|
I may be 30 years old, but I don't get a lot of this green push. EVs are immature, new technology, with some big bugs that need worked out. That's why we have hybrids, in an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of both the ICE (emissions and fuel economy) and EVs (range and performance) until pure EVs can be made to work.
I want road relevancy as much as anyone else, but I also feel that if it can't be put to use soon after it's demonstrated on track, it's sort of useless. DFI ended up on VAG cars soon after Audi won LM in '01. Within a few years everyone and their brother was offering up turbocharged DFI cars.
Mind you, anything that can help the environment and conserve resources can only be a good thing in my mind. But you can't push a technology that clearly isn't ready for prime time yet, be it in racing or the real world. Which is why I think the ACO should push for renewable biofuels or synthetic fuels.
IMO, they pushed the hybrid stuff too hard, too fast, and initially gave teams only about three years to get there. Not to mention my feelings on the ERS incentive, meaning what the ACO originally said (all ERS classes roughly equal) vs what was delivered (huge incentive to run 6-8MJ).
In fact in part 2 of DSC's piece on the future of the LM24 and the WEC, one DSC writer last fall after Audi Sport announced their pull out, asked Lindsay Owen-Jones (who the ACO put in charge of the WEC's Endurance Committee) if the ACO made an error in doing things they way they did and how they did it, and if if presented a road block to teams entering LMP1.
Owen-Jones answer, essentially, was that it might have. And I can't fault him, because I agree with that assessment.
Best thing IMO that the ACO can do is maybe give into Peugeot's demands, as much as I see them as a dumbing down of the current rules. Put a hard cap on MJ categories, or make the lower categories more equal to the higher ones. Allow factory teams to either develop their own cars or base one off of one of the new LMP1 privateer chassis. Hell, even go back to running air restrictors instead of fuel flow meters if need be.
At this stage, if it reduces costs, generates interest, and provides close racing, we should be for it--provided that it has the potential to achieve that.
|