Major changes await the ACO’s P2 category in 2017, and for those with sizeable investments in Daytona Prototypes and current P2s in North America, the upcoming move is of particular interest.

The ACO, FIA and IMSA continue their collaboration on a set of common goals and specifications that would bring the TUDOR United SportsCar Championship into the global P2 community, replacing the current class construct where DPs and P2s struggle to race in a balanced manner due to their disparate construction and rule philosophies.

Arriving at a final specification for the 2017 P2 car won’t happen anytime soon, but the ongoing conversation between IMSA and its Prototype participants offers a glimpse of where the formula could be headed.

Of the goals stated by the series, maintaining the custom manufacturer-branded bodywork allowed in the DP category is atop the list which would provide a “unique ability to connect with multiple OEMs via visual branding cues on the bodywork, similar to the current Corvette and Ford Daytona Prototypes,” according to a document that has been circulating the paddock. Continued development of each body kit would not be allowed after it is homologated has been completed.

A shift toward a wider use of alternate fuels is also of interest, with “cellulosic ethanol, synthetic diesel, natural gas” listed as preferred options in place of the current E10 solution.

Cost containment is another priority for 2017, with a stated goal of reducing running costs by 30 percent over the 2014-spec P2s. Adjustments to the actual purchase price of the cost-capped cars will likely wait until the formula is ratified.

P2 performance levels have trended downward in recent years as narrower tires and reduced downforce have increased lap times. Exact targets for an increase in speed have yet to be defined, but IMSA does want its future Prototype car to be faster, somewhere “between P1 and GTE.”

Consistency is another point of interest, with three-year windows defined for the introduction of new cars (2017, 2020, 2023, and so on). Manufacturers would have one exemption to introduce a new car outside of 2017, 2020, etc.

The Balance of Performance construct would be retained and each championship (WEC, IMSA, etc.) will be responsible for their own adjustments.Drilling down into some of the specifics of the 2017 P2 car, the use of common parts is a significant aspect of the concept. At present, each P2 manufacturer builds a completely unique car with no shared components, but to attain the desired budget decreases, a number of single specifications could be created to reduce R&D costs.

A common brake specification would allow multiple manufacturers to participate while building a homologated product, dampers would also follow a specified standard, and a single radiator specification is under consideration. With the different cooling needs between turbocharged and naturally-aspirated engines, the latter item may prove to be an unattainable goal.

The closed-top carbon-fiber monocoque would be built conforming to LMP1 regulations (in terms of strength, safety, meeting P1 crash testing limits, etc.), which is a continuation of the current practice. In the greatest departure from today’s norm, and as the group has stated from the beginning, the tub is expected to conform to a single specification. It’s premature to state whether the common tub will be 100 percent spec and supplied by a single vendor, or if certain areas will be open for interpretation by multiple manufacturers, but regional construction is listed as a possibility which could be of interest to North American prototype constructors.

Dimensions for the cars are targeted to match the 2014 LMP1 prototypes, a spec floor and underwing is under consideration along with limiting aero development once the 2017 cars are homologated. The current P2 practice of allowing high- and low-downforce packages is listed as a desired aspect of the new car, and the use of dive planes on the nose and Gurney flap on the rear wing will carry over as tuning devices. Two sets of gear ratios – one for longer circuits and one for shorter venues – could be implemented with the new car.

With a common tub, brakes, dampers, radiators and at least a spec underbody expected to be ratified, determining the next wave of engine regulations could require the longest gestation period. The current rule package calls for long-lasting production-based engines using gasoline, and of the most popular solutions, a twin-turbo V6 and naturally-aspirated V8s fill the WEC and IMSA P2 grids, with the exception of Mazda’s four-cylinder turbodiesel. The Japanese brand has been lobbying for its inclusion, and provided diesels are permitted, it could open the door for a variety of powerplants using alternative fuels.

Defining the durability and pricing for annual engine leases will include at least 70 hours of running across two engines and the necessary tracks support. Use of a common ECU is expected, and the 2017 P2 steering committee is also interested in exploring the Global Racing Engine concept which has taken root in the DTM and GT500 categories. Provided it’s included, it would align the next-generation P2 car with engines available from Audi, BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Nissan and Toyota.​