The Audi "Customer" program has failed

[GT1]

When it was announced that Audi would be selling private cars to customers, I was hoping to see a return of sorts of the 962 days when a variety of 962s wtih all sorts of different teams, tires, suppliers, etc waged war.

It did not.

Except for possibly the one year Gulf Audi, we have yet to see anyone who doesn't have connections with that branch of VW to actually "buy" a car.

And it isn't "buying" a car. The Germans take the ECU back to Germany (at least they used to, think they still do) and you can only test when the factory lets you test. Effectively you buy a nice show car that happens to race on occasion.

And don't start thinking about set up or your own aero developments, thats off limits as to what you can and can't do wtih the car.

This for a car that costs huge sums of $$$ to run. And they only run on the Michelins. No "cheaper" tires.

This year in the broadcast booth, Len Hunt of Audi N/A will make a big deal of the "privateers taking over from the factory", and few will believe him. These are factory cars that are thinly lined as private efforts.

Audi could have improved sports car racing by making their cars more affordable (by making more perhaps) or easing up on the restrictions, but instead they decided to take their toy and run. There is a reason why four P1s are entered at Mid Ohio, and it ain't because of the track...

[JAG]

Maybe if the LMES had been running as long as the ALMS, more customer cars would be running by now.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally posted by GT1

...And don't start thinking about set up or your own aero developments, thats off limits as to what you can and can't do wtih the car...

Unfortunately the ACO is behind this one. Any modifications made to the car must be homologated by the car manufacturer. And I mean any modifications, aero, mechanical, etc. So developments that brought about such variety between makes of say 962 during the day are deader than a door nail...

[billnchristy]

Dyson still seems to manage. I know they get factory support in the form a of do what ever you want, we will approve it sort of way...but it is along the same lines.

[BSchneiderFan]

I would have loved to see a Dyson-tweaked, Goodyear-shod R8, certainly.

[Cadete]

Originally posted by MulsanneMike
Unfortunately the ACO is behind this one. Any modifications made to the car must be homologated by the car manufacturer. And I mean any modifications, aero, mechanical, etc. So developments that brought about such variety between makes of say 962 during the day are deader than a door nail...

any special reason for this to be as it is?

is it due to pressure from manufacturers that want to take all the credit if they car wins, or is it an attempt to reduce costs, since there is less modifications that can be done?

[RM40]

I presume safety.

[73_Gstock]

The way the Goodyears performes on the Vettes and the Vettes on Michelins, I don't think you'd want to run anything but Michelins.

[GT1]

Originally posted by 73_Gstock
The way the Goodyears performes on the Vettes and the Vettes on Michelins, I don't think you'd want to run anything but Michelins.

I could be very wrong about this but I have heard on occasion from some compeitors that Michelin isn't the easiest tire to get ahold of.

I remember in a Q&A with Steve Knight on IMSA, when asked what the difference was between his MG and the factory, he answered "the tires. They run on Michelin's, we don't have that option".

Which is more of my grip with the whole Audi thing. Even if you could get through the 1000435 obstecles of the car and you could afford it, could you get the tires?

[MulsanneMike]

GT1,

Yes, if you were able to acquire an Audi, I'm sure Michelin wouldn't have a problem supplying you.

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally posted by RM40
I presume safety.

Hmmm. But surely whoever modified a car - be it a private team or the manufacturer - would still have to submit the modified car to the ACO for crash testing. So why is manufacturer consent necessary?

One doesn't like to be cynical, of course, but could this be a case of factory teams worried about being upstaged by ingenious privateers?

[Cadete]

Originally posted by BSchneiderFan
Hmmm. But surely whoever modified a car - be it a private team or the manufacturer - would still have to submit the modified car to the ACO for crash testing. So why is manufacturer consent necessary?

One doesn't like to be cynical, of course, but could this be a case of factory teams worried about being upstaged by ingenious privateers?

My thoughts exactly. On the thread with the Petite LeMans BMW flip, someone said that this is the reason why Audi doesn't allow modifications to their cars. But it is the ACO who should control the safety of the cars, and they have taken steps in that regard.

Team-modified cars would only had to the variety and excitement of the races.

[Sean Crockett]

Originally posted by Cadete
But it is the ACO who should control the safety of the cars, and they have taken steps in that regard.

Yes, but it's not really practical for the ACO to wind tunnel test every aero mod to ensure it doesn't make the car aerodynamically unstable or liable to flip.

[GT1]

Originally posted by Cadete
My thoughts exactly. On the thread with the Petite LeMans BMW flip, someone said that this is the reason why Audi doesn't allow modifications to their cars. But it is the ACO who should control the safety of the cars, and they have taken steps in that regard.

Team-modified cars would only had to the variety and excitement of the races.

Knowing what I know from the thead (and learning is what were here for!) I take back the part of Audi holding developement, though my comments about testing (or lack of) and everything else I still hold. The fact that there aren't any ORECA Audis, Konda Audis, Intersport Audis,etc back that up.

That said, it is said that a team can't pull a Loyd and have a differrent interpetation of a current idea. I remember when the Robinson R&S was not raced in the ALMS and what a shame it was. I should have put the two together, can't modify a R&S you sure can't modify an Audi.

[BSchneiderFan]

But was it not the case that the Robinson R&S was not raced because it didn't undergo crash tests and/or secure homologation approval from Riley & Scott? I don't think we really know how well it would have gone.

Was it not also the case that one of the reasons Rob Dyson didn't buy an R8 was because Audi were keeping too tight a control over development? After all, Dyson was responsible for one of the most striking developments of the Porsche 962 ever seen, even if it wasn't hugely successful.

[jhansen]

To GT1: I don't see how you can say that the Audi customer program has failed. It may not have evolved into what you wanted it to, but it hasn't failed. 2003 saw Audi claim the top two spots in the ALMS and wins at Petit Le Mans, Sebring, Spa 1000K and Le Mans 1000K. Three separate teams won races (ie. Joest, Champion and Goh). Champion and Goh claimed third and forth at Le Mans (right where VAG wanted them). 2004 has picked up right where 2003 left off with Audi Sport UK Team Veloqx winning at Sebring and Monza with Champion and Goh right behind them.

Audi has run its customer program exactly how they want to. Yes we know each team has ties to the factory. I believe each team gets an engineer (or maybe a few) and obviously other support such as upgrades. Audi wants their customer teams to be successful and thus stays involved. Would you rather have it like Cadilac, Toyota, or BMW and the cars just get parked never to race again? Many manufacturers don't want others running their cars because they can't control the effort involved. The customer teams cary the marque name on and their results reflect upon the marque.

I also take issue with your list of prospective customer recipients. These cars are expensive. I wish we could have seen the minimum bid for the E-Bay Champion Audi to see a ball park price for one of these cars. It must approach seven figures for a 2004 spec R8. That's expensive! Can any of the teams you listed afford one? It's even presumptive to assume they'd want one. As a cost comparison I have seen a Panoz LMP1 for sale at $550,000.

I would love to see more R8's racing out there, as I think it would only up the level of competition and draw people to the sport. But I also can respect Audi's wishes and strategies. At least we have a few examples out there, which happen to be the only high-tech, big budget auto-manufacturer, factory built LMP's racing at the moment. Thank you Audi!

[BSchneiderFan]

There was speculation for a while that RML would build a series of customer V12 LMRs for BMW, which, alas, came to nothing. I'm not sure about this idea of cars carrying the name of their manufacturer and therefore reflecting on the marque; it didn't seem to bother Porsche in the 1970s and 1980s.

[Cadete]

It can come down to several reasons, BSchneiderFan.

The one I would like to believe is that Porsche aproach to racing is more than a simple comercial point of view, they want to see cars, preferably theirs, out there racing. Audi, on the other hand, is in racing only for the publicity, and they don't want bad publicity, so they want to control everything their cars do so there won't be any trouble.

Another possible reason is that perhaps the costumer program of Porsche gave more profit than Audi's. Perhaps there was a bigger profit margin and market for selling costumer cars than the publicity you would get by running a works or semi-works car.

Of course, since I wasn't around in those Porsche years, I am only writing based on what I think are the reasons, I stand ready to be corrected.

[jhansen]

Good points Cadete. The factories all approach racing differently. Some factories run their racing operations in house like Porsche and Toyota while some use established teams like Mercedes with Sauber and Jaguar with TWR. Interesting that Mercedes ran the CLK and CLR cars in house later. Audi utilized Team Joest for its factory teams. And I disagree with you BSchneiderFan, some teams are very concerned about image when it comes to their race cars. I've seen it stated in this forum that Wayne Taylor tried to run the Cadilac LMP's on a privateer effort after Cadilac pulled the plug, but Caddy didn't go along with it. Why else other than image would they not allow them to be run?

[JAG]

The CLK-GTR/LM were AMG run cars.

AMG was originally independant from Mercedes but through works race programs and tuned road cars, they were eventually bought out by Mercedes.

[jhansen]

Thanks for the correction JAG, but either way the premise is the same.

[GT1]

Originally posted by jhansen
To GT1: I don't see how you can say that the Audi customer program has failed. It may not have evolved into what you wanted it to, but it hasn't failed. 2003 saw Audi claim the top two spots in the ALMS and wins at Petit Le Mans, Sebring, Spa 1000K and Le Mans 1000K. Three separate teams won races (ie. Joest, Champion and Goh). Champion and Goh claimed third and forth at Le Mans (right where VAG wanted them). 2004 has picked up right where 2003 left off with Audi Sport UK Team Veloqx winning at Sebring and Monza with Champion and Goh right behind them.

Audi has run its customer program exactly how they want to. Yes we know each team has ties to the factory. I believe each team gets an engineer (or maybe a few) and obviously other support such as upgrades. Audi wants their customer teams to be successful and thus stays involved. Would you rather have it like Cadilac, Toyota, or BMW and the cars just get parked never to race again? Many manufacturers don't want others running their cars because they can't control the effort involved. The customer teams cary the marque name on and their results reflect upon the marque.

I also take issue with your list of prospective customer recipients. These cars are expensive. I wish we could have seen the minimum bid for the E-Bay Champion Audi to see a ball park price for one of these cars. It must approach seven figures for a 2004 spec R8. That's expensive! Can any of the teams you listed afford one? It's even presumptive to assume they'd want one. As a cost comparison I have seen a Panoz LMP1 for sale at $550,000.

I would love to see more R8's racing out there, as I think it would only up the level of competition and draw people to the sport. But I also can respect Audi's wishes and strategies. At least we have a few examples out there, which happen to be the only high-tech, big budget auto-manufacturer, factory built LMP's racing at the moment. Thank you Audi!

And I hope they do enjoy it, because they have it practically all to themselves! One in the US, two, maybe three in Europe.

If you like the current situation with them, thats great, and I am not knocking anyone who does. I just would like to have seen what I actually consider to be a customer car and not a factory machine and more than three teams runnign one after four years of "customer" programs.

[Fab]

I wouldn't use the term "failed" : as they didn't build enough cars, I'd say that their programm had been "limited"... but did they intend to go further ?

Nothing to compare with the Porsche 956/962 programm, to mention another case in the past...

Too bad indeed that there's not more teams allowed to enter those cars : we'd have at least a wider battle for the lead. The cons of this occurence is to push the other privateers (RFH, Pescarolo...) further behind on the grid and at the chequered flag, regarding the reliability of the R8.

[Javi]

Another possible (maybe?) reason is that the running costs and complexity of the audi cars are much bigger than on the 956/962 case, and need more input from the factory to be run (just an idea...)
Anyway, I see Audi more concerned about the privateer efforts, they want them to be controlled, Porsche gave privateers a lot more degree of freedom.

[Chevyguy]

The time that the 956/962 were run was in the '80's when all of the rich people had all of the cash. These days only some of the rich people have all of the cash. I myself had none of the cash then or now.