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.