USCC (leave your axe outside)

[Matt]

Originally Posted by David Land

That only works if there are 100+ cars, it is just silly to do that when you are expecting 40-50 cars.

No, it works if multiple cars show up with the same number. We run asphalt late models over here, if an out of stater comes to race with us one week, and has the same number as one of our cars, they'll generally add an A, X, or state abbreviation to the number.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by BullMan

I'm thinking they'll give seniority on the numbers. Willing to bet SRT keeps their numbers though. Factory money can accomplish a lot.

I agree.

Go by seniority first. If that doesn't work, wave some money around.

In 1983, Bob Tullius managed to wrangle his famous 44 (Group 44) from Billy Hagan (who had been using that number on his IMSA/Le Mans Camaro as well as Terry Labonte's NASCAR Winston Cup Championship-winning Monte Carlo). However, Tullius used it first back in 1981 on his IMSA GTO Triumph TR-8. It wasn't long before Hagan's Camaro showed up at the track as the #4.

Also, I recall Charles Morgan appropriating the #46 from Kerry Hitt to put on his own Axiom Grand-Am AAGT Corvette in 2002.

I wouldn't be surprised if some money changed hands in both of those deals.

Corvette racer Phil Currin did it the cheap and easy way. He bought two 9's. That way, he could be 99, 9, 69, 96, 66, 6 or with a couple pieces of racers tape a whole bunch of other numbers. Problem solved.

Andy Flinn

[Speed-King]

One problem less for the GTD - GT3 equivalency:

FIA bans ESP in GT3 cars

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Every topic in this thread seems to lead to an argument of some kind.....

Arguing is fine! It's the name calling and pontificating that make it hard to take.

DK

[Aysedasi]

Well, I'd prefer 'debate' personally. If we couldn't debate things, there'd be little point to this forum, but it's when members insist that their view must be correct and won't entertain that debate, it becomes tiresome for everyone else. Perhaps the first rule for people to accept when they join Tenths is 'You need to accept that you may not be correct but you may put forward your view - with that in mind.....'.

[Maelochs]

Lol ... I might not be right, but nobody else is either ... so in every post I can tell them that!

[Beetle]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well, I'd prefer 'debate' personally. If we couldn't debate things, there'd be little point to this forum, but it's when members insist that their view must be correct and won't entertain that debate, it becomes tiresome for everyone else. Perhaps the first rule for people to accept when they join Tenths is 'You need to accept that you may not be correct but you may put forward your view - with that in mind.....'.

As usual, well spoken, Ayse.

Yes, and I like your signature, Salamus.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well, I'd prefer 'debate' personally. If we couldn't debate things, there'd be little point to this forum, but it's when members insist that their view must be correct and won't entertain that debate, it becomes tiresome for everyone else. Perhaps the first rule for people to accept when they join Tenths is 'You need to accept that you may not be correct but you may put forward your view - with that in mind.....'.

I stand corrected, your term debate is better than my use of the term argue. I agree with you, a discussion/debate is what we want here and not a "my way or the highway" attitude.

DK

[Mal]

So there you go-there's no debate because Ayse is right full stop

[Aysedasi]

I do like a sensible consensus......

[Maelochs]

Yeah, that's how it is around here ... asyedasi's way or the highway. >(

[dangerousdave79]

Originally Posted by ACFlinn

I agree.

Corvette racer Phil Currin did it the cheap and easy way. He bought two 9's. That way, he could be 99, 9, 69, 96, 66, 6 or with a couple pieces of racers tape a whole bunch of other numbers. Problem solved.

Andy Flinn

Not really a good example since (assuming all teams make the cross-over) 99, 9, 69, 66, and 6 are already taken.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Yeah, that's how it is around here ... asyedasi's way or the highway. >(

Hardly, I just urge some common sense and an understanding that others have views too which may differ from your own. And perhaps a sense of just how uninviting the puerile bickering becomes in threads like this.

Not a lot to ask.

[Christian Mogami]

Look at what we started. LOL

Even Midweek Motorsports Show was talking about WC P1.

We need more racing and even they are laughing at USCR.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by dangerousdave79

Not really a good example since (assuming all teams make the cross-over) 99, 9, 69, 66, and 6 are already taken.

Just add a zero.

Andy Flinn

[David Land]

Originally Posted by Christian Mogami

Look at what we started. LOL

Even Midweek Motorsports Show was talking about WC P1.

We need more racing and even they are laughing at USCR.

I would like to take the credit for that , Hindy needs to send me a check!

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Christian Mogami

Look at what we started. LOL

Even Midweek Motorsports Show was talking about WC P1.

We need more racing and even they are laughing at USCR.

Hindy is a bit bitter about not getting the nod for commentary...

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by Christian Mogami

Look at what we started. LOL

Even Midweek Motorsports Show was talking about WC P1.

We need more racing and even they are laughing at USCR.

The idea of P1 in World Challenge is what is laughable.

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Hindy is a bit bitter about not getting the nod for commentary...

He may very well get the commentary gig, but Radio Show Limited didn't get the radio rights.

Chris

[Duff_44]

Sorry for the long post, in advance.

I've posted this before, but it's relevant to some recent posts/bickering/axe swinging. Comparison of the 7 classes using 2012 fastest race lap data at (then) common tracks (times in seconds):

Mid-Ohio
P1 72.526 (100.0%)
P2 75.146 (103.6%)
PC 76.897 (106.0%)
GT 80.778 (111.4%)
GTC 86.548 (119.3%)
DP 78.529 (108.3%)
GAGT 84.746 (116.8%)

Road America
P1 111.248 (100.0%)
P2 116.112 (104.3%)
PC 119.454 (107.4%)
GT 125.882 (113.2%)
GTC 134.247 (120.7%)
DP 121.744 (109.4%)
GAGT 131.828 (118.5%)

Lime Rock
P1 45.148 (100.0%)
P2 47.354 (104.9%)
PC 48.823 (108.1%)
GT 51.091 (113.2%)
GTC 55.730 (123.4%)
DP 49.913 (110.6%)
GAGT 54.539 (120.8%)

Laguna Seca
P1 75.544 (100.0%)
P2 77.003 (101.9%)
PC 79.298 (105.0%)
GT 83.624 (110.7%)
GTC 88.611 (117.3%)
DP 82.478 (109.2%)
GAGT 88.301 (116.9%)

AVERAGE %, all four tracks
P1 100.0%
P2 103.7%
PC 106.6%
GT 112.1%
GTC 120.2%
DP 109.4%
GAGT 118.3%

Yes, this does not take into account weather, traffic, time of year, car development, tires, etc. But it's the data I have. Still a useful - even if not fully accurate - comparison.

And yes, I have nothing better to do.

[CyberMotor]

Originally Posted by Duff_44

Yes, this does not take into account weather, traffic, time of year, car development, tires, etc. But it's the data I have. Still a useful - even if not fully accurate - comparison.

And yes, I have nothing better to do.

Thanks, Duff. Good work. The only thing you forgot to factor in is the size of the egos which seems to be the real problem.

[MoMedic9019]

Boy, that's pretty accurate comparison. DP has a long way to go.

[Mike Hedlund]

Keep in mind, P2 is about 1-1.5s lap slower this year due tires.

-mike

[chernaudi]

But this does reveal a problem with BOP and how the DP's and GAGT stand up compared to the IMSA/quasi-ACO based classes.

The problem right now, with things being as they are, is that DPs and GAGT fall between two stools as far as performance. DP's are about halfway between LMPC and GTE as far as lap times at most tracks. Same story as far as GAGT--part way between GTE and GTC.

But we do have to look at the gaps as far as times and percentages. From what has been said previously, it might not take a lot to speed up a DP--carbon ceramic brakes, front and rear diffusers, improved body work, reduction in ballast. Stuff of that nature. Same basics can be applied to the GAGT cars, namely an increase in power. Most of the GAGT cars already make less power than their road going siblings--the Bimmer, Corvette and Camero are already running at at least 20 or so bhp off what the road cars do in stock trim.

However, the DP problem is not as easy to fix. It's easy in principal, but the question is execution.

If the current LMP2s are slower on the old LMPC Michelin tires, and the LMPC's gained about .5 of a second on the Conti/Hoosier tires, we can expect similar gains at least from the LMP2 cars, though it seems that tire deg characteristics are very different between the Michelin and Conti tires, too.

But as mentioned, it's been said that there's a lot that can be done--and done fairly cheaply in the long run--to speed up a DP to near LMP2 levels, and that BOP can do the rest. The problem is the initial cost. The initial purchasing price of a carbon ceramic brakes is significantly more than steel rotors, though that gets canceled out because of how often the steel rotors have to be replaced during a season (Starworks ran almost a whole WEC season on one set of carbon rotors).

Also with front and rear diffusers replacing the simple DP splitter and no rear diffuser and other bodywork changes, that does make much of the bodywork obsolescent right away, and hence more investment has to be made. And all of this, plus weight shedding, also makes current set up notes obsolete.

But then you have to look at it from this angle. There currently may only be 4 LMP2 cars, but there are numerous LMPC cars and GTE cars. There's only about 12 or so full time DP teams at the moment, and about an equal number of full time GAGT teams. The big thing is the desire and pledge from Jim France--majority owner of USCR, remember--to keep a serious link to Le Mans. And it seems that the tech guys want to deviate as little as possible from ACO/FIA technical regs to keep the current "LM" class cars (LMP2, GTE namely) LM compliant as much as possible.

That doesn't mean that the cars will be 100% of ACO/FIA WEC tech regs--most ALMS GT cars currently aren't 100% compliant to those regs to begin with, for example. But they're close enough that the changes required are relatively small and manageable.

But if DP teams want to run up front, it seems that more and more the burden is on them to improve or be left to fight among themselves.

But the problem also is performance characteristics. You can't really give DP's much more power--They're already significantly more powerful than LMP2 cars. If you give a DP more than the 550 bhp they have now, they might be able to rival the Audi R18 e-tron quattro and the Toyota TS030 at Le Mans as far as who's faster in the speed traps. It'd be almost as bad as having NASCAR Nationwide or especially Sprint Cup Cars racing the DPs--the stock cars are much heavier and don't corner as well, but they have a ton more power and they use being moving road blocks in the corners to their advantage to run away down the straights--NW and Cup cars have Vmax's at Watkins Glen of almost 190 mph before the Bus Stop. I don't know what DP's can do as far as that goes, but I'll bet you that they're a ways off from that.

Hence, the DP's grip and handling has to be improved, or maybe the LMP2s can lose some of their areo devices in favor of a power boost to balance things out.

This is a tight rope, and it probably would've been better if France and Panoz put off the merger (at least with the series) until a common rules package would come in for '16 to all teams to plan for that without having to do the compromising and politicking between IMSA, the teams, manufacturers and the ACO and the FIA that's going on now. But Jim and Don made their decision, and they're going to have to deal with it. They made their bed, they're eventually gonna have to lay in it, for better or worse.

[Purist]

A Sprint Cup car is good for about 175-mph heading into the Inner Loop at Watkins Glen. That's about the same as what a DP can do at the same point. If they took the plates off, the Cup cars might be able to out pull the DPs at the end of the two main runs at Daytona.

I was thinking that the DPs have about 520-hp, while the Cup cars have as much as 850-hp. LMP2s run 420-450hp, officially anyway, and the LMPCs are about the same.

It's certainly going to be an interesting balancing act, especially since it sounds like about the only significant change on the LMP2s is going to be the move to a spec tire. Last I heard, they were NOT going to limit the LMP2s to an LM aero package, or anything like that.

I would also think that tolerances on the LMP2s are tighter in many areas, making it more difficult to adjust them, as compared to the DPs, without running into major issues. And, of course, given that the LMPCs are also faste than the DPs, a bump up had to happen.

In the longer run, the trickiest thing may be the continuing development of the GTEs. LMPCs won't be able to hold station for much longer without the GTEs encroaching on them, which will, in turn, put upward pressure on the top Prototype class.

Just looking ahead, I think Austin might be one of the more troublesome tracks to deal with the balance between LMP2 and DP, assuming it is on the 2014 schedule. I will certainly be interested in seeing what the class gaps are there after the ALMS/WEC weekend.

[chernaudi]

In 2003, top trap speed for a (then) Winston Cup car was almost 185 at WG before the Bus Stop/Inner Loop, with trap speeds consistently above 180mph. That was with the tires being what they were back then, the set ups being what they were then, and the cars being down significantly in terms of HP--a Sprint Cup car now makes about 900bhp, nearly 100 more hp than a decade ago. There's every reason to believe that they should be faster by at least several mph now than 10 years ago. Tires are also grippier and the brakes are better, which gives them more wide open throttle time, even if it's only measured in tenths of a second in that area of the track.

If DPs are going in at about 175 at that area and Cup cars are doing it at 185-190, maybe even more (I haven't seen telemetry from a modern car at WG for the NASCAR races in a few years), that's a huge speed difference, seemingly similar to what the Audi R10 had over the LMP2 cars at most tracks in terms of top speed, or what an Audi R18 has over a modern LMP2, or even what at times the Toyota has had over similar cars.

As mentioned, you can't really give the DP's much more power, because you'd have that same situation. Granted, my NASCAR example probably wouldn't apply except maybe at Le Mans, but it was intended as a simplification of what could happen if BOP went to giving the DP's more top end power--they're already pushing 550bhp, which is almost what a LMP1 car makes, with rumors that Audi and Toyota, certainly Audi, making nearly 600hp in race trim. And that 550 is about 100 bhp more than an LMP2 under the current regs.

The best way to speed a DP up is give it better braking and cornering ability, but that means shedding weight, changing the brakes and making massive changes to the cars' aero packages. The latter is expensive for sure, as that means a lot of investment in something new that's not as affordable or durable as an initially expensive but long lasting set of carbon brakes for example.

But more and more onus is on the DP guys to speed it up. The GAGT guys are getting off easier because they still have their own class and GT3 cars are less expensive right now than a GTLM/GTE car, and they only cost as much as a GAGT car, which due to model year changes, some of those cars were about to become obsolescent anyways, as well as normal wear and tear.

But the DPs are about as expensive to buy, run and maintain as a LMPC and a current LMP2 that's cost capped.

Of course, it has to be remembered that Elkins has said that for DP and LMP2 BoP that LMPC will be the bench mark, and that the LMP2s may be slowed, but not significantly because of wanting to keep them close to ACO regs.

This does sort of make the DP's edge closer to technical obsolescence because it might be cheaper in the long run to buy an LMP2 chassis, shoe-horn a DP stock block engine in it after its been converted to use a ACO/FIA spec sonic air restrictor, and go racing with it. To buy a LMP2 or a DP upgrade kit will probably cost almost the same, but with a LMP2, they might not have to throw it away quickly in '16 like with a DP--by then, a new ACO/FIA LMP2 formula will likely be in, but in USCR, the older LMP2s might be grandfathered for a year or two for cost reasons.

With all of this, the ball is in IMSA's court as USCR's sanctioning body, and it's also in the court of Jim France and Don Panoz, who don't want LMP1s right now, but still want an ACO/FIA/LM24 connection.

It seems by default that many of the traces of GA are being forced out just due to market demands within the series, even with some pretty virulent defenders of the GA formula.