|
WEC's LMP1 is IMO circling the drain as far as short term growth because the ACO pushed too hard too fast with hybrid tech in the short term. They should've stuck with the 2011-2013 rules (maybe somewhat tweaked) for a couple of years longer. Then they should've ratcheted up the hybrid tech.
Audi Sport pulling out IMO had relatively little to do with dieselgate outside of it providing easy justification for them to pull the plug until new rules come into effect. Dieselgate wouldn't have done any favors with Audi continuing with a diesel engine, but because of the shifting emphasis on hybrid regs, they would've had to have abandoned the diesel engine sooner rather than later anyways to remain relevant from a performance standpoint.
But that would've forced them to run a gasoline engine, and with apparent redundancy of VAG running two programs with similar technology (Audi, Porsche and Toyota were already running broadly similar battery pack hybrid systems), plus the rules forcing everyone into basically the same direction, there was no incentive for Audi to continue unless they could do something different.
Not to mention return on investment: Audi were spending a lot more to only win two races a year the past couple of years than they did in 2012/13 when they dominated the WEC. IMO, the insane push for hybrid tech and switch from sonic air restrictors to fuel flow to control engine power had a lot to answer for on jacking up the cost on the ROI front. And it was such increased costs that made it less and less worth it for Audi, especially with limited scope for something unique on the tech front.
Dieselgate can't be discredited for the Audi Sport exit, but it's not for the reasons some want us to believe it is, and IMO, it's a cover for more convoluted, yet more easily understandable, reasons and they do show some problems with the ACO's methodology.
Cheaper tech while opening up the rules and avenues for development could've been a huge boon for the ACO. And sadly, as much as the basic concept seems ripe for it, it's also why DPI can't work as the top class at LM or in the WEC.
As much as I'd like to see stock block engines be a viable option for LMP1 like they used to be, having limited scope for development to keep cost down is not only IMO against the spirit of LMP1, but also has been shown to be an oxymoron. It may narrow the gaps between the haves and have nots, but that smaller gap ironically becomes harder to overcome if the rules paint everyone into a smaller box.
A mix of the two concepts while encouraging new technical avenues whilst encouraging sensible cost (aka, a slow and steady/keep it simple stupid approach) is the way to go for LMP1 in the future, especially if the ACO want to boost entries. But going full out DPI won't work. What works for a regional championship might not work for a world championship or the rest of the world. Touring car racing and stock car racing are popular in different parts of the world. Broadly, they're the same thing, but below the surface, they're different sub-classes of the same broad formula, and are popular in different forms in different parts of the world.
|