Calendars and Coverage for 2014

The month of December marks the beginning of the off-season for endurance sports car racing. That means it is time to start anticipating the new season. Within the WEC, ELMS and TUSC series there are twenty-five races for 2014. Here is a chronological list of these races and their test days:

UPDATE: the Fuji WEC race has been moved to Oct. 12th. The figure above has been changed to reflect this.

UPDATE (31 Jan 2014): the Sao Paulo WEC round has been moved from Aug 31 to Nov 30. The figure above has been changed to reflect this.

TIP: Click on the image above. Once you have the enlarged image right-click and save the image to your desktop. Now you have a basic reminder of upcoming races every time you start your computer.

I have published two public Google calendars with this information and more available in three formats (HTML, XML, iCal), one for the ACO rules races (WEC and ELMS) and one for the IMSA TUSC races:

ACO Racing 2014   links:  HTML, XML, iCal
TUSC Racing 2014 links:  HTML, XML, iCal

These can be used directly from a browser, in Apple's calendar program, in Thunderbird/Lightning, and other calendar applications. You can find instructions for use of Google calendar with several popular applications here.

As more detail is provided by the organizers, these calendars will be updated to include event times, coverage etc. For those who are already using the calendars I published previously, those links are being re-used with new names. Last year's "ACO Racing 2013" becomes next year's "ACO Racing 2014" and last year's "Grand-Am 2013" becomes "TUSC Racing 2014" (since TUSC no longer conforms to ACO rules). If and when any information comes out about the Asian Le Mans series, it will be added to the ACO calendar. As always the times will be for U.S. Eastern Time, with race local times included along with other details in the "Description" field.

Over on the Radiolemans.com forum, James Hazen has been collecting news of TUSC entries for 2014. This list is based on team announcements and press releases. It is being actively updated. You can find the list here.

Media Coverage

It is expected that video for both ELMS and WEC races will be streamed live on Dailymotion.com as in previous years. If this last year is any guide, commentary on these streams will be provided by the Radiolemans.com team, but so far there is no confirmation of this. The full range of TUSC coverage is still a bit of a mystery. Last August the 5-year deal with Fox Sports was announced.  This deal covers broadcast rights in the U.S. as well as streaming rights. IMSA retains some streaming rights and streaming on demand for archived video. If it works like last year's ALMS arrangement whereby IMSA can stream video of races live for the "International" audience, then all will be well; but I have my doubts. Live streaming arrangements have not been finalized. Since I can't get Fox Sports from my local cable monopoly, I am dependent on the Internet for any race coverage. 

Grand-Am had Speed TV (now Fox Sports) coverage (mixed live and delayed telecasts) as well as audio-only coverage via MRN Internet radio. The only streaming video coverage was on-demand from their archives after the races were broadcast. It was painfully obvious that the MRN coverage was far inferior to the coverage of WEC and ELMS races by Radiolemans.com. The archived Speed videos were good quality, but since I couldn't get Speed TV, I saw none of the Grand-Am races live. If TUSC follows this model rather than the ALMS model, I predict there will be a widespread loss of  fan-base.

I feel very strongly that if IMSA/TUSC wants to preserve and grow their fan-base, they would open up their media coverage as much as possible. Radiolemans.com's interactive broadcasts were an important feature of the ALMS for over a decade and in my opinion were responsible for attracting quite a number of International fans to the ALMS, including myself.

I would be willing to pay a nominal fee for live streaming race coverage. The ESPN player I have used in the past was less than $5.00US for the entire ALMS season. At twice that price it would still be a bargain, and a lot more practical than somehow convincing my local cable monopoly to add Fox Sports to their channel list then paying some exorbitant price per month for a "bundle" of channels I don't want.

Here is the "How to Watch" FAQ from the IMSA site:

How to Watch - FAQs
On what channel can I find IMSA TUDOR United SportsCar Championship races?
All TUDOR Championship races can been seen on FOX Sports 1 or FOX Sports 2.

What do I do if I don't get FOX Sports 1 or FOX Sports 2?
Contact your local cable provider.

Is online streaming available?
Online streaming is not available at this time, but will be in the future.

Where can I watch archived races?
Archived races will be available on IMSA.com 24 hours after the broadcast on FS1 or FS2

I will have to wait and see what their online streaming product is and keep my fingers crossed.

The End of an Era

This past weekend marked the end of one era of sports car racing in North America with the final running of Petit Le Mans, closing the last season of the American Le Mans Series.I am not alone in being somewhat saddened by the loss of the ALMS.I felt the same sort of loss in the early 1970s with the close of the original Trans-Am series (1966-1972), the original Can-Am series (1966-1973) and my local drag strip (Lions Drag Strip 1955-1972).While I have some reservations about the new combined series, at least I have some hope for next year, unlike that earlier time.

This year was the first (and last) year that the Grand-Am Rolex series ran at Road Atlanta and this offers a final opportunity to compare the DP to the LMP2 lap times prior to performance balancing that will place those two different cars in the same class next year. Here are the raw numbers for the top 4 fastest race laps in each class.

It must be remembered that the DP teams had no previous track data to work with.Grand-Am ran in April, ALMS ran in October.

It will be interesting to see what sort of numbers are put up next year after TUSC/IMSA "balance" the performance of these cars.Speaking of which, TUSC/IMSA has finally released the essential elements of that balancing of LMP2 and DP cars competing in next year's Prototype class. I read about it at Racer.com.

The important changes to the DP cars are:

- New mandatory front diffuser and rear wing

- Brake materials are now open

- Single piece forged wheels are now allowed

- Differential choice is now open

- Damper choice is now less restricted

- Throttle actuation is now free

- Engines will gain about 50hp

The important changes to the LMP2 cars are:

- Le Mans aero kits mandated for Elkhart Lake, Daytona and Indy

- Minimum weight will increase from 900kg to 960kg

- Spec. Continental tires are mandatory

- Driver teams can be any mix of Pro and Am

The DP cars will be faster, at some significant up-front cost. Some DP teams are whining about the cost of these changes, but it is worth noting that only the new aero pieces are mandatory (approx. $15K). So if economy is more important that winning, they don't need to spend the money.If they don't want to upgrade, they will find it hard, not only to keep up with LMP2 cars and with upgraded DPs, but with LMPC cars as well. The current LMPC cars are faster than the current DP cars (the #8 LMPC's fastest race lap at Road Atlanta was 1:16.0). I would love to see one of the top teams from Grand-Am switch to and LMP2 car next year. Imagine: Gnassi dropping the BMW V8 from the DP car into an LMP2 chassis (Oreca, Lola/Multimatic, Adess, Riley).How about putting the Ford EcoBoost V6, like the one in Michael Shank's new DP, into an LMP2 chassis? That Roush engine was developed for LMP2 after all. Here is a rare photo of that engine in the Libra Radical/Ford at the 2012 Laguna Seca ALMS round:

The LMP2 cars will be slower. The mandatory aero changes for LMP2 run about $13.7K.The biggest hit will be the added 60kg (132lbs.). This increase will have a negative affect not only on acceleration, but braking, manuverability, fuel economy and reliability. The evolution of the LMP2 class has seen weight go from 675kg to 700, to 750, to 800, to 820, to 900, and now to 960kg. While this penalty will allow the DPs to compete, to me it is exactly the wrong thing to do. Road cars are getting lighter with smaller engines, why are we making race cars artifically heavier (other than politics)? I have had my say about this in an earlier posting.

When it comes time to formulate new specs for the Prototype class for TUSC (2017?), I am hoping for a true lightweight, efficient formula that takes advantage of modern automotive technology and keeps the flavor of sophisticated racing that the old ALMS series promoted alive.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

The weekend of September 21st - 22nd provided the first chance for ALMS fans to see the series compete on the new Circuit of the Americas (COTA) track near Austin Texas. The track was built to accommodate the renewal of the United States Grand Prix for Formula 1 in November 2012. The third week of September held the COTA "Super Endurance Weekend" with an ALMS race on Saturday and a World Endurance Championship (WEC) on Sunday. So now three major multi-class sports car series have competed at COTA for the first time this year. This will allow some comparisons to be made where the rubber meets the road.

This is both the first and last time the ALMS will run at COTA. While the GTE cars and the LMPC cars in the ALMS will be running largely unchanged next year the United SportsCar Racing Championship series sponsored by Tudor watches (aka TUSCC, pronounced "tusk"), the LMP2 cars will be combined with the Daytona Prototypes from Grand-Am into a single class. The COTA races permit a comparison of those cars from the WEC, ALMS and Grand-Am on the same track.

Here is a summary of the fastest race laps (time in seconds) for the top four cars in each series (for LMP2 and DP):

The results are somewhat surprising. The first thing that stood out to me was the difference between the WEC and ALMS LMP2 cars. I would have expected them to be much closer instead of nearly 3 seconds apart. I also expected the ALMS cars to be significantly faster than the DPs, and while nearly 2 seconds is far from nothing, I would have predicted a better showing from the ALMS LMP2. So my first question was:

 Why is there such a difference between the WEC and ALMS lap times?

Part of the answer is probably because the WEC LMP2 class runs on bespoke Dunlop tires (one car, Pecom Racing is on bespoke Michelins), while the ALMS class is on off-the-shelf Michelins. According to Ryan Dalziel, this can make quite a difference. Another part of the answer is that, while the race was run in dry conditions, rains prior to the ALMS race prevented the track to "rubber-in" sufficiently to permit maximum performance. Even the ALMS qualifying was run in the wet. The WEC qualifying and race were in dry conditions and benefited from the ALMS race seasoning the track. There is also one other obvious difference between the LMP2 cars in WEC and ALMS: All 4 LMP2 cars in the ALMS are HPD/Honda while none of the WEC cars are that configuration. Would these factors explain the entire 2 second difference between WEC and ALMS? Maybe, but we'll never know.

What about the small performance difference between ALMS/LMP2 and Grand-Am/DP?

Part of the answer may lie in the weather. Grand-Am had their race much earlier in the year when conditions were likely much better:

The temperatures are the daily high for Austin, Texas from the Weather Underground Weather and History Almanac (www.wunderground.com).

The 24-25F degree difference in ambient temperature very likely had an effect on performance, tire wear and driver fatigue. Looking at days prior to the race dates indicate that Grand-Am also had dry weather to prepare for the race, unlike the ALMS. 

The 2014 Season

Sadly, next year there will be no ALMS. We will however be able to see the TUSCC and WEC at Cota the same weekend next September. The TUSCC race is on the 20th and the WEC race is on the 21st. By then hopefully we will know what BoP measures have been applied to LMP2 and DP in the TUSCC Prototype Class and be able to more directly compare them to the WEC teams. Of course the best comparison would have been to have them in the same race.

Ask the Man Who Drives One

Ryan Dalziel

On June 5th, Radiolemans.com's "Midweek Motorsport" broadcast contained a lengthy interview with Ryan Dalziel, driver for Peter Barron's Starworks team. The subject of the interview was the testing done at Sebring in advance of racing at Belle Isle. Starworks is both a top contender in the Grand-Am Rolex DP class and the 2012 LMP2 WEC championship team. They tested both their Riley/Ford DP car and their HPD/Honda LMP2 car on the same track, with the same driver. What he had to say should have bearing on how USCR chooses to "balance" the performance of DPs and LMP2s in 2014.

Some of the more interesting points Ryan brought out during this interview:

==================================

- He was surprised at result of the tests. His a priori expectation was that the LMP2 car would be faster in the corners and that the DPs would dominate on the the straights. The measured lap times don't support that conclusion. Even though the DPs has 100-150 more horsepower and less downforce than the LMP2, they are heavier and produce more drag, such that in normal race trim the DP was 3-4 mph slower than the LMP2 down the straight. In addition the LMP2 had significant advantages in turns 14, 15, and 16. DP aero produces greater drag than the LMP2. Sebring requires high downforce, so neither car was trimmed out in the tests.

- Ryan gave representative lap times on a green Sebring short course as 1:51 for the LMP2 and 1:55 for the DP. His guess was that half that difference could be made up with tire choice. The LMP2 was running bespoke Dunlop tires, while the DP was running spec Continentals. He was also of the opinion that the DP was too heavy and powerful to run on an LMP2 tire, while the LMP2 could easily run on a DP tire.

- The DP was overall a generally slower car. While Ryan was of the opinion that it would be possible to cheaply slow the LMP2 down through tires, use of low-downforce aero, raising ride heights etc. but he felt strongly that this would be wrong as it would compress the classes such that the PC Challenge cars and GTLM cars would be right in with the "top" prototype class. My own observation is that the LMPC car is already quicker than a DP and they will probably be slowed down in any event. 

- Ryan observed that the test of an LMP2 car on Continentals at Daytona earlier this year is not really representative, and that tests should be conducted at Barbour, Mid-Ohio and Road America. Ryan has also driven LMPC in ALMS and observed that the Michelin tires used prior to 2013 were not engineered for the LMPC but were off the shelf tires. This year's Continentals are superior to the 2012 Michelin LMPC tire, but there is no comparison between a bespoke class tire and a spec tire.

- It was observed that if the Extreme Speed team had not switched from GTE to LMP2 this year, there would have been no LMP2 class left in North America to contend with. Extreme Speed's two-car entry provided sufficient justification for Level 5 to commit to the final ALMS season. Ryan feels that the inclusion of LMP2's in USCR reinforces the need for the DPs to upgrade their technology and that this was a needed change.

- A surprising observation was that it is mostly the better funded DP teams that are most resistant to upgrading the DP cars, mostly on the basis of cost. In DP R&D is conducted primarily by the chassis and engine suppliers, not the teams. Most of the DP upgrades discussed were areo modifications: a different rear wing, re-designed splitter and added nose dive planes. Carbon-fiber brakes were one sticking point with some teams on the basis of costs; Peter Barron pointed out that while the initial purchase was indeed expensive, the fact that far fewer rotors required replacement over the season (with carbon brakes) actually saved operating costs and more than made up the initial costs. Starworks only used two sets of rotors for their entire 2012 WEC championship season.

==================================

I think anyone following the fortunes of the current Grand-Am and ALMS series are impatiently waiting for all the new rules and regulations for the 2014 USCR season, particularly those governing the LMP2 and DP cars. Teams, suppliers and manufacturers are stalled in their plans for next year until they know what those rules and regulations are, making planning difficult.

Bits and Pieces

Recently there has been some news concerning the 2014 USCR season, including pit and paddock regulations and driver ratings. In a previous post, I commented extensively on the difference in pit stop rules between ALMS and Grand-Am. So now I know how many can participate in a pit stop and that pit-work and refueling can take place simultaneously, but so far I still don't know if cars will have to stop their engines during a pit stop and have to re-start under their own power or not.

The PC (Prototype Challenge, formerly LMPC) and GTD (GT Daytona) classes will be pro-am classes utilizing a driver rating system similar to that used by the FIA and ACO. This will go some way toward evening out the performance between the prototypes and the PC teams over the length of a race. By implication the former LMP2 teams can use an all-pro driver lineup if they desire. This might encourage former ALMS LMP1 teams like Dyson and Muscle Milk to move toward using an LMP2 car in USCR's Prototype class for 2014 (who knows?). I have to believe that Greg Pickett would be loathe to forego the powerhouse driver lineup of Klaus Graf and Lucas Luhr had LMP2 been constrained to a pro-am driver pairing.

Looks like the Grand-Am GX class will be eliminated next year. This would probably be a good move should it be decided as described.

UPDATE: A bit more information about the 2014 USCR has just been announced. GTLM remains nearly untouched, save for the addition of window netting. LMP2 cars running in USCR Prototype remain ACO spec. All prototypes get paddle shift and 6-speed gearboxes (new to DP). No further word on BoP in the top class.

Drivers' Dilemma

In previous postings I have discussed some of the difficulties that the USCR organizers were facing in the merger of the ALMS and Grand-Am into their new series. There are some difficulties that the teams and/or drivers will have to work out too. Among these difficulties for some teams is that of reconciling their driver line-ups when their drivers have been participating in both the old ALMS and Grand-Am series.

Looking at the entry lists for the ALMS Sebring 12-hour and the Grand-Am Daytona 24-hour races I found 19 drivers that have a conflict (not including LMP1 since they won't be in the USCR for 2014). Here is a table of those drivers, with their team affiliations and classes:

There are a number of ways this will be dealt with. Here are a few:

A.) The "Scott Tucker" approach: If the same team utilizes a driver in both series, they could split their stints between cars. This will only work on the longer races, since the minimum driving time would be hard to cover in the shorter races. Also, I don't think switching between a prototype and a GT within a single race is such a good idea. 

B.) Teams may consolidate: Two teams may join forces and share drivers. The factory teams probably wouldn't do this, but it might make sense for some of the smaller teams. They might still need additional drivers if the "A" approach doesn't work for them; or they may also incorporate the "D" approach (see below).

C.) Bring in additional drivers: Depending on the contracts involved and the relationships that have developed, a driver may just pick one team and vacate his seat in the other team. This leaves an opening for an additional driver. 

D.) Lower the car count: Multi-car teams may reduce their car count so their driver line-up will cover their program. Teams with a single car in each series may have to choose one car and sell the other.

I don't think anyone is expecting all cars from both series to be running in 2014. If they did all show up, the grid would be too large for some of the venues. I do think there will be some openings for additional drivers on some teams and I think that there will be some reduction in car-counts. There may also be some team consolidation. Further complicating the team driver line-ups is the Pro/Am formulae used in P2 and GTC; assuming those formulae are retained. The driver formulae issue was not addressed in the new class structure announced by USCR.

A lot is riding on the  2014 USCR season being successful. If it is there may be opportunities for increased sponsorship, allowing teams to grow, opening up seats for additional drivers. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

What Sebring 2013 Told Me

The Tale of the Tires

One of the things I was curious about during this year's running of the Sebring 12hr. was what might be learned about the wholesale change in tire formulae in LMPC and GTC. 

Since the introductions of these two spec classes in the ALMS, they have used spec tires: Michelin for LMPC and Yokohama for GTC. This year, in a preview of changes coming in 2014, both classes are now running on Continental tires. All of the Grand-Am cars run on Continentals, but until now none of the ALMS cars had been using them. How do these tires measure up? Only the team race engineers will know definitively, but I could at least look at some data and see if I can get some indication of what the change means.

So, I looked at data from both the 2012 and 2013 Sebring qualifying results. I took the average qualifying lap times for the entire LMPC and GTC classes for comparison. There have been no major changes in those classes except for the tire change. To get an idea of what sort of year on year improvements (and/or track conditions) might mean, I also calculated the mean qualifying lap times for LMP1 and GT classes. I took the mean of all LMP1 competitors but only the ALMS GT teams (excluding the WEC teams from 2012 to reduce variation). Here are the results:

Average Qualifying Lap Times

I can't draw too many conclusions from these limited data. What I can see, at least for qualifying, is that the Continental tires are not a step backward. While the LMPC change shows a slight improvement, it is in line with year on year progress (or perhaps just better track conditions). The GTC class also show improvement, in fact it shows somewhat better improvement than might be expected year on year (with the usual caveats). The LMP1 class shows a marked improvement over last year, but being true prototypes, that should probably be expected. I didn't look at LMP2 times for two reasons: they too were forced into changing tires this year, not by the organizers but by Dunlop Racing pulling out of the series and they are spec Michelins rather than bespoke Dunlops, making comparisons problematic. All but one of the LMP2 runners are running  Michelins, where all but one were running Dunlops last year.

These results are for qualifying. It says nothing about wear characteristics and fall-off on longer runs. From anecdotes relayed by pit reporters, the LMPC teams seemed happy with their new tires.

Coverage of the Race

First you need to know that I can't get Speed/Fox from my local cable TV monopoly. This means that I was entirely reliant on on-line streaming for my live race coverage. Luckily the U.S. Virgin Islands are considered "International" by the ALMS web site, so I was able to watch the entire race live. I had it better than the stateside fans who were without Speed/Fox, they had no sanctioned streaming alternatives.

Last year the ALMS stream was profoundly broken for the first half of the season as I reported here. This year's Sebring round video was provided by Speed (last year's came from ESPN). Audio commentary for both years were provided by John Hindhaugh and Jeremy Shaw. I had only minor glitches in the stream, but others who attempted to connect after the race began, reported serious problems even getting the main ALMS site to respond. In fact there was a complete outage for everyone late in the race that was reported to be due to a "satellite outage". I seriously doubt that was the actual problem, but the stream eventually did recover. I believe that the web site was seriously under-provisioned; there were reports of over double last year's viewership. Anyway if last year's streaming coverage was an "F" this year's (so far) would earn a "C-"; when you could get on it was fine, but it was difficult to get on. In a 12-hour race I expect minor malfunctions, but under-provisioning is inexcusable.

The fact that there was no live stream available in the home market for the U.S. fans is also inexcusable. Last year you could at least subscribe to ESPN Player for a reasonable fee. Of the remaining ALMS rounds for 2013 only Petit Le Mans will be on Speed/Fox; the rest will be back on ESPN and therefor available on ESPN Player. International fans (like me) can get the ALMS feed. I have also subscribed to ESPN Player in case.

The Race

We had some good racing this year. As I write this, the video of the race has not yet been posted, but the qualifying can be seen here. Next week the full race should be posted. 

There were only four safety-car periods; the fewer of these the better. The race director was very strict and consistent in calling avoidable contact penalties, much to the consternation of those penalized. Perhaps there were some marginal calls, but I think calling them tight during the first race of the season might lessen damages throughout the remaining rounds. It seemed that a similar strategy was being followed during the Grand-Am Daytona 24 back in January; lots of penalties and fewer safety-car periods. I hope this heralds an adherence to these higher driving standards once the ALMS and Grand-Am teams are on the same track in the 2014 USCR series season.

UPDATE: 
Archived video of the 2013 12 Hours of Sebring can be found on the ALMSOfficialVideos channel of Youtube. For some reason they have not yet (31 Mar 2013) posted the race on their own web site.

The United SportsCar Racing series

Finally the merged ALMS-GrandAm series has a name: United SportsCar Racing. It's not the most exciting or imaginative name perhaps, but it has accomplished a couple of important things: we now know what to call it, and probably of more importance, it is not divisive. If the new name had been a derivative of either of the old names, it would tend to alienate fans from the "other" old series. If the name had been to jingoistically "American", it might have turned-off some of the international fan base (but it still manages to get that "U.S." in there). While the new name doesn't excite me, I am relieved that undue partisanship was avoided. I hope this is an indication of the continued ecumenical tenor exhibited thus far by former ALMS and GrandAm principals.

Along with a new series name, the new competition class names were announced today as well. Again the names were unexciting but also uncontroversial:

No further information about the details of the classes were discussed. We still don't know driver regulations for the former LMP2 and LMPC classes. We know that the Prototype Challenge cars will be running spec Continental tires, but will there be any classes with an open tire formula? There were several questions about homologation (particularly with regard to DP/P2 performance balancing), but again no definitive answers were given.

The sole sanctioning body for the United Sportscar Racing series will be IMSA, which gets a new logo. IMSA will also get a "refresh", the details of which were not discussed.

At the announcement press conference, there was a question about series sponsors. Tequila Patron currently sponsors the ALMS and Rolex currently sponsors Grand-Am: who will be the new series sponsor? No definitive answer was given.

There are many things yet to be worked out within the new United Sportscar Racing series before 2014. My hope is that the USR principals mean what they say and continue to try to preserve the "best of the best" of endurance sports car racing in North America.

UPDATE:

The day after the press conference announcing the new series and class names, there was a licensing and partnership agreement between the new series and the ACO. This allows the retention of the name "Petit Le Mans" for the 10-hour Road Atlanta event, and formally retains a connection between the ACO and both the GTLM class and select LMP2-spec cars in the Prototype class.

There are two reasons this agreement that brightens my day a bit: it makes the stated intention to keep LMP2 cars close to the ACO spec (allowing them to be eligible for Le Mans) a bit more concrete, and there is some hope that in the future the USCRS Prototype class will evolve to be more compliant with the rest of the international sports car world. I think it is in the interests of both the ACO and USCRS to cooperate in formulating future regulations.

Politics vs. Performance

Today was the long-awaited preliminary announcement of the unified ALMS – Grand-Am class structure for 2014. I never expected a comprehensive announcement that would include regulations, but I was disappointed and saddened by what came out today. Besides reading the announcement, I followed the Q&A at the associated press conference live on radiolemans.com (RLM) and participated in RLM's on-line forum. In this post I will be discussing the prototypes primarily: LMP2, LMPC and DP. The announced class structure reflects a bias of political considerations over performance.

My first disappointment was that, as feared, the intent is to combine LMP2 and DP into a single class and balance their performance (BoP). This is just wrong. It reflects a political stance on the part of Grand-Am that, no matter what , “their” DP cars must be in the top class, no matter that they are far slower on all 4 tracks that both series competed on in 2012 (see table). Why? Based on both performance and differing regulations, these two cars are in fact in two separate classes and should have been treated that way. There would be plenty of opportunity to rectify both cars in 2015 when regulations could be re-written to unify them into a single class in subsequent years. BoP should only ever be used within one class, not to force two classes to compete as one. Properly designed regulations should eliminate BoP altogether in a perfect world.

Table 1. Fastest Race Laps 2012

The inclusion of LMPC as a “second” prototype class was unexpected. I am sure this was done to preserve car-count in the prototype classes and I have no problem with that as a short-term strategy. That class has produced great racing in the ALMS for the last 4 years. Given that LMPC is to be included, the DPs and the LMPCs are nearer in performance than DP and LMP2, so I have to wonder on what basis, other than politics, that DP and LMPC weren't combined if they needed to combine two cars into one class. Of course the LMPC is still faster than the DP, but at least they would only have to use BoP on one chassis/engine combination against the DPs which are already balanced against one another. By not doing this the new series has made their jobs harder, for merely political reasons.

I have difficulty seeing a reason other than politics for slowing down two other classes (LMP2, LMPC) to allow DPs to run in the "top" class. Perhaps the intent is to better guarantee Grand-Am teams and sponsors that a DP will win overall? Where would that leave ALMS LMP2 teams?

Since the merger was first announced there has been a concern that too many classes would somehow confuse the fans. I don't see it. I know that ALMS fans enjoy multi-class racing and have done so for 15 years. Many ALMS fans also follow Grand-Am, so what is the evidence that this is a problem? This concern is one excuse for combining LMP2 with DP and I don't buy it. Multi-class racing came about to give more variety to larger fields of competitors, combining classes is just wrong.

There was a question asked at the press conference about tires. They answer was vague but the message seemed to have been suggesting that Continental might be the sole tire supplier. If this is so, that would be a huge change for all the ALMS teams, none of whom run Continentals. Another question was asked about alternative fuels, a major feature in the ALMS. The answer suggested that Sunoco would likely continue as the sole fuel supplier, alternative fuels or not. Both of these answers made it obvious, if it weren't already, that this “merger” is really largely a takeover of ALMS by Grand-Am.

One issue not addressed by the press conference at all was driver qualifications. The current LMP2 class is a Pro-Am driver class, there must be at least one “Bronze” or “Silver” (amateur) driver for each car as determined by the ACO. The GTC cars may only have at most one “Gold” or “Platinum” (professional) driver for each car as determined by the ACO. No amount of BoP will get around those regulations, it will have to be addressed directly.

The announcement of the merger last September has made life for the competing teams in both the ALMS and Grand-Am much harder. They could make no concrete plans for 2014, and getting and keeping sponsorship for 2013 was problematic.  The bankruptcy of Lola had already had a negative impact on the LMP2 class, in the U.S. As well as in Europe. This situation has thrown doubt about participation in the ALMS LMP2 class for 2013. Come 2014, there may be no LMP2 cars to worry about. This too is, at least partially, a consequence of politics. It would have been better to have organized a sensible class structure and had draft regulations ready prior to announcing the “merger”.

I plan to follow the 2013 endurance sports car season closely, (ALMS, ELMS, Grand-Am, WEC) as always. In 2014 it will take more than a good “show” to keep me interested in North American sports car racing. I am far from alone in feeling this way. I would hate to see U.S. endurance racing lose a significant portion of their fan base. My interest in racing has been driven by automotive technology. So far I don't see technology advancing in this new series. I'm with Patrick Dempsey, I don't want to see the prototypes “dumbed-down”.