[BTCC] How to improve the BTCC 'product'

[AnnoyedMoose]

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

And they use offsets for those generators which use far less fuel than if the cars were ICE.

Nothing can be perfect from day one. Eventually race tracks will have charging units and teams will use pre-charged storage packs etc.

[crmalcolm]

Based on the discussion about the strength of the field in the Knockhill thread -

Originally Posted by 3marinadrive

Based on performances in qualifying, race craft, overall pace, race results etc...we broke down the regular grid (excluding changes for Butel, Parfitt etc) and split the grid into three groups;

It got me wondering whether the perceived issues with the current BTCC product come down to the quality of the grid being so strong today?

Hopefully the following will explain:

I decided to look at snapshots in time going back to 1992, and every ten years since. The main difference I can see developing over time is that the level of performance to get up into a top ten finish has become increasingly difficult to achieve.

Let's work on the assumption that the best driver in any given race will put in a performance that is graded as being near perfect (95%+). Moving down the grid, the drop off in level compared to that 95% is broad.
So for instance - in 1992, the likes of Soper or Leslie only need to put in a fairly decent performance and they can get into the top five or even take a podium, because the depth of quality is small.
In 2002, Hughes and Leslie were able to get strong results and the required level of performance could be assessed as relatively low (compared to perfection).
By the time you get to 2012, if you have a poor starting place on the grid, someone like Tom O-C is having to get past the likes of Newsham, Wrathall, Foster or Smith to get up near the podium. With all respect to those drivers, the potential for the best drivers to make up places is still high.

Now - in 2022, the field is extremely close. The opinion expressed seem to suggest that 10-14 drivers are all of the quality to be a regular podium visitor. This means that if a driver such as Cammish or Shedden finds themselves towards the back of the field, the level of performance they need to get to the front is exceptional.

In 1992 - a driver in a top car performing to just 80% of the car's potential could expect to be challenging for a top five, or even podium.
In 2022 - the same level of performance will see you struggling at the bottom end of the points.

The margins are so small today, that the potential for regular changes of position is slim. And drivers have to be so certain of a move before attempting, because they are unlikely to get many more chances if they fail to make the pass stick.

[porsche962fan]

proper BTCC racing and proper cars, just notice how much contact around the wheels there is and they can get away with it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNNJiA25D-o

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

proper BTCC racing and proper cars, just notice how much contact around the wheels there is and they can get away with it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNNJiA25D-o

Interesting to read some of the forum comments from around that time.

Regarding the race itself - which shows that not everyone thinks it was proper racing:

Originally Posted by Hazard

madness going on out there...red flagging everything.

Nasty crashes for Hines & Proctor. Decimating the field somewhat.

Originally Posted by rdjones

Race 2 again things got bit pressional again, but Muller controllled things as he does.

And in terms of the overall series - the tendency to think the past was better also rings true:

Originally Posted by Grahame West

The main problem with btcc is the lack of cars on the grid - such a shame when it used to be a good series.

Originally Posted by pitcrew

am i the only one that feels that the BTCC has lost its sparkle compared with the good old days!

Originally Posted by kmchow

The BTCC lost it's sparkle back in '00 when it dropped down to 3 works manufacturers.

The height of ST globally was probably '96 and '97. It hasn't recovered. Perhaps things could have worked out a bit better if the BTCC adopted the S2000 rules right with everyon else?? OTOH, I guess the BTCC again wanted to set the tone/rules for everyone to follow like they did back in Class 2/ST days.

Regardless, we can at least look fondly back to the '90s and continue to play our Toca Touring Cars 2.

I think it will always be the case for each generation - they will naturally think that the era they first started watching was the best that the series has ever been. The wave of nostalgia tends to cloud the judgement when you consider things like the BTCC.

[porsche962fan]

it shows how low it sunk , if I put a super tourer clip you would say huge manufactuers budgets , but of the BTCC / S2000 era this can't be said , was worse than super tourers but still more entertaining than today

[porsche962fan]

so Matt Neal describes it as "motorsport becoming a qualifing formula " indirectly suggesting lack of overtaking ?!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

so Matt Neal describes it as "motorsport becoming a qualifing formula " indirectly suggesting lack of overtaking ?!

But is that a bad thing?

He says it is motorsport as a whole, and also says 'the racing is so close and the grid is so competitive' which sound like positives to me.

For those who want to read the full article - https://www.touringcartimes.com/2022/08/03/matt-neal-motorsport-becoming-qualifying-formula/

[thetool]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But is that a bad thing?

He says it is motorsport as a whole, and also says 'the racing is so close and the grid is so competitive' which sound like positives to me.

I know you'd argue with your own shadow, but at the cost of indulging you, yes, it does matter - at least longer term.

The BTCC has been built on close-racing, a degree of unpredictablity, and most crucially, the personalities and personality clashes that have developed due to this.

There's so little agro these days, so little that writes column inches outside of the dedicated specialist press.

Plato & Muller's duel in 2001 somewhat mitigated an otherwise dire season. Neal & Plato, whilst a rivalry that cetainly got tiring in the end, produced endless column inches and attention from outside the dedicated fanbase. I bet if you ask the man on the street for a BTCC driver, if he could name one, it would be one of them.

At the moment the series is probably close to being the most competitive it has ever been. But the drivers are almostly completely devoid of showmanship. It's OK when some of the contenders are, and that's always been the case. Shedden and Turkington have always been dull. But when they're pitched against equally dull clones like Ingram, Sutton, Hil, Cook, Lloyd and Morgan, it makes that side of it a bit dull.

I never thought I'd say this, but the series misses a Rob Collard type character. Or even a Jeff Smith or Rob Austin. I know they weren't everyone's cup of tea, but they could be relied on to provide some sort of talking point every now and again. I look at this years lin-eup and there's not a single driver that I'd say I'd expect to make for an exciting race.

And it's not a matter of just being related to increased professionalism. In it's heyday you had the likes of John Cleland, Anthony Reid, Matt Neal and Jason Plato who'd liven up any race they happened to be in.

[thetool]

Oh, and don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being a straight-forward, professional racing driver. The series has always had plenty, it's the contrast that's lacking currently.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by thetool

I know you'd argue with your own shadow, but at the cost of indulging you, yes, it does matter - at least longer term.

The BTCC has been built on close-racing, a degree of unpredictablity, and most crucially, the personalities and personality clashes that have developed due to this.

There's so little agro these days, so little that writes column inches outside of the dedicated specialist press.

Plato & Muller's duel in 2001 somewhat mitigated an otherwise dire season. Neal & Plato, whilst a rivalry that cetainly got tiring in the end, produced endless column inches and attention from outside the dedicated fanbase. I bet if you ask the man on the street for a BTCC driver, if he could name one, it would be one of them.

At the moment the series is probably close to being the most competitive it has ever been. But the drivers are almostly completely devoid of showmanship. It's OK when some of the contenders are, and that's always been the case. Shedden and Turkington have always been dull. But when they're pitched against equally dull clones like Ingram, Sutton, Hil, Cook, Lloyd and Morgan, it makes that side of it a bit dull.

I never thought I'd say this, but the series misses a Rob Collard type character. Or even a Jeff Smith or Rob Austin. I know they weren't everyone's cup of tea, but they could be relied on to provide some sort of talking point every now and again. I look at this years lin-eup and there's not a single driver that I'd say I'd expect to make for an exciting race.

And it's not a matter of just being related to increased professionalism. In it's heyday you had the likes of John Cleland, Anthony Reid, Matt Neal and Jason Plato who'd liven up any race they happened to be in.

I think that's a little unfair (but this is only my opinion). For me, the battling between Sutton and Hill in races 1 & 2 at Knockhill (for example) certainly livened things up for me. Plus, I'd say that Plato would be more well-known outside of the BTCC fanbase, but as a BTCC driver due to his appearance on the Fifth Gear TV programme.

[BTCC frog]

Just a suggestion, but perhaps rear wings should be banned in the BTCC. We are seeing far fewer examples of drivers charging through the pack from the back of the grid compared to previous seasons, and could this be because it is more difficult to follow than it used to be, because of the downforce created by the huge rear wings on the back of cars (which I also find quite ugly). I am not hugely knowledgeable in regards to technical matters but could this be the case?

Also, I welcome the return of the option tyre next year because I like the fact that the quick drivers have to be able to overtake and defend to get good results, which is more relevant when they are always forced backwards by the option tyre.

Also, hybrid has proven practically worthless as a performance-balancer, so I would suggest the return of success ballast but only in race two (as currently race two is too often a repeat of race one) and also in qualifying, because this would put the quick drivers further back on the grid but with the ability to make up those places in the first race, while race two would have the slowest cars at the front and make for exciting defensive drives, and in the reversed grid races, the winners of race two would be able to fight back to the front and not make being drawn on pole as much of an advantage as it was in the success ballast days because the cars immediately behind were handicapped by more ballast than the polesitter. I think my system would be both more exciting and more fair than the 2022 system or the previous ballast system.

But if hybrid is to stay as the performance balancer, I think it would be better to have the base level being approximately half the laps with hybrid available with the faster cars then getting restricted further from there, than the current system which means most cars can use it on every lap and even the quicker ones only lose it on a few laps, particularly after a few safety cars. This would improve the tactical element.

In my humble opinion, BTCC peaked for a second time (after the super touring days, although 2006-2009 was also something of a peak time for BTCC) around 2016-2017 and attempts should be made to revert it to the state it was in then.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I think it would be better to have the base level being approximately half the laps with hybrid available with the faster cars then getting restricted further from there, than the current system which means most cars can use it on every lap and even the quicker ones only lose it on a few laps, particularly after a few safety cars. This would improve the tactical element.

thats almost exactly what they announced they are doing for this year

[Sodemo]

I think removing the rear wing would make cars that are already slower in the corners than previous rulesets, even slower. What they could do (but won’t) is offer some basic underbody aero, like a standard Venturi tunnel. They could then reduce the size of the rear wing and have less dirty air. Won’t happen if course. What I would prefer to see is lighter cars, but again, won’t happen.

[Spanner monkey]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I think removing the rear wing would make cars that are already slower in the corners than previous rulesets, even slower. What they could do (but won’t) is offer some basic underbody aero, like a standard Venturi tunnel. They could then reduce the size of the rear wing and have less dirty air. Won’t happen if course. What I would prefer to see is lighter cars, but again, won’t happen.

The rear wings are un a position set by TOCA to give X amount of downforce. This is done on each car and they also have strict measurements to control this. Their is only a small amoumt you can adjust the wing up and down

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Spanner monkey

The rear wings are un a position set by TOCA to give X amount of downforce. This is done on each car and they also have strict measurements to control this. Their is only a small amoumt you can adjust the wing up and down

Yes - and not for any performance aspect per se.

It all dates back to the original Avensis, to which an overall downforce target was set which was higher than cars meeting the homologation criteria would achieve in showroom trim.
This benchmark is the level that all new homologations are measured against, to give a level playing field for donor cars.

[coffinpilot]

I'd like to see a balanced implementation of track limits. I don't mean all the fuss with Motorsport UK considering bowing down to the MSV way of doing things.

If Mr Palmer had his way then nobody would be interested in Knockhill races!! (yes, a little sarcasm there, you could always paint a line across the grass inside the chicane for tempt track limits!)

But being serious, I'll pull two examples (and it's not a slight against the Knockhill crew) but Shedden in Race Three at Croft last season. I stood and watched, half of the laps he went into turn one with more than half of his car inside of the kerb, and I counted four times where he had all four wheels on the grass inside the kerb. The rest of the field? Two wheels inside on the odd occasion. I've watched Rory Butcher do the same in the three races he's won at Silverstone on the last two season at Copse.

I know it's been a problem on and off for years, but in those cases there was lap time to be had. If everyone was doing it (like at the Knockhill chicane) then I don't see a problem, but when a couple of drivers are taking HUGE chunks in a race then it should be called.

[crmalcolm]

A lot has been discussed about the current regulations not creating exciting races, and also how 'handicaps' should be applied.
Looking at R3 today, I think it is clear that the 'issue' is not that one team/driver is too good, but that causing variation in performance is the challenge.
If Sutton's Ford was too good, it would have been easy for him to progress in R3. As it is, the cars are so closely matched that whoever is in front can hold their position. Which surely shows that the base handicap (or BoP) works.

So how do you introduce a level of uncertainty to results? The ballast system worked not because of the weight, but because of the compromise it had on setup. Sutton can take Q, R1, R2 success because the weight (and so handling) doesn't change between rounds. It requires a method that impacts (or handicaps) a win, but still gives room for the team to work around the handicap. Simply reducing boost on the Ford would not achieve that.

Which leaves the dilemma of how to disrupt a winning car, rather than disadvantage it. A few options are available:
Add ballast.
Adjust ride height (or CoG).
Adjust aero.
Restrict tyre choice.

My personal preference, alongside hybrid, would be to have a sliding scale of ride height as a handicap. That way, cars would be compromised after a win but it would still leave scope to engineer or drive around the changes.

[Sodemo]

I’d prefer a more organic method of mixing up the order. I just posted in the other thread about having an alternative form of drawing up the race 2 grid and I think an additional quali session on the Saturday would be the best thing, like a super pole session.

[Matt K]

IMO all the measures to spice up racing artificially aren't good. I don't like watching the best drivers struggling to get a podium just because they have heavy cars. Would you consider giving Usain Bolt extra heavy shoes so that he runs slower? It's all gimmicks.

Perhaps would be better to have two (or even three) qualifying sessions. With cars still close together it's not that certain that one driver would get two (or three) P1s and perhaps that could shake up the grid a bit more for the races. But I wouldn't do anything to make racing gimmicky and random. We've seen the tyres mixing up the racing at Snetterton and that wasn't particularly great. Yes, a lot of passing but quite an artificial one.

The circuits don't help either as is the case with Thruxton. But that's not something to change. I don't think there ever will be a new racing track in the UK and getting rid of narrow ones would limit a variety in the circuits - and there's already quite too few tracks in the BTCC.

A radical thought that's pure fantasy but maybe it'd be an idea to do races slightly longer (around 100km) with pitstops. That would potentially spice things up but if it was the case I'd probably still prefer one shorter race without pitstops and one longer with pitstops. Besides, this can never happen with the resources the BTCC has. Also, there was a time when the BTCC introduced pitstops and I don't think it was particularly successful. So yeah, will never happen but could be interesting IMO.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I’d prefer a more organic method of mixing up the order. I just posted in the other thread about having an alternative form of drawing up the race 2 grid and I think an additional quali session on the Saturday would be the best thing, like a super pole session.

So this is the first thing I looked at to see what difference it would make.

Before I present the findings, I just want to comment that - whilst it might mix up the order, I don't think it would make the racing any more exciting. The problem seems to be how closely the cars are matched, rather than the order they start in. Cook had just as much difficulty passing Ingram, and Hill passing Cook. The order (I think) would remain broadly similar from lights out to checkered flag.

So - looking at the qualifying - I know it is impossible to know exactly how it would pan out, but just looking at second best lap times to set the R2 grid (Top 10 only):

Grid	Best Q	Second Q
Donington
1	Sutton	Sutton
2	Rowbottom	Rowbottom
3	Cammish	Cammish
4	Turkington	Turkington
5	Hill	Hill
6	Ingram	Cook
7	Cook	Ingram
8	Watson	Morgan
9	Morgan	Collard
10	Collard	Watson

**Q1 only**

Grid	Best Q	Second Q
Brands
1	Hill	Turkington
2	Sutton	Hill
3	Turkington	Sutton
4	Cammish	Cammish
5	Butcher	Thompson
6	Ingram	Cook
7	Thompson	Chilton
8	Cook	Butcher
9	Lloyd	Taylor-Smith
10	Pearson	Ingram

**Q1 only**

Grid	Best Q	Second Q
Snetterton
1	Sutton	Sutton
2	Ingram	Turkington
3	Turkington	Ingram
4	Hill	Cook
5	Collard	Hill
6	Morgan	Morgan
7	Cook	Rowbottom
8	Butcher	Jelley
9	Rowbottom	Collard
10	Jelley	Butcher

Grid	Best Q	Second Q
Thruxton
1	Sutton	Sutton
2	Ingram	Ingram
3	Cook	Hill
4	Doble	Cammish
5	Hill	Turkington
6	Turkington	Watson
7	Watson	Thompson
8	Taylor-Smith	Taylor-Smith
9	Cammish	Collard
10	Butcher	Butcher

[VIVA GT]

I nearly posted this in the Thruxton thread as there was a lot of complaining about the races being boring but realised it was more appropriate here.
Due to the lovely weather this weekend I only had time to go inside and watch 5 of the races televised from my recording of the whole coverage. These were the 3 BTCC races, the Mini Se7en's and Miglias. Certainly, as a spectacle, the Mini's won hands down and although neither class are massively powerful, they were certainly grip limited. Maybe the BTCC tyres are too good, less grip should lead to more sliding around (which the 'best Touring Car Drivers around' should be able to control)? This should allow more overtaking, and could lead to more exiting racing.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Craner Curves

I'll repeat what I said after Brands. Most of those under the age of 25 will not know the BTCC without success ballast and those who are old enough are accustomed to it as well. So to see one particular driver dominate is strange to a lot of people. I honestly think that's all it is.

I'll leave it to crmalcolm to come up with the stats about wins by one driver in the first 12 races. ??

So – as expected, I took a look back. Obviously the season format was a lot different so I have broken it down into ‘phases’.

Firstly – only looking at the ‘dominant’ class during the class-based era(s):

Season	Wins in first 12	Driver
1958	7	Tommy Sopwith (Class D)
1959 (7 races)	6	Jeff Uren (Class C)
1960 (9 races)	7	George 'Doc' Shepherd (<1000cc)
1961 (9 races)	3	John Whitmore and George 'Doc' Shepherd (Class A)
1962 (10 races)	7	John Love (Class A)
1963 (11 races)	8	Jack Sears (Class B/D)
1964 (9 races)	8	Jim Clark (Class B)
1965 (9 races)	6	Roy Pierpoint (Class D)
1966 (9 races)	6	John Fitzpatrick (Class A)
1967 (10 races)	7	Frank Gardner (Class D)
1968 (11 races)	9	Frank Gardner (Class C)
1969	7	Alec Poole (Class A)
1970	8	Bill McGovern (Class A)
1971	10	Bill McGovern (Class A)
1972 (10 races)	10	Bill McGovern (Class A)
1973 (9 races)	6	Frank Gardner (Class D)
1974	10	Bernard Unett (Class A)
1975	10	Andy Rouse (Class B)
1976 (10 races)	10	Bernard Unett (Class A)
1977	9	Bernard Unett (Class A)
1978	11	Richard Longman (Class A)
1979	10	Richard Longman (Class A)
1980 (10 races)	10	Win Percy (Class C)
1981 (11 races)	9	Win Percy (Class C)
1982 (11 races)	11	Win Percy (Class C)
1983 (11 races)	5	Steve Soper (Class A)
1984 (11 races)	7	Andy Rouse (Class A)
1985	9	Andy Rouse (Class A)
1986 (9 races)	8	Chris Hodgetts (Class C)
1987	10	Chris Hodgetts (Class D)
1988	11	Frank Sytner (Class B)
1989	10	John Cleland (Class C)
1990	8	Robb Gravett (Class A)

I wonder what current posters would make of 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1982?

[psq43]

For a while now, I've been listening to a variety of podcasts around Supercars (Ozzie V8s for the uninitiated) and has been quite a bit of talk of how to improve the show, without gimmicks or gadgets. The common themes tend to go back to the same problem.

1, Tyres are too good.
2, Gridding the cars in fastest order.
3, One driver is head and shoulders above everyone else.

Surely it's not beyond the realms of possibility, for tyre manufacturer to make a tyre which won't burst before the end of a race, yet provide some reasonably severe degradation, depending on how hard the drivers push on. Years ago in V8s, they had a multi compound tyre that gave extreme soft tyre type grip for a few Larry, then dropped off to the level of an extreme hard tyre and it was down to the drivers to manage it.

As for lining the cars up in lap time order. That's a real headache to get around without causing upset or throwing another gimmick into the mix.

[crmalcolm]

Season	Wins in first 12	Driver
1991	3	Will Hoy, Andy Rouse, John Cleland*
1992	4	Tim Harvey
1993	5	Joachim Winkelhock
1994	7	Gabriele Tarquini
1995	3	Rickard Rydell*, Alain Menu*
1996	5	Frank Biela
1997	8	Alain Menu
1998	3	Rickard Rydell
1999	6	Laurent Aïello
2000	4	Alain Menu
2001	6	Yvan Muller*
2002	4	James Thompson, Yvan Muller*
2003	5	Yvan Muller

*note – Did not win the title in this season

I also wonder how posters would have reacted to Gabriele Tarquini taking the first 5 wins in 1994?

[Mike Harte]

crmalcolm, I don't know if it's my memory that is playing tricks on me, but I don't recall most of those drivers in the lower classes, certainly A-B, being overall winners in the races. I cannot remember the classes being split into separate races, although I am more than happy to be proved wrong on that.

For example, McGovern and Unett were driving Imps of 1,000cc if memory serves whilst Longman was in a Mini also in the tiddlers class. They wouldn't have stood a chance against the bigger cars (the Yank tanks, Rovers and Sierras), except for tracks like Brands Indy and Mallory if they raced there.