STCC NGTC Rules

[davidjones]

so looks like the stcc is going to move to NGTC, with a couple of modifications (rear wheel drive and uprated power output of 380bph from the start. if this goes ahead, Alan Gow's gamble looks as if it may pay off.

article at touringcar times

with 3 teams expecting to be switching to NGTC engines next year, Aon and Dynamics building their own and AmD Milltek Racing are either to build their own or use the Swindon power plant, things are starting to look up.

[nickyf1]

This shows that the NGTC package is, in theory anyway, a versatile rules package, which bodes well for the future of the spec.

[FIRE]

NGTC rules but not 100%....
So if Chevrolet wants to race in WTCC, BTCC and ScTCC like they do now they have to build 3 different cars (and engines)....Why not following the BTCC and their NGTC rules?

Of course 380 bhp sounds great but do you need it on the small Swedish and Danish tracks?

[I Rosputnik]

Although I've already said this in the STCC future thread, I think it makes more sense in this thread.

It's going to be very bizarre now, that the WTCC will be using the slowest cars in touring cars. What do you aspire to now?

[Valker]

Originally Posted by FIRE

NGTC rules but not 100%....

And thats great news! Should be cheaper than S2000 (or "S1600T") but more power than NGTC and RWD make them proper racing cars.

NGTC spec cars look quite nice in renderings but on technical side, they are like BTC-T, but even more boring.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

It's dumb. Firstly, I'm OK with RWD space-frame cars because they're essentialy prototypes, but you can't have production based body shells with RWD instead of FWD. AWD like in WRC, no problem, but I find the FWD-RWD change a lot harder to swallow. Secondly, you're not going to be able to easily transfer cars from Britain to Sweden and back. Thirdly, it's way too expensive. If you're going to do your own thing, do it cheap, like the Camaro Cup. Those cars cost, what, a fourth of NGTC-SWE? And they put on a damn fine show. And if it was a pure Camaro Cup-style spaceframe/fiberglass body, and manufacturer who wanted to take part could do so very easily, just buy a chassis and throw a body on it. And lastly (while I really like Camaro Cup) you don't need those kind of cars for the Swedish/Danish tracks. To make racing look frantic here you need cornering speed, not brute force. Just like in the UK. So here's to hoping they see sense and go back to NGTC, maybe after the teams have complained for a bit.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

It's dumb. Firstly, I'm OK with RWD space-frame cars because they're essentialy prototypes, but you can't have production based body shells with RWD instead of FWD. AWD like in WRC, no problem, but I find the FWD-RWD change a lot harder to swallow. Secondly, you're not going to be able to easily transfer cars from Britain to Sweden and back. Thirdly, it's way too expensive. If you're going to do your own thing, do it cheap, like the Camaro Cup. Those cars cost, what, a fourth of NGTC-SWE? And they put on a damn fine show. And if it was a pure Camaro Cup-style spaceframe/fiberglass body, and manufacturer who wanted to take part could do so very easily, just buy a chassis and throw a body on it. And lastly (while I really like Camaro Cup) you don't need those kind of cars for the Swedish/Danish tracks. To make racing look frantic here you need cornering speed, not brute force. Just like in the UK. So here's to hoping they see sense and go back to NGTC, maybe after the teams have complained for a bit.

Totally agree. its really dumb if STCC change NGTC to make everything one type with one spec engine. maybe they will wake up and just use the reg's the way the BTCC invented it.

[VIVA GT]

The more I see of this, the more it seems so similar to the series that Andy Rouse suggested many years ago.
Although I think his idea was much better as it used identical V8 engines in the spec. rear engined space-framed chassis that were designed to be clothed with bodies looking like many production cars...
That should have made for spectacular racing, both to watch, and to listen to. (Unlike what I think the NGTC will turn out to be).

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

The more I see of this, the more it seems so similar to the series that Andy Rouse suggested many years ago.
Although I think his idea was much better as it used identical V8 engines in the spec. rear engined space-framed chassis that were designed to be clothed with bodies looking like many production cars...
That should have made for spectacular racing, both to watch, and to listen to. (Unlike what I think the NGTC will turn out to be).

Theres already series for exactly cars like that such as the Superstars series. If the STCC want to go down that route then they would just pick up those regulations and cars. But thats not touring cars racing and the STCC like its name says is for 'touring cars'.

[Valker]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

Firstly, I'm OK with RWD space-frame cars because they're essentialy prototypes, but you can't have production based body shells with RWD instead of FWD.

Why not? It works fine in rallycross.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by Valker

Why not? It works fine in rallycross.

It's not about making it work, it's about principle. And the RWD 206's in rally cross are equally stupid.

[Craner Curves]

Surely it can't be cost effective to fabricate a rear wheel drive bodyshell from a front wheel drive car? They should only be allowed to do RWD if the car is like that as standard, or they have a 4x4 option and disconnect the drive to the front wheels, like in the FIA Class 2 days.

[davidjones]

Originally Posted by FIRE

NGTC rules but not 100%....
So if Chevrolet wants to race in WTCC, BTCC and ScTCC like they do now they have to build 3 different cars (and engines)....Why not following the BTCC and their NGTC rules?

Of course 380 bhp sounds great but do you need it on the small Swedish and Danish tracks?

I think the 380 bhp will be the same engine regs as the btcc, just with the boost pressure turned up to achieve the higher bhp, or atleast thats what I hope, allowing engines to be used in both the BTCC and STCC

As for the RWD format, i think it may be a bargaining tool.

think of it this way, if you were a team manager, it would make the best commercial sense to go the the way of the WTCC (as in been able to use it in the world championship aswell, and they already use s2000 chassis, so its just the new engine), even if the NGTC regs look like they will produce a better race car.

so by saying RWD only, it gives them room for compromise.

incidentally, the decision to use the uprated power straight away, may be for the same reason, allowing them to back down and have a similar performance equalisation, change over period as the BTCC.

all in all, i hope they just go the way of the BTCC, it seems counter productive to use NGTC with RWD only.

Dave

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

It's not about making it work, it's about principle. And the RWD 206's in rally cross are equally stupid.

Are WRC and IRC cars stupid too? They take fwd production models and make them 4wd.

[JMeissner]

I am a bit confused as well over the chock RWD only seems to have caused.

Where is the line drawn on how far the cars are from the road car equivalents? 280 bhp out of the current N/A S2000 engines, aren't they stupid as well compared to the road versions?

Sequential gearboxes in Cruze's, Leon's, C30's, etc. Stupid as well?

If done cost effectively, which STCC say it can be done, I can see mainly advantages of RWD only. More spectacular racing, more power, etc. The only downside I can see is if the cars can't be used in BTCC for example.

But then again, NGTC hasn't been confirmed officially yet for STCC. There might be something different, lets not forget...

[davyboy]

Much I love RWD big banger touring car racing, surely deviating so markedly from the BTCC and WTCC rules during a recession doesn't make a lot of sense. As I said on another thread, it would make better sense for Alan Gow and the FIA to come to some agreement and use the same set of rules. These rule makers seem to forget that most touring car teams/drivers do not build and develop their own cars. They buy them second hand from their own or another series. Homogenous rules are best for every series.

[KA]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Much I love RWD big banger touring car racing, surely deviating so markedly from the BTCC and WTCC rules during a recession doesn't make a lot of sense. As I said on another thread, it would make better sense for Alan Gow and the FIA to come to some agreement and use the same set of rules. These rule makers seem to forget that most touring car teams/drivers do not build and develop their own cars. They buy them second hand from their own or another series. Homogenous rules are best for every series.

To be honest, the more I hear, the more I come to the conclusion that touring car rules in general are pretty messed up at the moment, with far too many series playing to unique rulesets.
I'd hate to be trying to sell the idea of a touring car project to the board of a car manufacturer right now...

[FIRE]

Let make it clear: I don't have a problem with the road car versions being FWD and the racing version RWD. What I don't understand is why BTCC and ScTCC not using the same technical regulations. Different regulations means less customers and I think that's not good. But maybe the Swedish do it with purpose because they want to build their own cars.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by FIRE

Let make it clear: I don't have a problem with the road car versions being FWD and the racing version RWD. What I don't understand is why BTCC and ScTCC not using the same technical regulations. Different regulations means less customers and I think that's not good. But maybe the Swedish do it with purpose because they want to build their own cars.

In a roundabout way, I think that's the core of what most people here are saying... for the simple reason that it makes sense.

I think KA makes a very good point about the incoherence of touring car racing globally. At a point in time when almost every manufacturer operates a 'global' model strategy, it would make sense to have a global formula for 'touring car racing'.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Are WRC and IRC cars stupid too? They take fwd production models and make them 4wd.

To begin with, you only add to the number of driving wheels, you don't remove any. Easier to swallow, since it's only adapting the car to make it more competitive. Secondly, they should have kept the Group A rules. C4, Focus et al I can accept, but it pales in comparision to the Lancer Evo, Impreza, Celica GT-Four and the likes.

Originally Posted by JMeissner

I am a bit confused as well over the chock RWD only seems to have caused.

Where is the line drawn on how far the cars are from the road car equivalents? 280 bhp out of the current N/A S2000 engines, aren't they stupid as well compared to the road versions?

Sequential gearboxes in Cruze's, Leon's, C30's, etc. Stupid as well?

If done cost effectively, which STCC say it can be done, I can see mainly advantages of RWD only. More spectacular racing, more power, etc. The only downside I can see is if the cars can't be used in BTCC for example.

But then again, NGTC hasn't been confirmed officially yet for STCC. There might be something different, lets not forget...

I don't have a problem with RWD only per se, but I do with changing the driveline layout in a production based body shell. It makes as much sense as making a BMW front wheel drive. It just doesn't work, just as you can't put a V8 into a C30. For it to be production based touring car racing the cars have to be in spirit of the road car, even if you heavily spec them up for racing (and nowadays, you simply have to).

Now, you can drop the whole notion of road car resemblance and production based racing, but that's hardly touring cars for me any more. As I said above, you may be changing a lot of things today, but when you start making FWD cars RWD you've gone well past the spirit of the type of racing we follow. In my own opinion, at least. I don't like making them AWD either, but at least you're not radically altering the visual characteristics of the way the car behaves on track.

Is there a market for a non-road relevant "show" series? Well, I think there probably is, but I'd much rather see a focus on making touring car racing successful here. And there's no need for firebreathing monsters to make it a great, exciting series. All you have to do is look ten years into the rear view mirror. Super Touring may have had its faults, but we've got a lot to learn from that era. The championship has been struggling (though it's been struggling well and given us some great things along the way) every year since 2002. Something needs to change, but I hardly think the second coming of V8 STAR is it.

And you're right, the rules haven't been confirmed yet, so let's hope they see sense. Funny though how Haraldsson speaks freely about it in the interview, but the series is still mum on the issue.

[Sodemo]

FWD -> RWD makes sense though for pure racing. No one would want a RWD car turned into a FWD car, as with FWD its always a compromise when it comes to handling.

Besides, when Renault, Ford, Honda, Toyota were all involved with F1, it wasn't a problem, and they have a fleet of cars which the majority of are FWD and F1 is RWD only.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Its up today at STCC.se. Basicly the same thing thats already been said. Its not an official announcement but they are waiting for another proposal, it seems. Probably like been said, a proposal from Volvo to follow FIA.

I myself like the new regs. I think it can be great, kinda like a mix between the very successful Argentinian sereies TC and TC2000. And even if it will flop I would still be happy they tried to go their own way for once, trying to make something that fits Sweden instead of sitting in the lap of FIA.

[duke_toaster]

I like the concept of an NGTC+, but I don't think the STCC is the best series for it. The STCC and BTCC do have a flow of cars between them, so it would probably be logical if they were to use the same rules. Bearing in mind the NGTC cars will be upped in power when they don't need to be equalized with Super 2000, it will produce better lap times eventually.

The idea of an NGTC+ would be a good idea for the WTCC, not the STCC. How difficult would it be to modify an NGTC car - bearing in mind the spec subframes (a pretty good idea actually, as the suspension development is one of the big costs in Super 2000, that and the engines) - to have RWD, better rear aero (I would have had a diffuser on the NGTC cars, even if it was just for looks), a bigger rear wing, 500hp and possibly a wider body kit? Maybe KERS could be an option (just that - an option). That would bring WTCC cars to a level that is a step up from national racing, but still with significant development similarities.

[Sodemo]

The FIA are being typically stubborn with their rules direction. Having said that, I prefered S2000 over BTC regs, so I can't really argue too much there.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

How difficult would it be to modify an NGTC car

Probably very difficult. Obviously a complete swap of front and rear sub-frames, which depending on how they are mounted to the chassis may not necessarily be a straight swap. STCC proposal specifies RWD and of course any FWD NGTC car won't have a transmission tunnel so that means cutting out and replacing the floorpan.

It's probably possible but likely to be so much of a cut-n-shut as to be impractical.

Maybe we need to stop calling STCC's proposals 'NGTC'. Although it shares some of the principals of the BTCC version it's a very different solution.