Time to re-invent touring car racing (again)?

[racer69]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Because the costs were silly and manufacturers won't necessarily want to race repmobiles?

The costs only got silly from 1995 onwards when the FIA took over the rule-making for class 2, wings were allowed and so on....prior to then the formula was quite fine.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by racer69

The costs only got silly from 1995 onwards when the FIA took over the rule-making for class 2, wings were allowed and so on....prior to then the formula was quite fine.

Moral of the story, whatever you do, don't let the FIA touch it! Other examples include F1, ITC, WRC and so on...

[johntt]

Originally Posted by medius

Good idea, but I can see a manufacturer producing homologation specials (moreso than now) for certain styles of tracks, pushing the costs up.

By that do you mean making a high downforce low power model for twisty tracks and vice versa for fast tracks?

If so, you could stop that by homologating the cars at the start of the season and not allowing the teams to change the package until the end of the season, or maybe allow allow changes in the package at set points e.g. every four rounds.

[racer69]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

Moral of the story, whatever you do, don't let the FIA touch it! Other examples include F1, ITC, WRC and so on...

...Group A touring cars, the original WTCC, Group C Sportscars etc etc....

But if you don't let the FIA touch it they go and try to start a rival they can control (GP2 vs F2)....actually back in the day they even used to start rival series to one's they did control (Procar)

[the sniper]

I asked Alan Gow what he thought there would be after S2000, he ripped my question apart a bit but I still kind of got a bit of an answer from him. Well, kind of...

http://www.btcc.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6473

[stedevil]

Thanks for that interesting Q & A Sniper

Re: FIA messing things up, the only thing that can possibly said to their defence is that lately they at least seem to slowly learn from all their previous mistakes and slowly but surely fix things. Sad it in many cases has taken them a decade.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Gow mentioned a very interesting thing right there: "That's exactly how Super Touring (which were originally designed for the UK), and later S2000 (which were designed for international use), came about...."

Well then, why is S2000 in such better shape in the national series with twice as many manufacturers then WTCC when it wasnt even designed for them? IMHO, it wouldnt be hard to design a new set of regulations that would suit the national series even better then S2000 and that would see an even bigger feild of semi-factory teams, national companys/teams building their own cars with some help from the factory/importers, just like the ST days in BTCC and many teams in both STCC and BTCC today.

[werner]

I think it has to do with the FIA buraucracy. It is probably much easier to get a car nationally homologated then internationally. So for privateers that may be technically able to prepare a car of a brand of a manufacturer that is not officially involved in the WTCC, the administrative burden would be to hard and costly, or maybe even, when the manufacturer doesn't want to permit the entrance) impossible to enter that car. That team will be forced to use the 14th Seat or the 26th BMW...
That means that the rules itself aren't bad for attracting several brands of cars, exept for the international homologation procedure.
Correct me if i'm wrong btw, i'm just speculating about the possible anwer

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by werner

That means that the rules itself aren't bad for attracting several brands of cars, exept for the international homologation procedure.

I beg to differ, with a more attractive set of regulations for semi-factory teams we would have even bigger feilds, most teams in STCC has some support from the Swedish importers, if even very little. Had the rules been written in a way that reduces developing costs slightly more (like the BTC-Touring cars) with more strict rules on the suspension and drivetrain (which where also more robust) and especially way reduced mentainence costs (which are pure silly right now with tons of parts only lasting one race) I'm sure we would have a few more manufacturers in STCC right now, Opel for example, and a new Merc maybe. On a national level like STCC they dont really care if SEAT race against Audi as it has 2 different importers that choose to spend their money their own way with no input from VAG themselves in Germany, thats why we will always have more different cars in STCC and BTCC then WTCC will ever have, something they should seriously cuntinue building on.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

I beg to differ, with a more attractive set of regulations for semi-factory teams we would have even bigger feilds, most teams in STCC has some support from the Swedish importers, if even very little. Had the rules been written in a way that reduces developing costs slightly more (like the BTC-Touring cars) with more strict rules on the suspension and drivetrain (which where also more robust) and especially way reduced mentainence costs (which are pure silly right now with tons of parts only lasting one race) I'm sure we would have a few more manufacturers in STCC right now, Opel for example, and a new Merc maybe. On a national level like STCC they dont really care if SEAT race against Audi as it has 2 different importers that choose to spend their money their own way with no input from VAG themselves in Germany, thats why we will always have more different cars in STCC and BTCC then WTCC will ever have, something they should seriously cuntinue building on.

Hear hear, the BTC rules made sense. They did not loose out to S2000 because S2000 was superior.

[Bramzel]

The BTC rules also made ugly cars with weird sidepods

[werner]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

and especially way reduced mentainence costs (which are pure silly right now with tons of parts only lasting one race)

Maybe to reduce costs the WTCC should paradoxally include 1 very long race, witch offcource should be driven with the same parts as the other races. If you for instance have 1 1000km-race, then every car that get's to the finisch there must also probably be able to do 5-6 weekends in a row with the same parts. That means that in most championships the cars should get a large rebuild once a year.

Wasn't the Nordschleife mentioned some time ago?

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by werner

Maybe to reduce costs the WTCC should paradoxally include 1 very long race, witch offcource should be driven with the same parts as the other races. If you for instance have 1 1000km-race,

And TV is going to love that, won't they

[THIM]

Endurance race would be great occasion for Seat to get another advantage, as their front tyres won't last long...

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by werner

Maybe to reduce costs the WTCC should paradoxally include 1 very long race, witch offcource should be driven with the same parts as the other races. If you for instance have 1 1000km-race, then every car that get's to the finisch there must also probably be able to do 5-6 weekends in a row with the same parts. That means that in most championships the cars should get a large rebuild once a year.

Wasn't the Nordschleife mentioned some time ago?

I dont think thats the answer, STCC and BTCC has many cars that are nationally homoligated and will never race in WTCC so that wouldnt change anything where the changes are needed.
The problem lies within the technical regulations of the S2000 cars (as I've said several times before) and it needs to be changed, remember the SuperTourers where built to run sprint races too, and yet they could to the Bathurst 1000 flat out for 7 hours turning racelaps only 1 to 2 sec slower then qual laps, and reaching topspeeds of almost 270km/h. And the 98 poletime was 2.14.9 which is about 5 sec slower then what the V8s run, so they wherent even slow laps. Not many S2000 cars can do that, if any.

[Dead-Eye]

I'm pretty sure there have been S2000 cars in the Nürburgring 24h.

[werner]

@ Dead Eye: Where there any? They must have rebuilt the cars 4 times during the race if the statements about the lasting of parts is true.

@ Duke Toaster: The dramatic track and the existence of 'highlights' will surely cover that problem.

@ THIM: That might be a problem, though the Nordschleife might not be to hard on the tyres due to lower grip, and the relatively large chances on rain.

@ PorschefanNo1: Hmmm, that might be a problem....

[stedevil]

I must say that I do think the 1, perhaps even 2, endurance races with the same parts would be a good solution to make sure teams NEEDS to have a car that sticks together more than 1-2 sprint races.

The problem with the national championships and national homologated cars... well that's for the national series to fix, no? Im sure they are more than capable to properly regulate that if the S2000 cars are put under better restrictions.

[Dead-Eye]

Most recent example: The 320d with the works drivers was a diesel engined version of the S2000 car, wasn't it? Other than that, there were some BMWs and I believe a couple of Alfas too a few years ago. I don't think reliability is the reason we don't see many, though. I remember reading that an S2000 car simply costs more to run and buy than something built exclusively for the Nordschleife regs.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Most recent example: The 320d with the works drivers was a diesel engined version of the S2000 car, wasn't it? Other than that, there were some BMWs and I believe a couple of Alfas too a few years ago. I don't think reliability is the reason we don't see many, though. I remember reading that an S2000 car simply costs more to run and buy than something built exclusively for the Nordschleife regs.

Its not the reliability that is the issue, but rather as you said, the runningcosts are too high and shouldnt need to be for this kind of cars. The runningcosts are primarily rebuild of engines and drivetrain that are too expensive and too finely tuned, and I also belive the fwd cars are much harder on the drivetrains (they should be). And to be honest the reliability is not good on the S2000 cars anyway, driveshafts snaps easily (has happend a few times in STCC this year) and the front suspension mountings broke on the Chevy at Mantorp in qualifying without hitting anything, that just shouldnt happend on a racecar. The thing is, with S2000 they are not allowed to change a few key parts (have to be just as on the roadcar), which makes them weak, and needs a lot of rebuilds, instead of having as BTC-Touring regs had, they instead had drawn out exactly how the front wheelhubs had to look like (for example) and therefor they got more robust and designed for racing, and the teams wherent allowed to finetune them anything and couldnt spend any money on developing them.
And also, on the 24h of the Ring you dont drive flatout, far from it, at the Bathurst 1000 in the ST days they really did drive flatout through the whole race, and without detuning the engines even.

[gttouring]

while some of the ideas are good simply pointing out that the cars break so easily in the current S2000 well it best be changed. this is a simple Duh...
i do like the idea of a long race to ensure that cars are built tough. and a long distance race is great anyway as the skills of the teams and drivers and its great fun when the cars are rubber ed and dirty and fighting within an inch of exhaustion...
i would think some spec built components would help reliability and of course even some things up a bit..
i am not sure outside of Spec ECU (perish the thought) that you can mandate rev limits well and keep reliability. perhaps a 2.5L rule for engines to maintain the power levels or up by little and have more flexability- i don't know if a smaller engine is better for racing longevity (2.0 or 1.5 turbo) although a 2.0 turbo can get some great power and be manufacturer centred,,,