Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoan Attorney
That is a staggering assertion. Dr. Ulrich Baretzky is Audi Sports' Head of Engine Technology. This is not an accident, it is because he is one of the best in the business.
As a person I found that he will say what he thinks and is able to back that up with facts and genuine achievements. While technology has improved over the years, the laws of physics remain constant.
It is correct that Audi's marketing needs and laws regarding future fuel efficiency from our masters at the EU are also factors but there is little point in having a marketing driven solution to a problem if that solution does not work in the real world.
Quite why AMR chose the straight six engine configuration will become clear with the passage of time but any rational examination of the evidence available is that they are going to struggle to be competitive at Le Mans in a few weeks. That will be a pity as having them being able to race head to head with Audi and Peugeot would add to the spectacle.
|
Agree. Marketing aside, Baretzky certainly ran through every engine permutation prior to deciding upon the V6 for R18. And in fact I'd say he knows quite a lot about the benefits and disadvantages of a turbo I6. Contrary to some opinion. To dismiss him so blatantly is to put the wool over one's eyes.
I haven't been so bold to suggest as much, but since I now see it out in the open, Aston's project DOES indeed screams of a car designed to a minimal budget with the hope that it will be performance balanced competitive. I certainly HOPE that's not the case, but I wouldn't put it past GHC. They did pull the trigger based on the ACO's reassurances regarding Article 19 of the regulations. Why were they so concerned about that? Because the choice of the I6 was so totally awesome?