[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion

[Akrapovic]

Has Tandy not ran into a few cars over the years in IMSA? Did it at Spa too.

[Hawkwood]

Tandy wouldn't be the only driver to run into another car.
Hartley did it this year too for example, costing his car a good shot at victory.

[ederss7]

I'd personally like to see Lotterer and Bernhard together. I'm a fan of both.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Hawkwood

Tandy wouldn't be the only driver to run into another car.
Hartley did it this year too for example, costing his car a good shot at victory.

...While it's debatable which is the better skill to have.

Hartley's error was a driving mistake. Tandy seems to just run into others in rage....

[gert]

Originally Posted by ederss7

I'd personally like to see Lotterer and Bernhard together. I'm a fan of both.

If they don't drive together, that doubles your chances of seeing one of your favorites win the race (or championship)

[Victor_RO]

http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/p...d-lmp1-lineup/

As most of us were probably expecting, the trios next year will be Bernhard-Hartley-Bamber and Jani-Tandy-Lotterer. The former #1 car (now the #2) needs to keep the same proportion of Aus/NZ talent.

[Spyderman]

I got my preference.

[J Jay]

I can't see any reason to complain with those lineups.

Jani & Lotterer in the same car is formidable enough (dare I say the best two racers in LMP1?*), before you add the ever-aggressive Tandy to the mix. I'm sure Bernhard will also work as well with Bamber as he has done with his other Antipodean teammates.

*Awaits incoming disgruntled Davidson fans...

[Akrapovic]

Lottrrer - Jani - Tandy is an amazing line up. I know which car I'm supporting.

[gert]

2 very very strong lineups.

[TF110]

Worst kept secret these past two weeks! Glad that Lotterer gets to stay in the WEC, he's one of the best in lmp1's. But let's see how he does transitioning to a non-diesel. Sarrazin's example may apply, but he's a bit older than Andre.

[chernaudi]

They'll need it with a now three year old car and Toyota pumping in more money and resources into TMG's WEC project.

[gert]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

They'll need it with a now three year old car and Toyota pumping in more money and resources into TMG's WEC project.

It's not like there is no evolution on the car, right.
I'm pretty sure the car at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2015 are quite different.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by gert

It's not like there is no evolution on the car, right.
I'm pretty sure the car at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2015 are quite different.

Actually no.
It is very much the same, just some Aero mods/switch between packages. Any major changes would have meant re homologation.

[chernaudi]

Still a three year old and it's not like a decade ago where Audi were still able to milk more speed out of the R8. And it's not like Porsche are facing the TMG WEC program from '14/15 where TMG and Toyota let '14's dominant car turn into an also ran because they didn't have the same resources committed to the program that Audi and Porsche did.

I'm sure that Porsche will evolve the car, but they're right at the 8MJ hybrid ceiling (and have been since 2015), you can only do so much with an old engine and an old tub, and Toyota have a newer car with more development potential. And we already know the scope that TMG are willing to go now--and have the support from Japan now--with developing the TS050, including rebodying the car, an improved hybrid system, and an improved or even rumors of a new engine.

[gert]

Originally Posted by CTD

Actually no.
It is very much the same, just some Aero mods/switch between packages. Any major changes would have meant re homologation.

I don't mean it's a totally different car, just that it has a least evolved.
Aero development is also development.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Still a three year old and it's not like a decade ago where Audi were still able to milk more speed out of the R8. And it's not like Porsche are facing the TMG WEC program from '14/15 where TMG and Toyota let '14's dominant car turn into an also ran because they didn't have the same resources committed to the program that Audi and Porsche did.

I'm sure that Porsche will evolve the car, but they're right at the 8MJ hybrid ceiling (and have been since 2015), you can only do so much with an old engine and an old tub, and Toyota have a newer car with more development potential. And we already know the scope that TMG are willing to go now--and have the support from Japan now--with developing the TS050, including rebodying the car, an improved hybrid system, and an improved or even rumors of a new engine.

Toyota improved on their 2014 car by over two seconds at some places. They didn't let it become an "also-ran", they simply got outspent. It's not like they did nothing to the car. On top of that, Porsche and Audi went up a spot in the MJ class, Toyota stayed in the same (6mj) class. This is a prime example of why the WEC has a budget issue. Because you get the teams that spend near f1-level money and even a car that was dominant the year before, improved by seconds the next, is left obsolete.

Everyone is going to rebody their car next year because the ACO is going forward with the downforce reduction measures, sadly. They should have left the rules as it was from 2013 but added the front wing/diffuser and full width rear wing with the updated hybrid rules. They could go ahead with the fuel cuts which reduces power and cap the hybrid output if they so feel. But now we get these disproportionate, skinny, tall looking cars everyone had to develop from scratch because new chassis rules mean you didn't have much left over from 2013. Those dimension rules were fine and you had 8 years (from 2006) worth of knowledge just tossed out.

[chernaudi]

And they also had 20+ years of knowledge with air restrictor engines thrown out, too. IMO, better to have kept the 2000mm wide cars with more aero freedom, the wider wheels and tires, and keep the air restrictors but encourage more freedom with hybrid tech. And not by arbitrary stuff like the ERS classes and the BS "ERS incentive", but instead target a range on fuel to make with a set fuel capacity. That's how LM '75's rules were, that you had to make it to about 20 laps between fuel stops and it didn't really matter how you got there, just as long as you got there.

The reason why the WEC has a budget issue is because this rules package was intended to last only three years--2016 was supposed to be the last season of the current rules. LMP900 lasted from 1999-2005 without major changes, first gen LMP1 lasted from 2004-2008 without major changes. Since then, we had the stupid 1600mm rear wings in 2009, the engine downsize regs that lasted from 2011-2013, and now, which those rules were originally intended to be no good aside from a one season grandfather clause as of the checkered flag at Bahrain a couple of weeks ago. Now, the current rules are supposed to be good and largely unaltered until at least 2020. Better than nothing to the ACO, but IMO, too little, too late.

And you can blame the how the ERS incentive was implemented for the rise in costs. It made everyone in the end place as much as possible all their eggs into the hybrid basket, which screwed the private teams over more than ever, and the rise in budgets was due to a desire to realize this in the shortest time possible, as the 2014 rules were due to be out the door at the end of 2016. That's the exact opposite of rules stability.

Fact of the matter is that Audi and Porsche shouldn't have been forced to spend well over $100 million a year to exploit a rules package. But even now Toyota know that they can't rely on getting by with a $80 million or so budget like Audi did in 2012 and '13.

You can't blame the other teams for spending what they felt they had to to get the job done, given that the ACO were solely responsible for it with how they did the ERS incentive and the fact that they originally gave teams only a three year time frame in the technical regs to get what they could from it ASAP.

Granted, if Toyota can milk more than two seasons out of the TS050 and do so competitively, more power to them. If anything, the postponement of the 2017 regs back to about 2020 will help them. It'll also help Porsche, as they don't have to reinvent the wheel entirely to counter Toyota. Too bad that the ACO weren't thinking of this while Audi were still around, and it took them leaving to wake the ACO up on the issue.

If Audi Sport were able to be guaranteed a situation of where they didn't have to spent so much money, time, energy and manpower to get to someplace yesterday today and the incremental improvement that Toyota though would keep them competitive in '15 (which we all know backfired badly post Silverstone in '15) would've made things sustainable, and it'd be easier to justify keeping the LMP1 program running. But it wasn't due to badly fading ROI in terms of expense in terms of money, time, energy/manpower and man-hours vs final results.

For everyone, I'd argue that this is as bad as the Winter War when Russia and Finland fought over parts of Finland that the Russians wanted. Russia won, but at what cost? It took them three in a half months to do what they probably should've been able to do in three weeks, Russia lost prestige in international standing and become something of a joke, and it convinced Adolf Hitler that a German invasion of Russia in the period of 1940-41 could work if the Germans were able to hit hard and fast enough.

Not to mention that the badly outnumbered and largely technologically downtrodden Finns often dominated battles with the Russians throughout much of the conflict, too.

But the history lesson not withstanding, both about recent sportscar racing and World War II (which the Winter War was part of), on paper, Porsche are probably a lot closer to exhausting the 919's potential than Toyota are with the TS050 are now. How much closer we won't know until the cars are on track. But I'd argue even with the refreshed driver line ups the odds are a bit on Porsche's end. Toyota do have a newer car, and have been moving around drivers on the teams as well to counter the likely moves that they knew that Porsche would make.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by CTD

Actually no.
It is very much the same, just some Aero mods/switch between packages. Any major changes would have meant re homologation.

What changes would mean re-homologation?

[Spyderman]

Confirmed that Porsche will only have two cars for Le Mans.
http://www.motorsport-total.com/busi...380&r=1024&n=1

[bjohnsonsmith]

Porsche to run new 919 this week.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127410

[CTD]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

What changes would mean re-homologation?

The specifications listed in the Homologation Form and all the aerodynamic elements of the car can be changed only by the car Manufacturer and with the Endurance committee agreement.
They will then be homologated by the Homologation Group. Once the Homologation Form has been validated by FIA, the Manufacturer shall give a copy of it to the owner of every car sold after filling the first page (chassis number, name and address of the owner).

Page 7
Le Mans regulations 2016

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The reason why the WEC has a budget issue is because this rules package was intended to last only three years--2016 was supposed to be the last season of the current rules. LMP900 lasted from 1999-2005 without major changes, first gen LMP1 lasted from 2004-2008 without major changes. Since then, we had the stupid 1600mm rear wings in 2009, the engine downsize regs that lasted from 2011-2013, and now, which those rules were originally intended to be no good aside from a one season grandfather clause as of the checkered flag at Bahrain a couple of weeks ago. Now, the current rules are supposed to be good and largely unaltered until at least 2020. Better than nothing to the ACO, but IMO, too little, too late.

You keep romanticizing an era that had only one manufacturer for 4 years and never more than 2 for 6. Only two years in that period in general did two manufacturers race against each other for an entire season (Audi/BMW ALMS 2000, Audi/Peugeot LMS 2008)

Audi drove competition out because they couldn't afford to compete against direct injection or diesels, the only thing that has changed is the size of the numbers and the name of the technology. The new rules were created to try to give Le Mans a selling point to compete against F1 and other motorsport to break that trend, and 18 months ago they looked like they were doing a great job.



Anyways, the current 919 is not a 3 year old car any more than the TS050 is. Both the 2015 Porsche and 2016 Toyota are completely new cars based on the same chassis concept as the 2014 car (if anything the Porsche is a bigger departure than the Toyota). Toyota has a newer engine, but that just put them on even ground with Porsche with the correct type of engine for the regulations. There's no reason for a big difference in the potential of the cars.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

You keep romanticizing an era that had only one manufacturer for 4 years and never more than 2 for 6. Only two years in that period in general did two manufacturers race against each other for an entire season (Audi/BMW ALMS 2000, Audi/Peugeot LMS 2008)

ALMS also had Panoz. Panoz were only a handful of points off of BMW in 2000 and they won races in 2001 and 2002. I think people forget that from 1998 - 2003, Panoz weren't the mess they are now. They had a car that could win races. Fine it wasn't as good as the Audi, but it wasn't an insignificant entry. If you watch some ALMS 2000 races, especially the street circuits, the Panoz mixes it with the R8s.

[carbsmith]

I don't discount Panoz's competitiveness, but it's not really fair to call them a factory manufacturer team in the same way. Audi was stuck racing the Acuras and Porsches for a couple years but that wasn't on equal ground either. Apparently Porsche wasn't even supposed to compete with Audi until ~2010, which might explain some of Audi's annoyance with the situation.