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.