LMP2 Manufacturers and Engine Suppliers

[ModelT]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

That is pretty much what happened in 1993/1994, though, when the GTPs had priced themselves out of existence (sounds familiar, eh?)... Most of the first gen WSC-cars were actually chopped up Lights or C2-cars.



SR really didn't work in Grand Am, though. Their SR-class car count for the regular season races was completely in the toilet by 2002. Then grids virtually exploded during the first three or four years of the DP formula. Sure, there were some subsidies here and there and cheap bank loans, but a lot of the growth was also genuine. I don't think Jim France would have gone out of his way to subsidize any of the pro/am teams that actually made up the bulk of the DP-field back then. There really is no return on that investment whatsoever. Paying key players like Gainsco to stay in the series is something that actually makes sense, but what would be the point of buying an entry from someone like Michael Finley or Jim Derhaag?

Really?

[Bob Baldwin]

REALLY +1

[Coach Ep]

With current P2 on a high right now, how much sense would it make for IMSA to embrace the current cars and grandfather them into their new P regs for 2017 and 2018?

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

With current P2 on a high right now, how much sense would it make for IMSA to embrace the current cars and grandfather them into their new P regs for 2017 and 2018?

No. That just causes more problems.

[YZFrider]

I'm all for it. One of the successes of club racing is making multiple classes and/or a rules set that allows a variety of cars to compete. Keeps the fields healthy

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by BullMan

No. That just causes more problems.

Like?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Coach Ep

Like?

Like people don't buy new cars from the chosen 4 manufacturers!

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by joeb

Like people don't buy new cars from the chosen 4 manufacturers!

Exactly. The way to ensure that the new cars are adopted is to either ban the old ones, or peg the old ones back so they have no chance to win.

The new cars are going to be faster than the current P2 cars, which are pretty much at their maximum power level currently. There is no way they could BoP the old ones.

[joeb]

I think some weight could be taken out of the current p2's but I don't know how much ballast they have.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by YZFrider

I'm all for it. One of the successes of club racing is making multiple classes and/or a rules set that allows a variety of cars to compete. Keeps the fields healthy

This isn't club racing. It's a professional series. When NASCAR switched to their current body style, they didn't allow poor teams to keep running the old COT bodywork. IndyCar didn't let teams run the IR-05 when they went to the DW-12.

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by joeb

I think some weight could be taken out of the current p2's but I don't know how much ballast they have.

They're pretty much as light as they can be at 900 kg.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by BullMan

Exactly. The way to ensure that the new cars are adopted is to either ban the old ones, or peg the old ones back so they have no chance to win.

The new cars are going to be faster than the current P2 cars, which are pretty much at their maximum power level currently. There is no way they could BoP the old ones.

With the new cars - just like you say - being faster than the current ones, there's no need to peg them back. On the contrary, if needed they can be advanced with bigger fuel tanks for instance (when the limit of engine power and such is reached) in order to have them stay in contact with the newer spec'ed cars.

Grandfathering current spec cars increases the chances of bigger grids, especially if the supply of to be manufactured new cars is slow off the line (not a overly unrealistic scenario with Daytona being so early in the year).

Second, it somewhat protects the investment teams made when they bought a current spec P2 recently (Shank, Krohn, others) who might otherwise be forced to look at other non P2 options. Or be forced out.

No grandfathering of the current spec P2 could result in a very tiny prototype grid come the Rolex 24 in 2016.

Edit: WEC and ELMS are grandfathering current cars for 2017 and 2017+2018 respectively:



see http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...ey-points.html

[HORNDAWG]

Make the old, new, P-2s the new PCs in '17.

[Jam3s]

Well, plenty of opportunities to run them in AsLMS.

It's one aspect of this 2017 debacle which is looking positive and that grid should flourish.

[Coach Ep]

Until 2019 I don't see much incentive to run a current spec P2 in Asia instead of Europe.

[Deleted]

The only incentive to go there is to get auto entries when no one else shows up

[Creep89]

Onroak, Oreca, Dallara and Riley-Multimatic have been selected as LMP2 manufacturer for 2017.

http://sportscar365.com/industry/aco...-lmp2-in-2017/

[Giba]

Originally Posted by Creep89

Onroak, Oreca, Dallara and Riley-Multimatic have been selected as LMP2 manufacturer for 2017.

http://sportscar365.com/industry/aco...-lmp2-in-2017/

Surprised about Dallara as there were rumours that they hadn't even put a bid in. I guess Dallara will use their base in indianapolis that they use for Indycars or do they have another?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Creep89

Onroak, Oreca, Dallara and Riley-Multimatic have been selected as LMP2 manufacturer for 2017.

http://sportscar365.com/industry/aco...-lmp2-in-2017/

Meh.

Also mr Fillion:
“Thanks to the decisions taken jointly by the ACO, IMSA and the FIA we have managed to bring together a high-quality pool of constructors which reinforces the interest in the series and its glowing future prospects -- These new regulations and the provisions that result from them, the first of which is the selection of the four chassis constructors, will lead to more competitive cars, an efficient, cost-capped, viable economic model, a global market for cars that can race in North America, in Asia and in Europe allied to an excellent level of service for the entrants.”

[CTD]

I'm starting to get a bit tired of the ACO bashing for the new LMP2 rules.
When thinking back, the last time ACO made a poor choice in regulations was with the 3.5L rules (which were FIA's idea). Granted killing the GT1's, removed some interested cars, but was natural.

ACO haven't done this because they want to toss up the cards in the air and see where they land. They do it because they feel it is necessary, and have done it in close partnership with the manufactures and teams.

What I feel is missing is some proper argumentation to why they change the regulations, instead of promises for the future.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by CTD

ACO haven't done this because they want to toss up the cards in the air and see where they land. They do it because they feel it is necessary, and have done it in close partnership with the manufactures and teams.

According to who? When the initial headlines were made last winter, 90% of the parties seemed surprised/shocked to hear ACO were even cooking this mess in the owen. And then Fillion said every manufacturer out of 30 (or something) thought it was great idea. Yeah, I'm sure! Even though only Hughes de Chaunac had had anything positive to say about it, because he was going to make lots more money. Among the other three that paid for the ACO to get more money in the future. Everybody else has hates it.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Chiana

According to who? When the initial headlines were made last winter, 90% of the parties seemed surprised/shocked to hear ACO were even cooking this mess in the owen. And then Fillion said every manufacturer out of 30 (or something) thought it was great idea. Yeah, I'm sure! Even though only Hughes de Chaunac had had anything positive to say about it, because he was going to make lots more money. Among the other three that paid for the ACO to get more money in the future. Everybody else has hates it.

In this case, I think you have to prove that statement more than I have to prove mine.

[ascarracinguk]

I don't mind the 4 manufacturer rule, admittedly id like to see smaller companies being able to step up and make their own cars like ginetta...but the thing I have an issue with is 1 engine supplier....id rather see 3 or 4 engines so you get a bit of variety in the sound.....otherwise its just going to sound like a formula 3 drone all the time....especially with the American market in mind a v6 and v8 engine option would be a good thing....

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by CTD

In this case, I think you have to prove that statement more than I have to prove mine.

Umm.

Originally Posted by DSC - Graham Goodwin (from representatives)

Here are a selection of quotes – anonymized at the request of those who supplied them:

“No sensible and justifiable reason has been fielded to explain why such a swingeing set of proposals has been made so there remains more than a whiff of self interest here.”

“There is the definite potential for most of the current chassis, engine and tire suppliers involved in the class to be counted out of future competition at a stroke. That’s a huge step to take in the commercial interests of one or two larger constructors and suppliers.”

“I am stunned that this is even being considered without a full disclosure to all concerned about the reasoning, and worse still with zero involvement of the teams, who, after all, are spending the money and are actually the ACO’s customers!”

“I have been working for many months on a commercially sustainable P2 project that would be rendered immediately defunct by this plan. It’s staggering that the organizing body is turning away new blood from their series, ending a formula that can only be seen as a success with a leap into the unknown with a formula that nobody has asked for and which few have had the chance to even discuss with those proposing it.”

“There are very few potential winners here. One or two chassis manufacturers who are strong in any case and the governing body themselves through any potential sanctioning fees for their fixed suppliers.”

“It seems we are, in effect, being blamed for ORECA’s inability to make enough money in LMP2. The penalty for this is likely to mean our exit from the industry. How wrong can they get this?”

“Competition on as many levels as possible is a good thing for the whole sport and the whole industry. The more ‘spec’ you make something, the less relevant it is for more and more people. This doesn’t work on a developmental, promotional, or competitive front. It brings a formula that has been well thought out and delivered by the ACO down to the level of a mid ranking single seater championship – And we know how successful they are at the moment, don’t we!”

“Not a word has been said to us by the ACO or FIA about these proposals. No information, and certainly no consultation. It does not exactly get you to the point of being considered as a valued stakeholder.”

“When I read your story (on DSC) I checked it wasn’t 1 April! From what I can see there is no benefit to the teams aside from a vague potential reduction in some peripheral costs. That’s not enough to offset the massive reduction in choice for us in the future marketplace.”

“With young drivers with budget being attracted here as part of a development curve leading potentially to LMP1 things were looking up but this removes, immediately, much of the justification of that. No tire development, a single engine and a supply chain that are not exactly going to be rushing to develop the cars. This set of proposals is more ‘P3’ than the actual LMP3 regulations are!”

“There’s a theory in the business that this is designed to force more of the bigger teams to move up to LMP1 – That’s just not going to happen. And certainly not in these circumstances – an opportunity to spend twice as much after having your principal racing assets devalued is not an appealing proposition for anybody.”

“There seems to be an assumption that we will all tag along and go wherever the regulations take us. All I can say is that one of my customers told me that this makes a move to GT3 very much more likely for us and them where we have a wide choice of cars and tires around the world. It seems to me that there’s been a fundamental failure to understand the motivation of many of those pouring huge amounts of money into the sport – and it stands to lose them as a result.”

Supporters of the proposals have been few and far between with Oreca’s Hugues de Chaunac alone thus far in confirming to DSC that the proposals have his support

Originally Posted by DSC - Darren Cox

“I don’t normally rush to judgement on things and I’ve been trying to figure out if I’ve missed something, but I really can’t see the logic behind these proposals and I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s a good idea. As the ELMS race at Silverstone shows, there’s really nothing wrong with P2 right now. Okay, it went through a tough time in the WEC, but it’s on the up again and a strong ELMS will give you a strong WEC P2 class as teams and drivers move up. We love P2 – we think we have the three best drivers from there in our P1 car this year in Pla, Tincknell and Mardenborough.”

Originally Posted by Motorsport.com - Tim Greaves

"I am actually more pessimistic rather than optimistic' for the future of the category. -- I actually understand and get what the FIA and ACO want to do and achieve with LMP2 but the rules are already in place to control the number of manufacturers today. -- It specifically says that a manufacturer must produce six cars but it has never been implemented. If they are implemented properly then there is not a reason to make such a sweeping change."

The reality is that it is highly likely only one of the four chosen manufacturers will get orders. .. I call it the 'Dallara-effect', which is what happened in single-seater racing over the last twenty years. Naturally one package will be quicker than the other and that will be found out quickly. Then what happens to the others? All of a sudden it becomes a one-make class. That is how I think it could play out in LMP2."

Originally Posted by S365 - Steve Eriksen

“Like other manufacturers who made P2 coupes, we signed up expecting this was a six-year program and three years through there would be a ‘minor adjustment’ and that doesn’t look like that’s the way it’s panning out. I think for all of the manufacturers to have to re-tool for a brand-new car is a pretty tall order. I would much prefer to see us continue the existing P2 car or the existing P2 car with some changes such as bodywork for recognition of certain styling elements.”

Originally Posted by S365 - Mike Newton

“Based on the latest proposals, namely only four manufacturers in 2017 in LMP2, which for me is a huge disappointment, and the complete lack of interest on the part of anyone either renting the HPD no matter the price, I have no choice but to put the LMP2 project on hold. -- The ACO may be right in saying that there are too many chassis manufacturers for the new regulations would work from an economic point of view but what’s wrong with the prior cost containment regulations?

[Bob Baldwin]

Not too many happy campers

I am beginning to sense that the ACO has been FIBBING to us