deal is that the engines for LMP2 next year are that they should be stock-block based. But the AER P07 was based on the Rover K/N series engine, and the MZR-R is based of a Mazda design.

That being said, they have very heavily modified from the road going engine. When it gets to that, the factorys will win out IF they're willing to put down the money to do so. And Ford are paying Roush Yates to build the engines for them, just like in NASCAR and Grand Am.

I understand the point that Lane is trying to make: that LMPC probably should be left alone for right now. However, with the LMPC cars outpacing the Libra Radical at Mid Ohio and them having engine problems at Road America, should there be a stand alone LMP2 class in the ALMS for ACO spec LMP2s that aren't able to be performance ballanced into a single LMP class if the 2010 regs apply for next year?

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

That's the problem: HPD and Ford are factories or have factory backing. AER and Judd and IES are privateers. The only deal is that the engines for LMP2 next year are that they should be stock-block based. But the AER P07 was based on the Rover K/N series engine, and the MZR-R is based of a Mazda design.

That being said, they have very heavily modified from the road going engine. When it gets to that, the factorys will win out IF they're willing to put down the money to do so. And Ford are paying Roush Yates to build the engines for them, just like in NASCAR and Grand Am.

I understand the point that Lane is trying to make: that LMPC probably should be left alone for right now. However, with the LMPC cars outpacing the Libra Radical at Mid Ohio and them having engine problems at Road America, should there be a stand alone LMP2 class in the ALMS for ACO spec LMP2s that aren't able to be performance ballanced into a single LMP class if the 2010 regs apply for next year?

Are you sure the Radical was being outpaced???

When was the last time Dawson ran this car at Mid Ohio? When was the last time he ran ANY car at Mid Ohio? I would say the Nissan might not be down on power but down on torque and since the larger restrictor its likely even worst.

Mid-Ohio is not what I would call an easy place to setup a car for.

They were getting in the way of the GT cars...

Give me a 2011 car run by a proper team with proper drivers and then we can measure if the 2011 spec cars are off the pace.

I would also say anybody showing up with anything other than GM Powertrain, Ford Racing, Mazda/AER or HPD power is going to be off the pace, trust me.

[vancecooley]

This is beyond confusing...