The Turbo problem in STU

[Knestis]

I am building an all out engine, and so have several others. I know that the VAC car that finished 7th was with an all out built motor and chassis. Irish Mike was using his acutal World Challenge car. So, your insinuation that there are no fully built N/A cars is patently false. It's also false that a turbo car would be any less expensive build than a N/A build, it requires an additonal highly engineered part that stresses all other parts around it.

I didn't say either of those things.

I said that it's easier to get more bang for the first 90% of spending (against a theoretical all-in build) with a turbo than it is with an NA engine, and I stand by that assertion.

As to particular examples, I have exactly ZERO knowledge of what Flynn or anyone else spent on their engines. Whether it's his "actual" WC car (or not) has no bearing.

My general complaint is that this argument focuses on only one factor - and a binary one at that. Whether a car has a turbo (so code that"1" in the data) or no turbo (code it "0") simply is NOT a good predictor of lap times, in and of itself without considering other variables.

How about roof height for starters...? My PERSONAL druthers are that "Touring" cars should be defined by interior volume, before other factors get dealt with, to make sure that they are all starting on a more even platform. Lots of other variables (e.g., weight reduction potential, frontal area, parasitic drag, add-on wing efficiency, CoG, etc., etc.) are built on that foundation and "Lotus" and "Miata" don't seem consistent with first-principle understandings of what a Touring Car is (see also, "Grand Touring").

K