[BTCC] BTCC 2023 season discussion, News and Rumours!

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by auroan

I don't think the loophole has been closed because of the RAR A4. If it had... the scooby would never have existed in RWD form.

But the Subaru engine IS fitted longways...

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

But the Subaru engine IS fitted longways...

All of this chat suggests the rules are not clear hence why Motorbase had a go

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by auroan

I don't think the loophole has been closed because of the RAR A4. If it had... the scooby would never have existed in RWD form.

The Subaru is a different context.

As I understand it, the sequence of events was:

NGTC regulations were written (initially) with the assumption that only FWD cars would enter with a transverse engine.
Rob Austin wanted to enter a RWD car, and selected the Audi A4 with a longitudinal engine. (At this point, the showroom model being 4WD or AWD is irrelevant).
The NGTC regulations at the time contained wording to the effect of ' an identical mechanical conception of the engine and the transmission
to the wheels'. This was interpreted as longitudinal to the rear wheels, transverse to the front wheels.

When the Audi A4 was accepted, the engine orientation was the only factor considered that determined the driven wheels in NGTC form.

Since that time, it was pointed out that the A4 in 2WD form was FWD, and so a RWD A4 was not in keeping with the 'mechanical conception of the engine and the transmission to the wheels'. At some point since, this has been clarified to mean that if a 2WD car is available in the model range, then that must be used as the NGTC entry. 4WD models are only permitted (in 2WD form) if there is no 2WD model in the range.

And so that is the situation with the Subaru. The Levorg was only available in 4WD form, and so the engine layout was the determining factor for the rear wheels to be driven.

Originally Posted by auroan

It is. Pete doesn't have a clue that the a5 has a longitudinal mounted engine.

He does - and that is why he was intending the A5 as a RWD car, in the same form as the A4 was previously. But, to do so, he needs the regulations to be re-written again.
With the A4 loophole now being closed, with the requirement that a 2WD model be used if available, then to enter an A5 as it currently stands you would need it to be a FWD car. The NGTC components make it impossible to have a longitudinal engine driving the front wheels.



In summary:
Prior to 2011, engine layout was the only factor determining which wheels are driven.
After 2011, the driven wheels are determined by the 2WD showroom version of the model. If no 2WD version exists, engine layout is the determining factor still.
If the 2WD model is longitudinal/FWD (or transverse/RWD!!) then it will not comply with NGTC regulations.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

All of this chat suggests the rules are not clear hence why Motorbase had a go

The rules are clear - Motorbase just want them changed to allow an Audi A5 RWD entry.

“But to let a 2.0-litre A5 in was no different to any other car in my opinion.

“We just wanted to change the rules because we feel it would be for everyone’s benefit.”

All of the talk about the A5 being transverse was not made by Motorbase, but seems to be an error in the article written by Marcus Simmons.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The rules are clear - Motorbase just want them changed to allow an Audi A5 RWD entry.

“But to let a 2.0-litre A5 in was no different to any other car in my opinion.

“We just wanted to change the rules because we feel it would be for everyone’s benefit.”

All of the talk about the A5 being transverse was not made by Motorbase, but seems to be an error in the article written by Marcus Simmons.

Ah I based my comment on the Auosport article....I would have thought Marcus Simmonds would have a better grasp of the rules...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

I would have thought Marcus Simmonds would have a better grasp of the rules...

True. I am wondering if the proposed Civic 4WD > RWD entry that Matt Neal suggested previously has resulted in some of the confusion.

That was not permissible because it is a transverse mount, and so would need to be FWD anyway.

[Sodemo]

I personally think that the rules should allow 2 door coupés like they did with the BTC rules of 2001 - 2007.

[Evantra]

Josh Cook having a go at relaunching the Clio Cup to run on the BRSCC package.

https://brscc.co.uk/brscc-announces-...6C94NgWFxxvH0o

[Craner Curves]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I personally think that the rules should allow 2 door coupés like they did with the BTC rules of 2001 - 2007.

No vans though! ?

[Robin Marriott]

Originally Posted by Evantra

Josh Cook having a go at relaunching the Clio Cup to run on the BRSCC package.

https://brscc.co.uk/brscc-announces-...6C94NgWFxxvH0o

That’s not even close to Clio Cup. That’s a fairly liberal club series.

[antnee]

I am surprised no one is trying to bring the Clio Cup back. The Mk5 cars are cheap compared to the JCW minis

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by Robin Marriott

That’s not even close to Clio Cup. That’s a fairly liberal club series.

Ok, a Renault Clio series then, totally different.

[Sodemo]

What's this new support series that Alan Gow has touted for 2024?

[Evantra]

BTC Racing look at a new build:

https://www.autosport.com/btcc/news/...sion/10386842/

Though I suppose you could write a similar thing for all teams, certainly nothing set in stone.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What's this new support series that Alan Gow has touted for 2024?

Gow has said that he want's to see a new junior series in 2024 to replace the Ginettas, however that's not something that TOCA/Gow will be starting. It's a case of someone starting a suitable series, then going to TOCA to ask for a slot on the timetable. Gow : "If someone comes to me with a new junior package for 2024, the right one will get a slot."