[BTCC] Please everyone, let's be factual

[davidjones]

In 1994, Alfa Romeo entered the BTCC with a unique homologation special version of their 155 model complete with wings and spoilers, this significantly improvied the aerodynamics of the car.

At the start of the season it was clear that Alfa Romeo had a substantial advantage over their opponents as Gabriele Tarquini dominated, taking the first five wins of the season.

This lead to several complaints been lodged by other manufacturers, and just prior to Oulton Park Alfa were told to run without the aerodynamic aids fitted.

Alfa refused and left the circuit in protest, allowing Alain Menu to take Renault’s first win of the season.

For Donnington Park, Alfa were re-instated after agreeing to run with the spoilers lowered, but having lost out on any points from Oulton Park. Even with lowered spoilers, however, Tarquini was able to keep much of his advantage.

By the Twelfth round at Silverstone, a rule change had been brought in to allow the other manufacturers to add aerodynamic aids to their own cars. This levelled the playing field considerably and allowed Joachim Winkelhock to make a bid for victory, overtaking Tarquini and winning the race.

So given that in 1994, when all the cars were running to the same regulations, TOCA pegged Alfa back, and I may be just imagining this, but in 1997, didn't Renault get weight added back in 1997 because they were so much faster then everyone else?

What I'm trying to say is, in the past TOCA has pegged back the performance of one car, because it has a significant performance advantage over the others. And that was in years where parity wasn't promised.

[Dudley]

And to be fair, they've already done that to a degree, the Hondas don't get the boost the others do.

[ckBrenneke]

Originally Posted by Jason Plato

6. The Series Director stated publically on 18th April …
“Clearly we have always stated that there should be performance parity between the two types (normally aspirated and turbo) for the next two seasons. That is not an issue and is a policy known and agreed by every team - and one we have publicly stated many times over the last 18 months. In very simple terms; the performance of the fastest/best of each type should be comparable for 2011 and 2012 – of course given that they are of a comparable level of quality of driver/team/car/preparation”

I think it's fair to say that Neal/Shedden/Dynamics/Civic are of comparable level of quality to Plato/RML/Cruze. So if the Series Director has stated they should be equal, then that should put to rest everyone else's comments and opinions, as it's Alan Gow and TOCA that regulate this championship, not the fans, and they should deliver on that promise.

The only thing nagging me is that in race 2, was Neal's Honda not lighter than Jason's Cruze? Originally it would have been a difference of 35 kilos of ballast, but with the NA weight-breaks, would that have been negated, plus with the weather effects would it have mattered as much?

IIRC correctly, the Hondas were the only cars to get into the 1.27s in race 3 at Oulton Park. I am a Honda fan, I have a Civic, I support Shedden, but I want them to win it, not walk it.

[Moneyseeker]

Performance balancing are a team managers two least favourite words.

TOCA walked straight in to this with the mix of cars and spec and trying to introduce the NGTC cars at the same time.

I don't even think you can deliver true parity across all these variable of different cars, drivers, circuits, engines, etc, so TOCA have probably promised something that in practice is almost impossible to deliver.

[Tim Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by davidjones

In 1994, Alfa Romeo entered the BTCC with a unique homologation special version of their 155 model complete with wings and spoilers, this significantly improvied the aerodynamics of the car.

(clipped)

So given that in 1994, when all the cars were running to the same regulations, TOCA pegged Alfa back, and I may be just imagining this, but in 1997, didn't Renault get weight added back in 1997 because they were so much faster then everyone else?

What I'm trying to say is, in the past TOCA has pegged back the performance of one car, because it has a significant performance advantage over the others. And that was in years where parity wasn't promised.

The question then was whether or not it was legal for Alfa Romeo to run with the wings and spoilers, as they were not supplied with all 155s and not fitted to those they were supplied with (iirc).

That was a question of legality - TOCA resolved it by allowing aero for everyone, regardless of whether it was on the base car or a special edition.

I don't know about the Renault question.

Right now Honda are within the rules, they are simply doing a better job of building a car to those rules than other teams. They aren't cheating so why penalise them and them alone? The problem lies in trying to balance so many variables (engines, weights, car specs), and to be honest I can't wait til everyone has to build a car to the same set of rules, have a "fair" race, and all the *****ing and moaning can stop. It's embarrassing to see so many issues at the top level of British motorsport.

Not a criticism of anyone at all, it's a crappy situation and the sooner that situation is done away with the better.

[MarkG]

Surely the only relevant performance factor that can be adjusted for parity is acceleration??
A timed lap is not a suitable gauge of equality because this is racing, not sprints. A driver of Jason's quality has a chance if he is in front, but, as has been demonstrated, it's a far different matter trying to overtake a car with superior (unfair) acceleration, and that even applies to lesser car/team/driver combinations to that of Honda.
I think the argument put forward by some that non-Honda turbo cars are slower than Jason, and so there must be parity, sort of skews the facts. They are being beaten by superior car/driver/team performance (IMHO).

I sense Jason's frustration is focussed on Honda because he knows he has the ability and team to compete with Honda, but not as things stand. Sure, now and again other cars shine, but fact is, the Honda and RML teams are at a different level to the others.

We forum bods are entitled to views, and it is interesting to read those expressed views, but, we don't race in the BTCC, so, as surprising as it was to see, Jason's post-race interview at Oulton seemed to be a clear case of extreme passion at an injustice, not sour grapes.
I think Jason would applaud a better driver on the day given equal machinery, as would any honest professional driver, what Jason displayed seemed to me to be too passionate to be anything other than deep frustration at the inequality of BTCC currently.
Going back to my first point, can't there be some way of equalising acceleration between turbo and NA cars, and would that in fact help at all?

[McMuttley]

What next from whinging Plato - minimum driver ages - his age probably accounts for much of the differential this year. He should take a lesson from Harvey and manage the transition a little more gracefully (more subtle excuses!)

[Moneyseeker]

Problem is that TOCA don't want to go back to a class A,B,C system so go for 'performance balancing', but have unfortunately ended up with effectively the same situation by default.

Mike Earle said late last year that when the LPG Ford was being pegged back, in fact they had done a lot of development on the car overall and were finding time in all areas of the car, but were then penalised on the engine.

I think TOCA have set themselves an impossible task by trying to keep all parties happy and to account for all the various developments to the cars. Even more so after the summer break when more tinkering time is available.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by McMuttley

What next from whinging Plato - minimum driver ages - his age probably accounts for much of the differential this year. He should take a lesson from Harvey and manage the transition a little more gracefully (more subtle excuses!)

I'm sure you're right about that one. It's not like he's got double the points of his half as old team mate or anything like that. I mean, drivers competitive beyond 40 in touring cars? Next time you'll tell me a driver not a year shy of 50 can win races in the World championship! When pigs fly, perhaps.

[ckBrenneke]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

I'm sure you're right about that one. It's not like he's got double the points of his half as old team mate or anything like that. I mean, drivers competitive beyond 40 in touring cars? Next time you'll tell me a driver not a year shy of 50 can win races in the World championship! When pigs fly, perhaps.

Haha, brilliant!

[MarkG]

Trouble with forums, and other internet places... all sorts of idiots can post something.

[Malfunction Junction]

Jason, it seems to me that the problem is that one team has a clear power advantage in a scenario where they are already artificially handicapped. Could it be that they've built a better mousetrap? As previously posted in your other thread, join 'em or get beaten by 'em.

Perhaps a change of scene is required. Does 28 cars qualifying within 1.5 seconds sound acceptable? All having the same engine configuration and comparable power? That happens every 3 weeks or so in Australia. The only problem though is that it includes bathurst.

Alternately, 42 cars separated by less than a second? Surely you could convince somebody to let you have a go at that?

[Minicross424]

Dont forget Jason done ASCAR in 2002 (uk version of NASCAR), got creamed and left.
Level playing field? Yes sir.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by Minicross424

Dont forget Jason done ASCAR in 2002 (uk version of NASCAR), got creamed and left.
Level playing field? Yes sir.

So he didn't leave because it was crap racing in crap cars at a crap circuit in front of empty stands, then?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by MarkG

Surely the only relevant performance factor that can be adjusted for parity is acceleration??

...

Going back to my first point, can't there be some way of equalising acceleration between turbo and NA cars, and would that in fact help at all?

I haven't seen the races but the management of acceleration would seem to me to be a key factor. No good having loads of power if you can't use it well all the way from lower speeds. Power at the top end seems to be what the regulations can attempt to control but if you can't get to the point where you can use the top end power it probabably doesn't matter too much at many of the circuits used.

Are there any ideas that aero might be a factor?

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by grantp

Are there any ideas that aero might be a factor?

The cars are the same as last year.

[tux]

I dont understand why your all having a go at Jason because hes willing to speak out about this? Im 100% sure you wouldnt be having a go at prince O Neill if he had complained every weekend.

[Minicross424]

Originally Posted by garcon

So he didn't leave because it was crap racing in crap cars at a crap circuit in front of empty stands, then?

The series that broke attendance figures for a british motorsport event at the time (50,000)?
With teams like RML, HTML, Bintcliffe Sport?
Nicolas Missisian, Kelvin Burt, Darren Manning, Darren Turner?
Yes thats the one.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by Minicross424

The series that broke attendance figures for a british motorsport event at the time (50,000)?
With teams like RML, HTML, Bintcliffe Sport?
Nicolas Missisian, Kelvin Burt, Darren Manning, Darren Turner?
Yes thats the one.

For a couple of races.

Until they all realised how crap it was.



(As for the 50,000 crowd, I wonder how many went twice?)

[Minicross424]

Originally Posted by garcon

For a couple of races.

Until they all realised how crap it was.



(As for the 50,000 crowd, I wonder how many went twice?)

Keyboard Hero's, dont you just love them?

[garcon]

I know what I'm talking about. I went to Ass Car at Rockingham. It was the most boring day of my life.

Anyway, this is all horribly off topic. What you seem to be suggesting is that Plato is throwing his toys out of the pram simply because he isn't winning. Which if you read and listen to what he says clearly isn't the case, and is actually quite insulting.

[privateer]

So lets say Alan Gow declares total parity in the BTCC will jason moan much when he along with all the other non NGT drivers get a 100 kilo weight penalty?
NGT is the car of the future so they say so why not all weigh the same as an NGT??

Now thats parity across the board for all not just the Chevy

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by privateer

So lets say Alan Gow declares total parity in the BTCC will jason moan much when he along with all the other non NGT drivers get a 100 kilo weight penalty?
NGT is the car of the future so they say so why not all weigh the same as an NGT??

Now thats parity across the board for all not just the Chevy

Anyone who wants to be adjusted upwards will have to prove themselves a competitive entry first. The Honda & Chevy obviously are, as both are run by the same teams and drivers that were championship contenders last year. If your car is significantly over the regulation weight limit you don't really have much of a case I'm afraid.

[Thundersports]

I think with Ascar the drivers took a long look at what they were doing and decided they didn't want to go pikey racing.....

I'm a Plato fan however is this advantage because Honda built a brand new car from the ground up for this year where the other Turbo cars just adapted their cars? Watching it I thought the Honda had better traction rather than acceleration out the corners hence faster in a straight line?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

The cars are the same as last year.

The cars are the same or the regulations are the same? Not necessarily the same thing when put to the test.