|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
16 Nov 2016, 21:38 (Ref:3688687) | #26 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
It's a completely new car. Even though it meets the newer safety regulations the BR01 can't be converted to LMP1, it's too heavy and too wide.
|
|
|
16 Nov 2016, 21:43 (Ref:3688689) | #27 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Quote:
sorry but all the talk of LMP2, it's a different landscape in terms of sponsorship potential......joest would be selling themselves cheap via going LMP2....I just don't see it happening myself. |
|||
|
16 Nov 2016, 22:51 (Ref:3688711) | #28 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,179
|
Quote:
Are the 2018 rules already defined? |
|||
|
16 Nov 2016, 23:45 (Ref:3688727) | #29 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
17 Nov 2016, 00:24 (Ref:3688741) | #30 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,584
|
Yeah, among the rules is to make the cars even taller. They're going to be more disproportionate than now. Too bad they can't just leave them alone.
|
|
|
17 Nov 2016, 00:32 (Ref:3688742) | #31 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Quote:
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/c...-new-lmp2-car/ Quote:
I think Joest has access to considerably more technical resources than Rebellion when it comes to modifying a car for a new engine installation and politically there's motivation to allow them to race the RP7. But it's probably more realistic to think that if they just need to keep busy they turn up at Sebring than Le Mans. I can't see them running WEC LMP2 but as an overall win competing pro class it would work, although probably not full time without a manufacturer involved. |
|||
|
17 Nov 2016, 02:02 (Ref:3688757) | #32 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
7 Dec 2016, 08:35 (Ref:3694422) | #33 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Quote:
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/durheimer-audi-r18s-can-continue-in-privateer-hands/ . |
|||
|
7 Dec 2016, 15:04 (Ref:3694535) | #34 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 602
|
Yes indeed. VW seems to have changed their stance a bit. One would have to believe that Joest is first in line what with their resources and close working relationship.
This is great news as far as I'm concerned. From an outsiders perspective, this would seem like a win-win for both parties. I just hope that there is enough time and a proper budget in place. |
|
|
7 Dec 2016, 17:15 (Ref:3694561) | #35 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,162
|
Quote:
Quote:
Who pays for this? Clearly there is the budget of the day to day operations of the team, etc. But if (as that article mentions) includes a potential customer version of the diesel engine (sans hybrid), there will clearly be some development required to package it for the non-hybrid class or at the minimum coordinate with whoever would take up the challenge. Someone would have to pay for that. Is Audi now going to fund a diesel engine program for LMP1? I can't see that given to a degree that they are both moving away from diesel AND the PR effort of "we are stopping this to save money" due to the emissions fiasco. Or, it could be funded by outside sponsor such as it was when McLaren paid Porsche to develop the F1 engine years ago. That was a "for profit" enterprise for Porsche. But who is going to pay to effectively take the entire Audi LMP1 program, extract the hybrid from that solution, and then run it in a class that is almost non-existent when it comes to competitors? Even if it did work, might it be an expensive solution for that problem? Plus you then have what would appear to be... a fully manufacture sourced chassis and powertrain in the non-manufacture class... with potential full manufacture powertrain support? Nail in coffin for a nearly dead class? But lets consider the more logical approach of just using the chassis as a basis for a privateer effort with some other powertrain solution (would be insane to use anything but petrol). It still has the issues of it being designed for hybrid class plus the smaller diesel fuel tank. Is it not just as likely it would be cheaper to use some other solution to get into that class of racing than trying to make the Audi work in a class it wasn't designed for? I think this is a huge pipe dream by everyone involved. Unless there is someone crazy enough to burn truckloads of money to make it happen. Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
7 Dec 2016, 18:05 (Ref:3694572) | #36 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
|
This is not going to happen, so Audi can easily save face by pretending that they would be willing to support such an effort, it's not like this will ever be tested. They know nobody can foot the bill for this, not even the factory team was able to secure any headline-sponsorship to pay for the majority of the programs cost...how would a privateer suddenly find that money?
Given that this is well out of scope even for the most wealthiest team owners, this won't happen. There will be no Audi on the grid in 2017. To put things in perspective, even Total, who were major backers of the Peugeot effort back in the day, including even being part of the team name, only footed roughly half of their bill. And that was pre-hybrid costs, even a sponsor willing do make this kind of commitment (which is rare) wouldn't be able to pay for more than 25% of the cots here. There just is no way to pull this off. |
|
|
7 Dec 2016, 18:25 (Ref:3694579) | #37 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,584
|
Yeah but I think most of the costs are related to the development of the car. With the new car basically done with that, the only thing left would be to purchase or lease/rent them, find out how to run them (if it's with the hybrid), put together a team and all that comes with it then figure out the costs. It shouldn't be anywhere near the $100-200million Audi spent. But it's gotta be a lot more than what Rebellion or Kolles are spending.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2016, 22:50 (Ref:3694639) | #38 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Quote:
Similarly if you look at the Joest end, they don't exactly have the resources of a typical privateer team and are looking for ways to keep the team employed. Since it's no longer a factory team any potential sponsors will get a much larger role than they could playing second fiddle to the Audi branding at a much lower dollar number. |
||
|
8 Dec 2016, 07:09 (Ref:3694683) | #39 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,157
|
I wonder how much it costs to run these cars for a season? Probably way more than can be collected from sponsors. Sponsorship in WEC is kind of a weak spot anyway. I looked at trackside advertising at some race and all I could see was Audi, Toyota, Michelin, Ford etc... basically just the manufacturers that are racing there. What are they doing in those F1 grade hospitality spaces if they're not attracting any sponsors? Entertaining their own board members and higher ups?
|
|
|
8 Dec 2016, 17:02 (Ref:3694845) | #40 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
|
Sports car racing has always had problems to attract mainstream sponsors that are not part of a B2B deal as suppliers to a manufacturer.
If you look at most of the recent works efforts: Audi, Nissan, Toyota, Peugeot, Porsche, none of these have had any big time headline sponsors not directly connected to motor racing. The last factory effort that had a proper branding sponsorship I can think of was Penske in the ALMS. |
|
|
8 Dec 2016, 19:13 (Ref:3694862) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,903
|
I tried to think of one and couldn't. But I'm not always a good thinker, so there's that.
Edit: What about the Acuras? Maybe not the full on factory effort, but they each had their own big names. |
||
|
8 Dec 2016, 23:30 (Ref:3694908) | #42 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,162
|
I think you are over simplifying this!
Quote:
Quote:
I am sure if they plan to keep full employment (kudos to them) they expect them to be doing something other than... running a back door factory program through Joest? Otherwise, what was the point of cancelling the program if you just have them running a customer car program? NOBODY just has staff "sitting around" to do this type of thing. If you do, you should be fired! And running a complicated high tech car for yourself is one thing. Doing it for a customer is another! In fact, it should be much harder. If it was this easy, they would have already been running customer cars. In fact, many would say that is a core issue with WEC prototype racing today. The inability to support customer cars due to complexity. Quote:
Quote:
Richard Last edited by Richard C; 8 Dec 2016 at 23:37. |
|||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
9 Dec 2016, 06:24 (Ref:3694935) | #43 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Why do you think Joest is concerned with racing against ByKolles? According to the regulations there won't even be a privateer trophy next year and clubbing such lackluster opposition would mean nothing for a team that built its reputation on underdog performances at the highest level. I think you're underestimating how competitive the new car can be even with a privateer team as well, especially if they get some EoT help. With so few factory teams it doesn't take much to have a chance at a strong overall result.
Quote:
Sponsorship wise, Audi is always the primary and title sponsor of Audi Sport Team Joest unless a sponsor can bring an absurd amount of money to override the expected return on that branding for Audi's marketing department. As a privateer program the paint scheme of the car and the name of the team are available for any reasonable sponsor proposition without competing with the OEM branding. (eg. it became Infineon Team Joest in 2003) They would unquestionably be running on a lower budget than in the past as well. Is it likely? Well what part of Joest winning Le Mans twice in a row with a canned World Sports Car was likely? I'm not banking on anything here but I wouldn't say it absolutely can't happen. |
||
|
9 Dec 2016, 09:44 (Ref:3694947) | #44 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
This is what I've always thought, the actual price of materials and labour in building the car, shouldn't be more than a tenth of the apparent 100-200million budget. So what's left? spares, transport, race fees and general program running costs? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|||
|
9 Dec 2016, 11:48 (Ref:3694971) | #45 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
|
No, it's not, not at all. The Joest part of Audi's effort was about 45 people, the Audi LMP1 trackside crew consisted of a 100+ staff.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2016, 14:02 (Ref:3694989) | #46 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,162
|
Quote:
1. GTE or LMP2 (low budget) 2. Privateer LMP1 3. Privateer LMP1-H (high budget) #3 is insane IMHO, #2 might be an easy win for not a lot of respect, but still a lot to organize in a short period. I frankly don't follow them much so for all I know they have announced something, but if they are to remain in WEC "for now", it would likely be #1. Acid09 make the point above (post above this one... prior page). I didn't have ideas on the numbers, but his does not surprise me. I assume Joest takes care of event specific "racing" stuff such as mechanics, etc. The Audi side would have had to have been significant. Plus Audi would have been running the show. You are effectively arguing for Joest to take over control. Somebody (no clue who you think in your scenario) would have to maintain (replacement parts, etc.) and develop (new bits) the car over the course of the season. And even if Audi only had "one" customer in Joest, it would be a different relationship with a bit of extra overhead to run it more like a B2B relationship (Audi = Joest) vs. Owner and contractor (Audi > Joest). Joest could try to do it on the cheap but IMHO it would end up being an embarrassment to all involved (why would Audi give them a car to then watch it get trounced not due to lack of natural speed, but just lack of resources to do it right). If I was Audi, I wouldn't even talk to them until they had a plan in place to make a serious attempt and that would require funding as well. And as I have mentioned, I think it would require significant funds to make this work if up against Toyota and Porsche. I think I am done arguing this point. I will eat a hat (will need to buy one) if this Audi/Joest LMP1 privateer idea (particularly the hybrid class!!!) comes to fruition. I do understand the desire of the faithful to see something happen however. I wish Joest all the best for 2017 and beyond. Richard Last edited by Richard C; 9 Dec 2016 at 14:08. |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
9 Dec 2016, 15:01 (Ref:3695002) | #47 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 26
|
Thing is, if Audi gives them any support at all relating to the chassis or chassis systems, they're out of LMP1 Privateer Trophy contention anyway.
And, them designing the chassis is probably enough. So, this thing is not going to get any official accolades unless a privateer can pay for Audi to run it as a hybrid against Porsche and Toyota. |
||
|
9 Dec 2016, 15:34 (Ref:3695007) | #48 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,162
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
9 Dec 2016, 17:21 (Ref:3695022) | #49 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,795
|
Another thing to do the list of never ending obstacles is the fact that the additional downforce packages for the car are likely not fully developed, let alone even tested yet. Impossible to be anywhere near competitive over the course of the season without those.
It makes no sense, LMP1H is simply nothing a privateer can pull off on their own, even if that privateer is Joest. Back when Joest last successfully ran customer cars against works opposition, technology was much, much simpler. |
|
|
9 Dec 2016, 19:10 (Ref:3695044) | #50 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,162
|
Quote:
Yeah, I didn't call out details, but I talked about the need to develop the car going forward. Depending upon which version of the story you use... 2016 car (that has the existing 2016 aero packages, but would need development to keep up for 2017 as everyone else will have new for 2017) 2017 car (IMHO, may have a base package defined, but not all two or three that is allowed for the season. So someone will have to finish those up) Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
Joest Porsche LMP1 | Megatron | Sportscar & GT Racing | 6 | 31 Oct 2003 10:28 |
Joest back in 2003 | pink69 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 7 | 24 Oct 2002 17:08 |
What will become of the Joest drivers? | pink69 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 7 | 17 Apr 2002 19:38 |
Joest Porsche VS Factory Porsche | H16 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 10 | 20 Dec 2001 14:07 |