Argon_

Perhaps a Cayman GT3 with a pair of turbos, for the GTE racing. That way the engine placement can be legit.

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.

Petevb

I see an assumption shared between all of these questions: track cars and street cars have enough in common that one set of rules and principles can guide and incentivize both, and doing so would improve the street car breed. I believe that logic is flawed.

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.

randr

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.

hf1

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. Curious and on the same subject, how widespread is BOP in the racing world?

tcsracing1

I wouldnt give up on the RSR just yet.
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.....

Just in time

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.

Petevb

Let me say up front that's I'm a big fan of mid-engined cars. I am however probably a bigger fan of rear engined cars overall. While I enjoyed my GT4 not once in my ownership did it hit that certain over the limit powerslide button that multiple 911s of different generations have somehow found. So far no mid-engined car I've driven has, though one day I hope a CGT or 960 will prove they can...

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...

Petevb

Race cars are unavoidably shaped by the rulebook to an extent few appreaciate. Race car designers are part lawyer, first scouring each new edition for differences between what rules-makers meant and what they said. Look at nearly any feature in a modern Racecar and you can trace its form back to rules governing it. That approach is nearly universal across pure racecars- F1, LMP, Top Fuel, etc.

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.

Petevb

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?

Just in time

I fully agree with you. LMP1 is where the progress is made technically. It is just that we all drive 911s and it would be nice to see something that looks like our car on the winners circle.

Waxer

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

Archimedes

Serious question though, why not develop that race engine privately/internally on test tracks rather than through the much more expensive process of running a race team, if you're not getting a real marketing benefit?

Petevb

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.

randr

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

tcsracing1

+1