Oulton

[Sodemo]

Don't Audi's often have their engines further forwards?

[Johno.UK]

Originally Posted by btccbloke

I may be wrong but I dont think its a "missed trick" I seem to remember hearing the A4 was derived from a 4WD car not a pure RWD and the engine and running gear had to be sat further forward than in the pure RWD cars?

So was the Subaru though and it's engine is almost as far back as the BMW.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by btccbloke

I may be wrong but I dont think its a "missed trick" I seem to remember hearing the A4 was derived from a 4WD car not a pure RWD and the engine and running gear had to be sat further forward than in the pure RWD cars?

The A4 was the first (and at time only) RWD car built to NGTC regulations. The original car being 4WD means that the choice of FWD or RWD is determined by the orientation of the engine as fitted in the road going car.
With the A4 having a longitudinal engine, this meant that the car had to run as RWD, and also meant that front subframes for longitudinal engines had to be designed.

The BMWs and Subaru models all had to use the same front subframe when they were developed, and also use the same running gear and longitudinal engine configuration. The running gear is determined by the NGTC spec, and is/was common to the A4, 1-Series, 3-Series and Subaru. Remember that the Audi was run with the TOCA engine towards the end of its life too, so the location was not determined by the engine, but selected during the design of the build.

The 'free' part is the propshaft, and it is this area that I wonder if the Audi could have been fitted with a shorted propshaft, and thereby moving the engine rearwards?

[mickb]

Is there not something in the rules stating the engine has to be in the same place as the road car? Pretty sure there is something....

Also we are taking a lot from Cammsih's comments: was he looking at how the car behaved or did he actually see something?

The BMW road car boasts a near perfect 50/50 weight bias so would change it be an advantage?

Maybe they are up to something with aero, I don't buy the straight line speed thing as its not the quickest in a straight line!! but if they are that quick and have plenty downforce then there onto something..

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by mickb

Is there not something in the rules stating the engine has to be in the same place as the road car? Pretty sure there is something....

No - the engine position in a FWD is determined by the common subframe, and in RWD is fixed against the transmission.

'6.8.0 Engine Mounts and position.
The engine and transmissions mounts are free provided they attach to the 4 location points provided on the front frame.
6.8.1 The position and orientation of the engine / crankshaft centre line for FWD is controlled by the fixed transmission location and must fit within the structure of the front frame, which may not be modified.
6.8.2 For RWD the crankshaft position must be at the same height as required for FWD and shown in the Build Manual. The engine’s longitudinal position is as detailed in the Build Manual.'

[mickb]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

No - the engine position in a FWD is determined by the common subframe, and in RWD is fixed against the transmission.

'6.8.0 Engine Mounts and position.
The engine and transmissions mounts are free provided they attach to the 4 location points provided on the front frame.
6.8.1 The position and orientation of the engine / crankshaft centre line for FWD is controlled by the fixed transmission location and must fit within the structure of the front frame, which may not be modified.
6.8.2 For RWD the crankshaft position must be at the same height as required for FWD and shown in the Build Manual. The engine’s longitudinal position is as detailed in the Build Manual.'

Great!! so there nothing to moan about!! personally I don't think its the engines position..

[Johno.UK]

Originally Posted by mickb

Great!! so there nothing to moan about!! personally I don't think its the engines position..

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that there's nothing to moan about. Just because it's in the rules doesn't mean that it isn't giving an advantage and don't forget the Subaru was built within the rules until they changed them.

I doubt it is all to do with the engine position as well but it's certainly not hurting.

[BLiTZ]

Cammish mentioned 'being in the wake', that suggests to me more like they (WSR) have some sort of aero advantage.

[btccbloke]

Matt Neal has said on Tin Top Tuesday that BMW were performance adjusted after Thruxton but it made no difference so they will be again after Snetterton as it is within the regulations that its only allowed every 3 races.

Snetterton may be a different ball game as its traditionally not a RWD specific track so it might be a bit more even, the BMW results at the last couple of rounds were not exactly unusual for Croft and Oulton Park

Either way, it seemed from his tone that most teams have already written this year off

[Sodemo]

I find it hard to believe that TOCA would have willingly handed BMW a massive advantage engine wise over previous years. So what changed for 2019? Its the same engine as 2018 as far as I know?

One thing I did notice was that in 2018 the 1-series became more competitive at tracks it was previously poor at and conversely performed worse at the traditionally "RWD" circuits. For example, they went really well at Thruxton, but were pretty average at Oulton and Croft.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

So what changed for 2019? Its the same engine as 2018 as far as I know?

It's now in a 3-Series, a different car.....

[Johno.UK]

Originally Posted by btccbloke

Matt Neal has said on Tin Top Tuesday that BMW were performance adjusted after Thruxton but it made no difference so they will be again after Snetterton as it is within the regulations that its only allowed every 3 races.

It was the lowest possible amount they can reduce it by though at 0.02 bar which is roughly 4 to 5 bhp. Tim Harvey said at the time he didn't think it would make any difference.

[btccbloke]

Originally Posted by Johno.UK

It was the lowest possible amount they can reduce it by though at 0.02 bar which is roughly 4 to 5 bhp. Tim Harvey said at the time he didn't think it would make any difference.

Just a thought but could the "adjustment" be a weight adjustment or only boost related?
I believe RWD has a weight penalty anyway (at least they always used to), is it mandated where they carry the weight? maybe carrying additional ballast towards the front of the car would be more of an equalizer?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by btccbloke

it is within the regulations that its only allowed every 3 races.

Originally Posted by Johno.UK

It was the lowest possible amount they can reduce it by though at 0.02 bar which is roughly 4 to 5 bhp.

BTCC Sporting Regulation 1.11.2
'a. The throttle body size and/or restrictor and/or the maximum permitted rpm and/or maximum permitted turbo boost of individual cars may be subject to review and validation at any time during the 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.

c When stationary on the grid after the Green Flag lap(s) Rear Wheel Drive cars must engage and use the RWD Start Strategy as issued in a Bulletin. The race-start boost levels for all cars may be subject to review at any time during the currency of the 2019 Championship by the by the Administrator who may implement a variation by way of a Bulletin issued by the Co-ordinator.'

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It's now in a 3-Series, a different car.....

Well, yeah, but the engine power would be the same?

[Johno.UK]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Well, yeah, but the engine power would be the same?

Actually a bit less as they've had the boost reduction since last season but there are many things that make a car go fast over a lap other than the engine.

[Sodemo]

Well, only TOCA and WSR know the figures, so it’s somewhat pointless speculating but if for example the BMW engine has 380bhp, then the rest of the engines have to be within the same region? I find it hard to believe that one team could be on 380 and another on 360bhp. Having said that, I don’t even know what the aim is of the engine rules formula. I think at one point it was based on straight line speeds, then it was lap times.

Personally I think all teams should be just given a rev limit, a fuel flow restrictor and let them build whatever engine they want based on a road going block.

[Johno.UK]

TOCA try to equalise the power of the cars not the straight line speed or the lap time.

Unfortunately many of those who comment on the BTCC social media channels think the only way a car can be faster in a straight line is if they have given Gow a back hander for a boost increase.

It doesn't help that certain drivers who should know better then pander to it by saying how fast car X is in a straight line and mention boost when they know full well that the corner exit speed, aerodynamics and engine mapping all play a part.

[S griffin]

Personally I agree with those that you can't draw conclusions after two RWD tracks. Snetterton will be a different kettle of fish, so then we can see if they are as really as dominant as people say

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Well, only TOCA and WSR know the figures, so it’s somewhat pointless speculating but if for example the BMW engine has 380bhp, then the rest of the engines have to be within the same region?

Your previous post sounded a bit like a speculation?

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I find it hard to believe that TOCA would have willingly handed BMW a massive advantage engine wise over previous years. So what changed for 2019? Its the same engine as 2018 as far as I know?

The Subaru definitely never had an engine advantage (in terms of power), but it is the delivery of the power and how it can be used by the chassis that makes the difference between a 3-Series and the 1-Series.

A simple example:
Two cars with the exact same drag coefficient, engine power and transmission setup are both capable of accelerating at 5 m/s squared when at full throttle (equivalent to a 0-60 time of 5.3s).

Car A due to its chassis is on full throttle 10 metres after the apex of the corner, taken at 50km/h.
Car B due to its chassis is unable to apply full throttle until 11 metres after the apex of the corner, also from 50km/h.

0.72s (after apex) - both cars are travelling at 50kph, and have travelled 10 metres from the apex. Car A begins to acclerate, Car B has to wait a further 0.08 seconds before applying full throttle.

time (after apex)	Car A km/h	Car B km/h	Gap (m)
0.9s	53.24	51.8	0.058
1s	55.04	53.60	0.094
2s	73.04	71.60	0.498
3s	91.04	89.60	0.898
3.26	95.72	94.28	1.002
4s	109.04	107.6	1.298
4.5s	118.04	116.6	1.506

If everything else is equal on the two cars, except one of them can apply full throttle a metre earlier, then just 5.76s after hitting the apex, Car A has travelled 144 metres with a speed advantage of just 1.44 km/h but having pulled out a gap of over 2 metres to Car B.

[MrsDoubtfire]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I don't think it's a leaf out of Subaru's book, and more just a case of applying the regulations as they are written.

When building to NGTC regulations, the position of the front and rear subframes are fixed against the road going model's wheelbase (+/- 10mm).
In a FWD car, the gearbox is in a fixed position within the front subframe, and the engine mates against that - leaving no potential to adjust in a FWD car other than angle of mounting.
In a RWD car, the diff is in a fixed position relative to the rear subframe. The regulations stipulate the minimum length of the bellhousing and crank centre line, but the position of the engine is free and the propshaft is free (provided it is from ferrous materials or aluminium, but must incorporate the specified gearbox end flange).

The comparative details are:




Assuming that all cars used the same minimal propshaft length (for CoG purposes), then the distance from the front of the car to the diff is longer on the 3-series than any other RWD car. This means that, relative to the front of the car, the 3-series engine can be mounted further back than even the Subaru, due to the length and wheelbase characteristics.

If all 3 models use the same propshaft, then the 3-series engine is 15mm further back than the Subaru and 190mm further back than the 1-series.

crmalcolm: Is the distance from the front of the car that relevant? Surely overhangs at the front (or rear) have some influence on your assertions on where the engine is in the chassis - and the usual measure would be relative to the front axle line, not the front of the car?

Do you have access to the BTCC Technical Regulations, database and manuals etc that require password access on tocatechnical.co.uk?

I had (perhaps wrongly) assumed that there would be some technical regulation governing modifications to the shell and most specifically the front bulkhead? i.e. that you couldn't move or modify it beyond installing the pick ups for the front subframe? If that were the case, would that not be more of a factor in how far back an engine can be mounted and remain in accordance with the technical regs - more relevant than length of prop shaft which is surely just the balancing figure?

The Subaru appears to have a whacking great rectangular cut out in the front bulkhead and an enlarged transmission tunnel. In the second image you can see the vertical part of the bulkhead cut out just in front of the pedal box. Looking at the third image it is obvious that the cut out accommodates the engine, not just the transmission, allowing the back of the engine to be, effectively, inside the cockpit.

Was curious whether there was anything governing this?








If I recall correctly, JP used to moan about RWD advantages when he was in the MG, so perhaps no surprise he is moaning again now he in a Vauxhall. However it does seem ironic following his involvement in the Subaru project.....

[porsche962fan]

JP pointed out 9 out 10 race 1 and 2 this season were won by BMW (basically all except Brands Hatch 1)


so this could be renamed the BMW Touring Car Championship

[Alfisti]

The Kwik Fit BMW Touring Car Championship please

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

JP pointed out 9 out 10 race 1 and 2 this season were won by BMW (basically all except Brands Hatch 1)


so this could be renamed the BMW Touring Car Championship

Really?

2017. Rounds 4-10 also had 10 "Race 1 and Race 2". 8 out of 10 of those were won by the Subaru. Didn't see the same comment back then.

This is also a symptom of the reduced ballast. With less weight added for a win, the penalty for winning isn't as large as it was before. So now a winning car still gets a pole position, and a greater chance of winning than it previously had done.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

JP pointed out 9 out 10 race 1 and 2 this season were won by BMW (basically all except Brands Hatch 1)

so this could be renamed the BMW Touring Car Championship

Between Oulton and Rockingham in 2017, 8 out of 10 R1&R1 races were won by Subaru, so it could have been renamed the Subaru Touring Car Championship.

Between Donington and Croft in 2012, 9 out of 10 consecutive races (incl R3s) were won by Honda Yuasa, so it could have been renamed the Honda Touring Car Championship.

Between Knockhill and Brands in 2009, 9 out of 12 consecutive races were won by Chevrolet, so it could have been renamed the Chevrolet Touring Car Championship.

Between Mondello and Donington in 2006, 9 out of 10 R1&R2 races were won by Halfords, so it could have been renamed the Honda Touring Car Championship.

A period of dominance from a certain make or model of car happens in the BTCC quite regularly, The BMW situation is not unique, and every time something similar has happened in the past, it has eventually been resolved. But don't let that get in the way of claiming that everything is fixed in the favour of a team you are not a fan of.....