Is it time for a privateer P1 class?

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Articus

They don't have to be necessarily sold.
They can be leased for lower than total cost.
In addition why wouldn't an Audi or a Porsche subsidzi some of the cost just to get another Audi or Porsche out there running in a different paint scheme than the Corporate bland.

Probably because it's hard to get the extra money approved for cars that aren't going to really increase the likelihood of winning, probably much harder to convince execs on money spent on cars fighting for 5-8. Selling customer cars would probably also require additional fixed costs to double production of cars and spares. All in all too much expense to give out cars for "cheaper" only to have them on the outside looking in.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

So if a top of the line P1 costs 5 million (hypothetically) but it is required to be sold for 1 million (probably fairly realistic number) how is that going to work?

Manufacturers should be made to supply a 2 car privateer team , or 2 single car teams ..... This is one of the issues that was wrong with Group C too . The only one who really did was Porsche . It can only be good for the sport .

Its the technology that is crippleing the sport to be honest . The average privateer cant afford to properly run a hybrid beast .

Why cant Audi for example supply a couple of last years cars ? Honda is prepared to supply ..... and Toyota should .

[gregtummer]

I also mentioned this in the ALMS 2013 thread, but can't Dr. Don open up Panoz Motorsports and build relatively cheap LMP1 cars to help fill the field in WEC and ALMS?

I mean he has built LMPs before, he knows the rules, so he should be able to build something with a good pace. Panoz could be like the Porsche 962, where it is the default car to fall back on if everything else falls through.

[Salamus]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Manufacturers should be made to supply a 2 car privateer team , or 2 single car teams ..... This is one of the issues that was wrong with Group C too . The only one who really did was Porsche . It can only be good for the sport .

Its the technology that is crippleing the sport to be honest . The average privateer cant afford to properly run a hybrid beast .

Why cant Audi for example supply a couple of last years cars ? Honda is prepared to supply ..... and Toyota should .

So on one side of the argument, we want manufacturers to race with new technologies and invest in sportscars yet on the other side, this diesel/hybrid/electric technological race is crippling the sport? And at the same time, we don't want dumbed down prototypes or spec racing. So what exactly do we want?

Honda is approaching LMP racing differently than Audi or Toyota. They provide the cars and they let privateers run them, however, the Honda is no match for Audi or Toyota without full factory support. What's the point of increasing the number of LMP1 cars when the problem still remains that the only winners will be the factory entries?

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Manufacturers should be made to supply a 2 car privateer team , or 2 single car teams ..... This is one of the issues that was wrong with Group C too . The only one who really did was Porsche . It can only be good for the sport .

Its the technology that is crippleing the sport to be honest . The average privateer cant afford to properly run a hybrid beast .

Why cant Audi for example supply a couple of last years cars ? Honda is prepared to supply ..... and Toyota should .

As I said before it probably comes down to racing boss X talking to person in charge of money Y at a major auto manufacturer and asking for a lot of money per year.

Now your proposed rule will require the racing boss to ask for even more money the next year for what is essentially are cars that aren't going to give a better chance at winning or give much publicity. The way the auto industry is looking in Europe... even the best performing auto empire is probably not being too profligate with unnecessary spending.

[joeb]

Instead of manufacturers supplying chassis, what if they just supplied engine and privateers had to field their own chassis. I know there aren't a lot of options for that these days, but maybe in the future.

[Félix]

The ACO only cares about having a manufacturer on the grid as main sponsor and big provider of $$$. In exchange they give them favourable enough rules so they can reasonably assume they'll win (and usually fill the podium). It's a happy coincidence if others come and want to compete for the overall win. A good economy is needed of course. More than a decade of Audi domination hasn't been a problem for them and the instances of Porsche getting rule breaks in the past should be enough to guess what's coming.

Where privateers and RACING fit in for them is questionable. They haven't seemed to care much for a long while, but now if Pescarolo can't make the race and the P1 grid is into single digits we can hope for a change (after the new rules if they don't work). All I know is that if the best P2s were given a bit of freedom NOW they could race for the overall win, just like the best privateer entrants could have been racing for the win in the last decade... but that would peace off the designated manufacturer so.

[courageous]

Problem with rules on supplying customer teams is what constitutes a customer team rather than semi/pseudo-works?

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by courageous

Problem with rules on supplying customer teams is what constitutes a customer team rather than semi/pseudo-works?

If the rule was written in a way that essentially the manufacturer could, for instance run four cars two under "Audi Sport Team Joest" and two under "Audi Sport North America" that wouldn't be productive.

The ACO needs to find a way for manufacturers to see producing customer chassis as advantageous. HPD have kind of picked up on that concept even under the current rules.

The rules need to be written first for the good of the sport, so we have Creation CA06/H Judds and Lola B06/10 AERs en masse again. Make sure you create rules that make sense for private teams and cottage industry builders first and then let the manufacturers come and play by those rules because they are attracted to the merits of sports car racing.

If teams aren't building customer P1 chassis to 2012 rules because there is a perceived rules disadvantage for non-diesels, or non-hybrids, or non-factories (and if no one will build a 2014 P1 car outside of Audi, Porsche and likely Toyota) then the ACO has things backwards. Manufacturers should come to play by your rules, and they shouldn't be defining rules to the sanctioning body.

Chris

[kyoung]

Originally Posted by joeb

Instead of manufacturers supplying chassis, what if they just supplied engine and privateers had to field their own chassis. I know there aren't a lot of options for that these days, but maybe in the future.

This is what should be done to LMPC If you want a privateer class, same chassis for everyone and let the teams pick from manufacturer’s unaltered, unrestricted crate engines.

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by kyoung

This is what should be done to LMPC If you want a privateer class, same chassis for everyone and let the teams pick from manufacturer’s unaltered, unrestricted crate engines.

If American road racing is so dependent on American manufacturer support that's precisely what PC should become in the States.

6.2 Chev
6.4 Dodge
5.4 Ford

Straight downpipes for all!!!

Chris