BTCC - A right mix up?

[Wilbo]

Personally I think the BTCC is loosing it AGAIN! Now we are seeing a right mixed bag of 3 door hatches, four door saloons and coupes. Most people seem to agree that the 92 to 99 era provided the best BTCC action we have seen when some 11 or so manufacturers took part. Now we have a case where Team Dynamics are moving to a coupe because of it's aerodynamic efficiency over the Civic. We also have Super 2000 spec cars up against BTCC regulation cars. Why can't someone sort this lot out and have a bench mark standard?

I think the BTCC should be for 4 door saloons that MR Rep drives around and MR 2+2 who ferries his family around at weekend. It all started when huge aerofoils were allowed then the standard silloute shape started to dissapear.

What do you all think?

PS. I will still add though that the action is very good and miles better than the F1 circus!!! but we are still dependant on independant teams and the carrot for manufacturers is not juicy enough, especially now that WTCC is on the seen.

[pink69]

Personally I like the blend of cars in the BTCC. yeah TOCA had to come up a new set of regulations when the supertouring era ended and the regs they came up with were good. Unfortunately everyone else came up with their own as well so there are several different classes of car. The Super 2000 is ow the most common breed of car so its only logical to allow them to compete in the BTCC if we want large fields, providing the performance is balance. Last year I think they got it right, the Seat's were regulary up there battling with the best of the BTCC reg cars and it produced some brilliant racing. The BTCC regs only run to 2007-8?? so when those rules end hopefully we'll switch to super 2000 so we can have any of the cars competing in the WTCC in the BTCC too at some point. But I think the different rules make it better for drivers because it offers different challenges.

[Craner Curves]

I do not understand why people still moan about the BTCC. 2004 was a good season no? I don't think car shape matters.

[BootsOntheSide]

The range of cars in the BTCC is great in my view, although a few of them really don't look well-suited to racing. The Civic's body shape is too clunky and too feminine, and having a set of regs which make the 307 more suited to racing than the 406 doesn't seem to make much sense.

The problem the BTCC has is the lack of entries. With the WTCC having such marketing appeal through being interantional, it's hardly surprising that everyone is looking that way, and the reality is that there are a lot less car companies in existence than a decade ago. Although most people are most familiar with the SuperTouring era of manufacturer teams and big-name international drivers, the BTCC was also hugely popular in the 80s, despite the complicated class system and lack of 'names'. In the short to medium term, the championship should be made cheaper to attract mroe of these entrants.

[touringlegend]

It may well sort itself out if the championship changes completely too Super 2000 in 2007. The BTCC regulations are only guaranteed until the end of 2006, although to outlaw them completely would be a bit short sighted on TOCA's part, especially since Vauxhall have just built a brand new BTCC spec car.

I do prefer to see the saloons such as the Toledos and the ZS's out there - but more than car shape (or even colour - I believe we've had complaints regarding colour once LOL! ) I want to see the car makes commit to the BTCC. This may happen as the WTCC gives the car makes greater reason to build a car and the expansion of the regulations means they can sell their car's onto privateers and even importers in other country's. Such as Ford with their new Focus - I think it's only a matter of time before we see some sort of official Ford involvement in the BTCC. It isn't a saloon but it has 5 doors ?

[Go_For_Pole]

Originally Posted by Craner Curves

I do not understand why people still moan about the BTCC. 2004 was a good season no? I don't think car shape matters.

Amen to that! 2004 btcc was the best racing on the world

[Hazard]

Off seasons been a bit too long. Lets not judge 2005 until it starts at least huh?

As pointed out to me before...2004 didn't exactly look promising a week before it begun - how wrong was that prediction!

[Touringfan]

Give me variety anyday. I like the mixture of cars in the BTCC. And lets face it, there are only normally about 8 cars/drivers that are truly competitive in any year and even less that fight it out for the championship so the total amount of cars on the grid is pretty irrelevenet to how competitive the series is.

[Silk Cut Jaguar]

Like Touringlegend points out, the WTCC is a very good thing for the BTCC because there are now new cars coming out to race in S2000 spec. Seat have proven the strategy works, granted it was partly due to Plato's playing of the rulebook but by the end of the season they were competitive anyway. It seems reasonable to think at least one other marque will consider going the same route in 2006.

[BootsOntheSide]

I partly agree with Touringfan's view that the size of the grid doesn't matter (welcome to the forum by the way), but I always feel that a grid of at least 15-20 cars is essential for a championship to be truly thrilling and varied, especially if there's a seperate Independent's championship. That way, even if the racing up front is processional, there's something to watch, and you'll always be able to find a driver to align your support to.

[Neil Adams]

Originally Posted by Craner Curves

I do not understand why people still moan about the BTCC. 2004 was a good season no? I don't think car shape matters.

ditto!

i dont know why but this opinion seems quite commonplace, the 'problem' isnt exclusive to the btcc tho, anyway as craner said as long as the racings great (which it is) i couldnt give a monkeys what cars they're using,

most of which are saloon-esqe anyway, plus (id im fed up of posting this in forums) hatchbacks are where car sales are at now, most saloons now are big executive types (mondeo / vectra), and the big sellers now are hatchbacks, think focus, civic etc where as in the past it was the mondeo for example

They have to promote their big sellers it makes commercial sense, car sales have moved on but it seems some people just want to see a re-run of a previous year

[Cynic]

Surely if you want to attract manufacturer interest, you have to offer them the widest possible options for choosing what model they can race. As has been pointed out, the manufacturers are in it to sell cars. If their best sellers are hatchbacks why should they be forced to run a saloon, and vice versa. Personally I think the technical regs are about right, although they really need to introduce some parity for people who want to run 4wd or rear-wheel drive cars.

[N I Tram]

The BTCC gave great racing last year, and I'd see the variety and parity as a good thing. Vauxhalls, MGs, Hondas, Alfas and SEATs, it's a pretty good range. And the racing was fantastic and should still be.

[Touringfan]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Personally I think the technical regs are about right, although they really need to introduce some parity for people who want to run 4wd or rear-wheel drive cars.

4wd is banned and there is already parity for rear-wheel drive

[runnyhunny]

I don't understand the thinking that the 'correct' car for the BTCC is a 4-door saloon, nor do I subscribe to the theory that it all began in 1992.

The BTCC has been around for a lot longer, and has always attracted a variety of machinery. This is a good thing - some cars are good at one race, then poor at others.

The reason that 4-door cars came about in the 90s, is because that is what the manufacturers wanted to promote (because that's what sold). Today, there are effectively less manufacturers (consolidation), and different cars are popular. Smaller hatchbacks, MPVs and 4x4s are 'trendy'. How many people are buying new Mondeos and Vectras, compared to Focuses and Astras? Oh, and remember that many 4-door saloons are bought by companies, so racing them is pointless.

I think coupes look better, and seeing the Astra and 406 in 2001 was great. I'm certainly not a fan of the new-gen 'euro-hatch-box', like the Civic, 307, Focus etc. but it's great to see any cars racing.

Would people really prefer a return to 2000? 4-door cars - yes, but only ten of them!

[Neil Adams]

the other thing of course is that most modern saloons are huge! meaning slower lap times than the more slippery hatchs and coupes

wilbo, what are you worried that will happen if the btcc carries on as it is?

[Cynic]

4wd is banned and there is already parity for rear-wheel drive

Banning four wheel drive effectively bans Audi as most of their range have 4wd now. So much for encouraging manufacturers..........

And any of the teams will tell you their is not parity for rear-wheel drive. The weight penalties make the cars uncompetitive, and the control parts that are stipulated are all designed for front-wheel drive. That's why the Lexus, and more recently the BMW 3-series struggled so much.

[Touringfan]

Nonsense. When 4WD was banned in the 90's it didn't stop Audi competting. And they race in the DTM and the Swedish championship with two wheel drive.

And there is parity for rear wheel drive. How do you think BMW won the ETCC last year??!! They beat Alfa, Seat and etc. so if they competed in the BTCC with the same car you really don't think they would be successful? Look how competitive the Seats are in the BTCC then look how compettive they are against the BMW's !

[BootsOntheSide]

There is parity for rear wheel drive in the WTCC. Because the BTCC has a lower weight limit, and a different ballasting system for the ETCC-type cars, Edenbridge were unable to make a BMW competitive. There are tonnes of used BMWs out there, but no one is considering running one in the BTCC, so obviously the view that it can't be made competitive is widely-held.

Audi can still compete without 4 wheel drive, but they have no hope of challenging for victories without it, and it becomes a pointless marketing exercise from their perspective, as their best feature is not being showed off - it would be like trying to sell Britney Spears records via a radio interview. The Swedish championship can't be of as high a standard as the BTCC (no offence), so Audi success there would mean little in a wider sense. The difficulty is to sort out the right ballasting system, because they had an embarassing advantage with the 4WD system in 1996, and presumably still would now.

[Touringfan]

The how come Audi compete in the DTM with two wheel drive if they are not interested in anything other then 4wd?? A pointless marketing exercise too?

Using a very underfunded private BMW that only did a part of the season as a comparison for how compettitive they would be in the BMW is just silly.

Look at the relative performances of the cars. The BMW is far and away a better and quicker car than the SEAT. If the SEAT is competitive in the BTCC then of course the BMW would be even more so.

There is no lower weight limit in the BTCC. The WTCC cars have to run at their FIA base weights, same as they do in the WTCC.

[Wilbo]

First of all I might have been a little over the top but I wanted to engage a reaction.

The racing last year was excellent and I hope this year continues in the same fashion, I can not see why not.

My only concern is the direct lack of manufacturer involvement, which I can not see improving now that WTCC has been formed. It may take a year or two to filter through but perhaps the WTCC is a good thing for the BTCC in terms of adopting Super 2000 spec more widly due to manuafcturer involvement and cars filtering through. Once the main engineering work is done my the manufacturer and the kit homologated then it doesn't cost a fortune to make a few more....

PS. I wouldn't agree on there being tonnes of used BMW's out there...E46 to Super 2000 regs there a quite a few but we are not saturated with them! of cars produced the majority just choose to use them on the big stage.

[BootsOntheSide]

The DTM Audi team is IIRC entirely independent of the factory. BMW have a much stronger presence in the WTCC than SEAT, with several works-backed teams hiring some of the leading drivers around, whereas SEAT had less-regarded drivers. And Edenbridge pulled out because they realised they had no hope of being competitive - their boss Peter Briggs sometimes posts here, so ask him the next time he shows up and I'm sure he'll explain things.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

The DTM Audi team is IIRC entirely independent of the factory.

It was independent when it ran the TT.

The A4 is a fatcory programme.

[Touringfan]

1. The A4 DTM program is a full works program.

2. Doesnt matter what Edenbridge said to justify their pull out the fact is that the team had little money, no testing and the driver was inexperienced and made mistakes every race.

You can't honestly say that a works BMW would be less competitive than the Seats surely? Of course it would be and so it would be ultra competitive in the btcc.

[Cynic]

I'm not entirely up to date on the DTM regs but from what I've seen of the cars comparing the DTM to the BTCC is a bit like comparing an F1 car to formula ford. I'm not sure about the TT but I thought the A4 came with permanent 4wd (I'll have to check this), so if they are running it in the DTM as a 2wd I'd like to know how.

And the BMW may well have had parity in the ETCC but the base weights for ETCC cars are different to BTCC - they changed the Seats twice during the season remember? On top of that, ever since the super-touring days rear-wheel drive cars have had a higher base weight than front-wheel drive, and still have.

The original point was why should there be different styles of car in the BTCC? The answer is you get the bad old days of the nineties where the cars are so close to each other in performance that the factory teams spend ridiculous budgets in the search for an edge, and the privateer gets squeezed out. Variety is the key to keeping touring cars healthy, but the rules need to be balanced to allow a reasonably wide range of cars to compete. Suppose Volvo wanted to race an estate car again. Should that be refused because it isn't a saloon? The more types of car the better IMO.