BTCC NGTC details released - Page 4

stedevil · 26 Jun 2010, 08:14 (Ref:2718092)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

You shot yourself in the foot with your DTM comment as that's the perfect example of the lack of road relevancy and yet fans still flock to the circuit and buy the road cars from Mercedes and BMW, yet they have no relation to the racecars the public sees on the racetrack.

Shot myself in the foot, how? I just said you don't need to reinvent DTM, it already exist. Just stop watching BTCC and switch to DTM and your RWD onlyness desires are fullfilled.

Your "RWD is so much better to watch" rant is just a big pile of BS, so not worth commenting much on.

Sodemo · 26 Jun 2010, 08:35 (Ref:2718101)

I don't really see why a RWD advantage needs to be re-evaluated each year. Surely the advantage of rear wheel drive hasn't changed since the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. Axels have been powering the rear wheels for decades, so I don't know why thats such an issue. If need be, just add 30kg to the same spec RWD car and have done with it, let gravity take care of the rest.

What was the weight penalty super touring BMWs had in the BTCC, was it 60kg?

touring fan01 · 26 Jun 2010, 09:07 (Ref:2718122)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I don't really see why a RWD advantage needs to be re-evaluated each year. Surely the advantage of rear wheel drive hasn't changed since the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. Axels have been powering the rear wheels for decades, so I don't know why thats such an issue. If need be, just add 30kg to the same spec RWD car and have done with it, let gravity take care of the rest.

What was the weight penalty super touring BMWs had in the BTCC, was it 60kg?

100kg.
It was the same in all super touring championships that followed FIA rules.

Sodemo · 26 Jun 2010, 11:13 (Ref:2718177)

Do you recall what the Audi AWD penalty first was in 1996, then what it was in 1997 and then what it was reduced to after Oulton Park of that year?

Matt · 26 Jun 2010, 12:28 (Ref:2718192)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stedevil

Shot myself in the foot, how? I just said you don't need to reinvent DTM, it already exist. Just stop watching BTCC and switch to DTM and your RWD onlyness desires are fullfilled.

Your "RWD is so much better to watch" rant is just a big pile of BS, so not worth commenting much on.

My point still stands, that the average fan doesn't care which axle gets the power, as long as "their" brand wins it.

stedevil · 27 Jun 2010, 06:21 (Ref:2718391)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

My point still stands, that the average fan doesn't care which axle gets the power, as long as "their" brand wins it.

Yes, that is probably right. But don't you agree that we are quickly leaving Touring cars and getting into the area of purpose built Prototype racing cars when the drivetrain is completely different from the road model?

Speed-King · 27 Jun 2010, 06:32 (Ref:2718394)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stedevil

Yes, that is probably right. But don't you agree that we are quickly leaving Touring cars and getting into the area of purpose built Prototype racing cars when the drivetrain is completely different from the road model?

Aren't we in that are with NGTC anyway? Semi-spec-engine, spec-subframes, spec gearbox, etc... I am obviously simplifying things here quite a bit, but apart from the aero-stuff, the only difference between these cars and DTM is that the prototype-parts are stuffed into a production shell instead of a carbon-clad tubeframe...

PorscheFanNo1 · 27 Jun 2010, 10:18 (Ref:2718446)

Quote:

Originally Posted by touring fan01

100kg.
It was the same in all super touring championships that followed FIA rules.

Not correct.

FWD cars where 950 kilo and then changed to 975 kilo around 1995 something. The weight for RWD was around 1050 in the begining but was changed to 1025 and then later to 1000 kilo. So in the early 90s the difference was 100 kilo but after 95 or so it was only 25 kilo difference.

stedevil · 27 Jun 2010, 15:19 (Ref:2718645)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Aren't we in that are with NGTC anyway? Semi-spec-engine, spec-subframes, spec gearbox, etc...

Indeed, it is getting quite close, and it's a main reason I'm not too fond of NGTC. If cutting cost by spec parts is the only thing that matters, a pure spec series would be cheaper than this "something in the middle".

**FIRE** · 27 Jun 2010, 16:16 (Ref:2718677)

I think the Argentinian TC2000 is very much like NGTC. All cars use a 2L engine developed by Berta and I think the chassis has a lot of spec parts. Maybe the South-Americans here can confirm this. Despite these spec parts it's a great series. It would not surprise me if Gow got some ideas from TC2000.

Alfa Fan · 27 Jun 2010, 18:37 (Ref:2718806)

I believe it is as spec as BTC-Touring..which as a set of rules worked quite well.

Subaru_WRX_STi · 27 Jun 2010, 20:21 (Ref:2718883)

so with Spec engines and Spec chassis, the BTCC is going to be a new BTCS ! frankly I hate this idea !!!

duke_toaster · 27 Jun 2010, 20:29 (Ref:2718889)

Spec subframes, not a fully spec chassis - and for that matter, the engine isn't spec either, but the Swindon lump is available to anyone who wants it in the same way the Cossie is in F1.

redshoes · 27 Jun 2010, 22:26 (Ref:2718973)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfa Fan

I believe it is as spec as BTC-Touring..which as a set of rules worked quite well.

BTCT had some TOCA controlled common components - ECU, brakes/wheel hubs and transmission but there was still a fair bit of freedom over how you bolted those components together. For NGTC the entire front and rear subframes including suspension/dampers will be spec parts. That's quite a difference.

touring fan01 · 27 Jun 2010, 22:36 (Ref:2718979)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subaru_WRX_STi

so with Spec engines and Spec chassis, the BTCC is going to be a new BTCS ! frankly I hate this idea !!!

Why do people keep saying its a spec engine?

ITS NOT!

Anyone can develop and build their own engine !!

If some people dont even know or understand the regulations then they shouldnt be giving an opinion on something they dont know about.

Speed-King · 28 Jun 2010, 05:20 (Ref:2719069)

Quote:

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Why do people keep saying its a spec engine?

ITS NOT!

Anyone can develop and build their own engine !!

The question is, however, who WILL develop their own engine when they can save a lot of money and buy the one from TOCA?
The only one's that will do it are manufacturer (supported) teams, and even some of those might opt for the TOCA-engine, not unlike KIA in BTCS.

Matt · 28 Jun 2010, 05:45 (Ref:2719077)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed-King

The question is, however, who WILL develop their own engine when they can save a lot of money and buy the one from TOCA?
The only one's that will do it are manufacturer (supported) teams, and even some of those might opt for the TOCA-engine, not unlike KIA in BTCS.

Doesn't matter if people choose to develop one or buy the ToCA motor, it's still not a spec series if they don't want it to be.

touring fan01 · 28 Jun 2010, 07:48 (Ref:2719099)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed-King

The question is, however, who WILL develop their own engine when they can save a lot of money and buy the one from TOCA?

Any team that wants a performance advantage over the smaller teams running the TOCA engine, thats who.

You really think Dynamics or Arena or 888 or one of the BMW teams or whoever would just use the TOCA engine?!

The engines will be very cheap to develop and much cheaper than 2000 and BTC spec engines and plenty of teams developed their own ones of those over the years.

Speed-King · 28 Jun 2010, 09:33 (Ref:2719140)

Quote:

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Any team that wants a performance advantage over the smaller teams running the TOCA engine, thats who.

Isn't the TOCA engine suppossed to be the benchmark for the other engines?

touring fan01 · 28 Jun 2010, 09:55 (Ref:2719148)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Isn't the TOCA engine suppossed to be the benchmark for the other engines?

No not at all. It was never said it would be the benchmark. All they ever said is that it would be competitive.

This is what Gow said in an interview in RaceTech magazine;
"The beauty of these regulations is it allows teams who want to build their own engine to do so. And if they build a better engine than ours, fine. If they don’t want to do it or can’t afford to then there’s the option of leasing the competitive TOCA engine.”

medius · 28 Jun 2010, 14:13 (Ref:2719284)

In terms of rate of development, what were the difference in power/torque between the Triple 8 Astra Coupe in 2001 and the Triple 8 Astra Coupe in 2004? And on the same track (say, Brands short), what about laptimes?

Craner Curves · 28 Jun 2010, 14:38 (Ref:2719301)

It's difficult to tell as they used BF Goodrich tyres in 2001-02 and then Dunlops thereafter.

medius · 2 Aug 2010, 12:09 (Ref:2738132)

The car in front is a Toyota, at least for NGTC.

Sodemo · 2 Aug 2010, 12:14 (Ref:2738136)

Can't help but feel as though the BTCC is going down the wrong road again with these regs. The JTCC has just been revived to run under S2000, and the WTCC is still going down the 1.6 turbo route.

touring fan01 · 2 Aug 2010, 12:40 (Ref:2738152)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Can't help but feel as though the BTCC is going down the wrong road again with these regs. The JTCC has just been revived to run under S2000, and the WTCC is still going down the 1.6 turbo route.

Well I think its pretty significant that Toyota have put some money (cars and hardware) and their name into the BTCC new-regs program.

A few weeks ago MG said they were also seriously looking at the BTCC with the new regs and I haven't heard of any new manufacturers jumping into S2000?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[BTCC] NGTC: Which cars do you wanna see?	FIRE	Touring Car Racing	188	13 Apr 2010 17:46
Details required	shadowdancer	National & Club Racing	2	21 Nov 2003 19:11
Prototype Details	PCS74	Sportscar & GT Racing	4	9 Feb 2003 14:22
New Bugatti Details	Ray Bell	Road Car Forum	13	30 Jan 2002 12:01