2017 LeMans
#256
Are you seriously basing your buying decision of a road car on the racing success or otherwise of cars that are essentially so different from the road going cars they are supposedly homologated on that it's more or less simply silhouette racing?
The GT cars are great road cars with the capability of being tracked considerably harder than cars of most other marques (I'll ignore the 991.1gt3 engine travails for the moment). Whatever happens in GTE class racing/WEC has little to nothing to do with how good the road cars are or will be in the future.
The GT cars are great road cars with the capability of being tracked considerably harder than cars of most other marques (I'll ignore the 991.1gt3 engine travails for the moment). Whatever happens in GTE class racing/WEC has little to nothing to do with how good the road cars are or will be in the future.
They need to make the GT cars the best they can be at the price point - they resolutely refuse to do this, yet they are clearly prepared to do it for GTEpro - the irony is profound, and yet the job remains half done.
Why did they do this, because the rear engined version is so massively outclassed. So why insist on offering consumers a track going (but road capable) variant in a configuration they themselves don't believe in for its intended purpose.
If they put the engine in the middle I'll buy one, if they add turbos and the engines in the middle I'll buy two. But they won't.
The "purists" can have the manual and NA - I'm not a "purist" - I would rather have the best and most competitive car they can produce at the GT3/RS price point (and I would buy it if it happened to be manual and NA). I can see no benefit of keeping a deposit down on something I don't want or don't believe can deliver what I want from it.
Last edited by randr; 06-23-2017 at 06:14 AM.
#257
They need to make the GT cars the best they can be at the price point - they resolutely refuse to do this, yet they are clearly prepared to do it for GTEpro - the irony is profound, and yet the job remains half done.
Why did they do this, because the rear engined version is so massively outclassed. So why insist on offering consumers a track going (but road capable) variant in a configuration they themselves don't believe in for its intended purpose.
If they put the engine in the middle I'll buy one, if they add turbos and the engines in the middle I'll buy two. But they won't.
Why did they do this, because the rear engined version is so massively outclassed. So why insist on offering consumers a track going (but road capable) variant in a configuration they themselves don't believe in for its intended purpose.
If they put the engine in the middle I'll buy one, if they add turbos and the engines in the middle I'll buy two. But they won't.
If your ideal road car is one with this ride height and this size of diffusor then fair enough, I can see why you think being mid engined is that important...
#258
The WSJ add is great - factually correct etc
but.........
All of us that follow endurance racing or are active in Motor Sport understand the following
(1) The Toyotas were significantly quicker for two years in a row and Porsche got the Bradbury win - nothing wrong in this, they were there, they competed, fought and survived. They are to be congratulated for this. Non the less the race was about Toyotas loss as opposed to Porsche' win.
(2) The RSR was not really competitive, that was plain to see and has not really been in the race all season (Last place in WEC GT standings)- close, sure - but no cigar. Guest89 the Dane clearly over drove the car hence his off - you over drive to compensate for underperformance. As a driver he would know this. I did the very same thing yesterday and have the bill to pay as a driver I accept this.
(3) Porsche sports cars, in reality, remain great club racers - in fact very hard to beat. Robust, well made eminently driveable and great fun. In my opinion, Porsche sports cars set a very (all round) high bench mark.
(4) To be genuinely competitive in GTEpro requires a new engine - no question about this. BOP is BOP and to some degree creates a lottery outcome - BOP may "equalise" times but thats not the point - its where the times are equalised that counts. We all know and understand this - the only way to win is to ensure all aspects of the car are strong e.g. brakes, weight, aero, ENGINE, tires, reliability and drivers.
but.........
All of us that follow endurance racing or are active in Motor Sport understand the following
(1) The Toyotas were significantly quicker for two years in a row and Porsche got the Bradbury win - nothing wrong in this, they were there, they competed, fought and survived. They are to be congratulated for this. Non the less the race was about Toyotas loss as opposed to Porsche' win.
(2) The RSR was not really competitive, that was plain to see and has not really been in the race all season (Last place in WEC GT standings)- close, sure - but no cigar. Guest89 the Dane clearly over drove the car hence his off - you over drive to compensate for underperformance. As a driver he would know this. I did the very same thing yesterday and have the bill to pay as a driver I accept this.
(3) Porsche sports cars, in reality, remain great club racers - in fact very hard to beat. Robust, well made eminently driveable and great fun. In my opinion, Porsche sports cars set a very (all round) high bench mark.
(4) To be genuinely competitive in GTEpro requires a new engine - no question about this. BOP is BOP and to some degree creates a lottery outcome - BOP may "equalise" times but thats not the point - its where the times are equalised that counts. We all know and understand this - the only way to win is to ensure all aspects of the car are strong e.g. brakes, weight, aero, ENGINE, tires, reliability and drivers.
(2) (4) BOP is essentially a political game. Last year Ford won it with ease. This year it was more competitive, but the Astons were so far out of the class parameters (e.g., 65 kg UNDER the class minimum weight) in order to be competitive...
If BOP remains, then the racing will remain somewhat arbitrary, capricious, and political. Perhaps FSW is a brilliant engineer, and a relatively poor political tactician? With a BOP designed to accommodate advantages and shortcomings of each car, Porsche could ostensibly field a car that - baseline class configuration (i.e., pre-BOP) - would be woefully off the pace.
If BOP departs, then the racing will be exciting for a few years before budgets spiral out of control and the class implodes; cyclicality is an enduring theme in sportscar racing. I can assure you that Porsche would not be fielding a rear-engined or naturally aspirated car without BOP. Witness the GT1 period two decades ago for an example of how things could go.
#259
To be fair,it took longer for Toyota because they've decided to change the battery pack too. Their engineers believe the car wouldn't even have finished had they not changed the battery pack. They also said,they've never had to replace the motor in all the races and tests prior to LeMans.
I agree though,the speed argument is lame at LeMans... What I found even lamer is the comment about a competitor team member posing as an official : guess at whom they were hinting... and that burned their clutch. Seriously! What a brilliant plan by Porsche to burn Toyota's clutch! And it worked...
I agree though,the speed argument is lame at LeMans... What I found even lamer is the comment about a competitor team member posing as an official : guess at whom they were hinting... and that burned their clutch. Seriously! What a brilliant plan by Porsche to burn Toyota's clutch! And it worked...
#260
(2) (4) BOP is essentially a political game. Last year Ford won it with ease. This year it was more competitive, but the Astons were so far out of the class parameters (e.g., 65 kg UNDER the class minimum weight) in order to be competitive...
If BOP remains, then the racing will remain somewhat arbitrary, capricious, and political. Perhaps FSW is a brilliant engineer, and a relatively poor political tactician? With a BOP designed to accommodate advantages and shortcomings of each car, Porsche could ostensibly field a car that - baseline class configuration (i.e., pre-BOP) - would be woefully off the pace.
If BOP departs, then the racing will be exciting for a few years before budgets spiral out of control and the class implodes; cyclicality is an enduring theme in sportscar racing. I can assure you that Porsche would not be fielding a rear-engined or naturally aspirated car without BOP. Witness the GT1 period two decades ago for an example of how things could go.
If BOP remains, then the racing will remain somewhat arbitrary, capricious, and political. Perhaps FSW is a brilliant engineer, and a relatively poor political tactician? With a BOP designed to accommodate advantages and shortcomings of each car, Porsche could ostensibly field a car that - baseline class configuration (i.e., pre-BOP) - would be woefully off the pace.
If BOP departs, then the racing will be exciting for a few years before budgets spiral out of control and the class implodes; cyclicality is an enduring theme in sportscar racing. I can assure you that Porsche would not be fielding a rear-engined or naturally aspirated car without BOP. Witness the GT1 period two decades ago for an example of how things could go.
What's wrong with imposing just these limits for GT: (1) Minimum Weight and (2) Maximum HP? Everything else is free if it satisfies (preferably stricter) homologation rules. No BOP.
#261
Torque plays a big deal in racing.
2 cars can have the same HP but the car will the torque advantage will be the much quicker car. It's all about acceleration out of corners. And that's where torque output comes to play.
#262
Cost. Guest89 had already mentioned it previously. It's about having a sustainable race series ultimately and without BoP costs would just spiral out of hand very quickly.
#263
They need to make the GT cars the best they can be at the price point
Why did they do this, because the rear engined version is so massively outclassed. So why insist on offering consumers a track going (but road capable) variant in a configuration they themselves don't believe in for its intended purpose.
Why did they do this, because the rear engined version is so massively outclassed. So why insist on offering consumers a track going (but road capable) variant in a configuration they themselves don't believe in for its intended purpose.
Not because it's outright faster. The goal of the BOP rules is for all cars to run within a fraction of a second of one-another over a lap, so if they make a faster car the organizers will simply slow them down. More reliable then, or easier to drive? Not likely...
However a mid mounted engine has a critical advantage for endurance racing: it's much easier on tires. The lower load combined with the larger diffuser that helps keep the rear from sliding around means that rear tires last far longer. This in turn means the new RSR's performance doesn't drop off as much towards the end of a stint, and that makes them far more competitive. Like all race cars the RSR is shaped primarily by the rules it runs under. If it wasn't it'd look more like:
Back to the question: would making the GT road cars mid-engined make them "better" at the current price point? They'd get far more expensive to produce: bespoke chassis homoligation spread over a small number of cars gets pricey fast. And why bother, when as Chevy recently proved with the 1LE you can make numbers without any of that cost and complexity?
At the end of the day, however, chasing numbers is not really Porsche's game. Technically they are more than capable, of course, but to what end? If numbers are what you're after I would agree with you- time to look to a manufacture with a different philosophy. Luckily there are quite a few to chose from:
However when it comes to total driving experience at a price point (rather than shear speed) the consensus seems to be that the Porsche GT models remain in a class of their own. This is in large part due to choices you disagree with- remaining normally aspirated, continuing to offer a manual option, etc. You might not agree with Porsche's choices but I hope enough of the motoring world does so I don't need to worry about a turbocharged, PDK, mid-engined GT3 any time soon.
That said "driving experience" is down to personal preference, so if you know what's on offer doesn't suit I would encourage you to look elsewhere
Not because the RSR is now mid-engined and therefore "better", however.
#264
Then maybe add (3) Max Torque limit? My point was that any set of pre-set limits that are acceptable to all participants would be far superior to BOP.
#265
Rennlist Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 17,108
Likes: 259
From: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
The WSJ add is great - factually correct etc
but.........
All of us that follow endurance racing or are active in Motor Sport understand the following
(1) The Toyotas were significantly quicker for two years in a row and Porsche got the Bradbury win - nothing wrong in this, they were there, they competed, fought and survived. They are to be congratulated for this. Non the less the race was about Toyotas loss as opposed to Porsche' win.
(2) The RSR was not really competitive, that was plain to see and has not really been in the race all season (Last place in WEC GT standings)- close, sure - but no cigar. Guest89 the Dane clearly over drove the car hence his off - you over drive to compensate for underperformance. As a driver he would know this. I did the very same thing yesterday and have the bill to pay as a driver I accept this.
(3) Porsche sports cars, in reality, remain great club racers - in fact very hard to beat. Robust, well made eminently driveable and great fun. In my opinion, Porsche sports cars set a very (all round) high bench mark.
(4) To be genuinely competitive in GTEpro requires a new engine - no question about this. BOP is BOP and to some degree creates a lottery outcome - BOP may "equalise" times but thats not the point - its where the times are equalised that counts. We all know and understand this - the only way to win is to ensure all aspects of the car are strong e.g. brakes, weight, aero, ENGINE, tires, reliability and drivers.
but.........
All of us that follow endurance racing or are active in Motor Sport understand the following
(1) The Toyotas were significantly quicker for two years in a row and Porsche got the Bradbury win - nothing wrong in this, they were there, they competed, fought and survived. They are to be congratulated for this. Non the less the race was about Toyotas loss as opposed to Porsche' win.
(2) The RSR was not really competitive, that was plain to see and has not really been in the race all season (Last place in WEC GT standings)- close, sure - but no cigar. Guest89 the Dane clearly over drove the car hence his off - you over drive to compensate for underperformance. As a driver he would know this. I did the very same thing yesterday and have the bill to pay as a driver I accept this.
(3) Porsche sports cars, in reality, remain great club racers - in fact very hard to beat. Robust, well made eminently driveable and great fun. In my opinion, Porsche sports cars set a very (all round) high bench mark.
(4) To be genuinely competitive in GTEpro requires a new engine - no question about this. BOP is BOP and to some degree creates a lottery outcome - BOP may "equalise" times but thats not the point - its where the times are equalised that counts. We all know and understand this - the only way to win is to ensure all aspects of the car are strong e.g. brakes, weight, aero, ENGINE, tires, reliability and drivers.
1) Quicker is great. But this is a 24h race and not a sprint race. If you have mechanical issues and do not finish the race then it dosnt matter how much faster the car is. Reliability is part of endurance. Toyota lost in that department during this round.
2) The RSR running normially aspirated is like fighting with one arm tied behind your back. Turbos would fix this. I have no idea why they didnt jump on the turbo wagon like everybody else....
#266
Not if you tighten up homologation rules. That would also have the advantage of the race-cars resembling more closely what we could be able to enjoy on the street/track. Just like racing was 50+ years ago.
#267
Rennlist Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 17,108
Likes: 259
From: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
However, for me personally I see past the imagery and understand the back story.
In my own mind, I have come to a decision unless Porsche put the engine in front of the rear axle on a production version of the GT3/GT3 RS I'm unlikely to buy one - in some respects I am looking to a car of the future and not of the past. The 911 platform has to evolve. Failing in WEC GT, even with the tacit acknowledgement of an engine move looks like a rear guard action for the 911. I am not seeing or sensing innovation.
What does this mean for me - it means I'm pulling my deposit on the .2RS. I've been on the fence for quite a long time, had a very hard think about the .2 GT3 but can't square the circle. This thread has been useful in that regard.
Other manufacturers are progressively building better and better performance vehicles and innovating at the same time e.g. McLaren. I sense Porsche, although currently very profitable, may be headed for an unsettled period.
In my own mind, I have come to a decision unless Porsche put the engine in front of the rear axle on a production version of the GT3/GT3 RS I'm unlikely to buy one - in some respects I am looking to a car of the future and not of the past. The 911 platform has to evolve. Failing in WEC GT, even with the tacit acknowledgement of an engine move looks like a rear guard action for the 911. I am not seeing or sensing innovation.
What does this mean for me - it means I'm pulling my deposit on the .2RS. I've been on the fence for quite a long time, had a very hard think about the .2 GT3 but can't square the circle. This thread has been useful in that regard.
Other manufacturers are progressively building better and better performance vehicles and innovating at the same time e.g. McLaren. I sense Porsche, although currently very profitable, may be headed for an unsettled period.
The current 991.2 911 GT3 motor is last of the normally aspirated motors. It is really somthing at full song to drive.
Turbos will be great, and everybody is using them which gives them staggering performance compared to the Porsche, but i think people fail to see how lucky we are to still have normally aspirated high tech, high rev motors.
Once it is gone, it is gone.
#268
We know where this leads, and Porsche was the master at it: ever more creative ways to game the rules to run pure race cars. Dauer 962 winning Le Mans in 1994. The Porsche GT1 EVO (and Mercedes CLK-GTR) of the late 90s. You get street cars that are not street cars, you get big performance differences leading to boring racing, you spend more money for fewer viewers and less connection to road cars.
Currently we have close racing and the illusion that the racing says something about cars we can actually buy (see above). It's far better bang-for-the-buck, which is why BOP rules have persisted for so long despite the results being largely contrived. As dumb as it is there's simply not something better to replace it.
#269
BOP is a farce. It was clear the FGT was given the win at LeMans going in last year. Yawn..unless you were a lottery winner. All political. Everyone looked the other way so Ford could have a big 50th celebration in return for quid pro quo later. Kinda like NFL draft and trading.
World Endurace should set requirements/limitations for cars as to weight; hp and torque. How each manufacturer puts it all together is up to them. The best car and team wins. No more BOP BS. Have scrutineers and each car is approve at the beginning of the season with no changes. Cheating means race disqualificaiton.
In GTE Pro and Am cars should be homologated production based cars. Otherwise its just like NASCAR. A tube frame racer wtih a pretend Monte Carlo etc.. body shell and stick on headlights.
BOP basically allows for horsepower wars and 0-60 wars between manufacturers and then neuters the cars for WC to be as close to each other as possible. They basically say "Make whatever you want and we will equalize the field with weights and restrictor plates and boost control". Ridiculous. With BOP we could have Miatas racing 488's. Doesn't interest me.
This will also control the horsepower races. Cars are getting stupid fast and powerful. PAG is getting ready to market the new GT2RS with 700hp. Who needs 700 hp on public roads? Answer: No one.
I think car enthusiasts would prefer to buy GT cars that were really the base for what is really racing. I would.
World Challenge is difficult and confusing for the average car enthusiast to follow and understand. If they made it easier to follow and understand they would draw more. If they required Manufacturers to race what they sell they would draw more.
They spend the most time televising the LMP cars. Techno spaceships speeding around a circuit. Most enthusiasts want to see production GT cars squaring off. I do. Not that I don't like LMP but GT interests me more.
Where is the coverage of GTE Am. Non existant. Again production based cars pushed to the back of the room.
My 2 cents.
#270
Petevb has answered that more eloquently than I could have. The 90s sports car racing strongly suggests that the above is the opposite of what would actually happen if BoP was removed.