[BTCC] Rounds 1,2,3 Brands Hatch Indy 2017

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

wonder if they flat out told Honda that the Tourer is garbage and they need to ditch it

Far from it. The existing Civic was coming to the end of its run in 2013, and the new Type-R wouldn't be available until 2015, so an interim car was required.
Honda were looking at promoting the Tourer, and held discussions with TD over a possible entry. Honda wanted assurances from TD that it could be a race winner, and TD took on the challenge to try and race the marketing tool. They backed this up with results in the season.
When the Type-R was available for 2015, the natural progression was made.
Far from being ditched as garbage, the Civic Tourer can be viewed upon as a car that delivered 4 race wins, 6 fastest laps, and a 3rd place in the championship.

Was it the perfect car to race with - from a results perspective no, but from a marketing perspective then yes.

That is precisely why BMR/Subaru need to get the Levorg sorted quickly. The purpose of Subaru's entry is to promote their estate car fitted with a boxer engine, and to demonstrate that it is at least on par with other cars.
I hope they get it competitive soon, to keep Subaru happy. When you read Subaru's marketing of the Levorg, you can see why they want the package to stay as close to their ethos as possible, and a move to a different engine would negate that.

'Estate car practicality. All-Wheel Drive confidence. Sports Tourer comfort, handling and sheer driving fun. Effortless on the motorway. Exhilarating on the coast road.'
'The Boxer engine used in the Levorg [...]. There’s less vibration. And power delivery is smoother. As the engine weight can sit lower, the vehicle handles better'

[KA]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

That is precisely why BMR/Subaru need to get the Levorg sorted quickly. The purpose of Subaru's entry is to promote their estate car fitted with a boxer engine, and to demonstrate that it is at least on par with other cars.
I hope they get it competitive soon, to keep Subaru happy. When you read Subaru's marketing of the Levorg, you can see why they want the package to stay as close to their ethos as possible, and a move to a different engine would negate that.

'Estate car practicality. All-Wheel Drive confidence. Sports Tourer comfort, handling and sheer driving fun. Effortless on the motorway. Exhilarating on the coast road.'
'The Boxer engine used in the Levorg [...]. There’s less vibration. And power delivery is smoother. As the engine weight can sit lower, the vehicle handles better'

Spot on- the boxer engine is such a a fundamental part of Subaru's DNA in motorsport, that I can't imagine the idea of BMR being allowed to ditch it has even crossed the radar of either team or manufacturer- I reckon there'd be more chance of Plato phoning Matt Neal up to ask if Dynamics fancied building a batch of Civics for BMR....

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It's becoming standard for them now with the UKL platform they use for the mini.

The X1 and 2-series have already gone down that route, and the 1-Series is following suit.
Hardly a surprise given this: 'Speaking to analysts following the release of BMW’s 2009 financial results last week, CEO Norbert Reithofer revealed that 80 percent of 1-series owners believe they are driving a front-wheel drive car.'

Exactly. Most people, most of the time would not have a clue if the car they're looking at in a showroom (or driving) is fwd, rwd or 4wd. I would expect that WSR will end up running the new fwd 1 series within a year or so of it's introduction in showrooms... assuming the BMW deal runs that long - the car is slated for early 2019 in the UK. Some way off yet.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by BLiTZ

I thought it was a case of Team Dynamics built the Tourer to keep Honda UK interested in Sponsoring the team (helping them promote the new model) and bridging the gap until the Type R was eligible the following year?

Spot on, Matt Neal said this in an interview back in the day. It was a bloody good car too - most teams can only dream of the success the Dynamics boys have.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

TD took on the challenge to try and race the marketing tool.

Was it the perfect car to race with - from a marketing perspective then yes.

And what a way to market the car...



Got to be better than a driver appearance in a showroom talking about how good the road car compares to their one on the track!

[redshoes]

So much for Subaru's last minute weight penalty. Gow has busted that one.

http://www.btccforum.net/forum/showt...sed-on-Levorgs

Originally Posted by Alan Gow

There's been no late or fundamental changes.

Just to clarify, it's not related to front/rear weight distribution; it's a calculation to even-out the centre of gravity (CoG) difference between the flat-four and inline-four engines when mounted in RWD cars.

The team have had the CoG calculation since it was done by RML, agreed and issued on January 20th at the BTCC Design Group meeting - the team is a member of that Design Group.

In very simple terms it's a graph that provides the team with a sliding-scale combination of some weight added to the front bulkhead or an increase in the sprung-mass floor height of the car (but not the front and rear aero ride-heights). Providing it meets the line on the graph then the team can decrease the weight on the bulkhead and increase the floor height, or vice-versa, to suit the balance of their car.

On the Wednesday before Brands Hatch there was a minor re-calculation of only -2.5kg...and actually that was a re-calculation in favour of the Subaru. But other than that, nothing has changed since it was issued on January 20th so I can only assume that any significant 'late changes' to the set-up of the cars must have been ones that the team themselves decided upon.

[BLiTZ]

Originally Posted by redshoes

So much for Subaru's last minute weight penalty. Gow has busted that one.

http://www.btccforum.net/forum/showt...sed-on-Levorgs

Is it possible (and I know any team worth their salt would be foolish to do so but it might just be possible so go with me on this) that they hadn't been testing with the revised height/weight in place and only implemented it the week before Brands' thinking it wouldn't make such a big deal?

Considering they had all winter and knew about the changes since earlier in the year, I always got the impression that BMR had sat on their laurels a bit as they weren't out testing to the same (publicly aware) degree as the other top runners or even posting any updates on progress. Heck, from those recent pictures Sutton posted on Twitter when he was getting his seat fitted they hadn't even stripped the old livery off the cars (most teams do that pretty early on in the off-season and test in plain colours). It's like they parked the cars up for three months thinking they didnt have much to sort and only dusted them off a couple of weeks before media day.

Perhaps they really thought their NGTC unicorn was unstoppable until someone thought "oh **** we haven't added the 2017 changes yet". Kinda ties in with what Cole said that he'd tested the car and it was spot on then a few days before he finds out they've changed it, as if it was just a case of running a different setup compared to the testing sessions and media day surely reverting back to those would get them closer to the pace they'd shown before.

Either way with Gow's clarification, there's either more at play behind the scenes or they've dropped the ball. Because if I knew there were big changes coming into play (new tyres, new weight and height setup etc) I'd have been out testing the hell out of the setup like Dynamics, Motorbase and WSR so I could hit the ground running. Considering BMR did the most testing of anyone in 2015 (when Plato and Turkington first joined with the Passats) this year seems really out of character. (I wonder if they've got a much smaller budget this year, Silverline dropping out must be hurting and may also explain why Warren has had to forfeit for another pay driver, perhaps they had no budget to test?!).

[Sodemo]

I appreciate the clarification, however its this level of transparency that needs to be disclosed when changes are made to a team.

So the basic story is it looks like it was a team "failure" then of some kind, either not testing the changes at all, or testing with the wrong changes etc.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by redshoes

So much for Subaru's last minute weight penalty. Gow has busted that one.

http://www.btccforum.net/forum/showt...sed-on-Levorgs

Something doesn't seem right in the way that BMR/Plato are engaging with the media, and the messages they are putting across.

It was first seen in 2015, when they had issues between drivers doing what is right for the team, and not helping each other to success:
'BMR boss Warren Scott said the situation was the result of a "miscommunication" from the team. However, Team BMR issued a statement on Wednesday evening confirming Smith did ignore a team order in race one'

Then last year they had the very public reprimand from TOCA over their complaints about the homologation of the inlet manifold:
Gow - 'for Jason to still complain and infer that they have not been given the “right level of performance” is simply bizarre. It’s actually borderline offensive'
BMR - 'we believe these test conditions do not translate to actual ‘on track’ straight line speed performance and recommend revisions moving forward if we are to achieve the common goal of ‘on track’ speed equalisation'
TOCA - 'This we find incomprehensible. There has never been a common goal of ‘on track speed equalisation’.'

Then the timing of Turkington's departure, and having it revealed by the driver himself first:
Turkington (14 Jan 17) - 'My exit from BMR was only yesterday, so I need some time to absorb the news and work out the next path'

And now the latest exchange between BMR/Plato and TOCA/Gow:
Plato - 'It was a disaster to be honest, a curveball came in in the week before Brands Hatch. There were some adjustments late to the cars and now we’re working out how to try to make them work.'
Gow - 'The team have had the CoG calculation since it was done by RML, agreed and issued on January 20th. On the Wednesday before Brands Hatch there was a minor re-calculation of only -2.5kg...and actually that was a re-calculation in favour of the Subaru.'

The team seem to have done a tremendous job so far with the car, but I am worried about their media relations. I assume that their backers (Adrian Flux and Subaru) get their media releases from the team, and they must be concerned that they have published releases on their respective websites that appear to be factually inaccurate.
BMR are not into the second year of their three-year deal with Subaru, and I wonder how closely Subaru are following proceedings, and must hope that it gets rectified soon.

I know it is still early days in this season, but as BMR are approaching the half-way point in their Subaru deal there is likely to be a review of the contract. It would be a massive shame if Subaru were put off from continuing to support the BTCC due to some misplaced media interaction.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by BLiTZ

Is it possible (and I know any team worth their salt would be foolish to do so but it might just be possible so go with me on this) that they hadn't been testing with the revised height/weight in place and only implemented it the week before Brands' thinking it wouldn't make such a big deal?

Because if I knew there were big changes coming into play (new tyres, new weight and height setup etc) I'd have been out testing the hell out of the setup like Dynamics, Motorbase and WSR so I could hit the ground running.

A possibility might be that the team had their 2016 data (tyres, suspension etc) and felt that the biggest change to the car might come in the weight distribution and not the new tyres. Therefore, any testing they did may have been carried out with 2016 tyres, and it is the rubber that has caused the discrepancy (which they only put on for the first time on the Wednesday before Brands)?
Do the new tyres bring with them a new wheel/brake package?

[S griffin]

It's clear that BMR didn't do something right with regards to this season's regulations and have been caught out. And yes, this isn't the first time the team have been contradictory with what they say in the media.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by BLiTZ

Heck, from those recent pictures Sutton posted on Twitter when he was getting his seat fitted they hadn't even stripped the old livery off the cars (most teams do that pretty early on in the off-season and test in plain colours). It's like they parked the cars up for three months thinking they didnt have much to sort and only dusted them off a couple of weeks before media day.

I don't think that's entirely fair. They had been tested, just not with that car. For development work there was no need to use all four cars; they could just test with one or two, which they did. Since there was no major change in livery and/or sponsor, there was no need to strip the previous year's livery off and test in plain colours.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I appreciate the clarification, however its this level of transparency that needs to be disclosed when changes are made to a team.

I know that FIA and WTCC gets a lot of flack at times, but that is one thing they do well that I wish the BTCC would follow. Go on their website and they post copies of every Steward's Decision; there will be a list of compensation weights prior to every meeting; and even technical waivers. Everything is more open and accessible.

If those sort of technical decisions had been published at the time, then we would have avoided weeks of arguing and flack from the fan.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

I know that FIA and WTCC gets a lot of flack at times, but that is one thing they do well that I wish the BTCC would follow. Go on their website and they post copies of every Steward's Decision; there will be a list of compensation weights prior to every meeting; and even technical waivers. Everything is more open and accessible.

If those sort of technical decisions had been published at the time, then we would have avoided weeks of arguing and flack from the fan.

or someone could have just asked the boss of btcc on his own forum earlier 😀

just listing technical decisions etc still wouldn't have given all the background info and answers to a specific question that Gow gave.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by redshoes

If those sort of technical decisions had been published at the time, then we would have avoided weeks of arguing and flack from the fan.

But who makes the decision within the BTCC to publish (or not).
I understand that a lot of these decisions are made within the BTCC Technical Working Group (TWG), which a lot of the teams are members of. Is it the teams, TOCA, or some other entity that chooses to keep these details private?
We only tend to hear about these matters when teams make a complaint about some of the outcomes, and TOCA/Alan Gow have to respond. On the occasions when all the teams are happy with a situation, we don't tend to hear anything and probably have no reason to see the information.

I wonder whether it is a case that the drivers are not fully appreciative of what happens within the TWG, and it is their comments that contradict what their engineers already know?
The two recent BMR cases seem to come off the back of Plato's comments. There are probably others that have resulted from drivers' expressing frustration in the past.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

or someone could have just asked the boss of btcc on his own forum earlier

Why should people have to keep asking. After every race he would just be inundated with a flood of 'is it true that...' questions from fans.

To give you an idea of what I am talking about regarding technical info
http://www.fia.com/events/world-tour...e-touring-cars
Of course the sharp-eyed amongst you may recognise one of the signatures on every document.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Why should people have to keep asking. After every race he would just be inundated with a flood of 'is it true that...' questions from fans.

To give you an idea of what I am talking about regarding technical info
http://www.fia.com/events/world-tour...e-touring-cars
Of course the sharp-eyed amongst you may recognise one of the signatures on every document.

but just publishing tech bulletins doesnt tell the whole story and still wouldnt clarify specific questions. dont know any other major racing series where you can directly and publicly ask the boss and get a quick direct public reply. do you?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

or someone could have just asked the boss of btcc on his own forum earlier 😀

just listing technical decisions etc still wouldn't have given all the background info and answers to a specific question that Gow gave.

He shouldn't have to come out and respond after a ****storm has occurred though. These decisions should be publicly disclosed, that in itself would have likely stopped the storm from happening in the first place as the technical decisions could be dated and documented.

If the public knew of these alterations back when they were done (Jan 20th) then people could have gone into the Brands meeting with that information so therefore any performances could be explained "better".

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

He shouldn't have to come out and respond after a ****storm has occurred though. These decisions should be publicly disclosed, that in itself would have likely stopped the storm from happening in the first place as the technical decisions could be dated and documented.

If the public knew of these alterations back when they were done (Jan 20th) then people could have gone into the Brands meeting with that information so therefore any performances could be explained "better".

maybe your missing my point; theres no ****storm apart from what we created on this forum
he didnt "come out and respond after a ****storm has occured". someone just asked the simple question on his forum and he answered like normal.

theres nothing else ive read in any magazines about any great issues. even plato didnt make a big issue just tried to deflect attention from their problem. i think we created an issue in our own minds that didnt really exist

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

He shouldn't have to come out and respond after a ****storm has occurred though. These decisions should be publicly disclosed, that in itself would have likely stopped the storm from happening in the first place as the technical decisions could be dated and documented.

If the public knew of these alterations back when they were done (Jan 20th) then people could have gone into the Brands meeting with that information so therefore any performances could be explained "better".

You are confusing fans with true followers of motor racing that have a basic understanding of the rules and how teams make their cars go faster. There is a huge gulf between the two. Whilst there many thousands of the former, there are relatively few of the latter, and we tend to be the ones that buy the magazines and belong to forums such as this one.

My sons are both interested in cars and motor racing, primarily because of my interest in them. However, neither of them have the first clue about cars, and what makes them tick. As far as they are concerned, to get from point A to point B, they have to push the start button and then plant their boot to the right hand pedal when in the right gear. That is why I had to explain to one of them (they are twins aged 44) the concept of the Subaru engine last weekend whilst we were watching my grandson playing football. Having seen them last year at Oulton Park (we go to one weekend every year), he couldn't understand why they seemed out of place at Brands the other weekend.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If the public knew of these alterations back when they were done (Jan 20th) then people could have gone into the Brands meeting with that information so therefore any performances could be explained "better".

Has it been confirmed that the late changes Plato is referring to are actually the TOCA imposed CoG adjustments - or could they be something else.

If the public had been paying close attention, then they would have known in November last year that this change would be imposed on the car.
4 Nov 16 - 'At a recent team managers' meeting, representatives of the other outfits on the grid voted in favour of series bosses coming up with a formula to level out the centre of gravity.

Team principal Scott said he was disappointed by the decision, but recognised that this had been done at the behest of rival squads.'

Then BMR technicians would have received the specific calculations following the Design Group meeting in January. The exact details of which the general public have no need to be aware of unless they are building an NGTC car themselves. They recognised this in their team's statement 'the balance of performance applied to us over the winter break has had a big effect'

On the Wednesday, a calculation in favour of Subaru was applied. After this Plato's exact comments are:
'A curveball came in in the week before Brands Hatch. We could not get the cars working properly at all. There were some adjustments late to the cars and now we’re working out how to try to make them work. But the new settings we’ve had to run have thrown a spanner in the works for the time being.'
What he doesn't say is where this curveball has come from, and what 'settings' they now have to run. These could be from RML, TOCA, Dunlop, Subaru or even identified within the team as something that needs to be done for safety or reliability purposes.
Or, perhaps he wasn't aware of the changes over the winter and was only made aware of them in the week before the event, which means it is a miscommunication within the team?

Whichever way, this weekend is definitely shaping up as being one to watch for how all of the Manufacturer entries run.

[BLiTZ]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A possibility might be that the team had their 2016 data (tyres, suspension etc) and felt that the biggest change to the car might come in the weight distribution and not the new tyres. Therefore, any testing they did may have been carried out with 2016 tyres, and it is the rubber that has caused the discrepancy (which they only put on for the first time on the Wednesday before Brands)?
Do the new tyres bring with them a new wheel/brake package?

Im not 100% sure, I'm assuming the wheels are tad wider to accommodate the wider rubber (great bit of business for Rimstock if so as they would have had a few hundred wheels to sell) but I don't think I've seen any mention of a bigger diameter so guessing they're still 18". We know there's been changes with the hubs, presumably to deal with the change in offset of the wheels but again that doesn't necessarily mean new brakes.

Originally Posted by redshoes

I don't think that's entirely fair. They had been tested, just not with that car. For development work there was no need to use all four cars; they could just test with one or two, which they did. Since there was no major change in livery and/or sponsor, there was no need to strip the previous year's livery off and test in plain colours.

It just seemed out of character that's all, most teams strip the cars down regardless of livery changes just to start afresh or to repair bodywork etc and all four cars looked to be fully stickered up in the workshop photos suggesting not a lot had been done to them.

[BLiTZ]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Whichever way, this weekend is definitely shaping up as being one to watch for how all of the Manufacturer entries run.

Absolutely! And I get the feeling if Plato isn't up the order by race 3 there's gonna be a few words exchanged (most likely in the heat of the moment).

From what others have since 888 is now essentially BKR (with Ian Harrison hanging around like a bad smell) and has become Warren's junior squad I don't think they're being expected to perform as well as the other manufacturers. But if BMR can't pull through and start winning I think heads will start to roll.

[pimmy]

Originally Posted by BLiTZ

Im not 100% sure, I'm assuming the wheels are tad wider to accommodate the wider rubber (great bit of business for Rimstock if so as they would have had a few hundred wheels to sell) but I don't think I've seen any mention of a bigger diameter so guessing they're still 18". We know there's been changes with the hubs, presumably to deal with the change in offset of the wheels but again that doesn't necessarily mean new brakes.

It was confirmed on the Brands TV coverage that the wheels are the same size as they were previously.

[BLiTZ]

Fair do's, must just have a squarer profile (vs a slight stretch) of tyre to fit to the rim as there's a limit to how much wider you can go with a tyre before you need a wider rim.