Quote:
Originally Posted by helgi
So, they have different body shapes that are effective (showy) but not efficient at all. They have engines with mandatory power output - no sense in different types engines in fact. And they have success ballast just to ensure that there are different winners out of different but not efficient cars. I really do not see any point in this type of racing, as autosport has to include technical variety (technical competition, not marketing).
PS I'll watch this only if, let's say, SMP Racing enter a hypercar with, let's say, Auris engine (built by the same Schvabe Munich who produced some components for Porsche V4) - they talked about some racing possibility for that motor (and they have recuperation system too). Maybe not V12 but V8. Of course, it's just an idea, but who knows.
|
There's no rule that calls for a mandatory shape or no aerodynamic development. It's limited but what you're suggesting is a stretch too far. It's called a performance window where cars are making an amount of drag and such. There isn't any hard proof that you can get away with an aero brick and get bop'd to let's say Aston Martin pace or whoever is in front. There's no need to have a joker upgrade written in the rules if that's the case. I think they're trying for a guideline to performance numbers. Let's see what happens and if there's a hard limit no one can go over because of fairness. In Super GT even with success ballast, there's cars that are still better than the ones without it.