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
Bookmarks