|
I am a bit late to the game regarding responding to comments that are doubtful about the open source model, or just outright confused as to how it would work. I don't have deep understanding of how Perrin did this, but my understanding is that...
* Who actually "physically" creates the parts (i.e. number of subcontractors) is irrelevant. Perrin is the manufacture and is doing the things required to homologate the car (crash testing, etc.). What Perrin does is to pull the entire thing together and deliver a product.
* IP is open source and should have some type of licensing agreement. I have not researched what their agreement is, but for example may include clauses that derivative works also must be open as well. But yeah, if this chassis has promise, someone else could make their own. But they would have to go through the homologation process, etc. I am relatively sure they can't piggy back off the Perrin homologation. Especially if they tweak the design!
As a side note, I am curious how this worked back in the Group C/GTP days in which various suppliers created Porsche 962 monocoques. Was the homologation rules different then? Was there some type of blessing from Porsche? Did they have to construct them to an exact spec (I am pretty sure that is not the case as I believe different construction methods were used)?
* Regarding viability of this business model, I broadly assume money is always expected to be made on the initial rolling chassis plus ongoing support. I don't know the specifics around what parts are homologated and are required to go through Perrin, but anything that is not homologated that was provided by Perrin could potentially be provided by someone else (including the team themselves). Generally speaking in the world of monetizing open source, you just go in saying you have to provide a superior customer experience when compared to the next guy to make money. You don't rely upon IP protection (exclusivity) to make your money. Plus, broadly speaking, the overall R&D cost should be less given the open source design (I assume part of the open source concept is that Perring received help at no cost from outside resources) so there should be less cost to amortize over X number of chassis.
* Putting aside the question of the capability of the design (unproven as of yet) or the company, the reason people would buy cars in this scenario from Perrin is that they are in fact really not much different than any other provider. You get a car built to a spec (LMP1). It is homologated. And Perrin will provide ongoing development. The IP ownership is the main new/odd thing. Also, Perrin is the "one throat to choke" when/if there are problems. But this also gives you the option of not pushing the problem to Perrin, but also solving it yourself (assuming no homologation issues).
Overall, I think this is a great thing to try. Open source designs may have long lives. It may or may not be the foundation for innovation, but I suspect that in the long run, if regulations are stable, and the number of constructors are not limited by regulations (ala LMP2), it may help reduce costs.
Richard
|