What would you do to the WTCC? - Page 3

Sodemo · 19 Jun 2010, 21:14 (Ref:2714843)

The FIA will probably go their own route again, and Britain will be left out in the cold again just like with the BTC rules of 2001.

Though frankly, I am glad the BTC rules were junked in favour of the S2000 rules, as the S2000 cars look far more like the supertourers of old than the odd looking BTC cars, that looked (to me at least) very cheap and plasticy looking.

I have always quite liked the look of the Belgian touring cars, anyone know how expensive they are and how quick they are?

Speed-King · 20 Jun 2010, 01:22 (Ref:2714907)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I have always quite liked the look of the Belgian touring cars, anyone know how expensive they are and how quick they are?

Not sure about the costs in absolute figures, but they are suppossed to be relatively affordable. Speedwise, the S1-Silhouettes are just a tiny bit slower than a good GT3-car. That's fast.

racer69 · 22 Jun 2010, 07:13 (Ref:2716168)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyS

For example the tourers of the 70's...

The tourers of the 70s were very road-relevant, as much as Group A was anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Why two rounds in Australia?

Australia were the only country to get two rounds of the inaugural WTCC in 1987, so its not without precedent.

AndyS · 22 Jun 2010, 13:19 (Ref:2716331)

Quote:

Originally Posted by racer69

The tourers of the 70s were very road-relevant, as much as Group A was anyway.

Should have made it clearer, wasn't suggesting the cars shouldn't be road relevant. I was meaning more the look of the cars.

KA · 23 Jun 2010, 11:15 (Ref:2716796)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyS

Should have made it clearer, wasn't suggesting the cars shouldn't be road relevant. I was meaning more the look of the cars.

See what you mean about the look of the cars- though the more 'extreme' look of the 70's Group 2 cars was very much related to their level of performance- It wasn't just cosmetic, the whole spec of them was fairly extreme by the standards of the period

(70's Capri RS3100)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/104/2...32fb434a33.jpg
(BMW CSL)
http://www.tech-speed.co.uk/imageLibrary/BMW3.jpg
(1976/7 Broadspeed Jag)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/...4677519124.jpg

I cut my teeth in touring car terms on the Group A cars of the 80's, which until the appearance of some of the later 'homologation specials' like the Sierra Cosworth, M3, Merc 190 Evo, TWR Commodore etc, cosmetically looked pretty much like production cars with bigger wheels, as did the early 2-litre cars

('86-season TWR Rover)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/...6609c3c5ae.jpg

(c1990/1 Merc 190 Evo)
http://www.desktopcar.net/wallpaper/...-190DTM-03.jpg

('94-season Volvo Estate)
http://www.drivesouth.co.nz/files/sl...ar1_Medium.jpg

Supertouring cars only really began to look extreme after the wings came in from '95, and wheel sizes grew bigger. Personally I loved the look of the Group A cars and the early 2-litre before wings..

(John Cleland's 1990/94/95 season Cavaliers)
http://www.johncleland.net/images/1990_cavalier.jpg
http://www.johncleland.net/images/JC94Cav2.jpg
http://www.johncleland.net/images/JC95Cav.jpg

If you're going to make the cars look extreme, then they really need to have the performance, sound and general attitude to match-

I always felt that the combination of the bodykit and that almost GT-sized standard rear wing with comparitively small wheels on the BTCC-Touring 2-litre cars, looked at bit like putting antlers on a rabbit, if you get what I mean....

I'd have much rather had something more like a GpA or early 2-litre, with bigger wheels & tyres, possibly a fairly small wing, and maybe WTCC/Group 2-style wheelarches, rather than the 'Max Power' BTCC bodykit...

http://ll.speedhunters.com/u/f/eagam...TCC/btcc_8.jpg

AndyS · 23 Jun 2010, 11:39 (Ref:2716806)

Love the pics. BTC max power kit, that made me chuckle

. Agree with your thoughts, I'm not one for dwelling on the past but I have to be honest and say the cars of yesteryear were certainly more interesting. Despite todays cars being pretty dull looks wise they still appear to cost an arm and leg. The Superstars series in Italy is a good formula, there pretty extreme vehicles on the road and don't actualy need to be modified a great deal from a technical point of view.

Belatti · 23 Jun 2010, 18:00 (Ref:2716978)

3 inevitable truths

FIA wants race cars to look more like road cars:

Fans wants road cars to look more like race cars:

Manufacturers want profit, regardless what the hell they sell

Quintin03 · 23 Jun 2010, 18:11 (Ref:2716990)

If road cars will become more like racecars, racecars will eventually get less roadcar like than they are now.

MichiB · 3 Jul 2010, 17:13 (Ref:2721514)

My cars would look like these:
like the old DRM cars (BMW M1, Porsche 935, Lancia Beta, Ford Capri)
2.0 4 cylinder Turbo or 4.0 V8 (between 600 and 700 hp)
ABS
Seq. Gearbox
No traction control
No active suspension
Weight: 1000 kg

My dream calendar:
Sepang
Johor
Philipp Island
Taupo
Sandown
Brünn
Elkhart Lake
Road Atlanta
Pau
Portimao
Mugello
Salzburgring
Jarama
Suzuka
Fuji
Sugo
Motorland Aragon
Spa
Nordschleife
Bathurst
Kyalami
Anderstorp
Donington
Brands Hatch GP
Oulton Park
Zandvoort
Albacete

juicy sushi · 4 Jul 2010, 01:19 (Ref:2721618)

I'm of two minds. I think that downsizing is probably the future, so I think that the NGTC rules are pretty good. I think that I would allow AWD as well as FWD/RWD though, but with a weight penalty.

On the other hand, I really love the FIA GT4 rules, and in North America we have the Grand-Am Continental Tires Sports Car Challenge (it's a needlessly long name) as a good example of how fun they can be. It features BMW M3s, Ford Mustangs, Chevy Camaros and the like fish-tailing and banging fenders in a pretty spectacular fashion. They're not family sedans, but touring car racing in its early years weren't always about that, and big coupes were ok (such as the original Trans-Am and the Capri/CSL era). I think that for the money, it's pretty affordable, spectacular action, so it might be a good way for touring car racing to go.

On the other hand, if you got the weights right, you could do NGTC vs. GT4 rules as the power-weight ratios could be pretty similar.

Sodemo · 4 Jul 2010, 02:33 (Ref:2721632)

I just think its a big big mistake to go it alone with a set of regs. TOCA should have been in dialogue with the FIA over the direction of the FIA regs, in order that there can be parity.

I Rosputnik · 4 Jul 2010, 09:08 (Ref:2721701)

To toss up a question about car shapes.

If they used 2 door cars that are based off of saloons in the WTCC (like the Sierra), would you be ok with this?

I've noticed in the NGTC regs that you can use 2 door or 3 door cars provided they are based off of the 5 door.

AndyS · 4 Jul 2010, 18:37 (Ref:2721867)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I just think its a big big mistake to go it alone with a set of regs. TOCA should have been in dialogue with the FIA over the direction of the FIA regs, in order that there can be parity.

Only worth doing if the FIA come up with a decent set of regs, which they haven't. WTCC is in danger of becoming the hatchback cup. Apologies if my ignorance but I've just realised I don't know whether there is a stipulation that the teams must use saloons in future WTCC regs. Plenty of other series have gone their own way and appear to be thriving, V8SC, DTM, TC2000, Superstars. Ok I know there are some problems with DTM but it's still got a huge following in Germany. If you follow the FIA regs you run the risk of just being a feeder series for WTCC.

duke_toaster · 4 Jul 2010, 20:51 (Ref:2721920)

Just a thought here - would it be possible to effectively get Division 1 rallycross cars and disconnect the drive to the front wheels and change the suspension and bodywork? Possibly the engines would need to be looked at too to stop them being hand grenades ...

Sodemo · 5 Jul 2010, 12:39 (Ref:2722134)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyS

Only worth doing if the FIA come up with a decent set of regs, which they haven't. WTCC is in danger of becoming the hatchback cup. Apologies if my ignorance but I've just realised I don't know whether there is a stipulation that the teams must use saloons in future WTCC regs. Plenty of other series have gone their own way and appear to be thriving, V8SC, DTM, TC2000, Superstars. Ok I know there are some problems with DTM but it's still got a huge following in Germany. If you follow the FIA regs you run the risk of just being a feeder series for WTCC.

Forgive me for saying so, but the BTCC I feel already is a feeder series for the WTCC.

We have seen Bamboo engineering "graduate" from there, James Thompson appears to be flitting to and fro from the BTCC and WTCC, Turkington and WSR it seems are moving in that direction, so im not sure. Having said that Giovanardi came from the WTCC to the BTCC but that could have been seen as a "step down" I do not know.

However I see what you are saying, it almost seems as though the WTCC now has become what the BTCC was in the 90s. I think its widely regarded that the BTCC was the biggest super touring championship in europe 10 years ago, it almost had the appeal, feel and pedigree of a small international series, however I feel this is no longer the case. The WTCC is now the recognised series, and the BTCC now is just a big national series, instead of a small international one.

I also think that the TDi's are the biggest mistake the FIA made, and they handled the "performance balancing" very badly. Instead of just adding more and more weight to an already heavy car, they should have been tackling exactly what gives it an advantage over the rest of the field, its engine boost. They should have applied an air restrictor or limited the boost.

AndyS · 5 Jul 2010, 13:31 (Ref:2722152)

Agree with what you are saying, I think this is why the BTCC is trying to go it's own way. Other series have thrived doing this and become as you say small international series in their own right. While ever they keep the rules the same as WTCC it will just be a feeder series.

I Rosputnik · 5 Jul 2010, 13:49 (Ref:2722154)

Personally I would ban hatchbacks. I know there are some nice looking hatchbacks out there and some of the most famous touring cars are hatchbacks, but I think makes sense if you kept the cars being mid-size saloons. Also I agree with the TDI being the biggest mistake for the series.

***

Adding to the feeder series thing, I can understand it. Look at Turkington yesterday, he wasn't at the front, but fighting it out mid field, and so are Bamboo.

**BertMk2** · 5 Jul 2010, 14:00 (Ref:2722156)

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Just a thought here - would it be possible to effectively get Division 1 rallycross cars and disconnect the drive to the front wheels and change the suspension and bodywork? Possibly the engines would need to be looked at too to stop them being hand grenades ...

Why not just use the Division 2 rules in that case? Otherwise you'll end up with some seriously undriveable cars

You've seen what happens when the front diff fails on a Division 1 car - as soon as the turbo comes in the car swaps ends!

**BertMk2** · 5 Jul 2010, 14:17 (Ref:2722164)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyS

While ever they keep the rules the same as WTCC it will just be a feeder series.

But keeping the rules in line with other series means there are more cars available for people to buy - how many cars in the current BTCC grid are ex-WTCC? If you go it alone on rules then everyone has to build their own car or buy an existing one from the series. By running to your own rules you're limiting the available options for people to join the series and if anything pushing up your costs. Also if you're looking to sell a car the shared ruleset would work in your favour too as there would be more potential buyers. That was an area where Super Touring got it very right - a single ruleset applied across multiple countries and championships.

duke_toaster · 5 Jul 2010, 14:34 (Ref:2722172)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Why not just use the Division 2 rules in that case? Otherwise you'll end up with some seriously undriveable cars

You've seen what happens when the front diff fails on a Division 1 car - as soon as the turbo comes in the car swaps ends!

The cars will obviously be a bit more "extreme" than Super 2000 (that's the point), obviously there would have to be more changes - big fat rear tyres being one of them. The engines may need to be detuned a bit for engine life reasons. It's certainly an option, although I do think that NGTC is a good platform for national series and possibly for the WTCC.

Alfa Fan · 5 Jul 2010, 15:28 (Ref:2722194)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BertMk2

But keeping the rules in line with other series means there are more cars available for people to buy - how many cars in the current BTCC grid are ex-WTCC?

Only 5 are ex-WTCC. Not as many as you'd suspect I guess.

Chevrolet - new builds
Honda - new builds
Motorbase - ex WTCC (2)
888 - new builds
Arena - new builds
WSR - new builds
Boardman - ex BTCC SEAT works car
Johnson - BTCT spec
Techspeed - BTCT spec
Foster - ex WTCC (2)
Wood - BTCT Spec
Pinkney - new build
Jordan - new build
Hamilton - BTCT Spec
Hollamby - new build

So only four of the 22 cars currently on the grid are actually ex-WTCC race cars. You can argue many of the others (like the Chevys) wouldn't have been designed if it was just for the BTCC though....

duke_toaster · 5 Jul 2010, 15:31 (Ref:2722196)

And of course the main two BMW teams.

racer69 · 5 Jul 2010, 15:35 (Ref:2722197)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I just think its a big big mistake to go it alone with a set of regs. TOCA should have been in dialogue with the FIA over the direction of the FIA regs, in order that there can be parity.

I'm pretty much of a similiar opinion.... different rules for different countries has been the norm unfortunatly ever since the FIA dropped Group A after 1988 (Super Touring got close in the mid-90s to getting worldwide uniformity)

Why can rallying produce a set of rules that (generally) are accepted worldwide as the basis in most countries (Group N, lately Super 2000 to an extent), similiarly GT racing worldwide works from at least a GT3 basis in alot of countries, why is it so hard to produce a worldwide set of touring car regulations to suit Europe, Australasia etc...

duke_toaster · 5 Jul 2010, 15:40 (Ref:2722199)

There is a set of regulations that's appropriate for all countries - NGTC. In the same way Super 2000 was before the costs went through the roof.

AndyS · 6 Jul 2010, 07:59 (Ref:2722464)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BertMk2

But keeping the rules in line with other series means there are more cars available for people to buy - how many cars in the current BTCC grid are ex-WTCC? If you go it alone on rules then everyone has to build their own car or buy an existing one from the series. By running to your own rules you're limiting the available options for people to join the series and if anything pushing up your costs. Also if you're looking to sell a car the shared ruleset would work in your favour too as there would be more potential buyers. That was an area where Super Touring got it very right - a single ruleset applied across multiple countries and championships.

I can see your point there, having said that the idea of NGTC was to reduce the costs of building cars. In theory it should go some way to allievating this problem and make it easier for people to build a car.

In terms of blanket rules, I have never been a fan of them. I think it works in some forms of motorsport but for me Touring Cars has always been a regional thing. Different cars are relevant in different parts of the world. For example the V8s are very relevant in Aus, TC2000 runs cars that are not available worldwide, DTM etc. But take your point on Super Touring.

I can't imagine the Aussie's been too happy if they changed to Super 2000 Regs. For me WTCC just doesn't have the same appeal as the various national series, it leaves me a bit cold. As they say though it's each to their own and that's what I prefer! So don't all jump on me and give me a verbal kicking!