[BTCC] NGTC: Which cars do you wanna see?

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Slightly? It will help the teams a lot!

Did you read the rest of my post?

10 teams each saving £100K worth of spares means one supplier having to keep £1M worth of stock on hand. Any company which has to tie up that amount of capital is going to need to fund that investment, which will need to be done though increased profit margins, which in turn means higher prices.

From a team's point of view, they may not have to pay for a stock of spares but when they do need to buy them they will pay a higher per-unit price.

[werner]

You forget that the risk is more spread. Every team needs a load of parts, in case a car is heavy damaged, but usually almost none of the parts are needed. When you have to take care of spareparts of 20 cars, you don't need spareparts for all 20 cars. Because the chance is almost 0 that all cars need the replacement parts. Therefore a lot less spares per racecar need to be stocked.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Did you read the rest of my post?

Yes I did, thanks.

Obviously you have forgotten the last time the BTCC did this, with the BTC-spec regulations. Same thing; the suppliers held the stocks AND the price of the parts was much lower than they were paying before, due to economies of scale - and as you are knowledgable in the BTCC then you will appreciate that it's just a plain fact that the price of every spec component was a lot lower than comparable ones that the teams (individually) purchased previously.

[redshoes]

Actually the BTCC have never done this before. During BTC-T regs the suppliers did not provide an on-site service. The teams still held their own stock of spares and what surplus stock the suppliers had in their warehouse was kept to a minimum.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Actually the BTCC have never done this before. During BTC-T regs the suppliers did not provide an on-site service. The teams still held their own stock of spares and what surplus stock the suppliers had in their warehouse was kept to a minimum.

Yes they certainly did. Every major supplier (like Xtrac. AP, Pi etc) had to be present at the circuit to provide onsite service as it was part of the deal.

They also had to keep sufficient stock and it was up to the teams if they wanted to keep some stock themselves, just in case (which they better funded teams did).

I note how you conveniently sidestepped the fact that the parts were also much cheaper under that arrangement.....

[redshoes]

I don't deny that a bulk buy would mean cheaper components, but a bulk up front purchase would still be cheaper than a bulk order that we may or may not decide to buy.

Did they provide on-site spares supply or just on-site support? The two are very different.

As you've said yourself, many teams still kept their own stock of parts so the actual benefit in terms of reduced investment will be some way short of what is being promised.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

I don't deny that a bulk buy would mean cheaper components, but a bulk up front purchase would still be cheaper than a bulk order that we may or may not decide to buy.

Did they provide on-site spares supply or just on-site support? The two are very different.

As you've said yourself, many teams still kept their own stock of parts so the actual benefit in terms of reduced investment will be some way short of what is being promised.

Oh, so now you do agree that the price of the parts was and will be reduced to the teams, rather than increased as you stated before?

They provided both; on site support and parts.

Also, let me quote you again what the official release said: "Teams will have far less of their capital tied up through not having to maintain a large spares inventory – the major component suppliers will maintain a sufficient level of inventory to service the teams."

So what exactly will "be some way short of what is being promised"? The teams will have far less capital tied up (true) and the suppliers will keep a sufficent level of parts (also true). They didn't say teams will carry no major spares at all - they said they will not have to keep so many and therefore not tie-up their capital so much, which is totally correct. So where is the problem with that or where is the 'promise' that falls far short of reality?

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Oh, so now you do agree that the price of the parts was and will be reduced to the teams, rather than increased as you stated before?

Let me explain this (random figures to illustrate the point):
- As a supplier I can provide one team with a custom-built part for £1000 each.
- If you want to use control parts, based on supplying the whole grid at £600 each, providing you buy up front.
- If you want the same part but you are only going to buy when you need them, expect me to take a truck full of enough stock to supply ever team to every meeting then I'm going to have to charge £700 each.

In the last example my cash flow is severely reduced so I need to increase prices to cover the cost.

Spec parts should be cheaper, I've never said otherwise. It's providing an on-site spares truck that will make the part more expensive than it otherwise would have been. In other words the benefit to the team will not be as great as they could have been.

They didn't say teams will carry no major spares at all - they said they will not have to keep so many and therefore not tie-up their capital so much, which is totally correct.

'They' didn't but you did - "I imagine it means that the suppliers of the spec parts will have to keep the stock of those parts so the teams don't need to"

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by FIRE

With BTCC introducing the Next Generation Touring Car in 2011. For fun I made a list of 5 cars I want to see on the grid:

1. Vauxhall/Opel Insignia
2. Ford Mondeo
3. Volkswagen Passat
4. Honda Accord
5. Toyota Avensis

On my shortlist:
Volvo S40
Mazda 6
Alfa Romeo 159


Which 5 cars do you wanna see?

I've been thinking about this the last few days and I've come to the conclusion that excluding RWD and thereby excluding BMW is just too much. Touring car racing without BMWs is just not the same. I understand Alan Gow's point about driver safety, but I believe that could have been overcome. Number one on any 5 car list for me would have to be the BMW 3-series.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

1. Spec parts should be cheaper, I've never said otherwise. It's providing an on-site spares truck that will make the part more expensive than it otherwise would have been. In other words the benefit to the team will not be as great as they could have been.


2. 'They' didn't but you did - "I imagine it means that the suppliers of the spec parts will have to keep the stock of those parts so the teams don't need to"

1. You clearly said the parts will be dearer. Let me quote you: "Any company which has to tie up that amount of capital is going to need to fund that investment, which will need to be done though increased profit margins, which in turn means higher prices."

2. That's still perfectly true. A team doesn't need to keep, say, a spec-gearbox if they don't want to. If a team chooses to, then that's up to them but the fact remains that they won't need to.

So, as I asked before, what exactly will 'fall far short of what is promised'' as you stated?

* The parts will be cheaper (which you now admit, thank you)
* The teams won't have to carry so much stock.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I understand Alan Gow's point about driver safety, but I believe that could have been overcome.

Huh? Point me to where he said that excluding RWD was done because of 'driver safety'?!

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

So, as I asked before, what exactly will 'fall far short of what is promised'' as you stated?

As I've already answered before, providing an on-site spares service will make the parts more expensive than they would be without that service. You're initial investment will be less but you will pay more for what you do use.

Just to clear up an confusion, because clearly you've missed this bit, I'm talking about the decision to to provide an on-site spares truck (which was the point I had originally replied to, NOT the decision to run common parts.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Huh? Point me to where he said that excluding RWD was done because of 'driver safety'?!

In the current print edition of Autosport they said that the FWD-only rule was introduced to eliminate the need for a North-South drivetrain thereby enabling the driver to be located more centrally in the car.

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by davyboy

In the current print edition of Autosport they said that the FWD-only rule was introduced to eliminate the need for a North-South drivetrain thereby enabling the driver to be located more centrally in the car.

This safety reason is new to me and in my opinion not a valid reason.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by FIRE

This safety reason is new to me and in my opinion not a valid reason.

I agree completely. That could have been overcome, its possible to make front engined, rear wheel drive vehicles safe... you just need to look at Tom Kristensen's monumental accident in the DTM a few years back.

Much as I like these NGTC rules, I feel the exclusion of RWD, and the consequential exclusion of BMW, is a step too much.

[touringlegend]

Thats all political I feel. If BMW really want to come to the BTCC they will allow RWD cars in the rules. The noises being made about the WTCC at the moment must make TOCA feel they can take a gamble on this front.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by davyboy

In the current print edition of Autosport they said that the FWD-only rule was introduced to eliminate the need for a North-South drivetrain thereby enabling the driver to be located more centrally in the car.

Autosport said that. Gow certainly didn't. Nowhere has he or TOCA ever used that as a reason, so why are you putting words in his mouth and spreading misinformation?

As I mentioned to you earlier in this thread, with the greatest respect you really need to be a bit more careful when you 'quote' what people have said.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

As I've already answered before, providing an on-site spares service will make the parts more expensive than they would be without that service. You're initial investment will be less but you will pay more for what you do use.

Just to clear up an confusion, because clearly you've missed this bit, I'm talking about the decision to to provide an on-site spares truck (which was the point I had originally replied to, NOT the decision to run common parts.

Ok lets' distill this so that there is absolutley no confusion;

Will the use of common parts AND the supply of the service to the teams save the teams from tying up a lot of their capital in spare parts....yes or no? Because that is exactly what TOCA said would happen in their announcement.

I think we both know the answer to that.....

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Autosport said that. Gow certainly didn't. Nowhere has he or TOCA ever used that as a reason, so why are you putting words in his mouth and spreading misinformation?

As I mentioned to you earlier in this thread, with the greatest respect you really need to be a bit more careful when you 'quote' what people have said.

Can you please tone down your posts and refrain from attacking people. I didn't quote Alan Gow and I'm not spreading misinformation.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Can you please tone down your posts and refrain from attacking people. I didn't quote Alan Gow and I'm not spreading misinformation.

You said:"I understand Alan Gow's point about driver safety, but I believe that could have been overcome."

So where is "Alan Gow's point about driver safety" regarding RWD? There simply isn't one.

There is something written purely by Autosport but which you decided to wrongly attribute to Gow. That, Davyboy, is called misquoting and spreading misinformation.

Having been in the publishing industry for years, I get really annoyed when people misquote things or spread misinformation. Others read it and, if they don't know any better, they believe it and continue to spread it.....and that's just plain wrong.

[Aunt Sally]

Davyboy and redshoes... why are you bothering?

You cant obviously discuss anything on this thread. Everytime you put your point of view across, you get shot down in flames.

I have already taken offence to some of what has been posted here and will not be returning.

[Hazard]

Apologies all for the state of these posts. We've been trying to deal with it behind the scenes, and think we've come to some resolution.

I'll try and tidy some of the posts up later.

[werner]

No! It is fine. Arguments are imoboth more interesting to read and stimulate to think and write more clearly when you really, really, really want to make your point, as is the case here.

On the subject. I can see Davyboys point that parts may be more expensive when you buy them at the track compared to earlier to put them in stock. (indeed as agreed between both debatants both being cheaper compared to non-standard items under the current regulations)
Still, teams that have the strategy to buy spareparts only on the track might be cheaper of compared to teams that buy them earlier to put them in their stock. That is because when you do that, you only have to buy the parts that are damaged. If you want to get all your spares from your stock, you will have bought parts you did not need. (unless in the unfortunate event you have written of a complete car)

I hope Touringfan01 is not banned for this discussion, because he/she was
- not out of order at all
- unfair, given that i have seen harder discussions here.

[Hazard]

Just to clarify, we have no issues concerning healthy debate on this forum. If we don't have that, what is the point of this place?

There were many valid points being raised about this issue, but it's fairly clear as has been stated that the tone that has been conveyed during this discussion has often verged on personal attack rather than healthy conversation.

It's not nice to be personally picked on, and I believe some of the posts recently could easily have been a lot more productive and less offensive with a little thought to the wording - without altering the underlying argument at all.

Another problem is if you make a discussion personal, even if you're right you're far less likely to get the other side to acquiesce, because they'll make it their personal objective not to be beaten by someone behaving in such a manner.

I think the actions we have taken have been fair with this, and should encourage both positive behaviour and intelligent debate on this forum.

Thank you.

We now return to the topic...

[werner]

It's not nice to be personally picked on, and I believe some of the posts recently could easily have been a lot more productive and less offensive with a little thought to the wording - without altering the underlying argument at all.

We are all grown ups, aren't we?

Another problem is if you make a discussion personal, even if you're right you're far less likely to get the other side to acquiesce, because they'll make it their personal objective not to be beaten by someone behaving in such a manner.

Again, are we, or at least should we not be mature enough to cope?

I think the actions we have taken have been fair with this, and should encourage both positive behaviour and intelligent debate on this forum.

Ehh, no. Banning someone who in the past days has posted intelligent, usefull and interesting facts, explanations and opinions is now not able to do that anymore. In my book that is a loss in an 'intelligent debate'.

My conclusion: BOOH