You’re recent step into an advisory role with Porsche has come at an interesting time. How has the transition been?
Busy. More or less in middle of a season with two GT-factory programs running in a highly competitive environment, with road car development programs (911 GT3 RS and Cayman GT4) being close to production start, and race car programs (i.e. new 911 GT3 R and new 911 RSR) being in the final decision making process it took a high level of commitment and discipline with all parties being involved.
Which has been your favourite win? Le Mans 2015? Le Mans 2013? 24 Hours Spa 2003? Or Sebring 2008?
I would like to differentiate between my personal favourites and importance for the brand Porsche. May be it sounds funny, but looking back I always liked most the unexpected or the unpredicted win. It is a special challenge to accept a sudden opportunity not only for oneself. But to get the entire team behind a new goal within minutes can be electrifying. For Porsche I think Le Mans 1994 and 2015 are equally important.
How important was Earl Bamber and Nick Tandy’s result at Le Mans for Porsche’s overall driver programme?
First and foremost it has proven that Porsche’s broad approach to support young talent is successful. Whether we look at the worldwide system of one make cups that has been developed over more than 25 years, the various junior driver support programs that run for nearly 20 years and the broad customer team basis that we have on all levels of GT-racing. There are multiple ways how you can get to the top level of motorsports with Porsche.
It certainly narrowed the frame of reference between Formula One and sports car racing. Have you noticed the general perception of drivers outside single-seaters has changed?
Since many years the drivers’ interest in sports car racing has been growing. And with the close competition you have today in any category and with the interest on the spectator side this is as good as it can be if a driver is really interested in sporting competition and challenges.
Porsche Supercup probably has a greater depth of talent than GP3 or even GP2, plus more professional drivers employed by manufacturers and teams in sports and GT cars that naturally come from Carrera Cup or Supercup than anywhere else. Are sponsors slowly waking up to this?
Over time we cooperated with various brands and/or managers that found it worthwhile putting effort into promoting and/or supporting young talent. And with such a special effect like Le Mans 2015 there is a higher chance to convince even more important decision makers that you can’t buy a better package. But in the sponsoring business there is nothing like a home run. You have to keep working.
Ford will be presenting their car for Balance of Performance testing in September. As relative newcomers to the civics involved in GT politics, do you think they’ll have a difficult time or do you feel they might benefit from a friendly ‘assist’ to maintain their interest?
With their experience in motorsports and some of the people I know of being involved in this program, I am sure they don’t need anything like that. Besides that I honestly believe that the manufactures should always cooperate off track to ensure good competition on track.
With so much emphasis placed on thhe hybrid element of LMP1, does it frustrate
you that the GT3R Hybrid program was left in the dark? Especially as it coined the phrase “Porsche Intelligence Performance”?
No doubt you can always say what if …
The GT3 R Hybrid project idea was developed when nobody honestly believed that what we now see in LMP1 would be possible and pull the crowds.
Parallel to “selling” the GT3 R Hybrid project internally there were discussions among the ACO, FIA, and manufacturers about future LMP1 regulations. Our point was that the top of sports car racing should be focused on something that is of
relevance for the car industry and in the end for our customers. That is efficiency. But you cannot sell efficiency without emotions. So not only on the technical side we had to get on new territory but also in regards to marketing and PR.
With communications about the GT3 R Hybrid Porsche reached out to people that had never been thinking about motorsports before and suddenly it became of relevance to them. On the technical side I have never ever seen engineers getting on such a steep learning curve. Towards the end of the last decade hybridization, especially for high emotional sports cars, was not really something everybody was pushing for. So when Porsche showed the first Cayenne Hybrid together with the concept car 918 Spyder and the 911 GT3R Hybrid at the Geneva auto-show early February 2010 it was quite a surprise. And the two years of running the GT3R Hybrid provide lots of know-how and ideas for the development of the 918 and production hybrids and even for the 919.
Having more cars on the grid definitely exposes a manufacturer’s technical secrets more-so than running just a factory team. After running Kundensport for a decade, did the implementation of Balance of Performance hinder what you were trying to achieve from a customer stand-point?
It is no secret that I never believed in Balance of Performance and I never will believe in it. It is in contradiction to anything I would think of when I hear the term “sports”. And when you look at the reality it is at least questionable what kind of “relevance” you create with BoP. Because being more efficient gets penalized. It is the old “higher, further, more, faster” approach. Nothing intelligent. Particularly in the U.S. I more than once had discussions with team owners or car owners that work hard for the money they spend in racing. They do not understand why they get penalized for being successful. And who ever has believed that BoP is a valid tool to limit costs should wake up and face reality.
Ferrari have made big inroads in this area when you consider the small number of entries they started out with in WEC, but their privately run entries still have a hard time against Aston Martin fielded entries. If LMP1 has shown anything it’s that you can get close racing with a very open rule book. Do you think it can be applied to the GT classes without driving away manufacturers?
There is one fundamental difference between LMP and GT: LMP cars are a kind of “spec cars” because they are based on a set of technical regulations that narrow down what you can do from an engineering point of view. The rest is physics and engineering skills (sounds easy but sometimes is more than challenging). All factors that are used to “balance” different concepts are based on pure physics. So the input is controlled and the ideal of “may the better win” is intact. On the GT side you have all different kind of car concept and engine concepts that need to be “balanced” in a certain kind. Twenty years ago this was still done by technical regulations in a similar way it is done for the LMP cars. In today’s GT world it is mainly done by committees that analyze track performance based on a growing number of data that is collected with growing effort. The result of the analysis is believed to be objective and supposed to balance car performance. Everybody who has ever thought about racing, knows that what happens between start and finish line not only depends on the physical or technical car performance but driver, team tires and various other factors need to be taken into consideration. Coming back to your question: does an approach similar to LMP could potentially drive away manufacturers?
Yes, it could. Would that be the end of GT racing? No, definitely not. Because the current BoP based system has the disadvantage of creating lots of unnecessary discussions and increasing costs that will not get under control and this mid-term is the much higher risk. GT-racing is not only as popular as it is because of the many manufacturers that are involved. But it is also popular because of the high variety of private people that are spending their money each weekend and present their skills. And for these people GT-racing needs to remain financially and emotionally affordable.
In 2017 we’ll have just 4 chassis manufacturers in LMP2 and effectively a one-make LMP3 series. As a cost-cutting measure, does the means justify the end (product)?
This decision was made by the responsible people that had to make it. The potential life-span I may not foresee at the moment.
Company boards have always had a fractious relationship with their motorsport departments. What’s been your secret weapon in convincing the decision makers that a racing project is worth investing in?
When I got into a responsible position within motorsports in 1994, Porsche was selling about 12,000 cars annually and was just coming out of very difficult times. So maybe I never learned to go to Board and just ask for money but to find the right arguments to position a project high enough on the priority list to get it released.