As far as I understand, Audi already confirmed it will take part from 2026. For the VW group, having both Porsche and Audi probably put more conditions on a Porsche involvement.
I agree. Having both is really not necessary. Porsche needs nothing from F1 overall. There will be alot of Porsche in the Audi PU already.
Porsche's done and dusted. Bunch of cowards in my book. I hope they won't come back to 'show' interest that they will be 'showing' for 4 -5 years only to run back to Formula E.
Bunch of cowards ?? Lol VW makes decisions based on commercial interests; it wouldn't make sense to have 2 of their brands (Audi and Porsche) competing against each other. I am sure their shareholders will understand that, even if the fans don't.
I don't think it was that William with regards to both brands competing against each other. Porsche just asked for too much from RedBull and RedBull wasn't having it. They(Porsche) could have "lowered" the bar against RedBull.
At GTs and prototypes they raced against the other. Also against Lamborghini in GTs and soon in prototypes. Back in the day Seat and Skoda also competed in rallyes. I suppose the VAG group is so big that sooner or later they end racing against themselves.
From a Historic perspective - F- 1 has never really been great for Porsche.... 1 outright win in the 60's. From an engine supplier / builder under TAG - they did much better... with 3 World Championships... but then again it was just the engine, not the whole car. Sports car - endurance racing is where Porsche's DNA is ... that is where I think they should stay. For VW - and F-1 Audi / Auto Union is the right connection - and they need to bring in Bugatti Rimac ... vs. Lamborghini... to me that makes more sense.
Fair point. But you must have noticed that through some of the series you mentioned, GT, and rallying, Porsche, Audi, Lamborghini, SEAT, or Skoda, VW sells lots of cars to private teams, simply by maintaining some competition between brands. There is less possibility of doing the same in sportscars where Audi withdrew its LMH program (not to compete against Porsche) and none in F1, where it takes a lot of money to get anywhere. Supporting two full-blown factory teams in F1 would make no sense for VW, IMO.
I think it didn't make sense in the other categories either, but it happened. In the US it happened often when the Big Three were still big. I think Porsche thought that they could buy a quick way to the top through Red Bull but found that Red Bull doesn't need them. McLaren was not a good option either because of their road car business and Williams and Alpha Tauri probably needed more money to rebuild. Porsche has a long tradition of giving up when things start to look ugly, and this time they quit before even starting.
So you would knowingly make a bad investment? We need more pro tips from outside the box. Tell us more. Sent from my SM-A102U using FerrariChat.com mobile app
Gr. 5 loophole closed: instead of building a new one took their car to CanAm. Their Gr. C car was obsolete and needed a new one: said "we don't agree with the rules" and retired the works team. GT1 loophole closed: quit. They had built a prototype but realized it needed more work to be competitive so shut down the project. Problems at Indy: quit after a few seasons. Dusted at F1: quit after half season. Contrary to what porschephiles think, they don't win at anything they do, it's just they leave when start loosing.
I'm stating a fact: VW runs parallel racing programs with their brands. Ask them if it's a good business or not, not me.
In 2014/15 in fact both at Le Mans. Was a fun time. I was living near Stuttgart then. Fun promo video was generated for that effort by Audi to welcome Porsche! --Porsche's 919 Hybrid car took first and second place, while Audi's R18 e-tron came in third, organizer Automobile Club de l'Ouest said in a statement. Both carmakers are owned by Volkswagen Group. The return of Porsche to Le Mans in 2014 after a 16-year hiatus and its subsequent victory Sunday underscore how Volkswagen is stoking in-house competition on and off the racetrack, even amid additional costs. Porsche and Audi each entered three vehicles in the fastest vehicle category, Le Mans Prototype 1, or LMP1.--
Some of what you say is true, some is debatable. Having spent a lot of money with the 917 (they were still a small independent carmaker) and dominated endurance for 2 years, only to see it banned at the end of 1971, they switched their programme to CanAm (and Interserie in Europe) to save their investment, instead of starting a new 3L car following a change of rules. Most 917 went to private teams. Ford and Chaparral left endurance at the end of 67 for the same reasons: rule change to eliminate them. Yes, Porsche withdrew when the rules were against them. At Le Mans, the ACO handicaped them for Jaguar to win by changing the rules (boost, fuel load, etc ...) Porsche left endurance several times, once they had made their point. The public resents a marque being too dominant, no ?. I am not sure if Porsche actually ran at Indy where they were going to supply Pat Patrick, I think, not as a factory team. But I remember that the rules were changed after they built their V6 turbo engine and tested it. The organisers (USAC or CART, I can't remember) changed the boost pressure to handicap Porsche. In protest, Porsche withdrew. Yes, the V12 Porsche fitted on the Footwork was a catastrophe. Porsche (ing. Menzer, I think), designed it by joining together 2 V6 TAG blocks. It was too long, too heavy, vibrated excessively and gave insuffisant power: a complete disaster. My suspicion is that it was commissioned at a price, and not created from scratch; that's no excuse, it was a huge flop. Porsche canned it very quickly. Porsche are not in any championship to stay permanently, unlike Ferrari in F1 for instance Chosing the series that suit their commercial aspirations is a wise policy.
They had two attempts at Indy The first was in the late 70s with an Interscope chassis. Back then there was a boost pressure for 4 cylinder engines and another for V8s. Porsche intended to use a V6 so they "supposed" that the boost allowed for them would be something in between. I don´t know why they just "supposed" and not asked: in the end USAC kicked them out applying the same boost for V6 and V8. The car never raced. In the second attempt in the late 80s, their downfall came when they pretended to use a carbon monocoque one year before it was allowed. To this day, I still don´t know why USAC at first made an exception for them; maybe someone more acknowledgeable about Indy can comment. When the rest of the teams protested, USAC had to backpedal and Porsche improvised an alloy car at the last minute = cathastrophe. The thing is that until that point they were making some progress: with more time and money they could have made it. Off topic, the Ferrari indy chassis was divided in two halves: only the upper part was carbon, the lower one,with the suspension pick up points, was alloy to circunvent the carbon chassis prohibition. About the V12 F1 engine, I recently read an article about that. The guy who back then was the boss of Hans Mezger, Ulrich Bez (who later led Aston Martin) said that, as Mezger was an institution, he had no other option than to thrust him despite the idea of two V6s stitched together looked bizarre. Supposedly they already had know how about V6s and the central power output would give them better reliability (shorter crank) so it could be used for the new Gr. C regulations too, but it was not a cost effective solution because they had to completely rework the V6. They first offered it to McLaren, but was rejected because it would only fit in a truck. The central power output also mandated a higher gearbox. The Japanese owner of Footwork wanted the Porsche name and agreed to fund part of the program. When the **** hit the fan and as Mezger was, still, an institution, Porsche even sent a guy to Japan to tell the owner that the problem was in the chassis and tried to convince him to buy Jordan and bring the engine there. In the end Porsche had to refund the money because Footwork´s Alan Jenkins managed to introduce some perfomance clauses in the contract when he saw what was coming. Later a Porsche engineer admitted to Jenkins that they only managed to get about 500hp while they´d promised 750. Mezger and Bez were gently ousted and there was a project for a conventional V10 for the next year that got cancelled. That V10 project was reused for a propotype in the late 90s that was cancelled too and later ended in the Carrera GT. The V12 was bad, but I have to admit that it was beautiful. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Porsche gave a different version to the turbo boost story at Indy . According to them, they were given some assurance about what the boost would be for their V6, but made the mistake of commiting themselve to the project before the ink was on the paper. When they started testing, USAC put under their nose a new set of rules; feeling "tricked", Porsche put a stop to the venture. You seem to forget the 87/89 episode, when Porsche ran in Indycar for 2 or 3 seasons under Quaker State sponsorship, initially managed by Al Holbert for Porsche USA. They used a V8 turbo, derived from the successful V6 engine made for TAG.The first car with Porsche chassis didn't work, so they switched to a March chassis and made progress with different drivers.Teo Fabi won a race in Mid-Ohio in 89, but the team was decimated by the death of Al Holbert who had be the man behind the project; that's what really killed the effort. Without Holbert at the helm, Porsche decided to leave. In both cases, Porsche came to Indy after being invited by US teams, not as a full factory effort. I agree that apart from the TAG engine that gave McLaren 2 titles, single-seater have never been Porsche strong suit. It's not really their field of expertise, nor does it bring any added value to the brand, IMO. Endurance and GT racing is where they belong.
I'm not forgetting it. I don't think that Al Horbert's death had much to do with their decision, they kept running for at least one or two years after that. It was because of their bad 1990 season after they had to switch chassis at the last minute.
They are, i absolutely hate all this bs about close to joining, etc, only to chicken out the last minute. At the end of the day, they are back where they belong, and no one cares. FE. FWIW, I used to work at Porsche before. Internally, they did say, that they will never get into F1.
He has a point. Porsche and Motorsports have been on and off for quite a long time. Since Ferry gave up day to day running of the Factory - Porsche have been in and out of endurance racing ( top Level) a lot. I do give them credit that they see when it makes sense and get in and its not too financially draining and they cut back when needed to preserve cash. they were out after the 917's then back in with the 936's then out again - back in with 956/962's... then out so there is precedent. they view it as a business decision.
Makes sense given that it is - a business decision. The 10 F1 teams see this as a profit making entity. So much they will block others from entering
Since the cost cap, theoretically all teams can earn a profit from just the racing. So F-1 has basically turned itself into a franchise sport. I don't agree with it, but it also does help stability of the number of teams... I still wish they would lock up the historic names, and force any new teams to use one of them... the combination of F-1 history and current technology is great, but not being used to its fullest.
