[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion

[500]

Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda

I would say the general racing population could care less when they look back on the record books what the quality of competition was like. I mean it is hard to argue the Audi R8 is not one of the most accomplished race cars ever built. It didn't really have any major competition for its 5 victories, but it still went out and crushed what was on the track.

I think the same is mostly true of the Porsche 956 & 962.

I think in the long run you are correct that the record books will be what they are and many people won't look further. I think in the immediate aftermath, the lesser quality of the field may reduce the impact.

I do disagree with the comparison to the R8 and 956/962s, as in those situations, it was not a case of the cars starting to win after a successful competitor withdrew, which is what the situation should be if Porsche withdrew and then Toyota won against no factory competition. Which would be sad for Toyota, as I think they have a good chance to win next year against Porsche if Porsche stays in.

Also, the 956/962 did face some pretty good competition (Lancia, Jaguar...).

Agree with the notion that this is all about ROI. I did read the linked article (in auto-translated form) and although it mainly summarized points already known. The ROI comes in two major forms: The marketing benefit and the R&D, and these areas are what will challenge Porsche's decision.

For my part, I do hope that they find in favor of remaining in LMP1.

[chernaudi]

To be fair, Porsche didn't always win against the stiffest of competition either, such as Ferrari's half-hearted efforts in '70 and '71 (trying to do F1 and WSC at the same time hurt both programs, even with Fiat's stakeholding in Ferrari), Renault's unreliable cars in '76 and '77, going against privateers in '81 and '82, and Lancia's half-baked efforts in '83-85. Only when Jaguar came in did Porsche IMO face solid competition, and that's when their win/loss record suffered, though they still won LM in '86-87.

Not to mention that '94 came on the back of a factory supported/Joest supported 962C that was converted into a road car to suit GT1 regs, though '96-98 were against huge factory teams, even if it was a semi-works Joest TWR prototype that brought home the bacon in '96-97.

It wasn't Audi's fault that everyone and their brother went off to "greener pastures" after '98-99(Porsche pulling out due to the Cayenne SUV/VAG politics, Toyota and BMW defecting to F1, and M-B concentrating on DTM and F1 engine supply), and they probably could've beaten all comers in 2000 anyways, just by being better prepared than anyone ever had been up to that point, and still hard to beat afterwards.

At least Porsche can claim to have beaten Audi and Toyota in '15 and '16, though '16 was certainly luck enhanced, just like how Audi can claim to have beaten Porsche and Toyota in '14, mostly by being fast when it counted and managing problems better than everyone else.

But in the present context, if there's no good ROI for Porsche, why tank $200 million a year when only one race in the WEC gets F1 or NASCAR level press coverage out of a season long championship, and it's probably more prudent to see how the 2020 rules truly materialize?

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

To be fair, Porsche didn't always win against the stiffest of competition either, such as Ferrari's half-hearted efforts in '70 and '71 (trying to do F1 and WSC at the same time hurt both programs, even with Fiat's stakeholding in Ferrari), Renault's unreliable cars in '76 and '77, going against privateers in '81 and '82, and Lancia's half-baked efforts in '83-85. Only when Jaguar came in did Porsche IMO face solid competition, and that's when their win/loss record suffered, though they still won LM in '86-87.

Not to mention that '94 came on the back of a factory supported/Joest supported 962C that was converted into a road car to suit GT1 regs, though '96-98 were against huge factory teams, even if it was a semi-works Joest TWR prototype that brought home the bacon in '96-97.

It wasn't Audi's fault that everyone and their brother went off to "greener pastures" after '98-99(Porsche pulling out due to the Cayenne SUV/VAG politics, Toyota and BMW defecting to F1, and M-B concentrating on DTM and F1 engine supply), and they probably could've beaten all comers in 2000 anyways, just by being better prepared than anyone ever had been up to that point, and still hard to beat afterwards.

At least Porsche can claim to have beaten Audi and Toyota in '15 and '16, though '16 was certainly luck enhanced, just like how Audi can claim to have beaten Porsche and Toyota in '14, mostly by being fast when it counted and managing problems better than everyone else.

But in the present context, if there's no good ROI for Porsche, why tank $200 million a year when only one race in the WEC gets F1 or NASCAR level press coverage out of a season long championship, and it's probably more prudent to see how the 2020 rules truly materialize?

I'm not going to discuss this Ad nauseam with you, but if you think Ferrari 1970-71 attempt was half-hearted, then you should have let Enzo Ferrari know it. He sold half his company to Fiat so he could finance the building of the required 25 cars so he could compete with Porsche. That is not exactly half-hearted.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

You're all putting to much effort into analyzing what is little more than a conjecture piece compiled of things we already knew.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I'm not going to discuss this Ad nauseam with you,

Past evidence suggests otherwise To be fair this you're not the only one who could have said this. Please take this as gently poking fun at with an underlying hint

What more can be said that hasn't already been said in this thread and others. This will only serve to wind everyone up more.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes.



Past evidence suggests otherwise To be fair this your not the only one who could have said this. Please take this as gently poking fun at with an underlying hint

Whilst I'm certainly guilty of this in the past, I have ......how would we put this these days?.....evolved!

Originally Posted by Adam43

What more can be said that hasn't already been said in this thread and others. This will only serve to wind everyone up more.

I'm not sure what exactly it is that you are identifying that will serve to wind everyone up, but coming onto
a Porsche thread and constantly downplaying their past successes in order to promote another rival brand seems to me to be quite flammable. No?

[chernaudi]

Ferrari may've sold half his company to Fiat to finance both programs, but still suffered in both F1 and sportscars by trying to do both at the same time. It has to be remembered that Matra were also trying to do the same feat at the same time, and both programs were compromised. And Matra was majority owned by Chrysler at the time.

Porsche didn't have that problem, they focused solely on sportscar racing. However, they had their own problem, in that Porsche almost broke the bank to do that and relied on VAG money to pull it off, but without '70 and '71, things might have turned out different as far as Porsche and Le Mans. Porsche had already won everything of importance in lower categories, LM included. All that was left was the overall win. In hindsight, we can say that Porsche's investment in those years was justified by the results.

Fact also seems to be that unless you lived in or seriously studied an era, results are what matters, especially to the marketing people in racing or other sports. Longer term, the ends do justify the means, whatever those means were.

And it's ironic that Porsche almost went broke (especially if they weren't part of VAG even back then) trying to justify their presence at LM in the top class nearly 50 years ago, in that even with VAG's dieselgate lawsuit issues, VAG overall and for sure Porsche are financially healthy, but are questioning present day returns on investments in the top class at LM. As I said, them almost going broke to win LM in the early '70s was, in hindsight, justified. We have the benefit of saying that. It was far from conclusive back then.

But in the present day, Porsche have won LM overall 19 times, on top of more than 100 other class wins (?) at LM over the years. At present, they don't have much left to prove. Even Audi I'd have to say have little to prove at LM in the current climate. Porsche are spending $200 million a season to run the WEC and Le Mans, and it seems that they're questioning that investment.

But we're at the point where Porsche themselves were in 1970, asking and questioning if the investment in money, manpower, time and energy is worth it. Granted, there's big differences, in that back then Porsche were putting their financial stability on the line and had one major goal in racing, vs now where they've won the big show 19 times, companies now part of VAG have contributed numerous other wins (to the point of where companies now part of Volkswagen Group have won nearly half the LM24s ever held) and the company is healthy even with dieselgate and the expensive LMP1 program.

But it seems clear that Porsche are at a crossroad with what they want to do, and only they can make that decision. All we can do is sit back and see what happens, for better or worse.

[Scorchess]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

No this is actually not the case. Porsche's revenue (2016) was 22.3 B Euros (+4%) with an operating result of 3.9 B Euros (+14%).
The ROS (Return on Sales) increased from 15.8% to 17.4% and the workforce grew by 13%
These are not the results of an ailing company.
Furthermore, although the fall out of the dieselgate scandal has had some effect on Porsche AG, it has been limited. Both VW and Audi have felt the effects far more than Porsche.
Please try and understand that ~150M euro is really not going to break Porsche's back.
Having said all that, it is obvious that every Euro spent needs to be thoroughly justified given the the dieselgate backdrop. It is also a good management principle, and Porsche is a very well managed company.
.

Please understand that I wrote this: "the budget for racing". Cash for the racing programme is a problem. As you say.

[deggis]

HDF, Barcelona, from Hartley's Instagram.

[chernaudi]

Unfortunately, the imagine is as blurry as hell, and seems to actually be rather small, and enlarging it to the size in the post makes it even worse.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Granted, only new news in the article (all it does is reinforce what Shruig/MSA/AMuS said a while back) is that it seems that the board vote has been moved up from August to July.

September and before Mexico was mentioned somewhere.

Edit: but Mexico is 3rd Sept. So in practice in August.

[chernaudi]

The MSA/AMuS article (which IIRC also hinted August since Mexico City is I think first weekend in September). Now the Motorsport Total article is hinting sometime in July, possibly near the WEC Nurburgring round.

[bobec]

Originally Posted by TF110

There is a lot of contradictions. Porsche have to justify their money spent and it's too expensive, but they want to spend more money on more 'electric technology' for their "mission future sportscar". That's just one in a list of things that go against each other in that write up.

Making costs and development pace manageable and sustainable is one thing, getting rid of the tech development relevant to them altogether is another.

[bobec]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

Which is not true anyway since Porsche will be spending a lot less money.

The writer is asking for the impossible by setting up false dilemmas.

They really aren't false dilemmas. Manufacturers go to Le Mas to prove and develop new technology. Going back and limiting this opportunity makes racing at Le Mans/WEC a bad deal for Porsche, even if competing would cost less. A lot of the costs are coming not just from the high technology, but also from the skewed incentives and lack of rule stability, which necessitated a tech development pace that is just too fast, and this costly. But others have already said that....

[Scorchess]

Originally Posted by bobec

They really aren't false dilemmas. Manufacturers go to Le Mas to prove and develop new technology. Going back and limiting this opportunity makes racing at Le Mans/WEC a bad deal for Porsche, even if competing would cost less.

Yes, I've said the same.

Hence focus on plug-in technology instead of additional hybrid systems.

The cost savings are meant to get Peugeot in. Porsche also want more competitors.

[chernaudi]

The ACO could've had high technology and reduced costs if they'd stop trying to change the rules every three years and stop doing stuff like the ERS Incentive and just let technology develop at its own pace over a period of about 5-6 years.

As I've said, LMP900 and LMP1 first gen were stable rules packages that lasted a few years. Major rules overhauls every three years and skewed incentives is what's jacked up costs. As Bobec said, a lot of us have pointed this out.

Maybe we should just get rid of the current ACO administration and find the guys who were there pre-2009 and put them back in charge.

[XtC24]

I have an impression that Porsche is now more focused on the GTE program. It seems sensible to cut LMP1 when you still have GTE which is more seducing to manufacturers. Everyone can buy a 911, so this is also far better in terms of relevance and marketing.

I guess there is no possibility to go only to Le Mans and skip the WEC, right ?

I wish ACO would consider such solution. This would reduce costs significantly, even when you had to develop the car just for this one race.
But marketing wise is the only one which matters.
This could attract more manufacturers, and some of them could end up doing the whole WEC season.

[chernaudi]

Well, we do have to remember that Audi ran the ALMS because of trying to jump start Audi of America's marketing, and left after they accomplished that goal to the point where all they had to do as product placement and celeb/stick and ball sports endorsement deals (combined with declining ROI). At the time, the ALMS had the attraction that it was a season long championship in an important market.

I think the same thing was at work for Audi and Audi Sport in the WEC to a degree. LM and a World Championship were a marketing deal for Audi in some parts of the world, but again, it seemed when they got their goals for marketing road cars accomplished, as well as declining ROI for the WEC, Audi pulled the plug and focused on something else.

This does relate to Porsche in that it seems that in both the MSA and Motorsport Total articles that Porsche are questioning the ROI with the WEC and the ACO/FIA's running of it outside of LM.

[chernaudi]

Porsche will demo a 919 at the Red Bull Ring this weekend during the Austrian GP weekend.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Porsche will demo a 919 at the Red Bull Ring this weekend during the Austrian GP weekend.

Cue the obviously biased comparisons.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

Cue the obviously biased comparisons.

I'm guessing they won't be going for a qualifying run

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by joeb

I'm guessing they won't be going for a qualifying run

It'll be multiple Le Mans cars actually from 1970 onwards, I think the oldest car in the demo run is a 917 and among other things there'll be a R18, a R8 and the BMW V12 LMR.

[chernaudi]

Webber is supposed to be driving the car, and he's still backed by Red Bull.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Webber is supposed to be driving the car, and he's still backed by Red Bull.

Perhaps Buemi could show up in a TS050 then - and we could have a proper race.......

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Perhaps Buemi could show up in a TS050 then - and we could have a proper race.......

And maybe the engineers will listen to him this time if he complains about something feeling awry with the car, before it has to be hauled in for a lengthy, race-losing repair.

(Too soon?)

[TF110]

Originally Posted by J Jay

And maybe the engineers will listen to him this time if he complains about something feeling awry with the car, before it has to be hauled in for a lengthy, race-losing repair.

(Too soon?)

Had to be done anyway. Maybe they will skip the battery change like Porsche