Sportscar/GT (and Le Mans) Rumours and Repetition - Page 290

J Jay · 3 Sep 2015, 23:57 (Ref:3571227)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

Do you have a list? Or any idea what would need changed? Itd be interesting to see how far or close it is or will be.

No, my comment was meant to take the mickey...

I assume you're referring to the LMP1 render? Well most things *look* like they're more or less in place apart from the rear end (it looks a bit long as well), but without some sense of scale I can't say.

If it's the M6 GTE, we'll have to wait and see. Just listen out for how long the other manufacturers rant about the Bimmer because that'll be directly proportional to the amount of waivers it received!

TF110 · 4 Sep 2015, 00:04 (Ref:3571229)

No I meant the M6. I bet its way closer to new GTE rules than what the Z4 is to current rules. Maybe not?

J Jay · 4 Sep 2015, 00:37 (Ref:3571231)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

No I meant the M6. I bet its way closer to new GTE rules than what the Z4 is to current rules. Maybe not?

Than the Z4? I would hope it is, even compared to the M3 the Z4 pushed the envelope of what is allowed. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is as close to the rules as I expect the 488/991 to be.

Weren't there paddock rumblings at VIR (or was it the previous round?) about how potentially disgruntled the other factory squads would be if the M6 still needed many more waivers than their cars?

**joeb** · 4 Sep 2015, 01:22 (Ref:3571248)

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Jay

Than the Z4? I would hope it is, even compared to the M3 the Z4 pushed the envelope of what is allowed. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is as close to the rules as I expect the 488/991 to be.

Weren't there paddock rumblings at VIR (or was it the previous round?) about how potentially disgruntled the other factory squads would be if the M6 still needed many more waivers than their cars?

To me that is an issue, none of us actually get to see where the car does not meet the rules. Is it arrow is it suspension is it weight is it engine mounting or transmission. Who knows?

Accident · 4 Sep 2015, 01:57 (Ref:3571258)

For me part of how I feel about the waivers also has to do with what direction they are going.

For example, the waiver for the Viper to run the big engine didn't bother me as much because it was keeping the race car and the street car tied closer together, where as the waiver for the Z4 to run a V8 is far more offensive to me as it was just distancing the race car from the road car even further.

I don't mind the M6 engine being .4 liters too big because that is the engine that the street car uses. It will probably have the transmission moved to the rear though, which I'm not a fan of that waiver.

FormulaFox · 4 Sep 2015, 04:23 (Ref:3571274)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deggis

Well, if only racing enables improving technology,

STOP. Where did I say that ONLY racing improves technology? Where did ANYONE say that before your mention of it?

All I did is point out one aspect of how running the two separate programs benefits VAG. I said nothing that even REMOTELY implies it's the only way to do it.

Akrapovic · 4 Sep 2015, 08:24 (Ref:3571294)

If we stop giving cars these waivers then I see the GT class becoming a problem where companies will build GT cars for the road like the late 90s GT1s. Ford already appear to be going down that route with the GT.

**joeb** · 4 Sep 2015, 13:12 (Ref:3571332)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Accident

For me part of how I feel about the waivers also has to do with what direction they are going.

For example, the waiver for the Viper to run the big engine didn't bother me as much because it was keeping the race car and the street car tied closer together, where as the waiver for the Z4 to run a V8 is far more offensive to me as it was just distancing the race car from the road car even further.

I don't mind the M6 engine being .4 liters too big because that is the engine that the street car uses. It will probably have the transmission moved to the rear though, which I'm not a fan of that waiver.

This also begs a bigger question into why are the rules so restrictive that manufacturers can't run their street gt cars? This could be engine size, or hybrid, or something else.

seanyb505 · 4 Sep 2015, 14:39 (Ref:3571354)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeb

To me that is an issue, none of us actually get to see where the car does not meet the rules. Is it arrow is it suspension is it weight is it engine mounting or transmission. Who knows?

Hopefully the aero will be straight as an arrow

I think the rules are what they are because they were inherited from what has traditionally been the smaller GT class. Huge engines were GTS/GT1 and the rules tried to keep them there. Now we have the next car down the line of those particular models racing in the evolution of the smaller GT class.

**joeb** · 4 Sep 2015, 14:41 (Ref:3571355)

Auto correct fun!

You are probably right, just relic rules that weren't updated.

Coach Ep · 4 Sep 2015, 14:55 (Ref:3571362)

In other words: looks like the ACO missed the opportunity to fully update the new for 2016 rules. They might have been too focussed on the potential GTE/GT3 merger and making sure they would protect their baby over Ratel's one at all cost. And probably forgot about the increasing lack of relevancy to their class road going products and the need to adjust.

And why should have they when you got BoP to 'fix it all'...?

J Jay · 4 Sep 2015, 15:16 (Ref:3571371)

I was going to be cynical and suggest that the reason the rules are so restrictive is to ensure everyone has to use waivers, then when one manufacturer complains about another they can get their own waivers shoved back in their face...

Ospi · 4 Sep 2015, 16:13 (Ref:3571385)

Wrong thread.

Simmi · 5 Sep 2015, 11:30 (Ref:3571514)

Feeling a bit out of the loop. Just trying to tie together some of the LMP1 rumour chatter. From experience we know 90% of this stuff doesn't come off, but it's still interesting to see what gets put forward.

Can anything be added/removed from this list?

Confirmed programmes
Strakka (2017)

Stated/potential interest
Greaves/Kairos/SARD
Alpine
Wolf

Long-term rumours
Mazda (reported by Marshall Pruett around LM), Ford (Hindy/GG during Nurburgring coverage), BMW (various)

Gingers4Justice · 5 Sep 2015, 11:49 (Ref:3571516)

BMW completely ruled it out in a way which makes me think they're still interested. There's way too much smoke for there not to be any flame.

I wonder if BMW were hoping to enter post 2017-regs and enter in the 12MJ class with a tiny engine and market it along with their "i" range, but backed out once it became clear that the new rules will be postponed for another year at least. But I still think they'll be monitoring the situation closely.

**joeb** · 5 Sep 2015, 12:10 (Ref:3571523)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simmi

Feeling a bit out of the loop. Just trying to tie together some of the LMP1 rumour chatter. From experience we know 90% of this stuff doesn't come off, but it's still interesting to see what gets put forward.

Can anything be added/removed from this list?

Confirmed programmes
Strakka (2017)

Stated/potential interest
Greaves/Kairos/SARD
Alpine
Wolf

Long-term rumours
Mazda (reported by Marshall Pruett around LM), Ford (Hindy/GG during Nurburgring coverage), BMW (various)

Perhaps SMP will be on that list?

YZFrider · 5 Sep 2015, 15:11 (Ref:3571550)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simmi

Feeling a bit out of the loop. Just trying to tie together some of the LMP1 rumour chatter. From experience we know 90% of this stuff doesn't come off, but it's still interesting to see what gets put forward.

Can anything be added/removed from this list?

Confirmed programmes
Strakka (2017)

Stated/potential interest
Greaves/Kairos/SARD
Alpine
Wolf

Long-term rumours
Mazda (reported by Marshall Pruett around LM), Ford (Hindy/GG during Nurburgring coverage), BMW (various)

It was near one year ago Dagys wrote this piece about Subaru being interested, paticularly with their goals of hybrid technology
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/s...otype-program/

Simmi · 5 Sep 2015, 17:26 (Ref:3571582)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeb

Perhaps SMP will be on that list?

Yeah I thought there was one P2 manufacturer I'd forgotten. Cheers.

Pontlieue · 5 Sep 2015, 17:59 (Ref:3571597)

Motorsport-Total reported a few days ago that Alpine, if they decide to do LMP1, would not work with Oreca, but with "a different well-known french LMP constructor".

That could only be OAK, right?

**joeb** · 5 Sep 2015, 18:26 (Ref:3571608)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pontlieue

Motorsport-Total reported a few days ago that Alpine, if they decide to do LMP1, would not work with Oreca, but with "a different well-known french LMP constructor".

That could only be OAK, right?

Norma!

**skycafe** · 5 Sep 2015, 18:41 (Ref:3571610)

Debora?

Pontlieue · 5 Sep 2015, 18:47 (Ref:3571613)

You're both wrong, it's obviously going to be Zulltec

blankfile · 5 Sep 2015, 18:53 (Ref:3571614)

Good ol Courage?

Deleted · 5 Sep 2015, 19:16 (Ref:3571617)

I think the chances of Zytek going to P1 are much lower now that Jota has 'joined the dark side' by purchasing Oreca 05 for next year (yes along with the old open top, but it does tell that they maybe switching allegiances with the new winds blowing), leaving only Greaves as existing serious customer 'maybe' looking at P1

Btw it's going to be interesting to have LMP team at Le Mans next year with WEC-Oreca and ELMS-Zytek sharing the same garage, not too often anymore do we have wildly different chassis within the same team anymore

CTD · 5 Sep 2015, 20:37 (Ref:3571629)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

BMW completely ruled it out in a way which makes me think they're still interested. There's way too much smoke for there not to be any flame.

I wonder if BMW were hoping to enter post 2017-regs and enter in the 12MJ class with a tiny engine and market it along with their "i" range, but backed out once it became clear that the new rules will be postponed for another year at least. But I still think they'll be monitoring the situation closely.

Well BMW could very well be interested, and have a wish to enter...
But only under certain circumstances, which is why they are probably in talks with ACO about the future regulations, to see if they will end out in a way which could be interesting for BMW.

I have no doubt that BMW is involved with ACO and Le Mans as we speak, but they haven't even put their toe-in-the-water yet.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[LM24] 2014 Le Mans Entry Rumours	The Badger	24 Heures du Mans	47	30 Sep 2013 22:04
Rumours more rumours!	crazytrain	ChampCar World Series	11	7 Oct 2002 17:06
[LM24] Le Mans Series and Sportscar Racer	Speedworx	24 Heures du Mans	20	6 Feb 2002 03:55
log-in repetition	Unregistered	Announcements and Feedback	6	10 Apr 2001 17:26
Repetition...	Chris Y	Touring Car Racing	6	20 Mar 2001 14:33