What’s next for Porsche?
#76
03-24-2009, 03:20 PM
17 months ago, at Rennsport III, a couple of the German Porsche people gave a presentation on the RS Spyder (ALMS P-2). During this they explained the history and development of the C-GT, which was basically an evolutionary twelve year program (go to wikipedia for a reasonable but superficial and not totally accurate history). The tie in to the spyder was that much of the C GT technology transferred to the 2005-07 version which was part of the plan. (The 2008 Spyder looked the same but had over 800 changes.) These Germans were clear that time, talent, money, almost yearly changes in race regulations, demand, etc. made it highly unlikely that we would ever again see a production car as dominant as the C GT was in 2004.
#77
03-24-2009, 03:26 PM
Heavy you specifically said it was a tube frame chassis, it either is or it isn't. Is it that hard admitting you are wrong? You also said the CTS-VR is a tube frame car it is not. Tube frame chassis only means one thing, a car with factory frame rails and a roll cage is not a tube frame chassis car. A car with a seam welded unibody and a roll cage is not a tube chassis car.
#78
03-24-2009, 04:02 PM
"Porsche will likely expand it's racing program, but I doubt it will be in LMP1 now that they are exercising ........." "....they may show up again, but with them showing interest in Indy Car...."
ACO (and hence ALMS) raised the minimum weight for P-2 for 2008, which Penske fought, and again for 2009 which is why Penske announced in late 2007 that he would be dropping out at the end of the 2008 season. At the same time he said that he 'might' be back with a new P-1 Porsche in 2010; I'd assume that he knows more about what Porsche is doing than we do. I'd guess 2011 rather than 2010. On the Indy side, Porsche has never "liked" open wheel cars; they ran the RSK's and their offspring in the late 50's/early 60's, then made one stab at Indy in 1980 with the Porsche powered Interscope - but got caught up in the USAC/Champ/CART politics and never ran the cars.
ACO (and hence ALMS) raised the minimum weight for P-2 for 2008, which Penske fought, and again for 2009 which is why Penske announced in late 2007 that he would be dropping out at the end of the 2008 season. At the same time he said that he 'might' be back with a new P-1 Porsche in 2010; I'd assume that he knows more about what Porsche is doing than we do. I'd guess 2011 rather than 2010. On the Indy side, Porsche has never "liked" open wheel cars; they ran the RSK's and their offspring in the late 50's/early 60's, then made one stab at Indy in 1980 with the Porsche powered Interscope - but got caught up in the USAC/Champ/CART politics and never ran the cars.
#80
03-24-2009, 06:24 PM
Heavy you specifically said it was a tube frame chassis, it either is or it isn't. Is it that hard admitting you are wrong? You also said the CTS-VR is a tube frame car it is not. Tube frame chassis only means one thing, a car with factory frame rails and a roll cage is not a tube frame chassis car. A car with a seam welded unibody and a roll cage is not a tube chassis car.
#81
03-24-2009, 07:27 PM
GM made the mistake of thinking that the Corvette tube framed racing program would work for everything (GTO, G6, CTS-V) and blew millions on cars the some of which were complete flops. But if you tube frame it, you can make anything competitive, mustangs, Rx-8's and the list goes on. Now imagine starting with a car that would have been competitive in the first place and tube framing it, you have a REAL beast. Hence the success of the Corvette.
But there is no comparison to that and a 911.
#82
03-24-2009, 10:05 PM
Hmmmm what? I've already admitted I was wrong about the tube frame, it's at the least the GTO-R and G6 (or whatever they are called now) that are the tube frame program.
But that doesn't change the fact that the corvette is not a corvette outside of the frame rail, and is still purpose built. NOT comparable to GT2.
Are you going to finally admit that, or keep harping on spilled milk?
hmmmmm
But that doesn't change the fact that the corvette is not a corvette outside of the frame rail, and is still purpose built. NOT comparable to GT2.
Are you going to finally admit that, or keep harping on spilled milk?
hmmmmm
#83
03-24-2009, 10:47 PM
No I am ok, my point was only about the tube frame. Of course you can't compare a GT1 class car to a GT2 class car, because in GT1 purpose built race cars are acceptable.
I am not that dense, or maybe I am
And where do you think the Porsche flat 6 will go from here guys?
I am not that dense, or maybe I am
And where do you think the Porsche flat 6 will go from here guys?
#84
03-25-2009, 07:16 AM
porsche will not re-enter p2 if aco rule changes go into effect. it requires p2 cars to use engines from gt2 class, and u can't run a ground effects proto with a flat 6. sorry boys.
something is definitely in the works. at a meeting with racing team principles last december, apparently there was a large section of the facility (weissach?) that even they were not allowed to enter. the rumor was that was where p1 car was being developed. hard to imagine what rules porsche feels like it can bend to beat the new audi r15 tho. especially now that they shortened the wheelbase so the car is more nimble.
something is definitely in the works. at a meeting with racing team principles last december, apparently there was a large section of the facility (weissach?) that even they were not allowed to enter. the rumor was that was where p1 car was being developed. hard to imagine what rules porsche feels like it can bend to beat the new audi r15 tho. especially now that they shortened the wheelbase so the car is more nimble.
#85
03-25-2009, 08:02 AM
porsche will not re-enter p2 if aco rule changes go into effect. it requires p2 cars to use engines from gt2 class, and u can't run a ground effects proto with a flat 6. sorry boys.
something is definitely in the works. at a meeting with racing team principles last december, apparently there was a large section of the facility (weissach?) that even they were not allowed to enter. the rumor was that was where p1 car was being developed. hard to imagine what rules porsche feels like it can bend to beat the new audi r15 tho. especially now that they shortened the wheelbase so the car is more nimble.
something is definitely in the works. at a meeting with racing team principles last december, apparently there was a large section of the facility (weissach?) that even they were not allowed to enter. the rumor was that was where p1 car was being developed. hard to imagine what rules porsche feels like it can bend to beat the new audi r15 tho. especially now that they shortened the wheelbase so the car is more nimble.
The Acuras will probably own the shorter circuits, but if there is a straight, there is no chance for anything that's not a turbo diesel. In fact the P1 Acura didn't seem any faster than the P2 Acura on the straights. And when there is traffic, and you have less than HALF the amount of torque, you get pwned on the straights.
#86
03-25-2009, 08:07 AM
Normally I agree with you, but I can't.......the C5R and C6R are not and have never been tube chassis cars, they are production based. Neither are the CTS-VR cars which have to be production based because of the rules which they race under. Plus were comparing Apples to Oranges two different GT classes, we will be able to compare them soon when the Corvettes move to GT2 from GT1. And Porsche raced with a purpose built race car in GT1, and did not dominate the production based C5R.
No I am ok, my point was only about the tube frame. Of course you can't compare a GT1 class car to a GT2 class car, because in GT1 purpose built race cars are acceptable.
I am not that dense, or maybe I am
And where do you think the Porsche flat 6 will go from here guys?
I am not that dense, or maybe I am
And where do you think the Porsche flat 6 will go from here guys?
No not really, your point was that they are production based, and if a frame rail and wood floor with nothing else from production fills that repsonsibility to you then fine.
This is about the amount of Corvette in a GT1 car. Production based......
Last edited by heavychevy; 03-25-2009 at 08:09 AM.
#88
03-25-2009, 08:56 AM
Look at the picture that germeezy posted on the last page, you can see the motor as far back as they can get it.
ALMS GT1 rules only establish limits on the build, whereas GT2 rules establish allowable modifications from the street car. Other than the dimensions and basic ball park concepts GT1 is wide open. Still a shell on a completely different car, compared to cars developed on the factory cars. All the shell has to do is cover all the mechanical parts and have "as similar as possible" shape to the factory vehicle. Very loose.
ALMS GT1 rules only establish limits on the build, whereas GT2 rules establish allowable modifications from the street car. Other than the dimensions and basic ball park concepts GT1 is wide open. Still a shell on a completely different car, compared to cars developed on the factory cars. All the shell has to do is cover all the mechanical parts and have "as similar as possible" shape to the factory vehicle. Very loose.
