Endurance Calendar 2017

This Year's Endurance Calendars

As I have done in the past, I am making public two Google calendars. The first is called "ACO Racing" and contains the ELMS and WEC calendars. The second is called "WTSC Racing" and holds the WeatherTech Sportscar Championship endurance calendar. Here are the links:

ACO Racing links : HTML  ICAL
WTSC Racing links: HTML  ICAL

Google has eliminated support for the XML format available in previous years.

Keep in mind that there are no events until January 29th (WTSC Racing) and April 15th (ACO Racing).

As in previous years ...

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 details are provided by the organizers, these calendars will be updated to include event times, coverage etc.

Handy Cheat-sheet

Here is a compact image file that summarizes all three endurance series, save the image on your desktop and you'll never miss a race:

2017 Endurance Racing Calendar

A Modest Proposal: Endurance Class Structure

There are a number of competing factors that are in conflict regarding the classes in endurance racing. Entertainment may limit innovation, cost controls are not exciting, BoP is always contoversial, waivers piss everyone off. I don't pretend that my ideas are the answer, but here they are.

In order to maintain a high diversity of cars and a sufficiently large number of teams competing in the class, it required that the car makers produce a road car that would be competitive within the rules. The perceived need to keep the racing close for "entertainment" purposes brings pressure to adjust the performance of this diverse set of cars to some magic lap time that all can achieve, or failing that to use other gimmicks that "equalize" the performance over a race distance, like modifying fuel capacity or fuel flow that would affect pit stop strategy. At least the organizers haven't stooped to "push-to-pass" or DRS.

Another factor that affects the class is allowing cars that would not normally fall within the regulations to compete through the granting of a waiver. The Ford GT did not meet the homologation requirement of producing the minimum number of road cars prior to entering competition, so they were granted a waiver. The Viper was granted a waiver in GTLM in the IMSA series even though the displacement of the engine exceeded the maximum displacement in the regulations by 2.5L. There are many other examples of this practice.

Car makers want to win races to advertise their cars as "better" than their competitors. "Win on Sunday sell on Monday". This aspect places great pressure on the organizers to "level the playing field" to allow any of the cars to win. To a similar extent teams also want the chance to win to attract sponsorship and drivers as well as satisfy their competitive drive. If someone actually made a better car, shouldn't they be allowed to race it without being hobbled? In his racing autobiography Mark Donohue stressed that what his team (Penske) always strove for was the "Unfair Advantage", in fact that is what the bio was entitled. I submit that all teams strive for such an advantage and that impulse advances the sport.

One of the current concerns is that the newest entrants to the class: Ford GT, Ferrari 488, and BMW M6 are dominating the class over the older entrants and the pressure to conform has resulted in charges of "sandbagging" and the issuance of BoP adjustments between races and even between qualifying and the race. These moves are controversial to say the least. Some are concerned that the "gaps" between the classes will be eroded if these new cars aren't slowed down. Could there be a better answer?

Maybe. I think the entire class structure might benefit from a re-evaluation. The following are just my thoughts on one way that might help solve this puzzle of what to do with the endurance classes. There are probably many others that could answer as well.

I would like to see a prototype class that meets some definition of "road legal" but otherwise ignores minimum production numbers. This "GT Prototype" class would contain the halo cars not only for cars like the Ford GT, but would allow early entry for the mid-engined Corvette and the next Aston Martin that are currently on the drawing board and headed for competition in the near future. Such a class would keep the high cost of these puppies away from the real modified production models that typify GTE/GTLM and still allow the factory teams a place to play. This should be a real prototype class: eventually the cars in this class would show up in some form as a production model. This would be different from the current definition of "prototype" in LMP1 and LMP2 which will never be produced in road-going form. At some point this "GTP" class might supplant LMP2.

The successor to the current GTE/GTLM class would be for real road cars produced in numbers and the racing parts that make them competitive would be required to show up as parts available through dealerships. This approach was used in the original Trans-Am regulations (1966 - 1973), and parts that were developed for racing had to be made available to the public (even if "for off road use only"). This should make for easier entry into the class for new teams. Cost caps on the performance parts might need to be imposed in such a scheme. Regulations would be strictly enforced and changes/adjustments would happen only between seasons. Cars must conform to their homologation forms, which is where any needed "balancing" would take place; allowed modifications would be spelled out similar to the way the SCCA handles their varied classes.

There is currently a divergence in the "lower" GT classes between IMSA and ACO/FIA: the IMSA GTD class is basically GT3 with Pro/Am driving teams, which relies entirely on BoP while the ACO/FIA runs GTE-Am which basically runs the same cars as GTE-Pro but with Pro/Am driver lineups (as well as eliminating the newest spec cars). Both of these approaches have their pros and cons and either could accomplish the goal of bringing in more car and driver diversity. I favor the GTE-Am approach, but there is something to be said for cars that have a place in more than one series.

The five current Prototype classes need a re-think in my opinion. LMP1/H is now stricly a WEC beast. They are for factory works teams only and it is practically mandated to be the overall winning class. Why is there this fiction that the LMP1-privateer class is part of LMP1? They should be classified separately from LMP1/H. LMP2 evolved from LMP675; a lightweight that could compete against their heavier and more powerful LMP1 (evolved from LMP900) cousins; until the LMP2s started winning some important races overall, then suddenly it was thought neccessary to cost cap the class and make them heavier than the LMP1 cars. Now the ACO/FIA are requiring a spec engine and only four chassis options as well as Pro/Am driver teams. LMP3 has a similarly restrictive formula, intended to replace the aging spec LMPC cars.

In my proposed scheme I would like to see a lightweight prototype that would be allowed to compete for overall wins, but against the cubic euros spent in LMP1/H that is very unlikely to ever happen. Barring that, LMP2 should still be less restrictive: allow more chassis and engine suppliers and impose a cost cap if needed. Requiring production-based engines would make the class more relevant to road cars, but if race engines prove more cost effective over the course of a season, then perhaps that restriction could be dropped. If LMP2 can't compete for overall wins, then there are only two purposes for them: a less expensive way to go prototype racing, and allowing non-professional drivers a place to go prototype racing. Keeping it Pro/Am (like the ACO/FIA) is probably justified.

In IMSA the proposed DPI serves a different purpose that LMP2 in the ACO/FIA; it will be the top class, expected to take overall wins, so they should be able to run all-Pro drivers. They should also be able to use any tire they want. I would drop the requirement to run only one of four chassis and restricting bodywork to single chassis/engine combinations. This bodywork restriction is aping the old Daytona Prototype model which came about belatedly in the Grand-Am series and has resulted in only one manufacturer bodykit. Allowing bespoke bodywork should be an option, but not a requirement and any engine should be usable in any chassis. A more generous cost cap might be in order. My feeling is that DPI, modified along the lines proposed here, could form the basis for a replacement for LMP1-privateer. If that happened then there could be a place for DPI at Le Mans without upsetting the Pro/Am LMP2 teams.

If there is any place for a spec formula in endurance racing, then it would be in the replacement for the LMPC class. Currently the thinking is that this would be LMP3, which isn't quite spec. I have mixed feelings about this class. A fully spec chassis/engine/tire class would make for a better driver training prototype entry platform, while normally a spec car is anathema to me personally. As it is currently, it is neither fish nor fowl. LMPC worked quite well for a long time, so maybe the full-spec formula would work well as a replacment too. At least there would be a ready market for used cars in this class, making entry even more affordable.

In summary my imaginary class structure would look like this (names could be changed, but these refer to existing classes where applicable):

LMP1 - Leave it as is and let the ACO/FIA do with it what it will. This is a WEC-only class.

LMP1-privateer/DPI - loosen the DPI regulations and converge these two classes into one, classified separately from LMP1

LMP2 - Pro/Am prototype run by privateers only with cost caps. Could become Pro/Am versions of DPI (maybe)

LMP3 - Full spec Pro/Am prototype. Training ground and low-cost prototype entry platform.

GTP - Road legal prototype halo cars. Works teams with Pro drivers. The playground for dream cars.

GTE-Pro - True modified production cars with strict regs and "factory" parts. Pro drivers.

GTE-Am - GTE cars with Pro/Am drivers. Alternatively GT3 cars would form this class

If you think that 7 classes are too many, recall that the 1966 Le Mans 24 had 9 classes. It is only in more recent times that it was thought that 4 was the most we should have. The only place all 7 would run is in the WEC. There would probably be a natural selection process that would eliminate unneeded classes. Each series would choose which classes they support.

The goal of such a re-organization is to reflect reality, eliminate the BoP controversies as much as possible, stimulate fan interest, and try to keep everyone happy. Getting the organizing bodies, the manufacturers, the teams, and the fans to agree on something so radical is probably not possible. These are my thoughts, at present they are only valuable to me.

Is BOP Needed in GTE?

This past weekend was the 84th running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and Ford's victory in the GTE Pro class came about partly as a commemoration of their first victory 50 years ago. This entire season there have been accusations that Ford was "sandbagging" to avoid Balance of Performance (BOP) adjustments that would lessen their chances of winning. In 1966 BOP didn't exist at Le Mans, but strict adherence to the rules and the more primitive technology of the era kept things fairly competitive. BOP came about to attract otherwise non-competitive cars so that manufacturers could run their products in the big races like Le Mans, either by allowing modifications outside the rules, or by burdening the faster cars to "level the playing field".

If that weren't enough, otherwise ineligible cars were granted waivers to allow them to compete, relying on BOP to cover any gross advantages thus created. Two recent examples come to mind: the BMW Z4 V8 and the Viper. At the time the BMW was running in IMSA you couldn't buy a Z4 with a V8 at your BMW dealer, but IMSA wanted BMW so in they came. The Viper's 8+ Liter engine displacement vastly exceeded the GTE/GTLM class limit of 5.5L. Chevrolet, when they moved from GT1 to GT2 (which became GTE/GTLM) reduced their displacement from 7L to 5.5L, but Viper relied on waivers and BOP to put them in the game. I'm not saying that these were bad decisions, but the waiver that allowed Ford to run their new GT before there was a road car was in the same spirit, with the major difference that otherwise the Ford GT is within the technical specs for GTE/GTLM. The impulse was the same: attract another manufacturer into the series. I would have been happier if Ford had started their new GT program a year earlier so that the road car would have been out and the waiver would not have been needed, but I don't think the new rules were out back then. The fact that the competing manufacturers agreed to the waiver makes it a bit more palatable; they realized that adding the Ford brand would bring more attention to the series.

In an ideal world neither waivers nor BOP would be needed. The only cars allowed to compete would be those that fit within the rules, and the rules would be strictly enforced. If a car can dominate within those rules, then it shouldn't be penalized for it, the next year's rules might need adjusting but for at least one year, such a car should reap the rewards for being the better car. Having said that I would hate to see the costs of winning at Le Mans be driven to the stratosphere by companies building road-going prototypes that would require a syndicate to buy. Think of America's Cup yachts. I never have and never will be able to even contemplate buying any of today's road model GTs, but there is a large difference between even a Ferrari and a Veyron.

In 1969 there was a car that debuted at Le Mans that adhered closely to the rules and dominated qualifying and was allowed to compete without waivers or BOP adjustments. This was the Porsche 917, but it wasn't a prototype; Porsche managed to build 25 of them to satisfy the homologation requirements to run in the GT class (S-5000). The air-cooled flat 12-cylinder engine exceeded the new prototype displacement limit of 3.0L. So this pure prototype car competed against the aging, heavy, road-derived 5.0L GT40-MkI and Porsche's official prototype the 908. By the end of the race the 917s had retired and it was left to the 908 and the GT40 to slug it out. The old GT40 prevailed finally, the same chassis that won in 1968. The 917 went on to win the following year as fictionalized in Steve McQueen's "Le Mans". Unlike this year's GTE pole-sitter, in 1969 there was no insistence that there be a BOP adjustment between qualifying and the race.

In my youth I was a committed Ford fan. I was excited when it became known that Ford would enter the 2016 Le Mans 24 and field full-season entries in both the WEC and IMSA series. I knew it was no coincidence that it was the 50th anniversary of their 1966 victory and I rooted for them to win, but I didn't expect that they could in their first attempt. I am happy that I was wrong, but I was disappointed by the last-minute protest of the #82 for leader light failure. I think that was a mickey-mouse move considering that other cars had been allowed to run for hours with the same failure, such a call within the last 20 min. of the race is unforgivable. As a PR move that was as just bad. I am glad that Risi ignored the call, and that the offsetting penalties resulted in no change to the finishing order of the race. Ferrari deserved their podium finish. This is an echo of another bad PR move on Ford's part from that 1966 event; in order to stage a formation finish, team orders went out to the lead #1 GT40-MkII of Ken Miles to slow down to allow the #2 of Bruce McLaren (same lap in 2nd) to catch up and cross the line with the #5 of Ronnie Bucknum (12 laps down in 3rd). In the event the ACO ruled that since the #2 started further back, it had covered the greater distance and was awarded the win. This robbed Ken Miles of the win. Already in 1966 Ken had won the Daytona 24 and Sebring; a win at Le Mans would have been an historic achievement, but this failed PR move robbed him (and Ford) of that legacy. Ken died in testing later that year. The fact that this is remembered 50 years afterward should be a cautionary tale for Ford and anyone else that puts PR above sportsmanship and competition.

Ford's Return to Le Mans

The development of the new 2016 Ford GT competing in the company's return to Le Mans has been seen as a commemoration of their sweep of the overall podium 50 years ago. Back in 1966 with the GT40 Mark II (and 1967 with a GT40 Mark IV), Ford won overall as entrants in the prototype class (P+5.0, Group 6), but their new car is running in the GT class this year (GTLM in IMSA and GTE-Pro in FIA/ACO). This being so, it should be recognized that the Ford GT40 Mark I managed the overall win at Le Mans in 1968 and 1969 as a GT (S5.0, Group 4) competitor. The new car has more in common with the Group 4 GT40 Mark I of 1968-69 than the prototype GT40 Mark II/IV of 1966-67. The Mark I and the new 2016 GT are derived from road cars, unlike the Mark II and Mark IV of yesteryear.

As my own commemoration of these events I thought I would post a little geneology of the Ford GT40.

In the Beginning

In 1963 in the wake of the company's decision to compete in endurance sports-car racing and the failed effort to acquire Ferrari, Ford partnered with Eric Broadley's Lola Cars to develop their own Le Mans competitor. Based initally on the Lola Mark 6 (powered by Ford 289 cu. in. V8), the first GT40s ran at Le Mans in 1964. These first cars DNFed but showed great potential and set the fastest lap of the race (driven by Phil Hill). In that first Le Mans for Ford, the team was run by Ford Advanced Vehicles (FAV) managed by John Wyer. The next 3 years (1965-67), the team was managed by Carroll Shelby while the construction of the basic GT40 continued to be built by FAV under John Wyer. Much of the evolution of the of the GT40 into what became the Mark II took place at Ford's Kar Kraft facility in Dearborn Michigan and at Shelby American in Venice California. FAV was  responsible for the GT40 Mark I road-car production as well as supplying cars to Shelby American.

The Coming of the Big Block. 

The 1964 GT40s that ran at Le Mans were initially powered by the 1963 Ford Indianapolis engine, an all-aluminum pushrod 255 cu. in. (4.2L) V8 of 375 bhp, developed from the road-car "Fairlane" iron V8 engine introduced in 1962. The transaxle was the same 4-speed Collotti unit used in the Lola Mark 6. The gearbox was not up to the task and was eventually replaced with a 5-speed ZF unit. The Indy engine was replaced by the iron 289 cu. in. (4.7L) Ford V8 as used in the Shelby Cobra. The Cobra V8 in the road-car was tuned to deliver 306 bhp equipped with a single 4-bbl carburetor; in Le Mans trim and with 4 Weber carbs it produced 375 bhp. The front-running GT40s were still using the Collotti gearbox and didn't finish the race.

In 1965 the main Ford effort focused on the GT40 Mark II. The 4.7L small-block V8 was replaced by the 427 cu. in. (7.0L) Ford "side-oiler" V8 of approximately 500 bhp as used in NASCAR and drag racing. In order to handle the torque of this beast, the gearbox was replaced with a 4-speed prototype Ford Unit utilizing the gearset from the full-size Ford Galaxie. In addition there were some aerodynamic, brake and cooling improvements.

The 1965 Le Mans was pretty much a repeat of 1964: the cars were fast but not reliable, they DNF'ed. In the current era it's pretty much accepted that a 3-year development cycle is what it takes to produce a winner (or determine that it will never be a winner). The year 1966 was the year of Ford's third attempt at Le Mans and the car was a winner, fast and reliable, and the reason for Ford's 50th anniversary commemoration this year.

But the story of the GT40 doesn't end in 1966. 

In 1967 Ford developed the GT40 Mark IV (the Mark III was a road car variant). Unlike previous GT40s, this was all-new, designed and built by Kar Kraft and developed and run by Shelby American. It built on the lessons learned on the previous models and shared the powertrain from the Mark II. The winning car was driven by Americans Dan Gurney and A.J. Foyt. There had been some snark about the 1966 car being built in Europe and driven by New Zealanders Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon; 1967 was an "All-American" victory. The ACO changed the rules for prototypes for 1968: maximum engine displacement would be 3.0L. This made the prototypes from Ford and Ferrari obsolete after Jan. 1st 1968. Ford withdrew from Le Mans competition.

On January 1, 1967, FAV was dissolved and it's assets in England were sold (at a 90% discount) to John Wyer Automotive Engineering LLC (JWAE), which continued to hold the contract to build the GT40 road cars as well as service customers and handle spares. The rules for competing in the GT class (Group 4) required that there be at least 50 cars produced and they would be limited to a maximum displacement of 5.0L. Those rules suited JWAE very well. The GT40 Mark I was no longer a prototype, but a GT car. JWAE teamed with Gulf Oil and Firestone Tire to form the Gulf-Wyer team and compete in endurance racing beginning with their GT40-derived "Mirage" in 1967.

For 1968 Gulf-Wyer entered 3 GT40 Mark I cars in Group 4. They ran the 302 cu.in. (5.0L) Ford V8s with the addition of the aluminum Gurney-Weslake cylinder heads producing 449 bhp. and utilizing the ZF 5-speed gearbox. Drivers Pedro Rodriguez and Lucian Bianchi won overall for Gulf-Wyer, defeating all the new prototypes.

For 1969 Gulf-Wyer entered 2 GT40 Mark I cars after their own new prototype 3.0L Cosworth DFV-powered Gulf-Mirage prototype proved too unreliable to compete in the 24 hour race. This time winning drivers Jacky Ickx and Jackie Oliver pulled out the overall win after the brand-new Porsche 917 GT (Group 4) cars dropped out, leaving only the older (and less powerful) 908 to finish a close second. Two interesting notes: the winning car was the same as the 1968 winner, chassis 1075. The rules for 1969 lowered the number of cars produced in order to qualify for Group 4 to 25 cars; Porsche took advantage of those rules to produce 25 pure prototype 917s equipped (initially) with 4.5L flat-12 racing engines and run them as GTs. In 1970 and 1971 the factory Porsche 917s were run by Gulf-Wyer.

In 2005 Ford produced a new "Ford GT" road car to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Ford Motor Company. The design of this new car was influenced by the earlier GT40, but was strictly a road car, Ford did not form a works team nor did they produce racing versions. In 2011 the privateer Robertson Racing team placed third in the GTE-Am class at Le Mans; husband and wife David and Andrea Robertson celebrated their wedding anniversary on the Le Mans podium, carried there by their Ford GT.

The "Ford Era" at Le Mans of the late '60s produced some other interesting milestones. In 1967 Dan Gurney sprayed Champagne on his colleagues and spectators from the podium, beginning a tradition now seen on nearly all motorsport podia. In 1969 Jacky Ickx protested the "Le Mans start" by walking across the track at the start of the race, meaning he started dead last yet still won the race (his good friend Willy Mairesse was badly injured in 1968 by not securely fastening his seatbelts in a crash at the start of the race); in 1970 that starting practice was abandoned. Often overlooked, in 1965 the World Championship of Makes was won by the Shelby American Cobra "Daytona Coupe" GTs, the first American marque to do so (Dan Gurney and Bob Bonduant drove theirs to 4th overall at Le Mans in 1965). The iconic "Gulf livery" of light blue and marigold (ICI P030-8013 and P030-3393) was first seen on the JWAE GT40-based "Mirage" of 1967.

The appearance of the Ford GT40 at Daytona in 1965 is my personal milestone. That appearance marked my first awareness of endurance sportscar racing. I was a 14 year old "Ford fan" in 1965, and the fact that the GT40 was so damn attractive (and a Ford) got me hooked when my friend Steve made me aware of it (that year I built a "slot-car" with a GT40 body). Prior to that I followed home-town racer Parnelli Jones' exploits at the Indy 500 (he won in 1963 and nearly did in 1967), but this sports-car thing was new to me. After 1965 I followed Can-Am and Trans-Am road racing (as well as a teenager could back then) until I finished college. I am looking forward to Ford's debut of their new GT this year. I have to keep in mind that this is only the first year of their program, I shouldn't expect too much right away, but I can pull for them anyway.

Further Reading

"Racing in the Rain" My Years with Brilliant Drivers, Legendary Sports Cars, and a Dedicated Team, by John Horseman, copyright 2006

"Go Like Hell" Ford, Ferrari, and their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans, by A.J. Baime, copyright 2009

"GT40" An Individual History and Race Record, by Ronnie Spain, copyright 1986

Endurance Calendars 2016

This Year's Endurance Calendars

As I have done in the past, I am making public two Google calendars. The first is called "ACO Racing" and contains the ELMS and WEC calendars. The second is called "WTSC Racing" and holds the WeatherTech Sportscar Championship endurance calendar. Here are the links:

ACO Racing links : HTML  ICAL
WTSC Racing links: HTML  ICAL

Google has eliminated support for the XML format available in previous years.

Keep in mind that there are no events until January 30th (WTSC Racing) and April 16th (ACO Racing).

As in previous years ...

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 details are provided by the organizers, these calendars will be updated to include event times, coverage etc.

Handy Cheat-sheet

Here is a compact image file that summarizes all three endurance series, save the image on your desktop and you'll never miss a race:

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.

Conclusions and Calendars

Conclusions

The very long 2014 endurance racing season (Jan - Nov) finally came to a close. We saw the ELMS complete a highly successful season; their short-weekend, five 4hr race format is a winner. In the WEC, we welcomed Porsche into the LMP1-H ranks along with Rebellion and (briefly) Strakka into the LMP1-L. In North America we witnessed the first season of the merged former ALMS and GrandAm in the TUSCC.

The WEC and ELMS had mid-season breaks that were uncommonly long, to the point of forming nearly two separate seasons. Something needs to be done to tighten up those calendars.

In TUSCC, the "balance of performance" (BoP) came much closer to the objective of shoe-horning diverse cars into both the Prototype class and the GTD class than I expected. While I concede they did an amazing job with BoP, the differences between the cars, especially in Prototypes, still doesn't make the former LMP2 cars and former DP cars equivalent. I don't think it can be done while being scrupulously fair. We'll have to await the 2017 season and new regulations to finally have a single Prototype class in TUSCC.

The loss of LMP1 and the attrition in LMP2 teams from ALMS competing in TUSCC has taken a toll on my enthusiasm for North American endurance racing. Driving standards and the proclivity to call for full-course-yellow (FCY) flags have also subtracted their share of my excitement. I am willing to believe that the organizers will make significant efforts to improve things in their second season, but there is no assurance that those efforts will be adequate. I'll have to wait and see.

With the recent retirement of Tom Kristensen and Howden Haynes from Audi, the "dream team" that included Allen McNish, Dindo Capello, TK and "H" has completely left the scene. Their exploits in the ALMS and especially in Le Mans 2008 were real high points for me. Their absence adds to my ennui. Truly an end of an era.

So, what can we look forward to in 2015? New teams in LMP1 in WEC. New LMP2 coupes from HPD and Oreca in ELMS, WEC and TUSCC. Oh, and another long season ....

Calendars

Here is a handy summary of the 2015 endurance events:

So that makes 20 hours of racing in the ELMS, 66 hours for the WEC, and 68.8 hours in the TUSCC. There are 52 hours in the 4 rounds of TUSCC's North American Endurance Cup (NAEC) alone.

As I have done in the past, I am making public two Google calendars. The first is called "ACO Racing" and contains the ELMS and WEC calendars. The second is called "TUSCC Racing" and holds the North American endurance calendar. Here are the links:

ACO Racing links : HTML XML ICAL
TUSCC Racing links: HTML XML ICAL

Keep in mind that there are no events until January 24th (TUSCC Racing) and April 11th (ACO Racing).

As in previous years ...

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 2014" becomes next year's "ACO Racing" and last year's "TUSC Racing 2014" becomes "TUSCC Racing" (since TUSCC no longer conforms to ACO rules).  As always the times will be for U.S. Eastern Time, with race local times included along with other details in the "Description" field.

Lap Times and Ligiers

This last weekend saw two endurance races at the Circuit of the Americas (COTA). This supplied the opportunity to compare similar cars in two different race series: the FIA/ACO World Endurance Championship (WEC) and the IMSA Tudor United Sports Car Championship (TUSCC) on the same track on the same day (Sep. 20th 2014).

My primary interest was in the LMP2 class in WEC, and I was curious on how the LMP2-based cars in the TUSCC series compared with those in the WEC. The Extreme Speed Motorsport (ESM) team fielded their TUSCC #1 HPD Prototype as the #30 LMP2 in the WEC series, and continued to run their #2 HPD in the TUSCC series. This allowed a pretty close comparison of nearly identical cars in the two series. Additionally OAK racing debuted the new Ligier/HPD coupe in the TUSCC series, and G-Drive has a comparable Ligier/Nissan coupe in the WEC. The biggest differences between these series in Prototype/LMP2 classes are that in the WEC you have to run with a Pro-Am driver lineup and the tire formula is open.  Here are the fastest race-lap times for these four cars:

The first thing to notice is that the ESM and G-Drive cars were very close in pace, despite the differing power-trains and body styles. ESM deserves credit for their maiden WEC outing in nearly matching the fastest race lap (set by G-Drive) in the LMP2 class.

The next thing to notice is the 2.702 sec. difference between the TUSCC and WEC ESM cars. The top "suspect" in this difference is the tire choice. TUSCC Prototypes run on a spec. Continental tire, while the WEC ESM LMP2 was running on bespoke Dunlop tires (as do most of the WEC LMP2 field). This is consistant with the 2.052 sec. difference between the two Ligiers.

A Look Back

I was curious about how the former ALMS/LMP2 and Grand-Am/DP  lap times compare with the TUSCC and WEC lap times, to get an historical perspective for the COTA track. So here are some fastest race-lap times from last year and this year.

The first thing to stand out for me was the stunning lap time set by the #26 Oreca/Nissan LMP2 in 2013. I am at a loss to find a ready explanation for the 2.726 sec. difference between the two years.

The only car in these comparisons that was actually faster than last year were the Grand-Am Daytona Prototype derived cars. The explanation for that difference is pretty obviously the additional 100bhp and added down-force they gained last winter in going from Grand-Am to TUSCC. The LMP2 derived cars from ALMS in the TUSCC series went from off-the-shelf Michelin tires to the spec. Continental tires and lost nearly two seconds. 

A Look Forward

Next year it is expected that there may be no open-top cars in the TUSCC Prototype class. ESM expects to take delivery of brand-new HPD coupes in November. Krohn Racing will field a Ligier coupe in 2015. HPD expects to sell another three coupes for TUSCC in 2015 to un-named teams (vapor-ware so far). Speculation is that ESM will not be running a full TUSCC season, concentrating on the four North American Endurance Championship (NAEC) rounds, as well as running some of the WEC rounds, including Le Mans. Tequila Patron is the sponsor of the NAEC as well as ESM.

Personally, I am glad to see new LMP2 chassis competing in TUSCC. It is a preview of what we might see in 2017 when the DPs will finally be retired.

Odds and Ends

The Limits of BoP

Much has been made of how well IMSA has managed to balance the performance of the former Daytona Prototypes (DP) with the former Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2) cars. I'll admit they have come closer than I had thought they would, but there are still significant differences between those two formulae that have direct impact in head to head competition. Even though on most tracks, the lap times of the two cars are similar, as has been pointed out many times, they get those lap times in different ways. Generally the DPs have the advantage in speed, while the LMP2s have the advantage in handling and braking. A bit more subtly, the DPs accelerate more quickly and bring their tires up to operating temperature more quickly than the LMP2s. This makes starts and re-starts a big problem for the LMP2s. The greater torque also helps the DPs in traffic, and makes it easier for them to defend a lead. It cost LMP2 cars wins at Sebring and at Watkins Glen this year. In both races an LMP2 car was leading the race until there was a final Full Course Yellow (FCY) near the end of the race. The advantage of quicker acceleration of the DP meant that on the re-start after the FCY doomed the LMP2 to defeat. In the case of Watkins Glen that final FCY was certainly called for, so that was the luck of the draw. The case at Sebring is less clear; in my opinion that last FCY was not called for and cost the Extreme Speed #1 the win. Those results affect the outcome of the four-round North American Endurance Cup race.

I don't know that much can be done at this stage to mitigate the "acceleration gap" between formulae without compromising the degree of lap time balance that IMSA has achieved. There are a couple of things that might be done to mitigate that other advantage (tire temps). If the pit-stop regulations were to revert to the ACO rules, where fueling and tire changes must be done separately, then there would be a greater premium placed on double-stinting tires and the lighter weight (less tire wear) of the LMP2 might be able to make up for their taking longer to come up to tire operating temperature. I don't expect to see this change, but I would welcome it.

Laguna Seca Lap Times

Another bit of information about BoP can be illustrated by looking at recent lap times around Laguna Seca. Both the Grand-Am DPs and ALMS LMP2s ran separately there in 2013 and together in 2014. The major differences in the DPs between those years was an increase of downforce and an increase in horsepower. The major differences in the LMP2s in those years were the change in tires.

 In 2012, the LMP2 cars ran on bespoke Dunlop LMP2 tires. In 2013, due to a pull-out of Dunlop from ALMS the teams were forced to source different tires and went to off-the-shelf Michelin tires for 2013. In 2014 the LMP2 teams were required to use the same spec Continentals as the DPs have run in recent years. A peek at the lap times for the most recent 3 years tells a tale.

Fastest Race Laps

The increased power and downforce gained 2 seconds for the DPs, while the required tire changes for the LMP2s cost them significant time in both years since the Dunlop pull-out and the switch to Continentals. This difference will show up when LMP2 cars from IMSA and the WEC are compared at the Circuit of the Americas in September.

How Do You Define "Endurance"?

This year the Laguna Seca round of the TUSCC was divided into two races: one for the "Pro-Am" classes (PC and GTD), and one for the "Pro" classes (P and GTLM). Each of these races were two hours long. In the past the shortest endurance race at Laguna Seca was two hours forty-five minutes and have been as long as six hours as recently as 2012. I understand why the street races (Detroit, Long Beach, Baltimore etc.) are shortened-up; they share a tight schedule with other organisations, but when your organisation controls the feature events as at Laguna Seca, that is disappointing. In a two hour race the GT-class cars need only one pit stop, and for all classes it is a sprint race.

New Prototype Class Announced by the ACO

A few months ago there was talk about a new prototype class to replace the aging LMPC cars. At that time the thinking was that an evolution of the FIA CN class would be the basis of a new lightweight prototype class. Now the ACO have annouced the basic specs for a proposed LMP3 class and it is not the new ligthweight class I was so excited about, but an apparent evolution of the LMPC cars. A good description of what is known about this new class can be found at RaceCar Engineering.

Instead of being a ~600KG chassis with a ~375bph V6, the ACO basically want what would be an LMPC coupe with a shark fin. Rather than a completely spec car, the chassis and bodywork will be set by regulation with a spec engine, tire, transmission, and ECU. The engine hasn't been settled upon yet, but it will be a V8 of 420bhp. That is exactly what the current LMPC runs: a 6.2L pushrod Chevrolet V8 . This is to be a cost-capped formula. As of yet no constructor has announced a product for the new class. I can't think of another V8 420bhp crate engine that would be less expensive than the Chevy, and with the cost-cap I would be surprised if another engine were chosen for this class.

In the LMP1-H regulations there was a conscious effort to appear "green" by requiring a hybrid powertrain. Why not move the new LMP3 to a lightweight formula that could also appear more "green"? I am a bit disappointed.

Online Endurance Race Coverage

Variations on Coverage

Since I am on a small island in the Caribbean and my local cable monopoly doesn't carry any of the channels that cover multi-class endurance racing, I am dependent on online coverage of those sporting events. This year there have been changes in the online media coverage of the Tudor United Sports Car Championship, the World Endurance Championship and the European Le Mans Series. I discuss the online coverage offerings from my own island perspective, those in Europe and elsewhere may have a wider selection of options for following their sport.

ELMS - Best bargain in multi-class endurance racing.

The online coverage of the ELMS rounds in 2014 are the same as last year: free full streaming coverage via Dailymotion.com of the race with Radio Le Mans commentary plus live timing and scoring on their website. As always, audio commentary with live forum participation was available on the Radiolemans.com website. Folks complain that they can't see the race in HD, and there are occasional net congestion glitches, but overall a good online package. Luckily for me, the live stream is available through the Dailymotion.com channel on my Roku 3 TV set-top box, making it very simple to watch the race on the larger screen. The ELMS does not publicly archive the full race videos, which is a shame, only short clips of various aspects of the race. Without a U.S. TV package, the ELMS does a good job for their online fans that would otherwise not be able to see races without going to the track. If they would add online Archives to the mix, it could attract an even wider audience.

WEC - You get what you pay for.

Last year the WEC rounds (other than Le Mans) were pretty much the same as the ELMS online coverage. For 2014, the WEC decided to charge a subscription fee for all rounds (other than Le Mans). This was a last minute surprise for those of us dependent on online coverage and at first even the live timing and scoring would require subscription. At the last minute T&S was made freely available. Like the ELMS, Radiolemans.com provided full live audio commentary of the WEC (including Le Mans) from their website. I bit the bullet and paid the 19.99€ price for the streaming coverage; it was similar in quality to that provided free by the ELMS with Radiolemans.com commentary and standard definition video. While I watched the race on my desktop computer, there are also FIAWEC "apps" for Android and iPad as well (subscription required). Like the ELMS, there is no public archive of the full race videos. Personally I don't mind paying the nominal fee for video, it beats paying a cable TV provider monthly for a bundle of channels I don't want at a much higher fee just to watch the races I want, even if that were an option (which for me it isn't). While not free, offering streaming video with excellent commentary is a key element in growing the fan base. About that commentary: there are some changes coming, so I will probably supplement the streaming video with a separate Radiolemans.com audio stream.

TUSCC - How to lose fans and (negatively) influence people.

For the first three rounds of the TUSC Championship there was free full live video streaming with commentary by Fox Sports, echoing the Fox Sports TV coverage in the U.S. combined with timing and scoring on the IMSA website. It came as quite a surprise to find out that live video of the TV broadcast of the Laguna Seca rounds were not available to me at all. The only live video I could get were from several on-board cameras with nothing but the ambient sounds in the cars. Live timing and scoring was available on the IMSA website, and audio commentary could be had on the MRN.com website. In previous years the ALMS worked with ESPN/ABC television in the U.S. and in addition provided free, full-race live streaming video with commentary supplied partially by John Hindhaugh and Jeremy Shaw (who are normally heard on Radiolemans.com). The switch to Fox Sports (in the U.S) meant that fewer people could actually watch the race on TV (Fox Sports is less available in cable packages), and with the elimination of free live streaming even fewer fans can watch live than last year in the ALMS (Grand-Am never had live online streaming). This loss of online streaming can't do anything but discourage the fan base; it is another example of TUSCC shooting itself in the foot. The elimination from North American endurance racing of the excellent audio coverage provided in the past by Radiolemans.com compounds this error. The only good thing in the TUSCC online coverage package is that full races and qualifying sessions are publicly archived on the IMSA website and on YouTube. My Roku 3 TV set-top box has a YouTube channel, so I can watch full races on the larger screen, once they are posted (1-2 days after the race), but it's better than listening to MRN live. Oh yes, and the archives are available in 720p HD. BTW, the ALMS and Grand-Am channels on YouTube have those complete races archived there too.

Final Thoughts

The ELMS and WEC should really archive their race videos. If the WEC need to protect their subscription revenue, they could post them long after the race is run, or at the end of the season. Those archives are an historical record and could serve to grow their fan base. Charging a subscription fee, especially on coverage that was previously available for free, is tricky. On the one hand the revenue can be used to improve coverage and delivery, on the other you may price yourself out of favor with your existing fans and you will be restricing your contact with potential new fans. Personally I don't mind paying a nominal fee, it is far better than what TUSCC has done with their live online coverage. What TUSCC has done right is providing archives of full races and qualifying sessions (with commercials edited out!) for on-demand viewing. I would like to see live race streams available as channels for TV set-top boxes (e.g. Roku, AppleTV, Chromecast etc.) preferably for free, but as a paid channel as a last resort. This would make the viewing experience easier for those who can't follow these races on broadcast/cable TV or afford going to the track. All three series need to do a better job of publicizing their online offerings. The last minute and un-announced changes are really not on; there is no excuse for them. There should be a well-designed web page that concisely describes the online coverage that should include answers to questions like: Will there be a live video stream? Is their a separate audio-only stream? Will it be free? Will it be geoblocked? Is their and app or TV set-top channel? What devices are supported? What time and dates are the races? Will qualifying be covered? How about timing and scoring? Will the videos be archived? You can find most of this information on the current websites, but not always in one place, and sometimes not in a timely manner. There is a need to make this information more timely, complete, clear and concise, and easily navigated.

Useful Links

ELMS Live Stream on Dailymotion:
 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpl59v_european-le-mans-series-2014-live_auto

TUSCC Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC58em84jwiyM20qR-iqBDZw

Sebring 2014

I think fans of both the former ALMS and Grand-Am series have been curious about how the new TUSC series competitors would fare on the two iconic Florida tracks: Daytona and Sebring. In January we saw ACO-rules cars at Daytona for the first time in decade and a half. In the prototype class the Daytona Prototypes were expected to dominate, and for the most part they did; the nature of the track and the 2014 BoP measures assured that outcome. At Sebring the outcome was less certain. What I saw at Sebring this year was that IMSA did a remarkable job in equalizing the lap times of the DP and LMP2 within the prototype class. As we saw at Daytona, those two car types attained their respective lap times in very different ways. The LMP2 cars give up about 100hp to the DPs, so on the straights and accelerating through traffic, the DPs had the advantage, but in the braking zones and high-speed corners the LMP2s showed their pedigree.

The Sebring race itself was marred by too many full-course cautions. There were 11 safety-car periods and 1 red-flag period. In 2013 there were only 4 full-course cautions. The final safety-car period determined the outcome of the overall (and prototype class) winner. The #01 Gnassi Riley-Ford DP's last pit-stop came immediately before that last yellow, and had there not been a safety car period just then, it would have had to make an additional stop for fuel, which would have taken them out of contention. Meanwhile, the #1 Extreme Speed Oreca-Nissan LMP2 pitted later and would have been able to see the checker without an additional stop had the race remained green until the end. Unfortunately for the Extreme Speed team, that final yellow meant that the #01 DP would not have to make any further stops, and the frustratingly long (28min) safety car period did not leave enough green flag racing to catch Marino Franchitti in the #01. In trying to catch the leader, Ryan Dalziel in the #1 set the fastest lap of the race. But that is endurance racing; luck always plays a role.

My take on the DP vs. LMP2 race is that the LMP2 cars did much better the longer the green-flag stint. In the first half of the race, there were barely any full-stint green flag periods. The DPs gained an advantage from the abbreviated stints and from the re-starts that accompanied them; their greater torque meant better acceleration, which also helped in traffic. In the latter stages of the race things calmed down somewhat with regard to caution periods and the greater green-flag running allowed the LMP2 cars to show their stuff and they traded leading the race.

The playlist (pre-race show, race broadcast in 3 parts, and short highlight video) of the official TUSC Sebring race is on YouTube. My screenshot of the timing screen at the finish can be seen here.

Records?

According to the unofficial results of the Sebring race, a new track record was set by Ryan Dalziel in the #1 HPD prototype. Well, I guess since this is the first race of the TUSC series at that track, it is a record. But let's look at some other lap times to see where that time fits in:

Fastest Race Lap Times

The LMP1 class is no longer included in the 12 Hours of Sebring, so I guess that time could be excluded. In 2008, the LMP2 cars were not cost-capped and ran racing engines, so they can be excluded too. Finally last year's LMP2 car, running to the same basic regulations as 2014, was just beaten out by Ryan in the HPD, so yes it is a new record. This is pretty remarkable, since last year LMP2 ran an open tire formula (though with Dunlop having pulled out of the ALMS, the teams were stuck with off-the-shelf Michelins), while this year for the first time they ran on Continental spec tires. There were some restrictor breaks given to the LMP2-derived prototypes.

The Problem with Caution Periods

Beyond affecting the outcome of the race, numerous caution periods also frustrate teams and the enthusiasm of the fans. They also make bad video and the on-air commentators run out of things to talk about. There is no doubt that caution periods often are needed to assure the safety of drivers, corner workers, and fans. But other organizers and other tracks have found ways to reduce the impact on races and reduce the duration of these safety periods.

By designing and equipping strategic run-off areas with "snatch-tractors" or winches, an otherwise undamaged or slightly damaged car can be retrieved and returned to the track under a local yellow, no need for a safety car if a competitor spins or otherwise gets trapped in the kitty litter.

Another more radical innovation in safety periods has a name: Code 60. This was pioneered by the Creventic organization, which sponsors a series of 12 and 24 hour endurance races worldwide. Code 60 has also been adopted by VLN the organizers of the Nurburgring 24 and other races. Under Code 60 purple flags (and/or lights) are deployed and cars must slow to 60km/h (37mph) no matter where they are on the track, and no passing is allowed. This is the same speed that the pit-lane speed-limiters are set for, so maintaining that rate is simple. With no safety-car, the pits open sooner and there is no need for the elaborate "wave by" before the end of the safety period; their duration is shortened considerably. Had Code 60 been in place at Sebring, the time spent under caution would have been substantially reduced. We still would have needed at least 3 safety car periods and the red-flag period; repairs to the track and removal of extensive debris would require it. Purple flags don't stop fires.

 Not too long ago the  European Le Mans Series went for an entire season (5 6-hour races) without a full course caution. Of course, this was partly due to high driving standards as well as doing more under local yellows.

The Prototype Challenge class was involved in the major collisions of the race. One collision in particular pointed out the need for greater discretion among the drivers. The #87 PC car of Gaston Kearby made the most dangerous track re-entry from a spin I have seen in quite a while. It was "t-boned" by the #08 PC of Alex Tagliani at speed. Once the bad decision to re-enter the track was made, Alex could do nothing to avoid the collision. I'm curious about the fallout, if any, from this incident. This and another high-speed collision of PC cars proved the safety of the carbon-fiber tubs of the FLM09 chassis the hard way; all four drivers walked away from those collisions. Beyond the two collisions, it seemed that every time the race went green, another PC car was spinning off the track and were sometimes the cause of the safety-car periods when they became stuck in the runoff areas and had to be towed out.

Media Coverage

Prior to the race weekend it looked like U.S. coverage of the race would be restricted to 3 hours at the start of the race to live TV coverage on Fox Sports, with the remaining 9 hours streamed on IMSA.com for those outside the Fox coverage areas. On March 12th, there was an announcement on the IMSA web site that a new site had been established (http://www.fanschoice.tv/schedule) that would stream live video of some of the TUSC races, including Sebring. At the time it was unclear what restrictions there might be (geoblocked?). As it turned out, there seemed to be a last minute decision to stream the entire 12 hours of  Sebring live from the IMSA.com web site, and there didn't appear to be any geoblocking. The stream was clean, solid and supported up to 720p HD resolution. My only real complaint is that IMSA should have made this decision earlier and advertised it more widely. Oh yes, that new site did not appear to actually stream the race. I appreciate the improved streaming coverage, but the way it came about confused many fans.

The audio coverage of the Daytona race on MRN was, to be kind, disappointing. For the remainder of the TUSC season, MRN has added Greg Creamer and Ryan Eversley to the broadcast team. This is a major improvement and a step in the right direction. The problem was that in a 12 hour race, you need more than one competent team of commentators. For the shorter TUSC races (all but Watkins Glen and Petite Le Mans), this new team should prove a big win for MRN. I still miss the coverage we used to have from Radiolemans.com however.

These two steps (expanded streaming coverage and upgraded commentary) shows that IMSA is trying to make things better for the fans. They need to keep up the good work and do a better job of keeping everyone informed of the changes in a timely manner.

Officiating

I don't have the heart to discuss the officiating. I don't think anyone has expressed the problem better than Graham Goodwin of DailySportscar.com: http://www.dailysportscar.com/?p=25310

Daytona 2014: The Start of an Era

Well, it finally happened. The inaugural race of the new U.S. endurance racing era, the 52nd running of the "Rolex 24 at Daytona" by the Tudor United SportsCar Championship (TUSC) has been run. As I write this (Jan 28) the official results have not yet been posted but you can see the results in a screen-shot of my browser at the end of the race here. In the third hour of the race, fans were horrified by a bad shunt between Memo Gidley's Corvette DP and Matteo Malucelli's Ferrari 458 GTLM which put both drivers into hospital, Matteo suffering a serious concussion, and Memo requiring surgery for broken limbs and back. Let's all hope they recover fully.

After all the balancing of performance done over the last year and the testing at Daytona and Sebring during the off-season it might be interesting to take a look at some lap times:

Fastest Race Laps by year and class

So after some new aerodynamic upgrades, an extra 50hp and other allowances, a Daytona Prototype managed to cut just about 2 seconds (1.997) from last year's fastest lap. The DPs had to forego their new front splitter for safety reasons, but we may see them again on other tracks. The GTD class (last year's Grand-Am GT class) managed about a 1 second (0.947) improvement over last year; in both years it was a Ferrari 458 setting the pace.

I feel justified breaking out the DPs from the P2s and the Deltawing because these are really three very different cars running in a single class. On lap times it would appear as if TUSC had done pretty good job of balancing the performance of the cars in the Prototype class. If you had seen them on track, it would seem somewhat different. The P2 cars were very much slower on the long straights, being passed by GTD cars routinely, only to catch and pass them on the infield road course. The 3 car types within the prototype class get their lap times in different ways. The DPs have about 100hp and a much higher top end advantage over the lighter P2 cars, which have an advantage in the twisty bits and under braking. The Deltawing was very fast in the straights, but couldn't match the P2s in the corners. Daytona, and other power tracks will favor top-end speed, while more technical tracks should favor the more nimble cars. Let's hope that TUSC doesn't cripple the P2s in favor of the DPs; let their overall performance allow each their advantages to shine on the appropriate tracks. The P2s did better than I had expected: there was 1 in the top 5, 2 in the top 10, and 3 in the top 15. If the Morgan-Nissan hadn't had that alternator failure (lost 16 laps), there may have been 2 in the top 5, but that's endurance racing.

The new Mazda SkyActiv diesel prototypes were two of the slowest cars on the track, and they didn't make it to the finish. I think it was a brave effort to bring out such a radical car in so public a forum for what amounts to extended testing. I have my doubts about how much they can improve, but such guts deserve our patient understanding.

The end of the race was marred by controversy. At the checkered flag Level 5's 1st place GTD Ferrari was assessed a penalty for avoidable contact with the 2nd place Flying Lizard GTD Audi thereby giving the win to the Lizards. There was no contact between the two cars. Some 3 hours later, the ruling was reversed, returning the win to Level 5. This kerfuffle shows two things. The bad thing was they robbed a team of their public victory on the podium. The good thing was that TUSC eventually did the right thing. In the NASCAR-centric world the wrong would probably not have been righted; once the fans have left the stands, the race is done and no changes to the outcome would take place. So, I am optimistic that TUSC will continue to evolve and adopt those values that the ALMS exemplified.

About the Coverage

The Daytona 24 is one race that I have never been able to watch "live" in the past due to the fact that Grand-Am only ever televised it live on Speed, which my local cable monopoly never carried. Now Speed has become Fox Sports, and I still can't see it. I was able to see the first 2 hours of the race this year on the basic cable Fox channel. The only legitimate streaming video that I could have seen was between the hours of 9PM and 7AM  EST (10PM to 8AM AST) at IMSA.com, but the start of that stream experienced technical difficulties, so I went to bed. I got up at 5AM AST (4AM EST) to watch the last 3 hours of the streaming coverage, which ended early BTW.  I was at least able to watch any of several on-board cameras for the entire race (thank goodness). The audio commentary of Bob Varsha, Dorsey Schroeder and company was very good for the 2 hours on Fox that I could watch. I can't say the same for MRN commentary that was my only option for the other 22 hours.

I realized I was in for a hard slog when the MRN announcer stated that this year's PC class was known as LMP2 in last year's ALMS (face palm). No, afraid not. Last year the PC class was known as LMPC for "Le Man Prototype Challenge" in the ALMS. What made the error more glaring was that last year's ALMS LMP2 was actually running in this year's TUSC Prototype class. That was just a taste of the inadequate MRN commentary. Let's put it this way, much of the time I just listened to the car noises from the on-board videos and turned MRN off altogether. When I did listen to MRN, they seemed to cover the overall race leaders almost exclusively, even when some of the best racing was often in the GTLM or GTD classes. I have never missed Radio Le Mans more than for this race, but I fear that they will be missed on every round on the TUSC calendar. I think it a travesty that the voice of the ALMS has been lost to fans of U.S. endurance racing. My only hope is that in future races there will be a live stream (that I can actually get) that has the Fox Sports commentary team and/or members of the RLM team.

Beyond the audio and periodic video coverage, there was live timing and scoring that allowed me to follow the race. Back in the day I followed many races (ALMS, ELMS, Le Mans) with only RLM commentary and live timing and scoring. I would rather have decent commentary and good T&S, than mediocre commentary with video. I found a source for live timing and scoring that was (IMHO) better than, and certainly easier to follow, than that supplied by IMSA.com.

Live T&S: http://www.livescoring.us/scoring.php

The screen-shot of the results referenced at the top of this posting utilized this site.

Before the start of the season it was claimed that archived race video would be available on IMSA.com 24 hours after broadcast. It has been over 48 hours and I'm still waiting to see when it gets posted. Welcome to the future.

UPDATE: The Daytona race video archive was posted in 4 parts today (Jan 30th). So far a total of about 10-11 hours of the race. Fortuitously these videos are being archived on the Tudor Championship channel on YouTube and YouTube recently became available on my Roku 3, so by subscribing to that channel I can now watch the race archives conveniently on my LCD TV in up to 720p resolution. Oh yeah, and the commercials are edited out.

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.