2017 LeMans
#286
I expect the GT division to deliver track focussed cars with the latest technology and innovations for performance, with trickle down from race experience. For a track car (to be used in competition/base car) the GT3 needs more torque (turbos) and PDK (largely to minimise wear and tear relative to a manual) - they have signalled the move to mid-engined (GT4 and 911RSR), they need to complete the journey.
If the GT3/RS, going forward is to be a "purists" car - literally stuck in a different era, a faux race car if you like, a rich mans ricer - then its not for me (btw I track mid-engined and rear engined cars).
To me this Le Mans series is a classic Pyrrhic victory, a Bradbury event for Porsche that masks the cracks.
Remember the BMW slogan "The ultimate driving machine".........Marketing can only do so much.
If the GT3/RS, going forward is to be a "purists" car - literally stuck in a different era, a faux race car if you like, a rich mans ricer - then its not for me (btw I track mid-engined and rear engined cars).
To me this Le Mans series is a classic Pyrrhic victory, a Bradbury event for Porsche that masks the cracks.
Remember the BMW slogan "The ultimate driving machine".........Marketing can only do so much.
People want 'purist' connected, driving focused cars, not just fast lappers. Singer and Gprogramm are proof of that.
Right now, porsche's biggest threat is the older version of itself.
#287
What if you tightened the homologation rules (forcing the racecar to be much closer to the street car) AND raised the homologation sales requirement to 1000, 2000 or however many cars it would take to make it a financial suicide for anyone to throw away $1mil/car on a model that max 500 people would buy?
I want to buy a performance car that is not compromised in its base case - unfortunately for Porsche the game has moved on and is well past them at this stage.
I expect the GT division to deliver track focussed cars with the latest technology and innovations for performance, with trickle down from race experience. For a track car (to be used in competition/base car) the GT3 needs more torque (turbos) and PDK (largely to minimise wear and tear relative to a manual) - they have signalled the move to mid-engined (GT4 and 911RSR), they need to complete the journey.
If the GT3/RS, going forward is to be a "purists" car - literally stuck in a different era, a faux race car if you like, a rich mans ricer - then its not for me (btw I track mid-engined and rear engined cars).
I expect the GT division to deliver track focussed cars with the latest technology and innovations for performance, with trickle down from race experience. For a track car (to be used in competition/base car) the GT3 needs more torque (turbos) and PDK (largely to minimise wear and tear relative to a manual) - they have signalled the move to mid-engined (GT4 and 911RSR), they need to complete the journey.
If the GT3/RS, going forward is to be a "purists" car - literally stuck in a different era, a faux race car if you like, a rich mans ricer - then its not for me (btw I track mid-engined and rear engined cars).
Ok. So I'm a little lost here. Why can't WC/sanctioning body establish a set of rules that says:
1. Production chassis and body with suspension mods allowed.
2. Production engine with limits on torque and hp. No add ons.
3. Homologation production requirements.
4. Run any trans you want.
5. Fuel capacity limits.
Keep it simple.
Why wouldn't this work?
1. Production chassis and body with suspension mods allowed.
2. Production engine with limits on torque and hp. No add ons.
3. Homologation production requirements.
4. Run any trans you want.
5. Fuel capacity limits.
Keep it simple.
Why wouldn't this work?
The original McLaren F1 is possibly the greatest road car ever built (IMHO). During its development Gordon Murray famously said "don't ever ask me to make a race car out of it later". Ironic because of course they did, and the F1 went on to win Le Mans outright in its very first outing. Despite this the reason for Murray's request has bearing here:
Gordon Murray, Formula 1 legend and one of the greatest race car designers of all time, made an endless series of design tradeoffs to make the F1 a better street car. Compliant suspension bushings. Large door openings for easy access. Large passenger compartment. Upright driving position for good visibility, etc. What was arguably the least compromised street car ever built was fundamentally, irrevocably flawed in his mind as a race car because of it. And despite the F1's eventual racing success he was right.
Real race cars look nothing like street cars. For good reason: things that make a street car better often (usually) make a race car worse and vice versa. We harbor an illusion (largely promoted by GT racing) that they share fundamentals, but in general they no longer do. Keep in mind:
The above is more like what real race cars look like, but of course even F1 is highly compromised by rules. We've been actively slowing those cars down for half a century, in part because if we didn't they would already exceed humans physical abilities to drive them: we simply couldn't stand the Gs. Thus even "no limits" race cars no longer exist, extinct because while in theory we want them in practice we don't.
Any "no-limits" street/ track GT car would be even worse. It fundamentally would attempt to serve masters attempting to pull it in two entirely different directions, and at the end of the day would need to chose one path and utterly fail at the other. Every choice would be compromised, from size to driving position to window openings (small for safety and rigidity on a race car, large for visibility on street cars). Diversity within class would evaporate, every model quickly becoming a mid-engined clone as visually and functionally distinct as F1 cars are from one-another (copy what works). Cars that are fun to drive and actually work on the street would be completely uncompetitive as soon as the first "ringer" was released. And if you attempted to prevent this by imposing volume limits (5k cars, etc) you simply hand the championship to whoever is willing to buy the series by building and selling (giving away) the most compromised street car.
I long ago decided that Gordon Murray was right: race cars don't make the best street cars, and we don't want our street cars compromised by race car rules. Better to design the best street cars you can (ie McLaren F1, etc) and then find a way to take them all racing. BOP is the best way we've come up with so far to do that. If you take that approach every platform will be inherently compromised as a race car, but this will be nothing new as they all already are.
Last edited by Petevb; 06-24-2017 at 03:58 AM.
#288
Petevb - I fully understand what a "real" race car looks like - I just want a good base to move on from . From my perspective they haven't moved the game on. The evidence, as provided by Porsche themselves is clear.
A rear - weight biased mid-engined car has all the advantages . There seems to be little point to the GT division if they can't build competitive cars - they therefore become a marketing department.
A rear - weight biased mid-engined car has all the advantages . There seems to be little point to the GT division if they can't build competitive cars - they therefore become a marketing department.
#289
I long ago decided that Gordon Murray was right: race cars don't make the best street cars, and we don't want our street cars compromised by race car rules. Better to design the best street cars you can (ie McLaren F1, etc) and then find a way to take them all racing. BOP is the best way we've come up with so far to do that. If you take that approach every platform will be inherently compromised as a race car, but this will be nothing new as they all already are.
#290
Rennlist Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 17,108
Likes: 259
From: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
Petevb - I fully understand what a "real" race car looks like - I just want a good base to move on from . From my perspective they haven't moved the game on. The evidence, as provided by Porsche themselves is clear.
A rear - weight biased mid-engined car has all the advantages . There seems to be little point to the GT division if they can't build competitive cars - they therefore become a marketing department.
A rear - weight biased mid-engined car has all the advantages . There seems to be little point to the GT division if they can't build competitive cars - they therefore become a marketing department.
I think they are developing it for something bigger. Like Hybrid technology that might allow it to dominate a future season depending on the rules of course.....
#291
I believe that to a certain extent BOP is counterproductive. If Porsche went out and developed a racing turbo engine and found every potential advantage (all these things cost $$$), most likely the car would be faster.
The result would be that the mavens in charge would most likely slow the car down by artificial means such as adding weight, reducing turbo pressure, messing with the wing. Then what is the sense on blowing a stack of money?
I believe the RSR is good enough to win. Could have done so both in Daytona and Sebring. It is just where BOP falls.
Somebody needs to rethink these rules and come up with something more logical that provides an incentive rather than a disincentive to compete on fair terms.
The result would be that the mavens in charge would most likely slow the car down by artificial means such as adding weight, reducing turbo pressure, messing with the wing. Then what is the sense on blowing a stack of money?
I believe the RSR is good enough to win. Could have done so both in Daytona and Sebring. It is just where BOP falls.
Somebody needs to rethink these rules and come up with something more logical that provides an incentive rather than a disincentive to compete on fair terms.
#292
Petevb - I fully understand what a "real" race car looks like - I just want a good base to move on from . From my perspective they haven't moved the game on. The evidence, as provided by Porsche themselves is clear.
A rear - weight biased mid-engined car has all the advantages . There seems to be little point to the GT division if they can't build competitive cars - they therefore become a marketing department.
A rear - weight biased mid-engined car has all the advantages . There seems to be little point to the GT division if they can't build competitive cars - they therefore become a marketing department.
There is zero question that unconstrained mid engine makes a faster race car. However as we just said there's no such thing as an "unconstrained" race car, and even if it existed it would have virtually nothing to do with the best street car. And once you say "street car" there is no clear goal beyond driving enjoyment, and hence nothing to say that mid engine "has all the advantages". Behind the wheel subjective arguments can be made for front, rear and mid engine. Having owned and driven many examples of all I think I've decided that I subjectively prefer rear, at least in my competition cars (for now). So from my point of view the current GT cars are more than competitive- they put a smile on my face in that role better than anything else I've found. Certainly far more that technically "better" cars like the 918, etc. So while I see areas for improvement I personally don't see engine location as one of them...
Last edited by Petevb; 06-25-2017 at 12:18 AM.
#293
I agree with everything you said, except with the conclusion that BOP is the best/only way to achieve it. Still not convinced that well designed homologation rules (both on the side of making the street car marketable to buyers AND the side making the racecar similar to the street car that homologates it) would not be better. If your argument is correct then ALL race cars in series without BOP would end up looking like LMP1 or F1 cars, which obviously is not the case.
That aproach doesn't work in street based cars for obvious reasons. SCCA, etc try to group cars based on performance, but invariably there is a "top dog" within a class that everyone needs to run to be fully competitive. Any rules set that doesn't include some form of playing field leveler is likely to result in the same, which is why most professional sports car racing either has trophy weight or BOP.
#294
I believe that to a certain extent BOP is counterproductive. If Porsche went out and developed a racing turbo engine and found every potential advantage (all these things cost $$$), most likely the car would be faster.
The result would be that the mavens in charge would most likely slow the car down by artificial means such as adding weight, reducing turbo pressure, messing with the wing. Then what is the sense on blowing a stack of money?
The result would be that the mavens in charge would most likely slow the car down by artificial means such as adding weight, reducing turbo pressure, messing with the wing. Then what is the sense on blowing a stack of money?
But why not spend that money instead on developing a better street engine for tens of thousands rather than a race engine for ten? LMP1 is the technical crucible where real progress is made, it's carrying that ball. GT racing is largely a marketing exercise. Why make it any more expensive or the racing less competitive?
#295
None.
But why not spend that money instead on developing a better street engine for tens of thousands rather than a race engine for ten? LMP1 is the technical crucible where real progress is made, it's carrying that ball. GT racing is largely a marketing exercise. Why make it any more expensive or the racing less competitive?
But why not spend that money instead on developing a better street engine for tens of thousands rather than a race engine for ten? LMP1 is the technical crucible where real progress is made, it's carrying that ball. GT racing is largely a marketing exercise. Why make it any more expensive or the racing less competitive?
#296
Petevb: Thanks. Learning a lot. This is a great thread .
my thought then and perhaps the answer is to recognize that great streetcars can't be great race cars and acknowledge that limitation by setting limitations on what manufactures can do with streetcars in the GT class. You can even set limitations on what can be spent in development and the price of the show room homlogated cars.
The competition would be to build the best GTE car within those parameters
my thought then and perhaps the answer is to recognize that great streetcars can't be great race cars and acknowledge that limitation by setting limitations on what manufactures can do with streetcars in the GT class. You can even set limitations on what can be spent in development and the price of the show room homlogated cars.
The competition would be to build the best GTE car within those parameters
#297
None.
But why not spend that money instead on developing a better street engine for tens of thousands rather than a race engine for ten? LMP1 is the technical crucible where real progress is made, it's carrying that ball. GT racing is largely a marketing exercise. Why make it any more expensive or the racing less competitive?
But why not spend that money instead on developing a better street engine for tens of thousands rather than a race engine for ten? LMP1 is the technical crucible where real progress is made, it's carrying that ball. GT racing is largely a marketing exercise. Why make it any more expensive or the racing less competitive?
#298
The Cup series is probably far better overall. It's a profit center in itself: drivers both buy cars and then pay for overpriced parts to maintain them. The motors and chassis are closer to the street cars, so the program doubles as a rigorous test program where Porsche can field cars in decent numbers and determine quickly which parts are likely to break. So again very cost effective marketing with a large side of technical benefit (much bigger than the more prominent GT racing I suspect).
The lack of a Cup Car program makes development for track durability far harder for other manufactures. With the Mezger motor in particular it struck me how virtually all the parts with issues at the track were not shared with the Cup- cam adjusters, oil pump, etc. The 991.1's rod bearing and top end issues just reinforce the criticality of this program. In the end there's only so much you can learn in testing.
#299
Whilst not directly related to Le Mans - the following is pertinent to the general discussion.
http://www.ukimediaevents.com/engine...ults.php?id=67 and
http://www.ukimediaevents.com/engine...ults.php?id=66 and
http://www.ukimediaevents.com/engine...ults.php?id=64
sometimes its good to look outside the Porsche bubble
http://www.ukimediaevents.com/engine...ults.php?id=67 and
http://www.ukimediaevents.com/engine...ults.php?id=66 and
http://www.ukimediaevents.com/engine...ults.php?id=64
sometimes its good to look outside the Porsche bubble
#300
Rennlist Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 17,108
Likes: 259
From: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
Not sure I follow. Porsche is getting a huge marketing benefit from LMP1. On the GT side they are also getting a marketing benefit. Less so when they don't win, but overall it's a big positive. They also use an engine that shares enough with the street car that it both offsets costs and contributes to learning. The chassis less so, but overall GT racing is a small technical development positive as well as a cost-effective marketing campaign- more than enough to continue.
The Cup series is probably far better overall. It's a profit center in itself: drivers both buy cars and then pay for overpriced parts to maintain them. The motors and chassis are closer to the street cars, so the program doubles as a rigorous test program where Porsche can field cars in decent numbers and determine quickly which parts are likely to break. So again very cost effective marketing with a large side of technical benefit (much bigger than the more prominent GT racing I suspect).
The lack of a Cup Car program makes development for track durability far harder for other manufactures. With the Mezger motor in particular it struck me how virtually all the parts with issues at the track were not shared with the Cup- cam adjusters, oil pump, etc. The 991.1's rod bearing and top end issues just reinforce the criticality of this program. In the end there's only so much you can learn in testing.
The Cup series is probably far better overall. It's a profit center in itself: drivers both buy cars and then pay for overpriced parts to maintain them. The motors and chassis are closer to the street cars, so the program doubles as a rigorous test program where Porsche can field cars in decent numbers and determine quickly which parts are likely to break. So again very cost effective marketing with a large side of technical benefit (much bigger than the more prominent GT racing I suspect).
The lack of a Cup Car program makes development for track durability far harder for other manufactures. With the Mezger motor in particular it struck me how virtually all the parts with issues at the track were not shared with the Cup- cam adjusters, oil pump, etc. The 991.1's rod bearing and top end issues just reinforce the criticality of this program. In the end there's only so much you can learn in testing.