GRAND AM DP
Daytona Prototypes have received much bad press for their looks, but taking the stillborn Corvette LMP Evo concept into production might change all that
said Doug Louth, Pratt & Miller’s director of engineering. ‘That lined up with what Chevy Racing – GM Racing at the time – was interested in. They wanted to race either production-based vehicles or vehicles that are associated with and have conceptual transfer between racing and production.’ With the stillborn LMP Evo
class forgotten, GM Racing found itself with an interesting mix of racing programmes. After more than a decade of success with its ALMS and Le Mans GT factory effort, the brand’s core identity with ACO-based competition was intertwined with its production- based Corvette activities. But building a bespoke
Prototype to challenge the likes of Audi and Peugeot was never going to get the internal support, or the eight-figure budget required. However, with increased factory involvement in Grand-Am, specifically through providing its 5.0-litre LS7-based V8 engine, a cost-effective Prototype alternative began to emerge after a visit from Grand- Am founder, Jim France.
Having identified the need to beautify its ‘visually challenged’ DP body shapes for the 2012 season, the manufacturer and sanctioning body didn’t need to look far for a solution. A more relevant body form already existed, the Corvette LMP Evo serving as a guideline for what was possible. ‘Grand-Am, GM and Chevy
liked the idea so much, and that interest coincided with discussions with Grand-Am on where they might go [in the
With both parties working
in concert, the first modern Prototype shape with unmistakable production-inspired styling was set in motion. Although the Corvette LMP Evo shape is very similar to the Corvette DP, Louth says it wasn’t just a case of dusting off a five- year old design and sending it to the shop floor to be produced. ‘A lot of the [LMP Evo] features are there, but the Corvette DP didn’t originate from the same CAD files, or the same development work,
“all the primary body pieces
are identical between all three chassis manufacturers”
future], and the next steps for Grand-Am and DP racing specifically,’ said Louth. ‘Concern over the image of the cars and product identity all kind of lined up with the concept for the Evo, and it made sense to Grand-Am. So the car really evolved from that. We then worked very closely with Grand-Am to flesh out the details.’
10
www.racecar-engineering.com • February 2012
or anything like that. The width and height and overall length are all different from that original proposal. It really was a clean sheet for what you see today.’
ENGINEERING CHALLENGES Rather than mapping out plans to generate all-new Daytona Prototypes, discussions turned towards modifying the existing
DPs manufactured by Coyote, Dallara and Riley Technologies to fit the series’ desired styling cues. According to Louth, making fundamental changes to the greenhouse structure was the first engineering challenge. ‘We worked with Grand-Am
to come up with a body / rules package that could fit around the existing chassis structure. So, with the exception of modifying the rollcage to allow for a smaller greenhouse and working from helmet clearance and lines of sight needs, the body really was a clean sheet, but built around the existing DP chassis. In the end it served the same purpose [as] it meets a lot of the objectives the original Evo concept was going after.’ After taking over the manufacturing of the Coyote chassis last year, Pratt & Miller went into the Corvette DP project with a clear idea of what was required to fit the carbon fibre body on its own chassis, and quickly drew Dallara and Riley into the process to develop a standardised fitment routine. ‘We all had to meet
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100