[BTCC] Rounds 1,2,3 Brands Hatch Indy 2017

[BertMk2]

Don't forget as well that BMR lost their best driver over the winter as well - Sutton needs time to get up to speed in the car, Cole didn't really set the world on fire last season and Price has done very little running in the car so you can't really judge where he is pace wise just yet.

Suton blew it in qualifying and got tangled up in incidents during the races, Plato made progress in race 1 then shunted the wall so no result for the other 2 races - it's possible that with a better qualifying session for Sutton he'd have had a cleaner weekend and Plato could well have been top 10 in race 2 and therefore could have been on pole for race 3. Lots of 'ifs' and 'coulds' but with a 32 car grid and the shortest circuit it's these things that make a huge difference.

[Rob877]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Don't forget as well that BMR lost their best driver over the winter as well - Sutton needs time to get up to speed in the car, Cole didn't really set the world on fire last season and Price has done very little running in the car so you can't really judge where he is pace wise just yet.

Suton blew it in qualifying and got tangled up in incidents during the races, Plato made progress in race 1 then shunted the wall so no result for the other 2 races - it's possible that with a better qualifying session for Sutton he'd have had a cleaner weekend and Plato could well have been top 10 in race 2 and therefore could have been on pole for race 3. Lots of 'ifs' and 'coulds' but with a 32 car grid and the shortest circuit it's these things that make a huge difference.

Agreed, if Plato had made it though that gap in race 2 we may have seen him right in with a shout either in that race or race 3. Unlike others on here I dont take a great deal of pleasure in their woes as it's depriving us of 2 quality drivers being right in the mix as well.

I don't think I've seen the BMWs looking so strong at a first meeting before, although they looked very quick in a straight line, I can see them being pegged back in the first load of boost calculations. With the Motorbase cars looking like they're at the other end of the spectrum.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I understand that, but the point still stands, does this apply to all the teams with their cars? I doubt all the teams have identical COG engines?

Alan Gow's words:

'so all that is happening with the Subaru is that a calculation will be made as to any centre of gravity difference between an 'in-line' engine and their unique 'boxer' engine'

From the regulations:

'The minimum weight (base weight) of individual cars may be subject to review at any time during the currency of the 2017 Championship by the Administrator who may implement a variation by way of a Bulletin issued by the Co-ordinator giving a minimum of 24 hours notice.'

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

way back in early november it was reported by the media

Do we know why Plato referred to Wednesday when he said changes were made?
If BMR didn't make the changes till then, then it is bad preparation - or is there another change as well as the COG balancing?

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

WSR under-floor being one example.
Part of the lack of transparency though is that a significant part of the target audience are not seen as wanting the championship to be about technical aspects - and are given an illusion of family road cars racing each other with the only performance equalisation happening through ballast.



I don't feel sorry for them having performance-equalising measures imposed. But if it was only imposed 3 days before an event, then I do feel sorry for them on that score.

Perhaps, they should be allowed some extra testing days under regulation 6.11.1.a.ii) - 'Teams competing with new design cars will be permitted up to 5 additional test days. For the avoidance of doubt, ‘new design cars’ are models that have not previously competed in the Championship under NGTC technical regulations and which are significantly technically different from the make or model previously used by that Team.'?

I know it is not technically a new model, but if it is significantly technically different, then they have been dealt an unfair hand.

Is it a coincidence that the last permitted date for unrestricted testing was 29 March 17 - the day that the weight/height penalty was allegedly applied?

Maybe the team.are missing Turkingtons car sorting skills....

[Sodemo]

I had a chance to watch the replay of the crash between Neal and Turks. I would put that mostly down to a "racing incident", however if I was to apportion blame, id say it was 70:30 Neal's fault.

[thlbtcc]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Yep, I remember reading that article myself last year, however nothing more has been said about it, as in exactly what has been changed. There should be a specific list of changes that have been imposed on any given car. All we have been told is that there has been a "COG calculation" and it has been imposed on the Subaru cars. Well ok, how is that calculated? What has changed? Have they added extra weight? How much? Where? Do the other teams also have this COG balance imposed? If not, why not? I doubt all cars have the same COG...?

My understanding is 20kg of ballast weight, added under the cars scuttle and a raised ride height, but by how much I'm not sure. This was mentioned during the qualifying commentary.

[BLiTZ]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I had a chance to watch the replay of the crash between Neal and Turks. I would put that mostly down to a "racing incident", however if I was to apportion blame, id say it was 70:30 Neal's fault.

As a Neal fan I hate to agree, but it did look avoidable, I know he was trying to defend the gap but he was a few cm short of being 'in the right' and it just looked like he turned into Turkington at the last minute.

[FIRE]

The races are no longer posted on http://www.itv.com/btcc/races ?

[Bramzel]

Still waiting as well...

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by Bramzel

Still waiting as well...

See pm.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

way back in early november it was reported by the media (autosport etc) and confirmed by bmr and toca what is happening.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/126972

http://www.btccforum.net/forum/showt...gged-back-quot

There seems to be something more to it than the COG adjustment, based on interviews with Plato and Cole that I have just heard.

On Sunday morning, Plato said something to the extent of 'We had a great winter testing, and had good speed in the car - then we had to change the car this week'. Cole said something like 'Testing went well, and then FP2 times seemed poor, I found out yesterday (Saturday) we need to work out how to handle the change to the car'.

Whatever it is, it seems Plato only heard about it in the week before the meeting, and Cole wasn't aware until the Saturday!!

[BLiTZ]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

There seems to be something more to it than the COG adjustment, based on interviews with Plato and Cole that I have just heard.

On Sunday morning, Plato said something to the extent of 'We had a great winter testing, and had good speed in the car - then we had to change the car this week'. Cole said something like 'Testing went well, and then FP2 times seemed poor, I found out yesterday (Saturday) we need to work out how to handle the change to the car'.

Whatever it is, it seems Plato only heard about it in the week before the meeting, and Cole wasn't aware until the Saturday!!

Seems like they went testing before TOCA's changes came into effect perhaps thinking it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Considering that when testing the Passats they (BMR) deliberately tested with full ballast (wasn't it the year when the increased NGTC ballast came into effect?) so they could set the cars up accordingly, this would be an oversight.

Either that or they tried to predict what measures would be taken, simulated that for testing and lost the gamble?!

It's no different to BoP measures elsewhere in motorsport and I'm sure they'll recover. If not they'll moan after three rounds, threaten that Subaru will pull out and have the measures 'reviewed'.

[AdrianM]

Originally Posted by BLiTZ

Take those benefits away (or in this case reduce their effects) and the car is far from anyone's first choice for a touring car, it's a big blocky beast of a car compared to the nimble little hatches of the other teams. They need to address things like the chassis, setup and aero (The Levorg, much like the MG6 seem to have quite basic (dare I say lazy) aero designs without the refinements seen on other models) but even then as Dynamics proved with the Tourer even with the best engineering in the world an estate car isn't going to win championships without some sort of boost.

I'm sure I read in one of the engineering mag interviews with Faux that the Levorg was one of the slipperiest cars out there. Also wheelbase and overall length it's not the biggest of the cars that have won races.

[BLiTZ]

Originally Posted by AdrianM

I'm sure I read in one of the engineering mag interviews with Faux that the Levorg was one of the slipperiest cars out there. Also wheelbase and overall length it's not the biggest of the cars that have won races.

Coule be true, but coud also be marketing spin (covering for the fact that they (BMR) really wanted the Impreza hatch or WRX saloon, but for marketing got lumbered with the Levorg), didnt Dynamics say the same about the Tourer before they entered it (then after the season said the complete opposite).

Isn't the old Volvo 850 story the same? (before the season) "We chose the estate because it's more aero dynamic" (turns out it wasn't a consistent race winner) "We chose it because we wanted to promote the estate" etc etc?!

As for wheelbase, true, but whilst long wheelbase cars have had some race wins and perhaps offer more stability at certain tracks, it's the shorter cars that have won championships and look generally more (to borrow a Mat Jackon word) 'racey' when mixed up in the thick of things.

[Sodemo]

These changes pretty much counteract Plato's "grand idea" he had when getting the Subaru involved.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by BLiTZ

Coule be true, but coud also be marketing spin (covering for the fact that they (BMR) really wanted the Impreza hatch or WRX saloon, but for marketing got lumbered with the Levorg), didnt Dynamics say the same about the Tourer before they entered it (then after the season said the complete opposite).

It seems like a Subaru UK decision to use the Levorg, given that the MD for Subaru UK and Ireland previously stated:
'We were keen to enter our new Levorg Sport Tourer as it offers class leading aerodynamics and handling prowess in standard form. It can be easily developed into rear-wheel drive to comply with the BTCC regulations so we can’t wait to see how it goes against very established competition.'

The list of small estate cars doesn't include many 'sporty' models, so its not much competition to compare with. It is more aerodynamic than the Impreza for instance, but that relevance is reduced in BTCC when they slap on spoilers/splitters and other aero features that increase the drag to generate handling.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

These changes pretty much counteract Plato's "grand idea" he had when getting the Subaru involved.

I think this is the reason many people find it hard to get upset when they hear of performance measures being imposed.

Generally, entrants select a car for marketing/availability/brand alignment purposes and then go about turning that into a viable BTCC car.

The Levorg project seems to have been approached from the other angle - they have attempted to exploit the regulations to the full extent, and then selected a car with unique characteristics to exploit that.

Five different makes of car made podium appearances over the weekend - each one of them from taking a road model and making it into a NGTC-compliant car. Not from taking the NGTC rulebook, and scouring the world for the best starting point.

Should BMR be applauded for their approach? - in my opinion no because they have attempted to make all other makes of car uncompetitive, which would be bad for the long term benefit of the BTCC.

[Rob877]

I think that for the health of the series this had to be done. If BMR were to waltz off with a title this year due to being the quickest car at every track this season, it would effectively doom this ruleset to failure in the same way it did in 1994 when Alfa Romeo exploited loopholes to dominate a season. I think there may be a slight danger of that with BMW this year if they continue to perform so well at their unfancied circuits the way they did at the weekend. I hope I'm wrong though.

[Sodemo]

I'm a massive BMW and Turks fan, however even I am surprised that the RWD teams dont have a RWD penalty, as I believe that they are the same weight as the FWD cars. I know they have had their first gear gimped to make sure they cannot get the amazing starts they did a few years ago, however I still think an argument could be made for an increase in weight.

Lets not forget, that the supertouring BMW ran 25kg heavier than the FWD cars of its time, and the same applied to the S2000 BMW though I cannot recall the exact weight difference with that car.

[steve_r]

It's only one weekend, and it's only one of the RWD teams. The other RWD cars were not in the same league (for various reasons already being discussed).

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by steve_r

It's only one weekend, and it's only one of the RWD teams. The other RWD cars were not in the same league (for various reasons already being discussed).

If RWD starts to dominate the series, then one of two things will happen.

a) Teams will be permitted to modify their cars to RWD (even if the car is not available generally in that configuration).
b) RWD cars will have some form of further measure applied to negate their advantage.

In all likelihood, the second of the two is more probable.
I wonder how seriously Honda are looking at running RWD next season too?

[S griffin]

But as has been said before how many times have the FWD cars dominated? You see you can't just punish RWD, without doing the same to FWD

[steve_r]

The Halfords Hondas had a great weekend. They could have been 1 and 2 in the championship if it were not for Neals race 1 incident. Ingram had a great weekend too. FWD are in fact 1st and 2nd in the championship. So maybe all FWD cars should be ballasted?

[Sodemo]

I'd personally like to see the BMW 1st gear put back to something approaching what it was previously, and slap them with a 25kg RWD penalty.