being rational, it's the way forward, both series were facing problems in the future some more public than others, if they get it right it could lead to big things with US endurance racing becoming more closely aligned with the ACO which could benefit all.
so what would i, who enjoyed watching both series on tv, like to see as the new series class structure ?
for all we know, they've already got a good heads up from the ACO regarding the 2014 WEC regs impact and if the rumoured regs are correct then i'd expect there to be a lot of homeless current P2 cars then so i'd hope the Grand American Le Mans Series or whatever it end up as will use them without modification as it's new top class, i'm sorry P1 but your time has gone at a private level, there'll be no new cars built for the one year remaining in WEC, the works cars will never appear in private hands so the best you can hope for is being balanced in the P2 class but it's simpler to just drop them. depending on 2014 WEC regs eventually P2 may be replaced but i'd suggest that a regional series is not the place for works backed P1 replacements, almost inevitably it rises and then falls as budgets are effected by results leading to just one manufacturer becoming dominant.
according to star works the DP's over a full grand am series are more expensive to buy and run than the current P2's in the WEC and with a surplus of P2 cars on the market it may be that P2 is a cheaper option than DP in a US series so rather than modify the DP regs to make them faster and more expensive, let them run as a second class for the near future, eventually i'd like to see them evolve into an ACO blessed prototype "feeder" formula, sort of a cross between the current DP, ALMS PC and Formula Le Mans
after that what they don't need is a glut of GT classes with cars that all look similar or even identical but are running in different competitions which just confuse the casual spectator / viewer
given that a Grand Am porsche, ferrari or audi is substantially more expensive than a normal GT3 car ( i was talking to some one from united auto sports last year about this and they said the audi price was "crazy") i'd hope they adopt pure GT3 rather than series specific regs. plus if you allow "standard GT3" it increases the choice of manufacturers for teams.
after GT3 is tricky, and depends on the series' relationship with the ACO,
GT am would make sense but the all porsche GTC class in ALMS has been a success so you could keep it as the bottom class, identical cars mean close racing and controlled costs, i'd be tempted to allow the 458 challenge cars in with it but then you've either got to run 2 separate championships or got to the expense of performance balancing, if running both i'd personally award a 911 GTC and 458 GTC championship as costs are the killer factor these days
the obvious alternative is GT2, this is dependent on the relationship with the ACO, if the new series is recognised by them, GT2 makes sense instead of the GTC
finally let's not loose sight this is an american championship so something that allows US manufacturers to go at it with each other, even if only by private projects
the RX8 factory blessing is likely to disappear with mazda's desire to run in P2 so that clears the boards for a new, non spaceframe class,
it needs to be viable for teams to take a car that's not raced and make it competitive so try and tap into the wonderful amount of spec race parts the US tuning industry has been turning out for years, eg specs like a 5 speed H pattern trans from any source. try and find a way to easily and cheaply balance performance of stock shell race caged cars running front engine RWD, maybe allow or even insist on some arch extensions and control the aero developments, NASCAR are really good at quantifying performance so they should be able to get the balance pretty good. depending on if GT2 is running, this "GT US" could either run slower than GT3 and above GTC or at GTC pace
so we either have
P2
DP
GT3
GT US
GTC
or
P2
DP
GT2
GT3
GT US
if the second scenario, then offer porsche a support race series for supercup cars, that would make a great event on race day. followed by a protoype lites round before the main event.
if you need to fill the program more, do it at first on a track by track basis using popular local series, it'll give the drivers/ teams some publicity, a taste of the big time and may encourage spectators attracted by the big names to come back to watch the locals again. importantly make sure the support races get TV coverage, Tv coverage is a tool to increase support, not a revenue stream in it's own right, the BTCC in the UK shows what can be done with a complete package increasing sponsor opportunities for drivers/teams which boosts participation. which makes it more attractive to spectators etc. eventually you may be able to attract other one make series, 458 challenge maybe or a US manufacturer could be interested, a vette only series would look and sound fantastic.
that's my ideal, and has taken almost an hour of re writes, cutting and pasting, no doubt everyone will have their own ideas but if there's three things i'd say were essentials, it's to control costs / increase choice by not using series specific versions of internationally available cars, to become internationally "relevant" and work with the ACO etc rather than against them and to produce a total "package" to offer live spectators, tv companies and viewers to enable teams to attract sponsors and make the series more viable
in a related area, the governing bodies need to get a grip on GT3, the idea of an open class is great but the amount of exemptions is getting stupid, i'm sorry ferrari but if your 458 is too wide it shouldn't be racing and getting an advantage from that exemption and then everyone else building wider cars to compete.
no exemption should provide a competitive edge, just equality so if you need to run a wide car be prepared to have your tyre width reduced, larger engine viper? ok but don't complain that air restriction hurts your top end, carbon tub? ok mclaren but don't be surprised if we insist that you fit ballast where we want not where it benefits you.