Guys, thinking about O'Brie's suggestion of allowing motors up to 30K and Steve's suggestion of allowing any motor, I have one concern with higher RPM motors. As Steve mentioned, with restricted downforce they will actually make the cars harder to drive. This means potentially more de-slots and heavy crashes, something we all would like to avoid. I do though understand O'Brie's suggestion that LMP cars should be quicker than GT cars to more closely reflect what happens in real endurance racing.
Its strange how these things sometimes come up when someone else is thinking along the same lines. In this case, that someone else was me and what I was thinking of during last weekend's Le Mans race was a revamping of our
LMP-E and GT-E regulations for that past one-off event so that we can do it again sometime in the future. If you recall, Ramesh was able to prepare an LMP-E and a GT-E car that both outpaced all other LMP-E and GT-E cars. While this is not surprising considering his amazing car-prep skills, it shows that the regulations were still too close for these classes to have a definite separation in performance.
What I was thinking to do for the LMP-E / GT-E regs revamp is slow down the the GT-E cars by restricting motors to 18K (any brand) and placing the magnets 40 mm ahead of rear axle (like VS6075). In the case of LMP-E, motors would be restricted to 23.5K (as per the current RGT and RLMP regs) and require that magnets be placed ahead of rear tyres (like MP). In both cases, the USD rule will apply. Cars would also have a minimum overall weight of 80 gm. The whole idea is in keeping with the general trand of slowing the cars and reducing downforce.
Having said all of this, I feel that if we want a performance difference between RGT and RLMP, I feel we should be slowing down the RGT cars instead of speeding up the RLMP cars. As things stand at the moment with the rules, they will have identical performance potential.
Changes have been done (indicated in 
