|
And that's a valid point, but I don't think that the F1 fraterntiy and the rules-making body of the ACO entirely agree with you, or at least consider torque secondary to power, or in the ACO's case, fuel economy.
The F1 guys see KERS as a free 80bhp if they can afford to carry the 25-35kgs of extra weight--I'll bet you that a big part of how Hamilton ran down Vettel at China was because Lewis' KERS was working right, and Seb's wasn't. And with Shanghi's long straights, that extra 80hp is worth it's weight in gold, if used properly.
From the ACO perpsective, they don't want KERS to be a mere push to pass--they want it to be used for the reason why KERS is used on hybrid cars, to boost fuel mileage.
The torque might be a useful feature, but as with power, I think that the ACO's regs might minimize the impact of any torque boosting. And I'll bet you that the R18 or the 908 will still have quite a bit more torque than any KERS equipped gasoline LMP1.
|