Connect with us


ACO Open to Common DPi/LMP1 Platform for New 2020 Regs

Fillon, Neveu open to possible common LMP1/DPi regulations for 2020…

Photo: Peter Burke/IMSA

ACO President Pierre Fillon and FIA World Endurance Championship CEO Gerard Neveu have expressed their desire to have a common LMP1 and DPi platform with IMSA for its next set of regulations, due in 2020.

The FIA and ACO revealed changes to its LMP1 regulations last weekend, alongside a switch to a winter calendar beginning with a 18-month “Super Season” for the WEC, which kicks off in May.

With the adjusted LMP1 rules locked in for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons, technical delegates and prospective manufacturers are set to meet in the coming weeks to begin discussions for a “substantially altered” set of 2020 regs.

That could include an evolution of IMSA’s DPi platform, with Fillon open to the possibility of common LMP1-DPi regulations.

“We have to open the discussion,” Fillon told Sportscar365 in Mexico City. “What is the future of LMP1 and what is the future of DPi?

“Remember that I was very enthusiastic about a common prototype between [ACO and IMSA] and for me it’s not a dream. I think we can work on that.”

While Fillon felt IMSA’s DPi concept drifted too far away from the FIA and ACO’s new-for-2017 LMP2 regulations, he now sees a potential opportunity with LMP1.

IMSA’s four-year homologation cycle for its current DPi platform ends in 2020, which coincides with the launch of the new LMP1 regulations later that year.

A number of questions, however, would still need to be answered, including the use of hybrid powertrains, which the ACO is hoping to continue with in its top class, but in a more cost-effective manor.

“I hope we will go in this direction,” Neveu told Sportscar365. “If this partnership works very well between IMSA and the ACO, when we are looking for the long-term, in 2020, why we cannot imagine to have a [joint set of regulations] or something like this between these cars.

“It could be an interesting way. The DPi could be with LMP1.

“I don’t know how it would work; that’s not my question today. But we stay totally open to discuss.

“Our interest is to see a very strong WeatherTech Championship with a very high level. We have to find the best way to run together and to do a clear development.”

It’s understood a number of manufacturers, including McLaren, are behind the concept of common regulations that would allow the same base prototype to compete for overall wins in the 24 Hours of Le Mans, Rolex 24 at Daytona and Twelve Hours of Sebring.

McLaren Technology Group Executive Director Zak Brown said they would “seriously consider” mounting a prototype effort should there be a global platform eligible in both championships.

“If we could come up with a formula that works for all, I think that would be great for the world of sports car racing,” he told Sportscar365.

Neveu and Fillon, meanwhile, have downplayed the prospects of current-generation DPis being part of the WEC, or having its own class in the 24 Hours of Le Mans in the short-term.

“DPi is a very interesting model,” Neveu said. “It’s working today in North America for the WeatherTech Championship.

“This car is fighting with LMP2s. I have no space in the WEC to welcome an additional category.

“If the question is, we don’t have LMP1 so we can maybe imagine DPi. But that’s not the case. We have Toyota, we still have Peugeot working seriously to arrive. There’s other manufacturers that are interested.

“We have at least 4-5 LMP1s coming next year with privateers. This category clearly exists.

“I cannot say to Dallara and the other people building [LMP1 non-hybrids] for [the class] to disappear. That’s not the question.”

Fillon noted that the current DPi interest level for Le Mans may not be as high as initially suspected.

With being nearly 100kg heavier than LMP1 non-hybrids and producing 100 horsepower less, it’s unlikely the cars, in its present configuration, would be able to challenge for the overall win on outright pace, should it be allowed.

“The performance of DPi is [very similar] to P2,” Fillon said. “Do you think if DPi would want to go to Le Mans without fighting for the [overall win]? This is a very good question.”

John Dagys is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Sportscar365 as well as the recently launched e-racing365 Web site for electric racing. Dagys spent eight years as a motorsports correspondent for Channel, and contributes to other publications worldwide. Contact John



  1. Anthony

    September 4, 2017 at 9:52 am

    I wonder if Fillon knows the whole point of DPi was to have manufacturers involved at the LMP2 level, which means common speeds.

    • AudiTT

      September 4, 2017 at 4:47 pm

      Which clearly no longer makes sense.

      The manufacturers are developing cars that can go 2-3 seconds quicker than LMP2, then being pulled by by BoP. At the same time IMSA needs an entry level Pro/Am prototype class, which LMP2 can fulfill if not linked with DPI.

      Things are fine for a couple of years, but by 2020/21 change would suit everyone.

      • Anthony

        September 4, 2017 at 5:10 pm

        I agree, but when the idea of splitting DPi and P2 up was brought up earlier some P2 teams cried foul.

  2. daedalus

    September 4, 2017 at 9:59 am

    I agree DPI in le mans and wec ain’t gonna happen before 2020, it would be impossible to cut 100kg of weight and add 100hp to a big block NA engine such as the caddys. They would need to switch to a light weight small bock and add some turbos to get over 700hp. I doubt the aero kit would match current lmp1 cars so you’r looking at a complete redesign.

    if they are going to unite lmp1 and dpi in 2020 the aero rules need to be really restrictive because the privateer lmp1 cars and even dpi manufactures will struggle against the mclaren aero department using f1 tech.

    • Fan

      September 4, 2017 at 10:17 am

      Shaving weight not easy. But adding 100hp to the LT based small block 6.2 of the caddys is easy. Hell the air restrictors alone could be half that. These engines respond very well.

      • fourloko

        September 4, 2017 at 12:12 pm

        the corvette uses the 7.0 block, dont know why the caddy wouldnt too.

        • Matt

          September 6, 2017 at 12:08 pm

          Dude the corvette in gtlm uses a 5.5L v8

    • NorthSask

      September 4, 2017 at 10:26 am

      Making 700HP with an LT1 based engine wouldn’t be a problem, at all, in fact you could make a lot more than that, and many examples do. The Caddy engine is being reigned in greatly to keep it at the same level as the competition. Given the similarities in the tubs between P1 and P2, shedding 100kg would be more of a money issue than a technical one.

      • lowtechcrapsux

        September 4, 2017 at 11:15 am

        Yeah, I know, the turbo engines could NEVER make that kind of horsepower, the Caddy is being choked, it’s the only one that could go that fast, blah blah blah.

        If you clowns want to listen to a bunch of V8s running around, stick with NASCAR.

        • Slicks in the wet

          September 4, 2017 at 11:23 am

          V8s sound great. I like V12s more.

          Why you hate on loud engines?

        • fourloko

          September 4, 2017 at 12:21 pm

          3.5 seemed pretty capable of making power when it was in prototype. now trying to do that out of the 2 liter mazda would be another story. would probably be mid sized displacement v6’s or v8’s.

        • NorthSask

          September 4, 2017 at 3:48 pm

          Lol, when you have absolutely no point to make or leg to stand on for your pointless rant, call everyone names and accuse them of being stock car fans for point out facts…

          • AudiTT

            September 4, 2017 at 4:52 pm

            The Caddy could produce big power, and the intention of the new LMP1 regs is to help everyone be on the same performance level. Question is what sort of mileage could they get given direct injection is considered essential by Ginetta for their Mechachrome V6TT.

        • Andy Flinn

          September 4, 2017 at 11:46 pm

          Lowtech…, if you want to see Toyota’s super high-tech yet still unreliable LMP1 battle a handful of privateers on their way to victory (Finally? Maybe?) at Le Mans, stick with the WEC in 2018.

          This is the whole reason they’re being forced to adopt new regs for 2020.

      • daedalus

        September 5, 2017 at 7:52 am

        I know the current engine can do 700hp easy but it’s missing my point. You will never get the car weight down to 800kg (including driver) with a large 6/7L engine in the back, hence the need for a small block with turbos. The weight of the tub is determined by crash standards,suspension is already pretty light and wheel weight restricted by regs so all it leaves is bodywork and drive train.

        • Keith

          September 5, 2017 at 8:31 am

          The Caddy/Corvette engine is a small block by definition. It is not a big block sized engine at all. They are all aluminum block and heads. You could even run the corvette 5 liter. I do not think the weight of this engine is much different then the old Toyota V8 or even the Gibson.

        • Andres

          September 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm

          The GM Big Block is dead by now, they only produce aluminuim Small Blocks, and is one of the lighttest engines these days, the LMP2 base chassis has the same weight as the base of LMP1, remember it is the same type of car, they only add ballast to them to achieve that extra 100Kg

        • Trevor

          September 6, 2017 at 11:01 pm

          I can’t remember where exactly I saw it, but I believe the GM 6.2 actually weighs less than the 3.5 Ecoboost. 4 cams and a pair of turbos and associated plumbing adds quite a bit of weight despite having fewer cylinders.

    • Mike S.

      September 4, 2017 at 11:26 am

      Yeah big $$$$ increase in budget when things like this happen. Again not against the idea but is it sustainable for a term that is realistic for 3-5 years? Easily get back to $100m budgets to be competitive. Don’t like all spec racing even though there is a need for it out there. Always the million dollar issue for planners of any series. Go spec. to supposedly keep costs down vs innovation which won’t keep budgets sustainable ling term.

    • el_gordo

      September 4, 2017 at 12:14 pm

      small or big block the power wouldn’t be a problem, you can order an 727hp 680lb-ft torque big block or a 776 hp small block online at gm performance btw

    • Chad

      September 4, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      Wile DPi at Le Mans is unlikely prior to 2020 the DPI Engines (apart from the Mazda) are more than capable of 700 horsepower. #1, the LT in the Cadillacs are small blocks, the big block doesn’t exist anymore. Plus they are surprisingly light given displacement. Plus The pushrod design may be old but it makes for a compact package with a low CG. #2, the Nissan is can make 700+ as well. It is a GTR based engines and tuners are getting close to 1000 HP. #3, the Honda V6 was built for 600 hp, so pushing another 100 out of it isn’t a challenge.

      Point being that if you rebuild the bottom end all of these engines can make 700 without much effort. Maybe not the Mazda engine, but AER makes a V6 and I’m sure Joest and Mazda could simply swap out the 4 banger for the 6.

      • ben

        September 4, 2017 at 2:15 pm

        Doonan has stated over and over they race what they sell. Mazda does not make a V6 anymore. The largest engine they have is a 2.5T I4. I think we’d have a better chance of seeing the prototype SkyActiv-R rotary used than a V6.

        • Chad

          September 4, 2017 at 6:00 pm

          You say rotary like it’s a bad thing. Also show me the Mazda on sale today that uses the MZ-2.0T. That’s just marketing speech. If Joest told them tomorrow that they can’t win with the 4 banger they’d make the swap. Then tell people this is the pinnacle of engine development and the ultimate test bed for their technology.

        • The Brad

          September 8, 2017 at 5:48 pm

          I’d be down for Mazda to increase displacement of their MZ-2.0T to 2.5L, their car needs more grunt. Can it be bored and stroked?

          Or a prototype SkyActiv-R rotary would be awesome. With laser beam ignition system, and TURBO!. And 3 rotor of course.

    • Todd morrell

      September 4, 2017 at 3:39 pm

      The caddy motor is based on the gm lt1 engine which is a small block v8, that engine could easily be made to produce 100 more horsepower normally aspirated.

    • Vette76

      September 4, 2017 at 5:00 pm

      The passage of the current DPi to LMP1 should not pose too many problems with the engine power and the chassis. The only big advantage of the LMP1 is acceleration with the hybrid system and the weight. In the turns of turns it is only the difference in weight between an LMP2 and an LMP1 that makes the difference. In peak speed the LMP2 are also fast see more than the LMP1. The refusal of the ACO and the WEC is more simply and unfortunately political. Their baby escapes them and they are the only ones responsible. Their egocentrism has taken a blow. It does not matter to them the opinion of the fans and some teams. All pretexts are good to avoid this rapprochement which could however only go in the right direction for everyone. Except for them!

    • Mark - Toronto

      September 5, 2017 at 10:01 am

      Simply increasing DPi performance has other worrying implications, especially for a 24 hour race. The other option for adding Dpi’s to the current WEC grid is to slow the P1 cars to match P2/Dpi entrants and have just “one” prototype category. Although how the IMSA BOP would work at Le Mans between Dpi and P2 I’m not quite sure – I think it would have to be separate yet again from the unique Daytona BOP. But I don’t see a point in this for anyone. I don’t see the value in Dpi cars at Le Mans with current categories unless it’s a need to either adding to a thinning field, or have the additional Dpi manufacturers to justify championship status. And in the short term, I doubt there’s the interest financially and resource wise to bring cars over. Wait for 2020 and work towards compatibility between the platforms if possible.

    • Andres

      September 6, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      The weight in LMP2 cars and DPI is reached with adding ballast to the cars, do you really think that they cannot get rid of it to reduce the 100Kg extra weight?? and the engine can very easily reach 700 Hp, remember that before Daytona the Cadillac engine was closer to the 700 Hp than the targeted 600Hp wanted by IMSA

  3. AudiTT

    September 4, 2017 at 10:03 am

    It’s always made more sense for DPI to adopt regs more in common with LMP1 at the end of the current reg cycle. IMSA is already struggling to keep DPI in the LMP2 performance envelope, never mind 3-4 yrs from now.

    • E

      September 4, 2017 at 10:20 am

      100% agree! Dpi is already lmp 1.5 anyway. Just need to bump up the performance and bit more.

    • NorthSask

      September 4, 2017 at 3:50 pm

      It really makes no sense for IMSA to adopt ACO regs, given how badly the ACO has been missing the mark with their LMP regs and how much better IMSA has done by modifying the platform beyond what the ACO and FIA wanted. That said, it would be much better for the fans if their is LMP convergence at Le Mans and Daytona.

      • AudiTT

        September 4, 2017 at 4:44 pm

        DPI are 90% ACO LMP2 regs.

        IMSA also needs standard LMP2 cars as a cost effective option for privateers.

        From 2020 they’ll be based on LMP1 and so free from chassis restrictions and performance limits.

  4. E

    September 4, 2017 at 10:13 am

    At least it seems it’s a step in the right direction. Fillon basically wants the Dpi but at Lmp1 performance levels. Hopefully both can agree on a set of budget sustainable rules for 2020. Potentially bring in past Group C levels of car count and variety, one can hope.

  5. Slicks in the wet

    September 4, 2017 at 11:22 am

    Lol. What they really meant to say is: “yes LMP1 and DPi could be common. As long as IMSA follows along with whatever stupid expensive idea we have for LMP1. Just like it’s always been.”

    There won’t be any negotiation and ACO/FIA won’t listen to IMSA input.

    • Matt

      September 4, 2017 at 1:06 pm

      Exactly. Basically, the ACO wants to sabotage the DPi platform by entincing IMSA to change over to new rules. I really hope they don’t fall for it.

      • Johannes275

        September 4, 2017 at 1:34 pm

        they won’t, clearly, because IMSA is treating the ACO as irrelevant, just like they should.

    • TF110

      September 4, 2017 at 2:22 pm

      lol, you really believe that trash you just wrote? DPi went against what the ACO agreed upon with IMSA (Nascar) and that’s why they can’t go to Le Mans with their cars now. If you want to change the electronics and engine and bodywork, just make the jump up to lmp1. The chassis rules are the same. The only different is body length and max wheelbase. What this article is saying is the ACO wants the DPi guys to stop beating up on spec cars and step up to the plate where manufacturers should play. It’s not going to be cheap, but it won’t be hugely expensive either with VW twins gone.

      • Matt

        September 4, 2017 at 2:34 pm

        You have the whole story backwards. First of all, the ACO did not honor the previously arranged agreement that IMSA teams would be allowed to run DPI engines in spec bodywork for Le Mans. The spec P2 cars have also almost won multiple IMSA races this year. Have you even watched any races? The manufacturers don’t want to waste their time developing expensive racing hybrid systems for an insignificant return on investment. Even after the collapse of the P1 class, the ACO is still too stubborn to admit it. Therefore, IMSA’s DPi is thriving.

        • Vette76

          September 4, 2017 at 4:23 pm

          I agree with you

        • AudiTT

          September 4, 2017 at 4:58 pm

          IMSA’s DPI currently has the same manufacturers as under the DP/P2 regulations.

          The manufacturers in DPI are already spending big money, only to be pulled back to spec LMP2’s. Using LMP1 as the performance benchmark will see them used to their full potential.

          • Matt

            September 5, 2017 at 3:47 am

            Let them be pulled back…Unless the ACO or IMSA is going to find a more powerful engine for spec P2. It’s the only way the little teams have a chance of winning. The only change that should be made ASAP is unrestricting the number of chassis manufacturers. In time, the spec P2 engines can be upgraded as well and the DPi’ engines could be further unleashed.

        • Slicks in the wet

          September 5, 2017 at 1:06 am

          Matt has it correct. ACO basically backed out at the 11th hour of “talks”, gave IMSA an ultimatum, and caused IMSA to say screw it our team interests will not be served anymore so we’re gonna do what we want then and created DPi.

      • Guy

        September 4, 2017 at 10:27 pm

        DPI can’t enter Le Mans currently, as its part of an FIA world championship – which means it’s for constructors… and none of the DPI brands can’t actually claim to be one of those…

      • Andy Flinn

        September 4, 2017 at 11:50 pm

        TF110, most manufacturers – except Toyota – don’t want to spend (waste?) the money to race in LMP1.

        What don’t you understand about that?

      • Helmut

        September 5, 2017 at 8:42 am

        “What this article is saying is the ACO wants the DPi guys to stop beating up on spec cars and step up to the plate where manufacturers should play.”

        Except if you are Renault, then you are allowed to rename an Oreca with a spec engine into Alpine and have an unofficial manufacturers LMP2 programme.

        • KV

          September 5, 2017 at 3:46 pm

          THE ACO and Vincent Beaumesnil talk out of both sides of their derriers and the manufacturers will make them pay the price rather then vice versa !

    • NorthSask

      September 4, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      That’s exactly what they said. While also throwing shade at DPi for veering too far from their spec LMP2.

  6. Grammar

    September 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm


    not manor. 🙂

  7. ben

    September 4, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    The elephant in the room here is BoP. IMSA specifically uses BoP so all stakeholders have a chance to win. It’s all about marketing in IMSA vs R&D and engineering budgets in the WEC. There’s no way the ACO would allow BoP at Le Mans or WEC for an IMSA P1 class. I highly doubt manufacturers running in the WEC would appreciate running stateside to a BoP either. Not to mention the bodywork styling I think IMSA would like to continue forward.

    • NorthSask

      September 4, 2017 at 3:53 pm

      It’s really not about R&D in WEC beyond LMP1-H, which won’t have much development with Toyota running against themselves. LMP2 cars are locked into their homologation but for one change in four years and the GT cars are all BoP’d…

      • ben

        September 4, 2017 at 4:57 pm

        We’re talking about 2021, which Toyota may or may not be around for. If you have Peugeot running a non-hybrid P1 car and IMSA is on the same regs, you don’t think GM or Ford or whoever is going to skimp on aero R&D if they plan on running Le Mans? Right now the philosophy of IMSA is come with a prototype to market your brand and we’ll make sure it’s a level playing field. The ACO will never go for that and will drag IMSA down the R&D budget drain with them.

      • Helmut

        September 5, 2017 at 8:36 am

        BOP is implemented in the LMP2 regulations of the ACO / WEC, it just hasn’t been used so far.

    • Andy Flinn

      September 4, 2017 at 11:52 pm

      Ben, all of the cars in the WEC LMP2 class are Orecas.

      They don’t NEED BoP!

    • Slicks in the wet

      September 5, 2017 at 1:11 am

      Uuuuh you know LMP1 ran too tight regulations, right?

      Rulebook regulations and BOP tables are, in practice, the exact same concept.

      Why did LMP1 have gas vs electric vs diesel regulations? It’s BOP dude. You think an open R&D Audi can’t do a 3min lap of Le Mans? Why then, couldn’t they?

      STFU about BOP. WEC has plenty of BOP.

      • Helmut

        September 5, 2017 at 8:38 am

        You’re right, but they don’t have a BOP within a certain hybrid category with a certain type of engine. That is, Porsche and Toyota were not “bopped”. This would have happened with IMSA regulations though.

    • daedalus

      September 5, 2017 at 8:03 am

      you have hit the nail on the head ben. If IMSA abandons BOP then the privateers will be forced out and the company that spends the most on R&D on their engine and aero will win, it will be like f1, not something IMSA wants.

      I think they should keep the BOP in IMSA even if it means restricting the new dpi/lmp1 cars allot so they can run as one class with lmp2 and we can have a decent car count. The cars could then run in WEC unrestricted without BOP.

    • A true marketing and Rand D WIN-WIN !

      September 5, 2017 at 3:55 pm

      EVEN with BoP,CADILLAC found a slight advantage,and NISSAN/HONDA BUILT body cues that are recognizable without killing the base chassis dynamic !

  8. William moore

    September 4, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    Doe any of you realize the Mazda is a Ford engine. Current mx5 miatas fave FoMoCo cast in the block .which is ford motor company.

    • guest

      September 4, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      No it is not. Mazda and Ford split years ago. There is no DNA of the Duratec left in the ND MX-5 and the DPi engine is an MZR by name only. The engine is a pure AER race engine only marketed as a Mazda.

    • Slicks in the wet

      September 5, 2017 at 1:12 am

      Lol. Dude.

      Come on.

      So wrong.

  9. John

    September 4, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    This is a much of a political game as a technical one, yet that’s all people focus on.

    It doesn’t matter what the rules are if the ACO can’t attract manufacturers to the top class (whatever they end up calling it).

    The ACO will tailor the rules to whomever expresses a real commitment to entering, just like they’ve done all along. And by manufacturers, I mean major automotive OEMs with recognized marques, not race car manufacturers, or other boutique/niche brands.

    THEY are the tail the wags the dog.

    All the speculation and public posturing is secondary to who will sit around the table and then sign on the dotted line. France, Atherton, Kent, Pericak, and others in similar positions.

    Until then, it matters not what an unrestricted LT can produce.

    • Slicks in the wet

      September 5, 2017 at 1:13 am

      This is why literally everyone hates the ACO.

    • A true marketing and R and D WIN-WIN !

      September 5, 2017 at 4:05 pm

      WHAT is missing is a ENZO FERRARI personality, to step up and play Donald j. Trump,To step TALL on ACO !

  10. Luna

    September 4, 2017 at 7:13 pm

    The arrogant frencies of ACO and FIA have miserably failed with their Lmp1 regs. Now they are trying to use the successful DPi rules to save the WEC and Le Mans 24 Hours, already on life support.

  11. Walter

    September 4, 2017 at 8:00 pm

    By 2020 I do not think we will see any hybrids racing. There are very few LMP1s now that are non-hybrid and not much on the drawing board…because the class is dying with too few entrants.

    Shuttering those regs, and parking those cars (of which there are now very few), and adopting DPi in 2020 would be an easy path to greater car counts and saving a lot of money for the teams by not having to go to a new platform.

    Greater car counts instantly and it would save money for the competitors. Then again, the ACO and the FIA have never had those goals at the forefront of their agenda.

    The reality is that even the major manufacturers are becoming far more ROI conscious.

    • Slicks in the wet

      September 5, 2017 at 1:16 am

      If there are no hybrids its cause they’re full electric.

      The future is electric.

      Get to as many races as you can NOW. I know every generation/era says they are the golden era..not this may be the last golden era for traditional fuel derived, loud racing.

      It’s going to suck really bad in the next decade.

      • Matt

        September 5, 2017 at 3:51 am

        I feel like vintage racing is going to explode when manufacturers try to force electric crap into all forms of racing. People will flock to vintage racing because it’ll be the only way remaining to have a quality experience at the track.

        • WBrowning

          September 5, 2017 at 7:29 am

          Electric cars are giant Freaking RC cars with the “pilot/driver” sitting in the car, and the cars making slight whooshing sounds as they go by, until they need a new car or battery pack, NO THANKS!

          On the DPi/LMP1 front. There is no reason that the new LMP1 car couldn’t be a modified, lighter DPi with more horsepower. The ACO/FIA would save a little face and IMSA bends a bit, but gets their manufacturer based formula that will sell in North America.

          • Truth

            September 5, 2017 at 7:41 am

            Just wait until the petrol engine is banned in the name of environmentalism and race car drivers are banned in the name of safety. This is what the greens want.

    • A true marketing and R and D WIN-WIN !

      September 5, 2017 at 4:09 pm


  12. Axl Rose ate my Buick

    September 5, 2017 at 8:55 am


  13. Blue Oval fan

    September 5, 2017 at 9:17 am

    I shake my head in disbelief, and the European audacity, and complete inability to admit that it has failed. Face it the ACO/WEC is in panic mode, and on life support at the moment, but still has the outlandish gall to say that now it wants to work with IMSA. What they need to do, is come to the talks with new idea’s on how to make DPi better, and then we can have a true WORLD championship, with the Rolex 24, Sebring 12 Hour, Lemans 24, and Petit Lemans. This is what I long for, with manufacturers galore on the grid. I know, I know, but I can still dream. We know the stubborn, and proud Eurocrats will never go along, and say us “Yanks” had a better idea.

  14. John Ramella

    September 5, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    You are the land of Lafayette and will always be welcome in the USA.

  15. JD

    September 5, 2017 at 6:06 pm

    It’s a trap! Any working with the ACO on matching DPi/LMP1 regulations will basically defeat the purpose of the DPi.

    Long past time to just do something like LMP2 Pro, which is the DPi regs, and LMP2 Am, which is the standard spec LMP2 regs, and get rid of LMP1 altogether. I don’t really see the point in having a class that has a revolving door of manufacturers and never more than a couple at a time.

  16. Juninho

    September 5, 2017 at 9:25 pm

    ALMS and WEC in 2020

    Rolex 24 at Daytona (January)
    Twelve Hours of Sebring (March)
    24 Hours of Le Mans (June)

  17. Trevor

    September 6, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    My ideal solution would look something like this:
    Spec chassis suppliers like current DPi with mandatory manufacturer specific bodywork.
    Powertrains must be 100% interchangeable with a production unit and may include hybrid with braking regen if the road-going vehicle is so equipped. Transmission and ECU may be race spec. Minimum production of 1000 road-going vehicles with powertrain. Any modifications to engine internals is limited to metalurgy (ie. Ti connecting rods instead of steel)
    ~800kg weight target
    No BOP!

  18. Raphael

    September 9, 2017 at 8:14 pm

    Patrick meme: “We should axe P1 and P2, and Make a single Prototype Class!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More in FIA WEC