The fact that Porsche made the decision a couple of years ago to return to sports car racing rather than entering Formula 1 because sports cars have more relevance to road cars is not really news. This is one of the reasons that the FIA has been working to change the Formula 1 regulations, despite opposition from some of the teams, and from Bernie Ecclestone. They prefer stability because it costs less and maintains the status quo. The FIA believed that road relevance is important and wants more manufacturers involved.
What was perhaps more interesting is that the company made the point to Autocar that “there is a lot of publicity around politics and tyres, but not so much about the engines and chassis” and said that the aerodynamics are so extreme that “it cannot result in any development in our road car understanding”.
It remains to be seen whether or not other car companies come to F1 with the new regulations, but there are certainly points to be taken on board from the comments.
joeblogsf1 
If I push “like” button, then username and password are required. WTF.
That’s because its a “like” from other WP bloggers button Masa!
I think the Porche aerodynamacists were sent home a long time ago looking at the (lack of) evolution over the years
🙂
Thats mainly because they had come up with the right shape in the first place…
Sorry Porsche, but aero has been part of F1 for how long? 40+ years? (Actually probably the same amount of time the 911 hasn’t changed!)
Their publicity comment shows their true colours, F1 doesn’t need teams like that. Not only are they completely wrong (look at the recent Red Bull debacle, they couldn’t buy getting their name mentioned in the press like that) but one also has to question whether a company should come into F1 whose sole motivation is “publicity”.
A lot of companies are in F1 for publicity. I include companies such as Red Bull in this. F1 has to be worth it to them as a marketing tool. When it’s no longer worth it they’ll be gone. We might argue that from a sporting purist point of view that’s not so good, but in the real world of business it’s a valid decision.
I’d put Merc and Renault in that category too – they’re in it at least partly for the benefit of their bottom line. When there is no such benefit they’ll review their position.
In boom times it’s easier to carry the loss, write it off to “R&D”, But we’re not in a boom time.
FIA have been trying to make F1 more attractive to real world car companies, so Porsche’s statement is quite interesting. They want to see more relevance to their actual business before they invest in F1. Not an unreasonable decision given that Porsche are a business first.
Andrew
“…aero has been part of F1 for how long? 40+ years?”
Indeed it has, and if you look at some of the work Porsche have done on, for example, the 917 and the 956/962 you will see that they are well aware of aerodynamics.
Porsche have won Le Mans 16 times, Audi 11 times, they didn’t achieve that without knowing a bit about aerodynamics.
Did you notice the bit about, “… the aerodynamics (in F1 that is) are so extreme that “it cannot result in any development in our road car understanding”.” Aerodynamics have dominated F1 design for several years now, it’s the “so extreme” phrase that needs noting.
Have you not heard of, “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday”? I don’t remember who first said that (perhaps you know that one Joe) but it’s been around for a long time now. It applies whether you are selling cars, fizzy drinks or washing machines.
Where in Joe’s article does it say that Porsche’s sole interest is publicity?
Martin
Who coined the phrase “Win on Sunday… ?” I say Bob Tasca, Sr., responsible for Ford’s muscle car program in the 60s.
I think it was in use ten years earlier, with the success of the Hudson Hornet and the Olds 88.
Joe would you not say the reason why there is so much talk about the tyres are because the engine development has been frozen for a decade?
With the engines changing next year perhaps we will see them go up in smoke again however aerodynamics will always be an issue. You cannot have the same wings etc on a road car for obvious reasons. Difficult to see any relevance to the real world in F1 bar a massive marketing engine that could be exploited much better than it is currently.
As an F1 enthusiast in good conscious I want to see the sport at the cutting edge of technology with transferable relevance beyond F1. Otherwise wasting billions of dollars annually on obsolescence in a world where people still starve is obscene and just plain stupid. Aero lessons and concepts may be transferable but this area borders on irrelevant, mechanical grip would be a better avenue to force the teams down for transferable road technology ( on top of engine/propulsion development)
FIA is correct to ensure the sport has relevance to an improved environment and contributes societal benefits.
The problem is that it rapidly becomes very difficult to both be “at the cutting edge” and include “transferable relevance beyond F1”.
The most cost-effective advancements being made in automotive technology are about optimising for particular usage profiles.
It’s no different to the chasms between the training regimes followed by marathon runners, sprinters and football players and the gym-going masses who say to their trainers “I just want to look good naked…”
I think that the important part of their statement was that as a sports car manufacturer, LMP1 is more relevant than F1. The current Audi and Toyota racers do have more relevance to future road car design.
F1 is more a marketing strategy – a mega costly one, so is ideal for Red Bull, but perhaps less so for a company that only really sells to customers with deep pockets. Ferrari is the exception, Renault are only interested in the engine and Merc will probably return to that role as will Honda.
One of the things that struck me a few years ago was when GM returned to IndyCar, not only as a contractor through Ilmor, but rather a partner in the technology side of things in developing things like direct injection, alternative fuel (E 85 which is 85% Ethanol 15% petroleum ), turbocharging, ECU’s, and bodywork, as they ARE directly related to road car development. Ironically I haven’t seen them advertising any of this since, but that was the platform that they entered the series with. In that series however, it’s the owners who in reality dictate in the end what happens and it’s a case of the tail wagging the dog. Consequently, the body work option has never been introduced because the owners weren’t in favor of it. The manufacturers were enthusiastic about doing bodywork as it would be a showcase reflecting their aerodynamic abilities. In the Grand Scheme of things, today IndyCar is microscopic in relation to F1, however how an open wheel race car relates to a production car can be viewed as being quite parallel on showcasing the aforementioned things that GM cited when they entered IndyCar.
F1 used to be the ‘pinnacle of motorsport’.
It is now simply the ‘pinnacle of motor-entertainment’.
Porsche recognise this and my guess is that other major manufacturers do too and will put more focus on the WEC and LMP formats in the future.
I am sure that Porsche will be very happy with the minimal coverage that sports car racing receives.
Big fish in a small pond.
Microscopic pond.
Stephen
Audi might be interested to discuss that point with you, they have been committed to sports car racing for a long time now. It hasn’t done them much harm has it? Plenty of Audis on the roads these days.
Maybe Toyota think it’s rather more than a microscopic pond too.
Martin
Martin and Leigh – I won’t belittle sports cars, or any other formula for that matter. I even occasionally watch it on the tele. But I would have thought that the BTCC or WTCC were more relevant for most people and more popular (don’t know the figures – maybe someone does). I just can’t believe that punters buy Audis or Toyotas due to their prowess in sports cars racing. I’m looking forward actually to seeing my first DTM race at Brands soon, in which Audi are well represented.
As I said, it’s a different demographic. Often I have found that those who follow endurance racing are more likely to support car makers / brands than drivers per se.
In terms of road going relevance, I would add rallying to that list as well.
Different demographic or not Leigh, success in Rallying has not helped Citroen’s sales. Years ago as a kid I followed the drivers and cars of sportscar racing – JW Gulf, McLaren Can Am and so forth when Bruce, Denny, Dan Gurney etc were driving. Maybe the lack of ‘big name’ drivers today means fan back the cars more.
It’s a vicious circle really with media exposure feeding upon itself. The British touring car series became very big news in the early and mid 90s on the back of pretty gripping TV and seemed to fade away. I also remember rallying being covered well on Channel 4 – and there were also big characters (stars) such as Colin McRae to follow a bit like the F1 guys.
These two series and sports cars properly promoted and covered (and with not too long a race – as us punters don’t have much patience) could well compete much better with Bernie’s show
Don’t think so. Rallying has a problem really, watching one car followed by another on a timed basis – where’s TV spectacle? They tried that with F1 and it didn’t work. Much better live.
The BTTC is not only better promoted but there’s proper racing involved. Audiences are up – but it’ll never compete with F1.
Stephen
“… I won’t belittle sports cars,…”
I think you already tried with your microscopic comment.
I’m not familiar with BTCC or WTCC regs but I doubt Porsche have a car that fits either.
Audi did BTCC in the 90’s (Frank Biela and John Bintcliffe IIRC) but they don’t now, I Wonder why?
” I just can’t believe that punters buy Audis or Toyotas due to their prowess in sports cars racing”.
Doctor Ulrich can probably explain this to you. Seen any diesel powered Audis about lately?
Martin
I’m not belittling sports cars – just realistic.
I still don’t understand your point – perhaps being in sports car racing allows buyers of Audis and Porches to re-affirm their choice. Personally I’ve never liked either but each one to their own. As to Audi’s decision to stop in the BTCC I don’t know why, you tell me. Change of regs? It seems to have worked – it’s cheaper and attendances are up.
Maybe that pond represents a vastly different demographic that actually go out and buy their cars as opposed to cans of Red Bull?
Guests of Porsche will see 911’s race in the GT2 class and think “hey, I can buy that same car and drive it on the road”.
An F1 weekend with GP2 support mainly shows Formula cars…..
True, but there are very few spectators and little TV coverage of sports car racing, with the exception of Le Mans.
Maybe TV coverage is not so big a deal IF they can justify a decent portion of their spend on motor sport as R&D. What they’re saying is that with F1 they can’t do that.
I think a lot of the benefit is in their own marketing, not just the number of people watching. How many times have you seen an advert with a picture of the racing car alongside the road car with all sorts of claims about race bred technology (with varying degrees of truth!)
These companies are multi million pound businesses, they will evaluate the cost and benefit in great detail.
Joe
The recent Silverstone event was covered in France by Eurosport and/or Motors TV, I don,t remember which. So were the F3 races.
Le Mans has always dominated sports car racing, Aston Martin fans might disagree because of their success in the Goodwood 9 hour races in the 1950s. That apart, few people remember, or care, who won at Monza, Spa, Silverstone etc.
But the sport survives, and long may it continue.
Porsche have been involved at some level since the 1950s, TV coverage or not. It hasn,t done them much harm has it?
The most profitable car company in the world, according to some.
Martin
Joe – Whilst I agree that Le Mans gets much less TV coverage than F1, you would be surprised how Audi have been able to leverage their LeMans TDi success into their North Amercian advertising. This has helped turn around American’s perception of diesel fuel from their 70s/80s black smoke perceptions into a “smarter” option based on their racing results. I.e. “If its good enough to win Le Mans, then it must be ok”.
Other than some recent Clear ads, I have seen very little F1 ad lev leverage.
You really couldn’t be anymore wrong. Americans’ perception of diesel have been flipped upside down because fuel prices have skyrocketed in America and Audi, BMW, VW, Mercedes and other have been putting out clean, high-performance diesel cars with amazing MPG for the better part of 20 years. Car that always get glowing reviews in auto magazines and ones people can test drive at their local dealership. It’s had literally almost nothing to do with ads about LM or ALMS (which has been teetering on bankruptcy, almost zero TV viewer interest, etc.). In America, almost no one cares about sports car racing (I love it myself) and the purists who go have already owned the brand they’re going to support for years.
And you can probably blame F1 for that.
It sucks out resources at all levels leaving zero cash available to buy TV contracts, provide sponsorship, technical personnel and the FIA’s attention to the rapidly deteriorating state of its other championships.
I have always believed that Mad Max’s formula $50 million would have ultimately benefited all motorsport.
I agree, but it did not happen
Surely touring cars (ie BTCC,WTCC) are a better example – great crowds, great racing.
Porsche don’t care about the coverage, they care about the sport and that’s why they prefer WEC than F-1. Not billions of people can afford a Porsche anyway… and the F-1 is currently the pinnacle of non-racing. Nor Ferrari, nor Mercedes, nor Red Bull will change that.
Ironically, the one piece of ‘transferable technology’ that sports car racing could adapt from F1 is its ‘marketing machinery’, which far exceeds the latter’s technological relevance in terms of maintaining its prominence.
Formula One doesn’t have great marketing. It’s amazing its profile isn’t even higher given how much money is involved, the celebrity connections, the big brands, etc. It has so much going for it, but still seems utterly dependent on the model of oil sheiks/the kings of cheap labor economies who want to buy glamor/credibility overnight.They’ve done an especially poor job with their social marketing efforts. I hate social media as much as the next guy, but they could be doing so much more. There are some bright spots. but overall, no one is going to be looking at F1 as a case study for how to market products via sport.
Whilst the 2014 engine regs may allow the use of principally the same engine in F1 and LMS, the duty cycles of the engines are quite different. This means that one would build them differently for suit the life cycles.
The pinnacle of F1 engineering was in the days of building the car to fall apart as it crossed the finish line. (Otherwise you had made it too strong, thus probably too heavy thus in turn too slow. Mr Chapman was renowned for building then too light) Nowadays they tend to last a bit longer.
So there is no, or at least little, liklihood of taking an engine to the new F1 engine regs and sticking it straight in an LMS P1 car. While there is the possibility to adapt to one form to the other, it will probably be easier to start with the new block and go from there.
Perhaps Lucy can dig further at Renault re the LMS side. (With their own entry in LMS this year they should be up on the tech rumours, though I appreciate it is a separate team using a Nissan engine)
Elsewhere Audi is using blown diffuser in LMP1. Now if only I could eliminate all drag from my KIA I could approach 60% of the claimed mpg.
I’d like to see lotus drivers face when Colin boasted of that. And possibly his bank manager and/or sponsors.
.
F1 is more of an image thing. So it seems to me, it fits Lamborghini better than Porsche. Lamborghini competes in the market place with Ferrari, McLaren et al and they could do with more of a boost to increase sales.
With the 2014 LMP and F1 engine regs apparently being quite close together, the cost savings of two parallel developments could make it attractive for them.
Lamborghini is far too small to afford F1 and their target demo is driven by image versus pedigree or engineering. Well, more accurately now, since they became part of the VW Group, their sales are too small to justify that expenditure rather than cannot afford it. It would really only make financial sense if one of the big marques from the VW Group competed and also gave Lambo engines to re-brand and big time tech support. Lamborghini would also need to secure a platinum plated sponsor/partner, which is not far-fetched (they’re an attractive brand to attach one’s name to). Ferrari on the other hand, sells far more road car and much more importantly, they get a huge share of F1′s commercial revenues. They actually profit directly from F1 rather than hemorrhage money like other marques when they come to the sport (e.g. BMW, Toyota, Honda).
Porsche are 100% right and it’s not necessarily publicity it’s far more to do with F1 being over emphasised upon aerodynamics and tyres when if you have a good look at the development which Audi has made then this will definitely benefit their future production cars. ( also Toyota’s latest Hybrid TS030 is superb )
Oh ….. Plus the racing at Silverstone 2 weeks ago was just superb when McNish won – I was watching it on the Audi Internet channel and it was such a fantastic race it kept me up from 11pm till 5.30am (Expat in NZ) 6hrs of racing and not a marble in sight – somehow the political contrived F1 racing does seem all done for “A Show”
Solid point Rick, and thanks for posting the Audi video. It demonstrates why Audi is so engaged in prototype racing – because it fuels their road car development. I believe Porsche feel the same about racing and so sports cars better support their mission than does F1.
The fact their decision does not involve F1 is no ground for criticizing them – they know what they are about and have made decisions based on that.
Ironically enough, Audi have recently stated that they are looking at open wheel (IndyCar) in the near future.
Actually Audi stated they were looking at IndyCar, Grand-Am and US DTM.
Yes, but in the longer term…
Rick, this is a F1 blog. Good for you if you like sports cars but I can’t for the life me work out why you bother to watch F1 in that case. It’s like me carrying on about sports cars in a similar sports cars blog (are there in any?)
Going back to Joe’s article I never thought, other than Ferrari of course who sell sports cars, that success in F1 was built on just any one item ie tyres, engine, or whatever. I think their comment (Porche’s) is feeble in the extreme – they’re worried about the expense probably and the fear of failure, and there are plenty of examples lets face it. As for their problems with aero – exactly when did F1 cars look like sportscars? Eons ago. Maybe Porsche might want to talk to Ferrari about that – obviously they’ve been missing something over the years.
I meant to say ‘carrying on about F1 in a …… sports cars blog’. You know what I mean.
PPS Joe – The Sports Cars get minimal viewing but I remember seeing the figures for Audi Internet Channel and I believe it was in the region of either 60,000 or 16,000 – Nothing in comparison to F1 but these are True fans – like they’ll stand in field when it’s raining to appreciate a skilled racing driver show their skills – Next we’ll be getting Touring Car racing isn’t really racing …….. Tosh !!!
strange from Porsche considering they looked to F1 (Williams) for Hybrid project for 911 GT3……….and as for their Aero remark, they should have a look at one of BMW concept cars that has some very F1 style detailing especially the wing mirrors and rear………….i think the real reason is they can not make a F1 car look like a 911.
Have Porsche not noticed the McLaren P1 road car (with KERS and DRS) and ‘La Ferrari’ which has KERS.
Didn’t Porsche hook up with Williams to see about using the flywheel KERS system that the Grove based team had developed?
But Porsche aren’t really that keen to work in the hypercar sector. They’ve been happy to ignore the true “top trumps” cars and produce “everyday” sportscars.
One could easily argue that there’s a sense of national stereotyping at work – with Porsche cast as the pragmatic, efficient Germans and Ferrari as the passionate, style-over-substance Italians.
It’d be quite rude as an argument to make, and miss the point that the VW group (51% owned by Porsche) are responsible for the Bugatti Veyron and the Lambo Veneno, but you could argue like that.
Look at the 918 Spyder… Chock full of hybrid and regenerative technology too and at least as much a technological tour de force as any of the other hypercars. The question is whether this really is F1 technology or rather technology that is equally well-develloped through other channels? Remember, KERS was not an F1 innovation, but rather an innovation that was mandated into F1 by the rulemakers. In many respect, F1 has not lead, but rather followed.
I don’t believe that you have to do F1 or even Le Mans to produce high tech road cars. Nissan have a very sophisticated car despite Nissan not spending large amounts on motor sport.
I think you may be right. F1 is just another form racing in the end, albeit the ‘top end’.
Porsche was for years (before the VAG takeover) the most profitable car company in the world so they must be getting something right. I dont know if you have been to Le Mans, Joe but if not you should go – it is one of the best motorsport events in the world – and according to the National Geographic Magazine it is the best sporting event in the world full stop.
I remember a little while back when the integration of Porsche into VAG was just getting started, VAG’s head of motorsport mentioned how it was redundant to have both Audi and Porsche competing against each other in the same series and that eventually one of them would end up going to a different series such as F1.
Now VAG has porsche in sports car racing and VW in wolrd rally so could that mean that there is apossibility of Audi moving on to F1?…it’s a long shot but it would be nice to see the auto union rings back in the sport.
Audi have clearly said no to F1. They (at the moment) seem to be saying that Porsche vs Audi is showcasing different technologies (petrol hybrid vs diesel “quattro”). Though whether this is their long term plan remains to be seen.
Come on… A LMP1 prototype is not really much more relevant to a road car than a F1 car.
from my experience with Porsche Cars North America as an employee during the launch of the marque in 1985, the PDQ transmission which was making it’s debut with the 956-962 series of that era resulted in the road car transmission branded as DSG in the VW -Audi- Porsche products for several years now. it is a fine example of how racing improves the breed mission of Porsche A.G..
I think they are right. I have long thought the huge wings in F1, while technically impressive and visually spectacular) are not road car relevant in ANY way, and they in fact detract from the ability of one car to legitimately pass another. Chop them off. As far as manufacturers go, they’re all in it for the marketing and money: they have boards of directors to answer to.
Unfortunately they can’t chop them off, as they’re the main advertising hoardings. They did try, a few years ago, and that’s what stopped them.
The fact that F1 is so alien in both appearance and performance to your average road car is exactly what makes it “formula” racing and so appealing to so many. You start putting on fenders and you’re just another series among many. Apparently, people are forgetting that all-time important pillar of sales: differentiation. People need to realize F1 is a sport for its own sake, just like stick-and-ball. It’s good to incorporate relevance whenever possible, but at the end of the day it’s going to be star drives fan can idolize, a great show and great rivalries on/off the track rather that will drive F1’s success. Not esoteric engineering connections or green-friendly innovations. Again, those things are important to make F1 sponsor friendly and a “responsible citizen,” but won’t put fans in the seats or in front of the TV.
Porsche is selling cars and SUVs so fast in China that the US dealer network had to initiate a no-sell list of brokers. Porsche does not need F1. Pure and simple. The racing history of the company is in sports cars, with the high points coming at Le Mans. Why spend the ridiculous money and play the ridiculous politics of F1 when you can remain true to your history?
Whether Porsche needs F1 is an entirely different argument. I think Porsche would be foolish to go into F1 myself, but just because F1 would not be a good investment for one brand does not mean that it would not be a good investment for another.
I’m not sure why Porsche would ignore F1 and stick in the natural enviroment of their target market. I always feel a little sorry for Audi wasting all that money for little gain or publicity in the tiny pond that is WEC/Le Mans/Sportscars, i mean when did you last see an Audi diesel on the road? What? Oh..
The key point is that Porsche made that decision some years ago. The project will last a few years and Porsche may decide on F1 next time around. If not, there are other brands in the VW company that could come to F1.
It would be nice to see a Bugatti or Auto Union Grand Prix car again.
It seems like a perfectly logical decision, especially given their history. Odds of success are much higher. As a fan, I’d rather see more strong factory teams in sportscar racing than another F1 team, and build that series up anyway. With the recent experience of BMW and Toyota, I’d think manufacturers would think long and hard about entering F1, or at least waiting to see how the new engine regs play out in the next few years.
I completely understand their reluctance to enter F1. A good first step for Porsche would be to develop an engine for the FIA 2014 regulations, then consider their options once that engine is established and winning.
I think perhaps the point Porsche is making indirectly is that it is not really interested in joining a sport where right now the decisions are not wing made by those who stand to profit most.
I am pretty sure that with a different set of rules and governors Porsche would overcome the ‘we can not apply this to road cars’ argument. As for there are tons of arguments as innovations that have and will impact sportscars and indeed Porsche, thinking about materials used, gearbox technology etc.
I’m not very technical, so I’ll leave that to the clever people at Porsche, but this debate has brought up some interesting points about viewership and marketing in and around F1.
I assume a company as slick as VW/Porsche has done their homework and they find a correlation between their non-F1 racing endeavours and selling cars. There are ways that a lower profile motorsport effort can be leveraged to produce far-reaching and extremely engaging publicity to the right audience.
I cannot find the reference, but I remember Mini talking about how Top Gear featuring their WRC contender brought more exposure than a season (or was it several seasons?) of WRC TV coverage. This probably says more about the woeful situation surrounding modern rallying than anything else, but it is still food for thought. The Gran Turismo series of games is knocking on for 70 million sales, which will surely bring a brand like Audi (their Le Mans cars are usually featured) far more engaged exposure than a whole series of endurance racing ever could.
Given the right level of success, licensing and periphery publicity, any manufacturer can fashion its own legend that becomes ingrained in the minds of current or future buyers. How many of us reading this actually watched Ford GT40s racing in their pomp? Yet we all know what these magnificent machines achieved because they created a story worth telling.
Still, all this is not what Porsche were getting at with their statement, but it’s food for thought.
There might well be something in your point about indirect motorsports marketing like the Top Gear Mini story and the videogames point.
If you’re a digital petrolhead but not a specific motorsports fan, you probably own either Gran Turismo or Forza, depending on your choice of console. Which means you can, and probably do, digitally drive LMP1 cars. And so you probably know how good Audi’s prototypes are without ever having seen a real one either with your own eyes or on TV. Depending on version it might well be that the fastest car in the game-world is an Audi.
It’s not the stuff marketing dreams are made of. It probably converts into very few direct sales today. But it’s brand awareness to teenagers. Clever.
I love and follow both F1 and ACO/ALMS racing and don’t see the need to throw rocks at either, much less compare the two, but I will say this re Porsche’s comments on F1’s applicability to their road cars: there is a certain French tire manufacturer that will reportedly not return to F1 unless or until the wheel diameters better reflect road car sizes (i.e. 17″ on up vs 14″ or whatever F1 has now). They don’t see the upside anymore.
The”formula” is flawed, and has been for some time.
Note widespread dissatisfaction with the Pirellis, and the certain absurdity of DRS, both of which were to improve the show with more passing, with passing difficult due to AERO!!!
Aero is responsible for difficulty passing, “80~90%” of a cars development potential, much of the car’s expense, and has nada applicability to the real world. Sounds more like the pinnacle of jet fighters than motorsport.
Along with 2014 engine changes, how about aero restriction? Single element, size limited aero surfaces, that allow the self-destruct tires, video game DRS, and gimmicky KERS to disappear forever?
Why not? Why not, indeed. Then companies like Porsche would not be correct to turn up their noses at F1. AND we’d all be enjoying a better sport without the all the cheap gimmicks. By getting to the source of the REAL problem with the formula.
Adrian could continue on in Formula Aero!
Don’t know why you waste your time writing comments about such a ruined series…
Really? I surmise S. Domenicalli has similarly confused folks. Having said much the same thing, where does HE get off? What position does he have to stake claim to such views?
I respect and admire you Joe, but wonder how your own views are different? Really, how much substantial difference is there between tires gimmicked to self destruct, DRS, and Bernie’s “crazy” notion to install sprinklers around tracks? And it does all boil down to ‘aero gone wild’.
I, for one, am highly curious about your own seasoned and expert views.
Sports car (Group C) racing was great right until the FiA ruined it, ironically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_C
The FIA exists merely to take the blame for every ill…
The shoe fits quite comfortably on them. WSC/Prototype racing was pretty popular here in the states for a time. Even the most casual of racing fans knew what a Rothmans Porsche or Silk Cut Jaguar was. It actually had better coverage TV-wise than F1, and was well followed and loved in IMSA formats as well. Yes, Americans actually came out to see cars turn right and left in droves. The 80s and early 90s was probably the pinnacle of being able to see a lot of road racing here in the US live or on TV, until the NASCAR-ization of the airwaves.
What destroyed group C was the stupid idea to replace the road based engines (Porsche Flat 6, Mercedes V-8, Jaguar V-12 and so on…) by the F-1 engines (3500 ccm, atmo). The costs explode and when a small recession came and it was nearly over with sportscar racing.
Curiously Jean Todt takes that idea back (F-1 regs for LMP1 engines) but this time it’s not mandatory. It will be interesting to see if somebody comes with such an engine (1600 ccm, HT) in sportscar racing in the next few years.
Good link Mike, thank you.
But the featured car, a Skoal Bandit 956 entered by Walter Brunn?
My memory, not ultra-reliable anymore sadly, tells me that the Skoal Bandit car was owned/entered by John Fitzpatrick not Brunn. Oh, and wasn’t it a 962? The pictured car looks like a 956 (less bodywork between the back of the front wheel and the door). I’ve just noticed that John Fitzpatrick is on the windscreen sunstrip, but Brunn is on the rear wing and the picture’s caption.
Any group C afficionados out there who can help with this?
I think this picture comes from a modern event, Goodwood perhaps, the driver is Henry Pearman who maybe owns the car now.
Apologies to all for the digression.
Martin
What a superb discussion with views from all sides with some appreciating the Sport more and others appreciating the technology and the Sport. Personally, I developed from at a child seeing Clark at Silverstone and later P4 Ferrari’s and have always appreciated the Sport and EQUALLY the technology ( A massive aero and materials development era), consequently some of the developments have been simply enthralling to keep the Sport always fresh and alive. The future of Hybrid, Electric and alternative Energy shows we are about to hit a new Era which will be superb. (We know about Turbo’s and Oil is dying / dead development) Personally, I enjoy the technology as much as the Sport so my bias is currently towards Sports Cars. For a Motor Manufacturer NOT to be involved with Hybrid / Electric Racing / Development seems a crazy decision. With Porsche ………. how could they NOT be involved considering their Racing Technology has always been transferable to Road Cars.
They are involved in motorsport where they can develop road going technology. It just so happens that’s not F1.
As an aside, I think there is a lot of relevance to what Wolfgang Hatz says. F1 is a fantastic marketing machine, but in terms of forward thinking technology that is relevant to the road, I’m not convinced F1 on the right track.
For me, the 2014 regs are a step in the right direction – a tiny, tiny step, but s step nonetheless.
Joe, Am I right in saying that the TAG (Porsche) engines that Mclaren used in the 80’s where essentially just an engineering contract to Porsche with TAG/Mclaren footing the entire bill.
Yes.
“Step this way, Herr Dennis. And bring your cheque book”.
Porsche have a long history of being vocally not interested in F1. Some commentators have opined that this is (with the exception of the TAG engine) they’ve never been terribly good at it.
Well, they’ve not been in it a huge amount other than the highly successful TAG effort. Minor success in the early 1960s with their own cars, absolutely horrendous attempt at engine supply in the early 1990s (lasted only half a season, if I recall correctly).
The relationship was more complex than McLaren and TAG simply “footing the bill”, as it were – Porsche may have been the major partner, but the relationship was a two way process in many ways.
In an interview for one of Porsche’s magazines a few years back, Porsche’s lead designer on that project pointed out that John Barnard was involved from the very beginning of the design process. The whole point was that both sides wanted the engine to be as efficiently packaged and integrated into the car as possible, which meant that sometimes the design decisions were being driven by McLaren rather than Porsche’s. For example, it was Barnard who specified the cylinder bank angle (Porsche were looking at a 120º bank angle, which Ferrari were using at the time, but Barnard insisted on a 90º instead for packaging and aerodynamic reasons).
Mr Barnard (aka “The prince of darkness” to some) was after the perfect Turbo engine for a ground-effect F1 car, so the exhaust stubs were set to keep the exhausts clear of the underwing instead of being optimised for exhaust function. The pumps were packaged to allow a narrow lower chassis to increase the ground effect underwing. He reputedly screamed at Porsche every time they exceeded the defined packaging envelope.
Between them Porsche and McLaren slaved away to produce the ideal engine to fit in a ground effect F1 car.
Then the FIA introdcued flat-bottom rules…
I think, but can’t confirm, that the vee angle was narrower, about 80 degrees.
(Anorak firmly in place). 😉
Reminds me of a story told against himself by the cricket journo Simon Hughes, who in his early days after his playing career, was filling in here and there on other sports.
He rather fancied the female copytaker and realised his hopes of impressing her were at an end when he was dictating the results of some or other race:
“5th was so-and-so in the McLaren Porsche. That’s p.o.r.s.C.h.e.”
“yes I know, I own one..”
I actually ‘blame’ Motor sport for introducing absolutely pointless aero on average SUVs and other cars. It may look good but effectively with raked windscreens and rear windows most cars have two extra sunroofs. Sunroofs that don’t open. That may be ok in Northern Europe but it cooks Australian drivers for nine months of the year, so the aircon is overworked, the mpg goes down and the poor little globe is warmed even more! Aero is probably almost irrelevant in average cars on average roads at average speeds unless it lessens wind-noise.
You mean you guys don’t ride around on kangaroos?
Drag reduction (admittedly not an F1 strong suit, with a Cd higher than a brick) is relevant to fuel brun at most reasonable road speeds.
Driving a 3-tonnes SUV may, however, negate any benefits.
I gotta be honest I have had a lot more fun at a sports car race than a F1 race. I love them both but for me sports cars takes the crown.
I’m not surprised that Porsche is regularly bashing F1. Its own works effort with Arrows/Footwork was a bad joke that nobody really took notice. Hardly anyone remember, but Porsche was also a failure at Indycar during the 1980s.
What trully is beyond my imagination is why would anybody believe Porsche is not just scared that it will fail again. Not in a gazillion years could Porsche beat Ferrari or Mercedes in F1, or even Renault for that matter. And that is why they won’t ever come.
Porsche is rather more interested in losing to Audi at Le Mans, and in selling GT3 cars to privateers. Porsche is so dependent on its own image that it is just really scared of losing at top level racing.
Your memory is short. Yes, the Footwork effort was flop, but the V6 Turbo was the most successful F1 engine in its time…
thank you Joe for this lively discussion forum.
as a former member of the ACO during the centenary celebration of the inaugural Grand Prix at Le Mans in 2006 yours truly can attest to the new technology theory which is beig practiced by the organizers of this 24 hour enduro celebrating it’s 90th aniversary in June of this year.
a striking memory of this event was the abscence of sounds coming from the victorious Audi turbo-diesel prototypes.
one thing about it that will forever be etched in my mind was that one could only watch the LMP1 TD go by and then listen for the quiet muffled murmur of the engine which reminded me of a vaccum cleaner sound unfortunately. that’s racing in the 21st century mes amis. Ciao turri!
you can of see the logic if porsche’s decision not to race in F1 from a financial and road car stand point, but winning on the biggest motor sport stage in the world has have some advantages, if nothing else as an engine manufacturer
Surely there’s a brand in the giant VW/Porsche/millionotherbrands conglomeration that would benefit from F1 marketing. I think Porsche can live without it, and Audi can always point to its prototype racing victories, but maybe Bugatti? Their claim to fame is the engine in the Veyron – that’s only a temporary marketing hook, while their other brands are better established.
The thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that Porsche have developed a successful customer based motorsport programme. Its customers essentially fund the development of its racecars as there is a ready market for them. Compare that to other manufacturers who fund it themselves. By entering into F1, this would appear to be against that philosophy.
Assuming that they own a team as opposed to being just an engine supplier.
There is life beyond F1 and there is Motorsport beyond F1. Many people involved, writing or tied up in F1 seem to forget that. I have been directly involved with UK owners of some very high end sportscars including F1 brands for some years and I would say that whilst some will attend F1 – mostly on corporate money – more will spend their own money on a trip to Le Mans. Therefore the percentage of the fans that truly could go out and buy those cars is far far higher, whereas F1 is more about the masses that dream about them. This is why F1 is mainly about big volume brands and high end car manufacturers tend to be in sportscars – This year at Le Mans there are Factory or near Factory teams from Aston Martin, Corvette, Porsche, Dodge, Ferrari, Toyota and Audi.
I don’t disagree, but it is not watched by a lot of people
I don’t understand your comment on “big volume brands”. Apart from Ferrari and Merc most teams all ‘niche’ companies in F1. Forget corporate clients (in evidence at most motor sport events) more true fans watch F1. Corvette, Dodge, Toyota, Audi and Porsche more are big volume leaving Aston and Ferrari (and they’re in F1) as your high end.
Maybe, one day, when the analysts report on the ROI of this venture, they’ll look back and report:
“Spending all that money to guarantee winning races that nobody watched was perhaps a bad idea.”
Everyone around the table will look awkwardly at their notes before thinking to themselves “They’re right, I didn’t watch it…but I could tell them who won the 2014 F1 Driver’s World Championship”.
Mind you, Porsche’s brand is not fast cars, it’s about selling something for financiers and wealthy pensioners to show off in over the weekend. I should know, I used to sell them.
Audi as a brand has done very nicely since they started at Le Mans in 1999. It is not only who watches the races it is how that is used in their marketing with regard to reliability, technology and efficiency.
…. And you might be able to tell who won a championship, but not always in what. Cars that won Le Mans like the GT40, Porsche 917, D type etc are icons that will last forever and some manufacturers are still dining out on victories at Le Mans from decades ago. F1 cars never reach that status. In F1 it is the driver who is the star, in sports cars it is the car. That is of considerable value to some manufacturers.
Audi has done well because they massively improved their product. They’ve also cashed in on the US/Asia export market by expanding their model range just as well as BMW and Porsche have. They have even managed to avoid the retired Mercedes market.
The fact they have won Le Mans in a diesel etc does not matter in the slightest to the bloke that buys their cars – the equivalent BMW is more efficient and cheaper to run anyway.
F1 is a ‘brandy’ sport that helps things sell because it’s all about strong personalities. The Red Bull Webber/Vettel thing is a wonderful example. Being around all that emotion builds emotive feelings about a brand.
Sportscar racing…as honourable as it is…is really a 30 minute Eurosport highlight show sponsored by Hyundai.
Brand marketing is far more complex than just who and how many people sit down and watch TV. It is also more complex than just the the number of models in your range. It is about product placement, perception of the brand and their place in the market. Audi has steadily built a brand that is strong, perceived as high quality, durable, not flash, not gimmicky but a solid dependable quality brand. This is done over a number of years by gradually changing the publics perception of the brand. It’s lemans programme and the cars involved are just one part of a complex marketing strategy in new, emerging and existing markets. It is not the reason they have done well but it is one important part of the plan. It is no coincidence that it has gone from a distant and poor relation of the other German brands in the 90’s to what may be the leading quality high volume brand. It’s lemans programme is one not insignificant part of that process.
If Audi didn’t think that building a diesel to win Le Mans was worthwhile then they wouldn’t have done it. It would have been far cheaper to continue with the R8.
It may pain some F1 fans that there is life beyond the Bernie circus but its true and there are a growing number of manufacturers that want no part of the politics and the philimandering show that is simply designed to line the pockets of its inner circle.
I have to agree with Mal when he says that owners of some very high end sportscars spend their own money on a trip to Le Mans. I can remember in the 80’s being absolutely staggered at the amount of Excellent Sportscars and Bentleys in Garage Vert at Le Mans ( THE best camping field ) therefore, even though they have money for a posh hotel and own a very nice car those enthusiasts still rough it in the best place. Respect.
I completely agree with Porsche’s sentiments. There is also the issue of the tons of money that the bankers take out of the sport. Porsche referred to it by mentioning “politics”. It is well known that Ferdinand Piech has no intentions to swell Bernie’s and CVC’c coffers with his money and work to tech rules that only advantage the English based F1 constructors. Until F1 becomes more open and the power of the established constructors isn’t broken there will be no big works teams from the VW group. I’m pretty sure of that. Perhaps they will move to become engine suppliers with technology that was designed for LMP1. The rules are being pushed for a unified approach to enable that. But that will probably be beyond 2015.
Porsche would know all about the bankers…
Joe,
It has been said the Sportcar viewing figures are minimal in comparison to F1 but last years Silverstone 6hrs attendance was 35K and this years (cold and April) was 30k and 2012 Le Mans had 242k attendance. We are obviously talking about true enthusiasts here who really know their cars and Motor Racing – and that’s the market Porsche are seeking. (Last year they sold approx 125k cars Worldwide incl. SUV’s)
You have made some good points there. I looked
on the web to find out more about the issue and found most individuals will go along with your views on this web site.