[WEC] New Perrin LMP1 !

[CTD]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

A completely different scenario. Audi and Haas use contractors to build something for themselves. So they pay everything.Who will pay if a racing team finds a problem with the Perrin car?

The beauty of open source!
The racing team becomes the "owner" of the car and the contracts to the constructors. Perrinn is of no liability other that the actual product they supply. The race team get's the design and can do whatever they wish with it.
I'm still unsure however how Perrinn will make its money?

[Akrapovic]

I don't understand the problem that has been brought up here? Just because it's open source, doesn't mean they don't know who made what. If Akra Engineering makes a radiator and it turns out that radiator is crap, everybody knows it, and Akra will have to make a new one. But since the parts are open source, anyone can have a look at the design specs, so the team could go down the road to CTD Engineering and ask them to make a far superior part off of the same design specs.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by CTD

The beauty of open source!
The racing team becomes the "owner" of the car and the contracts to the constructors. Perrinn is of no liability other that the actual product they supply. The race team get's the design and can do whatever they wish with it.
I'm still unsure however how Perrinn will make its money?

Why would anyone buy a product like this?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

Why would anyone buy a product like this?

Why does anyone buy any product? If it's good. They quite clearly believe that their design is good and adaptable (it does support quite a few engine layouts, which is great for customers who have pre-existing business ties), so if the car can preform, why wouldn't you buy it?

This is an LMP1 remember. This isn't meant to be an off-the-shelf LMP2 style product that you buy and then just press the button to make it go.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Why does anyone buy any product? If it's good. They quite clearly believe that their design is good and adaptable (it does support quite a few engine layouts, which is great for customers who have pre-existing business ties), so if the car can preform, why wouldn't you buy it?

This is an LMP1 remember. This isn't meant to be an off-the-shelf LMP2 style product that you buy and then just press the button to make it go.

Well is it good? Would you pay 1200000£ for an untested product without any customer support? I'd rather spend my money on the Ginetta. At least they have some credibility.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

Well is it good? Would you pay 1200000£ for an untested product without any customer support? I'd rather spend my money on the Ginetta. At least they have some credibility.

Really? The Ginetta P3 might've kick started the LMP3 revolution, but it turned out to be a pretty poor vehicle on the technical side, and their customer support took a hell of a beating in some quite public ways from the LMP3 runners last year.

There's also no proof that either car is any good right now. The Ginetta is also an expensive untested product, and whilst it has customer support, it's rated 2 stars on Amazon.

No matter what LMP1 you're buying, they are all untested at this point. The Perrin has an advantage of being extremely flexible, even right down to supporting multiple engine configurations - something Ginetta does not offer.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

Why would anyone buy a product like this?

To save themselves of many of the issues that Kolles and Aston Martin experienced.
With the Perrinn OpenSource tub/car you get a working package that is supposed to be competitive (whether true or not, we need to see). If you have the budgets, you can develop it into your own car, like Pescarolo did with the old Courage tubs, or you can continue with Perrinn design. No matter which way you choose, you are obliged to share this information with Perrinn, so they can further develop the base platform for all.

As stated in this Dailysportscar article:
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2017/0...-prospect.html
It is run on a very successful business module from the IT world. (I work for a company with an OpenSource program as well)

To give an example of how it works (in theory):
Perrinn supplies a BASE car to Team A, Team B and Team C.
Team A and B, is running a big budget and hires a R&D team to further improve the Perrinn design to their wish.
Team B is running a lower budget and chooses to run the Perrinn BASE car.

The findings that Team A and B makes, is shared with Perrinn, who will look at which improvements can improve the BASE as a general product.

As Team A and Team B will have different findings (just look how different Audi, Toyota and Porsche was designing their cars) Perrinn will never adopt either of the teams full design as the BASE design, as they will loose the ability of adaptation.
However Team C would receive improvements to their car, even though they don't have the budget for R&D, but won't be on the same R&D level as Team A and B.

All three Teams basically receives an headstart on the R&D of a LMP1, but in return have to return some R&D to improve the basic platform, thus improving the BASE product to lure in more customers to improve it.
In theory this should work very well as OnROAK is almost already doing this.

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't understand the problem that has been brought up here? Just because it's open source, doesn't mean they don't know who made what. If Akra Engineering makes a radiator and it turns out that radiator is crap, everybody knows it, and Akra will have to make a new one. But since the parts are open source, anyone can have a look at the design specs, so the team could go down the road to CTD Engineering and ask them to make a far superior part off of the same design specs.

That's a very good analogy. With normal suppliers you cannot take every detail of the spec that Company A (say, Akrapovic engineering) built to and have company B (say CTD engineering) analyze and improve it. Why wouldn't anybody pay for that? The customer in both the proprietary as well as in the open-source model pays the bills, but in the latter case, they actually have the freedom to do something with the intellectual property. Additionally, there's professional experts in car design available to be contracted to continue improving the design. This is a service Perrinn can live off (if we assume Nicholas isn't set for life yet, heh). He/They know the intricacies and have been peer-reviewed so far, and will continue to do so.

Just like CTD, I'm earning my living in the open source IT ecosphere as well. At least in IT, open-source development is easily outperforming "the proprietary market" on the technical end. A bored volunteer could always find a teeny problem in the product and improve it, just for their personal pride. Why wouldn't anyone buy a product like this? Perrinn does the real world test of fire with this LMP1, and the development model in itself is a source of PR for the category and the series. The ACO should thank the gods for it.

On a final note, something like with Joest and the '17 Audi (the phantom car that should've been up there but wasn't allowed to run) will never happen with a development model like the Perrinn's. You think you got plans to a great car? Nobody can stop you building it on your own.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Really? The Ginetta P3 might've kick started the LMP3 revolution, but it turned out to be a pretty poor vehicle on the technical side, and their customer support took a hell of a beating in some quite public ways from the LMP3 runners last year.

There's also no proof that either car is any good right now. The Ginetta is also an expensive untested product, and whilst it has customer support, it's rated 2 stars on Amazon.

No matter what LMP1 you're buying, they are all untested at this point. The Perrin has an advantage of being extremely flexible, even right down to supporting multiple engine configurations - something Ginetta does not offer.

Compared to Perrin, yes Ginetta do have some credibility. I don't know, to me buying the Perrin seems like a very risky move. He's got no track record in this field, and if it fails then as a customer you're left on your own with an expensive piece junk and apparently no customer support.

Open source is a nice idea, but it really requires multiple teams that invest in to the car's R&D. If you're the only team investing while others (including Perrin) just hang around waiting to get the benefits from your investment, then it's a bit of a problem. After all what you're looking for is a competitive advantage, and I don't think that sharing mixes very well with that.

Sounds like a concept where you get most of the problems of building your own car (parts supply, R&D) and few of the benefits (competitive advantage). IMO not an attractive combo.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Osella

did anyone else notice 'Perrin' on the rear wing endplates of the G-Drive #22 at Spa?

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2017/0...-at-monza.html

Unrelated, one of Leo's backers (energy company).

I'm sure there are plenty inside the industry who do know the identity of the team though.

[mariantic]

Originally Posted by Osella

did anyone else notice 'Perrin' on the rear wing endplates of the G-Drive #22 at Spa?

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2017/0...-at-monza.html

But that's Perrin with one "n" maybe as in Perrin?



Mariantic

[Adam43]

Well that car doesn't conform to LMP1 rules. No legality panels.

[Ephaeton]

Why would anybody buy that?!

[knighty]

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

Compared to Perrin, yes Ginetta do have some credibility. I don't know, to me buying the Perrin seems like a very risky move. He's got no track record in this field, and if it fails then as a customer you're left on your own with an expensive piece junk and apparently no customer support.

Open source is a nice idea, but it really requires multiple teams that invest in to the car's R&D. If you're the only team investing while others (including Perrin) just hang around waiting to get the benefits from your investment, then it's a bit of a problem. After all what you're looking for is a competitive advantage, and I don't think that sharing mixes very well with that.

Sounds like a concept where you get most of the problems of building your own car (parts supply, R&D) and few of the benefits (competitive advantage). IMO not an attractive combo.

You are very mistaken, Nicolas Perrin has noteworthy track reckord in LMP1 when he re-designed the Astom LMP1 for Henri Pescarolo, it had reliability issues, but it actually had decent pace. He is also a consultant designer for F1 teams, on that basis he is certainly worth a punt, heres the link from 2012

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/pescarolo-03-amr-one/

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/5208/Pescarolo-03-Judd.html

.

[Richard C]

I am a bit late to the game regarding responding to comments that are doubtful about the open source model, or just outright confused as to how it would work. I don't have deep understanding of how Perrin did this, but my understanding is that...

* Who actually "physically" creates the parts (i.e. number of subcontractors) is irrelevant. Perrin is the manufacture and is doing the things required to homologate the car (crash testing, etc.). What Perrin does is to pull the entire thing together and deliver a product.

* IP is open source and should have some type of licensing agreement. I have not researched what their agreement is, but for example may include clauses that derivative works also must be open as well. But yeah, if this chassis has promise, someone else could make their own. But they would have to go through the homologation process, etc. I am relatively sure they can't piggy back off the Perrin homologation. Especially if they tweak the design!

As a side note, I am curious how this worked back in the Group C/GTP days in which various suppliers created Porsche 962 monocoques. Was the homologation rules different then? Was there some type of blessing from Porsche? Did they have to construct them to an exact spec (I am pretty sure that is not the case as I believe different construction methods were used)?

* Regarding viability of this business model, I broadly assume money is always expected to be made on the initial rolling chassis plus ongoing support. I don't know the specifics around what parts are homologated and are required to go through Perrin, but anything that is not homologated that was provided by Perrin could potentially be provided by someone else (including the team themselves). Generally speaking in the world of monetizing open source, you just go in saying you have to provide a superior customer experience when compared to the next guy to make money. You don't rely upon IP protection (exclusivity) to make your money. Plus, broadly speaking, the overall R&D cost should be less given the open source design (I assume part of the open source concept is that Perring received help at no cost from outside resources) so there should be less cost to amortize over X number of chassis.

* Putting aside the question of the capability of the design (unproven as of yet) or the company, the reason people would buy cars in this scenario from Perrin is that they are in fact really not much different than any other provider. You get a car built to a spec (LMP1). It is homologated. And Perrin will provide ongoing development. The IP ownership is the main new/odd thing. Also, Perrin is the "one throat to choke" when/if there are problems. But this also gives you the option of not pushing the problem to Perrin, but also solving it yourself (assuming no homologation issues).

Overall, I think this is a great thing to try. Open source designs may have long lives. It may or may not be the foundation for innovation, but I suspect that in the long run, if regulations are stable, and the number of constructors are not limited by regulations (ala LMP2), it may help reduce costs.

Richard

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

(...) it may help reduce costs.

If more teams jump on that bandwagon, and thus join forces, it may be the actual chance the privateers have to attack the factories as well.

[Articus]

In the same way that the old Reynard spiraled off into the Creation and the Zytek, that's what Perrin LMP1 could be. A platform for smaller development groups to go racing in LMP1 with the bones of Perrin LMP1

[Akrapovic]

Perrinn drops 2018 LMP1 entry, moves to fully electric Garage 56 entry


Photo: Perrinn

Open Source LMP1 manufacturer Perrinn has cancelled plans for the 2018 LMP1 customer chassis and is refocusing the project on going electric. Now named Project 424, the LMP1 based car is enter into the 2019 Le Mans 24 hours in the Garage 56 experimental technologies class.

The customer announcement that was teased for the Le Mans 24 Hour failed to materialise, as the client pulled out of the deal. The project then ran into further complications so Perrinn appears to have taken the opportunity to aim higher. The ambitious new performance target retains the open source nature of the project, but ramps up the complexity significantly.

The car will have a 650 kW electric motor, split between 250 kW for the front wheels and 400 kW for the rear wheels, whilst the battery’s storage capacity is rated at 54 kWh. These numbers can seem a bit meaningless to motorsport fans, as we don’t tend to rate traditional engines in kilowatt, and the WEC uses megajoules rather than kilowatt hours to describe storage capacities. To give these numbers a bit of perspective, 650 kW is approximately 870 hp, whilst 54 kWh is around 195 MJ. For further perspective, the Tesla Model S P100D that Electric GT is using as a base for their series is rated at 567 kW (760 hp) and 100 kWh (360 MJ). So the car’s potential statistics are powerful, if a little low on the storage and range side.

How does this translate into on track performance? The stated aim of the car is it will be able to complete 3 consecutive laps every hour, including in and out laps at GTE pace, and a flying lap at LMP1 pace. The in and out laps will be using 350 kW of power, whilst the flying lap will be using the full 650 kW. This means each stint will be around 15 minutes long, and gives the car 45 minutes of “reconditioning” time in the pits. It is possible with consumer technology to charge a 100 kWh battery to full in 1 hour 45 minutes, so with a smaller battery and bespoke technology, charging the Perrinn 54 kWh battery in the 45 minute reconditioning time should be possible.

But the in lap is where things start getting a little crazy. Perrinn aim for the car to complete the in lap under racing conditions, autonomously. The system will combine autonomous road car technology with pre-recorded racing driver inputs to create a safe system that will have the ability to bring the car back to the pits, and achieve this in a GTE lap time. Perrinn do say that the driver will be able to take back control of the car at any time to manage traffic, and in the case of an unpredictable situation.

There will no doubt be comments about the 45 minute pit stop, but it has to be kept in mind that this is experimental technology and does fit the ACO Garage 56 intention of encouraging innovative technology. The idea is to showcase the future, even if that future is in the early stages of development. But it has to be said that these goals are lofty, and lofty goals are often accompanied by significant budget requirements. Watch for further announcements from Perrinn in the coming months.

Dave Ellis / theRacingLine.net / I'm a reporter! Honest!

[TF110]

My only reaction right now... really?

[YZFrider]

I'm saddened and a bit perplexed myself. I was under the impression 2 chassis were already sold.

[chernaudi]

Already a possible blow to LMP1 privateers since no firm sales came up. I do worry about numbers for Ginetta and Dallara at this rate, especially since things have been relatively silent (though their cars are still a couple of months from their hoped for testing dates).

[carbsmith]

I got the feeling that Perinn and Ginetta were after the same team so they may have just decided to go with the latter instead.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Perrinn drops 2018 LMP1 entry, moves to fully electric Garage 56 entry


Photo: Perrinn

Open Source LMP1 manufacturer Perrinn has cancelled plans for the 2018 LMP1 customer chassis and is refocusing the project on going electric. Now named Project 424, the LMP1 based car is enter into the 2019 Le Mans 24 hours in the Garage 56 experimental technologies class.

The customer announcement that was teased for the Le Mans 24 Hour failed to materialise, as the client pulled out of the deal. The project then ran into further complications so Perrinn appears to have taken the opportunity to aim higher. The ambitious new performance target retains the open source nature of the project, but ramps up the complexity significantly.

The car will have a 650 kW electric motor, split between 250 kW for the front wheels and 400 kW for the rear wheels, whilst the battery’s storage capacity is rated at 54 kWh. These numbers can seem a bit meaningless to motorsport fans, as we don’t tend to rate traditional engines in kilowatt, and the WEC uses megajoules rather than kilowatt hours to describe storage capacities. To give these numbers a bit of perspective, 650 kW is approximately 870 hp, whilst 54 kWh is around 195 MJ. For further perspective, the Tesla Model S P100D that Electric GT is using as a base for their series is rated at 567 kW (760 hp) and 100 kWh (360 MJ). So the car’s potential statistics are powerful, if a little low on the storage and range side.

How does this translate into on track performance? The stated aim of the car is it will be able to complete 3 consecutive laps every hour, including in and out laps at GTE pace, and a flying lap at LMP1 pace. The in and out laps will be using 350 kW of power, whilst the flying lap will be using the full 650 kW. This means each stint will be around 15 minutes long, and gives the car 45 minutes of “reconditioning” time in the pits. It is possible with consumer technology to charge a 100 kWh battery to full in 1 hour 45 minutes, so with a smaller battery and bespoke technology, charging the Perrinn 54 kWh battery in the 45 minute reconditioning time should be possible.

But the in lap is where things start getting a little crazy. Perrinn aim for the car to complete the in lap under racing conditions, autonomously. The system will combine autonomous road car technology with pre-recorded racing driver inputs to create a safe system that will have the ability to bring the car back to the pits, and achieve this in a GTE lap time. Perrinn do say that the driver will be able to take back control of the car at any time to manage traffic, and in the case of an unpredictable situation.

There will no doubt be comments about the 45 minute pit stop, but it has to be kept in mind that this is experimental technology and does fit the ACO Garage 56 intention of encouraging innovative technology. The idea is to showcase the future, even if that future is in the early stages of development. But it has to be said that these goals are lofty, and lofty goals are often accompanied by significant budget requirements. Watch for further announcements from Perrinn in the coming months.

Dave Ellis / theRacingLine.net / I'm a reporter! Honest!

Is this legit or just your personal fan fiction, Akrapovic?

Gesendet von meinem HTC Desire 526G dual sim mit Tapatalk

[peebee2]

What's legit about anything in this "project?"

[Japanese Samurai]

Is there carriage space of front MGU in monocoque?