[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by bobec

Is Porsche withing to a mid-engine car in GTE? Something to do with the rumored 960?

I have had it confirmed by a good source that a mid-engine GTE car is being prepared for 2017.

[MyNameIsNigel]

It seems that the HD package to be raced by Porsche for the remainder of the season will exhibit some visually noticeable changes compared to the LD package that has been raced so far. "80% of the bodywork parts are new" according to Enzinger.

[TF110]

Over 1900km covered, seems like a productive test done. No pics though

[Deleted]

According to Porsche insider, in post LM period "no-one cares about the individual races" except winning the championship
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/0...rburgring.html

[Victor_RO]

Porsche's LMP1 programme will continue at least until (and including) 2018.

http://newsroom.porsche.com/en/motor...mp1-11343.html

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Porsche's LMP1 programme will continue at least until (and including) 2018.

http://newsroom.porsche.com/en/motor...mp1-11343.html

Interesting year, but less than Toyota's (til 2017). I guess shows boardrooms do not look at the regulation cycles as much as is always believed.

[Spyderman]

Well, they can always pull out a year short if regulations go further south, although I'm quite sure they have a pretty good idea of what the regs will look like . If I recall correctly , they are already working on the 2017 car. (albeit at a very basic stage)

[TRuss]

As you mentioned Spyder, Porsche confirmed development on the 2017 car back in June. With this commitment until 2018 I believe it's a safe assumption that manufacturers have a pretty good idea of the new regs and that Porsche finds them to be agreeable at the least.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by TRuss

As you mentioned Spyder, Porsche confirmed development on the 2017 car back in June. With this commitment until 2018 I believe it's a safe assumption that manufacturers have a pretty good idea of the new regs and that Porsche finds them to be agreeable at the least.

I would also say part of the commitment to commit to going beyond the life of the current regulations is to ensure a seat at the table with respect to any discussions around the future regulations.

Richard

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would also say part of the commitment to commit to going beyond the life of the current regulations is to ensure a seat at the table with respect to any discussions around the future regulations.

Richard

Getting the seat is not that hard for a major manufacture, we know this as there has been manufactures involved with future regulations who never entered the show.
However getting your voice heard is a different matter, unless you have an official commitment out.

[bobec]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I have had it confirmed by a good source that a mid-engine GTE car is being prepared for 2017.

Any more info on that? Is it related to the upcoming 960?

It's such a shame the regulations made it so difficult for the awesome 991 RSR. I don't understand why.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by bobec

Any more info on that? Is it related to the upcoming 960?

It's such a shame the regulations made it so difficult for the awesome 991 RSR. I don't understand why.

Unfortunately I have no further news on this. My source confirmed the rumor that I first heard on RLM but said that he was not free to discuss further.

[Spyderman]

LDF Nose:

[Spyderman]

Also- Shark gills are back!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

... if regulations go further south, ...

Further south? Can they get any worse?



Good decent planning. A lot was made of building up the team and they seem committed to keeping that team.

[TRuss]

These regulations are more free than they have been in any form or series for more than 20 years. I believe we will continue see the freedom of technology to advance the automobile. That said the ACO know exactly how fast they are willing to let these cars go. So if they trim wings or whatever I'm not too bothered by that as long as we continue see new things and variety in the areas of power train technology. I guess what I'm saying is that I will take what I can get. Especially after the last 20+ years. I'm glad to see Porsche seem to agree.

[TF110]

Forget exhaust blow diffusers, this looks like exhaust blown bodywork!



Take a look at the fender holes btw.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would also say part of the commitment to commit to going beyond the life of the current regulations is to ensure a seat at the table with respect to any discussions around the future regulations.

Richard

Some curious names have been in the manufacturers talks (especially in the very first ones about 2014 regs), so I don't think that is so important and really, who believes ACO would ignore a currently involved manufacturer whether they're officially commited or not. I think this is most important for ACO... when they go talk to circuits etc, then can guarantee that they'll have the same or better show in couple of years too.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by TF110

Forget exhaust blow diffusers, this looks like exhaust blown bodywork!



Take a look at the fender holes btw.

To my eyes it looks mega weird, but as long as it works well, I love it.

[MulsanneMike]

Not sure how the Porsche rear bodywork is, "...Smooth and continuous." Will be interesting to hear their justification as it seems in violation of 3.4.1, c/.

All bodywork behind the rear axle centreline and more than
200mm above the reference plane must form a smooth,
continuous, unbroken surface without cuts, and be visible
from above the car with the rear wing removed.

Audi had the shuttered bodywork on the rear of the original R15 and had to change it. I also wonder the cross section of that upper element. A wing? Art 3.6.1 limits wings to the front wing and the rear wing only, and this doesn't seem to fall within the definition of a non-wing wing as described by the ACO, also within 3.6.1. Certainly need more pictures though.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Not sure how the Porsche rear bodywork is, "...Smooth and continuous." Will be interesting to hear their justification as it seems in violation of 3.4.1, c/.

All bodywork behind the rear axle centreline and more than
200mm above the reference plane must form a smooth,
continuous, unbroken surface without cuts, and be visible
from above the car with the rear wing removed.

Audi had the shuttered bodywork on the rear of the original R15 and had to change it. I also wonder the cross section of that upper element. A wing? Art 3.6.1 limits wings to the front wing and the rear wing only, and this doesn't seem to fall within the definition of a non-wing wing as described by the ACO, also within 3.6.1. Certainly need more pictures though.

I am trying to think outside of the box (Porsche clearly has). My speculation is...

Art 3.4.1 has an exclusion...

"This article is not applicable to openings described in Article 3.4.6"

3.4.6 describes the wheel arch cut-outs. I haven't looked yet to see what defines a "wheel arch" or if that is boxed into a specific area, but I wonder if the area directly behind the exhaust is being argued as being part of the "wheel arch" and that the opening into that area is a continuation of the cut-out in the arch (using Rear wheel option #2 which is a side and not top cut-out).

I have not studied the regulation on the cut-outs in depth, but they talk to minimum sizes. I wonder if they have a cut-out that if viewed from the side (parallel to the front to rear axis) meets the minimum size in the regulation (and the spirit of the rules) but then extend it around the corner as a much larger overall cut-out into that new section that likely is some type of blown bodywork (er.. ahem... "wheel arch" )

More photos would help to show if that arch cut-out extends into the new area as I hypothesize. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe this is a "well played" moment for Porsche.

Richard

[MyNameIsNigel]

A few additional shots thanks to Endurance-Info.com:









It looks like Porsche are exploiting the provisions pertaining to the mandatory rear fender holes to create these interruptions in the rear bodywork section.

[YorkshireLad]

Looks awesome, from the rear each part of the trailing edge shows a small light gap, I thought it had to be fixed. Seems like it's adjustable.

[TRuss]

I've really enjoyed watching the manufacturers taking liberties with the technical regs these past couple of years.

[CyberMotor]

Wow. It looks as outside of the rules as can be but boy does it look cool!

Do you think they were thinking that no one was going to notice?