Taking the Wrong Line

The regulations governing endurance prototype design and engineering are due for a major overhaul for the 2017 season. The FIA/ACO LMP2 class regulations will impact not only the WEC and Le Mans, but also the ELMS and the North American Tudor United Sports Car Championship (TUSCC). The draft regulations for 2017  LMP2 call for no more than 4 chassis constructors and a single engine supplier. In my opinion this is entirely wrong-headed. Apparently I am not alone in this opinion, I have yet to see any favorable published comment on these proposals from any source: fans, competitors or constructors. There are many sources of intelligent commentary on these proposals but here I will refer to only one: Marshall Pruett's column at Racer.com as fairly representative of widespread opinion.

Like everyone else, I have to ask why such a turn-around by the ACO/FIA? Cost containment has been cited as the primary reason for the proposed changes. Any change to the LMP2 regulations are expected to meet the following criteria:

• Hold down costs, both purchase price and running costs
• Produce cars that are faster than (the proposed) LMP3, and GTE classes
• Produce cars that are slower than LMP1, both hybrid and non-hybrid.

There is another way to accomplish these goals without turning LMP2 into a spec class. In my October 2012 posting I discussed how a lightweight endurance prototype class could be derived from the FIA CN class. As I pointed out then, a complete CN car cost less than and LMP2 chassis without engine. True, there would have to be changes from the existing designs in order to bring such a car up to LMP2-level performance, but it would still cost less than existing cost-capped LMP2 cars. In that 2012 posting I had this  performance comparison:

The Euroseries CN cars were powered by a naturally aspirated 4-cyl. 2.0L Honda engine and weighed about 570kg. Think what a 675kg chassis with the 3.8L Judd V8 or a 2.8L V6 Honda turbo might do. There would be lots of room to specify drive-trains to adjust lap times where they need to go; between LMP1 and GTE.

If a lightweight prototype class were created along the lines I have mentioned, it would not only meet the cost and performance requirements, it would allow manufacturers to supply production-based engines and body kits (ala Grand-Am DPs) that would help with limited team sponsorship and brand promotion.

Ingenuity and innovation is a big part of my interest in motor sport. Over the years these aspects have been deprecated as more spec classes have proliferated. Many times these changes have been put down to cost containment. Racing fans don't find cost containment very interesting. If there is a way to contain costs and promote marque rivalry without devolving into a spec class, then the ACO/FIA should take that line instead of creating yet another spec class. If the existing trend toward spec classes continues, I will have to look backward to classic races to enjoy the diversity, ingenuity and innovation of past eras because those characteristics are being deprecated in the current one.