P1

Please discuss here all your remarks and pose your questions about all racing series, except Formula One. Both technical and other questions about GP2, Touring cars, IRL, LMS, ...

Spec Chassis from P2 for P1

Yes
2
33%
No
4
67%
 
Total votes: 6

FW17
189
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

P1

Post by FW17 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:08 am

Now that only 2 manufacturers are there for a LMP1 2017 should AOC relook at the rules?

With drive train development may offer some relevance to the road do they really need to have serious chassis development programme?

Wouldn't P1 be more attractive to some manufacturers if this chassis cost is taken out of the equation as in IndyCar and FE?

If provisions were made in the current LMP2 chassis for the incorporation of front wheel drive e motor wont it be easier for new manufacturers to jump in?

Eg. Peugeot- who can use a Williams or a Mclaren FE electrical system which should cost them less than $10 million, the chassis cost less than a million to buy, which will give them a lot of budget for the turbo petrol engine.

timbo
89
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:14 am

Re: P1

Post by timbo » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:47 am

FW17 wrote:Now that only 2 manufacturers are there for a LMP1 2017 should AOC relook at the rules?
I don't think it is wise to change rules each time manufacturer leaves. They are bound to leave at some point. And I don't think any manufacturer ever entered a racing series BECAUSE of the regulations. Big car makers need exposure. ACO must work on PR and media/fan coverage and not change regulations too often -- that would only confuse fans and anger existing manufacturers. This applies to all series.
FW17 wrote:With drive train development may offer some relevance to the road do they really need to have serious chassis development programme?
If you leave a tiny hole where big teams can pour money for any amount of performance advantage they will.
FW17 wrote:Wouldn't P1 be more attractive to some manufacturers if this chassis cost is taken out of the equation as in IndyCar and FE?
For once I enjoy cars that LOOK different. I don't enjoy Indy/FE as much as F1/WEC for that reason. I think I am not alone here.
FW17 wrote:If provisions were made in the current LMP2 chassis for the incorporation of front wheel drive e motor wont it be easier for new manufacturers to jump in?
No! LMP2 must be a healthy environment for privateers. Manufacturer-oriented LMP2 is a route to nowhere.

I hope ACO understands (I am sure they are) that Audi leaves not because there's something wrong with the sport.
I am not saying there are no problems (e.g. timeslots for the races are hard for many people to follow), but it's because of Audi's own reasons that they leave.
Manufacturers do racing for one and one thing only -- exposure. Now combine a long string of success (so it's not news if Audi wins) with a bit of f***-up with 2016 car with Diesel-gate. I guess you get a pattern.

Sevach
479
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: P1

Post by Sevach » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:19 am

If Audi were to sell their cars to independents we would have an awesome grid.

Shame it's just a dream.

krisfx
28
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: P1

Post by krisfx » Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:27 pm

I can't see how it can be justified as a grid with only two entries.

FW17
189
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: P1

Post by FW17 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:38 pm

It is to be noted that P2 will have 4 chassis manufacturers, it will be more like CART rather than IRL and FE

TzeiTzei
10
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: P1

Post by TzeiTzei » Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:13 pm

I don't want to see a spec chassis in LMP1. IMO development race between teams is one of the more interesting aspects of the class. It is never going to support several factory teams. Endurance racing isn't entertaining enough for the masses.

I think they should concentrate more on how to make privateers competitive. They're going to need help from the rulebook. Build it and they will come. Hopefully. :)