|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
9 Aug 2017, 22:07 (Ref:3758484) | #8176 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,377
|
Their wec budget probably lies between teams like Force India and Williams. The new engines must be easy to get right if they don't increase the budget from that. I think if they do go to F1, they'll probably look to acquire/brand a team already there (like Toro Rosso) or just try their luck with engine supply.
|
|
|
9 Aug 2017, 22:27 (Ref:3758488) | #8177 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,919
|
Quote:
Also it is easier to get sponsors for Formula 1 than for the WEC. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/r...17-903197/amp/ |
|||
|
10 Aug 2017, 11:10 (Ref:3758587) | #8178 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 239
|
Quote:
I believe Porsche will only supply engines - a revenue generator for the company with some Porsche logos on the cars. With the limits on testing in F1 - too big of a risk for Porsche to be a back marker on an international stage while they try to develop their car. |
||
|
10 Aug 2017, 11:51 (Ref:3758601) | #8179 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,215
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Aug 2017, 15:25 (Ref:3758632) | #8180 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Quote:
Who would rent an untested Porsche engine? Even Honda looks better than a completely untried power plant. |
||
|
10 Aug 2017, 16:02 (Ref:3758637) | #8181 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,912
|
Well it can't be worse than the Honda. Even if it blows up a lot, uses too much fuel and is underpowered, it's still equal with the Honda.
|
|
|
10 Aug 2017, 16:34 (Ref:3758643) | #8182 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 366
|
Quote:
One of the worst ever... At the time (I had mates at Arrows) everyone was stunned by how bad it was. Mariantic |
|||
|
10 Aug 2017, 19:58 (Ref:3758673) | #8183 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,206
|
Quote:
Renault seems to have gone through the WEC-like "brand colors & identity" way and currently lacks a big sponsor. Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Aug 2017, 20:15 (Ref:3758676) | #8184 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,215
|
Quote:
Renault has had that problem a while, the ING Renault was the last external sponsor I remember, Geneii were the owners, then Lotus (sister company branding in JPS colors) and back to Renault. |
||
|
10 Aug 2017, 20:31 (Ref:3758678) | #8185 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,206
|
Question was here about external sponsors. Red Bull is also the owner of the team(s). If it is the sponsor, then in the same way you could say Renault is the main sponsor of Renault F1 Team etc...
|
|
|
17 Aug 2017, 08:22 (Ref:3759896) | #8186 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Interview, Michael Steiner, Member of the Executive Board Research and Development at Porsche
https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/moto...ent-14059.html |
||
|
17 Aug 2017, 18:36 (Ref:3760010) | #8187 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,377
|
Buncha pr driven questions and answers imo. Much like their decision to go to F-E. I don't think f1 is on the table. And then the answer about the wec's visibility is confusing too. F-E has an even worse viewership and attendance problem
|
|
|
23 Aug 2017, 04:03 (Ref:3761071) | #8188 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/v...-costs-943475/
I just have to keep shaking my head. VW Group companies pretty much direct the regulations in their current direction then decide to collectively spend a few hundred million dollars a year to race against each other when their Japanese competitors were looking at 8 figure budgets then complain it's too expensive. How can anyone believe the financial complaints of anyone that was spending five times what was necessary? |
|
|
23 Aug 2017, 05:15 (Ref:3761075) | #8189 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
It's called trying to win. Not to mention, as I've said many times previously, you have to factor in the ERS incentive (which Toyota benefited from as much as anyone, especially in '14 and this year/late last year) as well as the fact that these rules were originally supposed to expire at the end of last season. Trying to get to 8mj in three years time (Porsche did it in one) when Audi and TMG were barely pulling 3.5MJ in 2013 (while spending significantly less money than Audi Sport were in '14-16 and TMG the past couple of years) IMO says a lot.
Mind you, without dieselgate, VAG would have at least Audi or Porsche there right now. This is all driven by public relations/saving face/court of public opinion, even when they're still making huge profits even while setting lawsuits, present and future. Technical overkill? Absolutely? Driven by instant gratification? Absolutely. But the ACO provided the conditions for it to happen because they rode that instant gratification train as much or more than anyone else. |
||
|
23 Aug 2017, 06:19 (Ref:3761081) | #8190 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Spending to win? Against who? THEMSELVES.
Toyota had a sustainable plan and originally planned to use the TS040 for all 3 years before the update to the regulations. It was completely obsolete after one from Porsche and Audi trying to outspend each other and they had to delay the regulation change for a year so Toyota could afford to introduce their new powertrain early. As early as 2015 Toyota was asking for development restrictions to control cost and they had to jack up their budget just to stay in the game for 2016. Even the TS050 wasn't that competitive at most tracks, how much do you think they really needed to spend to beat Toyota for those three years? No one should ever be outspending Toyota in the same series, let alone multiple times over. |
|
|
23 Aug 2017, 08:12 (Ref:3761104) | #8191 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Blame VAG all you want. At least they were winning stuff. Toyota outspent everyone in F1 and have barely anything to show for it.
Why not make the same argument about Mercedes-Benz in F1? They're using the same tactic. And again, it was due to instant gratification and the tech regs lasting only 3 years before a major overhaul. |
||
|
23 Aug 2017, 17:01 (Ref:3761226) | #8192 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,377
|
Quote:
Why are you defending VW about this? The wec isn't F1 and Toyota have a responsible budget compared to them. They drove out competition with their huge budgets. It wasn't the ers incentive. Anyone can prop up a big battery, but not anyone can make a car that can compete against two teams with hundreds of millions of dollars of budget per year. |
||
|
23 Aug 2017, 17:34 (Ref:3761231) | #8193 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Mercedes is spending similar amounts to other teams to beat Ferrari, Red Bull, and McLaren. Not running both a Mercedes and Daimler team each with twice the budget of the next competitor.
|
|
|
23 Aug 2017, 18:21 (Ref:3761238) | #8194 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Whatever, there was no complaining about this back in LMP900 when Audi Sport were spending $75 million a year to win LM and $10-15 million to do ALMS a season. I don't see anyone defending Cadillac who's program back then was a mismanaged waste of money, time and energy with little to show for it.
And everyone gushes about Group C and IMSA GTP, yet you had in IMSA GTP Toyota and Nissan spending $25 million a year. That's equal to about 100 million today. That almost bankrupted the sport, and we also know that Toyota spent $75-100 million on the GT-One project that never won any of the three races it did. Where's the defense of what Toyota did. Again, whatever, at least Audi Sport and Porsche have something to show for their spending. Racing is the biggest pay-to-play sport there is. Why don't we see Pescarolo out there anymore? Because most privateer teams started to outspend him by a significant margin, let alone the factory teams. And I do feel that people who like to back up Porsche and Toyota--the two who benefited the most from the ERS incentive and the loosened up aero and engine rules--are missing the bigger picture. The 2014 rules were a disaster waiting to happen. They did encourage teams to built new cars every season. They pushed for the "go big or go home" mentality. Three years also isn't enough time to get a worthwhile customer car program going, especially with such expenses and the factory teams wanting to do their own things. Why the rapid expenditure of money? I'll say it again: instant gratification. When you have marginal stuff wide open (like the front floors) but close off other areas (active aero, blown diffusers, pushing everyone to go the big hybrid/small engine route), teams will spend big money on small things. Just look at NASCAR. The gap from front to back is relatively small, but the bigger teams still dominate because they have the money and resources to exploit small, marginal performance gains. It's the law of diminishing returns. But as I mentioned, racing is the biggest case of "pay to play" in sports. You don't see pro basketball, football, soccer and baseball players bringing money to get them on a team. You don't see teams dump millions of dollars on a mechanical device to make it a few tenths of a second faster in the stick and ball world. Yes, cost should be controlled. But for that to happen, sacrifices will probably have to be made. One of which will probably be the big hybrid systems. Another will probably be some of the marginal, small, but expensive aero stuff. Also look at the Perrin program that's gone bust. It seems that program needed money--and lots of it--to get going. Is that the message we want to send? I know that sounds contradictory, but I refuse to blame car makers for spending what they feel like spending on racing. Racing is pay to play, no getting around that. I seriously want to know what the fans really want: Do they want unlimited technology, or close racing? High tech can put on good racing, but you don't need high tech to have good racing. But if you want high tech, someone's gotta pay for it. Even TMG's current WEC budget is probably a lot more than what Mazda spend on their entire motorsports programs worldwide. As for the defense of Toyota doing things on a smaller budget, I'll say this: If Toyota didn't go hog wild on F1, TMG might not be able to save money by doing things in house. They build everything but the engine and parts of the hybrid system (which come from Japan) and the gearbox internals (sourced from XTrac) for the TS050. But they probably couldn't do that if they didn't have F1 level facilities (and if TMC/Toyota Group didn't own so many automotive companies). Audi Sport and even Porsche outsource chassis and component building. That cost time, energy and money. Also, how much of their motorsports budget is spent on the cars and racing, and how much is spent on advertising and other events. We all know that Audi and Porsche's hospitality and VIP areas were much larger than Toyota's. Were Audi and Porsche price gouging their own companies on that stuff? |
||
|
23 Aug 2017, 21:20 (Ref:3761265) | #8195 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,377
|
Toyota could probably build their car in Japan if they wanted to, but logistics means TMG is a better bet. Most all the sponsors/companies that Toyota have are their owned suppliers. That might contribute a lot to their lower bubdget, not just that they have TMG to do everything. Still, spending twice what they do on each team is not logical or sustainable for good competition. VW didn't have an issue with the spending until this dieselgate debacle happened. Now you see them trying to preach about F1 spending too much
|
|
|
24 Aug 2017, 00:03 (Ref:3761287) | #8196 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
And I didn't see Toyota complain about the cost in F1 until the economy tanked in '09. And that was just before the whole gas pedal debacle. Just pointing that out, and just as to be fair, I feel it wasn't Toyota's fault, though I believe they got hammered with fines and lawsuits worse than GM did for their ignition switch tomfoolery, which was pretty intentional on GM's part.
And of course, even being semi-nationalized didn't hurt GM's programs in NASCAR Cup and GT racing. And I think we all know that sooner or later, at least one VAG marque would've gone and done something else anyways. Until TMG/Toyota stepped up to the plate this year with a redeveoped car, it was often them racing themselves with Toyota on an island of their own. Aside from being the right place at the right time in '14 and getting better in '16, that was often Toyota's fate, especially when the advances that Audi and Porsche made caught them out. Which is pretty much what happens when you hire F1 aero guys and focus on small aero bits and hybrid systems. And even that stuff, though expensive, isn't the killer. It's the R&D that goes into it. And to get someplace fast, it takes resources and money when it's felt that time isn't a commodity. We have to remember that Audi Sport rebodied the R18 in 2015 three times, and Porsche built a whole new car for that year. Toyota tried to evolve their 2014 car, and were quickly in trouble for lack of speed. That's what happens when you allow F1 levels of development. For which the ACO almost certainly has to bear most of the blame on that standpoint. It used to be that incremental change was the dominant development philosophy. Now it's felt that if you're off the pace, you might as well throw out the baby with the bath water. That mentality--fostered by the desire to achieve results quickly no matter the cost and having a sanctioning body that not just allowed but also if anything encouraged it--is what imperiled everything in reality, along with the fact that factory teams are at the mercy of their company's bean counters and accountants, and marketing people, too. And in today's world, if a $75+million dollar car is slower than a $200 million dollar one, that $75 million dollar car is just about useless to an OEM unless they can make it faster, which almost certainly will boost costs, too. |
||
|
24 Aug 2017, 11:10 (Ref:3761344) | #8197 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,215
|
Quote:
The rest of your post was a rambling nonsensical rant that seemed to say it's all money's fault and we should ban money cause teams don't know what's best for themselves. How is now ANY different than any of the times you've mentioned. Every time there was a lull, new regs made a peak and boom, then the oh crap, this is expensive moment and boom. Going back to the beginning of one of those eras only is beyond pointless. It's the equivalent of the teenager asking why aren't we all communist, look how great it is (on paper). It doesn't last and neither did Can-Am, Camel GT, WSC, LMP900, LMP1, LMP1H. Things change and that's probably the ONLY way privateers get to stick around or build a team. |
||
|
24 Aug 2017, 13:53 (Ref:3761375) | #8198 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Since you brought it up, would you want DPI to become the new LMP1? Even though it's basically the prototype form or racing socialism? If you get too fast, you get pegged back or your competitors get sped up to your level though performance balancing. Granted, modern day LMP1 was the exact opposite if anything, being basically racing Darwinism.
There wasn't this stuff (racing socialism/heavy BOP) going on in LMP900 when the R8s won almost everything in sight, or when Toyota had the fastest car by far at LM in '99. There's room for compromise, but if one could only chose one or the other, would you rather have the micromanaged BOP and artificial equality of DPI, or current day LMP1 where it's a spending and technology war that goes on until OEMs decide to call time on their participation? Ideal solution from the beginning was a formula that allowed for, but didn't incentivize, technology on such a scale, and was friendlier to privateer teams. Other than Kolles, we can only confirm SMP as a privateer LMP1 entry next year. Perrin has gone nowhere and there's still sales to be confirmed for the new Ginetta. The ACO are now getting bitten by the owner of the hand that fed them. Usually that saying's the other way around, but not here. They gambled on pandering to OEMs, knowing what could happen when the bubble burst. And the reason for that is the same reason why Volkswagen cheated the diesel regs in the US: greed. Greed, and wanting things now and the hell with the longer term consequences. At least for VAG, they're pretty much able to "buy" their way out of things by paying off lawsuits and claims, and still remain profitable. The ACO don't have that luxury now. They became so dependent on OEMs that it's like a drug addict who's trying to quit cold turkey. They should've remembered that though factory money's nice, it rarely lasts as long as it ultimately did. And that factory participation is at the whims of corporate boards, accountants, and marketing departments. |
||
|
24 Aug 2017, 15:58 (Ref:3761388) | #8199 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,434
|
Mr. Chernaudi hits a lot of high points.
Just more sports car stuff ... same cycle, different series. No need to "blame" anyone. obviously FIA screwed up ... or maybe just gambled and lost ... but pretty certainly this would have happened anyway, sooner or later. VAG got caught cheating or they would probably have at least one team in there. Not sure how long Toyota's corporate offices would tolerate near-misses at Le Mans. New manufacturers though, if they saw a vacuum, might try to get in cheap. Nothing new to see here, folks. DPi obviously would have to give up its BoP reliance to work on a global scale. But i wouldn't expect a Lot of crossover anyway ... the biggest advantage of including DPi in a P1-L class would be financial, for the manufacturers. Customer cars is a good business and can help to keep a formula living a little longer. FIA will need to give up its annual or biennial rules changes, or any regs which encourage such ... teams need probably five years to develop and market a platform. FIA seems to love making new rules ... part of what hurt ALMS, and things certainly haven't gotten better. FIA also need to give up it "super-hi-tec" attachment. Fans Really want a lot of cars and good racing. I don't think a lot of extra tickets sold because some of the cars were hybrid ... I don't see where attendance jumped sharply in the hybrid era ... basically race fans like racing, and so long as Something is circling the track, they want to watch. But, big sums of money and big egos conspire to drive away common sense and prevent learning from experience ... which is why this year's events are just the latest around of sport-car series collapses we have been seeing for several decades. Pretty sure it isn't the last, either. |
|
|
24 Aug 2017, 16:18 (Ref:3761392) | #8200 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
Again, how does the fact that TMG have their own wind tunnel reflect on their costs when compared to teams that have to pay to get access to a wind tunnel? It's more than clear that Audi were spending very big money on aero development, and that was because they had nothing else to work with, because of the regulations which "they directed".... |
||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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 |
New Porsche prototype (merged threads) | BSchneiderFan | Sportscar & GT Racing | 265 | 5 Sep 2006 11:29 |
What is the differnce between the Porsche 996 and Porsche 911 GT3'rs? | SALEEN S7R | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 28 Mar 2003 11:36 |
Joest Porsche VS Factory Porsche | H16 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 10 | 20 Dec 2001 14:07 |