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

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

whilst 18 S2000 cars in Sweden doesn't sound good it's not exactly the largest market in the world

Indeed, and ironically, 2 of the biggest flaws in STCC (low total numbers and the just marginally larger tracks than karting tracks) sort of cansel each other out partially, so the 18 cars actually look a lot better on raceday than it sounds. That most of those 18 cars & drivers are actually competitive and potentially in reach of a podium place of course helps a lot too.

I'm really sad though that the Danes and Swedes cant agree on a way to together run a Scandinavian TCC. Both the quality and the depth of that grid would be absolutely smashing and together Sweden-Denmark-Norway would improve the overall quality of the tracks as well.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

BTC-T was a better set of rules however junking Super 2000 now is a silly idea, and if it is replaced with a 2.5 litre ruleset and there will be a need for everyone to develop a new car straight of the bat. And privateers will love that, won't they.

Well if -big IF, I know - the price tag on the new car is lower than the amount of money they save due to the reduced running costs , they will love it.

Otherwise, there's no need to rush things and the powers that be should be generous with grandfathering older cars. What I really would like to see are cars that are closer to stock but more powerfull than the current crop of cars.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by stedevil

I thought I already had explained, but seems not clearly enough. The 20 year old engine is just a symptom of a problem. The real problem is that there is so little development potential left in the current allowed 2L petrol engine that virtually no manufacturer bothers with developing it.

You could argue that touring cars should be representative of what the man in the street is driving, and if manufacturers are still building road cars with 20 year old engines then the WTCC is an accurate reflection of that and doing exactly what it should.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by redshoes

You could argue that touring cars should be representative of what the man in the street is driving, and if manufacturers are still building road cars with 20 year old engines then the WTCC is an accurate reflection of that and doing exactly what it should.

But they are not really doing that are they. Or do you know of many Ladas with 2L NA engines being sold today? And I'm not even sure Chevy is today selling a car with that old type of engine. My guess is they are running much more up to date designs as well on the road cars.

So even the current participants in many cases had to go through the historybooks to manage to come up with something that would qualify for the S2000 reg format.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by stedevil

I think we can all agree on that the very few manufacturers in WTCC is one of it's major problems, yet many manufaturers will not be joining as long as the format is a 2L petrol engine. Volvo eg has waited several years now on the since long overdue Ethanol regs ( http://www.fiawtcc.com/fiawtcc/sport_sto1147354.shtml )

Pretty much every mass market manufacturer has a 2.0l petrol engine in their lineup, and if they don't they probably have a 2.0l diesel. That's why I don't see the engine regs as the factor that's keeping manufacturers out.

[kristof14]

Originally Posted by stedevil

But they are not really doing that are they. Or do you know of many Ladas with 2L NA engines being sold today? And I'm not even sure Chevy is today selling a car with that old type of engine. My guess is they are running much more up to date designs as well on the road cars.

So even the current participants in many cases had to go through the historybooks to manage to come up with something that would qualify for the S2000 reg format.

30 seconds of research showed that the road going Lacetti uses a 2.0l E-Tec II engine developed in the late 1970's, from what I can see the BMWs on both the road and track use an engine in production from 2004, Honda accord road and race cars use an angine that has been in production since 2001, and SEAT use a VAG group engine that is also available on their road going model in production from about 2005 (I think)

So not only are they racing with engines that are currently available in road cars but not all of them are designs from 20 years ago, in fact only the Chevrolet/Lada engine is from before 2000 as far as I can see (althought the admittedly the Lada is only available with a 1.6l engine)

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Pretty much every mass market manufacturer has a 2.0l petrol engine in their lineup, and if they don't they probably have a 2.0l diesel. That's why I don't see the engine regs as the factor that's keeping manufacturers out.

Interesting conclusion considering I post a link to the very proof that it is keeping manufacturers out.

In any case, I wasn't arguing that no 2L NA petrols exsist in brand lineups, but that they are completely uninterested in spending millions in development to actually develop those engines for racing under the current regulations limits.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by kristof14

So not only are they racing with engines that are currently available in road cars but not all of them are designs from 20 years ago, in fact only the Chevrolet/Lada engine is from before 2000 as far as I can see (althought the admittedly the Lada is only available with a 1.6l engine)

That BMW is still interested in 2L petrol makes sense. They are mainly betting on hydrogen cars for the future, and that tech isn't really ready to compete on the track yet. So petrol still has their focus. I believe the same applies for Honda, at least AFAIK they are also heavily into "hydrogen as fuel" research.

VAG already seems to be dropping petrol. At least I was under the impression that all 2008 TC where diesels and the petrols was just 2007 and older models, but I might be wrong.

Really don't know for sure where GM as a whole is going with their engines in the future, but for SAAB they are definitely pushing low pressure turbo and E85.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by stedevil

And I'm not even sure Chevy is today selling a car with that old type of engine. My guess is they are running much more up to date designs as well on the road cars.

S2000 rules say you have to use an engine based on what is in the road car, so of course Chevy are selling cars using that engine.

Originally Posted by stedevil

Interesting conclusion considering I post a link to the very proof that it is keeping manufacturers out.

Which link was that, the one from the WTCC site about switching to bio-fuel? The only thing that is proof of is that the FIA are jumping on the eco-bandwagon.

Running bio-ethanol doesn't even mean you need a new engine - a few ECU changes and that 20 year old design will happily keep on running. If as you manufacturers don't have a 2.0l petrol engine with which to go racing, how does converting to bio-fuel help?

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by redshoes

S2000 rules say you have to use an engine based on what is in the road car, so of course Chevy are selling cars using that engine.

Lada for 1 cannot claim the same. Also, are the 2L E-Tec II Chevies still in production/sold anywhere? Pretty much every other 2L from GM today is the newer Ecotect (L850 etc), isn't it, and Im sure they would have much preferred to develop a racing engine out of that engine if allowed.

Which link was that, the one from the WTCC site about switching to bio-fuel? The only thing that is proof of is that the FIA are jumping on the eco-bandwagon.

My apologies, back in 2006-2007 that page was also stating that Volvo literally was waiting for these rules to join in 2008. I see now that part has been edited out. Strange they didnt edit more, since it now well into 2008 and the E85 specs still don't exist.

Running bio-ethanol doesn't even mean you need a new engine - a few ECU changes and that 20 year old design will happily keep on running.

You can just do that, but for optimal performance you preferably want a turbo and increased compression as well, to fully make use of the higher octane E85 has. The initial changes are technically very simple, but just not allowed in WTCC.

Also, the power increase from a optimized turbo petrol to turbo E85 can be as much as +25% and +10% torque so + the turbo the engines for sure don't need to be 2L to keep up with the current 2L NA patrols or 2L TDIs. A lowly 1.4 might be enough for the job.

[kristof14]

Originally Posted by stedevil

Lada for 1 cannot claim the same. Also, are the 2L E-Tec II Chevies still in production/sold anywhere? Pretty much every other 2L from GM today is the newer Ecotect (L850 etc), isn't it, and Im sure they would have much preferred to develop a racing engine out of that engine if allowed.

The Ecotec is yet to feature in the Lacetti, this however is probably down to the car being built on an older chassis design and it helps keep the price of the car below the likes of the Vectra. I've no doubt that the Ecotec will be the engine of choice when the new Astra based Lacetti launches next year.

[10tacle]

The Regulation says

The engine used must be derived from the homologated model
modified by the kit.

AutoVAZ/Lada sold a minor sportiv Series called LADA 21106 2.0 16v GTi with the Opel C20XE Engine.
http://polonez.free.fr/essai11016s.html

[kristof14]

well I guess all the cars on the WTCC grid use legitimate engines then!

[stedevil]

Yupp, noone was claiming they dont

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by stedevil

In any case, I wasn't arguing that no 2L NA petrols exsist in brand lineups, but that they are completely uninterested in spending millions in development to actually develop those engines for racing under the current regulations limits.

And what would change that? OK, you can attract a select few manufacturers who have their own special "thing", like Volvo and bioethanol, if you introduce additional regs for that...but beyond that? How does the 2.0l regulation keep out, say, Renault, or Ford, who would have matching engines but just aren't interested? How would different engine regs raise their interest? They'd still have to spend millions to develop a racing engine, no matter to what regs.

[stedevil]

Well, for starters, Volvo cars are just a brand name for Ford nowdays, and Ford has several other brandnames with E85 optimized offerings.

To the more general question of why manufacturers would be more interested in developing technology that isn't already known to be an outdated dead end, I thought I had already pointed out why several times. If I do it one more time Im sure someone will tell me to stop being a parrot

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by stedevil

Well, for starters, Volvo cars are just a brand name for Ford nowdays, and Ford has several other brandnames with E85 optimized offerings.

OK, bad example. Scratch Ford, keep Renault...add Peugeot, perhaps

To the more general question of why manufacturers would be more interested in developing technology that isn't already known to be an outdated dead end, I thought I had already pointed out why several times. If I do it one more time Im sure someone will tell me to stop being a parrot

So far, you have neither stated how an alternative set of rules should look (except the introduction of E85 in S2000, but surely you don't mean to have every car run like that? It's not like that's going to replace petrol engines) nor said why the 2.0l petrol engine, a concept found in most current road cars in the classes we're talking about, including ones that were only recently introduced, is obsolete. It may not be the most cutting edge technology, but it's what is used in current cars.


I agree, it should be possible to use alternatives. Variety is good. But the 2.0l engine is still a common denominator between most cars, so rules including alternatives should be balanced around their performance.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

So far, you have neither stated how an alternative set of rules should look

I'll give it a try:
- Production cars with only safety modifications, and
- production- or sanctioning body approved aftermarket aero-parts
- racing-ECU (maybe spec)
- shocks, brakes, etc.
- No fixed displacement limit, but a maximum of six-cylinders, forced induction is allowed.
- cars have to be approved by the sanctionig body
- no 4-door rule, in fact the use of coupes and hot hatches should be encouraged to make up for not so spectacular aero
- FIA GT3 like pre-season evaluation and performance adjustment
- No factory teams, factories may supply drivers and tech-support

List of possible cars:
- Opel Astra OPC
- Golf GTI
- BMW 128
- Mini Cooper S
- Volvo C30
- Peugeot 308
- Subaru Impreza
- Mercedes CLC 230
- Audi TT
- Renault Megane RS
- Hyundai Genesis Coupe
- Nissan Primera 20V
- Ford Focus ST
- Seat Leon
- Alfa 149
etc...

A big division with cars like Audi A5, Merc CLK, BMW M3, Ford Mustang, new Chevy Camaro, Dodge Challenger, Subaru WRX STi, Mitsubishi Lancer Evo, Nissan 350Z could either run alongside or instead of the smaller cars in DTM.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

So far, you have neither stated how an alternative set of rules should look

If you start to read the thread again you will see me agreeing to other people mentioning things like "smaller turbocharged petrols" and there are at least half a dussen other people suggestion the same. How can you miss all of us suggesting this?

E85 in S2000, but surely you don't mean to have every car run like that?

No, I don't mean that, but I am interested to hear why you would find that in any way an impossibility. JTCC eg runs exclusively on E85 and have 10! different brands participating. Even Camaro Cup here in Sweden is running E85 exclusively in their old carburator V8s.

It's not like that's going to replace petrol engines

Why not? It's a perfect stopgap solution for making old petrol engines a fair bit more enviromentally sound until hydrogen and other better alternatives are mature enough. And once these new better engines reach the market there is still a 20+ year time delay until all old pertol engines are gone. Is your alternative suggestion that we continue to use 100% petrol in these petrol engines for the next 20-30 years?

nor said why the 2.0l petrol engine, a concept found in most current road cars in the classes we're talking about, including ones that were only recently introduced, is obsolete.

I said so many times already. Again, please read the thread. Nobody is interested in reading the same things repeated time and time again.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by stedevil

If you start to read the thread again you will see me agreeing to other people mentioning things like "smaller turbocharged petrols" and there are at least half a dussen other people suggestion the same. How can you miss all of us suggesting this?

That's a vague suggestion, not a reasonable proposal. How big? How to balance them? What chassis regs?

No, I don't mean that, but I am interested to hear why you would find that in any way an impossibility. JTCC eg runs exclusively on E85 and have 10! different brands participating. Even Camaro Cup here in Sweden is running E85 exclusively in their old carburator V8s.

Not impossible at all, I just didn't expect that to be your plan for the new and improved touring car racing.

Why not? It's a perfect stopgap solution for making old petrol engines a fair bit more enviromentally sound until hydrogen and other better alternatives are mature enough. And once these new better engines reach the market there is still a 20+ year time delay until all old pertol engines are gone. Is your alternative suggestion that we continue to use 100% petrol in these petrol engines for the next 20-30 years?

At the time of a global food crisis suggesting a switch to a fuel requiring massive amounts of farmland isn't a solution. Maybe with future technology enabling more efficient production of ethanol.

I said so many times already. Again, please read the thread. Nobody is interested in reading the same things repeated time and time again.

I did. Your argument is that smaller forced induction engines are not only the future, but have already made NA engines obsolete. I'm saying that engines that are used in road cars currently (which is a fact) and probably for the foreseaable future aren't obsolete in regards to racing. And you are either unable or unwilling to react to that. OK, then I'm done here.

@Speed-King: Sounds a bit like DRM...I love it

[kristof14]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

How does the 2.0l regulation keep out, say, Renault, or Ford, who would have matching engines but just aren't interested? How would different engine regs raise their interest? They'd still have to spend millions to develop a racing engine, no matter to what regs.

With these two examples I don't think they have any problem with the regs it's just that they concentrate on other areas. renault have F1 and the World series as well as many regional championships such as Formula Renault and Clio Cup as well as a super 1600 rally car.

Ford have gone mainly the rallying route with WRC and single make championships for it's European motorsport whilst concentrating on NASCAR in the states.

With other manufacturers you have Mercedes in F1 and DTM, Peugeot/Citroen are involved in sportscars and WRC respectively, VAG are represented in sportscars and have decided that touring cars is also viable with Seat, Honda have decided the way forward for them lies in bikes or in the States via Acura in sportscars, Nissan is now owned by Renault so they have decided to concentrate on Japan via Super GT, Toyota have F1 and Nascar.

Ultimately I don't think there is any problem with S2000 regs, Super Touring became too expensive and almost killed off touring car racing, since Super 2000 came along the BTCC has started to attract the attention it used to, we now have an FIA World Championship, the Scandanavian championships are better known outside of their own countries.

You have to realise that it's not the regs that are keeping manufacturers out of touring cars, it's more that they feel there are higher profile routes to take their brands, remember that Touring Cars, whilst it uses cars probably most closely related to the cars you see on the road, is very much behind F1, WRC and possibly sportscars in the amount of public interest it receives. An example of this is being discussed in another thread regarding Andy Priaulx receiving an MBE, he's a 3 time world champion yet Lewis Hamilton receives more public recognition then he does.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

That's a vague suggestion, not a reasonable proposal. How big? How to balance them? What chassis regs?

When did I state that chassis regs need to be changed?
The exact size of petrol turbos and restrictions on them I think is much better handled by the recently hired FIA/WTCC engine expert. Im sure he can do a lot better job with a sientific approach in getting the correct balance than I can by theorizing on a forum.

At the time of a global food crisis suggesting a switch to a fuel requiring massive amounts of farmland isn't a solution.

Most of the people in the world that are starving live in some of the richest countries (producing oil/gold/diamonds) governed by dictators or complete anarchy (local warlords etc). On top of that, for decades, the rich western world have overproduced and subseqently dumped world market prices for food, completely crippling 3rd world farmers chance to survive. And the few 3rd world food producers that has still managed to survive we today continue to try to kill off by putting import taxes on them.

Thus the current debate in fassion of how we need to "feed the world" I find very naive and extremely well manufactured propaganda. It's "we" that to a large part *ucked up the situation to begin with to make these people not have food on their tables (destroying their farmers and supporting their dictators providing "us" with eg oil).

SO IMO it's about bloody time that farmers can start earn their living without massive governmental subsidies, and whatever else we do now, continuing to pollute for the next 30 years with petrol engines for sure will not help anyone, starving or not.

Maybe with future technology enabling more efficient production of ethanol.

Ethanol, methanol, bio disel, bio gas, solar-wind-water electricity, to name a few, are all today massively underused. We need to start get all the balls rolling, not theorize on which ball is the best for the next 10 years.

I did. Your argument is that smaller forced induction engines are not only the future, but have already made NA engines obsolete. I'm saying that engines that are used in road cars currently (which is a fact) and probably for the foreseaable future aren't obsolete in regards to racing.

The perfect example to support what I say and refute what you say is already brought up in this very thread. GM (Chevy & Lada) AFAICT from all of their many many brands have only 1 single car that on SOME markets have a 2L NA petrol. AFAIK, all other 2L engines on their current offerings on all brands run with turbos and the Ecotech engine.

So I'm not unwilling to react, but I again have to repeat, the facts to answer you have already been posted in this thread.

[kristof14]

Originally Posted by stedevil

The perfect example to support what I say and refute what you say is already brought up in this very thread. GM (Chevy & Lada) AFAICT from all of their many many brands have only 1 single car that on SOME markets have a 2L NA petrol. AFAIK, all other 2L engines on their current offerings on all brands run with turbos and the Ecotech engine.

GM probably don't care if they aren't using a widely available spec car as long as the car is performing well and wining races, they don't compete to entertain die hard motorsport fans like the people on this forum, they compete to promote their brand and I can think of few better ways than beating someone like BMW on the track (although this doesn't happen too often)

[Dead-Eye]

The perfect example to support what I say and refute what you say is already brought up in this very thread. GM (Chevy & Lada) AFAICT from all of their many many brands have only 1 single car that on SOME markets have a 2L NA petrol. AFAIK, all other 2L engines on their current offerings on all brands run with turbos and the Ecotech engine.

So WTCC with it's irrelevant and obsolete engine rules actually attracted manufacturers that don't even have the right base engine, while the manufacturers that do have the right engines have plenty of reasons not to enter that don't have anything at all to do with the regulations. Thanks for proving my point.

Look, all I've been saying all the time is that manufacturers should have a choice in what they want to run, be it NA, FI petrol, Diesel or other alternative fuels. You will not convince me that summarily sending the 2.0l NA to the museum (to use your own words), meaning banning it, is the right way. If there are advantages to using other engines, they will be used (especially if the touring car bureau encourages it - if a concept has advantages in a certain area they shouldn't be equalised away, at least up to a point).
Although I believe that WTCC's main problems are not the regulations and I agree with kristof14 on that point.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by kristof14

Ford... ...Peugeot/Citroen... ...VAG(Seat, VW, Audi)... ...Toyota

I would just like to point out that all of these manufacturers/brands are represented in JTCC, which as I mentioned, run on E85. If the S2000 regs where more permissive as to exaclty what engine you may use, I don't see why those already in JTCC couldn't also be in eg WTCC, at least as independents.