I get what you are saying, I was talking about a race, not a track record. I guess you could race a single lap, sure. Have fun with that. I am admittedly not a huge auto racing fan (MotoGP is interesting though), but I can't think of a race that is only a single lap or otherwise short distance aside from drag racing.
To answer your questions, no handicap, just a heads-up race, sure, 36 laps. First to finish wins. That's how races work, right? Who is moving the goalposts? You put a few words in my mouth there (which you seem to like to do). 12 hours is not going to win against much. I'd bet a school bus can go 500 miles in less time.
In auto racing, there has been a constant move to prove the theorem,
"It's not the MACHINE, it's the MAN." But over the years, it has become clear in certain instances, that it was indeed the MACHINE that was best on the track. Each time that happened, there has been a move to handicap the vehicles that were best.
Sometimes it was by issuing a
'BLACK FLAG' to a driver, forcing them to come into the pits, and sit there a while, in order to allow other cars to catch up. Sometimes the handicap was in the way of giving a consistent winner a weight penalty on their car that steadily increased each time they won. And the most ridiculous handicap of all was to put the fastest cars from time trials prior to the race, not on the pole position
(starting up front) but to put them at the back of the pack, starting dead last instead. The idea was to prove it was the MAN, not the MACHINE, by forcing that man to drive through the traffic of all the slow pokes that started ahead of him, instead of just running away from them all with a clear track ahead, building an insurmountable lead. I obviously protest such maneuvers and disagree entirely with their reasons for being enacted. Because to me, sometimes
'The MAN' brings a better MACHINE.
I believe such actions stifle ingenuity, innovation, and invention. Those who run race organizations prefer to have a preset
'formula' for what denotes the design parameters of the cars. But when something is introduced as a particular type of technology that is not actually illegal, but allows a distinct advantage for a particular racing team, they often end up being sanctioned as a result, nevertheless. If the sort of handicaps I spoke of before do not suffice, then the very next racing season new rules are drawn up that DO specifically outlaw the use of that technology.
There was once a race car called the CHAPPARAL 2J... It's designer had the awesome idea to increase roadholding, not with a gigantic downforce wing, but by almost completely sealing the chassis in ground effects mere millimeters off the ground, then using dual 17" electric fans at the rear to suck air from under the car and expel it from the back. That was banned immediately following the season, because it worked too well.
For a while, Formula One racing was being dominated by Honda and Ayrton Senna. Apparently, Honda broke the rules, because though the specialized fuel they used for their cars tested in the lab at below the maximum threshold for octane levels, when heated to the proper temperature within their engines, its octane level was actually much higher. Also, at a time when corporate sponsorship of racing teams was deemed to be
'out of control' it was learned that the engine management computer for Honda's race cars, were not in the car. Instead Supercomputers a world away were communicating with the car in practical real time, adjusting its performance on the fly based upon a variety of factors gleaned by sensors on the vehicle -- and that was considered
'unfair'. These and other things led F1 to completely revamp their formula and rule book. But in doing so they also removed certain safety equipment, decided that tires must be smaller, and chose to reign in the maximum power of the engines too.
IndyCar also went through a period when just about every major race was one by one team, PENSKE, with cars that finished repeatedly in all three podium positions. Effectively, everyone else in the field of cars was racing for fourth place. It was determined that too much money was being spent to support the top winners. So changes were made to eliminate the likelihood of that taking place in the future.
I bring up all this because I suspect that this is what will happen when it comes to electric cars. Longtime gearheads will continually dispute the accomplishments of electric vehicles. They will want to deny the excellence of their accomplishments and forego admitting that they were wrong. Perhaps you are not among them, but some of what you wrote before is certainly in that vein of thought. Innovation is its own excuse for existence. Accepting change is a fundamental part of life.
