[BTCC] Rounds 7, 8, 9 & Test Day at Thruxton, 2017

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by thlbtcc

The MG's are lapping 0.5 seconds slower than they did last year, despite new suspension and the latest engine.

Is the MG running new suspension compared to 2016?

How does that compare to other cars running the Swindon engine?
Others seem to have made bigger improvements than MG - but how much more development potential is left in the MG6GT?

In qualifying at Thruxton, 2016 vs 2017 most TOCA-powered cars lapped slower. Admittedly, not by as much as the MG's, but MG didn't test there on the new tyres like most others.


Toyota Avensis
1:16.161 - 1:16.236

Mercedes-Benz A Class
1:16.194 - 1:16.494

MG6GT
1:16.577 - 1:17.130

VW CC
1:16.864 - 1:16.974

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Greem

The comments about the tyre barrier 'spinning' cars aren't related to the risk of cars bouncing back into the circuit, they're related to rotational brain injuries that result from sudden high-G rotations.

Look at how dazed Neal was at Brands Hatch last year for an example. His was not a severe flick, but it was enough to cause him to sit out the final race of that day.

It appears that the concern over the barriers (from Lloyd's perspective) is the solid nature and abrupt impact that occurs.

The use of tyre barriers leading to spinning is obviously a concern, as demonstrated by Depper over the weekend.

Are their alternatives that give a softer impact, but also allow a car to slide along the barrier rather than spin? On the coverage, hay bales were mentioned - is this even a viable option?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It appears that the concern over the barriers (from Lloyd's perspective) is the solid nature and abrupt impact that occurs.

The use of tyre barriers leading to spinning is obviously a concern, as demonstrated by Depper over the weekend.

Are their alternatives that give a softer impact, but also allow a car to slide along the barrier rather than spin? On the coverage, hay bales were mentioned - is this even a viable option?

"Safer Barrier"?

I have a gripe with the TV coverage at Thruxton. They only have 1 camera covering "The Complex". For such a zone where there are often overtakes and "action" this always seems like a penny pinching move to me. The camera at Segrave has to cover the approach to Campbell, Campbell itself, Cobb, and then Segrave and its exit. For a start its a really long zoomed shot (which looks terrible) and second, if there is any position changes or incidents, you are relying on one camera to pick it all up. They have a camera covering just the exit of the chicane. Why not utilise that camera for The Complex where there is much more potential use of it?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I've never been to Thruxton but I think that many of the camera positions are governed by covering the whole circuit. In other circuits cameras can cover several corners, but with Thruxton being full of long sweeping corners, and no real tight and twisty sections the cameras are spread out much more so don't have overlapping sight lines.

[Alfisti]

"Safer barrier" is a layer of foam like material attached by mounts to a harder surface. It is now very common on oval tracks in USA and doubtless has helped reduce injuries to many drivers - the car is cushioned from the concrete outer wall by the safer barrier.

Could it work at Thruxton? I honestly don't know.

Type "Safer barrier" into Wikipedia for a nicely detailed article.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Is the MG running new suspension compared to 2016?

How does that compare to other cars running the Swindon engine?
Others seem to have made bigger improvements than MG - but how much more development potential is left in the

The MG was running a mix up of the RML and GPRM suspension last year. Now it's all RML as per this years rules.

I think the big problem is very limited testing: we have seen from both drivers past performances that they are clearly good; I would reckon with miles under their belt and a good engineer or two they would be further forward.

Let's hope they have learnt about the car in the testing the week prior to Thruxton...

[Moneyseeker]

To file under not going as planned so far..

Jordan at WSR - he has half the points of Turks and Collard and was outdriven by both at Truxton, combined with his results against Jackson last year. It may be early days but already AJ is going to need Turks to have some bad days to beat him in the points.

Motorbase - the whole Motorbase thing is a mystery to me, having signed the title sponsor and then filled two of the seats with a gentleman driver and an unknown didn't strike me as a way to drive the team forward. Jackson looks out of sorts and maybe some of TOCA's performance balancing has pegged back the engine a bit. Having said this Josh Cook looked better than the Motorbase Fords at Donington.

Subaru - where to start? The performance balancing has hit them hard and JP looks all at sea with the car, slow in Q and not making much progress in the races - al of which could be pure car issue if it wasn't for Sutton keeping it at the sharp edge. Tim Harvey mentioned in the comm that Sutton has taken a very analytical approach to driving the car, particularly with use of the throttle and steering input, which is obviously helping him to balance the car more.

MG - I can't even see why MG are still doing it. The MG6 is no more and the new car is an SUV as will be the next car in the range the XS, this is the current future of MG, with the next step being an EV I believe.

[Sodemo]

I like how we have to rely on Tim Harvey to learn of performance changes / decisions being made. If these things are broadcastable, why not just announce them before the meeting?

[porsche962fan]

Giovanardi was criticized for underperforming at Motorbase but their current results so far are far worse now


for BMR it's actually bad that Sutton does so well cos they can't claim balance performance really

they either pull the plug or put a "proper" engine in it and get on with the job instead of moaning about performance penalties

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

"Safer barrier" is a layer of foam like material attached by mounts to a harder surface. It is now very common on oval tracks in USA and doubtless has helped reduce injuries to many drivers - the car is cushioned from the concrete outer wall by the safer barrier.

Could it work at Thruxton? I honestly don't know.

Type "Safer barrier" into Wikipedia for a nicely detailed article.

I have had a look at the 'SAFER' barrier.

A few things catch my attentions with respect to those barriers:

It needs a concrete wall to attach to. A concrete wall would take a significant amount of work to put in at Church, something that is far beyond the earthworks and Armco already installed.

How would the two-wheeled community view a 'SAFER'-style barrier? The design is based around tracks devoted to cars, and so may cause problems with a bike event.

How does it fair when the barrier is away from the circuit edge? The design was initially installed at Ovals - where the track edge runs right up to the barrier. Would this cause an issue if the car could possibly be travelling off circuit before impact?

How does it handle a head-on impact? Oval racing tends to be an angled momentum towards the barrier as opposed to a perpendicular impact.

Could Thruxton afford a 'SAFER' barrier? The reported cost is in excess of $500 per foot of installation, how much barrier would be required on top of concrete walling?

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It appears that the concern over the barriers (from Lloyd's perspective) is the solid nature and abrupt impact that occurs.

The use of tyre barriers leading to spinning is obviously a concern, as demonstrated by Depper over the weekend.

Are their alternatives that give a softer impact, but also allow a car to slide along the barrier rather than spin? On the coverage, hay bales were mentioned - is this even a viable option?

I think you need to look at what the typical accident would be. At Church, cars are more likely lose grip and run wide, hitting the barrier at a shallow angle. In those instances a tyre wall suddenly spinning the car around would be a major concern. Letting the barrier deflect, as it would do on a motorway, is the better option.

Lloyd was turned around mid-corner and hit the barrier at 90 degrees. That's not something that would have been predicted and not what you would consider a 'normal' accident.

Arguably the same would be true where Depper had his accident - he did hit at a relatively shallow angle. The difference there is that the barrier is up against an earth back so there is little or no room for the barrier to deform.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I like how we have to rely on Tim Harvey to learn of performance changes / decisions being made. If these things are broadcastable, why not just announce them before the meeting?

It was just a comment made by him after speaking to Ash as he was one of the ITV camera/interview cars for the weekend. I think that people are pretty aware that it is Sutton who is making the difference with the car as the others are all mired at the tail of the field and not making much progress in the races.

I doubt this is gaining much sympathy in the paddock as JP was like a cat that had go the cream last year when he reckoned that they/he was so smart in getting the boxer engined car because it gave them such an COG advantage. Well now that this has been 'equalised' it has probably left them with a car that is quite hard to make work, the tourer shape is not that easy to get the best of in a racing car. Dynamics managed it with the Civic which is a smaller base car though.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

"Safer barrier" is a layer of foam like material attached by mounts to a harder surface. It is now very common on oval tracks in USA and doubtless has helped reduce injuries to many drivers - the car is cushioned from the concrete outer wall by the safer barrier.

Could it work at Thruxton? I honestly don't know.

Type "Safer barrier" into Wikipedia for a nicely detailed article.

Costs a lot more than tyres......

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by redshoes

I think you need to look at what the typical accident would be. At Church, cars are more likely lose grip and run wide, hitting the barrier at a shallow angle. In those instances a tyre wall suddenly spinning the car around would be a major concern. Letting the barrier deflect, as it would do on a motorway, is the better option.

Lloyd was turned around mid-corner and hit the barrier at 90 degrees. That's not something that would have been predicted and not what you would consider a 'normal' accident.

Arguably the same would be true where Depper had his accident - he did hit at a relatively shallow angle. The difference there is that the barrier is up against an earth back so there is little or no room for the barrier to deform.

If this was an F1 circuit a corner like Church would have a long tarmac run off and then a protected barrier as the current thinking is to allow the car/driver space for retardation before impact, not a surface that will encourage roll over, or the speed the car up. Particularly as Church is not a heavy braking corner (light brake in a touring car and flat in a single seater) so you don't need to account for brake failure there.

As you say, shallow angle impacts are likely as a result of running wide on the entry, so gravel would case the outside wheels to dig in and roll the car- as the boggy grass was prone to.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by redshoes

I think you need to look at what the typical accident would be. At Church, cars are more likely lose grip and run wide, hitting the barrier at a shallow angle. In those instances a tyre wall suddenly spinning the car around would be a major concern. Letting the barrier deflect, as it would do on a motorway, is the better option.

Lloyd was turned around mid-corner and hit the barrier at 90 degrees. That's not something that would have been predicted and not what you would consider a 'normal' accident.

Isn't that the cause of some of the discussion though - that Lloyd's accident was not 'typical'?

There will always be exceptions, and no solution will work for all situations, so I don't begin to think that there is a simple solution.

From the pictures on TV - the current protection looks to be exactly like that on a motorway. But marginal improvements for the 'typical' accident have to be factored against the implications for the exceptional.

For example lets say you have two options at Church:
Option A - a long run off area, with no barriers or obstructions for an extended length of ground. Cars have little/no chance of flipping or rolling. But the consequence is recovery will cause extensive delays.
Option B - a short run off area, with a barrier that deflects the majority of approach angles and allows a rapid recovery. But on the rare occasion, a car might impact at the 'wrong' angle and lead to a significant impact with excessive forces.

It may be true that no one predicted the Lloyd accident - but now that it has it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that it won't happen again.

[VIVA GT]

I suppose that one of the problems here is that when a car goes off the track, it is already out of control (otherwise it wouldn't have gone off...). So, there is no guaranteeing how or where it will hit the barriers.
They've obviously improved the situation at Church with the recent changes as at least the cars aren't now accelerating downhill like it used to be, but this had clearly cost the circuit a lot of money to implement.
A number of things came to light from what Bill Coombs said in an interview between the races yesterday. They have plans (money permitting) for actually adding more earthworks to create a gradual upward incline towards the barrier (which should help slowing errant vehicles), and that the barrier changes were dictated on the circuit by The RAC.
I'm no fan of the large tarmac run-offs that we see at most of the Grand Prix circuits nowadays, but maybe this would work well at Church as the added friction would additionally slow a spinning (or sideways) car, plus if the driver was able to apply the brakes, help them to slow the car before impacting with the barriers. Unfortunately this would also have a larger & additional expense to implement.
On a slightly different subject, I think that the Circuit Management should make more effort to collect the grass cuttings from the infields when they are mown. (They did look neat & tidy on TV though). Being forced to run onto the grass ruined a n umber of people's races as they literally Hoovered up loads of grass into their air intakes, plus a fair amount of the stuff ended up all over the track which couldn't have been good for grip levels...

[thlbtcc]

Originally Posted by Greem

The comments about the tyre barrier 'spinning' cars aren't related to the risk of cars bouncing back into the circuit, they're related to rotational brain injuries that result from sudden high-G rotations.

Look at how dazed Neal was at Brands Hatch last year for an example. His was not a severe flick, but it was enough to cause him to sit out the final race of that day.

Very good point and often overlooked.

[thlbtcc]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

On a slightly different subject, I think that the Circuit Management should make more effort to collect the grass cuttings from the infields when they are mown. (They did look neat & tidy on TV though). Being forced to run onto the grass ruined a n umber of people's races as they literally Hoovered up loads of grass into their air intakes, plus a fair amount of the stuff ended up all over the track which couldn't have been good for grip levels...

This is also a good point, I don't remember this happening before at Thruxton or as exaggerated. Definitely not ideal.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

To file under not going as planned so far..

Motorbase - the whole Motorbase thing is a mystery to me, having signed the title sponsor and then filled two of the seats with a gentleman driver and an unknown didn't strike me as a way to drive the team forward. Jackson looks out of sorts and maybe some of TOCA's performance balancing has pegged back the engine a bit. Having said this Josh Cook looked better than the Motorbase Fords at Donington.

I think the performance difference between the Maximum Focus and the Motorbase cars is the engine - the Maximum car runs the TOCA engine doesn't it? And we know that the Mountune engine in the Motorbase cars took a hit on boost and they're now lacking in grunt (Jackson and Bartrum have both mentioned this in interviews). That doesn't explain the driver situation - Jackson is clearly their best driver, the other 2 are certainly some of the weakest drivers on this years grid - so why are they there? Seems odd to have 3 fully sponsored cars then waste 2 of the seats. Jacksons results seem to have suffered as a result of the cars performance - he's qualifying further back than you'd expect and then getting tangled up in the usual tail end / midfield scrapping as he tries to make progress.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

On a slightly different subject, I think that the Circuit Management should make more effort to collect the grass cuttings from the infields when they are mown. (They did look neat & tidy on TV though). Being forced to run onto the grass ruined a n umber of people's races as they literally Hoovered up loads of grass into their air intakes, plus a fair amount of the stuff ended up all over the track which couldn't have been good for grip levels...

I think that is something that would be difficult to implement - as most large scale grass mowing methods simply deposit the cuttings back in situ.
Collection then is an expensive, and timely, undertaking.
I agree that it is far from ideal to have people's races impacted by grass cuttings, and maybe there is a lesson identified over the weekend.

It's more a case of timing the mowing to de-conflict with the event. If no mowing is carried out for over a week before, then the cuttings will have time to disperse naturally through rain or air movement.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I think the performance difference between the Maximum Focus and the Motorbase cars is the engine - the Maximum car runs the TOCA engine doesn't it? And we know that the Mountune engine in the Motorbase cars took a hit on boost and they're now lacking in grunt (Jackson and Bartrum have both mentioned this in interviews). That doesn't explain the driver situation - Jackson is clearly their best driver, the other 2 are certainly some of the weakest drivers on this years grid - so why are they there? Seems odd to have 3 fully sponsored cars then waste 2 of the seats. Jacksons results seem to have suffered as a result of the cars performance - he's qualifying further back than you'd expect and then getting tangled up in the usual tail end / midfield scrapping as he tries to make progress.

Just because the cars are fully liveried it doesn't follow they are all fully funded. Often a pay driver likes to have the big name sponsor on his car so it looks like he has arrived! How many F1 " Test drivers" actually paid for the title of test driver on their cv but only ever wazzed up and down a runway somewhere. The number of Jordan test drivers was mind boggling and there is a GT driver who drove an Arrows once at Enstone Airfield and has since claimed to be an F1 driver! Things are often not as they seem... for some reason MotorBase has been shafted this year , still not their turn....

[Sodemo]

Something doesn't quite add up with the Subaru "situation". I find it hard to understand why Plato and the others are so far back in relation to Sutton.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I think the performance difference between the Maximum Focus and the Motorbase cars is the engine - the Maximum car runs the TOCA engine doesn't it? And we know that the Mountune engine in the Motorbase cars took a hit on boost and they're now lacking in grunt (Jackson and Bartrum have both mentioned this in interviews).

Harvey put the problem down to the narrow band of performance within the engine.
When the boost was fractionally higher, it resulted in a more effective power delivery that could be exploited by the drivers. Now, the engine's performance band is too narrow and so it feels significantly underpowered at times.
Through the speed traps in FP and Q at Donington, Jackson had the fastest Ford, it is just the delivery of that power that is causing an issue. Something that will be hard to get compensation for when the engine is put on the dyno for testing, so it will need a lot of work at Mountune to sort this one out I fear.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Something doesn't quite add up with the Subaru "situation". I find it hard to understand why Plato and the others are so far back in relation to Sutton.

Most seem to think it is driving styles. Over the years, how much has Plato been able to influence a car's performance - and how much has he relied on the input of others (engineers / teammates)?

Sutton seems to be gaining an understanding of how to make the car perform better than the others in it's current configuration.
How much he is able and willing to pass on that expertise to his teammates is a different matter.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It may be true that no one predicted the Lloyd accident - but now that it has it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that it won't happen again.

Indeed, and I would fully expect the incident to feed into the planning of the next phase. Bill C did say on TV that the barrier will eventually be >50m further back and a couple of metres higher up once all the backfill is in place. He also said that it isn't the work of a moment (which should be fairly obvious).

I just had a quick look back at the 2014 post meeting discussion, which was pretty interesting in light of yesterday's prang.