Quote:
Originally Posted by chunder
But in largely an open formula, I think really it is an unnecessary cost, there are so many variables in rallycross, limiting things like an ECU is silly when some idiot can take you out at any time or it can rain
|
I don't disagree that escalating costs for the sake of it is definitely a concern, but in the case of engine management I personally think there is enough evidence to justify the change in regulation.
A couple of years ago VW/Andretti Autosport were (very publicly) accused of cheating in the GRC and, around the same time, there was talk in the British Championship paddock about a certain driver using trick electronics. Although the latter may have purely been a malicious rumour, the VW/Andretti traction control theory was supported by many: and effective traction control could make a huge difference to car performance.
With the involvement of such big teams/sponsors now, it doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that one of them might be tempted to pour money into developing traction or torque control systems... by introducing control to ECU selection and software though, you just prevented that from happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunder
I think it juts someones idea of getting a technical sponsor involved for the sake of it. And of course it is what other "big" formulas do, so IMG will just copy. As they do with juts about everything they have done so far. Little innovation, juts packaging.
|
As said in my previous post, the change in regulations don't require competitors to use a specific ECU manufacturer, so we're not at the "engine management sponsored by..." stage yet. Notably, if you compare the current regulations with the WRC, there is still a lot more flexibility with the selection of electronic components in rallycross.