Quote:
Originally Posted by Artur
It must be said, though, that I doubt the handicap that Audi has is big. I would guess it to be around 0.5s
|
In theory, the current performance "deficit" should be much less than that considering that the EoT is supposed to balance the 8MJ petrol class with the 6MJ petrol class. How good this balance is can be debated.
The real handicap is the "inability" for Audi to opt for the 8MJ option as they already seem to be at the limit in terms of the weight implications. This handicap will only get worse for Audi if or when the rules are revised to open up the ERS possibilities to 10MJ (or more) hybrid systems.
I am still very much of the opinion that the ACO-FIA should get rid of the KTF altogether, while keeping the FTF. This KTF only impacts the fuel energy allocation that Audi gets in order to compensate for the diesel engine overweight. This KTF does not affect the efficiency target that the guys running in the petrol class have to meet and is an unnecessary complication.
IMHO, the ACO-FIA should contemplate to truly balance the petrol and diesel classes within each and the same ERS category (i.e. 8MJ petrol vs. 8MJ diesel) from an overall energy allocation perspective (using a similar approach as with the current FTF) and ensure that all players basically have the same flexibility, from a weight perspective, to integrate whatever hybrid technology they deem adequate, namely by balancing the nominal weight of the best-in-class petrol engine with the nominal weight of the best-in-class diesel engine. In essence, this enable to get the ERS factor out of the equation and concentrate on balancing only the best-in-class engine technologies in terms of efficiency and weight.
The current EoT is not very transparent and somewhat confusing. It currently combines too many considerations: fuel efficiency, ERS incentive, diesel engine overweight compensation, balancing of different technologies in different ERS classes, ...