[WTCC] Race 1 & 2 - Curitiba (BRA), 8th March 2009

[smokinjo]

Originally Posted by awrb

The difference is that BMW wanted a weight change because they built a car according to the sporting rules that were in place at the time. When these changed without notice, BMW no longer had a car optimised for the WTCC, despite it being perfect for the championship when they designed it. SEAT complained because they had an aerodynamically inefficient car.

exactly !
even now the reg favours them & they are dominating but they still keep screaming ..
its ridiculous

Originally Posted by awrb

Personally I think all this equalisation really devalues the series. They need to make a set of rules and stick by it, give a base weight change for RWD vs FWD and do away with diesel all together. Then the teams have to try and build the best car, not rely on handicaps.

agree !

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by awrb

The difference is that BMW wanted a weight change because they built a car according to the sporting rules that were in place at the time. When these changed without notice, BMW no longer had a car optimised for the WTCC,

Seriously, that was the most daft explanation imaginable. How could having 1 out of 2 races with a rolling start suddenly make the car unoptimized? All that did was remove an unfair advantage in 1 out of 2 races for RWD. And still today they retain that unfair advantage in race 2. Many other TCC has since long removed this unfair advantage entirely (eg STCC & DTC). In short, BMW is just as whiny as the other 2. Only someone blinded by brand favouritism could claim their brand is better than the other 2 in regard to this.

[Martin Haven]

Time to make all S2000 cars (WTCC and rally) 2-litre, front-engined, RWD...

choose your bodyshape to fit the current size 'box'

4, 5 or 6-cylinder (3 if you really have to...) normally aspirated, 9000rpm rev limit PETROL engine

sequential or h-pattern 'box to suit

go away and come back in 6 months... we'll pay some out-of-work F1 wind-tunnel experts to bench the cars and then tell you what your aero kit looks like for 2010

build them plentifully and cheap, because everyone will want one for WTCC and WRC / IRC

they'll be noisy, spectacular and close...

It's high time that motorsport was run for the benefit of the fans and the aprticipants, not big companies who use it to sex up their brand image... they don't make the programmes on TV, or run the billboard companies, so what gives them the right to run motorsport for us, un-elected and out of touch with the people who actually pay for it all, ie the fans??

crown me King later on...

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Martin Haven

4, 5 or 6-cylinder (3 if you really have to...) normally aspirated, 9000rpm rev limit PETROL engine

Is this your opinion of what the people who actually pay for it wants? Because last I checked small, efficient & alternate bio fuel engines was what the customers looking for a car wants, while large, thirsty outdated tech are next to impossible to sell.

Your suggestions sounds more like DTM -2 to 4 cylinders and has nothing to do with "Real cars racing". That doesnt mean a 2L "DTM" series dont have a place, but I dont necessarily see it replacing the current *TCC, but could coexist with it. Time would tell which 1, if not both, would survive.

[Les]

nicely said Martin

[awrb]

Originally Posted by stedevil

Seriously, that was the most daft explanation imaginable. How could having 1 out of 2 races with a rolling start suddenly make the car unoptimized?

Sorry, I didn't really explain my point properly. BMW got this because the rules were changed once the cars were built. Some other teams got dispensations because their cars were slower. I think that this difference is really the key. I'm not saying its right though, IMO the rules should be laid out at the beginning of the series and not touched again.

BMW are as bad as the rest at whining though. they all do it now that they've seen it can help them, and it really irritates me, as it seems someone from the FIA chooses who's going to win the series. Soon the teams will be paying as much for lawyers to find these excuses as they are for engineers.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by awrb

Sorry, I didn't really explain my point properly. BMW got this because the rules were changed once the cars were built. Some other teams got dispensations because their cars were slower. I think that this difference is really the key.

That is not really a 100% correct description. Tobias, the guy involved in building the STCC Audi A4s, Mercedes C200 & now the VW Bio-gas cars, once was asked in an interview about his Merc project "With hindsight, if there was anything you could change, what would it be?". His answer was something like "When building the car there was many things we wanted to do, but we couldn't because the specs didnt allow it. Now we see exactly the same things on eg the latest BMW. They just built it like they wanted and asked for dispensation afterwards. That is what I will do next time as well." In short, BMW also does not build to spec, but get dispensations for things that are not allowed but make them faster. Its just less popular to talk about.

they all do it now that they've seen it can help them, and it really irritates me, as it seems someone from the FIA chooses who's going to win the series.

This is indeed is a big problem and the likely solution is probably to either kick out all the manufacturers (but who will then build the cars and race them internationally?) or to get about 10 manufacturers (so if 1-2 make silly claims the other 8-9 tell them to shut up). Must say though that the new equalization formula is a step in the right direction, since it strengthens the individual driver vs manufacturer interests & tactics of flooding the grid with many cars. Now we only need Qualy 2 for the 10 quickest cars to be made into a super-pole (1 car on track at the time) so draft trains dont decide the final grid placement.

[gwyllion]

Curitiba is an exception. Lets wait until some races at sea level before making the final verdict about the diesel boost reduction and the new weight rules...

[awrb]

Originally Posted by stedevil

In short, BMW also does not build to spec, but get dispensations for things that are not allowed but make them faster.

So what is it that BMW built into their cars which were out of the rules? I'm not questioning you, just hadn't really heard of these.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by awrb

So what is it that BMW built into their cars which were out of the rules? I'm not questioning you, just hadn't really heard of these.

The details in the interview was not deeper than that unfortunately.

[gwyllion]

BMW made a homologation special (2600 cars): the 320si with a special engine.

The 320si engine is no mildly tweaked version of BMW’s regular 148bhp 1995cc unit. It has been engineered to rev higher; the bore is up by 1mm to 85mm and the stroke down by 2mm, to 88mm, while the induction and exhaust valves are all bigger, too. The compression ratio is up from 10.5:1 to 11.0:1, cylinder liners are aluminium alloy rather than cast iron, and there’s no Valvetronic induction system. The cylinder head is cast alongside BMW’s F1 engines.

from http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...-320si/220123/

[Matt]

Originally Posted by stedevil

Is this your opinion of what the people who actually pay for it wants? Because last I checked small, efficient & alternate bio fuel engines was what the customers looking for a car wants, while large, thirsty outdated tech are next to impossible to sell.

Your suggestions sounds more like DTM -2 to 4 cylinders and has nothing to do with "Real cars racing". That doesnt mean a 2L "DTM" series dont have a place, but I dont necessarily see it replacing the current *TCC, but could coexist with it. Time would tell which 1, if not both, would survive.

Maybe in Europe, but the WORLD car market, tends to favour petrol engines.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Matt

Maybe in Europe, but the WORLD car market, tends to favour petrol engines.

Which world market is that? US car market has completely collapsed. Brazil since long are already doing E85, in Russia Gas cars are quite common, Kina for sure doesnt want to have 300 Million new cars the next 10 years running Petrol so they are looking at alternatives as well. People around the world will buy what is cheap and accessible and dont specifically dream about "I want a PETROL car".

[awrb]

Originally Posted by stedevil

The details in the interview was not deeper than that unfortunately.

That's a shame, I'd like to know what the information was that sparked his comment

Originally Posted by gwyllion

BMW made a homologation special (2600 cars): the 320si with a special engine.
[/url]

This is within the rules is it not? If there is a minimum number of cars which need to be produced, and they produced them, that's within the rules. SEAT and Chevy could have done the same.

I'm not just saying this to try and defend BMW, but out of the three, they seem to have been the least whiney. I may be wrong, but I've seen no reports of them chasing dispensations for nothing.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by awrb

This is within the rules is it not?

Yes it is allowed.

Though personally I think the limit set for these homologation specials is far too low. I would add at least a 0 at the end, if not more, to ensure it really is "real cars racing". The current 2500 cars is not really a limit to a company producing up market sportscars.

[awrb]

I agree with that. I don't really like homologation specials, it adds to the cost so much. But was the limit lowered when BMW had the idea of the si, or did they just see the opportunity in the rules.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by awrb

I agree with that. I don't really like homologation specials, it adds to the cost so much. But was the limit lowered when BMW had the idea of the si, or did they just see the opportunity in the rules.

Opportunity in the rules, and it's not by far the first time it's been done through history. They keep pushing the minimum number of cars up in itsy bitsy steps, from time to time.

[awrb]

I think for these new rules they need to just set them out and leave them. Don't mess with them, and don't leave too many variations. It is interesting to have FWD diesel vs FWD petrol vs RWD petrol, but if that leads to all of these equalisation rulings it defeats the entire object. You don't get to see which system works best.

Back to BMW, I can't see what they've done to grab at dispensations like the others have, but it's the whole culture of WTCC now. The participants really cannot be given a say in the rules, it just means everyone fights for what THEY want, not what the championship wants.

[helterskelter]

I think Seat are not to blame for developing the best car, BMW are not to blame for complaining about the Seats being too fast.
Certainly BMW should solve some problems they have inside, like the fact that there are 3 separate teams working on their own, which is just silly. On the other hand, it is true that the Seats were faster in Curitiba. Did anybody bother looking at the sector times and the detailed laptimes during the race? Look at Yvan's pace (not best lap, pace) and Farfus'.
True that Yvan=1.25.6 and Augusto=1.25.7 in terms of best laptime, but Yvan was nearly always under the 1.26 (7 times out of 11, taking off the start and the laps under safety car). Augusto only did 3 laps under 1.26 (one of which is 1.25.993), the rest of it is never below 1.26.2.
Maybe taking the average laptimes in the race would be more effective in terms of ballast attribution.
I took Farfus just as an example, but Hernandez is more or less in the same situation. Couldn't count Zanardi because of his problems due to his extra-weight, Jorg because he came in after his car had been damaged (similar situation to Farfus, anyway) and Priaulx because he had a deflating tyre.
It's normal that BMW moan, as much as Chevy do and Seat do.
What I really can't see, I say it again, is how Puig can say his car is the third best in the championship, and that BMW and Chevy are clearly faster. It's true that Seat are more effective as a team, but it's not like you win the championship with any car with the right drivers and engineers: you still need a car that's faster than the others', because Huff, Menu, Priaulx, Jorg, Farfus and many others aren't just there dancing, they're great professionists as well and drive in a superb way.
Having said that, I still want to point out that I would like BMW to adopt a Seat-style set of team. They'll never do it, but i guess RBM and ROAL would be particularly happy to see that happen.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

True that Yvan=1.25.6 and Augusto=1.25.7 in terms of best laptime, but Yvan was nearly always under the 1.26

But also remember to factor in that Muller was in the front, with no pressure from the back what so ever and Farfus was smack in the middle of the action with "enemies" all around him. Naturally he cant in this situation do lap after lap at 100% of his potential. Same applies to the rest BMW drivers you mention.

What I really can't see, I say it again, is how Puig can say his car is the third best in the championship, and that BMW and Chevy are clearly faster.

Well, he wouldnt do his job if he didnt say that. As always, when he sais something, it's best taken with a pinch of salt. Just the same as when Roy or Mario sais something. Personally I was surprised how evenly matched the cars looked on track. Even Chevy bringing a brand new car was surprisingly up on pace and would certainly have been in big points scoring positions in at least race 2 if not ALL 3 of their drivers would basically had to start from the back of the grid. And the pace in the BMW was certainly there as well, when properly set up. And btw, Curitiba (not to mention next race) and it's high location was always supposed to give an edge to the TD.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by awrb

I think for these new rules they need to just set them out and leave them. Don't mess with them, and don't leave too many variations. It is interesting to have FWD diesel vs FWD petrol vs RWD petrol, but if that leads to all of these equalisation rulings it defeats the entire object. You don't get to see which system works best.

How to do things very much depends on what POV one has on motorsports. Is it A) Pure entertainment, that should be absolutely fair and equal. B) Marketing and development for carbrands.

Personally I think the former is best handled in 1 make series, where everybody is racing exactly the same material. For WTCC, with several brands, for natural reasons B is more close to what we have.

I like watching both types, A, because of it's "the best guy/team wins" nature and B because it's the origin of motorsports and actually leads to progress in technology. But the running organization needs to be strong enough to properly manage brands marketing "needs" vs fair play, which WTCC at times sadly has not managed as good as i would have wished.

[Winchester]

I find this series to be increasingly like F1 - I watch because it intrigues and exasperates as much as it entertains.

The new qualifying system was a disaster, then the races were just bizarre. It wouldn't be the good 'ol FIA if they didn't slap about 150 penalties for the most trivial reasons on various drivers. Larini's in particular was appalling.

Then the second race was just daft with the SEATs winning so easily. I find their drafting most tedious, but I'm with the people who say BMW would be equally as good if they used their cars as a team better. J Muller was as quick as the SEATs in the wet, all the others ballsed up their setups. And there was nothing between them in the dry - track position, like F1, seems to be the key.

I'm sure I'm not the only one too who gets frustrated at the short races and relative lack of action. Either have two longer races, or three short ones like the BTCC.
I don't understand why they sit there for 15 minutes on the grid before the race so some Eurosport guys can stick cameras in their cars. Why not do something else, like race for example?

[Matt]

I'm going to have to agree with Martin and John in the pre-race shenanigans, 95% of motor racing fand do NOT care about the technology crap. stedevil, you're one of the VERY few minority who disagrees. Ban the diesel, and get some proper sounding racecars.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Matt

95% of motor racing fand do NOT care about the technology crap.

It's not about what the fans wants, it's about what the people paying for it wants and the budgets available for them. The fans will never ever pay the full costs at the gate for anything but a low tech, low flare local event.

[helterskelter]

Stedevil, you are right about Curitiba, but more in general, also having a look at some other races from last year, the Leon looks more consistent while the BMW seems to have better peaks of performance during the race but has more difference in between the laps, which may also explain why BMW often set the fastest lap. This is just an idea I have looking at the laptimes, not a definite idea, maybe, as you are handy in providing data, stats and so on, it might be fun for you and for us to verify this theory I have that, being based on a not so deep research, may be wrong.
I agree with Winchester, the races are a bit too short. I wouldn't switch to the three races, but making them 20% longer (60km races) would give major benefits to the show, i believe.