[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda

If P1 crumbles, and you are the ACO, what do you do (or what do you think they will do)?

Also, if Porsche pulls out of the WEC (and no one else enters), does the series fold overnight based on the FIA manufacturer requirements?

DPi

[chernaudi]

Article basically says that I've said for a while about rising costs, reduced ROI and the fact that the ACO can't sustain a championship under such circumstances without factory teams and their investments. Ironically, the ACO made the same mistake that Don Panoz made with IMSA by growing fat and happy with the money that Audi and Porsche were dumping into the sport. That fine and well, until VAG decided to cut off the money tap.

And much like Audi, Porsche have become disenfranchised with the ACO and how they're doing things. Dieselgate is a BS coverstory when one considers that VAG are still making huge profits in spite of lawsuit settlements reaching well into the billions of dollars.

Overall, with low ROI and a stale rules package, it might be better for Porsche--or Audi, Peugeot, Toyota or whoever--to just sit back and wait to see now things are materializing on 2020 rather than pump more money into a fading formula.

And should Porsche pull out, then Toyota--if they get things right--will only have to fight privateer teams next year and could win LM on the cheap, but if they screw up like this year again, they could get trounced by private teams with customer cars.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Matt

DPi

It's not the answer for an international formula based on the top endurance race in the world. DPI rules currently have no provision for hybrids or different technologies outside of ACO LMP2s and DPIs with factory designed body kits and stock block engines. LMP1 privateer might be close in concept to DPI, but even then a LMP1 privateer car is expected to be several seconds a lap faster around LM than a LMP2 or a DPI.

DPI is attracting manufacturers who want to race in a BOP category on the cheap. Why do you think that Audi and Joest are reportedly looking at it? IMO, it's make work to keep Audi Sport and Joest involved in prototype racing until (if or when) they decide to go back to LMP1.

Granted, the ACO shot themselves in the foot by disenfranchising and alienating privateers and coming up with crap like the ERS hybrid incentive and going on three year plans instead of a more moderate approach to hybrids and having (from the outset, not as a plan to try and cover up the hole Audi left) rules be good for 5-6 years at a time, as with LMP900 and first generation LMP1.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

It's not the answer for an international formula based on the top endurance race in the world. DPI rules currently have no provision for hybrids or different technologies outside of ACO LMP2s and DPIs with factory designed body kits and stock block engines. LMP1 privateer might be close in concept to DPI, but even then a LMP1 privateer car is expected to be several seconds a lap faster around LM than a LMP2 or a DPI.

DPI is attracting manufacturers who want to race in a BOP category on the cheap. Why do you think that Audi and Joest are reportedly looking at it? IMO, it's make work to keep Audi Sport and Joest involved in prototype racing until (if or when) they decide to go back to LMP1.

Granted, the ACO shot themselves in the foot by disenfranchising and alienating privateers and coming up with crap like the ERS hybrid incentive and going on three year plans instead of a more moderate approach to hybrids and having (from the outset, not as a plan to try and cover up the hole Audi left) rules be good for 5-6 years at a time, as with LMP900 and first generation LMP1.

DPi could technically attract alternative technologies and higher price points. The thing that makes it work, like GTE & GT3, is that the cars are performance balanced, ensuring manufacturers will have a chance to be competitive if they can ensure reliability.

For example, if BMW wanted to run a hydrogen powered Dallara, I think IMSA would be up for that. The problem with LMP1 at the moment, is that it does not have different technologies represented. It just has massively expensive hybrid systems. If that is not your thing, LMP1 is not for you.

[chernaudi]

If Audi or BMW or someone else wanted to run hydrogen, that's allowed in LMP1 after 2020. In DPI, it's a BOP formula to keep things cheap. And seeing how many issues that IMSA had balancing DPIs with ACO LMP2s this year, I don't have much faith in balancing different technologies.

Besides, if anything, DPI being a BOP formula probably keeps alternative tech away.

[500]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Article basically says that I've said for a while about rising costs, reduced ROI and the fact that the ACO can't sustain a championship under such circumstances without factory teams and their investments. Ironically, the ACO made the same mistake that Don Panoz made with IMSA by growing fat and happy with the money that Audi and Porsche were dumping into the sport. That fine and well, until VAG decided to cut off the money tap.

And much like Audi, Porsche have become disenfranchised with the ACO and how they're doing things. Dieselgate is a BS coverstory when one considers that VAG are still making huge profits in spite of lawsuit settlements reaching well into the billions of dollars.

Overall, with low ROI and a stale rules package, it might be better for Porsche--or Audi, Peugeot, Toyota or whoever--to just sit back and wait to see now things are materializing on 2020 rather than pump more money into a fading formula.

And should Porsche pull out, then Toyota--if they get things right--will only have to fight privateer teams next year and could win LM on the cheap, but if they screw up like this year again, they could get trounced by private teams with customer cars.

Lots of truth here…

Dieselgate probably did have some relevance with the Audi pullout, since the whole mess has led to VAG moving away from diesel and, although profitability is still there, having two costly LMP1 programs under the corporate umbrella was an obvious savings opportunity.

Now, the situation, should Porsche withdraw, is much more just down to the ACO and all the issues around rule-making and associated timing. Porsche won Le Mans, but it is clear that the 919 is long in the tooth and with the change in timing of the new rules, Porsche now seems to have the two unsatisfying choices for staying in the WEC for 2018/19: Spend a lot to be competitive with a new/interim car for two years or “make up the numbers” with the now old 919. I guess what will really decide is a deep analysis of just what could be done with the current 919 and if there is some chance of being competitive.

Should this happen, than what will Toyota do? On the one hand, it should be very easy for them to win Le Mans in that scenario, but it would not be a very significant victory (although maybe that is not necessary to reap the marketing value?)

A set of rules with a decent time window of stability, that allow various types of technology, and do not lead to such expensive cars is what needs to happen. I hope we don’t go down the BOP route for the top class though… BOP can produce close racing (like we saw in GTE at Le Mans), but endurance racing has always been mostly about the car, and BOP just takes that away. For instance, I would not say that the Aston Martin was a better race car than the ‘Vette, Ford, Porsche or Ferrari… It can be entertaining racing, but it lacks a crucial element of what the sport was actually about.

Easier to point out the problems than solve them, I get that!

[TzeiTzei]

Just let the manufacturers race in the non hybrid class.

[Scorchess]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

It looks like the end is near : http://www.motorsport-total.com/wec/...reiche-gruende

Did you actually read what was posted? I doubt it.

Just a summary of the rumours that have been regurgitated over and over again already and endless conjecture based on that. Nothing new whatsoever.

It's also very funny in contradicting itself, first suggesting Porsche is apparently pulling out because the new rules don't provide a step up in hybrid power:

Einerseits ist das vom ACO in Le Mans vorgestellte LMP1-Reglement 2020 nicht der große Schritt in Sachen Technologie, den man sich in Weissach erhofft hatte. Der Sportwagen-Hersteller würde gern unter anderem bei der Hybridleistung den nächsten Schritt darstellen. ACO und FIA spielen da nicht mit.

And not a paragraph later Porsche is pulling out because costs are getting too high:

Auch bei Porsche muss man vor dem Hintergrund des Dieselskandals und den damit verbundenen Sparmaßnahmen im Konzern jeden Euro für den Motorsport rechtfertigen. Aus diesem Grund gab es in Le Mans 2016 kein drittes Auto mehr.

This is just a terrible article written by someone who wants Porsche to pull out for whatever reason.

It reads exactly like that one article that was posted over and over again two years ago about Audi leaving WEC and joining F1.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

er.

It's also very funny in contradicting itself, first suggesting Porsche is apparently pulling out because the new rules don't provide a step up in hybrid power:


And not a paragraph later Porsche is pulling out because costs are getting too high

No contradiction there. The costs are getting too high for what they are getting back in terms of R&D, making the whole thing a mere marketing exercise and an obscenely expensive one at that. If there was more of an R&D gain, they'd be able to unlock funds from other sources within the company.

[Scorchess]

The article states that's not possible, in fact it says Porsche already has to justify every euro spent. Because of Dieselgate. Not because of anything to do with R&D. According to the article anyway.

And later it says Porsche might pull out because there's no competition besides Toyota. The only way they will get another manufacturer in is by not increasing costs any more than they already are.

The article sets up three false dilemmas and then concludes the only way to solve them is a pullout. It's a rigged game from the start. Nothing substantial whatsoever. Not to mention it completely disregards all the comments made by Andreas Seidl for example.

[chernaudi]

Fact is that the ACO's three year plans have driven up costs, because you have very few chances to get it right, and if you don't get it right, you're pretty much screwed without spending a huge amount of resources in a very short time to fix it.

LMP900 ran from 1999-2005, and LMP1 (first generation) ran from 2004-2008. In my honest opinion, a good rules package for both prototypes and GT needs to run for 5-6 years with minimal changes. Not what the ACO have done since 2009, with rules being good for only three years, often with significant technical rules changes every season or two in between.

As 500 said, it's easy to point out the issues, it's often not so easy to fix them, and it might be for the best that we're not in the position of the ACO. For as much flak as I've given them over the years, I don't think that a lot of us would want to be in their shoes right now. Not to mention that not all of us will have the same solutions to the problems.

For example, some advocate a modified form of DPI, or DPI as is in IMSA, letting factory teams run to LMP1 privateer technical regs, some even want LMP1 to stay as is, even with its flaws.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

Did you actually read what was posted? I doubt it.

As a matter of fact, unlike some, I never post links that I have not read so please take your condescension some place else.

If you have issues with the article take it up with the writer.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

The article states that's not possible, in fact it says Porsche already has to justify every euro spent. Because of Dieselgate. Not because of anything to do with R&D. According to the article anyway.

And later it says Porsche might pull out because there's no competition besides Toyota. The only way they will get another manufacturer in is by not increasing costs any more than they already are.

The article sets up three false dilemmas and then concludes the only way to solve them is a pullout. It's a rigged game from the start. Nothing substantial whatsoever. Not to mention it completely disregards all the comments made by Andreas Seidl for example.

Exactly. People read into rumors way too often. Even if they do pull out, that article should not be looked at as fact when it's clearly titled like a 'Reasons for/why Porsche pull(s) out'

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.

Hopefully they stay so if Toyota wins, they beat the best. Because if they leave and Toyota wins, it's not as meaningful to a lot of people.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by TF110

Exactly. People read into rumors way too often. Even if they do pull out, that article should not be looked at as fact when it's clearly titled like a 'Reasons for/why Porsche pull(s) out'

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.

Hopefully they stay so if Toyota wins, they beat the best. Because if they leave and Toyota wins, it's not as meaningful to a lot of people.

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.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by TF110

Exactly. People read into rumors way too often. Even if they do pull out, that article should not be looked at as fact when it's clearly titled like a 'Reasons for/why Porsche pull(s) out'

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.

Hopefully they stay so if Toyota wins, they beat the best. Because if they leave and Toyota wins, it's not as meaningful to a lot of people.

I actually see no contradiction at all. I think what Roman Wittemeier is suggesting is that Porsche will need to justify spending a huge amount of money on less or the same level of technology. It's not an issue with budget, but rather the ROI that is being questioned.

[Scorchess]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I actually see no contradiction at all. I think what Roman Wittemeier is suggesting is that Porsche will need to justify spending a huge amount of money on less or the same level of technology. It's not an issue with budget, but rather the ROI that is being questioned.

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.

[Spyderman]

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.

You don't seem to get it: It has nothing to do with the amount of money (That is not the issue), but rather the justification for spending it. The management of the LMP1 program will have a hard time coming up with a business model that justifies the expenditure to the Board.
.Anyway , we will see shortly what happens.

BTW- I have long communicated with Roman, and I can assure you that he would very much like Porsche to continue in LMP1

[Scorchess]

Exactly my point. The writer wants to make it look like the board will say no anyway. There is zero indication of that. If that's true, why did they join in the first place? Do they believe hybrid technology is fully developed? Is the author saying Porsche would have also pulled out if the previous 2018 rules of adding another hybrid system would have been implemented? There's just no logic here.

In fact, it is proven that they are amendable to scaling down the operation (from three cars to two). The money that is spent is clearly an issue. That's the point of agreeing with Toyota to not change chassis for another two years and the cost reductions in the new regulations. The plug-in stuff is the new way of development, which is both relevant and a lot cheaper than adding another hybrid system.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

Exactly my point. The writer wants to make it look like the board will say no anyway. There is zero indication of that. If that's true, why did they join in the first place? Do they believe hybrid technology is fully developed? Is the author saying Porsche would have also pulled out if the previous 2018 rules of adding another hybrid system would have been implemented? There's just no logic here.

In fact, it is proven that they are amendable to scaling down the operation (from three cars to two). The money that is spent is clearly an issue. That's the point of agreeing with Toyota to not change chassis for another two years and the cost reductions in the new regulations. The plug-in stuff is the new way of development, which is both relevant and a lot cheaper than adding another hybrid system.

You seem incapable of understanding the difference between amount of money in cash and the justification of the budget. They could not justify a budget for 3 cars in terms of the return so they get 2 cars. If they could justify improving the hybrid system there would be more money available for that task. There was no return on building a new chassis and if you want to show a great return on the investment, keep those cars around longer. There is a HUGE difference between the amount of money spent and the return on that amount and boards usually care much more about the return than the actual cash. Plus Porsche as the piece of VAG brings in cash as fast as they can print it so actual amount of cash is not even close to a concern for them.

[Scorchess]

They are seperate. Saying cash is not a concern is clearly not true, otherwise Porsche would have had three cars this year and last year. That is a direct consequence of dieselgate and the fewer amount of funds available for racing. That's been very well documented.

I agree that keeping the car around for longer is a good return on investment. That's why, again, it makes no sense to claim that the board would say to stop the programme next year based on that argument. Basically the author is making the claim that the Porsche board wants more hybrid development for less money. Which might be true (hell if that was possible everybody would want that) but there is absolutely no indication of the Porsche board being that unrealistic.

That's also what the proposed 2020 regulations try to do. Save money by not escalating the hybrid technology further but opening up the development path of plug-in technology. So the end result is less money spent but still road relevant technology development. If the board says no to that why are they at Le Mans now anyway?

[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.

[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.

[AoB Special Stage]

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

They are seperate. Saying cash is not a concern is clearly not true, otherwise Porsche would have had three cars this year and last year. That is a direct consequence of dieselgate and the fewer amount of funds available for racing. That's been very well documented.

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.

Originally Posted by Scorchess

I agree that keeping the car around for longer is a good return on investment. That's why, again, it makes no sense to claim that the board would say to stop the programme next year based on that argument. Basically the author is making the claim that the Porsche board wants more hybrid development for less money. Which might be true (hell if that was possible everybody would want that) but there is absolutely no indication of the Porsche board being that unrealistic.

Actually not exactly: What Roman is suggesting is that Porsche have no objections to controlling costs but not at the expense of hybrid development/ advances. Porsche have made no bones about their primary reasons behind their return to LMP1. If the ACO take away that reason, then participation will no longer make sense.

The problem with keeping the car for 2018/19 is that the concept is now too long in the tooth and has shown itself to be noncompetitive in relation to the Toyota's (Newer concept). Porsche have already had their return on their investment with the 919 (3 Le Mans wins and a lot of hybrid development is proof of that)

Originally Posted by Scorchess

That's also what the proposed 2020 regulations try to do. Save money by not escalating the hybrid technology further but opening up the development path of plug-in technology. So the end result is less money spent but still road relevant technology development. If the board says no to that why are they at Le Mans now anyway?

Porsche already has quite a large development in the area of plug in technology. As Roman points out in the article; They already have the technology to allow for a range of 50 km, so making it compulsory to cross the finish line, or get to the Dunlop bridge on electrical power is not at all challenging.

Finally - Understand that Roman is not saying that Porsche are definitely leaving. What he is suggesting is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify their continuation.

[chernaudi]

If Audi and VAG as a whole are still making huge profits even with $20 billion in lawsuit settlements in North America (where dieselgate seems to be at it's worst/height, since it seems that the EU can't make much stick because of their own laws), then it stands to reason that Porsche should be fine financially as well.

But you also have to remember even before dieselgate that Audi Sport were having issues with the ACO over the ERS incentive and how, even after years of demonstrating the fact, they were never allowed the range on fuel that Porsche and Toyota got, which cost them race wins in 2015 and '16. If they couldn't demonstrate that diesel engines got better fuel mileage than gasoline engines, what incentive was there to run one other than doing something different than Porsche?

Also, I'd argue that Porsche hasn't been totally noncompetitive against Toyota this year, as it wasn't like Toyota were walking away from Porsche at LM (where they did run like for like in terms of aero package), while Porsche short-chained themselves by running their LM package in sprint races that it wasn't suited for. They're supposed to have an actual sprint package for the remaining races that they can use.

However, when you're spending $200 million on a fading rules package with Audi and Nissan gone and only Toyota left (aside from LMP1 privateers coming in) as well as the ACO trying to slow the LMP1 cars and spats that Porsche have had recently with the ACO, I can see them leaving if they don't get the ROI they want, and this right now is a low ROI game, especially outside of Le Mans.