|
@BrentJackson: Driving technical development> I think we can both agree that efficiency is an important aspect of technical advancement.
P2s use less horsepower and thus less fuel to achieve equal or greater performance. I wholly agree that DPs Can be and Have Been upgraded to be on par in performance with P2s ... but they are still using more power to pull more weight ... and this is after they were updated.
Right now the modified Gen-3 DP as used in WTSCC is on par in performance with a P2 ... a weighed-down P2 forced to run on uncongenial tires but a P2 nonetheless.
Face it, though ... if You were going to design and build that “it’s not so expensive” chassis you were discussing, you’d never consider a tube frame, because a CF tub is lighter for the same strength. And “lighter for the same strength” is “technical development.”
How about we limit the discussion to DPi and not rehash the old “ALMS vs Rolex” series of threads? I don’t hate DPs (I didn’t hate them even when they were exceedingly ugly) but that doesn’t mean I am blind.
By the way ... the Gen-3 “manufacturer styling cue” bodywork was Less aerodynamically efficient than the ugly Gen-2 bodywork. again, google it. Then tell me about ”technical development” and how the less aerodynamically efficient car was better.
|