# What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe)



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

First of all, the Penske Porsches-after consistantly running 1-3 seconds a lap slower than the R10s for the first time since Sebring-manage to squeak out a win. The race was Audi's to loose, and they managed to loose it.
I mean, what the hell happened? From 2000-2006, it seemed that Audi could do almost no wrong. Now, they're getting beat by LMP2 cars. I think that the factory LMP2 cars should be resticted, or forced to run in LMP1 if they want to run for overall wins. I thought that LMP1 was the top class. If IMSA is desperate to give Audi some competiton, combine LMP1 and LMP2 in to one LMP class, or break out the Panoz 6.0 aluminum pushrod Ford V8, and put it in the back of a Courage LC70 or Lola B07/10.
The only negatives is that we'd not see the close racing that we've seem most of the year(granted, it only takes 2 cars to make a race, but...), and the Ford 351 Cleveland V8 that the Panoz Elan 6.0 V8's cylinder heads come from was designed in the 1950's(the Cleveland V8 was a small block version of the 427 FE cast iron big block V8), and the 351 Windsor engine block was designed in the early '60s. The only major updates on the engines was the change to aluminum from cast iron, and electonic fuel injection from carburators. So it was out dated even before Audi showed up in the ALMS.
Another problem with this situaltion is that the ALMS might face the same thing they feared when Audi showed up with the R10(though when they ran the R8, IMSA seemingly had no problem with Audi's dominance)-all too predictable results. As Dindo said in his interview(of a horribly butchered broadcast-more on that later), if they(Audi Sport) can't win at Road America, where can they win? Granted, Penske winning the remaining races is at best 50/50, and Petit Le Mans is for damn sure a long shot(reliabilty of the RS Spyder comes into question here), but the rules the way they are means that Audi has to either run a mistake free race, or take some risks like Penske has. The pit stops are killing Audi. IMSA needs to open up the refueling restictors on the R10s of make the gas cars run smaller ones. Or maybe Audi needs to learn how to double stint their tires-they had no trouble triple stinting them at Le Mans.
As for the race coverage, Bill Weber did a good job for ESPN's and NBC/TNT's NASCAR programs, and Wally Dallenbach(son of the retired-and very successful-Indy Car driver of the same name) may've been a so-so NASCAR driver, but is an accomplished road racer and hillcilmber(he's won Pike's Peak several times), and also did a good job for NBC/TNT's NASCAR broadcast. But I don't really know how well they did for this race. 
Why? Because I get the local stations on Direct TV, I only get the Cleveland NBC station, and they decided that a Cleveland Indians vs New York Yankees MLB baseball game was more important than the ALMS-which has more manufacture and OEM support than NASCAR, CART Champ Car, the IRL Indy Car series, and Grand Am combined. Then the stupid game went into overtime, and I only saw the post race interviews.
In short, IMSA's TV package sucks! They need to either put all the races on Speed, or put some of them on ESPN.
If I were the likes of Audi, Porsche, Acura/Honda, Ferrari, GM, or even Panoz(Panoz owns a car company), I'd leave the ALMS just because of the horrid TV package.
And if you think that my critiques of the race results and the race broadcast are bad, just look at this topic on AudiWorld:
http://forums.audiworld.com/racing/
I hope that IMSA will address some of these things. Make LMP1 the top class again by letting those cars compete for overall wins(and get some decent LMP1 cars to show up more than 1-3 races a year), and get a decent TV package(I hear that the TV package is up for negoatiation at the end of the season).


_Modified by chernaudi at 10:58 PM 8-12-2007_


----------



## NSalvatore (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

I agree...in fact, unless its live, I dont even bother with TV. I watching the timing on imsaracing.net and also listen to the live broadcast on Globecast Radio....which plays via Windows Media Player from the same IMSARacing webcite. 
On to another few points....
My thoughts and what I heard on the radio....
1. Audi was dominante all weekend. Practice, Qualifying, Warm Up, the entire race. They turned the quickest laps by far. 1-3 seconds a lap faster. Yet Porsche still won. 
2. Reguarding the last stop of the race, that was a gamble by Porsche to double stint the tires, so it that case, where they got out ahead of the Audi, who elected to change tires, that is on Audi...the result was Audi that went in with the lead left the pits some 15-17 seconds behind the RS Spyder and between battling its sister car, the other R10, they tried there best to close the gap on the Spyder and did, when at the 4 hr mark at the line it was 1.7 seconds. 
3. My issue was not with the last stop, that gap was what it was and made that way by a gamble by Penske. The issue was with the overall pit performance reletive to the Porsches by the Audi's. This goes back to our talk about Mid Ohio a few weeks ago. If you look at the timing loops at the end of the race, Audi was in the pits for a GOOD bit longer then the Porsches. Granted two things, part of this was the final stop where Audi chose to get tires....this was a good 15 seconds that was on them....as well as the leading car when McNish was driving during the first half of the run had a flat rear that needed to be replaced, this was another 15 seconds in the pit....point is....due to the smaller fuel cells and the slower fueling restrictions, Audi was in the pits for an almost 2 minutes longer over the race. These cars are turning 1:51-1:53 laps, meaning Audi has to be MORE then a full lap better then the Spyders to win the race. This is crap. 
4. This race was under saftey car for 65 minutes straight due to a big thunderstorm. So a 4 hr race turned into 2:55 which was just 10 minutes longer then the standard 2:45 race. If this race was run in the free in clear, I imagine the lead Audi would have built would be insurmountable, even with this retarded IMSA regulations on the R10. 
Finally, IIRC Pirro at the end of last race spoke about Audi is doing the best they can do with the cards there delt this year, and this is the way its gonna be untill IMSA changes restrictions next year on the P2 cars to make them compete with P2 cars, and not for the overall win....
...not sure if anyone can speak to what Emanuelle said but that would be nice. 
Bottom line, Dindo was right, if they cant win there, where can they win? The Audi was made for Road America, LeMans aside...4 miles, big fast sweeping corners, they are the fastest all week, in every area...when you can say that but still lose, there there is a problem. Yes Porsche Double Stinted, so that is not IMSA's issue on the last stop, but call it 15-20 seconds gained there...there is still another 1:45 to be accounted for. 
I thought the idea was that the TDI was waxing the field so they needed to restrict it to be FAIR....granted, I have a problem with that in itself, let alone restricting it to the point that the R10 carries that much LESS fuel then the P2 cars and it fuels that much slower....IMSA went WAY to far in the oppsite direction. 
Audi has great tracks comming up for the R10 with MoSport, Road Atlanta, Laguna Seca, Detroit etc....and they SHOULD win there...just like they SHOULD have won at Mid Ohio and also Road America....so who knows...


----------



## Entwerfer des Audis (Jun 16, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

Sychronise regs with the ACO.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (Entwerfer des Audis)*

Stop blaming IMSA for the rules. The current rules are those laid down by the ACO, not IMSA. The P2s are currently under the ACO restrictors, not the larger ones that IMSA allowed earlier in the season. IMSA is not manufacturing racing, its being run according to the ACO specs and those that were run at Le Mans this year where Audi had no problem dealing with the P2s. But Penske wasnt at Le Mans and we're seeing what a top team with a top car and great strategy can do.


----------



## Entwerfer des Audis (Jun 16, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (.:RDriver)*

What about weight penalties and fuel tank capacities? 
Oh, and Porsche won Road America overall. 


_Modified by Entwerfer des Audis at 7:01 PM 8/13/2007_


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (Entwerfer des Audis)*

Problem is that IMSA's not gonna fully comply with the ACO's regs unless the ACO holds a gun to Atherton's and Panoz' heads, like on the Maserati MC12 deal, and we know what happened there(the FIA vouched for IMSA).
Granted, it's good that IMSA doesn't always go the way of the ACO(ie, the MC12 and allowing older cars to race when neccesary). But Audi has spent more time, energy and money on the LMP1 category than anyone else, even Don Panoz himself(and that was kinda a foolhardy, but neccesary move to prop up the series until Audi came in).
It's bull, and RDriver agrees to an extent. But you have to consider that IMSA is a privately owned company, just like NASCAR. That gives them the right to do what they feel is right to help the series. A long term approch is best, and it's not like that the ALMS is gonna die overnight. But their ratings are up and more and more fans are tuning in. The only problem is that many of these fans are desgruntled NASCAR fans, and they want the close racing without the crappy politics(sadly, they brought that problem with them).
And I think that George and Jimmy(although they don't agree 100% on this) will attest that there aren't enough interested parties(factories and rich privateers) to prop up LMP1 to the point where they don't have to semi-combine classes.
One thing that I'n curiouls about is the GT1 situaltion. Aside from the private Aston Martin DBR9 that ran at Sebring and the Lista Maserati MC12, the Corvettes have had GT1 all to themselves aside from Le Mans. Since they're doing it with LMP1/2, why not have GT2 cars run with the GT1 cars? Just give the 911s, Panozs and F430s weight breaks, larger air restictors, wider tires, and carbon brake rotors. It only seems fair to me.
And Aston Martin is appearently b****in' that they still need competiton adjustments to run with Corvette Racing. Well, Le Mans disproved that, as well as the races where the cars ran to ACO specs last year. Maybe if they ran Michelin tires last year(like in '05 and currently), that would be a non-issue.
Back to Audi vs LMP2. I think that a lot of it goes back to Penske being a actual factory team. If one looks at IMSA's Privateer prize fund, it list the following teams as elegible for bonuses/almost all the prize money:
LMP1: Intersport, Autocon, Cytomax
LMP2: Acura teams(AGR, Highcroft, Lowes-Fernandez), BK(Mazda), Dyson(Porsche), Van de Stuer
GT1: Lista(Maserati MC12)
GT2: Risi(Ferrari F430), P/WL(F430), Flying Lizard(Porsche 911), Tafel(911), etc.
Notice that Penske is missing from the list. That's because that IMSA dubs them a factory team, and thus only elegible for some prize moneys(contingency awards, like the Pit Crew Challenge, year end point fund, but otherwise scarcely benefit fom other prize moneys) IMSA's site http://www.imsaracing.net has that list up at their site, show how much money each team has earned this year: 
http://www.imsaracing.net/2007/alms/ppf.pdf
The fact that Penske is a factory Porsche team in LMP2(where the ACO doesn't want full factory teams) is crap, but until the ACO or IMSA bans such teams from LMP2, it's gonna happen.
And both the LMP675 class and LMP2 class were formed for private teams that either:
1) can't afford to run LMP1, or
2) want to gain experience before moving to LMP1
The difference is the ACO's wording. LMP675 cars were allowed by the ACO to contend occasionally for overall wins. LMP2 isn't intended to compete for overall wins but only a couple of races a year.
Fortunatly, the ACO says that LMP2 cars will have to carry 110 lbs of ballast next year. Whether or not IMSA want's to adopt this rule or not, is up to them, but they'd better, to keep the ACO off of their backs.
I guess that in the end, if you don't like what's going on, you don't have to watch. If Audi is so PO'd about the rules, no one's making them run in the ALMS. And if the ACO and IMSA are p***ed at eachother over their rules packages, no one's making IMSA and the ACO partner up with eachother. The situation is partly IMSA's fault, but it's stupid to balme them for this whole mess. The ACO mandated the fuel tankage and refueling rig restictorys-b**** at them for a change. Or for maybe making the diesel regs in the first place.

_Modified by chernaudi at 6:24 PM 8-13-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 6:29 PM 8-13-2007_


----------



## hghpsigti (Nov 13, 2002)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

audi is getting beat...period..its hard to get used to isnt it ???? ..although they have a super technologically advanced car, its not the best car....its got too much torque and is too large...it was basically built with one race in mind------LE MANS-----its time for them to admit that they got it wrong especially when racing in the US tracks....the porsches are a better racing vehicle and even though they are down roughly 200-250 horsepower and roughly 500-600 lb-ft of torque, they are lighter, handle better, brake better, and have one huge advantage.....the master of race strategy, roger penske.....i would love to see audi and porsche go head to head in the same category with similiar vehicles


_Modified by hghpsigti at 9:29 PM 8-13-2007_


----------



## NSalvatore (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (hghpsigti)*

Disagree. 
Tracks earlier this year like Long Beach, Audi got beat, fair and square....
Houston, Audi had some really bad luck with the race leading R10 had a puncture. 
These are the two type tracks where P2 should compete with P1. 
In the last two races, mid ohio and Road America, lets make no mistake about it....Audi did not "LOSE" or should I say get beaten in these races. Both of these races where lost in the pits, by the R10's needing multiple MINUTES over the course of the race to do the same thing the P2 cars where doing....this was not Audi's doing. These are regulations that are forced upon them.


----------



## Entwerfer des Audis (Jun 16, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

On another note, I think that DTM as well as the GT classes should adopt quattro and other AWD systems with the restriction that the drive system utilised should comprise the majority of the sales of the car on which the racer is based. (I.E. since most A4s (I infer) are sold with quattro, Audi's DTM A4s should be allowed to race with quattro)
Sorry, that was a bit off topic.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (Entwerfer des Audis)*

As easy as it seems, its impossible to blame IMSA for everything. The only things that I fault IMSA for is the refueling rig restrictor and they're for damn sure culpable for the horrible TV coverage. IMSA had had no trouble screwing with the fueling rig restictors last year. I thought that the premise was that the Audi or Porsche pit stops were to take the same amount of time. But they aren't. So as I asked in my first post: "What the hell happened?!(same question can be asked about the TV coverage)"
It can't be the tire changes-that does take the same amount of time in the stops. It must go back to the refueling rig restictor. Either the ALMS messed up big time on the refueling rig equilvalncey, or Audi is screwing up bigtime somewhere.
I do agree that Audi got beat fairly at Long Beach and Lime Rock. But even at Long Beach, Audi could've won if Dindo didn't pit the car so late under that caution, and if Pirro hadn't gotten dumped by the Flying Lizard 911. And if Allan and Dindo went 90-95% at Lime Rock instead of 110%, they might not have won on pace, but it was stratgey that almost allowed them to make up all 3 laps that they lost because of the early race accident with the Intersport car. In other words, if they used that strategy, they theoretically could've lapped the field almost 3 times if not for the accident.
At Houston, Capello lead by 15 seconds when the tire went down, and at Salt Lake City, McNish lead by 15 seconds, but fell about a minute behind due to his last stop. Why are the stops taking so long? Who screwed up here?!
If Audi is able to offer up proof that the refueling rig restictor is causing the problem, then IMSA should fix it, elsewise, it's proof to consipiracy theorist that IMSA is manipulating the rules to produce a race where there wouldn't be one otherwise. NASCAR's already been accused of such(with their rules changes, and more recently, the "phantom debris" cautions). And there are already enough conspiracy theorist in the Audi fan camp.








I mean, I understand that IMSA doesn't neccesarily want an Audi romp. But with Penske Porsches winning 6 out of 8 races this year(strategy or otherwise), it's been a romp by them in LMP2, and by Audi in LMP1. And the results are predictable: Audi will win overall by brute force, or Penske will pull a card from his sleeve and squeak out a win. Face it, big teams(Audi, Penske Porsche), with seemingly unlimited money, talent and resources, will almost always winout in the end. And both are funded by Volkwagen Group, a company that isn't shy about spending a lot of quid to get what they want.
But if one dislikes the way that IMSA and the ACO conduct themselves as far as rules favoring someone, look at the original Can Am series. Penske's Porsche 917 beat up on basically everyone in 1972-73. The the SCCA introduced a fuel mileage average requirement in '74. The public reason was to show that they were concerned about the '73 oil crisis. But the real reason was probably to help out the teams that had GM factory backing(UOP Shadow and McLaren), as well as bring some balance to the situlation, as Shadow and McLaren weren't the big spenders that Porsche were(when Shadow went to F1, they were one of the smallest teams on the gird). The result: Porsche left as a factory effort, UOP Shadow won the championship, and Shadow and McLaren left to concentrate on their F1 teams, and Can Am died overnight.
Am I saying that this will happen to the ALMS? Hopefully not. But they're stuck in a situaltion where they're damned if the do, damned if they don't. Don't change the rules soon, they risk losing Audi, and if they change the rules too drastically, they risk losing Porsche. Then Acura will benefit, and will leave when they accomplish their goals.
Why can't IMSA and the ACO learn from the past? Becuase they're doomed to repeat the virtual collapse of professional sports car racing in '92-93 if they're not careful.
Maybe the ACO should ditch the diesel regs and ban factory teams in LMP2(and IMSA ditch the ACO), as them messing those things up is basically what opened this whole can of worms in the first place.
And I don't understand why being designed for Le Mans is what's hurting the R10, as the Peugeot 908 was designed for the same venue being it's primary objective, and the Audi R8 was the same way, and it never had any problem winning on basically every track that it has competed on.
Overall, this whole situaltion is confusing, and I'd write to IMSA, the FIA, and the ACO, but I'd probably leave with more questions than answers, and I don't have the money to sue for my answers.



_Modified by chernaudi at 11:38 PM 8-13-2007_


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

It looks like that they're taking about it at the "NASCAR Channel"'s(Speed TV) forum, and a lot of them(including non-Audi fans) are just as confused and frustrated by this as a lot of us are:
http://insider.speedtv.com/vie...rt=12
Also, can anyone give me any info that proves/disproves the info in post #137 in the following link?:
http://www.ten-tenths.com/foru...ge=10
*Edit:* Found the info. The ACO's refueling rig specs(page 2):
http://www.lemans.org/sport/sp...b.pdf
ALMS refueling rig specs for diesel cars(effective Salt Lake City 7/2006):
http://www.imsaracing.net/2006...8.pdf
_Modified by chernaudi at 4:13 AM 8-14-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 5:25 AM 8-14-2007_


----------



## NSalvatore (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

So then ACO is allowing the 38mm diamater fill but ALMS isnt? 
So this is on ALMS then?

Can we list all of the restrictions on Audi in P1 currently?
- Additional weight? 
-Fuel Restriction (Tank Size)
-Fuel Restriction (Filling speed)
The only P2 resrtiction I know of is a 5% engine restriction right after LeMans.


----------



## Entwerfer des Audis (Jun 16, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (NSalvatore)*

Are those just enforced on Audi because they're using diesel, or is it over all of LMP1? 
My point overall is simply that LMP1 is supposedly the top sportscar class, and that it seems that the governing bodies are manipulating the rules to make LMP1 and LMP2 cars race against each other. When a car from a lower class beats all the cars from the next class up, it should be surprising and impressive, not this 80% win rate for LMP2. I can understand that they're sick of seeing Audi win every race, but it also holds that some of the technology used in these cars should trickle down to production cars (like Audi has done with direct injection (FSI) and diesel (TDI)). If competitors see Audi winning with innovative technologies, they are more likely to introduce similar technologies to challenge Audi more directly (consider the Peugeots from LeMans). To defeat Audi, they must jump a step ahead because as they implement the technologies pioneered by Audi, Audi is working on yet another new technology, so when the other team comes out with their new car, Audi remains a step ahead. Unfortunately, as we have seen with Detroit, executives are more often than not afraid to take risks, and therefore must rely on regulation changes in their favour to attain an outright win.


----------



## R10_Telemetry (Feb 19, 2007)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (Entwerfer des Audis)*

Well said! Please send a letter or email to IMSA. We need all the support we can get to stop this nonsense.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_
*Edit:* Found the info. The ACO's refueling rig specs(page 2):
http://www.lemans.org/sport/sp...b.pdf
ALMS refueling rig specs for diesel cars(effective Salt Lake City 7/2006):
http://www.imsaracing.net/2006...8.pdf


That change for IMSA regarding the smaller restrictor was from '06 and its unclear if its still in effect or not, maybe R10 could tell us definitively or not.
According to the 2007 IMSA rules, page 143 states that for refueling to refer to the ACO Appendix regarding refueling:

_Quote, originally posted by *IMSA 2007 Sporting Regulations* »_
6.4 - Refueling during the race :
6.4.1 - Ref. Appendix A : Refueling.

Appendix A in the ACO specs state the sizing as 33mm for petrol and 38mm for diesel.

_Quote, originally posted by *Appendix A of ACO regulations* »_
10/ A flow restrictor, complying with the drawing 258.3 (FIA – appendix J), with the following dimensions :
- thickness : 2 mm
- maximum inside diameter : 33 mm for cars with a gasoline engine (LMP1 et LMP2) and in compliance with the ’article 6.3.3.c. (LMGT1 et LMGT2) ;
- maximum inside diameter : 29.5 mm for cars with a gasoline engine and not in compliance
with the ’article 6.3.3.c. (LMGT1 et LMGT2 only) ;
- maximum inside diameter : 38 mm for cars with a diesel engine; must be fixed

So the way I read this, for 2007, the ACO specs are in effect as there has been no change in this posted for 2007, just from 2006, which, in my mind, would be negated by the 2007 rules that state to go back to ACO specs.
Its unclear however, I'll try to ask a tech inspector at the next event, unless R10 wants to tell us specifically one way or the other.
From my understanding as of now in the ALMS, the ACO rules are in full effect regarding P1 and P2 except for a couple small exemptions for the 4 cyl P2 engines.
Also, in regards to Road America, things played into the hands of Penske which allowed them to win. If we had gone without a full course yellow for almost a third of the race, we wouldnt be having this discussion. If that hour plus had been green, the lead that the Audi could have built up would have been more than enough to keep them out in front.
Also, had Audi decided to double stint their tires on the last stop, like Penske did, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Penske took a chance and with all the other variables in the race, they came out on top. Audi did NOT lose it solely because of refueling times this past weekend.
Also, has anoyone considered that maybe the last two races, when Penske has refueled they havent been either putting in full tanks or maybe didnt have empty tanks to begin with? With their smaller restrictor now, they are not using as much fuel and could be playing a refueling strategy that is allowing them to have shorter stops. For instance, if we have a 100 lap race and I know I can get 45 laps on a tank, I would have to stop twice to fill up. If I run the tank dry, I stop on lap 45 and have to do a complete fill, then again on 90 and can do a short fill. Well I can also stop on lap 40, not do a complete fill, then stop on lap 70 and also not do a complete fill, thereby making both of my stops faster than another car that needs to stop at the same time but has to completely fill their tank each time. In the example above I only need to put 2/3 of a tank in each time, making it look like I'm fueling faster.
So there are a lot of variables happening here which none of us other than the teams actually know.
Now, if you can put both cars side by side with empty tanks and show that the Porsche fills its larger tank in a shorter time, then we have an issue. But we dont know thats the case right now.
Again, the rules seem to indicate that all ACO regs are in place, maybe we can get that clarified. But unless someone can come in here and prove that not to be the case, then there is a lot of assuming going on that might not be accurate.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (NSalvatore)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NSalvatore* »_
- Additional weight? 
-Fuel Restriction (Tank Size)
-Fuel Restriction (Filling speed)
The only P2 resrtiction I know of is a 5% engine restriction right after LeMans. 

These things are NOT restrictions...they are the rules. They are not additions to the rules, they are not restrictions to alter the rules and make competition...they ARE the rules.
The tank size is the RULE for diesel cars. The fuel filler size is the RULE for diesel cars. At this point there isnt anything to indicate that this differs from the ACO rules in IMSA according to the current 2007 regs. This may not be the case and then it would be a restriction, but till its shown that, its simply the ACO rules.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (.:RDriver)*

Thanks Jimmy for trying to clarify, though the ambiguious wording of the IMSA document("...until futher notice.") doesn't help much.
I must admit that as far as the fuel tank and weight, I thought of saying that that's the rules as I understand them, but I had to fill out some paperwork at the local library(I got hired there, so I had to fill out some paperwork crap so I didn't get to post that fact). The 925kg min. weight for the Audi and basically other LMP1s and the 775 kg min. weight for the LMP2's is agreed upon by both the ACO and IMSA. As is the 81 liter fuel tank. Maybe the ACO messed up and didn't take in to consideration the fact that there are factory LMP cars in the ALMS and thought that brow beating IMSA into accepting the 5% LMP2 air restictor reduction would do the job as far as keeping the LMP2 cars from winning constantly. 
But the other LMP2 cars aren't constantly realistic theats for overall wins. Not the Acuras, nor are Dyson's RS Spyders, dispite being to the same exact specifcation as the Penkse factory cars. I think that the common deominator is Roger Penske and Porsche. They have an illustrious history that commands respect. Hell, what Roger has done in Indy Car and NASCAR should be the model that should be followed as the recipie for success-I swear that the guy never sleeps, as Mark Donahue joked once. Penske took POS AMCs and won Trans Am and NASCAR races with them. What else could one expect him to do with one of the best prototypes in the ALMS. Only the Audi R10 is better right now. But just look what Roger did with AMC's cars! So in Penske's hands, second best is good enough to be #1. And Porsche have spent a pretty penny on the RS Spyder-you could've bought a brand new Audi R8 in 2002 for what it cost to buy a new RS Spyder. Audi reportedly is spending about $15 million on the ALMS this season(and god know how much to win Le Mans this year in addition). I'll bet you that Porsche's funding for Penske's cars is near, if not in, the 8 figures too.
This makes me wish that Audi would stop trading insults with Henri Pescarolo and take a 5-10% restictor hit for next year. It's just like when the R8 suffered a similar power reduction in the ALMS in '03 as part of an effort to slow all the LMP and GT cars down. The power reduction didn't hurt them a bit-their cars were just as fast-if not faster-, and got better fuel economy. Besides, therotectially, diesels aren't effected by air restictors as much as the volume of fuel pumped in to the cylinders. So the power may be about as much as before.
If Audi want to leave the ALMS, that's their perogative, and I'm not about to stop them. If the ACO and IMSA want to b**** at eachother over the rules, then sobeit. If Audi's fans and everyone elses fans want to cuss, b****, p*** and moan at eachother, well, this is a free country, and as long as you're not hurting eachother or starting riots, no one's gonna stop you either. I just want the political posturing and whining to end.
But then again, the FIA opened this can of worms when they told the ACO(as result ot the ACO's protest of IMSA wanting the MC12 to run in the ALMS) that IMSA has the right to interpret the rules as they see fit for them. Thus, the ACO granted IMSA such rights at the start of the '06 ALMS season. But the ACO felt that IMSA used that liberty a litte too much, meaning that cars that won the Petit Le Mans in their class while running under IMSA tech waivers didn't have first dibbs on auto invites to Le Mans. Which is why the #1 Audi at PLM'06 got the auto invite to Le Mans-althought it technically didn't finish, it completed well over 70% distance(and thus earned a finishing classification) and was the highest finising LMP1 car that didn't run to an IMSA tech waiver.
Maybe the FIA needs to write the rules book with IMSA and ACO input. But that's a disater waiting to happen, because althought that friggin' moron Balestre isn't there anymore(Max Mosley winning the 1992 FIA presidental election by default after Balestre withdrew after a no confidence vote by the FIA senate the previouls year), Mosley and Bernie Eccostone are every bit as culpable for the near meltdown of sports car racing in the early '90s.

_Modified by chernaudi at 6:19 PM 8-14-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 6:27 PM 8-14-2007_


----------



## Entwerfer des Audis (Jun 16, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (.:RDriver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.:RDriver* »_The tank size is the RULE for diesel cars. The fuel filler size is the RULE for diesel cars. At this point there isnt anything to indicate that this differs from the ACO rules in IMSA according to the current 2007 regs. This may not be the case and then it would be a restriction, but till its shown that, its simply the ACO rules.

I see this as a bit of a pointless regulation because diesel loses most of its efficiency edge when running full-tilt. So in sportscar racing, the difference in mileage is negligible, with the possible exception of tight road courses, though I'm not sure exactly how that would affect the efficiency gap.


----------



## heel_toe (Apr 27, 2007)

It's about time someone gave Penske some credit. I love Audi as much as the next person, but we aren't seeing the Dyson Spyders pulling a win over Audi. We can't keep crying for some kind of super reg be placed on P2 because not all P2 cars are pulling ahead of Audi like Penske. Some of the blame has to be put on Audi's strategy. A lot is left to circumstance. A lot is great strategy by Penske. Take the tyre situation of the last race. Physics alone tells me that double stinting for Audi would have been a bad idea. Not to mention they haven't exactly had the best luck with tyres this year.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (Entwerfer des Audis)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Entwerfer des Audis* »_
I see this as a bit of a pointless regulation because diesel loses most of its efficiency edge when running full-tilt. So in sportscar racing, the difference in mileage is negligible, with the possible exception of tight road courses, though I'm not sure exactly how that would affect the efficiency gap. 

Well, the ACO disagrees after the first year of the R10 went several laps longer than the gas cars on each tank. They still did better this year as well even with the smaller tank.
And I agree that this race was not because of the rules that Audi lost. There were several things that played a part in it, from the long rain delay, to the tire issues the R10s had and to the strategy of Penske that skipped tires on the last stop putting them out in front. It all played a part and it worked perfectly to Penske's favor.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (.:RDriver)*

I wonder why(other than power/torque and weight) why Audi has had problems in the ALMS double stinting tires. At Le Mans, they triple stinted several times(albeit at night), and had absolutely no trouble double stinting. At St. Pete, part of the reason that they won was because they double stinted late in the race. And at Sebring, a track that seems pretty hard on tires, they've triple stinted at times. So why are they having trouble now? I think that Nishy's high speed blow out(probably due to a puncture) and Dindo's problem at Le Mans has them worried of totaling a car on a gamble trying to win overall when it's better to go for class wins and playing it safe right now.
And I wonder about if it's worth either Audi of Porsche trying to go for overall wins right now anyways, as, other than bragging rights, overall wins don't mean a whole lot. In other words, it's not like the BPR Global Endurance Series(the predecessor of the current FIA GT Championship), where there were class champions, and an overall champion. Because, if there was incentive to win overall as far as Championships were concerned(ie, an overall championship, or bonuses for where they place in the overall standings added to their class results), Corvette Racing would've been trying to win overall, believe me.
Since overall wins don't pay overall points or bonuses, Audi doesn't see the reason to take risk just to win overall.
Of course, if the LMP1 and LMP2 cars didn't have so many similarities(near identical power to weight ratio, look much the same to the untrained eye, and use the same technologies provided that their gas powered), this would be a non-issue.
I thought that LMP675/LMP2 was supposed to be a "cheaper" class for those who wanted to gain prototype experience, or couldn't run in LMP900/LMP1 due to finances/sponsor issues limiting their competitiveness. 
Problem is, aside from the Audi R10, in the ALMS, the LMP2 cars cost as much as an LMP1. This is due to the LMP2 cars using carbon fiber tubs(which saves Lola and Courage money, as they don't need specalized equipment to make tube frame or carbon tub/tube frame hybrid chassis, and the CFC tubs are easy to repair, but carbon fiber is expensive to buy/make), carbon-carbon brakes, and purpose built engines, and traction control(which I think should be banned in all ACO/ALMS classes. The Audi guys did just fine in the R8 and R10 without it, so can everyone else). This gives a definent advantage to factory supported teams(even BK to a degree, due to their Mazda/Ford ties), and tends to put a squeese on private teams(like Intersport) who want to win races/championships, but lack the resources to do so.
Granted, my dream LMP2 car would be built like a Daytona prototype as far as chassis materials(carbon tub/tube frame hybrid), use production based engines of up to 5 liters, and have provisions for alternative fuel usage.
However, if I'm making the chassis, I'd want to be allowed to use full carbon tubs if I'm making LMP1 cars as well as LMP2s. So I'd have the ACO/IMSA increase the minimum weight to about 800-825 kgs to allow for the tube frame/carbon tub composite cars and their heavier production based engines. And the purpose built engines would have smaller restictors than the production based "crate motors".
But this is all a pipe dream. And the current situlation, thought the end result kinda sucks it you're an Audi fan, the racing hasn't been this close since 2000-2005-especally 2000-2002, due to the varity or cars involved(I'm also a Panoz fan, and I miss the Ford 351 Windsor SVO NASCAR based all aluminum 6.0 OHV V8-that's what NASCAR should be using for engines nowadays!). 
But I'm a litte worried, although the race results aren't predictable between Audi and Penske, the result, if the current trend continues, the same thing may happen that IMSA's trying to pervent(near total domination of race wins by one team), and that'll eventually turn fans off, especally if they know that LMP1 cars are supposidly favored by the rules. 
I guess it goes back to whether or not one wants 2 teams from 2 different classes going for the overall win, or want each team to dominate only in their class, with Audi predictably taking almost all, if not all, the overall wins.


_Modified by chernaudi at 5:17 PM 8-15-2007_


----------



## Entwerfer des Audis (Jun 16, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (.:RDriver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.:RDriver* »_
Well, the ACO disagrees after the first year of the R10 went several laps longer than the gas cars on each tank. They still did better this year as well even with the smaller tank.
And I agree that this race was not because of the rules that Audi lost. There were several things that played a part in it, from the long rain delay, to the tire issues the R10s had and to the strategy of Penske that skipped tires on the last stop putting them out in front. It all played a part and it worked perfectly to Penske's favor. 

Which race are you referring to, a tight one, or one like LeMans where they're flooring it the vast majority of the time? 
And I was just speaking in general with results I read about in press releases here on Fourtitude before LeMans; I didn't look up the actual results.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (Entwerfer des Audis)*

At Le Mans, where they are full throttle most of the time, they were getting several laps more than the petrol cars. On the tighter tracks they could do even better, hence the reduction in tank size.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (.:RDriver)*

At Le Mans in '06, the Audi R10s went 14-16 laps, in '07, they went 13 laps on average. for comparison, the Pescarolo C60-Judd in '06 went 12-13 laps, and this year achived the same range per stint. Also, the Audi R8 in 2002 averaged 13-14 laps a stint, and maintained that as long as they ran the 90 liter tank in the R8, which also had to run an 80 liter tank at Le Mans in '04/'05, and averaged 12-13 laps a stint.
The LMP675/LMP2s, being lighter and with smaller engines, on average ran about 1-2 laps longer than the R8 when it used a 90 liter tank in the ALMS, which is about the distance they can run further than the R10 now. Nothing unusual. But when the LMP2 is capable of being as fast as the R10, or within about 1-3 seconds on clear racetrack, that advantage can snowball, just as the Audi's 1-3 second advantage could've.
If IMSA red flagged the race before half way and stopped the clock, the race would've had to be restarted as was at that point later that day, or the following day. If they ran to half way, and stopped the race and declared it offical, the order would've been the same-Porsche, Audi, Audi, Porsche. IMSA even addmitted that they'd have red flagged the race if the rain continued and lightning stayed too close to the track, and this was a little ways before half way. And of course, if that happened, the race would've been restarted as was at that point, and run to the required distance-4 hours, or 500 miles, which ever came first.
That would mean that the Audi's would've had enough time for a few more laps, and, even with the battle for the LMP1 win, would've finished 1-2 overall, and may've split passed the Porsche with a couple of laps to go.
And hopefully a final word on the refueling rig restictor, based on the assumption that everything is to ACO specs, shouldn't the R10's stops be faster than the RS Spyders? In theory, since the Shell V-Power GTL diesel stuff isn't as viscous and foamy as normal diesel, it should at most take as long to fill an 81 liter tank as fast as it takes to fill a 90 liter tank with gasoline. But there is one variable that seems to be overlooked in this discussion-is the flow rate of the E10 fuel different than gasoline? Is the flow rate of bio-ethanol(even when mixed with gas) faster of slower than gas? Maybe that's part of it, as it seemed that Penske's stops were taking the same time as the R10s up until IMSA made them switch to E10. But then again, that's assuming(as Jimmy alluded to) that Penske is or isn't short pitting/short fueling his cars. Maybe Audi should try it, as in theory the R10's fuel mileage should be fairly close to the Porsche's on most circuits.
_Modified by chernaudi at 3:47 AM 8-16-2007_

_Modified by chernaudi at 3:54 AM 8-16-2007_


_Modified by chernaudi at 3:57 AM 8-16-2007_


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

Well, if one wants IMSA to stop the clock as a result of a red flagged race, it's gonna have to be because of a rules change and with the approval of the people who live near the track, because of RA being a day into night race, noise regs come into play. And it's also an ACO regulation that the clock can't be stopped unless that rule is changed. I found this out at the sportscar forum here.
What if enough distance/time isn't completed to make halfway? I think why the race ran so long under yellow was:
1) in antipation that the storm would pass fairly soon, and
2) if they ran 2 hours/250miles, it would be an offical race.
If this didn't happen, what would IMSA've done? Declare the race null and void, or complete it/restart it at a later date/time?


_Modified by chernaudi at 3:17 PM 8-16-2007_


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

OK, I just watched the Road America ALMS race(after I had to download it due to the cretins in Cleveland putting priority to a baseball game). And I had to say that if the Audis hadn't of changed tires, they'd've won by about 10-15 seconds, but then there's the question of pit strategy. According to the broadcasters, the Porsche's could go 57 minutes per stint on fuel, where as the R10s could only go about 52 minutes. I thought that the theory was the same amount of energy equals the same amount of distance. 
Also, didn't IMSA put a competion adjustment that said that the Porsches had to run E10 starting after Le Mans? Well, either Porsche is cryin' the blues about ethanol damaging their engines, or the NBC guys screwed up(if you've seen their NASCAR coverage, that's fairly likely), because, if you viewed the race, the running order showed the Penske and Dyson cars(which it seemed for sure that the latter was running E10 for a couple of races) were running 98 octane gasoline. If that's so, how can that be fair, not only to Audi, but to Acura and Mazda? Gasoline has(albeit slightly, but noticeably) more energy per given volume than E10. Can someone confirm this?
However, I do plan on having the race saved to DVD(as well as a couple of older videos I've saved to my computer), as it's at least the best race that Audi has lost.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_ According to the broadcasters, the Porsche's could go 57 minutes per stint on fuel, where as the R10s could only go about 52 minutes. I thought that the theory was the same amount of energy equals the same amount of distance. 

Only within classes. They arent trying to make all classes run the same time. The diesel in the R10 needs to give about the same time a petrol P1 car would get.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (.:RDriver)*

Well, that's all fine and well, except for the fact that the classes aren't supposed to(in the ACO's eyes) compete with each other. That gap would be understandable if the Porsches were .5-2 seconds a lap slower on every ALMS track, but they aren't. I mean, a Porsche 911 probably can go 5-10 minutes longer per stint than a Corvette, but Corvettes and 911s don't race each other either. 
I mean, in LMP1 and LMP2, the issue is class distinction. In GT1 and GT2, we have class distinction, in both cars, and performance. In LMP1 and LMP2, not only do the cars perform about the same on most circuits, but have the cars unpainted, and without manufacture's ID, most would look about the same at a distance to the untrained eye/newbie fan.
Fortunatly, I've been around the ALMS long enough to know how to differenciate between LMP900/1 and LMP675/2. But how would a new fan tell the two classes apart if not only do the cars basically look about the same, but perform about the same as well. Not to mention that the cars cost about the same as well.
There has been talk not only of the ACO wanting to restructure the LMP1 class(the ACO wants coupes only after 2010) and LMP2(minimum weight up to 825 kgs next year from the current 775), but also in the GT classes. The rumor is that basically that GT1 cars will become GT2 cars with bigger engines and tires and more aggressive areo packages, and that GT2 cars will be run to FIA GT GT3 specs, but with slightly more power, and again, more aggressive aero packages.
The ACO's reasoning for the Coupes Only LMP1 class is almost purely class distinction, and trying to keep the cars from running laps much faster the 3:30 in the race(Allan McNish ran the fastest race lap-that almost equaled his qualifying time-at Le Mans this year, which was in the 3:27 bracket). The weight increase in LMP2 is to distance LMP2 from LMP1 on shorter tracks, and, again, try to limit laptimes at Le Mans.
And the rational for the possible GT class rules changes are summed up by what a Porsche engineer said earlier this year-that the Type 997 911 RSR is every bit as complex and technolgically advanced as the Le Mans winning 911 GT1-98 of nearly a decade ago. The only reason that the 911 RSR isn't as expensive as the 911 GT1-98 is because the RSR is road car based, and thus doesn't use a carbon fiber tub, and all the other thing that made the 911 GT1 cost almost $1 million. But even at that, the 911 RSR and the F430 GTC cost about $300,000-450,000! And a Corvette C6R or an Aston Martin DBR9 cost about $750-900 grand or more! You could go prototype racing for that kind of money.
But that's where there is distiction is in the GT classes-GT1 cars are faster the GT2 cars. GT1 cars are more technolgically advanced than GT2 cars, and GT1 cars are 1 1/2 to 2 times as expensive as GT2 cars.
Where as LMP1 and LMP2 are just as fast at most tracks, are about as equally technologically advanced, and cost about the same. I don't see much distinction here aside from using two different methods to try the reach the same means. Which is OK, if that's what the rule state or intend. Aside from the ACO's basic description of the LMP2 class that theorectially states that LMP2s can be fast enough to compete for overall wins on some tracks, it doesn't say anything about them being as dominant as the top LMP1 cars. 
But then again, it could be argued that the ACO screwed this up. Firstly, most of their rules are based on what happens at Le Mans. A track that, although it shares characteristics with racetracks all over the world, is unique in and of itself. And at Le Mans, unless one counts Zytec, there is almost no manufacture involvement in the LMP2 class, and the same goes for the LMS in Europe. Granted, a couple of teams have purchased RS Spyders to be run in the LMS next year, but whether or not they run Le Mans is unknown.
And then there is Porsche themselves. They don't want to run in LMP1 as they feel(rightfully or wrongfully) that the ACO has weighed the rules too much in favor of the diesels right now(whether this was accidental or not is up to the reader, as I doubt that Audi was the intended benefactor of the ACO trumping up the rules to favor the diesel LMP1 cars-read Peugeot). I think that Volkswagen Group politics also has a lot to do with this, as seemingly, VAG doesn't want Audi and Porsche to go head to head, at least in the same class.
And for Porsche(understandably), there's also a relevance issue. Porsche doesn't(and for the forseeable future won't) make diesel road cars. Althought current Porsche patriarch Ferdinand Piech essentially invented VAG's TDI diesel technology(just like Audi's quattro AWD system), diesel just doesn't really suit Porsche's sporting image. Nor does electic hybrid cars seemingly, and Porsche will probably b**** when Acura/Honda come out with their gasoline/E10-electic hybrid in the next couple of years.
The net result of this whole deal is that Audi read the rule book, and found that they at least had a theorietcial advantage with a diesel car if they could make it reliable, which they've done. Same thing with Porsche-the regs were there, and if they could give an LMP2 car decent reliablility, they might have a shot at winning some races, which they've done.
Porsche, and especally Roger Penske, need to be commended, as well as Acura and Honda, for taking LMP2 from the class that everybody thought shold be put out of its misery and was the laughing stock of ACO/IMSA sportscar racing, to one of the most competive classes in all of Sportscar racing.
But a side effect(unintended or not) is that we now have LMP2 cars that aren't in the spirit of what the ACO originally wanted. The Porsche and Acura teams are heavily factory supported, and the cost of running in LMP2(at least to start up) have sky rocketed, although one must wonder, that with these cars being able to last through a 2:45-4 hour race without major problems will long term save these teams money?








I believe that class distinction is the heart of the issue-LMP1 is supposed to be above LMP2, as the ACO sees it. But IMSA should be commended for trying their best to find a happy medium beween what the ACO wants, and what the fans want. Now if only they'd work on the TV package.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*

cher, you need to condense your arguments to a few points per post, I'm not going to trudge through all the disjointed arguments you continue to make. One thing at a time if you want folks to actually read them and take them seriously. 
I'll respond to your first paragraph.
Its true they werent supposed to compete, however, they are. Due to the data the ACO had on hand before '07, they made the rules as they are. They used data from the P2 cars racing in Europe and I'm sure from the old Porsche Spyder on this side of the ocean. In both cases, those P2 cars were significantly slower than the current Spyder Porsche has produced.
Therefore we end up with the rules we have and the Spyder can compete based on handling, the types of tracks in the US and fuel consumption.
The ACO said it will not change rules mid season, so nothing can be done till '08 at this point at which time I'm sure the P2s will be slowed down significantly to keep what happened this year at bay.
But maybe not so much as they really are only concerned with Le Mans and on a long track its proven the R10 is definitely faster than the P2 cars. Its just at RA things conspired against Audi and they still lost, but they were faster all weekend long.
I think we'll see the ACO do something at the end of the year, how much and how it will affect the P1/P2 battle on tight circuits like Houston or Long Beach will remain to be seen.


----------



## grmncarfan (Jul 21, 2003)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (.:RDriver)*

The R10s got beat at Road America (and MMP) because they made some bad calls, their drivers made mistakes, and just overall lacked racing luck. Penske on the other hand, did everything right. There's also the factor of race length (not track length). In these 2.5 and 4 hour races, the gaps between each class are just not as big as in a 12 or 24 hour race. IMO here's nothing wrong in the rules as far as classification goes. There's nothing needs to be fixed. If they made the P2 cars any slower, you'd have the 'Vettes challenging them. What next? Slow down the entire field so a P1 car can win overall?


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (grmncarfan)*

Well, when you have the Porsche equaling the Audi as far as lap times and all the other LMP2 cars within 1-1.5 seconds of the Porsches, I doubt that a GT1 car would keep up with a LMP2 car except for a very long straightaway. The LMP1 and LMP2 cars have the Corvettes and Astons cleared by 3-8 seconds a lap at most circuits. Hell, at St.Pete, the Corvettes were 6-7 seconds slower a lap-and St.Pete was a street cicuit.
And that goes back to class distinction.  If the old premise that money buys speed is true, than it's little wonder that the LMP2 can equal the LMP1 Audis at many tracks. When one considers that a new RS Spyder cost the same as an Audi R8 did a few years ago, it's little wonder that the cars are as fast, despite being in different classes.
As Jimmy said, the ACO intended for the 5% air restictor reduction to keep the rate at which the LMP2 cars were edging up on LMP1 cars in check. This was based off the fact that Porsche claimed that the '07 RS Spyder had 500+bhp. Well, the ACO decided that this was 20-30hp too much, and wanted the 5% restictor reduction to knock the Porsches and Acuras back to about 480 or so hp. But looking at the stopwatch, can one really tell a difference?
And the ACO has said that they'd do the same thing to the GT cars if the felt that they were getting too close to the LMP2s as well. The Corvettes orignialy had a 5% smaller air restrictor than the '06 ACO specs. But becuase they use an AC unit, they got a bigger restrictor, and because it's production based, they got yet another restictory increase. So they're probably producing more power than last year now.
And this is why I wish that Audi would go ahead and take a 5-10% air restrictor hit and be done with it. I might placate the likes of Henri Pescarolo and Porsche. And the diesel engine, due to it's torque and the combustion process being more dependant on how much fuel is burned vs air/fuel ratio, might not loose very much power under those restictions, but get better fuel economy, might give Audi back some of what the ACO rules took away.
And as Jimmy has also said, the ACO will annouce what they plan to do about this in Sept. or Oct.(hopefully they'll give a clearer picture of what the post 2010 LMP1 rules will be like, too). I've stated that there'll most likely be a 110 lb weight increse in the LMP2's minimum weight(the ACO mentioned this in June). I know that it'll slow them down compared to the top LMP1s by maybe 1-1.5 seconds a lap at most circuits. But again, tracks like Long Beach and Lime Rock will be an unknown quanity until we get to those places again.



_Modified by chernaudi at 10:12 PM 8-18-2007_


----------



## grmncarfan (Jul 21, 2003)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Well, when you have the Porsche equaling the Audi as far as lap times and all the other LMP2 cars within 1-1.5 seconds of the Porsches, I doubt that a GT1 car would keep up with a LMP2 car except for a very long straightaway. 

Which track's lap times are we talking about here? I didn't think the entire P2 class was that fast.
And no, currently a GT1 car can't really keep up with a P2 car in ALMS over a sing lap, but if P2 cars get restricted as you proposed in the first post, then yes the front running Vettes and Astons might be able to give some P2 cars a run for their money. At Le Mans, class winning GT1 cars have outrun class wining P2 cars for at least 3 consuctive years, but that has more to do with reliability than outright speed.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: What should be done to fix the ALMS(general gripe) (grmncarfan)*

Well, when one considers that at Road America, the RS Spyders were within 1-3 seconds a lap of the Audis on clean racetrack, what does that mean at the majority of ALMS tracks? That the Porsches and Audis will be on top of eachother.
Maybe in LMP2, what were seeing with the Porsche is that the car was wholely designed by Porsche. The Acuras use modified Courage and virtually stock Lola chassis, and the latter is true of the Mazda.
But then again, the same can be said of the non-Audi LMP1 cars in the ALMS. Granted, the R10 is the superior car, but the fact that a lack of testing/R&D and horrid tires(Intersport) and the heavy usage of paydrivers(Autocon) have hurt them. Have Pescarolo run an ALMS race, and his cars will run laps around them.
I guess that I'm frustrated that the huge inequality among the LMP1 and LMP2 cars within they're own classes has lead to the current situaltion as much as the fact that Audi and Penske are just better then the rest to begin with. Money, talent, experience, and know-how all buy speed.


----------

