"Converse" (VortexAutosport)
07/09/2015 at 17:13 • Filed to: None
1
2|
"Converse" (VortexAutosport)
07/09/2015 at 17:13 • Filed to: None | 1
| 2 |
The development of the P3 class for international endurance racing (WEC, IMSA(?), etc.) has left me a bit perplexed and I would like y’alls input on the matter.
Why the hell do we need it? If the ACO set P2 up to be the class for privateers with a Pro-Am driver format and a discouragement of outright factory participation, where does the P3 class fit in at all?
As for IMSA, P3 seems like a great replacement for PC. They are modern (both in looks and safety) and decently cost efficient if handled correctly. However, with only four constructors being allowed to construct P2 cars from 2017 forward how does that effect IMSA’s top class?
I know there are a lot of questions, but it seems the formula for the ACO to muck about with a popular class of racing only leading to reduced numbers is still the best management theory they’ve got.
Please share your insight into the matter as it seems a bit odd to me.
Have some privateer prototypes for your time!
Vi517, JDX Racing
> Converse
07/09/2015 at 17:46 |
|
I’ve been listening to radiolemans trying to understand this as well. From what I can understand, GT teams wanting to move up into prototypes cannot afford the cost of the 2017 P2 cars. As such, P3 will be a lower, cheaper prototype class that will help GT teams get started in prototype racing.
As for IMSA, the P2 teams will be allowed to use any engine manufacturer they choose and may use unique bodywork and aero kits. In Europe, P2 cars will all use the same bodywork and engines.
The problem with the new P2 regulations is that they are designed to fullfill two unique requirements. IMSA needs the cars as their top class without any significant cost restraints, while in Europe they need to be a lower class and be cheap to run. These requirements are completely different and it ends up these new regulations benefit nobody.
|
Converse
> Vi517, JDX Racing
07/09/2015 at 17:54 |
|
That’s exactly how I see it! And honestly, they need to stop making so many “spec” style series that are “cost capped”. Both of those are in quotes for a reason. When you make it spec, someone always finds an advantage and then the cost cap doesn’t matter if you have the funds to find and exploit the advantage. For example, the Dallara IndyCar that ran until 2011. I didn’t see Dreyer & Reinbold making headway ever despite having the same general package and spec as Ganassi and Penske.
As for GT teams stepping up, do we need more underfunded programs jumping up into prototypes? The guys with big money, go for P2. Then a few more do and the field grows. With each season, the guys at the back of the pack decide they need to catch up and their only hurdle is money. So, bring the overall operating cost down and now they can win right? Wrong. The team upfront spending $5 million (or more) to do well, will continue spending that or just drop it where they are outspending the competition. The hurdle of money was never removed, but the field for innovation for other teams to find an advantage was shrunk.