[WTCC] New entrants in the championship

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by snowen250

Im not sure what rules are best to replace S2000, i am personally far from convinced it needs changing! Yes the WTCC suffers from politics, but the BTCC for example is doing very well indeed, the S2000 cars provide great racing. What the WTCC needs is strong leadership and a GT3/4 equivelancy formula at the start of the season. Then this stupid mid season rule changing would have been avoided.
You must also look at this from a marketing view, the S2000 cars do at least look similar to joe public to there road going counterparts. Stuff like race extreme style less so and so will be less marketable to the companies themselves.
Simon

For me there's also no need to change to something else as S2000. The only thing what S2000 needs is technical rules stability.

[awrb]

Originally Posted by FIRE

For me there's also no need to change to something else as S2000. The only thing what S2000 needs is technical rules stability.

But that would be difficult now, with all cars already having waivers. Can we go to all the teams and say "You can't have that flat floor any more" etc. So while we're at it, we may as well get something a bit more exciting, and a bit cheeper.

One thought, if this budget cap does happen in F1, that will leave Renault, Mercedes, Fiat, Toyota, BMW etc. all with a lot of money they were spending on F1 left over. At least a few million, if not in the ten's. If the FIA could time some cheeper rules into the WTCC nicely, surely those manufacturers could spare a couple on million on a TCC program. They could also have done it with S2000 if it wasn't for what i've just dubbed paugate.

Of course, all of this is assuming competence at the FIA. Ha, not likely.

[redshoes]

Haven't we had this same discussion in another thread?

Interesting to see that some people are advocating an equivelancy formula yet at the same time complaining about the number of waivers in S2000. Surely any equivelancy formula just means more of the same and more arguments over what is really equal.

[JMeissner]

Spot on Nigel.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Haven't we had this same discussion in another thread?

Interesting to see that some people are advocating an equivelancy formula yet at the same time complaining about the number of waivers in S2000. Surely any equivelancy formula just means more of the same and more arguments over what is really equal.

I think there's a difference between proper and neutral pre-season equalisation and the sloppy, on-the-go style of performance balancing currently employed by the FIA.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by awrb

But if you had this session, would the petrol and diesel SEAT's be tested separately, because then the petrol SEAT in the indy hands would be up there with the works cars, and I can't see the manufacturers liking that too much. I'm not trying to pick hole here though, I'm just not sure how this system would be implemented.

As for the no development, I think they'd probably just spend more money on next years car, and the whole year developing that. I also think it kind of kills the essence of motorsport. I don't mind if one car is ahead of the others, just so long as there's racing between those cars, and the others have a chance to catch up. Or I could just be missing the point.

On the in-team racing note, how about a rule saying only two cars per team, but doing the BMW thing and running three teams is fine. I think that would get rid of some of the SEAT style politics.

Actually, the petrol SEATs ARE there while the TDis are fighting against the Ladas. Of course every model should be tested separately. Also, there would be no more SEAT-like things, that they change car in the middle of the season,
You are right, they'd spend money on next year's car, but they could finally sell a, say, '09 spec car at the beginning of the season. Imagine SEAT being able to sell new packages for the Léons each year. In this system, there would be no need to catch up, as the cars would be more or less equalized and then the ballast system would provide the normal ups and downs of the cars throughout the season, so that we'd have an exciting championship. TBH, I don't like the fact that the works 320sis are restyled while the independent ones still have the old bodywork.
I'm not sure wether this would work, since SEAT already have Oreca running 2 cars and SEAT Sport running 3. Also, CHevy would have to split teams then, and so would Lada. Finally, such a limitation would affect the independent teams.
A pleasure to discuss with you anyway, you're very polite

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Haven't we had this same discussion in another thread?

Interesting to see that some people are advocating an equivelancy formula yet at the same time complaining about the number of waivers in S2000. Surely any equivelancy formula just means more of the same and more arguments over what is really equal.

Well once everyone has accepted a pre-test season with an estabilished driver there's not much to discuss, you trust a professional racing driver to do the job and that's pretty much it. Blocking the developement throughout the year would at least mean stability, which is something TC need so bad, since they are based on independent efforts.

[awrb]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

Actually, the petrol SEATs ARE there while the TDis are fighting against the Ladas. Of course every model should be tested separately. Also, there would be no more SEAT-like things, that they change car in the middle of the season,
You are right, they'd spend money on next year's car, but they could finally sell a, say, '09 spec car at the beginning of the season. Imagine SEAT being able to sell new packages for the Léons each year. In this system, there would be no need to catch up, as the cars would be more or less equalized and then the ballast system would provide the normal ups and downs of the cars throughout the season, so that we'd have an exciting championship. TBH, I don't like the fact that the works 320sis are restyled while the independent ones still have the old bodywork.

But the manufacturers will always keep the best bits for themselves, and let the indys run year old cars. Otherwise, when Proteam beat BMW, BMW look a bit silly, as if someone knows their car better than them. Unless you're suggesting a GT3 style ban on manufacturers, so manufacturers can build the cars but private teams actually race them. I'm not sure whether this would really work, or whether the manufacturers would just not be bothered with it.

As for the re-styled BMW's, at least it's a bit of variation. It takes it up to 5 different cars on the grid!!! (the petrol SEAT and facelifted BMW count as half) Still not a patch on national series.

I'm not sure wether this would work, since SEAT already have Oreca running 2 cars and SEAT Sport running 3. Also, CHevy would have to split teams then, and so would Lada. Finally, such a limitation would affect the independent teams.

Yeah Chevy and LADA would be pretty screwed over I suppose. I just think the team orders need to go. When BMW were dominating no one really complained because you had battles between Priaulx and the Mullers, but with SEAT, once they're at the front they all just hold station. Which is why I think more people complained when the SEAT were right at the top this year.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I think there's a difference between proper and neutral pre-season equalisation and the sloppy, on-the-go style of performance balancing currently employed by the FIA.

And who would be running this "proper and neutral pre-season equalisation", oh yes the FIA. What makes you think the equalisation would be any less sloppy?

Originally Posted by helterskelter

Well once everyone has accepted a pre-test season with an estabilished driver there's not much to discuss, you trust a professional racing driver to do the job and that's pretty much it.

Then in lies the rub, how do you make sure everyone accepts the pre-season test results? The driver may be the same but is the car properly set up, is the engine at full power, does the car suit a particular driving style, does the circuit favour the car's handling/power - you'll just get the same arguments over sandbagging that we already have.

It also allows little opportunity for development during the year. Take the BTCC Arena Focus, they've improved nearly 2 seconds a lap since the first meeting, any equalisation based on their pre-season pace would now be hopelessly over-compensating.

[nickyf1]

Perhaps a revived version of the BTC-T Regs could save us? Standardised parts, heavier cars, more power (around 300hp), both four door and three door allowed. I'd imagine they are cheaper, and there is already a few of them about. All that would be needed changed would be the aero, i.e, getting rid of the boxy kits and making use of an S2000 style adjustable spoiler.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by awrb

But the manufacturers will always keep the best bits for themselves, and let the indys run year old cars. Otherwise, when Proteam beat BMW, BMW look a bit silly, as if someone knows their car better than them. Unless you're suggesting a GT3 style ban on manufacturers, so manufacturers can build the cars but private teams actually race them. I'm not sure whether this would really work, or whether the manufacturers would just not be bothered with it.

As for the re-styled BMW's, at least it's a bit of variation. It takes it up to 5 different cars on the grid!!! (the petrol SEAT and facelifted BMW count as half) Still not a patch on national series.


Yeah Chevy and LADA would be pretty screwed over I suppose. I just think the team orders need to go. When BMW were dominating no one really complained because you had battles between Priaulx and the Mullers, but with SEAT, once they're at the front they all just hold station. Which is why I think more people complained when the SEAT were right at the top this year.

If the indys run the old cars, they will be tested and compensated at the beginning of the year. Also, remember when Priaulx challenged the works BMWs and clearly outpaced Dirk in his Schnitzer BMW, Giovanardi and Garcia who were with what is now called Roal and so on during the 2003 Etcc? Andy was an independant, and the next year he got 'promoted' to works. BMW would be glad if Porteiro won a race this year, because they sell racing cars and that would mean that everyone, if they prepare their car properly, can win even overall races with BMW cars.
Maybe I didn't explain myself properly about the BMW restyling: of course it's a good thing, but it's a bit annoying that the indies don't have, at least in theory, the same material as the works drivers.
Well, SEAT have always been the masters of team orders. You also have to remember that they have Yvan, Tarquini and Rydell who are tremendous drivers, while Genè and Monteiro aren't at the same level. Even without team orders, the super-boosted SEATs would have dominated with the same 3 drivers, though Rickard is not at his best at the moment. Team orders in quali are good, in race they make the show a little boring. But anyway, remember Genè overtook Yvan in Marrakech, put pressure on him and so on. Same with Priaulx and Jorg in Pau (what a stupid accident). Sometimes, when you're a racing driver, you just look for your own points unless some Jaime Puig comes on the radio and says 'hold positions'.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Then in lies the rub, how do you make sure everyone accepts the pre-season test results? The driver may be the same but is the car properly set up, is the engine at full power, does the car suit a particular driving style, does the circuit favour the car's handling/power - you'll just get the same arguments over sandbagging that we already have.

It also allows little opportunity for development during the year. Take the BTCC Arena Focus, they've improved nearly 2 seconds a lap since the first meeting, any equalisation based on their pre-season pace would now be hopelessly over-compensating.

If the car is properly set up and the engine is at full power is up to the people who prepare the cars. I don't think anyone would come on the pre-season testing with an underperforming car, cause if when you get to the first meeting you are 1 second per lap faster it's clear that you cheated and it's not good for the brand image. For the rest of it, just like it has been done during the last few years, you find an agreement about the track and the driver. Surely easier than getting all the manufacturers to accept the waivers that we have now.
As for the developement during the year, a manufacturer wouldn't show up with such an underperforming car on the track. If this were a works project, Ford would have waited until they had a decent engine before putting the car on the track. I believe Ford wouldn't have wanted to go out with a slow car, if this were a project designed to raise brand awareness. Arena surely had engagements with the sponsors, so they went out anyway, but a manufacturer would hardly have allowed it to happen.
Problems arise, TBH, if someone wants to bring a new model in mid-season, but I'm sure brillant minds would come up with a solution for that, too.
Does anybody know how do they handle such a situation in GTs?

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

If the car is properly set up and the engine is at full power is up to the people who prepare the cars. I don't think anyone would come on the pre-season testing with an underperforming car, cause if when you get to the first meeting you are 1 second per lap faster it's clear that you cheated and it's not good for the brand image.

It's no worse for the brand image that the current whining that goes on in WTCC.

Have you never seen or heard of a team sandbagging at a pre-season test? This years we've even had allegations of SEAT sandbagging during the race - deliberately not setting a fast time to make the compensation weights rules work in their favour.

I think you misunderstood my comment about engine power. The car obviously needs to be properly set up and on full power for a race meeting but who says it will be for an independent equalisation test. With modern computer controlled engine management a WRC car can go from semi-docile road car to flame-spitting special stage monster at the flick of a switch. How difficult would it be to drop 20-30hp just before the equalization tester got behind the wheel?

For the rest of it, just like it has been done during the last few years, you find an agreement about the track and the driver. Surely easier than getting all the manufacturers to accept the waivers that we have now.

"Their car is developed around a particular driver with a particular driving style, anyone else will find it undrivable"
"The tester used to drive for a rival team so will be bias towards them"
"We fired the tester for being useless so he will be bias against us"
"Our car has poor straight line speed but good handling, this track has no big straights so will make us look better than we are"
"It was damp when you tested their car and dried out by the time you tested ours"
etc etc

As for the developement during the year, a manufacturer wouldn't show up with such an underperforming car on the track. If this were a works project, Ford would have waited until they had a decent engine before putting the car on the track.

Probably true, but not every team is going to be manufacturer backed so this sort of thing can and will happen. Works teams or not, development will continue over the season so the performance of the car will change, even if it's not such a sudden change.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by redshoes

It's no worse for the brand image that the current whining that goes on in WTCC.

Have you never seen or heard of a team sandbagging at a pre-season test? This years we've even had allegations of SEAT sandbagging during the race - deliberately not setting a fast time to make the compensation weights rules work in their favour.

I think you misunderstood my comment about engine power. The car obviously needs to be properly set up and on full power for a race meeting but who says it will be for an independent equalisation test. With modern computer controlled engine management a WRC car can go from semi-docile road car to flame-spitting special stage monster at the flick of a switch. How difficult would it be to drop 20-30hp just before the equalization tester got behind the wheel?

No, actually I had understood it and probably didn't explain my point properly, sorry about that. Of course, except for setup, if you do an equalization test before the season the Federation controls what the car is doing through the ECU, and then the car has to be the same for the whole year, otherwise this system wouldn't make sense.

"Their car is developed around a particular driver with a particular driving style, anyone else will find it undrivable"
"The tester used to drive for a rival team so will be bias towards them"
"We fired the tester for being useless so he will be bias against us"
"Our car has poor straight line speed but good handling, this track has no big straights so will make us look better than we are"
"It was damp when you tested their car and dried out by the time you tested ours"
etc etc

Doing pre-season tests in damp conditions would be particularly stupid, they go off to Portugal or Spain and find some decent weather.
The most rational choice would be a driver who has never been in the Wtcc. If you get Antonio Garcia to do this job, for instance, it's clear that he might favour the BMW, and therefore wouldn't be suitable for it. You either pick a good, experienced driver from, say, Renault Clio Cup (Renault has no WTCC team), or you pick someone from open wheelers, but I'd rather choose a driver who has experience in TCs, of course.
Of course, Spa or Oschersleben wouldn't be a proper venue for such a job. I repeat, as they found an agreement on turbo pressures, rev limiters and quali rules they can choose a track that looks fine for all manufacturers.
As for developing a car according to a particular driver's driving style can happen in F1 or in MotoGp for bikes, but hardly in the WTCC, since the cars are designed to be ran by more than 2 guys and the Constructors' championship structure doesn't allow one to just think of one driver and develop the car according to him. SEAT haven't done it with Yvan, BMW haven't done it with Priaulx and Chevy haven't done it with Huffy, nor Lada would do that with van Lagen.

Probably true, but not every team is going to be manufacturer backed so this sort of thing can and will happen. Works teams or not, development will continue over the season so the performance of the car will change, even if it's not such a sudden change.

And of course, something that maybe I didn't clarify enough is that once you show up with a car at the pre season test, the car stays the same for the whole season, and then if you can bring something better it's for next year's car. The rules I'm talking about would be suitable for Wtcc, not for Btcc, which is something that has to be clear, too. You'll hardly find someone who can afford to pay a few millions to run a Wtcc project that is not a manufacturer. I've heard that BMW spend around 10 millions for the Wtcc (though the incomes from the sale of cars, parts and engine rebuilding from all over Europe are counted out, of course).

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

Doing pre-season tests in damp conditions would be particularly stupid, they go off to Portugal or Spain and find some decent weather.

I wasn't suggesting you deliberately run the the test in damp conditions but these things are out of anyone's control. Having the same driver test every car for sufficient laps to make an accurate comparison is going to take all day and it's inevitable that temperature and track conditions will change during that time. It's one more variable and one more reason for people to complain.

As for developing a car according to a particular driver's driving style can happen in F1 or in MotoGp for bikes, but hardly in the WTCC, since the cars are designed to be ran by more than 2 guys and the Constructors' championship structure doesn't allow one to just think of one driver and develop the car according to him.

It certainly happens in BTCC, and Yvan is a good example of this. Other drivers struggled in the old ST Vectra and 2WD Audi that were developed and set-up around Yvan's unique driving style. More recently Chilton and Neal have been lost in a Vectra built around Gio.

You'll hardly find someone who can afford to pay a few millions to run a Wtcc project that is not a manufacturer.

Russian Bears
N-Tech

The rules I'm talking about would be suitable for Wtcc, not for Btcc, which is something that has to be clear, too. ... I've heard that BMW spend around 10 millions for the Wtcc (though the incomes from the sale of cars, parts and engine rebuilding from all over Europe are counted out, of course).

BMW's sales comes from all over Europe because S2000 is running all over Europe. If you are building a WTCC-only formula you can kiss goodbye to most of that revenue.

Maybe we need to clarify exactly what we are trying to equalise. Are we talking about some minor tweaks to otherwise similar cars (i.e. not dis-similar to what the FIA are trying to do with WTCC currently) or attempting to match 4WD vs RWD vs FWD vs 4-door vs 2-door vs turbo etc.

[awrb]

The pre season equalisation works in GT3 because there are no manufacturers and because you are trying to equalize a load of RWD, V8 powered cars. They're all pretty much the same, so it works. If you've got RWD/FWD/petrol/heavy diesel/etc etc it just won't work. Different cars suit different people, just look at how Giovanardi did in a works BMW. The average Clio cup driver won't have driven anything as powerful and RWDey (new term!) as the BMW. It just won't work. Just make rules, keep the weight rules as they are. That's all that's needed.

EDIT: Didn't see your post there redshoes, before you think I'm just stealing you ideas. Yes, it took me that long to type a short post!

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by awrb

The pre season equalisation works in GT3 because there are no manufacturers and because you are trying to equalize a load of RWD, V8 powered cars. They're all pretty much the same, so it works. If you've got RWD/FWD/petrol/heavy diesel/etc etc it just won't work. Different cars suit different people, just look at how Giovanardi did in a works BMW. The average Clio cup driver won't have driven anything as powerful and RWDey (new term!) as the BMW. It just won't work. Just make rules, keep the weight rules as they are. That's all that's needed.

EDIT: Didn't see your post there redshoes, before you think I'm just stealing you ideas. Yes, it took me that long to type a short post!

Your first point in black, is fine.

But a 1,500 KG Ford GT with a Ford V8 in it is completely different to a light-weight V10 Lambo! There are so many diverese cars of different power and weight its an amazing job that the FIA do.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

its an amazing job that the FIA do.

For the most part the FIA aren't involved, it's SRO who run things. I think that's in part why GT3 and BTCC work so well with a single public face running things rather than a faceless WTCC committee. GT3 and BTCC both have their share of inter-team arguments but Ratel and Gow do a much better job at keeping control of things.

[awrb]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Your first point in black, is fine.

But a 1,500 KG Ford GT with a Ford V8 in it is completely different to a light-weight V10 Lambo! There are so many diverese cars of different power and weight its an amazing job that the FIA do.

Ok, you got me on my lack of GT3 knowledge. I was just guessing, should have researched. Still, I just can't see this system working in WTCC. I don't want to really either. The development of the cars is all part of it, engineers, mechanics and drivers from one team trying to battle with engineers, mechanics and drivers from the other. I just can't see any money coming in from the manufacturers if they can't develop their cars.

On a side note, there isn't that much money coming in from sponsors to the series. Apart from Liqui Moly and a bit of money for Wiechers and Proteam, There aren't really that many major sponsors. How do they attract more sponsors and even manufacturers?

I think the coverage is a problem. It's not really on major TV in a lot of country's. But at the moment, there isn't really anything great to pitch to the TV channels, especially if they do their research and look at what happened in Pau.

Could they approach the TV networks and try to sell them a new series, with just the new rules, and say to them 'if we get X manufacturers will you show it'. If the TV companies sign up (it can be done I think) then approach the manufacturers, tell them how if they build and run a relatively cheap race car they can get on major TV channels across the world, I'm sure they'll sign up.

Or am I just being naive about the world of business?

It just needs someone to revolutionise touring car racing. I think it is exciting enough to sell to the general public, or rather, get more fans in. It's possibly the most accessible of all motorsports; normal looking cars, all about the racing. I just feel that, with a little bit of effort, TCC could be really big.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by awrb

Ok, you got me on my lack of GT3 knowledge. I was just guessing, should have researched. Still, I just can't see this system working in WTCC. I don't want to really either. The development of the cars is all part of it, engineers, mechanics and drivers from one team trying to battle with engineers, mechanics and drivers from the other. I just can't see any money coming in from the manufacturers if they can't develop their cars.

On a side note, there isn't that much money coming in from sponsors to the series. Apart from Liqui Moly and a bit of money for Wiechers and Proteam, There aren't really that many major sponsors. How do they attract more sponsors and even manufacturers?

I think the coverage is a problem. It's not really on major TV in a lot of country's. But at the moment, there isn't really anything great to pitch to the TV channels, especially if they do their research and look at what happened in Pau.

Could they approach the TV networks and try to sell them a new series, with just the new rules, and say to them 'if we get X manufacturers will you show it'. If the TV companies sign up (it can be done I think) then approach the manufacturers, tell them how if they build and run a relatively cheap race car they can get on major TV channels across the world, I'm sure they'll sign up.

Or am I just being naive about the world of business?

It just needs someone to revolutionise touring car racing. I think it is exciting enough to sell to the general public, or rather, get more fans in. It's possibly the most accessible of all motorsports; normal looking cars, all about the racing. I just feel that, with a little bit of effort, TCC could be really big.

No you shouldn't sorry I came over a bit too cynical!

I understand what you meant though

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by redshoes

I wasn't suggesting you deliberately run the the test in damp conditions but these things are out of anyone's control. Having the same driver test every car for sufficient laps to make an accurate comparison is going to take all day and it's inevitable that temperature and track conditions will change during that time. It's one more variable and one more reason for people to complain.

It certainly happens in BTCC, and Yvan is a good example of this. Other drivers struggled in the old ST Vectra and 2WD Audi that were developed and set-up around Yvan's unique driving style. More recently Chilton and Neal have been lost in a Vectra built around Gio.

Russian Bears
N-Tech

BMW's sales comes from all over Europe because S2000 is running all over Europe. If you are building a WTCC-only formula you can kiss goodbye to most of that revenue.

Maybe we need to clarify exactly what we are trying to equalise. Are we talking about some minor tweaks to otherwise similar cars (i.e. not dis-similar to what the FIA are trying to do with WTCC currently) or attempting to match 4WD vs RWD vs FWD vs 4-door vs 2-door vs turbo etc.

Well, they do accept this risk in other championships, so why couldn't they in Wtcc?
Well, I think that especially with the Vectra it's more of a question of car understanding, as Fabrizio had more mileage on the Vectra when it came out.
Hang on, Russian Bears and N Technology both started from an existing project. All they did was an update of what they already had. Can't speak for Lada, but I'm well informed about the Accord and I can assure you that they took the 2008 rules, updated the car and did 2 tests in Franciacorta, which is a small track in Italy, and that's it. Quite different from building a car and taking it out on the track against estabilished manufacturers like BMW and SEAT without a serious testing schedule.
I'm not talking about a WTCC only formula, I'm talking about a way to equalize the performances, which is different. The idea would be: developing a car, selling the new kit each year to increase performances and make them more similar to the works teams and that's it, I don't see why BMW should stop selling with the system I'm putting forward.
We are talking about equalizing the existing cars so that the zstupid stuff that is going on at the moment doesn't need to happen

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by awrb

The pre season equalisation works in GT3 because there are no manufacturers and because you are trying to equalize a load of RWD, V8 powered cars. They're all pretty much the same, so it works. If you've got RWD/FWD/petrol/heavy diesel/etc etc it just won't work. Different cars suit different people, just look at how Giovanardi did in a works BMW. The average Clio cup driver won't have driven anything as powerful and RWDey (new term!) as the BMW. It just won't work. Just make rules, keep the weight rules as they are. That's all that's needed.

EDIT: Didn't see your post there redshoes, before you think I'm just stealing you ideas. Yes, it took me that long to type a short post!

Just to clarify that it was not a question of Fabrizio not liking the car. I asked him in an interview (I'm sorry but it's only in italian), and he said that 'Ravaglia's team was great, but once we talked to the BMW people the Germans didn't appreciate our suggestions that much. I believe I'm a fast driver, but I'm also technically prepared: they only cared about my speed, not my opinions about what was going right and what was going wrong. I'm used to working in a totally different way, we were just in two different worlds'(translation from Italian version).
As for the Clio Cup driver thing, it was the first thing that came into my head, but if you get someone like Naspetti, Balzan or someone like them (I only mentioned Italians cause I know them very well) then it will work out.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

Hang on, Russian Bears and N Technology both started from an existing project. All they did was an update of what they already had.

But both started the season with relativity poor performance and developed the car from there, something you said wouldn't happen.

I'm not talking about a WTCC only formula

The rules I'm talking about would be suitable for Wtcc, not for Btcc, which is something that has to be clear, too.

Make your mind up.

It would be no good BTCC/STCC/Procar/etc adopting these rules unless they were prepared to run their own equalisation tests for the locally built cars, which are exactly the sort of teams who may not be fully prepared pre-season and who will improve during the year (as per the Arena Focus that you dismissed earlier). For something like a BMW which could race at WTCC and national level you are potentially looking at 4 different sets of equalisation results depending on their performance relative to the other cars in the each series.

Indecently, this new formula would preclude any local or late entries at WTCC events, as we've seen with Volvo and Toyota for example, as they would not have been through the pre-season equalisation process.

[awrb]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

Just to clarify that it was not a question of Fabrizio not liking the car. I asked him in an interview (I'm sorry but it's only in italian), and he said that 'Ravaglia's team was great, but once we talked to the BMW people the Germans didn't appreciate our suggestions that much. I believe I'm a fast driver, but I'm also technically prepared: they only cared about my speed, not my opinions about what was going right and what was going wrong. I'm used to working in a totally different way, we were just in two different worlds'(translation from Italian version).

To be totally honest, that sounds to me like Gio was saying, "the team was great, but I didn't get on with the car, and BMW weren't prepared to modify the car so I did". Which is my exact point.

Imagine if Gio was doing the equalisation that year, the BMW would be running on -100kg or something, because he just couldn't get on with it, while Priaulx and the Mullers were very fast.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by redshoes

But both started the season with relativity poor performance and developed the car from there, something you said wouldn't happen.

Make your mind up.

It would be no good BTCC/STCC/Procar/etc adopting these rules unless they were prepared to run their own equalisation tests for the locally built cars, which are exactly the sort of teams who may not be fully prepared pre-season and who will improve during the year (as per the Arena Focus that you dismissed earlier). For something like a BMW which could race at WTCC and national level you are potentially looking at 4 different sets of equalisation results depending on their performance relative to the other cars in the each series.

Indecently, this new formula would preclude any local or late entries at WTCC events, as we've seen with Volvo and Toyota for example, as they would not have been through the pre-season equalisation process.

When referring to a Wtcc project that costs a few millions I mean a BMW-SEAT-Chevrolet kind of thing. Have you ever wondered why TD and Arena chose the Btcc and not the pinnacle of the sport?
Well, you meant that BMW would have had to build different cars for all the series in Europe, which wouldn't have to happen. There are already some differences between the works 320si E90s and the Btcc cars (they have a sequential gearbox and a different weight). With what I wrote I meant that once you build the car and then equalize it, since it's just a question of different weight, BMW can still sell the car to, say, Team RAC and they run it with the weight rules of BTCC. I hope it's clear now.
Yes, you'd need cars with different weights. It's not the end of the world if the car is 1200kgs in the Wtcc and 1170kgs in the Btcc and Stcc.
I have already said before that this would be a problem and asked how do they solve it in GT3 and GT4. Anybody have an idea?