I think you missed my point completely Venom. The karts I used/my team used in 2010 are the same models of TKM specific (50mm) chassis' as used today. The variable of changing karts is removed so I can't see how the chassis' have improved the pace.
Nobody is trying to compare the old homologated chassis' to the new 50mm versions or CIK versions, that needs to be clear.
In terms of the range of changes that can be made, the only difference is rear ride height adjustment for the same given chassis.
What you are saying is the karts are working better now than in 2010. So either people are using them better, which I very much doubt or karts have developed, which they have not.
I think the time difference Phil gives between new and old tyres is an example case and obviously depends on many factors. Take Rissington for example, it is practically impossible in TKM to be competitive on new rubber there. For me I can accept there is a time difference at some/most tracks, this was the case on the old tyres without a doubt. However my issue is the increased wear rate. If they had improved performance but sustained durability then nobody would complain, but they haven't. Phil's point is that it is odd that lap records are being broken often and the wear rates are terrible. He is putting two and two together and in my mind getting four. He has not quantified the difference in lap records, it could be broken by 3 seconds or 1 thousandth of a second, the point is they are being broken regularly.
Like I say above I just can't see how the karts have made a difference when they haven't changed. I think we are arguing two different points though lol.
|
|