[BTCC] How to improve the BTCC 'product'

[Mike Harte]

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?
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.

Firstly, I am not in favour of two qualifying sessions for different races as others have said.

About more power and/or less grip, something very obvious was happening right by us on Sunday at Knickerbrook and that was that only the Minis and the Radicals were able to get through it without lifting quite considerably. Now this is something I never realised before from watching the racing on TV. I always thought that they were flat to the floor after coming out of Hislops and then going up Clay Hill but that was not the case, very clearly.

That to me indicates that the Tourers, the Porsches and even the F4s were on the limit of adhesion with their current power and grip. I think that if they altered either this would lead to too many more incidents.

[hen henths]

I like the way Race 2 starts with the Race 1 finishing positions because in some way we get to see the battles and progress being made in Race 1 continuing, almost like a longer race. Think of all those times Tim or David wanted to hide the chequered flag.

I'd personally just like longer races but this arrangement is the next best thing. Obviously there are differences with another race start in there too.

I also agree that any perceived issues with a lack of action would apply as much to Race 1 as Race 2. I also think the action at Oulton was a bit better which is impressive considering how narrow that track is.

Rather than narrower cars, it's a shame they can't widen the tracks a bit (almost certainly prohibitively expensive though) or revisit the track limits regulations to be a bit more permissive.

You've got to remember these are using the shells of production cars so unless we can persuade car manufacturers to start making new models narrower again (which I'd love actually), the touring cars are always going to be big and wide. If you built them with very narrow track between the wheels but kept the wide bodies they'd look very odd!

I'd imagine reducing the grip would result in more track limits infringements and then drivers having to be more careful, although I get that mistakes could allow more overtaking opportunities.

[porsche962fan]

regarding car width I never understood why they made them wider and wider with each generations

I've been in a 1993 Cavalier and a Mercedes 190 (both considered very narrow this days) and I never really felt as being cramped inside, plus they are much easier to park or drive in narrow streets

[hen henths]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

regarding car width I never understood why they made them wider and wider with each generations

I've been in a 1993 Cavalier and a Mercedes 190 (both considered very narrow this days) and I never really felt as being cramped inside, plus they are much easier to park or drive in narrow streets

It's off-topic but is it side airbags and side protection making them wider? Possibly the curvy aero shapes make them bigger for the same interior space as well.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by hen henths

It's off-topic but is it side airbags and side protection making them wider? Possibly the curvy aero shapes make them bigger for the same interior space as well.

That's part of it:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/features/investigation-why-are-cars-becoming-so-wide

Crush zones, pedestrian protection, larger occupants, global model designs.....

[hen henths]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

That's part of it:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/f...coming-so-wide

Crush zones, pedestrian protection, larger occupants, global model designs.....

Yeah, just read exactly that article right after I submitted my post.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by hen henths

Yeah, just read exactly that article right after I submitted my post.

[Mike Harte]

In answer to some members who decry the lack of action in the tourers race, I think that many are possibly, and please take notice of that word possibly, concentrating on what is happening towards the front of the race or just what the cameras show on the TV.

However, if you were actually at the track side in a good viewing position, which by luck, personal circumstances and studying the layout of the circuit, as my son and I were on Sunday, you would have been almost overwhelmed by all the action that was going on. At times, we just didn't know which way to look because things were happening on the 4 large parts of the circuit that we could see from where we plonked ourselves in the morning plus we could also watch what was been followed on the big screen.

Rowbo on the Oulton thread spoke about his progress during one of the races, but there was also Turkington who went from 27th on the grid and then crossed the line at the end in 9th place. Watching that plus everything else that was going on was a joy, and as the wi-fi signal was so poor that where we were, it meant that we couldn't get live lap timings added to which the loudspeaker was too far away to be heard during the races which meant we had to rely on counting cars to understand how far he had got up towards the sharp end.

Apart from that, it was just a joy watching the skill of various drivers in all the races, not just the tourers, during the day even if the never overtook anyone or had to even defend their position.

It's awfully easy to watch what is broadcast on the TV and then sit at ones electronic device and say that there was no action. But on the other hand, 99.99% of all the drivers racing around the world at these types of meetings were trying to do his or her best to be the best that they could, and in all probability were doing a hell of a lot better than any of us could do.

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

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).

Well, BTCC will probably not rely on NGTC forever, so the day will come when a bit of a 'revolution' in terms of a ruleset comes (revolution is probably a bit of an exaggeration but I think you understand). However, agree, for now it generally works and with teams facing (and struggling with) costs connected with the hybrid, I just can't see BTCC moving to a new car anytime soon.

The point you make about hybrid might be something to consider. The general view is that hybrid doesn't necessarily work as desired, perhaps some tweaks could be made to make it better, however, I'd be against increasing the power just for these short moments when a driver 'uses it.' This would only increase the differences between cars and the racing would become more artificial (see drivers passing Moffat at Oulton's R1 easily because they're on softs while he's on the hards as an example). I'm actually of an unpopular opinion that I'd prefer seeing cars following closely and drivers trying everything to pass even if the pass doesn't eventually happen, rather than cars passing each other easily because of a big disparity in power/tyres etc.

But I'd stick to my point that the best would be to see tweaks in aero wash/grip levels etc, this could change the racing product + make racing more exciting to see.
Although, I must admit, BTCC cars are still good at that, for example, TCR cars seem much slower and much more glued to the surface, at least that's the impression I got when I watched TCR last time.

[hen henths]

Originally Posted by Matt K

I'm actually of an unpopular opinion that I'd prefer seeing cars following closely and drivers trying everything to pass even if the pass doesn't eventually happen, rather than cars passing each other easily because of a big disparity in power/tyres etc.

That's a very astute way of describing the key difference between the racing with and without the measures introduced to mix it up.

For the BTCC I suppose it's like adding salt and pepper to a recipe. You want to mix things up just a bit, but make the artificial differences insurmountable and you've ruined the dish, so to speak.

As for how far to go with that, I think the fact that only two drivers have ever won all three races on a weekend might mean we don't need it any more mixed up than it already is. I don't think the measures to mix it up should be impossible for a driver to overcome.

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by hen henths

That's a very astute way of describing the key difference between the racing with and without the measures introduced to mix it up.

For the BTCC I suppose it's like adding salt and pepper to a recipe. You want to mix things up just a bit, but make the artificial differences insurmountable and you've ruined the dish, so to speak.

As for how far to go with that, I think the fact that only two drivers have ever won all three races on a weekend might mean we don't need it any more mixed up than it already is. I don't think the measures to mix it up should be impossible for a driver to overcome.

Well said. As much as BTCC is an 'entertainment', I'd still like it to remain sport and competition, current rules allow many teams and drivers to have their bright days (be that Independent's win, a Top 10, a podium or even a win) but the spotlight is shared mainly by the best. And in this, hybrid's made a good change.
Has it come at the expense of the 'show'? Perhaps slightly but at the same time created an impression of standards rising. Said it last year and will repeat - I'm actually all for that.

[tocatrucky]

How I'd change up easily and cheaply.

egs:
- 2 compounds of dry tyre everywhere. The Thruxton Hard and *a* softer tyre. the Hard must be used for qualifying and one race per weekend.
- Remove the aero from the car, smaller rear wing, small front bumper splitter. Add back the bumper openings.

format - 45min Qually session, every 10 minutes the lowest 5 cars are eliminated and cannot go out again. Races as per current.

[Mike Harte]

Thruxton requires hard compounds because the track is too abrasive plus is extremely fast and so requires the hard compound; anything softer punctures too easily which around the very fast sweeping bends could lead to potentially very large incidents.

If you reduce the aero then they would also need to reduce the power; the cars are already on the edge of adhesion.

And I personally see nothing wrong with just one 30 minutes qualifying session; I am not a fan of the top 10 shoot-outs that they have introduced.

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And I personally see nothing wrong with just one 30 minutes qualifying session; I am not a fan of the top 10 shoot-outs that they have introduced.

Yep, 30 mins feels long enough sometimes when there are red flags or no late improvements. I don’t mind the shootout, it works ok at shorter circuits but it was terrible at Snetterton for example - with 10 cars and a near 2 minute lap it’s a bit dull, especially with longer outlaps etc. Bit strange having it one weekend and not the next too.

[antnee]

I am a fan of using the 2nd best times from qualifying for the 2nd race. It introduces another element of strategy for how you get that 2nd flying lap in place. Throw in a few red flags, changing conditions during the session and track limit infringements - and you could see some very different grids.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Thruxton requires hard compounds because the track is too abrasive plus is extremely fast and so requires the hard compound; anything softer punctures too easily which around the very fast sweeping bends could lead to potentially very large incidents.

If you reduce the aero then they would also need to reduce the power; the cars are already on the edge of adhesion.

Best not confuse tyre sidewall strength and construction with compounds, as that isn't the same thing at all.

Also, the cars don't really have much aero anyway and there are literally dozens of categories which have much more power than downforce - you would just alter the limit you refer to. It would also need more driver skill to master which would be a good thing in my opinion as that would differentiate the levels within the field much more than now, but I know that's not the modern BTCC ethos really.

[crmalcolm]

For reference, the benchmark figures for a RWD NGTC car are (@150kph):

~ +23N lift from the front
~ -249N lift from the rear
~ -273N lift total

For comparison, a GT3 Cup car generates about -4,000N at the same speed.

[S griffin]

I don't really care about whether a car is RWD or FWD. For me that's only part of the car and not the whole package. It's how you engineer the car.

These may not be the most technically advanced kits compared to GT cars, but they are good enough to excite and produce close racing, even if we haven't had too much overtaking so far. But we've had plenty of good races this year, if not all the time

[Sodemo]

For supertouring, the FWD cars typically had a 67% front aero bias (this varies depending on the car). From what I know, the overall DF was 150kg @ 160kph. RWD was more more even front to rear, which is why the BMW front splitters always looked more simple and often ran higher than the 45mm minimum height. BMWs always wanted more rear DF anyway.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by tocatrucky

How I'd change up easily and cheaply.

egs:
- 2 compounds of dry tyre everywhere. The Thruxton Hard and *a* softer tyre. the Hard must be used for qualifying and one race per weekend.
- Remove the aero from the car, smaller rear wing, small front bumper splitter. Add back the bumper openings.

Oh, no, no. The ATCC (V8 Supercars) has two types of tyre and it made everything worse, not better. Artificially high wear tyre and artificial speed differences form a much faster tyre against a much slower one are just that.

NGTC cars have almost no aero anyway, I'm not sure a removal of the nicely balanced aero packages would be helpful as you need some way to equalise different road cars that inherently have different aerodynamic performance.

While the cars with bog-standard bodies up to 1995 were fun, you don't want a return to the "spoiler is in the boot and splitter is supplied retracted" days of 1995.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

For reference, the benchmark figures for a RWD NGTC car are (@150kph):

~ +23N lift from the front
~ -249N lift from the rear
~ -273N lift total

In case tocatrucky is unaware, the rear wing profile on NGTC cars is almost completely flat (AFAIK). So it does very little, regardless of how large it may appear to be.

25kgforce @ 150 km/hr is rather negligible (with the square that becomes 45 kgforce @ 200 km/hr). Reducing it further from that wouldn't help IMO.

IMO it's useful that the cars are put in a wind tunnel in order to make sure their downforce and drag can be balanced from model to model.

Originally Posted by Matt K

Perhaps more power, less grip to start with?

The cars being "too slow" to produce exciting racing wasn't a problem in the recent past. Surely more spread out racing is only due to reducing the severity of success ballast recently?

Of course most of the cars are front wheel drive, so there is limit to how much you can increase the amount of power they have too (even if this is trivial to do by turning up turbo boost). 450hp marginal and 500hp possible but the front tyres won't last very long?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So how do you introduce a level of uncertainty to results?

Why is this necessary? If Sutton and Motorbase Performance are the best, why shouldn't they win all the time, just as Verstappen and Red Bull Racing win all the time.

Removing success ballast from the regulations tends to suggest the BTCC no longer wants to penalise the faster cars to create closer racing (as they did very effectively in the past).

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

possibly less wide , narrower wheels

They are a 265/660R18 on a 18x10" which is not massively wide for a racing car.

For reference a 2023 Honda Civic Type R road car runs a 265/30% R19 on a 19x9.5".

If you really want the cars to slide around everywhere, forget using narrower radials, just require Goodyear supply crossply tyres if they would be willing to do so. Bias ply tyres operate at bigger slip angles by design.

I'm assuming the regulations for this Goodwood St. Mary's Trophy historic touring car race required the cars to use period-correct crossply tyres, which would be the main reason they are sideways everywhere.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

like a standard Venturi tunnel. They could then reduce the size of the rear wing and have less dirty air.

As the Peugeot Le Mans team and non-Red Bull Formula One teams have found out, venturi tunnels are incredibly ride height sensitive and not the panacea people though they were! Tuning the suspension to keep the floor stable and level to the ground is very much non-trivial (much to Peugeot's surprise!), unlike wings that just work regardless of how far the car is from the ground.

In any case BTCC cars have almost negligible downforce so I seriously doubt that the problem.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

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.

I don't think it's nostalgia to think that the naturally aspirated engines sounded better. They arguably simply did sound more angry, more aggressive, having an induction bark that the turbo engines lack.

Especially when there were extra sonorous inline-fives and V6s out there among the inline-fours of Super Touring.

The current BTCC cars sound pretty terrible (as do TCR cars). But oh well, that's just what a relatively low revving inline-four turbo sounds like.

8500 rpm naturally aspirated sounded better than 7000rpm turbocharged (stop the presses, what a revelation!). :P

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

exactly , even in S2000 era you had more of that and drivers could get away with , drivers were not "punished" for being more agressive

Teams could design their own cars back then. A Team Dynamics Integra on the lift, there is some nice stuff on there: https://www.tegiwaimports.com/blog/?p=3920.

Those rear control arms are very far removed from the simple steel trailing arms of the original car, but they meet the letter of the S2000 rules in terms of pickup points and what not.

BTCC rule makers do not allow this anymore -- however TCR rule makers do, to a point, it's just that the TCR car has to be cheap enough to build to sell at the price cap unless you are willing to make a massive loss (and there's obviously balance-of-performance to reign in any cars that are too fast/too good, so there's no point in doing that).

I wonder why so few BTCC teams are mass-producing TCR cars for sale?! In theory, it should be a lucrative market.

The front subframe looks standard though. It was a pretty crude steel item on DC5s and EP3s (granted they were economy cars so you'd expect that), a far cry from a modern fabricated aluminium subframe that you find on something like an Alfa Romeo Giulia (it's almost like a small section of a typical aluminium spaceframe Ferrari chassis, very fancy!). The abandoned Golf GTI Mk8 TCR race car (seen here on a hoist) was intending to run the aluminium front MQB subframe (from the Audi A3) but with some reinforcement braces welded-in.

Should the BTCC, perhaps, seek to emulate the production-based character of TCR?! With standard pickup points, standard subframes and all those things?

Or do fans essentially not care whether or not the control arm pickup points are within 25mm of the standard road car and whether double wishbone has been substituted in place of the (typically) MacPherson strut front and multi-link rear of most hatchbacks respectively?

[AnnoyedMoose]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I wonder why so few BTCC teams are mass-producing TCR cars for sale?! In theory, it should be a lucrative market.

I wasn't aware that any BTCC teams were producing TCR cars?

[sceptic]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Should the BTCC, perhaps, seek to emulate the production-based character of TCR?! With standard pickup points, standard subframes and all those things?

Or do fans essentially not care whether or not the control arm pickup points are within 25mm of the standard road car and whether double wishbone has been substituted in place of the (typically) MacPherson strut front and multi-link rear of most hatchbacks respectively?

BTCC does have standard subframes.

And no, most fans don't care in the slightest about the mechanics of the car. They may show some brand loyalty, but generally they are fans of drivers rather than cars, and as long as the cars are vaguely recognisable as something they might see on the road, the rest is not important.