ALMS 2010 Discussion

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Purist

Bob, are you saying the 2011-spec cars won't develop to the point of being fairly close to current LMP performance? -- Do you not find "racing" cars with horsepower levels reduced to sub street crate-engine levels, rather obtuse?

Therefore, the new cars should be able to evolve (You mean get back to where they were.)for perhaps half a dozen years before we even start to worry about pegging them back for that 3:30 race lap arbitrary "limit" at Le Mans.
(If anyone ever funds a true professional vintage racing circuit, the ACO slowmobiles we be shown to be the pariahs they are.

As long as U.S. sanctions waste time being concerned with this perfomance cowpie, what is supposed to be top-line U.S. racing will remain a rather pathetic cluster-f going nowhere fast.

If the GT morass can continue to chug along is really of more concern to Detroit, and the fans the IMSA has lost.

[TWK]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

Lord Drayson is all about "championing new technologies", does that mean the more technologically friendly ALMS is where his program is based next year? They do say movement to LMP1. Of course Sebring, PLM, and Le Mans are all LMP1 races...

Chris

I think it's because the ALMS is more disability-friendly.

[HORNDAWG]

Included in that is the fact that the fields are smaller in the ALMS which means there is less traffic that can come at him from behind while he adapts to the new car and sight lines.



L.P.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

There it is-- WAIT till Next year things will be great....

It's actually been great for most of the past decade, and even on this off year for the ALMS, Le Mans and the LMS have been good.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by R4z3rw33n

My greatest fear is that the LMPC/GTC cars will hang around for longer than necessary. If, after 2010, the field is replenished with new LMP/GT entries, will LMPC and GTC stay?

I'd prefer to see LMPC/GTC in a support race format, separate to the main game. That way inexperienced LMPC/GTC drivers are driving together, not against seasoned pro's/much more expensive machinery.

Even in the good years the ALMS floats around the 25-30 car mark, so it's asking a lot to assume grids would be oversubscribed. Personally I believe any multi-class sportscar series should be aiming for 40+ cars.

Neither do I like to see willing teams struggle with small budgets in P1/2 or GT2, it would be preferable to see these teams running competively and reliably, season long, in LMPC or GTC.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by JAG

It's actually been great for most of the past decade, and even on this off year for the ALMS, Le Mans and the LMS have been good.

If you so believe, so be it.
The euro series you maybe totally correct, good for them.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

If you so believe, so be it.
The euro series you maybe totally correct, good for them.

Most everyone does!! Only a miniscule percentage can not remove themselves from the late 60's!




L.P.

[prototype]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

There it is-- WAIT till Next year things will be great....

Bob, I didn't say anything about the quality of the ALMS. I said the cars will be developed to the new regulations and remain fast, nothing more.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by prototype

Link to the IMSA bulletin equalising P1 and P2 for 2008.
http://www.imsaracing.net/2008/alms/...ms%2008-01.pdf

Nothing in that article supports what you are saying. You must not understand the article in it's entirety. It says the exact opposite of equlising P1 and P2 for 2008. It says they will phase in restrictions

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Nothing in that article supports what you are saying. You must not understand the article in it's entirety. It says the exact opposite of equlising P1 and P2 for 2008. It says they will phase in restrictions

Once again you are incorrect! Simply by setting the starting weights for the 08 season the equalization had started. Hint> Compare the 07 weight. There are others, but you will have to find those yourself, as you do not want to believe it anyways!!!!!!!!




L.P.

[chernaudi]

The only difference between '08 and '10 is that in '08 the classes were combined in all but name-LMP1 and 2 were still running for class wins while trying to win overall. Now IMSA has formally combined the classes under one name for next year under the proposed(and bascially certian to be enforced) rules.

All that's different is the name change.

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The only difference between '08 and '10 is that in '08 the classes were combined in all but name-LMP1 and 2 were still running for class wins while trying to win overall. Now IMSA has formally combined the classes under one name for next year under the proposed(and bascially certian to be enforced) rules.

All that's different is the name change.

I totally agree with you. And don't take this the wrong way, but how many times should we have to repeat ourselves before these people pick up on reality? It's really not worth our frustration, coming back on every day and seeing the exact same argument that we've debunked time after time, just keep being spewed out.

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Most everyone does!! Only a miniscule percentage can not remove themselves from the late 60's!

And/or late eighties. Of course, those who can't drop the greatness that was IMSA GT racing, could simply lose themselves on Marshall Pruett's new site.

Chris

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Most everyone does!! Only a miniscule percentage can not remove themselves from the late 60's!
L.P.

If you so wish.

[Purist]

Bob, show me that one of those "crate engines" can last 24 hours at 800+hp, and actually fit into a "modern" (up to date) prototype chassis to make a competitive package.

What do you mean by "a true professional vintage racing circuit"? Road America and Mosport Park are run in the same configurations as they were all the way back to Can-Am. Road Atlanta has changed a bit (making it a theoretically slower circuit), but we still have Can-Am and IMSA GTP times to compare with last year's LMP crop. Last year's LMP lap record at Road Atlanta was faster in average speed than Davy Jones' old record on the faster circuit in the GTP Jaguar. Last year's pole at Road America was more than 10 seconds faster than Mark Donohue's lap in the 1100+hp Porsche 917/30 set in 1973 (the first sub 2 minute lap at Elkhart Lake). The Porsche 917/30 managed to get into the 1:14s at Mosport. Hans Stuck in the Porsche 962C was into the 1:09s in 1985. Last year's pole was down into the 1:04s. So it would appear, by the numbers, that last year's LMPs got to the point of being faster than the GTPs.

The new rules will let the next generation of LMPs evolve without instantly being strangled for safety/liability reasons. Bob, you can ask LuiggiSpeed on the "My Tracks" section if you won't believe me about the lawsuit issue, because he's seen tracks and even series shut down over it (even with signed liability waivers in place).

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

I totally agree with you. And don't take this the wrong way, but how many times should we have to repeat ourselves before these people pick up on reality? It's really not worth our frustration, coming back on every day and seeing the exact same argument that we've debunked time after time, just keep being spewed out.
Chris

But some do not have such easily satisfied low standards and hold the IMSA to to too long past high standards for the future.
For those who are easily satisfied, if you it pleases you , good for you.

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=Purist;2525232]Bob, show me that one of those "crate engines" can last 24 hours at 800+hp, and actually fit into a "modern" (up to date) prototype chassis to make a competitive package.
--Give me the quote you are referring to.
Any engine should be able to fit into a "modern" class car. There should be no reason, outside of deliberate exclusion it could not.

What do you mean by "a true professional vintage racing circuit"? -- Professional= where they do not go out for a Sunday drive. Where winning come first, without exception as the desired result.
Where money is one of the reasons for racing.
The vintage Can-Am cars at Road AMerica are lapping within a few seconds, slower, not faster, than they did thrty years ago.
Professional vintage racing does not exist in the U.S.

As far as that goes, if the sanctions have become chicken **** scared because the racing it --TOO FAST-- then remove the wings and aero gimmicks that increase cornering speeds to artificially high levels. More people are killed in the corners than on the straights. Making a change THERE, instead of the contrived restrictor equalization, that prevents a engine from producing horsepower at a level that is even basically related by physics to the production engine, THAT would be "safer" racing; not the excuses and damned lies floated now.
That is why this "safety" concern is bs, the cars, here and in the IRL, could easily be slowed down without contrived restrictors, if anyone truly gave a damn about speed, by simply removing the aero gimmicks, without which, cornering speeds would drastically drop, and the racing would be SAFER.
[/COLOR]

[gucom]

^this aero / engine thing is something I've been thinking about for quite a while now, and you have a point. Racers will always push to the outer limits of their grip in the corners, wether that grip is aerodynamically enhanced or not. So they'll always crash out, but with lower aero they'll crash at lower speeds.

The only problem is crashing under braking (brake failure, lockup etc) or because of a puncture, where the speeds will be higher and the slowing down effect of aero will be gone.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

But some do not have such easily satisfied low standards and hold the IMSA to to too long past high standards for the future.
For those who are easily satisfied, if you it pleases you , good for you.

At some point, reality, and the present, must be observed! The constant dragging of topics to somewhere that does not exist, and is not relevant to the current topic of conversation, is way, way, old! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when we talk of what has been announced as the direction and plan for next year, it would be nice to actually talk and discuss it. Not some disconnected wish to what was and will not be. Maybe things will some day return to that, but it will not be in the ALMS of 2010! Which is what this thread is about.




L.P.

[Canada ALMS fan]

^ great post!

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe View Post
But some do not have such easily satisfied low standards and hold the IMSA to to too long past high standards for the future.
For those who are easily satisfied, if you it pleases you , good for you.

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

At some point, reality, and the present, must be observed! The constant dragging of topics to somewhere that does not exist, and is not relevant to the current topic of conversation, is way, way, old! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when we talk of what has been announced as the direction and plan for next year, it would be nice to actually talk and discuss it. Not some disconnected wish to what was and will not be. Maybe things will some day return to that, but it will not be in the ALMS of 2010! Which is what this thread is about.
L.P.

THe above, which you responded to, was in response to a poster, not you, who took offense at others opinons of the state-of-affairs, in IMSA racing.

HMMM, the only time I addressed you, at least for the past five or six pages, was when you did not really agree with Chewymonster, and I really-really, did agree with Chewy's opinion.
Why don't you address the thread then and not worry about what other posters opinions should or should not be, by your decree; I believe that is in the forum rules.

[Purist]

Bob, you can stop splitting hairs, it isn't getting you anywhere with anyone on here.

I understand the physics argument, but getting enough people over here to understand it such that you have a viable fan base I fear is an iffy proposition. A lot of people think the wings and tunnels, and high cornering speeds that go with them, are cool. Much more often, when you mention the top-end speeds that used to be attained, you just get a straight "oh my God" type of response from them.

I would probably let it go if you just said you don't like wings on race cars, but you're calling things "aero gimmicks": the implication being that they're somehow inherently illegitimate and don't belong in racing at all. But why do you say that? Why are they any less legitimate than any other innovation developed to make racing cars go faster? Also, what qualifies as an "aero gimmick"? Do you include tunnels and diffusers, along with side-skirts, streamlining, and forced air management (like on the Chaparral 2J)? BTW, Can-Am in some ways had more advanced aerodynamics than the LMPs. So wasn't Can-Am actually more "gimmicky", by your own standards, than the current cars?

Despite what you've said about the Greenwood Corvettes, I KNOW that those older cars were very aerodynamically unstable by today's standards. The Ford GT40s produced lift with the nose. The Porsche 917s were some of the most unruly monsters to handle of any top-line racer ever made, and the 911s had that nasty habit of lifting the front wheels at high speed. In the late '60s and early '70s, many of the prototypes were equipped with wings, trim tabs, and/or fins at the back for greater stability. Therefore, I would be quite concerned with just how much downforce we tried to strip from the cars (and from where on the cars it was removed).

The only things I've actually seen in person that I know had "crate engines" installed have been hot rods (overdone toys in a lot of cases). I really don't know the precise definition, nor am I that confident of how "stock" any of those engines are in reality. So I don't bother worrying about it, or the theoretical hp outputs of those engines.

As long as people are worried about tearing up irreplaceable machinery in vintage racing, your dream will remain just that, a dream, and thus will NEVER become reality.

Now then, hopefully the smaller engines will lead to the reinstatement of full-width rear wings on the LMPs. I do find it odd though, that the LMP2s may have larger engines than the LMP1s. Couldn't this lead to torque issues, and once again, competition between the two classes? Any word on particular 2011 LMP programs that might get a head start in 2010?

[trahsub]

Originally Posted by Purist

Any word on particular 2011 LMP programs that might get a head start in 2010?

From the perspective of engines, doesn't Porsche have all their work done with the engine in the RS Spyder? Or most of it at least?

[Purist]

If the rules are as was stated some time ago, then that is a distinct possibility. It would be good economics if current LMP2s can basically become 2011 LMP1s. I'm just not sure that it will actually turn out that simple. It just makes to much sense for it to actually happen.

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

But some do not have such easily satisfied low standards and hold the IMSA to to too long past high standards for the future.
For those who are easily satisfied, if you it pleases you , good for you.

No low standards here. Not sure where you picked that up. We're in a "difficult" economy and building for the future. I'd like to see forty factory prototypes in the ALMS race at Mosport on the 30th, but to be at the cutting edge of motorsport in this economy fields of 40 are not possible.

Chris

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=Purist;2525278]Bob, you can stop splitting hairs, it isn't getting you anywhere with anyone on here.--I am simply stating what is. If that does not please some, so be it.

I understand the physics argument, but getting enough people over here to understand it such that you have a viable fan base I fear is an iffy proposition. A lot of people think the wings and tunnels, and high cornering speeds that go with them, are cool. --Then that makes this part of your, or any argument based on "safety' an absolute farce as you said:
"The new rules will let the next generation of LMPs evolve without instantly being strangled for safety/liability reasons."
If safety is a concern then remove the items that make them extremely dangerous; all the aero tricks that increase corner speeds.
At the same time it makes their argument against non-contrived horsepower levels somewhere between obtuse and moronic

Much more often, when you mention the top-end speeds that used to be attained, you just get a straight "oh my God" type of response from them.
I would probably let it go if you just said you don't like wings on race cars, but you're calling things "aero gimmicks": the implication being that they're somehow inherently illegitimate and don't belong in racing at all. But why do you say that? Why are they any less legitimate than any other innovation developed to make racing cars go faster? Also, what qualifies as an "aero gimmick"? Do you include tunnels and diffusers, along with side-skirts, streamlining, and forced air management (like on the Chaparral 2J)? BTW, Can-Am in some ways had more advanced aerodynamics than the LMPs. So wasn't Can-Am actually more "gimmicky", by your own standards, than the current cars?YES,-- I was intrigued by the Chapparal aero tricks at first but as time went by I found they would have been far better to have never been introduced.----Think about what you are saying. The contrived horsepower levels are set far, far, far, far below what any AVERAGE engine turner can produce, in an average engine without even being remotely close to radical or or top HP levels.
Yet these aero gimmicks which have ZERO relation to any road use (IT is called road racing, and as an ultimate farce sometimes runs on street circuits), are not considered bs? Only if one is blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other.--Tunnels amd diffusers which have had tracks dropped or modified to fit them, or they become more dangerous than they are, are a gimmick, ESPECIALLY, on GT cars. If they want to run the production tunnels fine. (Remember you are the one who is using "safety" as an excuse for the new, more pathetic contrived hp levels.)

Despite what you've said about the Greenwood Corvettes, I KNOW that those older cars were very aerodynamically unstable by today's standards. --ALL cars are unstable at cetain speeds, all cars have limits, that does not mean that they are dangerous, UNLESS the limits are sudden with little warning. Part of racing that separates the wannabes from the rest, is the ability to know when to back-off. The Ford GT40s produced lift with the nose. The Porsche 917s were some of the most unruly monsters to handle of any top-line racer ever made, and the 911s had that nasty habit of lifting the front wheels at high speed. In the late '60s and early '70s, many of the prototypes were equipped with wings, trim tabs, and/or fins at the back for greater stability. Therefore, I would be quite concerned with just how much downforce we tried to strip from the cars (and from where on the cars it was removed).--So you thnk it is safer to have a car such as Villeneuve did which had two states: stable and fatally dangerous?
The cars without wings, and this applied/s to Indy cars, and sports cars equally, as stated by drivers such as Unser, Foyt and Andretti, before wings would let you know that they were reaching a point of loss of control; the winged cars either narrowed that area greatly, or eliminated it.(Yes bias-ply verses radial tires also comes into play here, on both open wheel and door slammers.
Greenwood, whom you mentioned, said an entirely different driving style was required when wings were used, and this is the person whose incredible top speeds, without the wing, brought about the chicane in sports car use at Daytona.
He, nor have I heard, or read, anyone that drove both, did not say the winged cars were/are safer.
The Porsche was known to be a pig, and John Bishop later greattly regretted allowing the 935, but sadly he gave into pressure from Camel and Porsche, kind of like current IMSA considering dropping their pants and squating because the ACO says so.

As long as people are worried about tearing up irreplaceable machinery in vintage racing, your dream will remain just that, a dream, and thus will NEVER become reality.--It was probably closer to thirty years than twenty that some people out west proposed a true vintage pro series; the same arrogant asses that think parading out a track at X speed is all that vintage cars should do,(The same classless asses who had a fit when Follmer and one of the Bennett boys at the Road America Can-Am thirty year anniversary, were racing as hard as the cars could go, and made it a true race,) made sure that idea was killed quickly.

Now then, hopefully the smaller engines will lead to the reinstatement of full-width rear wings on the LMPs. I do find it odd though, that the LMP2s may have larger engines than the LMP1s. Couldn't this lead to torque issues, and once again, competition between the two classes? Any word on particular 2011 LMP programs that might get a head start in 2010?``

No one will know what is really coming down the pike till next year after Sebring. Till then it is all guesswork, at best.