Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing > ACO Regulated Series


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28 Jun 2017, 01:05 (Ref:3747493)   #7891
Scorchess
Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 249
Scorchess has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyderman View Post
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.
Scorchess is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 01:26 (Ref:3747496)   #7892
Spyderman
Veteran
 
Spyderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Mozambique
Mozambique
Posts: 4,520
Spyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorchess View Post
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
Spyderman is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 01:48 (Ref:3747498)   #7893
Scorchess
Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 249
Scorchess has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
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.
Scorchess is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 01:57 (Ref:3747499)   #7894
broadrun96
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
United States
Posts: 3,500
broadrun96 has a real shot at the championship!broadrun96 has a real shot at the championship!broadrun96 has a real shot at the championship!broadrun96 has a real shot at the championship!broadrun96 has a real shot at the championship!broadrun96 has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorchess View Post
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.
broadrun96 is offline  
__________________
It was fun while it lasted, have enjoyed the people I've met but the measuring contests and arguments over who's more insider and who's smarter has just made it not worth the effort any longer. It should be fun, not work and it's just work to find actual information.
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 02:15 (Ref:3747501)   #7895
Scorchess
Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 249
Scorchess has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
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?
Scorchess is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 02:54 (Ref:3747503)   #7896
AoB Special Stage
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Estonia
Posts: 895
AoB Special Stage should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridAoB Special Stage should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
You're all putting to much effort into analyzing what is little more than a conjecture piece compiled of things we already knew.

Last edited by AoB Special Stage; 28 Jun 2017 at 02:59. Reason: That'll do
AoB Special Stage is offline  
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 04:56 (Ref:3747524)   #7897
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 7,523
chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!
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.
chernaudi is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 04:58 (Ref:3747526)   #7898
AoB Special Stage
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Estonia
Posts: 895
AoB Special Stage should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridAoB Special Stage should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
AoB Special Stage is offline  
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 13:33 (Ref:3747586)   #7899
Spyderman
Veteran
 
Spyderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Mozambique
Mozambique
Posts: 4,520
Spyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorchess View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorchess View Post
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorchess View Post
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.
Spyderman is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 13:53 (Ref:3747589)   #7900
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 7,523
chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!
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.
chernaudi is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 15:30 (Ref:3747608)   #7901
500
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 46
500 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda View Post
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.
500 is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 16:19 (Ref:3747616)   #7902
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 7,523
chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!chernaudi has a real shot at the podium!
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?
chernaudi is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 17:55 (Ref:3747634)   #7903
Spyderman
Veteran
 
Spyderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Mozambique
Mozambique
Posts: 4,520
Spyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by chernaudi View Post
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.
Spyderman is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 18:44 (Ref:3747640)   #7904
Adam43
14th
20KPINAL
 
Adam43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
European Union
New Orleans
Posts: 31,203
Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage View Post
You're all putting to much effort into analyzing what is little more than a conjecture piece compiled of things we already knew.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyderman View Post
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.

Last edited by Adam43; 26 Jul 2017 at 21:06. Reason: Gramma correctionation.
Adam43 is offline  
__________________
Why Don't You Just Switch Off Your Television Set and Go Out and Do Something Less Boring Instead?
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2017, 19:08 (Ref:3747643)   #7905
Spyderman
Veteran
 
Spyderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Mozambique
Mozambique
Posts: 4,520
Spyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpyderman should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43 View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43 View Post
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?
Spyderman is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion Gingers4Justice ACO Regulated Series 6037 29 Nov 2017 08:51
Audi LMP1 Discussion gwyllion ACO Regulated Series 11685 16 Feb 2017 10:42
Nissan LMP1 Discussion Gingers4Justice Sportscar & GT Racing 5568 17 Feb 2016 23:22
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class Holt Sportscar & GT Racing 35 6 Jun 2012 14:44
Are there any differnces between a Porsche carerra cup Porsche and GT3 class Porsche? SALEEN S7R Sportscar & GT Racing 25 6 Feb 2008 21:06


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:09.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2016 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.