Porsche won the DP class in Daytona 2009 as an engine supplier. This year you only equipped one team with Brumos as a customer. Why couldn't Porsche equip more cars?
Kristen: D as is a direct result of the quarrels about the classification of the Porsche engine that occupied us in 2009 after the Daytona victory. For 2010 we had several good discussions with interested teams. They told us: They would actually like to use the boxer engine, but based on the experience of 2009 they could then de facto write off the championship. That makes us sad, of course. In the past year, the speed level was lowered in two stages. In addition, the Porsche teams have been taken away from sixth gear. With such decisions you destroy the entire coordination work of a team. That is why such measures should really not be undertaken in such a density as the Grandam decreed in 2009. We are not reacting to this situation with new developments either - because that simply makes no sense at this point.
The winning car with start number 9 also had a Porsche engine, but with a slightly different specification. That's not your favorite child, is it?
Kristen: I'm actually relatively relaxed about it. Just because we are not actively promoting something or supporting it through our own development, the origin of this engine variant still has the name Porsche on the cylinder head. We shouldn't be so arrogant and say: This was not developed by the official racing department and that's why it's not good. It's actually great that such private initiatives still exist. And in the end, a Porsche victory is always better than when a BMW engine or a Ford engine wins!
It has always been the case in the past that Porsche Motorsport had its principles and rules regarding the use of engines or certain vehicle models in racing. Violations - at least that's the impression - were not necessarily welcome. Has that changed now?
Kristen: In principle, anyone who buys a car can do what they want with it. In addition, many of these principles are also in force at other manufacturers. BMW doesn't do motorsport with the seven series either. OurThe philosophy is: If we do motorsport close to series production, then on the basis of the Porsche 911. If others think they have a great idea, then they often come to us with their problems and expect us to solve these problems through the use of money and Fix manpower. But that doesn't work because we oversee a large number of parallel projects in near-series motorsport. If it comes across as if all projects that are not ours are bad projects, then that's a misunderstanding.
You recently commented on the subject of Porsche and LMP1. The basic message was: This is a possibility, but definitely not for 2011. The topic is still on the list?
Kristen: Yes, we have the LMP topic on our radar . The topic fits the Porsche brand, and Le Mans fits Porsche. However, there are two issues that need to be clarified in this context: First, you have to coordinate with the other brands in the upcoming, integrated automotive group, because spending double the money for the same success certainly doesn't make sense. Second, the economic situation at the moment is certainly not ideal for making such large and expensive decisions that do not bring in money immediately. From my point of view, it would also be desirable to move the subject of propulsion of LMP cars a little further away from conventional propulsion. We have to think about the topics of CO2 reduction and alternatives to conventional drive sources. I see great potential in motorsport to slip into this role - especially in endurance racing, which is about efficiency.
Which steps have to be taken in connection with the LMP1 regulations? Hybrid drives are expressly allowed.
Kristen: Yes, but at the moment only electrical energy storage is in the regulations. On the one hand, it's about KERS: is it electrical or mechanical? In addition, there should be alternative options that are definitely purely mechanical. It's also about flywheel technology. All of these issues must first be clarified. One point is important: You can certainly gain something in the efficiency of internal combustion engines, but in my opinion you can only achieve the main profit if you improve the efficiency of the entire vehicle.
So you argue that the amount of energy that is supplied to a racing car from outside is limited and at the same time the engineers are given the opportunity to use the energy potential in the car?
Kristen: Yes, you have to get to the point where you can operate energy recycling. Today we limit the engine output via the intake air using an air flow limiter. This isactually nonsense, because there is enough air around us. It would make much more sense to limit the external energy supply for a defined race distance and, on the other hand, to use the energy that has previously been uselessly wasted, such as the waste heat from the cooler or the kinetic energy during braking. This energy has to be extracted, temporarily stored and then put back into motion.
On the subject of GT racing in general: How do you rate the new GT1 World Championship?
Kristen: I think the GT1 class as a category is superfluous. I also don't think that a World Cup is seriously necessary and that it works - especially not in the way it is being organized at the moment.
And the GT3 class?
Kristen: The The GT3 class has developed in a completely different direction from the original concept. The GT3 class is not a substitute for the GT2 category. You have to ask yourself the question: Do I want to enable amateur racing drivers to race in their dream car? Then I build a GT3 customer sports car. Or I have technical regulations with technical competition and reference to series production - these are two completely different concepts. Both have their justification; problems only arise when they are mixed up.
There are more and more controversial cars in the GT2 class that come with a lot of technical relief. These include BMW, Jaguar and Corvette. In your opinion, is there a risk that the agreed unity of the GT2 regulations between the ACO and FIA threatens to break up?
Kristen: I'm not sure to what extent this unity ever existed Has. It has always been said that one wants uniform regulations, but it has always been said at least in one place or another that if what results from them does not please a regulator in detail, he will have the right to one own opinion reserved. But it would make sense if this problem were finally resolved at some point. The main point is this: For everyone involved - including those who may benefit from the situation at the moment - it is absolutely unhealthy in the long run if you don't know exactly where you are actually participating.
At the GT2 European Championship, the child is almost in the well.
Kristen: But that's not because of Porsche! I think we are furthest with our customers when it comes to the GT2 EM. They cannot host a GT2 European Championship with just four or five GT2 Porsches. Many teams had thought about taking a break in 2010 and joining again in 2011. I told these teams: Forget it! If your 2010gets out, there is nothing left to get on in 2011!
When it comes to Jaguar, BMW and Corvette, the ACO always points out that in this way there is more competition in the GT2 Great would come.
Kristen: The argument doesn't work! We do want more competition, but that just means that you start with similar conditions and then see who makes the best of it. But just as little as we are interested in spanking little boys, any more are we interested in being shown.
Porsche competes in the GT2 class against cars with many waivers - while the 911 GT3 RSR has no waiver at all ?
Kristen: Yes, we have had a waiver for the steel cylinder liners since 2009, but this case is symptomatic of the condition in the GT2 class: the cylinder liners have been around for years built into the engine, they have been in every technical description and every accessible information about the car for years. Yes, it was our mistake not to apply for a waiver for this. We didn't do this because we thought it was covered by the regulations. We have been severely punished for the failure, and on top of that, our teams have been punished for nothing. On the other hand, I see the lists of waivers for some GT2 cars and have to say that there is no proportionality.
Are the different ideas - strict technical homologation regulations on the one hand, flexibility via waiver and balance of performance on the other Page - to reconcile in any way?
Kristen: Yes, I think so. You can find a solution for everything. But you certainly can't find a solution if you don't play with open cards. I have to say clearly that the FIA has now gone in the right direction. The FIA says: You can talk about waivers for GT2 cars at any time, but then there is a clear path, namely through the Technical Working Group and the GT Commission, where all the manufacturers involved sit at one table. Then everyone knows exactly what the other is doing. But if you don't know exactly what's going on around you on the racetrack and nobody is willing to tell you what's really going on in detail, then that doesn't make sense. It's like playing blind man's buff.