[BTCC] How to improve the BTCC 'product'

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree - it is not a simple measure to introduce. But, I think it could be implemented with careful consideration (and a bit of work from the scrutineers). The geometry and associated extra work for the team is exactly what I see happening - teams would have to find the right set up for each height they switched to (they already do this between wet and dry set ups) leading to an engineering challenge.

I wouldn't apply it as a linear scale - but stepped increments.
e.g. after race 1:
1st through 5th - raised by the maximum adjustment.
6th through 10th - raised by 50% of the maximum.
11th down - standard ride height.

3x rollers required, and maybe a scrutineering sticker applied before the start of the race (denoting which of the three heights they are subject to)?

[Mike Harte]

About the scrutineer running the roller under the splitter and the sides after the race, I noticed, for the first time that I can recall, the guy who I assume is the chief scrutineer, well the guy who seems to run the checks on the first three at the end of the race, well him, actually measuring the front height of Moffat's car with what looked like a ruler in the parc ferme when the drivers were being interviewed after race 3.

[Sodemo]

As Viva has said, I think adjusting ride height probably would create a scrutineering nightmare.

I personally hate the idea of adding success ballast to cars that area already overweight. Can we not get back to 975kg tourers?

[Mike Harte]

Whilst talking about ride heights, during the earlier commentating, mention was made about Cammish's car failing the check at Snetterton. Apparently, his car also suffered this same problem whilst they were testing before the season and despite investigating why, they have so far failed to find the reason.

My observation is that it may well be the way that he attacks the curbing; he is far more aggressive, I would say, than Sutton. That may be the simple answer, but I'm not one of their engineers.

[pimmy]

- Go back to the narrower tyres from a few years ago. I don't know what they expected to happen when they gave everyone more grip with the wider ones. More grip rarely equals better racing.

- Production bodywork only. Like with the tyres, more downforce (grip) only equals worse racing and dirty air created by aero bits does no good either.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I personally hate the idea of adding success ballast to cars that area already overweight. Can we not get back to 975kg tourers?

975kg would be too light. It's part of the reason ST's were so expensive. I wouldn't be against a reduction to around 1100-1150kg like BTC/S2000 though; there's certainly no need for the cars to weigh nearly 1300kg.

[pimmy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Having been at the track yesterday, I can assure you that the racing was poor throughout the field. As much as it pains me to say it, the Spanish GP was legitimately more exciting, and that's coming from someone who considers saloon/touring car racing to be above all else in terms of on track action.

[tocatrucky]

The fact that cars are going into the tunnel at Catesby says a lot about the issues seen now. Theres very little scope in other areas of the car to improve so they are all going for the marginal gains allowed in the rules to eek a little more out and consequently harming the racing.

An evolution of the NGTC ruleset is needed in general, its gone stagnant and now the bleeding edge is showing though. Far less aero (no aero), less tyre (narrower), more open choice of supplier parts.

[ScottS]

This weekend I had a thought on how to improve the BTCC racing and make winning 2 races on the trot that little bit harder. Now I've not really thought this through so I'm sure there is a million and one reasons why this wouldn't work.

Idea 1:

Put the top 5 finishers from race 1 (or however many) onto a harder compound of tyre for race 2. So for race 1 they are all on the medium compound of tyre starting in the order they qualified in. Then everyone up to P5 (or a randomly drawn ball to stop people fighting for P6) then have to start on the hard compound tyre and everyone else gets a tyre advantage of being on the medium.

For race 3, you could either run it so that the first 5 cars that have been reversed have to run the hard. So it's a yay for them being moved forward via the reverse grid, but nay for the fact that they have to run the hard tyre. Or just everyone runs the medium tyre like race 1 to keep things simple.

Obviously it would mean for tracks that already run the hard tyre that they would have to develop a tyre that is slightly harder again...

Idea 2:

I'm guessing that the teams get told how low they can go on cold tyre pressures? If not, specify a minimum tyre pressures that everyone can use. Then maybe the top 3 or 5 all have to run increased tyre pressures of maybe +2 psi for race 2 and then if they come in the top 3 or 5 again they then have to run another +2 psi again.

To patrol this, maybe something could be integrated into the RFID station that BTCC has on pit exit that checks pressures for qualifying and maybe a TPMS system that is wirelessly transmitted to TOCA so they can see what pressures the tyres are at as they leave the garage/when they are on the grid at the start of the race.

Like I say, not really thought out ideas and probably a load of rubbish but I thought I'd throw it out there incase someone can come up with a better idea using my idea.

[S griffin]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree we should make it harder for drivers to win two races on the trot. The idea of putting the top ones onto the harder compound would not be good, we have enough variables as it is and that will just confuse viewers. The option tyre rule works so much better

Teams will always find a way round things, so there's no point restricting them further. Just keep things as they are and not try and over complicate things

[Spanner monkey]

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

Most of the cars in the video have come in to contact with a EP3/DC5 Honda...

Basically the same car underneath and this was a time where their was more freedom on manufacturing parts if you had the budget. If you would of seen the lower arms on the Hondas (Even with the FN2 S2000) you'll see they invested in billet alloy lower arms and good quality rose joint's along with strong mounting points.

NGTC rules were written to provide equality amongst the field at a motorsport reasonable cost.

Over the years their have been many more comings together than retirements with NGTC (And even more savings for teams as £80 worth of shear plates is better than a 5k subframe and an £800 uprite)

I agree with Greem to finish 1st first you have to finish and not crash in to people in hope your car won't break when you make a pass!

Back on to it - I think longer races at some events, not all as BTCC is more a sprint format compared to the Aussie V8's. We know it can be done as they have done it once at Snett

[FFSM]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

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

You'd end up with a situation where half of the field would be actively trying to finish last in race 1

[NaBUru38]

That's why I proposed a mixed grid:

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.

[tocatrucky]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

That's why I proposed a mixed grid:

Mixed grid still just means the finishing order is 95% the starting order. The cars don't have enough of a performance difference to get past eachother now in most situations.

[Bazz]

Some good ideas on how to make it more interesting. My biggest pet peeve at the moment is how race 2 feels like a replication of race 1 as it seems the top places rarely change materially (no doubt ill get an official correction shortly) but I think this is the area to tackle. Just need to be mindful of the huge effort that goes into getting pole and it wouldn't be fair to have the same reward should race 2 pole be decided through a hat draw

[Sammo303]

Originally Posted by Bazz

Some good ideas on how to make it more interesting. My biggest pet peeve at the moment is how race 2 feels like a replication of race 1 as it seems the top places rarely change materially (no doubt ill get an official correction shortly) but I think this is the area to tackle. Just need to be mindful of the huge effort that goes into getting pole and it wouldn't be fair to have the same reward should race 2 pole be decided through a hat draw

I think having two qualifying sessions, one each for the order of race 1 & 2 is the answer, but it needs a twist. That twist would come in the form of drivers doing second qualy in reverse gear only. This would place far more importance on driver skill than car setup, so would level the field across the teams with different budgets. It would be a slower lap so you'd only get one outlap to build tyre temperature, one flying lap, and then a cool down lap. If you spin out you get a distance covered measurement rather than a laptime. All those who get a laptime will be ranked first, after which distance covered will be used. Those who install a front passenger seat as an arm rest for reversing will have to carry the extra weight in race 2.

[porsche962fan]

and nobody mentions the fundamentals that the cars themselves need to be altered for better racing , less fragile, possibly less wide , narrower wheels , maybe a bit less weight and get rid of the dam hybrid

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Bazz

Some good ideas on how to make it more interesting. My biggest pet peeve at the moment is how race 2 feels like a replication of race 1 as it seems the top places rarely change materially (no doubt ill get an official correction shortly) but I think this is the area to tackle. Just need to be mindful of the huge effort that goes into getting pole and it wouldn't be fair to have the same reward should race 2 pole be decided through a hat draw

I'm not sure if the repetitiveness is a recent perceived issue, or if it has always been there.

I wonder though if people are concentrating too much on race 2? Is race 1 just as processional (i.e. the result closely matches the starting grid). If that is the case, then the issue (if it exists) is not confined to race 2 alone.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

and nobody mentions the fundamentals that the cars themselves need to be altered for better racing , less fragile, possibly less wide , narrower wheels , maybe a bit less weight and get rid of the dam hybrid

So replace NGTC (which has resulted in the healthiest grid sizes in decades) with The MINI CHALLENGE – JCW? [Other lower categories are available]

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So replace NGTC (which has resulted in the healthiest grid sizes in decades) with The MINI CHALLENGE – JCW? [Other lower categories are available]

nice strawman, why doesn't it surprise me coming this from you ?

adjust NGTC would be far more accurate descritption, they had the chance to do this when swtiching to RML parts but didn't use it

[Adam43]

Stop this before it becomes the usual tedious posting. /mod

Edit: just leave each other alone. Put each other on ignore. There is no way, based on previous history, that this can end in anything approaching interesting discussion.

Have a read: https://tentenths.com/forum/faq.php?..._posting_treat

[Bazz]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm not sure if the repetitiveness is a recent perceived issue, or if it has always been there.

I wonder though if people are concentrating too much on race 2? Is race 1 just as processional (i.e. the result closely matches the starting grid). If that is the case, then the issue (if it exists) is not confined to race 2 alone.

My thought is that im reasonably okay with race 1 more than likely equaling qualifying because that's a justified reward of the huge work effort that goes into qualifying which will also require the drivers holding off the guys behind them during the race (with the obvious hope of some exciting racing along the way and not just a procession), less so happy with race 2 close to mirroring race 1.

[Matt K]

I would say that instead of adding some gimmicks, it'd be actually a better idea to have a look at what can be done to the cars themselves to make the spectacle better. Perhaps more power, less grip to start with?
All the ideas about reversing grids, and such stuff is just artificial 'entertainment' I'd have little interest in. However, an idea of two separate qualifying sessions (wouldn't even mind three) is a good one.

[Evantra]

Problem with 2 qualifying sessions is, if some kind of problem puts you at the back on the Saturday, any hope of salvaging the weekend is gone. Now, the top drivers could start last and get into the points in R1, setting up for a good result and reverse grid chance in R2. Not much point in bothering if you claw your way up just to get put last again for the next race!

The second race never used to be so much of a problem with repeat winners and podiums, so I think it’s more the success penalties that need realigning.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Bazz

My thought is that im reasonably okay with race 1 more than likely equaling qualifying because that's a justified reward of the huge work effort that goes into qualifying which will also require the drivers holding off the guys behind them during the race (with the obvious hope of some exciting racing along the way and not just a procession), less so happy with race 2 close to mirroring race 1.

I can understand that. I also think you are not alone in wanting race 2 (specifically) to see more excitement.

The challenge is that the regulations are written to make all of the performance differentials to be under the control of the organisers - which means any measure in these areas will face criticism.

Making the hybrid more effective eliminates the performance differential being down to skill (engineering or driving) - which might be at the heart of BTCC's current situation.

How to alter race 2 alone? It seems like maybe the only way to effectively do this is to bring back ballast?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Matt K

I would say that instead of adding some gimmicks, it'd be actually a better idea to have a look at what can be done to the cars themselves to make the spectacle better. Perhaps more power, less grip to start with?

That's an interesting thought, and I understand the logic behind it. In an ideal world, it might be a 'solution'.

One issue is that to make too much change to the basic car design would require a fundamental shift away from the NGTC concept. Teams have invested heavily into a set of regulations that guaranteed certain parameters would not change in the future.
The core structure is fixed - based on driver safety and a more robust major component design. All of the 'fragility' that is complained about is deliberately easily and cheaply repaired with a common at-events parts supply.
If you make those parts of the car stronger, that brings with it more cost and potentially leads to more critical structure damage. In turn compromising driver safety and requiring teams to have to re-jig the chassis more often.

I think the key to introducing better racing lies in the original concept of the regulations being 'future-proofed' by being able to modify performance parameters. The engine, HEMS and tyre choices are where changes can be made without affecting the cost of entry or car homologation (another expensive process).

Perhaps as the hybrid system is developed, this is where big improvements in power can come from? Maybe even permit use earlier after corner apex (although the RWD/FWD issue makes this tricky).