[BTCC] How to improve the BTCC 'product'

[crmalcolm]

Clearly some think that the BTCC needs to improve. Others disagree.

To prevent race weekends being dragged down into continual criticism of the series - hopefully this thread will allow solutions to be put forward.

I would also hope that in putting forward a solution, posters are willing to accept critique and considerations of why the solution may not be a good one.

Personally - I think there is little wrong with the series at the moment.

[porsche962fan]

the very first and realistic solution

something has to be done about the ultra fragile toe link ! it's a bit unnaceptable that drivers don't want to take any risks because they can get easy ruined weekend or other drivers become victims of it without a real fault of thers, see Sutton Race 3 or Turkington finale of 2018

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

the very first and realistic solution

something has to be done about the ultra fragile toe link ! it's a bit unnaceptable that drivers don't want to take any risks because they can get easy ruined weekend or other drivers become victims of it without a real fault of thers, see Sutton Race 3 or Turkington finale of 2018

I would like someone else to confirm (or disprove) what I've stated previously about the 'weak' toe-link: I seem to remember it being said that this (cheap & relatively easy to replace) component has been made specifically this way so that it does break before sufficient force is transmitted into the subframe and damage that (far more expensive and difficult to replace) component.

[Matt K]

I always liked the 'aggressiveness' of the BTCC as that's partly what makes it quite unique in comparison to GT racing, F1 or even WTCR but there are some limits to it. When it becomes an amateurish destruction derby with everyone punting others off the track then it creates a very very poor image of the championship.

In my opinion new rules (I mean hybrid) have created something I've always liked in motorsport. It doesn't punish winners as much as weights (which is ridiculous IMO), the best drivers don't have to restrict themselves to 'damage limitation' system, meaning 'ok, I have the heaviest car so I just have to cruise around and save some points.' Look at Ash Sutton in 2021. He had the heaviest car basically the whole season and apart from the first qualifying he didn't score any pole position and had to just keep banking points. Without the weights, he would've won more races, I'm sure about that.

So hybrid limited the 'artificiality' of the results and also it's something drivers have control of. In my opinion it creates a bit of a more professional outlook of the series. I'd never call BTCC races 'processions' (maybe apart from some rare examples) so even if there's - let's say - less 'action', it's still not boring. When there used to be races in which a driver on an option tyre in the lightest car was picking place after place, it might've looked exciting (and partly was, not going to lie) but was a bit artificial.

But, I have to admit, especially watching Croft races (can't say about R3 as I missed it) I had moments thinking, ok, it's pretty disappointing as Ingram visibly won't catch Lloyd, Sutton won't catch Rowbottom or Tingram won't catch Rowbottom as the kind of dynamic of the races showed that it seemed a lot more of an effort to actually pass someone and when someone was close but not close enough, it finally became apparent that he'll settle for the position he keeps now. Not going to lie, it was a bit disappointing as I always enjoyed the unpredictability and roughness of the BTCC. Punting others off the track was bad but being aggressive but still fair - always welcome. That's something the 'current' BTCC seems to be lacking at times.

But, all in all, I'd prefer the sort of more 'professional' racing in the higher standards of racing to lunatic punting, pushing and results being set up mostly by tyres and weights. So yes, summing it up, good step in the right direction. If we could see more of aggressive battles putting you on the edge of the seat, I'd be even happier but still, I'm not complaining a lot.

What I would do, however, is to put two quali sessions to determine grids for R1 and R2.

[Moneyseeker]

Surely the BTCC as it is today is actually a reflection on the quality of race engineering, design and operation of the cars and the high level of driving amongst the top 10 or so drivers? This is what makes the BTCC so close and the cars so even.

Is that in any way a bad thing?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I would like someone else to confirm (or disprove) what I've stated previously about the 'weak' toe-link: I seem to remember it being said that this (cheap & relatively easy to replace) component has been made specifically this way so that it does break before sufficient force is transmitted into the subframe and damage that (far more expensive and difficult to replace) component.

That is something I have also heard referred to a number of times.

There has to be a point that 'gives', and the toe-link has been selected.
A breakage is easy to identify, prevents the driver from continuing to cause further damage to the car, and is (relatively) easy and quick to repair.

If you look back to Shedden's race one at Croft - had that energy been transferred into the gearbox internals (for instance) then the repair may have been much larger and he wouldn't have been out later in the day.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Surely the BTCC as it is today is actually a reflection on the quality of race engineering, design and operation of the cars and the high level of driving amongst the top 10 or so drivers? This is what makes the BTCC so close and the cars so even.

Is that in any way a bad thing?

Absolutely agree. However, there are some who think the current BTCC is not how it should be. This thread allows them to put proposals forward without having to see race threads littered with 'BTCC is rubbish because....' type posts.

[antnee]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Surely the BTCC as it is today is actually a reflection on the quality of race engineering, design and operation of the cars and the high level of driving amongst the top 10 or so drivers? This is what makes the BTCC so close and the cars so even.

Is that in any way a bad thing?

Absolutely - it is a victim of it's own success. We are seeing very little action at the front of the pack because of how close the cars are.

[hen henths]

Originally Posted by antnee

We are seeing very little action at the front of the pack because of how close the cars are.

That can't be the full story because there seems to be more action up front in some of the support races and I would have thought those cars would be even more closely matched being one make championships.

I watched the Ginetta Junior race at Croft that was incredibly close and exciting but it also had a lot more contact so maybe it's just greater aggression and greater risk taking going on there.

Arguably the most aggressive overtakers in the BTCC have been drivers like Plato, Sutton, Shedden and Cook. Shedden made up loads of places that Croft weekend. The other drivers were all just struggling for various reasons and to various degrees.

[TuteZaek]

Originally Posted by hen henths

That can't be the full story because there seems to be more action up front in some of the support races and I would have thought those cars would be even more closely matched being one make championships.

Support series also tend to have less experienced drivers, more prone to errors and with a lot of room to improve on the racecraft department.

On a main series, however there are less errors, and with close cars, and good reliability, it tends to appear as "less action". Don't forget that both teams and drivers already know the car's "formula" and the circuits to the extreme (and the hybrid system wasn't too big of a change to shuffle things)
Top professional racing, as is the BTCC, always tends to stabilize like this, and this happens everywhere.

[hen henths]

Also if spectators want drivers to perform more risky overtakes then an obvious idea is to increase the rewards for doing so. We have the Forever Forward Award but what would happen if actual championship points were given for the most overtakes across a weekend? I expect it couldn't be more than one or two points. You wouldn't want drivers deliberately qualifying lower down the order just to try to maximize their points!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by hen henths

Also if spectators want drivers to perform more risky overtakes then an obvious idea is to increase the rewards for doing so. We have the Forever Forward Award but what would happen if actual championship points were given for the most overtakes across a weekend? I expect it couldn't be more than one or two points. You wouldn't want drivers deliberately qualifying lower down the order just to try to maximize their points!

A thought - what if the Race two grid was based on the amount of places made up during Race One?
For those tied - the finishing gap to the car in front is the deciding factor.

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A thought - what if the Race two grid was based on the amount of places made up during Race One?
For those tied - the finishing gap to the car in front is the deciding factor.

But then if you win R1 from pole, you'd get punished by dropping about 20 places for R2.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Evantra

But then if you win R1 from pole, you'd get punished by dropping about 20 places for R2.

True - but you'd have 20 points to your name.

And from 20th, a chance to gain places (and points) for race 2.

And - if you carried the same system into race 3, a chance for another pole.

I think, people would still attempt to qualify as high as possible for the race 1 points and chance of race 3 pole.

[hen henths]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A thought - what if the Race two grid was based on the amount of places made up during Race One?
For those tied - the finishing gap to the car in front is the deciding factor.

Probably too extreme, because qualifying in pole for Race One would practically guarantee you couldn't have pole in Race Two, so you might have people deliberately holding back in qually as mentioned above (because the optimum would be to qualify as many places back as you could manage to make up and then take the win).

Ah my bad, Evantra got there first!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by hen henths

Probably too extreme, because qualifying in pole for Race One would practically guarantee you couldn't have pole in Race Two, so you might have people deliberately holding back in qually as mentioned above (because the optimum would be to qualify as many places back as you could manage to make up and then take the win).

Ah my bad, Evantra got there first!

But by holding back in qualifying, you're sacrificing race one points in the hope of a race 2 grid position (from which you may still have a bad result).

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A thought - what if the Race two grid was based on the amount of places made up during Race One?
For those tied - the finishing gap to the car in front is the deciding factor.

Not a good idea IMHO. A bit too gimmicky and not what racing is all about. Okay, I get the entertainment factor but I think most of us have already established it's not 'action' at all costs. Such a solution would suggest that it's better to qualify 25th and end up being 13th than getting a pole and win a race from there.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Matt K

Not a good idea IMHO. A bit too gimmicky and not what racing is all about. Okay, I get the entertainment factor but I think most of us have already established it's not 'action' at all costs. Such a solution would suggest that it's better to qualify 25th and end up being 13th than getting a pole and win a race from there.

I'm not sure I fully agree with that.

If getting from 25th to 13th is better than a win from pole, is that not the same as getting from 24th to 12th in race 2 and getting a reverse grid pole?

The difference (IMO) is in the points. Getting a pole and taking a win from there in race 1 gives you at least 22 points. You will then probably start the next race from mid-pack, with the chance of more points.

Getting 13th from 25th gives you 3 points and a pole. You still need to convert the pole in the next race.

I think BTCC is already 'gimicky' if you have reverse grids and performance penalties. My solution would allow the removal of both of these.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A thought - what if the Race two grid was based on the amount of places made up during Race One?
For those tied - the finishing gap to the car in front is the deciding factor.

Please no. If the product needs improving then you don't do that by introducing more silly gimmicks

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Please no. If the product needs improving then you don't do that by introducing more silly gimmicks

Personally, I don't think it needs improving.
At least my proposal is based on a driver's performance in a race, as opposed to a random draw from a bowl of balls......

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Personally, I don't think it needs improving.
At least my proposal is based on a driver's performance in a race, as opposed to a random draw from a bowl of balls......

What about the backmarkers who sit outside the top 20, they'd be given free poles from the retirements and crashes that inevitably happen in front of them, without really doing anything to gain a position.

I do agree that the ball system isn't too great, especially when it seems to be #12 every single time. https://twitter.com/tomingram80/stat...852592641?s=21
Twelfth car on pole seems a bit high, would be better being 5-10 (how they used to do it?) in my opinion.

[S griffin]

We've only just started to the first season of hybrid. I say let's see how the rest of the season goes. The first season of NGTC in 2011 wasn't without it's problems.

There are positives to take away from the new regs so far. For example the Hybrid boost system is much better than the ballast system

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

We've only just started to the first season of hybrid. I say let's see how the rest of the season goes. The first season of NGTC in 2011 wasn't without it's problems.

There are positives to take away from the new regs so far. For example the Hybrid boost system is much better than the ballast system

Totally agree. Any change to regulations needs time to bed in.

[Alessio]

As a BTCC casual, the occasional races I've dropped in to watch have been thoroughly entertaining. With relatively little knowledge of how the BTCC is nowadays, compared to 5-10 years ago, the only thing that I see needing fixing is the qualifying format - random draws are just a ballache. Otherwise, it feels much like the BTCC always has been; some races are hectic, and others are less so.

I do remember finding driving standards a bit embarrassing, especially whenever Matt Neal or Jason Plato were within arms reach of one another. A bit of shoulder barging and loading is fine, whereas clearing cars out of the way is poor aggressive driving and weaving/slamming an obviously open door is poor defensive driving.

[AnnoyedMoose]

I'd like to see a lot more power and tyres that require management. It's always seemed a bit odd to me that the BTCC cars aren't the fastest and most powerful cars on the package.

[Robin Marriott]

If I could pick one thing then maybe I’d like to see some variety with race length. I know you have to have a number of laps but sometimes you’re 1-2 laps away from a good battle right at the end. A longer middle race could spice things up just a little.

I have to say though, I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong. The hybrid system is working better than the ballast IMO and the recent boost reduction for RWD cars at the start really evened things up at Croft.

Even the race with no overtake and Lloyd defending from start to finish was excellent, and proof that you don’t NEED overtakes to make a race exciting.