BTCC days gone forever?

[ZOE]

Is it just me or do the rest of you reckon the BTCC good days are gone for good?

Ask yourselves why you got into it in the first place. Was it to watch a bunch of independents with about as much finesse as a club event? (no disrespect to the boyz, i'm afraid its time i was frank).

Or was it to watch well-respected manufacturers with good, risk-taking drivers battling it out to see who and what car is the daddy?

If it was the first suggestion then may i suggest you actually watched the wrong race, it should have been the National Saloons you were watching loveys.

If it was the second then youre with me. SO why do they have to ruin it. Who REALLY wants to pay Touring Car prices to watch a glorified National Saloon race? Only fools can even compare the pathetic excuse of what we see now than that of ten years ago.

I reckon they should just wrap it all in. Get rid of ST and what are you left with. No big names just amateurs who have yet to make it. Its a sad day for the sport.

Fairdos, i reckon the racing has been close this year, and good to watch but the sparkle has well and truly been extinguished. And mark my words, with it will go public/media interest, television coverage and sponsors.

Farewell BTCC - it was lovely knowing you.

[Super Tourer]

Zoe.

It certainly is the big goodbye .....unless a DTM type formula evolves.

This could be an alternative to the BTCC, the only down side being cost and the fact that we will be back in the same old boat if manufacturers decide to pull out -again.

The reason Super Production will work is low cost for teams and drivers to take part. Perhaps we need a half-way house between Super Touring and Super Production.

Super Production with attitude !

[Sparky]

I believe the BTTC really needs to re-invent itself. 'Glorified NSC' racing is what the BTTC used to be, in the days of Ford Capris and Triumph Dolomites - even long before that, with the likes of Mini Coopers and Jaguar Mk2's. The series has long been about production cars being raced on reasonable budgets, by professional drivers.

These days will never return, as the public (used to seeing fire breathing monsters riding on cartoon proportion wheels) will not accept anything less.

As I said in another topic, I was happy with the direction ST was taking until the flared wings and radiused wheel openings started to make the cars less like production cars we drive (which, if you're honest, is why we watch).

The BTTC will never be the same as those halcyon days of the early '90's - there were ten manufacturers involved at it's height, now we have three.
Nissan have sold their touring car facility in the UK, Volvo is now owned by Ford, Audi won't play unless it can use all it's wheels, and BMW use the wrong ones altogether.

I'm not sure which direction BTTC should take, but it's future probably doesn't lie with Rouse's Supercars, or the new French Silhouette formula. It's more likely to end up as 'Glorified NSC' racing, pretty much how it used to be...

[Peter Mallett]

I tend to agree with the Sparkster here. I always prefered the "near to standard" looking cars having their wheels driven off by highly competitve and highly paid drivers. Super Production is probably the best route because it offers TEAMS the opportuntiy to compete by building relatively lower cost cars and spending the rest of the budget on RACERS

[Super Tourer]

Unfortunately I have reached the conclusion that with any sort of manufacturer involvement the costs simply spiral regardless of the rules.

I know that before they were disbanded NME were building a Super Production Nissan Primera that they quoted me as costing £100,000. Bearing in mind that a ST car costs around £200K to build at the height of its 'powers', you can see how close a 'proper' NSC car is in cost already.

A NSC Pug 306 is £80k already. It seems that the car makers moan about cost, then as soon as cost effective rules are introduced, set about raising those costs to put one over the competition.

Unfortunately works teams are like sheep what one does they all have to do. Unbelieveably - I understand that Nissan spent £14m last year and Ford even more.

Which would have been a handy F1 budget not all that long ago. Whenever you have the prodrive's of the world you can never cut costs as proved by the recent 'flat bottomed' nonsense - how much do you think that cost, and they tried to get around the testing ban by using a location in Spain that - "wasn't a licensed race circuit".

Manufacturers bleat about costs but once involved the very last thing they want to do is save money. So cut the BTCC down to the roots, refuse works teams unless they supply customer cars, cap the primadonna's and lets see some good drivers with a reasonable budget - get down to some racing.

[kmchow]

Super Tourer wrote:

>The reason Super Production will work is >low cost for teams and drivers to take >part.
>
Personally, I think SP is too production based.

>Perhaps we need a half-way house between
>Super Touring and Super Production.
>
That's what I thought the ST 2001 rules or SP+ rules were about? Supposedly ST 2001 rules "only" saved about 30% which was deemed good enough by Honda/Vauxhall initially. Then several months later, it's supposed to be STILL too expensive?

[TimD]

For me the BTCC came unstuck when the factories first started coming in, when the rules permitted only 2-litre cars to compete.

It was a shock to the system in 1991 to see gridfuls of Class B cars, when in previous years you could see Sierra Cossies, BMW 635s, Starions, Rover SD1s and even a Maserati doing battle.

And the big cars had to remain quick, for fear of a well-conducted 2-litre car showing them up.

So my solution? A return to a class-based formula, similar to the BTCC of 1987-1990. The big cars should produce the spectacle that the supertourers did - and more, and retain smaller classes for those who wish to aim for the championship through consistency rather than outright victory.

Strict production-based body shell restrictions should be enforced, too. If the floorpan of the racer is in any way different to that of the production model, don't let it race. I would limit body mods to internal stiffening, and flared wheel fairings - within strictly governed limits of course.

With the selection of cars on the market today, that could make for a great looking series. Can you visualise essentially privateer teams, like the Rouse, Trackstar, Vic Lee teams of old, fielding gridfuls of Ford Cougars, BMW 850s and the like.

Now that could be fun.

[Sparky]

I agree with all you said tim, up until you mentioned flared arches.
This completely ruined the road-car-turned-racer look of the ST's.

There are many problems with standard arches and large wheels;
1. Contact with the tyre after a collision - A reason to mind your drivin'and not upset anybody?
2. Difficulty in changing wheels/tyres at pitstops.
3. Having a turning circle greater than the QE2. Cars are regularly turned in the paddock with trolley jacks/wheel dollies.

Although these are complex problems, the ST teams got by until somebody saw a loophole in the regs and everybody was producing bespoke handmade front wings.

How about homologated parts being allowed? I didn't see any manufacturers producing cars with arches the size of the Albert hall, but if they did, then they could run 'em!

Homologation has been the way since the year dot. How can the teams get away with these damn arches/wings? The way Audi overcame the track width problem on the Quattro over the Coupe, or Toyota added width to the body on the Celica Supra 'Widetrack'. These are the solutions that manufacturers should be made to come up with if they want to run the biggest of rims and no ride height. (Is that what you meant, Tim?)

You're right though Tim, Cars such as the BMW 850 and Ford Cougar would be a sight to behold. What about new Jag S type and the new BMW Mini Cooper? - now there would be history repeating itself!

[kmchow]

Sparky wrote:

>What about new Jag S type and the new BMW >Mini Cooper? - now there would be history >repeating itself!
>
slurp, slurp, (mouth drooling like crazy), the Jag S Type would make an awesome ATCC V8 Supercar entry!! And even if it is too big for ST, the car would look awesome if it were built to such specs. There is a (splice in) Jag S Type skin for Toca 2 videogame players! The car looks so heavenly...

Super Tourer wrote:

>A NSC Pug 306 is £80k already. It seems >that the car makers moan about cost, then >as soon as cost effective rules are >introduced, set about raising those costs >to put one over the competition.
>
OTOH, at least it will be several years before a 80K pound NSC car will catch up to a 200K pound ST car. Yet, I still love ST, but without the wider wheel arches!! yeah,yeah, despite the easier time for pit crews the wider wheel wells make.

[Super Tourer]

I don't think it will be several years before SP build costs edged towards ST costs.

I would estimate that if say Prodrive or NME were to build a 'pukka' SP car for 2001 it would arrive at the'checkout' at a figure between £120k - £150k.

Were the savings will be achieved in SP is a reduction in running costs. But I still believe the actual cars will rise continually in price. Works teams will look to spend a lot on engine development as well.

The key thing is in some way either cap 'selling' price of the car (as in the current World Sports Car series),so that independent teams can buy a current car.

Or have rigorously enforced rules that keep the cars as 'simple' as possible to slow the pace of development.

[kmchow]

Super Tourer wrote:

>I would estimate that if say Prodrive or >NME were to build a 'pukka' SP car for 2001 >it would arrive at the'checkout' at a >figure between £120k - £150k.
>
Wow, that is A LOT of money still!! =) But I guess it is cheap compared to ST?

>Were the savings will be achieved in SP is >a reduction in running costs.
>
From what I know, it is the parts. Less exotic parts? Are there a lot of shared or mandatory spec parts? I don't recall? The proposed'01 ST rules would have required a lot of sharing of parts/suspension I recall?

>But I still believe the actual cars will >rise continually in price. Works teams will >look to spend a lot on engine development >as well.
>
Which supports the theory that the new SP rules will probably last another 10 years at most?

>The key thing is in some way either >cap 'selling' price of the car (as in the >current World Sports Car series),so that >independent teams can buy a current car.
>
OTOH, that doesn't really stop a manufacturer? 'Cause they could just a hit in the resale value but get another on the grid that can beat the other makes? Either way, the manufacturer can get "credit" or "wins"??? OTOH, I guess you just want more cars on the grid?

It will be nice to see Listerine, Ocean Spice and GM Credit card back on the side of the cars?

>Or have rigorously enforced rules that keep >the cars as 'simple' as possible to
>
Yeah, VERY strict about these wheel arches, flat bottomed cars, aero aids caused by homologation specials!