ACO, IMSA need a shared vision of sportscar racing's future

The LMP1 class is set for an overhaul of its technical regulations for 2020 and beyond. A possible future direction is aligned LMP1 and DPi regulations, creating a common top class for the FIA World Endurance Championship and the IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship.

While a common top class would be desirable, the differences in the ideologies of the WEC and IMSA may be problematic. LMP1 is more of a technology-driven class whereas the DPi class is aimed to be cost-effective. Some compromises would be needed to create a single class.

In a way, the WEC and IMSA are like Formula One and INDYCAR. In both cases, there are a FIA World Championship and its American counterpart. While it's good to have alternatives in open-wheel racing that complement each other, sportscar racing is a smaller sport and would do better without unnecessary division.

If anything, the LMP1-DPi division is like the CART-IRL split. Both are examples two different visions of the same sport. Just like the American open-wheel sport's recovery after the unification has shown, it would be better also for sportscar racing if its sanctioning bodies shared the same vision of the future of the sport.

The ACO and IMSA may have different goals for the top classes of the World Endurance Championship and the WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, however they have the same needs. In the best interests of the sport, those two organizations should put their own goals aside and concentrate on the common needs and create a common class structure. Instead of having manufacturers divided between two series, it would be better to see them all in both series.

Even if the WEC and IMSA adopted a common class structure, both series could still have their own identities. The WEC would have Le Mans, IMSA would have Daytona and Sebring. While the WEC goes to modern F1 venues around the world, IMSA has old-school road courses and even some street courses in North America. Even with a common class structure, the WEC and IMSA would compliment each other like F1 and INDYCAR do.

Single-race finale should not decide NASCAR championships

The Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series concludes this weekend with the Ford EcoBoost 400 championship race at Homestead-Miami Speedway. The single race determines the top-four positions between Martin Truex Jr., Kyle Busch, Brad Keselowski, and Kevin Harvick, with the highest finishing of those drivers winning the Cup Series championship.

I am not a huge fan of the NASCAR playoffs as I think they undermine the credibility of the championship. I'd like NASCAR to get rid of the playoffs, or at least not determine the championship in a single race.

Below are the 2017 championship standings leading to Homestead-Miami under some alternative scoring systems, and for comparison the same for 2016. The systems I have used are:

1. Full-season points with no playoffs.
2. 10-race "Chase" between the 16 drivers qualified for the playoffs. The same bonus points are added to the reset points as were added to the reset points in the Round of 16 in that year's playoffs.
3. A playoff format where the Championship 4 carry points from the Round of 8 into the final race. Like in earlier rounds, you advance (win the title) if you win the race, otherwise points will decide.

2017:

If NASCAR had no postseason format and the championship was awarded based on total points, Martin Truex Jr. would have secured the 2017 Cup Series championship after Texas with two races remaining.

A 10-race "Chase" with a points reset before the last ten races would have made the championship somewhat closer, though the championship would still have been decided before the final race as Truex would have secured the title in the penultimate race of the season at Phoenix.

If the points were carried from the Round of 8 but you could win the championship by winning the final race, the championship would be open by definition. Truex would lead the championship by 53 points to Kyle Busch, 57 points to Kevin Harvick, and 80 points to Brad Keselowski. Harvick and Keselowski would need to win at Homestead-Miami to win the championship. Busch could, in theory, win the championship by winning the Stages 1 and 2 and finishing the race in second place, though only if Truex failed to score more than one point.

2016:

If the 2016 season had no Chase, Kevin Harvick would have entered the season finale leading his title rivals Joey Logano by 25 points and Brad Keselowski by 37 points. Harvick would eventually have won the championship by 27 points to Logano whereas Kyle Busch would have beaten Keselowski for the third place. The actual champion Jimmie Johnson would have finished the season eighth in the full-season points.

A 10-race "Chase" with no playoffs would have resulted in a five-way battle for the championship at Homestead-Miami. Kyle Busch would have led Joey Logano by seven points and Matt Kenseth by 26 points. Denny Hamlin and Jimmie Johnson would have had an outside chance, 34 and 39 points, respectively, behind Busch. Eventually, Busch would have won the championship by five points over Logano whereas Matt Kenseth would have beaten Hamlin and Johnson for the third place.

If the Championship 4 had continued from the Round of 8 points in the season finale, Logano would have been leading Kyle Busch by five points. Johnson, 40 points behind, and Carl Edwards, 47 points behind would have been in a must-win situation. As Johnson won at Homestead-Miami, he would have won the championship also in this scenario, though beating other playoff contenders wouldn't have been enough had some non-playoff driver won the race.

Conclusion: Exciting championship doesn't need single-race finale

I think the 2016 season shows NASCAR doesn't need the controversial single-race finish to the championship. Even with the full-season points most championships would go into the final race; before this season 2011 would've been the last time when the title battle would've been mathematically over before the final race. If anything, 2017 has been an exceptional season from Truex and Furniture Row Racing. It wouldn't be the championship format's fault if he was already the champion, the others just haven't been good enough.

That being said, I'd be fine with a 10-race Chase for the Cup like it used to be. Ten races is enough to determine who is the best of the title contenders. There would be enough time to recover from some bad luck, though it would still be an intense title battle.

But I'm starting to dislike the playoffs more and more each year. Playoffs belong to team sports where the teams are divided in multiple conferences and divisions and you need to determine the league champion. The single-race championship finale is what I dislike the most about the playoffs, it's like a single-game Stanley Cup Final after the best-of-seven series in earlier rounds.

However, the NASCAR management seems to embrace the playoffs. Unfortunately, in my opinion. At least this year's format has rewarded success over the full season as the playoff points from the regular season and earlier playoffs rounds are carried throughout the playoffs. But a single race for the title is still a flaw of the format, it undermines the credibility of the championship as an award for the best season.

If the playoffs are in NASCAR to stay, at least I wish the championship would be decided by points unless none of the title contenders win the championship race. If you continued from the Round of 8 points, the championship round would basically be a four-race series for the title unless somebody wins the final race.

Despite Ferrari's quit threat, F1 needs more level playing field

Following the FIA and Liberty Media's release of the planned Formula One engine regulations for 2021 and beyond, the Ferrari president Sergio Marchionne has threatened to leave F1 because of the rules that reduce the powertrain uniqueness between manufacturers.

Ferrari with all its racing heritage is a valuable asset for F1. In an era where the level of the competitiveness of the F1 grid is questionable, traditions help to keep fans committed to the series. However, F1's viewership is in decline and it's obvious something needs to change. F1 needs closer competition. If current manufacturers don't want it, the FIA needs a create a ruleset that attracts other manufacturers and provides closer competition.

The disparity of the grid is a big problem for F1. It's okay to have some disparity, that keeps up the interest in if a team can close the performance gap or even gain an advantage over its rivals. But the disparity of resources is the problem, be it technical resources or financial resources. A series supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports should be full of teams with the resources to become a championship contender. That's not the case with F1 these days.

F1 also needs more engine manufacturers. None of the seasons in the 2010s have had more than four manufacturers, the lowest since I don't know when. Car manufacturers raise the profile of the series. It would be great for F1 to have rivalries like Honda vs. Toyota, or Mercedes vs. BMW vs. Audi. Also, more manufacturers would mean more publicity for F1 as they would use it in their marketing.

I think F1 would ideally have enough engine manufacturers to have none of them supplying more than two teams. That would be five to seven manufacturers. Given the preferential treatment to the factory teams, the low number of engine manufacturers hurts competition in F1. That being said, no matter how many manufacturers there are, I think the FIA should require the latest-spec engines available also for customer teams.

As for Ferrari, its brand needs top-level racing. Not necessarily in F1, though it's hard to see any alternatives. The World Endurance Championship is a niche sport outside the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Formula E is still hardly a true alternative for F1, the cars are still so much slower. INDYCAR lacks the global exposure and manufacturers are limited to supplying engines there. If Ferrari left F1 for any of those, it would quickly realize people aren't tuning in to watch Ferrari.

None of the existing series suit Ferrari's brand as well as F1 does. Maybe Ferrari will bring up the idea of a breakaway series, though I think it's too big of an undertaking. If F1 is too expensive for most manufacturers at the moment, how could manufacturers that oppose the cost cutting create a new series? Privateer teams would surely not join the breakaway series so each manufacturer should field up to six cars to get the grid filled.

I hope Liberty Media and the FIA will work for a more level playing field in F1. More equal prize money distribution would help to reduce the financial disparity between the teams. The aim of the future regulations should be to reduce the costs, making F1 more affordable and attractive for both new teams and engine manufacturers, while still leaving room for innovation.

Closer financial parity should lead to closer parity also on track. In turn, that should make it easier for the smaller teams to attract sponsors, further closing the financial gap and helping to match the bigger teams in the engineering.

At the moment there are two tiers of teams in F1. Only half of the field has the resources to contend for titles in the near future, the other half of the field is more or less fighting for their existence. The goal for the future of F1 should be a series full of teams with technical and financial resources to contend for championships. That may never have been the case, though that should be the goal anyway.

If F1 can provide attractive racing for the fans, then Ferrari wouldn't be badly missed if it left the series. Though Ferrari wouldn't want to be aside from such an attractive series that's such an important part of its brand. Liberty Media and the FIA must think about the best of the sport, not cater to Ferrari's wishes.

INDYCAR and IMSA need Virtual Safety Car

Jay Frye, President of Competition and Operations, has told INDYCAR is looking for ways to keep the pits open when a caution period comes out, in order to make the running order less random.

I think INDYCAR needs to find a way to keep the pits open under yellow at road and street courses. There have been races every season where a driver lost a likely victory because the race went under a caution right before his pit stop. While you can say the team had the chance to pit the car earlier, races where a caution period produced a random result still undermine the credibility of the series. INDYCAR can provide exciting racing even without caution periods shuffling the running order.

The needs are different for different tracks. On road and street courses as well as on the longest ovals, you can stay on the lead lap after a green-flag stop if you were close enough to the leader. That means you are going to fall behind the pitted lead-lap cars if you stop under the yellow. On short and intermediate ovals you lose a lap or two during a green-flag stop. If you stop under the yellow, the cars that pitted earlier will get a lap back on you but you're still ahead of them.

On road and street courses, the closed pits can destroy your strategy if you had not pitted before the caution came out. Open pits would allow you to lose less track position than if you pit when the pace car has bunched the field. On the other hands, closing the pits is very much necessary on short and intermediate ovals. If you kept the pits open but slowed the cars down when the caution comes out, the cars that pitted under yellow could have gained a lap during a pit cycle on those who pitted under green.

An F1-style virtual safety car procedure is an obvious solution for the road and street courses to keep the pits open when the caution comes out. Instead of rushing into the pits, the cars would be slowed down to a speed safe for the track workers. As the cars that pitted under yellow wouldn't fall into the rear of the pack, the restart order would be more representative of the running order before the pit cycle.

The virtual safety car isn't a completely neutral solution. While closing the pits is costly for drivers who are yet to pit, the virtual safety car reduces the time lost in the pits compared to a green-flag stop. Pitting under the VSC procedure can help you to overtake another car during a pit cycle and even gain some time.

The virtual safety car reduces also the need for the physical safety car. It could be used when local yellows don't properly ensure the safety of track workers but it's a short interruption. For longer interruptions I would still use the physical safety car. It would minimize the gains any driver achieved by pitting under the VSC procedure and it would put the restarts on road courses in line with the oval procedures.

Restart procedures another issue

Closed pits aren't the only problem of INDYCAR's caution procedures, restarts are another issue, especially when it comes to lapped cars.

There may be lapped cars between lead-lap cars in restarts. Those cars would have been there even without the caution so they don't really take away from racing. Though sometimes the lapped cars may race aggressively to get back to the lead lap, like Esteban Gutiérrez did at Mid-Ohio last July.

In restarts with less the 15 laps to go, the lapped cars are moved to the back of the field. That is a bit of a strange rule; it feels a bit like creating a close finish, though you can also see it as a way to ensure the lead-lap cars can race without interference from cars that have no chance for a good result.

In a situation more common on ovals, if a caution came out in the middle of a pit stop cycle, you may end up with the lead-lap cars separated by lapped cars. Assuming all lead-lap cars have pitted under the yellow, the cars between the pace car and the race leader receive a wave-by. While some cars get back to the lead lap in the wave-by, they may still be separated from the leading cars by some lapped cars. An example of that is the race leader Simon Pagenaud and the second-placed Will Power being separated by four cars in a restart at Phoenix last April.

Although it may sound artificial, not having lapped cars between the lead-lap cars in the restarts might be better for the racing. In a way, having the lapped cars between protects the cars that had a big lead to the cars behind before the caution came out. Though if the car ahead really is better, it should be able to successfully defend its position.

Of course, if lapped cars are moved from between the lead-lap cars, it will be more difficult to race back to the lead lap. There should be some rule to give those cars a chance to get back to the lead lap, be it like the lucky dog in NASCAR or the wave-by for the lapped cars in F1.

Of those two, I prefer the lucky dog rule because you need to earn it once you get lapped unlike a systematic wave-by. INDYCAR already has, wrongly, a systematic wave-by, allowing you to get a wave-by and pit under yellow. For example, that allowed Tony Kanaan to recover from two laps down to finish second at Texas last June. If the leader pits from behind the pace car, the lapped cars between the pace car and the new leader get a wave-by. That's the standard procedure in different series, though most series give the wave-by only one lap before going back to green, not enabling a stop under yellow.

IMSA has the same issues

IMSA's caution procedures are closely similar to INDYCAR's, making it different from other major sportscar series.

While most international sportscar series have a virtual safety car procedure that allows keeping the pits open throughout a caution period, IMSA closes the pits until the field is bunched behind the pace car. IMSA's procedures make it easier to gain back laps; all you need is to stay out under the caution and if all lead-lap cars ahead of you pitted you'll get the wave-by. If the pits remained open, you could gain back a lap only if you could unlap yourself when the leader has pitted.

Just like in INDYCAR, IMSA's caution rules make it risky to stay out longer than other cars. Your strategy may be destroyed by a caution period before your stop; if the pits remained open you could pit once the caution comes out and you'd lose less track position.

I think IMSA's caution procedures are flawed. IMSA should follow the likes of the FIA WEC and the Blancpain GT Series and introduce a virtual safety car procedure and possibly also local slow zones.

Different goals, same needs for top sportscar classes

With Porsche leaving the LMP1 class after the current season, Toyota is set to remain as the only OEM brand in the top class of the FIA World Endurance Championship. Meanwhile the IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship will get its fourth OEM in Acura in the top Prototype class for 2018.

Both the ACO and IMSA would surely welcome new manufacturers into their top prototype classes. Yet instead of making the manufacturers choose between the two series, the two sanctioning bodies should unify their regulations to allow manufacturers to participate in them both.

When deciding for the future of top-class prototype racing, the ACO and IMSA should look at what makes GT3 maybe the best class in sportscar racing at the moment. Although GT3 was originally intended to be a class for customer racing, there are some de facto works teams. But also customer teams can succeed in GT3, and selling GT3 cars is a business for the manufacturers.

In a way, IMSA's Prototype class is reminiscent of GT3. The DPi entries are more or less works teams, yet also the privateer LMP2 entries can succeed there. IMSA has probably the healthiest prototype class at the moment; there will be four OEMs represented in 2018, though it's also an affordable class for privateer teams.

While Toyota is set to be the only OEM left in LMP1 in 2018, there are several privateer projects to join LMP1. However, the budget cap between Toyota and those privateers may be too big to provide close racing on track. And even if the privateers could match Toyota in lap times, the hybrid technology allows a better fuel mileage Toyota, putting them at an advantage.

The main goals for the future of the WEC's top class should be affordability and parity. IMSA has achieved that with the DPis and LMP2s, although the parity comes from the Balance of Performance.

LMP1 has featured some of the most advanced technology in all of motorsports. But maybe it would be better for the class to have more cars and closer parity than feature the latest technology. If the WEC got rid of hybrid technology, it might lose Toyota, though it might gain Cadillac, Mazda, Nissan, and Acura from IMSA. Hybrid technology doesn't anymore draw manufacturers; Audi and Porsche left LMP1 for Formula E.

IMSA has a top class that attracts both manufacturers and privateers. That's what the WEC would need. Develop IMSA's prototype class into a global top class and it could be the prototype equivalent to the successful GT3 class. It would be an affordable class for manufacturers and they could even sell cars to privateers who could succeed with them. I'd like to get rid of the BoP, though the rules should remain simple to ensure a close parity of the field.

An aligned class structure would enable the inclusion of Daytona and Sebring in the WEC calendar as co-sanctioned races with IMSA, not as a doubleheader with separate races. A World Championship is supposed to have the biggest races, those two are the biggest races in the USA. Even if the FIA's bureaucracy prevented co-sanctioned races, the same cars could participate in both organizations' races and sportscar racing as a whole would be the winner.

Of course, change takes time. The new LMP1 privateer entrants have entered under the assumption no OEM can enter with a non-hybrid car. Allowing non-hybrid factory cars would not be fair for the new LMP1 privateers. The DPis are designed for a BoP class; getting rid of the BoP would not be fair for those manufacturers.

It may not be the right time to align the class structure in the next few years, though it should be the aim for the near future. The ACO and IMSA may have different goals for their top classes, though the needs are the same; an affordable class for both manufacturers and privateers with parity. GT3 would be a good example of that, apart from the need for the BoP.

GTE vs. GT3 divides manufacturers

Just like prototype racing, also GT racing is divided in two top classes. GTE is the top GT class in the ACO's and IMSA's class structures, though it's GT3 cars that are racing for overall wins in races like the Nürburgring 24h and the Spa 24h.

While both classes are pretty healthy at the moment, the division feels a bit unnecessary. There are some manufacturers (Porsche, Ferrari, Aston Martin, BMW) represented in both classes, though GTE is more of a class for manufacturers with an emphasis on factory programs (Corvette, Ford) and GT3 for manufacturers with an emphasis on customer racing (Audi, Mercedes, etc.).

There are certain differences between GTE and GT3 machines. GTE cars don't have ABS and they are built to stricter rules than GT3 cars which rely more on the BoP to achieve parity. However, also GTE uses the BoP.

Because of the need for the BoP in both classes, I don't really see any reason to keep them separated. The BMW M6 is not built to GTE regulations, though IMSA allowed a modified GT3 car into the GT Le Mans class in the past two seasons. While I like the limited driving aids of the GTE cars, I don't really see the need for the stricter technical regulations given that it's a BoP class.

The ACO surely doesn't have much need for the GT convergence at the moment, given that GTE is a healthy class at the moment and has been gaining new manufacturers. But wouldn't it be great to see Bentleys or McLarens in the GT class at Le Mans, or Corvettes or Ford GTs racing for the Nürburgring or Spa 24-hour wins?

The SRO, the sanctioning body of the Blancpain GT Series, has been trying to preserve the pro-am nature of the GT3 class. That's understandable; as long as there's customer racing, the class is a more sustainable business for the manufacturers. If it gets predominantly factory racing, it's mostly spending for the manufacturers.

I'd like to see a top GT class where each manufacturer has a basic car intended for pro-am racing with an option to upgrade it for all-pro classes. That would be somewhat similar to what BMW has done with the M6 in IMSA. That would also make the factory programs more sustainable, given the customer racing business in GT3.

If all GTE cars were based on a GT3 car, we might see more manufacturers in the GT fields of the WEC and IMSA as well as in Blancpain. Instead of fighting for manufacturers against each other, the sanctioning bodies should try to create regulations that allow participation across different series. The sanctioning bodies may have different goals for their classes but their needs are the same. In a sport like sportscar racing, incompatible class structures do more harm than good.