[BTCC] How to improve the BTCC 'product'

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by psq43

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.

They could, but I'm not sure any tyre company would want to. When every driver interview talks about how badly the tyres went off or how they so little grip by the end of the race, it's not really great PR image for the tyre company.

[psq43]

Originally Posted by redshoes

They could, but I'm not sure any tyre company would want to. When every driver interview talks about how badly the tyres went off or how they so little grip by the end of the race, it's not really great PR image for the tyre company.

See, I'll take the ozzie attitude there and say that would be down to the driver knowing what the tyres do, and not doing a very good job of managing them.

If its made widely known that the tyres are meant to behave that way, and part of the idea is for drivers to choose how they manage them, then the tyre company have supplied exactly what they were tasked with.

[Sodemo]

Strangly the team which seems to suffer the most with tyre wear is the BMWs. I never see or hear of any of the FWD teams complaining much about tyre wear. Its odd because being RWD you would think the load would be shared front to rear so I am not sure why the BMWs chew up their rear tyres so much.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Strangly the team which seems to suffer the most with tyre wear is the BMWs. I never see or hear of any of the FWD teams complaining much about tyre wear. Its odd because being RWD you would think the load would be shared front to rear so I am not sure why the BMWs chew up their rear tyres so much.

Possibly due to their lightning starts and overworking the tyres whilst they haven't reached their best operating temperatures. Something Sutton has said many times is that he really tries not to overwork his tyres in the early stages of a race so as to save something for the later stages.

[crmalcolm]

But, when comparing to 2023, the first 30-race season format was in 2004. So I have now included the gap that the leader had over second place (-ve means they were behind the championship leader). The 12-race summary from that point on was:

Season	Wins in first 12	Driver	Gap
2004	3	James Thompson, Yvan Muller	0
2005	5	Matt Neal	24
2006	4	Matt Neal	33
2007	5	Fabrizio Giovanardi*	-2
2008	3	Fabrizio Giovanardi	18
2009	3	James Thompson*, Colin Turkington	-37, -2
2010	3	Matt Neal*	8
2011	4	Jason Plato*	-12
2012	5	Gordon Shedden	5
2013	4	Jason Plato*	-7
2014	4	Colin Turkington	9
2015	4	Jason Plato*	3
2016	2	Matt Neal*, Adam Morgan*, Mat Jackson*	-1, -31, -42
2017	2	Colin Turkington*, Tom Ingram*, Gordon Shedden*, Andrew Jordan*	-31, -25, 16, -59
2018	2	Adam Morgan*, Josh Cook*, Tom Ingram*	-12, -24, -21
2019	5	Andrew Jordan*	-26
2020	4	Ashley Sutton	-10
2021	2	Ashley Sutton, Josh Cook*, Tom Ingram*	5, -31, -5
2022	4	Josh Cook*	15
2023	6	Ashley Sutton	24

* - note: did not win the title in this season

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's true - and why I have separated them out into phases. They weren't winning races outright, but in terms of the championship battle they were 'dominant'.

It's always difficult to compare class-based racing with today, I just include them for reference.

[crmalcolm]

So looking at how Sutton is hampering the BTCC 'product'.

I think there is very much a recency bias to viewing what today's product is. It was only six years ago where there were 4 different drives all with 2 wins at this stage.

In terms of championship though - Neal had leads of 24 and 33 points after 12 rounds. They could be seen as more of a walkover for the Team Dynamics entry.

Ultimately - if you perceive today's racing as boring - then it is. Looking at records, statistics etc will not change that. What I find disingenuous though is to claim that another era was better without being able to qualify that. If you are basing it on Sutton cruising to an easy title, then similar occurred in almost all eras of the BTCC.

[S griffin]

It's not Sutton's fault he's doing well. Fact is the racing is still close. The formula really seemed to work though back in 2017 when we had so many drivers up there battling for the title, wins and the top 10.

Teams have always dominated, but it didn't last forever. For sure we didn't see much overtaking at the front last weekend, but we don't always. I reckon we could be in for a vintage season, as others catch up. Sutton happens to be in the right place atm, but that doesn't demean the championship

[Mike Harte]

I think that, in addition to everything else, watching races on TV also sometimes gives a false impression because our screens only show one part of a race at a time, whether that be what is happening up front or in the middle of the pack. So we as viewers only see that and subsequently we don't know what is happening elsewhere. This is so unlike being a track-side spectator sitting in a grandstand or standing at the fence at Paddock Hill bend on the Indy circuit, where you can see what is happening almost everywhere around the track, just not the actual apex of Druids.

The answer to that would be to broadcast split screens, however I believe that that would be highly unlikely to happen, certainly in the short to medium term.

This is why, when I and my sons go spectating, we will always chose a spot where we can see at least two separate parts of the track so that the viewing is enhanced and not so boring and we see more action.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by 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.

Mike, the way it used to work was that although the cars may have competed in the same race, the points were awarded for finishing position in each class. For example in the late 80's Chris Hodgets won his class in every (maybe, I'm relying on memory here!) race, whereas the overall race winning Sierras had much more competition between themselves preventing each individual driver from scoring maximum points.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Mike, the way it used to work was that although the cars may have competed in the same race, the points were awarded for finishing position in each class. For example in the late 80's Chris Hodgets won his class in every (maybe, I'm relying on memory here!) race, whereas the overall race winning Sierras had much more competition between themselves preventing each individual driver from scoring maximum points.

Thanks, Viv; that's how I remembered it. But at my advanced age, I feel as though I need to qualify everything that I write, just in case the little grey cell (singular) is turning into a grey mush.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Possibly due to their lightning starts and overworking the tyres whilst they haven't reached their best operating temperatures. Something Sutton has said many times is that he really tries not to overwork his tyres in the early stages of a race so as to save something for the later stages.

Perhaps, but this has been a trait for several years with many drivers, so I don't think its a "driving style thing". If you watch the recent races and take a look in the latter part of the races you can see the BMWs struggling with their rear end.

Do drivers still have a cockpit adjuster for anti-roll bars with NGTC cars? I have asked this before, but never got an answer. Drivers in the past would usually stiffen the rear up as the race went on, in the Schnizter BMWs they would normally do the opposite, so they would soften the rear off, but ive no idea if they have that ability any more.

[psq43]

Radical idea incoming.

No more soft tyre races.

Qualifying to be reduced to 20 minutes, with the exception of the ultra short tracks where traffic is a problem, where it shall be 30 minutes.

A super soft 3 lap special qualifying tyre to be used, except Thruxton and Croft for obvious reasons.

Free practice sessions to be 10 minutes longer, with only one run allowed in FP2 on the super soft.

Race 1 to be run with the grid from qualifying, but only with the hard or medium tyre allowed. Again, not applicable to Thruxton or Croft.

Race 2 grid to be decided by the fastest 'final lap completed' by the drivers. Retirements from Race 1 to be positioned as per current ruleset.

Ideas for race 3 grid anyone? Only leaving it open as I'm on the bus to work, and my stop is coming up....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by psq43

Race 2 grid to be decided by the fastest 'final lap completed' by the drivers.

On this specific point - would that not mean that all drivers from position 20 downwards call into the pits for fresh tyres (having picked up a slow puncture ) and then setting a quick lap at the end?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But, when comparing to 2023, the first 30-race season format was in 2004. So I have now included the gap that the leader had over second place (-ve means they were behind the championship leader). The 12-race summary from that point on was:

* - note: did not win the title in this season

*** - gap is only 14 points this season - ***

[psq43]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

On this specific point - would that not mean that all drivers from position 20 downwards call into the pits for fresh tyres (having picked up a slow puncture ) and then setting a quick lap at the end?

Good point. As I said, on the bus and thinking quickly..

I'm sure the resident tyre experts in the pitlane could verify if any of the tyres in those instances were genuinely at fault. If not, back of the grid.

[AnnoyedMoose]

Race 3 format is fine IMO. Race 2 has been a problem child for a while now. Either from being a copy of race 1 or from excessively punishing people who had an issue in quali. I'd go for two, much shorter quali sessions, one for each race. So a Saturday schedule would be FP1, 10 minute race 1 quali, FP2, 10 minute race 2 quali. Perhaps even say that you have to take the reverse tyre choice between the sessions as well.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by psq43

Good point. As I said, on the bus and thinking quickly..

I'm sure the resident tyre experts in the pitlane could verify if any of the tyres in those instances were genuinely at fault. If not, back of the grid.

I think any solution will have some flaws - or we would have seen it already.

IIRC, Plato did something similar once pitting late on at Knockhill to set a flyer and get a front row start.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by psq43

See, I'll take the ozzie attitude there and say that would be down to the driver knowing what the tyres do, and not doing a very good job of managing them.

If its made widely known that the tyres are meant to behave that way, and part of the idea is for drivers to choose how they manage them, then the tyre company have supplied exactly what they were tasked with.

The drivers know what they need to, but you think that will stop them complaining?

Widely known amongst teams is not the same as widely known amongst fans, especially the more casual fans who don't concern themselves with the details. All they see is "these [insert brand] tyres are a bit crap, I'm not buying any of those"

[v8supes]

No idea what you do tbh.

[SSmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think any solution will have some flaws - or we would have seen it already.

IIRC, Plato did something similar once pitting late on at Knockhill to set a flyer and get a front row start.

Yes, a few drivers exploited the system throughout 2015 when the grid for race 2 was set by the fastest lap in race 1. Quite a few people either pitted or started from the pits to sacrifice race 1 and get clean air in the opening laps to set quick laptimes. Plato I think did it four times mainly at the start of races where he'd poorly qualified (Croft, Knockhill, Rockingham, Silverstone), and I remember Austin doing it at Snetterton, and a few others drivers doing it at Silverstone (Priaulx and Goff) and Brands Hatch GP. Personally, I'd rather "fastest race 1 laps sets race 2 grid" not return.

[NaBUru38]

Hi folks! I'm a professional videogame developer, and an amateur videogame designer. Here's my idea for the weekend format:

* The race 1 grid is based on qualifying.
* The race 2 grid is based on race 1 with a lottery reverse grid.
* The race 3 grid is based on the combination of race 1 and 2 (first the P1, then the p2, etc).

For example:

* Race 1 finish: Turkington, Morgan, Jelley, Ingram, Chilton, Sutton, Rowbottom.
* Race 2 finish: Ingram, Sutton, Morgan, Turkington, Rowbottom, Chilton.
* Race 3 grid: Turkington, Ingram, Morgan, Sutton, Jelley, Chilton, Rowbottom.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Hi folks! I'm a professional videogame developer, and an amateur videogame designer. Here's my idea for the weekend format:

* The race 1 grid is based on qualifying.
* The race 2 grid is based on race 1 with a lottery reverse grid.
* The race 3 grid is based on the combination of race 1 and 2 (first the P1, then the p2, etc).

For example:

* Race 1 finish: Turkington, Morgan, Jelley, Ingram, Chilton, Sutton, Rowbottom.
* Race 2 finish: Ingram, Sutton, Morgan, Turkington, Rowbottom, Chilton.
* Race 3 grid: Turkington, Ingram, Morgan, Sutton, Jelley, Chilton, Rowbottom.

That is definitely an interesting proposal - but I think it doesn't address the question of how to make the races more exciting.
How would you propose influencing things so that the finishing positions are not as stable as the grid form-up?

Looking at yesterday's races, the criticism is that the R2 finish saw no change in the front 7 places. Which is why I think, rather than focus on setting the grid, any changes should look at impacting a car set up.

Introducing a ride height adjustment between R1 and R2 (for instance) would mean that the car would move out of its 'sweet spot' and require more skill from either the driver or engineer to compensate. This would mean that the best engineers / drivers would still be able to get rewarded but have to work harder to do so.

[Sodemo]

Just reverse the entire grid for race 2, I mean why not?

[VIVA GT]

I've seen the suggestion of a ride-height rise suggested suggested as a performance disadvantage a few times now in this thread. One simple problem that this would cause would be in the quick post-race scrutineering where a basic roller is run underneath the car, if it fits, it's OK, if it jams, the car is too low, so they're out.
If ride heights are going to be played with then the scrutineers are going to need a range of different rollers to carry out these checks, plus will have to which is the correct one to use on each car (which could also lead to problems). I would have also thought that a ride-height change would also necessitate a complete geometry re-set all adding to the extra work the team is frced to carry out in time for the next race in that meeting.
I suppose that to sum up what I'm trying to say is that although it does seem a nice & simple thing to introduce, in practical terms it's not so straightforward to carry out.