The Sportscar and Endurance Thread

[mario]

So, LMP1 is virtually over for 2019 and beyond, considering Toyota isn't going to race "alone" for much time. Le Mans 2019 is going to be interesting with a lot of teams fighting for the victory in LMP2 cars.

What certainly won't help affairs is the news that Perrinn are now suspending development of their 424 LMP1 model - although they had previously said that they had sold a pair of cars to a customer, it seems that deal has collapsed and, with no new customers forthcoming, the project has been aborted.

Instead, the team are now planning to refurbish the car for a Garage 56 entry in 2019, with the car being converted to run purely on electrical power: they are also aiming to run the car in a fully autonomous mode, with the car running at the same speed as a GTE car on inlaps and outlaps and running at full speed inbetween. http://www.dailysportscar.com/2017/08/2 ... alted.html

If there are going to be any privateer entrants in the LMP1 category next year, it looks like the last great hope for the ACO is Ginetta - they seem to be proceeding as planned at the moment, having recently begun windtunnel testing, but in light of the Perrinn deal failing you have to wonder if Ginetta can build up a stable long term customer base.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

The most disappointing thing about Porsche pulling the plug on their LMP1 program for me is it means Matt Campbell wont get a shot at Le Mans soon, most promising Australian driver in a while. Going quite well in Porsche Supercup.

[AndreaModa]

And in case it wasn't already crystal clear that the ACO haven't got a clue what they're doing, they've binned everything mentioned at Le Mans and instead announce this: https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/wec-superseason-to-feature-two-le-mans-24-hours-948034/

First off, I'm glad that they've finally decided to put Le Mans at the end of the calendar. Likewise bringing back Sebring, though the fact the race will begin at midnight on the Sunday two hours after the IMSA race is done is completely bizarre. Are there too many entries for the two series to run together?

But then, they have the Prologue in the middle of the year (why?), an enormous gap from Le Mans in June to Fuji in October, though from the 2019-20 season October will be the start point so I guess it's not such a big issue. A bigger problem is the big gap from the race in Shanghai in November to the unnamed race in February. Everyone's raised the issue about Formula E scheduling. Clearly the ACO have learned nothing from that.

Oh, and the only two European races will be Spa and Le Mans. Brilliant. No Silverstone, no Italy, Germany, nothing. At least they've ditched Bahrain, but ironically Mexico too, making the announcement while they race there this weekend! Big missed opportunity to do a race in Australia in that November-February period, maybe even something like South Africa for a change or Brazil or Argentina and make the most of the warm Southern Hemisphere winter. Additional European rounds could easily slot in before the Fuji October date, or between Sebring and Spa in April.

This was announced as a "new look, strengthened" WEC. Doesn't look like it to me.

There isn't much info on what technical changes will be made to bring the LMP1 privateers closer to Toyota (if they even stay!) but this was telling, and shows the seriousness of the situation:

Beaumesnil also revealed that it would be possible for a manufacturer to join the WEC with a non-hybrid car.

Oh, and there's this:

[Miguel98]

Bathplug Jean Todt. That is all.

[mario]

And in case it wasn't already crystal clear that the ACO haven't got a clue what they're doing, they've binned everything mentioned at Le Mans and instead announce this: https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/wec-superseason-to-feature-two-le-mans-24-hours-948034/

First off, I'm glad that they've finally decided to put Le Mans at the end of the calendar. Likewise bringing back Sebring, though the fact the race will begin at midnight on the Sunday two hours after the IMSA race is done is completely bizarre. Are there too many entries for the two series to run together?

But then, they have the Prologue in the middle of the year (why?), an enormous gap from Le Mans in June to Fuji in October, though from the 2019-20 season October will be the start point so I guess it's not such a big issue. A bigger problem is the big gap from the race in Shanghai in November to the unnamed race in February. Everyone's raised the issue about Formula E scheduling. Clearly the ACO have learned nothing from that.

Oh, and the only two European races will be Spa and Le Mans. Brilliant. No Silverstone, no Italy, Germany, nothing. At least they've ditched Bahrain, but ironically Mexico too, making the announcement while they race there this weekend! Big missed opportunity to do a race in Australia in that November-February period, maybe even something like South Africa for a change or Brazil or Argentina and make the most of the warm Southern Hemisphere winter. Additional European rounds could easily slot in before the Fuji October date, or between Sebring and Spa in April.

This was announced as a "new look, strengthened" WEC. Doesn't look like it to me.

There isn't much info on what technical changes will be made to bring the LMP1 privateers closer to Toyota (if they even stay!) but this was telling, and shows the seriousness of the situation:

Beaumesnil also revealed that it would be possible for a manufacturer to join the WEC with a non-hybrid car.

Oh, and there's this:

I agree that the general consensus seems to be one of bemusement and mild derision, with a feeling that the ACO is trying to put a positive spin on what has been a rather difficult period for them in recent months (similarly, I feel that, for all the criticism Todt faces, he's in a position where he probably has no choice but to put a positive spin on things).

Over on Daily Sportscar, they have suggested that the main reason why quite a few races have fallen off the calendar was because the ACO wanted to find a way to cut costs (the ACO reportedly aiming to cut around 20% off costs over a full season).

The problem with your proposal for races in further afield places, such as South America, would be the transport costs. Part of the reason for the proposed calendar is the fact that they can knock 10-20% off transportation costs, in part by switching to using shipping only for the long haul events rather than using air freight, as part of an overall drive to drive down costs.

I suspect that probably explains the reason behind the large gap between Le Mans and the next race in Fuji - if they are shipping everything there, then they probably need a much larger gap in the calendar given that transit times to Asia by boat are fairly lengthy (probably at least a month to get from France to Japan, if not longer now that slow steaming is increasingly prevalent in the shipping industry).

Part of it is probably also an effort by the ACO to regain some of the gloss that they have lost from the departure of Audi and Porsche by linking the season back into some of the more prestigious races, such as the Sebring 12 Hours. Now, they might not be losing all of those races permanently - Mexico City might retain its slot on the calendar as the currently unnamed entry, and Silverstone is expected to return to the calendar after 2019 if they can renegotiate terms.

However, there is a suggestion that the others are probably being permanently dropped - some, such as the Nurburgring, have perhaps lost out because VW is dropping their support for some of those races, making them no longer financially viable.

As for Sebring, the reason why they are running separately seems to be because there is still the difficult issue of how to reconcile the Daytona Prototypes - it seems that some LMP2 teams have objected to running against the DPi cars, and the ACO can't find a way to reconcile the two sides.

Some have also suggested that the ACO may be looking for a way to lock Toyota in for 2018 and 2019 as a way of keeping them interested ahead of the regulation revamp in 2020, with the ACO looking to simplify the regulations as part of their effort to lure more manufacturers in (particularly Peugeot). The decision to allow non-hybrid manufacturer entries sounds especially aimed at Peugeot, since reportedly they did want to find a way to enter a non hybrid or mild hybrid car.

[AndreaModa]

Yeah I read about the cost savings revolving around using sea freight rather than air freight. That's going to cause more problems than it solves.

But, let's be honest, if that is really how they want to make cost savings, then things aren't looking good. How must BMW be feeling now they're entering this with the M8 next year? What sort of future does the championship have? This is meant to be the most prestigious world championship after F1 but WRC is looking a lot better in comparison now and that is hardly free of criticism of its organisation and management in recent times.

The bottom line is, the ACO is sweating because manufacturers are leaving top line sportscar racing once again. In 1992 it was the draw of F1, this time it appears to be Formula E. Either way, history is repeating itself and I find it incredible that they aren't prepared for this type of scenario. Are they seriously that surprised?

The day that world championship sportscar racing is taken out of the hands of the ACO will be a glorious one and is long, long overdue. I'd like to see what SRO or someone else (Liberty?!) could do with it.

[mario]

Yeah I read about the cost savings revolving around using sea freight rather than air freight. That's going to cause more problems than it solves.

But, let's be honest, if that is really how they want to make cost savings, then things aren't looking good. How must BMW be feeling now they're entering this with the M8 next year? What sort of future does the championship have? This is meant to be the most prestigious world championship after F1 but WRC is looking a lot better in comparison now and that is hardly free of criticism of its organisation and management in recent times.

The bottom line is, the ACO is sweating because manufacturers are leaving top line sportscar racing once again. In 1992 it was the draw of F1, this time it appears to be Formula E. Either way, history is repeating itself and I find it incredible that they aren't prepared for this type of scenario. Are they seriously that surprised?

The day that world championship sportscar racing is taken out of the hands of the ACO will be a glorious one and is long, long overdue. I'd like to see what SRO or someone else (Liberty?!) could do with it.

The GT classes have done comparatively well in recent years, mainly because it is a cheap way for a manufacturer to enter the sport and, when the ACO eventually get their performance balance sorted, the races are close and each individual manufacturer has a good chance of winning. In fact, if I am not mistaken BMW alluded to that when they explained why they entered a GT car instead of the LMP1 car that the ACO had been fiercely lobbing them to enter.

[AndreaModa]

Exactly, and who has been the champion of GT racing in the last 10 years or so?

A certain Mr Ratel.

[mario]

Exactly, and who has been the champion of GT racing in the last 10 years or so?

A certain Mr Ratel.

However, given that the ACO have a rather stubborn streak and always want to do things their way, it is sadly unlikely that Ratel's services will be called upon by them. Ratel is much more realistic about the commercial side of sportscar racing - the problem is that the ACO has extremely large aspirations that are much grander than in F1, perhaps motivated by a sense of jealousy of the FIA and of F1, but could never make the commercial side add up (indeed, shortly before the announcement was made that Audi would be leaving, Dr Ullrich had been voicing some rather strong complaints that the ACO had abjectly failed to promote the WEC properly and warning that Audi wasn't prepared to keep subsidising the WEC forever).

I guess that it is the main reason why so many are looking at what the IMSA have achieved with the current DPi regulations, and whether they can make that work for the WEC in the future. The cars might just be glorified LMP2 cars but, because of that, the cars should (at least in theory) be close enough in terms of performance for all manufacturers to have a chance of winning at some point whilst maintaining a distinct appearance (such as the Mazda entrant). Even if they are not winning, those cost controls - which, ironically, effectively came in for the privateer LMP2 teams in the WEC - mean that most manufacturer entrants still think that the cost is low enough to make it worthwhile to compete, maintaining a fairly full field.

However, as some commentators have noted, the ACO may still be too stubborn to want to accept the DPi regulations given that it would be an implicit acceptance of failure, and they don't want to admit to failing at what they see as their domain (being the arbiter of sportscar racing).

That said, this "superseason" announcement does seem to have achieved what many suspected the ACO had been hoping for in the short term, which is maintaining Toyota on board until they have a chance to regroup in 2020. There seems to have been a suggestion that Toyota wanted to cut back their 2018 season to just three races (Spa, Le Mans and Fuji), but the enlarged season seems to have persuaded Toyota to maintain a larger presence on the grid (or perhaps forced their hand into committing fully to those two years).
https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/opi ... em-949995/

[Wallio]

Manor has announced they are going to run the "Superseries" in LMP1 with the Ginetta. While only one entry, it does give us 3 LMP1s at least.

[AndreaModa]

Manor has announced they are going to run the "Superseries" in LMP1 with the Ginetta. While only one entry, it does give us 3 LMP1s at least.

No, there's another LMP1 entry for next year too - DragonSpeed who are moving up from ELMS as champions of LMP2: https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/132772/dragonspeed-to-move-up-to-lmp1

No confirmation of which chassis they will use though.

If they can snare another team or two for LMP1 next year, and if they can get the non-hybrids on the level of Toyota (or vice versa) then we could have a pretty exciting prospect in store, after all the negativity in previous months (myself included in that).

Looking forward to trying to get to Silverstone to see them next yea....oh wait no. Damn.

[Wallio]

well alright, thats good news, the more the merrier obviously.

[mario]

Manor has announced they are going to run the "Superseries" in LMP1 with the Ginetta. While only one entry, it does give us 3 LMP1s at least.

No, there's another LMP1 entry for next year too - DragonSpeed who are moving up from ELMS as champions of LMP2: https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/132772/dragonspeed-to-move-up-to-lmp1

No confirmation of which chassis they will use though.

If they can snare another team or two for LMP1 next year, and if they can get the non-hybrids on the level of Toyota (or vice versa) then we could have a pretty exciting prospect in store, after all the negativity in previous months (myself included in that).

Looking forward to trying to get to Silverstone to see them next yea....oh wait no. Damn.

In theory there is the potential for four privateer teams in the LMP1 class - Ginetta claim to have sold three chassis to an as yet unnamed private entry, as well as supplying a chassis for the TRS/Manor entry, and we have the Dragonspeed proposed entry with an as-yet unspecified chassis.

In addition to those three potential prospects, it is possible that Kolles will wheel out the P1/01 for another season - though the car is now getting pretty long in the tooth given it can trace its roots back to 2013, and the fact that Kolles had to withdraw this year because he lacked the funding to both race the car and develop it for 2018 does suggest that his chances of competing are potentially limited.

On paper it looks promising, though I am a little wary given that I can recall how, a few years ago, the BR Engineering and Strakka bids for the LMP1 category both failed to materialise following rule changes by the ACO, and as far as I am aware the ACO hasn't quite finalised the rule set for next season.

[sswishbone]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41947568

Alonso for Toyota at Le Mans and possibly more races, possible FIA did something to help Toyota stick around by sweet talking a double F1 world champion to potentially launch a simultaneous bid for the WEC title and the adulating publicity it brings?

[mario]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41947568

Alonso for Toyota at Le Mans and possibly more races, possible FIA did something to help Toyota stick around by sweet talking a double F1 world champion to potentially launch a simultaneous bid for the WEC title and the adulating publicity it brings?

It sounds as if it McLaren are OK with Alonso doing a few one off races in the WEC, but not a full WEC programme (especially given the extended calendar for the WEC).

If I am not mistaken, Alonso reportedly had already approached Toyota back in 2015 about the possibility of racing at Le Mans in the future. It suggests Alonso probably has been working away at Toyota for some time about a race seat, so it's probably the culmination of an extended period of talks rather than any one specific action this year that helped tip the balance.

On another note, it seems that the ACO is now considering whether it should effectively revive the GTP regulations of the 1990's in order to attract manufacturers to the WEC by allowing them to style the cars in a way that is much more similar to their road cars (a bit like the Daytona Prototypes, but taken to an even more extreme degree). https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/fac ... rs-978750/

[sswishbone]

Have Porsche just unintentionally shown the ACO how they can make LMP1 truly inviting to the motorsport world?

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1352 ... -f1-record

[Wallio]

Have Porsche just unintentionally shown the ACO how they can make LMP1 truly inviting to the motorsport world?

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1352 ... -f1-record

Doubtful, as Porsche themselves have said the car really is only set up for a single lap.

[tommykl]

Have Porsche just unintentionally shown the ACO how they can make LMP1 truly inviting to the motorsport world?

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1352 ... -f1-record

You have to remember that the Porsche doesn't actually conform to any rulebook and would be utterly impractical for more than a couple of laps. The engine has been tuned for short sprints and produces more power than allowed by rules, and the car is extremely underweight compared to your average WEC car.

The last time someone tried something similar with an F1 car, a BAR broke 400km/h, and that car still met the F1 regulations. If an F1 team were to modify their car beyond the rulebook for the sole purpose of breaking a lap record, it would be much faster.

[dinizintheoven]

Three hours into the race at Le Mans and not a single post about it? Or is everyone in the chat service that breaks down more times than an Aston Martin AMR-One?

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Three hours into the race at Le Mans and not a single post about it? Or is everyone in the chat service that breaks down more times than an Aston Martin AMR-One?

I'll rectify that...

Montoya's crashed at Indianapolis!

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Anxiety kicks in at Toyota now...

[Bobby Doorknobs]

He's done it!

Kazuki Nakajima has finally won Le Mans!

[dinizintheoven]

He's done it!
Kazuki Nakajima has finally won Le Mans!

I think there should be a full Reject Round-Up.

LMP1:

Reject Of The Year 2009 (wasn't he?) Kazuki Nakajima has indeed won Le Mans, as has ex-Toro Rosso clown car victim Sébastien Buemi - and as Daniel Ricciardo might say, that's redemption for two years ago. Driving the other Toyota was not-a Reject-but-certainly-would-have-been-in-2010, José María López, who I think is worth more than a passing mention. Rebellion fielded two Rejects in André Lotterer who completed two laps with Caterham once, and Bruno Senna, who wasn't as good as his uncle - they were in the #1 car but finished fourth. Stéphane Sarrazin, who will drive absolutely anything (rally cars, Formula E, a knackered old Minardi) managed just under a third of the race distance until his team-mate binned the car and then tried to limp it back to the pits while it was on fire. Also worth a mention is Alex Brundle, ex-Formula E pundit and son of Martin, doing it for YORKSHIRE! YORKSHIRE! YORKSHIRE! in a Ginetta... until it conked out after 137 laps. As for the F1 non-rejects, there was the Sushi Chef's Son From Amagasaki that is Kamui Kobayashi in the second-placed Toyota, Jenson Button and Vitaly Petrov driving the less unreliable of the SMP cars, and also in the winning Toyota, some bloke from Spain from a backmarker F1 team was involved, and I forget his name, but I don't think it was Roberto Merhi.

LMP2:

Even if Jean-Éric Vergne screws up in New York and fails to land the Formula E title that he's had one hand on for most of the season, at least he'll console himself by polishing the trophy for the LMP2 win, the car finishing fifth overall. We have to go down to 13th place and 9th in class to find more Rejects in legal contract expert Giedo van der Garde and the man who went missing from F1 for a decade, Jan Lammers, Dutchmen driving for Racing Team Nederland. Two places further back both on the road and in class was crowdfunded Caterham and hand-to-mouth Manor driver Will Stevens, driving for a team owned by F1's one-hit-wonder Olivier Panis and former Manchester United goalkeeper Fabien Barthez (who's also been known to be a keen amateur driver). Amongst F1 non-Rejects, South America was well represented with Juan Pablo Montoya (9th/5th), Pastor Maldonado (11th/7th - no, your eyes do not deceive you, he didn't put it in the wall) and Felipe Nasr (22nd/13th, the first LMP2 car still running to be behind any GTs). Also, Paul di Resta, who is as exciting as a glass of milk, had a considerably less boring crash.

GTE Pro:

Top of the Rejects was the man mainly notable for being HWNSNBM's team-mate in 2004, Gianmaria Bruni, driving the sort-of-Rothmans liveried #91 Porsche 911 RSR to second place in class behind the victorious (and equally throwback) "pink pig" #92 911 RSR that showed various cuts of pork on the bodywork. That should have gone down a treat if Al-Jazeera were showing the race live. Third in class in a Ford GT was he who didn't do quite as well over here as he had in America, Sébastien Bourdais, who spent a lot of the race having a sulk about Frédéric Mackowiecki's driving in the Rothmans Porsche. Fifth in class was a piece of True 'Murican Metal (and plastic) driven by Jan Magnussen; sixth in class was someone who had two races against his son at the beginning of last year, Antonio Giovinazzi (who might one day escape Reject status if gets a decent F1 drive). Those four are the only ex-F1 drivers (well, three ex-F1 drivers and one who might drive again) in the GTE Pro field, there are none who escaped Rejectdom. But I might also give a mention to Daniel Serra, son of 1980s Reject Chico Serra, 8th in class in a Ferrari, and ex-Safety Car driver Oliver Gavin, whose Corvette was withdrawn after 259 laps when (in true UAW style) its radiator showed solidarity with all the French rail workers and went on strike.

GTE Am:

There are only three ex-F1 drivers in GTE Am - two are Rejects and it didn't go well for them. Olivier Beretta could only manage ninth in class in the MR Racing Ferrari alongside Eddie Cheever III (son of ex-F1 Eddie Cheever but racing under an Italian flag), while recently-ish-profiled Pedro Lamy and Mathias Lauda (son of some bloke with a burnt face) were part of Aston Martin's nightmare with a retirement after 92 laps. The non-reject was Giancarlo Fisichella, who finished second in the Spirit Of Race Ferrari behind the superior Dempsey-Proton Porsche, thus absolving him of any accusations of Fisichellitis - and just behind him in the Keating Motorsports Ferrari was Jeroen Bleekemolen, son of 1970s Reject, Michael Bleekemoelen.

Finally, a special mention to everyone's favourite Romanian dentist, Colin Kolles, whose car decided to go home as early as lap 65 and was the first official retirement.

[Yannick]

Thank you dinizintheoven for your race recap, or rather I should say, beautiful coverage.

[Salamander]

I'd just like to point out that, during Alonso's overnight stint, Jose Maria Lopez was dreadful more than Fernando Alonso was good. Alonso started out chipping a little bit of time out of Mike Conway, who was more managing the car than racing to defend the 2 minute lead he had to play with once Sebastien Buemi scored a one-minute penalty for speeding in a slow zone. Once Lopez got in the 7, then the gap started to come down quite quickly. Even after Alonso got out of the car, in the next stint Kazuki Nakajima was able to virtually eliminate the remaining lead, running a similar pace to Alonso. Once Kamui Kobayashi replaced Lopez, the cars were more even in speed.

That said, Alonso's consistency was certainly something to behold.

[Nessafox]

All G-Drive cars (including the TDS car) have been disqualified due to cheating with fuel rigs, so now the alpine car has won. Apparently they won up to 6 seconds per pit stop.

[Wallio]

I had to do quite a bit of driving this weekend, but I have XM in my car and they give Radio Le Mans its own channel for the race. So I listened to about 8 or 9 hours or so of their coverage.

Has any commentary team ever so OPENLY bashed a series/sanctioning bod/race before? I understood their hatred for the "maximum laps per stint and maximum fuel per stint rules" but the way they shite all over the 2020 LMP1/GTC rules was a bit much I thought.

I mean I know we all knew the winner 24 hours before it started, but come on now.

[Nessafox]

Apparently some people have trouble coping with change, whilst i'm always like 'give it a chance first'.

No complaints for me tho, the Dutch Eurosport commentary is always top at Le Mans

[Salamander]

I had to do quite a bit of driving this weekend, but I have XM in my car and they give Radio Le Mans its own channel for the race. So I listened to about 8 or 9 hours or so of their coverage.

Has any commentary team ever so OPENLY bashed a series/sanctioning bod/race before? I understood their hatred for the "maximum laps per stint and maximum fuel per stint rules" but the way they shite all over the 2020 LMP1/GTC rules was a bit much I thought.

I mean I know we all knew the winner 24 hours before it started, but come on now.

Um, I listened to Radio Le Mans the final 14 hours and I didn't really get any kind of shitting all over the 2020 regs? It was more just a general uncertainty over everything really involved with them?

[Wallio]

Um, I listened to Radio Le Mans the final 14 hours and I didn't really get any kind of shitting all over the 2020 regs? It was more just a general uncertainty over everything really involved with them?

In the 4am hour (well 4am here in PA anyway) the gentleman who did the commentary for NFS: Pro Street and the lady who used to be with Audi ripped them to shreds. All "of the ACO is very stupid" "and there's no time for this to work in 18 months" and "and then hydrogen in 2025 yeah, ok".

Seemed harsh to me. Yes, 19 months or so is a quick turnaround time, but these are supposed to be road car based. That's why there's no real engine rules. The idea is to use a layout the teams already have and then adapt it to the fuel flow regs. This way (ideally) no new engines need to be designed from scratch. They never mentioned that.

[mario]

I'd just like to point out that, during Alonso's overnight stint, Jose Maria Lopez was dreadful more than Fernando Alonso was good. Alonso started out chipping a little bit of time out of Mike Conway, who was more managing the car than racing to defend the 2 minute lead he had to play with once Sebastien Buemi scored a one-minute penalty for speeding in a slow zone. Once Lopez got in the 7, then the gap started to come down quite quickly. Even after Alonso got out of the car, in the next stint Kazuki Nakajima was able to virtually eliminate the remaining lead, running a similar pace to Alonso. Once Kamui Kobayashi replaced Lopez, the cars were more even in speed.

That said, Alonso's consistency was certainly something to behold.

From what I have seen, it looks like Alonso was ranked as the most consistent driver - his lap times varied by 0.85%, which none of the other professional drivers could match - and he seems to have also had the fastest average lap times over the length of his stint as well.

It was the consistency of his run that told in the end - whilst his fastest lap wasn't especially fast, it was the fact that he just kept relentlessly going at that same pace for lap after lap that really did the business, even with Lopez having a rather average night time stint (whilst he could turn a few fast laps here and there, his times varied by quite a bit more than Alonso's did).

Um, I listened to Radio Le Mans the final 14 hours and I didn't really get any kind of shitting all over the 2020 regs? It was more just a general uncertainty over everything really involved with them?

In the 4am hour (well 4am here in PA anyway) the gentleman who did the commentary for NFS: Pro Street and the lady who used to be with Audi ripped them to shreds. All "of the ACO is very stupid" "and there's no time for this to work in 18 months" and "and then hydrogen in 2025 yeah, ok".

Seemed harsh to me. Yes, 19 months or so is a quick turnaround time, but these are supposed to be road car based. That's why there's no real engine rules. The idea is to use a layout the teams already have and then adapt it to the fuel flow regs. This way (ideally) no new engines need to be designed from scratch. They never mentioned that.

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the proposed 2020 regulations, and in particular there seems to be a widespread misconception that the cars will be based on road going cars.

That is not the case - what is being proposed is a formula that is still based on a conventional prototype chassis, but the intention is that the bodywork of the cars will be stylised so they have visual clues that are similar to road going models. It is, in a number of ways, similar to what is going on in the US with the Daytona Prototypes - the cars are prototype models, but stylistically have some stylistic elements that mimic road going cars.

There are a number of valid criticisms over the proposals though, with a number of them stemming from the fact that, behind the scenes, it sounds as if the 2020 regulation package isn't quite as fleshed out as the ACO have been suggesting in public (the ACO's public announcement can be found here http://www.dailysportscar.com/wp-conten ... ations.pdf )

The ACO has talked about wanting to cut budgets to about 25-30% of what they are now, but currently it seems that there is a lack of clarity about how the ACO intends to bring down costs over the longer term - particularly since they have proposed introducing active aerodynamics, which would seem to raise the risk of cost inflation.

As for the engine development, whilst on the one hand it sounds relatively open, on the other hand the ACO has stated that the "Minimum size, minimum weight and gravity centre height of the engine will be defined.", which might actually make the proposed regulations much more heavily constrained than the current regulations. Added to that, whilst they've said they will define factors such as the minimum weight, they've not actually defined what those parameters will be yet.

From what the Daily Sportscar website have said, the 2020 regulation package might not be finalised until as late as December this year - so whilst the broad brush strokes might have been announced now, you might be talking about closer to 12 months to design and build a new car, if not less.

The way that the privateer entrants would be incorporated into that new class is also a strong point of contention - whilst the ACO have talked about wanting to make it viable for them, the new regulations are quite clearly written with the intention of appealing to a manufacturer and currently lacks clarity on how the privateers will operate. It also raises the possibility that outfits like Ginetta or Rebellion might have to scrap their current cars barely two years after launch and replace them with new cars - a potentially ruinously expensive development if true.

[Wallio]

Well ok then, that's nothing like I thought.

Most of the articles I've read make the rules seem road car based (the Aston Valkyrie gets mentioned a lot) which would be much easier to do in a 12-18 month window. But if they are DPis....yea that's harder.

Also if the engines are supposed to be "open", how can you set a weight, height, etc? That's obviously not open.

I definitely understand their on air criticism better now. I'm also quite disappointed in the new regs. I thought we were quasi-returning to the GT1 days.

[mario]

Well ok then, that's nothing like I thought.

Most of the articles I've read make the rules seem road car based (the Aston Valkyrie gets mentioned a lot) which would be much easier to do in a 12-18 month window. But if they are DPis....yea that's harder.

Also if the engines are supposed to be "open", how can you set a weight, height, etc? That's obviously not open.

I definitely understand their on air criticism better now. I'm also quite disappointed in the new regs. I thought we were quasi-returning to the GT1 days.

The confusion seems to have arisen because the ACO has talked about how the new prototype class should "draw inspiration" from hypercars and talked about how the cars should have similar dimensions. That is then compounded by some rather poor journalism (sometimes seemingly arising more from people interpreting the rules as they want them to be, rather than what they actually say) and a lot of people who seem to be thinking back to the old GTP category, resulting in people wrongly believing that cars like the Aston Martin Valkyrie would be eligible.

In reality, the regulations are much closer to that of the Daytona Prototype class, and that is no accident - the ACO has been trying to reach a common position with IMSA so they have a set of unified regulations in the longer term. If they can achieve that and make it possible to compete in series sanctioned by both outfits, it potentially reduces costs by increasing the number of manufacturers who can compete in both series, as well as potentially opening an avenue for DPi cars to compete at Le Mans (something that is currently not possible given the difference in rules right now).

As things stand, it seems that IMSA are interested in the changes, but they are not quite in agreement just yet. Although the ACO have aimed for a hefty reduction in budgets, it seems that IMSA are still concerned about development costs - however, it sounds as if they think that the ACO's proposals so far are a reasonably starting point and talks seem to be ongoing between the two sides, so it may be the case that, a few years down the line, we see the ACO and IMSA agree on a common set of regulations.

That would probably also explain why the ACO has talked about introducing regulations which specify minimum dimensions and weights for different engine packages. One of the other differences between IMSA and the ACO has been the fact that the common chassis has been designed to accept different types of engine, whereas the ACO's LMP2 class uses a standard engine and has been designed around that as a result.

It sounds as if the ACO's proposals would move them closer to IMSA's position by standardising features such as the mounting points - it would suggest to me that the ACO wants to make it easier to change engines, but still present itself as an open engine format by allowing manufacturers to plug in their own engines.