View Single Post
Old 17 May 2017, 20:16 (Ref:3734134)   #4778
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,827
chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!
That is something hinted at, not widening the cars (IMO, there was nothing wrong with the 2000mm wide cars--if anything the narrower cars make more downforce for less drag, which does little (actually, nothing) for slowing the cars down), but eliminating the ERS incentive. I don't want to sound like I'm ripping on hybrids, but the ACO setting such hybrid limits and driving teams to get to the max as soon as possible due to performance incentives IMO was the recipe for escalating costs.

Because, we have to face it, not every car maker is gung ho about hybrids, or spending tons of money on them because of rules bias when simply saying that they're running one is usually enough for marketing. We also have to remember the 2012/13 limits on hybrids was because of Peugeot in large part. That was intended to make cheap hybrids viable and not make such a huge gap between hybrids and non-hybrids.

And it seems that the ACO thinking of doing away with the ERS incentive is partly to placate Peugeot and maybe get more factory teams in. I always felt that the ERS incentive was a short sighted move by the ACO, as this was supposed to be a modernized revival of Group C--you have a certain amount of energy allotted, do with it as you wish. Instead, the ERS incentive largely killed off the variety that I liked seeing in sportscar racing. Now in LMP1 it's all tiny engines and huge hybrids, because that's what the rules were biased towards. Killing variety is never a good thing in racing IMO.
chernaudi is offline  
Quote