The Porsche Faster Than F1

Summary of the subtitles (Porsche 919 Evo “faster than F1” + Nordschleife record engineering)

Claimed breakthrough and context

The video explains how Porsche delivered a major lap-time improvement over its existing LMP1 base, including smashing the 35-year Nürburgring Nordschleife lap record. The host frames the project as a near “F1 without rules” concept—taking a proven endurance prototype and pushing it toward largely unrestricted all-out performance.

Record progression and competition with F1

• Primary goal: the Nordschleife lap record, previously held for 35 years by Stefan Bellof in the Porsche 956.
• The video notes F1 also improved Nürburgring times in later years (with smaller gains), arguing that even against modern F1-era performance, Porsche’s time remains competitive.
• Porsche also pursued other circuit records, including Laguna Seca, where the lap time improved significantly versus a long-standing CART record.

Key contributor and project origin (Stephen Mitas / 919 Evo)

• The host interviews Stephen Mitas, described as:
  • former chief race engineer for Porsche’s LMP program (including Le Mans wins),
  • later technical project lead for the 919 Evo.
• “No rules” premise: Porsche asked what the 919 Hybrid Evo would be like if performance was turned up dramatically—“up to 11”—with minimal constraints.
• Approval with severe constraints: leadership approved the idea, but required:
  • a small budget, and
  • less than a year to deliver a working car capable of record-level performance.

Development timeline and limited testing

• The project started around September 2017, beginning from only the prior car and the concept.
• By late November, they were already testing with Evo parts.
• Testing continued into early 2018 at Weissach (though it wasn’t ideal for an ~1200 hp race car), then included:
  • a 3-day Spa test (during which an unofficial record was reportedly broken),
  • Nürburgring preparation leading into the final attempt in June.
• The commentary emphasizes the rapid turnaround and relatively low mileage, suggesting the team relied on engineering insight rather than extensive track running.

Performance strategy: “Low-hanging fruit” first, but safely

Mitas explains the team prioritized changes that offered the highest expected gain, while avoiding high-risk areas they couldn’t finish in time.

They also stress that at Nordschleife speeds, performance increases bring serious structural and safety consequences:

• the monocoque
• safety systems
• components are not designed for unlimited load growth.

---

Major engineering areas (what they changed and why)

1) Tires (grip + load capacity)

• Wider/high-grip tire plans were limited because producing wider tires would take too long.
• They used Michelin soft special-compound tires with construction similar to Le Mans race tires, adapted for this application.
• Higher loads were a concern, so they increased tire pressure dramatically (around 3 bar / ~44 psi).
• The video contrasts Nürburgring—where aero sensitivity and mechanical effects interact—with tracks like Brands Hatch, arguing that over-inflation can create challenges on grip-heavy circuits.

2) Powertrain (keeping the base, removing limits)

Instead of swapping the engine, they improved the existing 919 V4 turbo-hybrid system:

• removed/relaxed fuel flow restrictions
• remapped engine software
• removed limits on the e-machine portion

Reportedly, this raised output from about ~900 hp to around 1,160 hp. A bigger turbo was discussed but rejected as too complex/untimely.

3) Aerodynamics (largest performance gains)

A core claim is that the Evo delivered:

• more peak downforce than the original in the highest-downforce configuration, while also
• achieving lower drag than the Le Mans race configuration (“win-win”).

Key changes include:

Diffusers and floor sealing

• New front diffuser:
  • longer overhang
  • more aggressive shaping
• Longer/taller rear diffuser:
  • more efficient underfloor airflow
  • lower pressure

Skirts (floor-edge sealing) were crucial but difficult:

• a true moving/sliding skirt (like certain 1970s F1 concepts) was hard due to packaging constraints
• they tested solutions/materials that could flex without destroying tire-contact patch behavior
• at different venues, they used different approaches, including:
  • a thick rubber version that vibrated and caused squealing
  • later switching to a hinged carbon skirt at Nürburgring

The commentary highlights how imperfect sealing can cause issues like additional contact points and uneven wear—yet downforce benefits remained substantial.

Rear wing (position + size)

• the wing became bigger and was placed further rearward (about half a meter of effect) to better match underbody airflow
• structural load concerns required reinforcing integration points to protect the gearbox/strength
• end plates were described as stabilizing/strengthening the rear assembly under extreme downforce

4) Low-downforce / drag-shedding mode (DRS-like concept without wrecking balance)

• The rear wing upper element could open similarly to F1 DRS to reduce drag.
• But reducing rear drag would shift aero balance unfavorably for braking/turn-in through sections like Eau Rouge / Blanchimont.
• To rebalance, they also added a movable element in the front diffuser to reduce front aero load in the same mode (“low downforce mode”).
• Even in low-downforce mode, the car reportedly generated more downforce than the standard 919 race spec, enabling flat-out through signature corners.

5) Weight reduction

• removed roughly 50 kg
• additional weight savings were possible, but offset by stronger/larger new components
• removed record-attempt-only items (e.g., mirrors, headlights/tail lights)
• removed telemetry/marshaling hardware
• simplified driver cooling, prioritizing performance over comfort

6) Steering and braking systems (enabling higher loads with confidence)

• Power steering: higher downforce increased steering torque demands, so they added an extra power steering pump for reliability.
• Brake-by-wire (all four corners):
  • unlike the race car’s front-axle BBW, the Evo used brake-by-wire on all wheels
  • the video describes it as providing ABS-like behavior per tire, preventing lock-ups—especially on bumpy sections
  • driver confidence improved because the system reduced the risk of tires locking in an environment that punishes a mechanical-only setup

7) Suspension (pitch control + preventing “aero burial”)

• The Evo used the original car’s permission for front-to-rear interconnected suspension to control pitch and keep the diffuser gap consistent.
• With the huge underbody and skirts, ride-height control was critical to avoid “burying” into the track and destroying aerodynamics.
• They used a device to control front ride height behavior (not full active suspension like certain F1 eras), letting the team adjust how the nose rises through corners to improve weight distribution and aero consistency.

---

Overall conclusion of the commentary

The project is presented as an extraordinary execution of “turn up performance without rules,” requiring more than just power and wings. It depended on deep systems engineering—including tires, braking, steering, suspension, and structural integration—to survive Nürburgring-level loads.

The interview also frames Porsche’s approval and resourcing as notably supportive, given the risks and tight constraints.

---

Presenters / contributors

• Narrator / Interview host: (not named in the subtitles; the speaker references prior videos/interviews, including “Drive61” branding)
• Stephen Mitas — Chief race engineer (Porsche LMP program, Le Mans wins) and technical project lead for the 919 Evo
• Andreas Seidl — Team principal of the LMP project (described as approving the “turn it up to 11” idea with Porsche leadership)
• Neel Jani — driver mentioned as part of testing and record-relevant laps