Crown

Agreed, the very sizeable R&D expenditure on the LMP1 project, and the experience and product knowledge derived from it, will hopefully yield results for both Porsche and ordinary mortals when they launch Mission E/J1 family of EV road cars.

I welcome a more mid-engined hard core 911 GT2, and they better take it to the track and kill it. 

1991 BMW 535i Granitsilber/White Leather

Ex: '91 BMW 318i, '89 BMW 525i, '74 Mercedes-Benz 280E, '87 BMW 325is, '86 BMW 325e, '05 Ford Focus ZX4 S, '85.5 Porsche 944

Spyderidol:

nberry:

Porsche was out of racing for many years and it did not hurt their bottom line. Personally, I don't care how many races they win or lose. I doubt most buyers care.

Think about it. If Porsche loses or wins a race will that influence buyers as to whether they buy the car?

Actually, not strictly true: Porsche was out of the top class, and did not have a factory financed project for many years, but they were always in racing. Their racing program was customer funded and factory assisted/backed. Under WW they made a business out of racing. Unfortunately that approach limits you to the GT classes (under current regulations). It does not allow for the R&D that is associated with top class racing (LMP1)

 

You're correct. I should have written an official factory racing program. I still believe it is irrelevant to most buyers. I would wager 99.5% of Porsche buyers could not tell you which race Porsche last competed in and how it did. However, I  understand the reason to race but I believe the R&D could be done in another venue.

To learn how to live is to learn how to hang on. To learn how to die is to learn how to let go.

nberry:

Spyderidol:

nberry:

Porsche was out of racing for many years and it did not hurt their bottom line. Personally, I don't care how many races they win or lose. I doubt most buyers care.

Think about it. If Porsche loses or wins a race will that influence buyers as to whether they buy the car?

Actually, not strictly true: Porsche was out of the top class, and did not have a factory financed project for many years, but they were always in racing. Their racing program was customer funded and factory assisted/backed. Under WW they made a business out of racing. Unfortunately that approach limits you to the GT classes (under current regulations). It does not allow for the R&D that is associated with top class racing (LMP1)

 

You're correct. I should have written an official factory racing program. I still believe it is irrelevant to most buyers. I would wager 99.5% of Porsche buyers could not tell you which race Porsche last competed in and how it did. However, I  understand the reason to race but I believe the R&D could be done in another venue.

My lawyer drives 911s for the last 15 years.

He claimed with a straight face that his new 991 S was a V8 turbo and was faster and quicker then any Maclaren.

He was not joking either, he was very serious about it and refused to look in the manual when I pointed out his error.

Most of these people know nothing about their own cars much less about Porsche Motorsport successes or lack of them.

^LOL

I think the fact that there are over 100,000 members of the Porsche Club of America, 13,000 members of PCGB etc. tell me that while not ALL porsche car owners are enthusiasts of the marque many are. That makes Racing an important facet of marketing to them. It's also the reason cars like the 911R are so easy to sell.

Past-President, Porsche Club of America - Upper Canada Region

absent:

nberry:

Spyderidol:

nberry:

Porsche was out of racing for many years and it did not hurt their bottom line. Personally, I don't care how many races they win or lose. I doubt most buyers care.

Think about it. If Porsche loses or wins a race will that influence buyers as to whether they buy the car?

Actually, not strictly true: Porsche was out of the top class, and did not have a factory financed project for many years, but they were always in racing. Their racing program was customer funded and factory assisted/backed. Under WW they made a business out of racing. Unfortunately that approach limits you to the GT classes (under current regulations). It does not allow for the R&D that is associated with top class racing (LMP1)

 

You're correct. I should have written an official factory racing program. I still believe it is irrelevant to most buyers. I would wager 99.5% of Porsche buyers could not tell you which race Porsche last competed in and how it did. However, I  understand the reason to race but I believe the R&D could be done in another venue.

My lawyer drives 911s for the last 15 years.

He claimed with a straight face that his new 991 S was a V8 turbo and was faster and quicker then any Maclaren.

He was not joking either, he was very serious about it and refused to look in the manual when I pointed out his error.

Most of these people know nothing about their own cars much less about Porsche Motorsport successes or lack of them.

So so true. A guy I know of see me with my GT3 and stated that he has a 911 turbo and that it was parked up just over there. It was a dark wet horrible evening so I couldn't quite see all of it, so , I replied ""what is it, a 991"", he said ""Noooo, its a 911""  ...

throt

"I Have Done It!".

991 GT3 pick up in October 2014.

+1  .  I happen to meet at petrol stations people who think the engine in the 911 is in the front.  But seriously , in the past Porsche legendary reliability and sturdiness (relative to other period producers of sport cars ) came mostly as a result of endurance racing (Le Mans being the prime example). Today might be different but racing used to be the primary source for Porsche street cars development. ( the famous ad claim Race on Sunday and Sell on Monday).

nberry:

Spyderidol:

nberry:

Porsche was out of racing for many years and it did not hurt their bottom line. Personally, I don't care how many races they win or lose. I doubt most buyers care.

Think about it. If Porsche loses or wins a race will that influence buyers as to whether they buy the car?

Actually, not strictly true: Porsche was out of the top class, and did not have a factory financed project for many years, but they were always in racing. Their racing program was customer funded and factory assisted/backed. Under WW they made a business out of racing. Unfortunately that approach limits you to the GT classes (under current regulations). It does not allow for the R&D that is associated with top class racing (LMP1)

 

You're correct. I should have written an official factory racing program. I still believe it is irrelevant to most buyers. I would wager 99.5% of Porsche buyers could not tell you which race Porsche last competed in and how it did. However, I  understand the reason to race but I believe the R&D could be done in another venue.

I agree partially with your post:

I agree that many buyers are not ardent Motorsport fans (Specifically Sportcar) , but 99.5% may be a little OTT. I think that number will vary from country to country, with European buyers being , in general,  much more aware of Porsche's on track achievements, than say those from  the US, China, etc.

Part of that  perceived loss of the connection that Porsche had with racing is really due to the "lost years in the dessert"  (in terms of motor racing). The racing program that was carried out under WW reign may have been good for the bean counters and  the bottom line, but did little to enhance Porsche's Motorsport image (especially  among  the Sportscar anoraks) .

The other part has to do with Sporstcar motor-racing itself diminished tremendously (after Group C) , especially as uncle Bernie and the FiA did their level best to try eliminate any series that could possibly be of any competition to F1.

This is changing now with the upsurge in popularity of the WEC. It will never be like F1, but it will certainly draw many more fans that will in turn be exposed to the Porsche brand ...in a racing environment.

The final part of your post, I disagree completely.

Any motor racing technician will tell you that  the best possible test-bed for any development is the race track. The pressures and hardship (forces) experienced in endurance racing is superior to any testing program that you can possibly design.

nberry:

I would wager 99.5% of Porsche buyers could not tell you which race Porsche last competed in and how it did. However, I  understand the reason to race but I believe the R&D could be done in another venue.

Whether the buyer understands the connection to motorsports is not certain in most cases.  But the product is improved from racing, whether the buyer knows/cares or not.  There is no more effective R&D motivation than racing...

--

16 Cayman GT4, 73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550, 79 635CSi

What is Group C and what is the WEC.

I completely disagree with your last sentence. Today, technology can easily replace road racing. In the near future race drivers will be obsolete. A computer will be able to driver the race car. 

--

To learn how to live is to learn how to hang on. To learn how to die is to learn how to let go.

nberry:

A computer will be able to driver the race car. 

Maybe, but the hardware on the car still needs to be fast and last through the race, right?

16 Cayman GT4, 73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550, 79 635CSi

Your opinion on this tidbit from rennlist: Will be 4-wheel drive. Front axle is electric only. 780hp. Faster than 918. 
Should apparently not be announced for sale for some theme yet, to avoid clashing with 918 customers, who recently have paid several times GT2 price for a to-be slower car. 

3RS will be released on next Geneva. GT2 further out than that apparently.

Grant, airplanes self diagnosis every second. The computer records every movement. It is infinitely fast and more accurate than a driver, on site technician or motor sport savant and a lot less expensive.

To learn how to live is to learn how to hang on. To learn how to die is to learn how to let go.

kingjr9000:

Your opinion on this tidbit from rennlist: Will be 4-wheel drive. Front axle is electric only. 780hp. Faster than 918. 
Should apparently not be announced for sale for some theme yet, to avoid clashing with 918 customers, who recently have paid several times GT2 price for a to-be slower car. 

3RS will be released on next Geneva. GT2 further out than that apparently.

Take whatever you read on Rennlist with a big grain of salt. It's full of people trying to make a name for themselves to be famous on Rennlist, like that Eduardo guy, it's an ego thing.

Also pretty sure the info about 918 owners is dead wrong. 918 owners couldn't care less. Just like Ferrari Enzo owners couldn't care less that another Ferrari is faster than theirs. Or a CGT owner that finds out another Porsche is faster. 

And if such a car really do exists, those Rennlisters are also out of luck, they will be at the back of the queue while all the 918 owners take deliveries first, so there is no loss for 918 owners at all.

kingjr9000:

Your opinion on this tidbit from rennlist: Will be 4-wheel drive. Front axle is electric only. 780hp. Faster than 918. 
Should apparently not be announced for sale for some theme yet, to avoid clashing with 918 customers, who recently have paid several times GT2 price for a to-be slower car. 

3RS will be released on next Geneva. GT2 further out than that apparently.

Sounds like the perfect Turbo S as opposed to GT2

Past-President, Porsche Club of America - Upper Canada Region

Whoopsy:

kingjr9000:

Your opinion on this tidbit from rennlist: Will be 4-wheel drive. Front axle is electric only. 780hp. Faster than 918. 
Should apparently not be announced for sale for some theme yet, to avoid clashing with 918 customers, who recently have paid several times GT2 price for a to-be slower car. 

3RS will be released on next Geneva. GT2 further out than that apparently.

 

Take whatever you read on Rennlist with a big grain of salt. It's full of people trying to make a name for themselves to be famous on Rennlist, like that Eduardo guy, it's an ego thing.

Also pretty sure the info about 918 owners is dead wrong. 918 owners couldn't care less. Just like Ferrari Enzo owners couldn't care less that another Ferrari is faster than theirs. Or a CGT owner that finds out another Porsche is faster. 

And if such a car really do exists, those Rennlisters are also out of luck, they will be at the back of the queue while all the 918 owners take deliveries first, so there is no loss for 918 owners at all.

 

 

So, is that info close to reality or not so much? :)

nberry:

Grant, airplanes self diagnosis every second. The computer records every movement. It is infinitely fast and more accurate than a driver, on site technician or motor sport savant and a lot less expensive.

The telemetry on F1 cars far surpasses anything used in commercial aviation.  Yet, the cars still break before the 2 hours is expired quite often.  Commercial airplanes are not pushed to perform at 100% of their envelope 100% of the time - it does not test and move the limits at a furious pace of development...

--

16 Cayman GT4, 73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550, 79 635CSi

Grant, most of the testing of a new airplane is done indoors often before it is built. The test flight only validates the data.

That said, I understand your passion for racing and why it is important for you to know Porsche has a racing program. But tell me; if Porsche shut down their racing program tomorrow would you still buy the 991.2GT3?

To learn how to live is to learn how to hang on. To learn how to die is to learn how to let go.

nberry:

Grant, most of the testing of a new airplane is done indoors often before it is built. The test flight only validates the data.

That said, I understand your passion for racing and why it is important for you to know Porsche has a racing program. But tell me; if Porsche shut down their racing program tomorrow would you still buy the 991.2GT3?

If you have followed the drama that is currently unfolding with the GT3 engines (I know you sold yours well before the most recent issue was fully understood), I believe that design flaw causing early failures is directly a result of the 991.1 GT3 being the first GT3 ever not to be powered by a race-tested engine.

Thankfully, the 991.2 GT3 engine does benefit from lessons learned from racing the GT3 R race car.  But even so, the racing experience may have been too short to fully address all of the issues.

So, yes it would concern me if they stopped racing (not so much related to the 991.2 GT3, but more for any subsequent engine with no racing pedigree).

Here is the thread, been getting more and more interesting lately:

http://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3-gt3rs-and-911r/918481-how-many-15-16-gt3-s-have-engine-replaced.html

And there might even be some relevance to this thread (shocking)   I think some have said the GT2 RS may be a turbocharged version of the 4.0L RS motor (also to used in the new GT3, with updates).  And if the GT2 RS is a homologation for the next turbo race car, this is good news for further development of this motor in competition.

--

16 Cayman GT4, 73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550, 79 635CSi

nberry:

What is Group C and what is the WEC.

I completely disagree with your last sentence. Today, technology can easily replace road racing. In the near future race drivers will be obsolete. A computer will be able to driver the race car. 

--

 

To learn how to live is to learn how to hang on. To learn how to die is to learn how to let go.

 

There is a reason that the LMP1 team tests, and tests, and tests ( both on track and in simulators) and yet when they go to the actual race, there are still issues that arise despite many thousands of kilometers of testing.  

This is not just my "opinion". It is the opinions voiced by almost any racing team.

nberry:

Grant, airplanes self diagnosis every second. The computer records every movement. It is infinitely fast and more accurate than a driver, on site technician or motor sport savant and a lot less expensive.

...and yet planes  are still tested in actual flight. Simulation is still simulation. It is not , nor cannot it ever be, a substitute for the actual thing.

You will find that the on-board computers on the 919 do much the same thing. During the 2015 Le Mans race, each car transmitted 31.5 gigabytes of data to the pits during the 24 hours.

nberry:

Grant, most of the testing of a new airplane is done indoors often before it is built. The test flight only validates the data.

That said, I understand your passion for racing and why it is important for you to know Porsche has a racing program. But tell me; if Porsche shut down their racing program tomorrow would you still buy the 991.2GT3?

Nick, understand that the "effects" of a racing program are not immediate. There are essentially two components to the benefits garnered from a "top flight" racing program such as the one currently undertaken at Porsche:

1.  R&D - The current rule book for the top class (LMP1) in the WEC allows for manufacturers to develop and test , under that toughest possible conditions, their latest developments in almost all areas of the car. The effects obtained from this are not immediately felt by the public and consumers as they take a while to  "filter" down  and get adapted to actual road going products. 
2. Marketing/Image - Here again the effects are not immediate. The old adage "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" was , in my opinion, truer in days gone by (when racing was more popular than today). However, it is still important  for a sports car manufacturer to sell "dreams". Many Porsche aficionados grew up with posters of racing cars (especially Porsche) on their wall as kids. What this does , is create potential customers. Potential discerning customers that will have brand allegiance. 

• One of the best  marketing/image uses of a racing program in the last decade or so, has been Audi's. They have managed to transform/ enhance brand image as well as diesel acceptance. (this is more felt out side the US for obvious reasons)

I understand that you, as many, are not racing fans, but understand that manufacturers race for legitimate and well thought out reasons. Sure there is some ego involved, but that is not the reason they "throw" ~ $150M annually at a program. The Boards that approve these programs are not swayed by "ego" and I can assure you that no CEO is going to put his job on the line just to win X, Y or Z race. 

Completely agree with you, Spyderidol!

Going slightly off-topic...

Spyderidol, any comment on the last WEC 6h race at NBR, in terms of LMP1 and GT Pro? 

olli:

Going slightly off-topic...

Spyderidol, any comment on the last WEC 6h race at NBR, in terms of LMP1 and GT Pro? 

Tough, tough win. Audi will have them for breakfast soon.

I'm getting very concerned that a replacement for Hitzinger has not yet been announced. This tells me 2017 car will be essentially the current car. 2017 promises to be a very long year

Agreed, Audi gave them an incredible run for their money in LMP1.

In 2017, minor LMP1 rule changes will cut back on downforce by up to 20% and the overall "energy allocation" per lap will be reduced as well, slowing the cars down further (all while LMP2 and GT Pro cars will get faster...). So on balance, Audi may have the upper hand due their more aggressive aerodynamics concept.

In 2018, major LMP1 rule changes (with the addition of a third ERS and the 10 MJ class) will result in a major overhaul of all top cars anyway, so 2017 is likely to be a year of transition, and possibly a painful one for Porsche. It could very well be that Porsche has decided not to waste too many resources on its "interim" 2017 car.

And in GT Pro, who knows if the new 2017 RSR will be competitive at all, let alone right from the outset...

Back to topic

You all make one valid point which is no matter the number of simulations invariably live racing uncovers issues not revealed in simulations. I get that.

However, when Porsche was managed by WW he dropped the racing program. Porsche did not suffer any consequences from his decision but instead resurrected the company. I know that Porsche worked with private individuals in assisting there racing programs but it was not a Porsche factory program.

To learn how to live is to learn how to hang on. To learn how to die is to learn how to let go.

nberry:

You all make one valid point which is no matter the number of simulations invariably live racing uncovers issues not revealed in simulations. I get that.

Racing is likely to uncover issues faster than "normal" development testing (whether test bench or road testing) and both allows and forces them to be resolved more quickly than might otherwise be the case. A less recognised advantage of "failing in public", as happens in motor racing, is the likelihood that bean counters and others who might be inclined to want to hide technical weaknesses to avoid costly fixes don't have the same say in resolving issues.  

However, when Porsche was managed by WW he dropped the racing program. Porsche did not suffer any consequences from his decision but instead resurrected the company. I know that Porsche worked with private individuals in assisting there racing programs but it was not a Porsche factory program.

You've got the timeline wrong, Nick. Porsche was already on the road to recovery in terms of its road-going products by the time that WW temporarily stopped the GT prototype racing programme, and it was stopped for reasons that go beyond just eliminating the expenditure on high-level racing. 

--

fritz

Anything new from this side about this guy?