[BTCC] How to improve the BTCC 'product'

[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.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Robin Marriott

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.

Exactly this. Good defensive driving is just as good to watch as good overtaking.

[porsche962fan]

but it was mede too easy as the driver behind settles for the points due to the high risk of trying to pass ,

if you want to see masterful defence and proper racing see Knockhill 2006 when Giovanardi held off multiple cars for over half of race to win his first BTCC race

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

but it was mede too easy as the driver behind settles for the points due to the high risk of trying to pass ,

To address this - you need to either:
A- Increase the reward for getting further up the field.
B- Decrease the reward for staying where you are.
C- Decrease the risk of making an overtake.

How to increase the reward? You need to give 'more' for getting ahead. The only thing that matters to teams at the moment is either points or tv coverage. Increase the amount of points on offer at the upper places in the grid will see drivers pushing for those gains.
So instead of 20-17-15-13-11, something like 45-35-30-25-20 for the top five places would see those drivers attempting more overtakes.
If you are going to give more tv coverage, you need to work out a deal that means the drivers who make the most overtakes (not positions gained) will get airtime in reward. The downside to this is that you may see a lot of sandbagging to get the chance of in-race overtakes.

How to decrease the reward for holding position? In a similar way to the points adjustment, the points spread could be reduced to the lower places. So instead of offering points all the way down to 15, limit this to the top ten places. There is a downside to this though. Whilst the drivers in places 11-15 are more likely to push ahead for points, you would also see a reduction in passing attempts through places 16-20. Why bother, if you are still not likely to make the top ten. The size of the grid currently is (in part) down to the fact that the points spread reaches all the way down to 15th place.

How to decrease the risk? Drivers currently are inclined to avoid the risk of a bad overtake because the driving standards are higher and they want to avoid the chance of being penalised. The damage bills are also a factor that is considered - as well as the chance of having your results in later races impacted.
Driving standards are where they are - I see no reason to look to revert back to the bash-'em smash-'em racing of previous years.
Damage bills are also unavoidable. The only way this could be addressed would be a funding stream to be made available. The recent Lloyd incident has shown that this is not sustainable as an approach.
Not having your later races impacted - this is addressed by having the race 2 and 3 grids determined in a manner that is not impacted be the previous race results.

In summary, if we want to see a higher volume of overtaking in the BTCC but retain the current high standard of driving and grid sizes, then two things are realistically in consideration.
Increase the reward for the upper places.
Set the later race grids independently of previous races.


So what would be a possible proposal?
A revised points system of 45-35-30-25-20 for the top five. I think this would see the 1st and 5th positions fiercely contested (both worth an extra 10 pts).
The grid being determined by:
Race One - Qualifying session 1.
Race Two - Championship position going into the meeting.
Race Three - Qualifying session 2.

[porsche962fan]

all you argue and spin it around but you never adress the flawed NGTC design with teh easy broken toe link

see in this video how many contacts there and how many broken toe linkage you have ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xifNsClb2EI

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

all you argue and spin it around but you never adress the flawed NGTC design with teh easy broken toe link

see in this video how many contacts there and how many broken toe linkage you have ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xifNsClb2EI

Rubbin’ definitely isn’t racing when it comes to NGTC...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

all you argue and spin it around but you never adress the flawed NGTC design with teh easy broken toe link

If the toe link doesn't break, something else has to.

In that case, you could be looking at more violent crashes, bigger damage, higher repair bills and more injuries to drivers.

Do you think BTCC should be more dangerous?

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Rubbin’ definitely isn’t racing when it comes to NGTC...

exactly , even in S2000 era you had more of that and drivers could get away with , drivers were not "punished" for being more agressive

now they are punsihed by the cars and by the rules !! , and result we get this mediocre processions

[antnee]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If the toe link doesn't break, something else has to.

In that case, you could be looking at more violent crashes, bigger damage, higher repair bills and more injuries to drivers.

Do you think BTCC should be more dangerous?

Feeling a little dramatic are we?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

Feeling a little dramatic are we?

Just re-iterating what was posted in the Croft thread:

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

the 'weak' toe-links are specifically designed to break and prevent more serious (and difficult to repair) damage to the subframes.

[antnee]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Just re-iterating what was posted in the Croft thread:

More serious damage doesn't automatically mean it is more dangerous. It might require a jig-session to correct instead of taking a few bolts out. That could make it safer, not more dangerous.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

More serious damage doesn't automatically mean it is more dangerous. It might require a jig-session to correct instead of taking a few bolts out. That could make it safer, not more dangerous.

Agreed - not automatically.

However, a jig-session is expensive and time-consuming compared to a bolt-out bolt-in repair.

And if the damage is more serious, then by extension at least some of those incidents will have been higher impacts. Higher impacts = greater risk.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

all you argue and spin it around but you never adress the flawed NGTC design with teh easy broken toe link

And you're equally ignoring the number of times people have said that it's by design, flawed or otherwise, to prevent far more extensive and expensive damage to the common subframe.

TBH if there's a known fragile piece that means contact with it is likely to result in retirement, isn't that a good thing as drivers will avoid contact in the first place?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Greem

TBH if there's a known fragile piece that means contact with it is likely to result in retirement, isn't that a good thing as drivers will avoid contact in the first place?

I think that is also part of the thinking with the design of the hybrid system (deliberate or otherwise).

Peter Riches (in response to a question about the cooling being mounted in the front bumper area): "We always say there should be some reward for not crashing your car, so this is perhaps the best driving standards device we’ve ever introduced. We’ve engineered the system so that if you damage the hybrid radiators at the front and lose coolant, then you’ll just lose the hybrid system until it’s repaired. The engine will still run."

So there are scales.
Damage your hybrid and your race is hindered.
Damage your suspension and your weekend is hindered.

You could also read between the lines from what Riches said - in that other 'driving standards devices' have been introduced in the past, such as the toe-link robustness.

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by Greem

TBH if there's a known fragile piece that means contact with it is likely to result in retirement, isn't that a good thing as drivers will avoid contact in the first place?

but didn't they transform it into a boring procession ? do they realy want it to become the Boring Touring Car Championship ?

[mick bennett]

Weak suspension is just as dangerous as speeding etc.

Not well designed ,when a simple nudge in the right place causes failure e.g Chilton's blatant nudge on Sutton at the the last race. If that happended at higher speed, the end result could be a very serious accident .

It should have enough strength to absorb that level of impact.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by mick bennett

Weak suspension is just as dangerous as speeding etc.

Not well designed ,when a simple nudge in the right place causes failure

e.g Chilton's blatant nudge on Sutton at the the last race. If that happended at higher speed = the end reulst would not be not good.

It should have enough strength to absorb that level of impact.

If you increase the robustness of the part - does that not encourage the driver to increase the level of impact?

For instance - if a driver knows that a light impact will potentially damage a part, they may be likely to avoid contact. If they know that a part will absorb a higher impact, they may be willing to make a harder contact - which could be even worse in the event of a part failure.

[crmalcolm]

Personally - I think if the BTCC product does need improving, we need to look forward not backward.

Consideration of what worked in the past is one thing, but it should be held in the context of the social conditions of the time.

Some interesting comments recently from Alan Gow - he was talking about ETCR, but you can see how the same thinking would be applied to future BTCC developments:

"They look great, they’re obviously very quick, they actually sound quite good even though you don’t normally associate electric cars with sound. The technology in there, and what they’ve done to produce those cars is very impressive. They produce good racing."

"Touring car racing, after all, has always been about the public identifying with the cars as something they can buy for the road. It’s the relevance to the road that’s the most important aspect. As we inexorably head towards a greater electrified future with road cars, then obviously racing has to reflect that."

As more and more people are moving towards EV for their daily drive, they will be looking for the racing to reflect some of the same characteristics.

Instant, high torque could place the onus more back on to the driver in terms of getting acceleration out of corners, and reaction times. A level of torque that makes the cars difficult to keep a handle on might give more margin for error. Would that be a better racing product?

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Instant, high torque could place the onus more back on to the driver in terms of getting acceleration out of corners, and reaction times. A level of torque that makes the cars difficult to keep a handle on might give more margin for error. Would that be a better racing product?

Not if we get 3 car races like ETCR...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Evantra

Not if we get 3 car races like ETCR...

In it's first season as an FIA series, the grids are larger than the first season of TCT in the UK.

Going forward, if a similar approach was adopted by TOCA then you could realistically expect the majority of the current grid to remain.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In it's first season as an FIA series, the grids are larger than the first season of TCT in the UK.

Going forward, if a similar approach was adopted by TOCA then you could realistically expect the majority of the current grid to remain.

I think that's a fair assumption. Most of the current BTCC grid is made up of what I would call BTCC regulars ( be it teams or drivers, or both), so they would go with any changes made by TOCA. I would also expect that if TOCA are considering a major change to the series, they would also consult the teams about this first and use their feedback when shaping these changes.
I certainly wouldn't expect (even) Alan Gow to stand up in August and announce that "as of next season, the BTCC will be for all electric delivery vans" or something similar!

[antnee]

If an electric version cost the same to build and run as a NGTC car, I think they could maintain a similar grid size - if the cars could run to the same/similar race format.

[porsche962fan]

electric racing is such a scam , they claim to be carbon neutral and all that crap yet they have diesel generators behind the pit garage to charge all those batteries

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

electric racing is such a scam , they claim to be carbon neutral and all that crap yet they have diesel generators behind the pit garage to charge all those batteries

https://electriccarsreport.com/2021/06/fuel-cell-generator-by-hyundai-to-power-worlds-first-electric-touring-car-racing-category/

[Matt K]

Speaking of electric racing, not sure if you're aware, but STCC is ditching TCR ruleset and moving to 100% electric touring car racing. Wonder what it looks like and what the 'product' will be. Anyway, this could be an idea of how BTCC might look in not-so-distant future. Somehow it's still hard for me to accept the electric direction of motor industry and I'm of the view that there's a lot of propaganda in this but time to accept the irreversible.
ETCR is gimmicky but the cars drive nicely (apart from idiotic sound making it seem like racing of trams). If a traditional racing format can be combined with powerful cars, it can be quite a good show.