[WTCC] Equalisation...

[touring fan01]

So let me get this right;

The Seats have won every race so far and have 4 of the 5 leaders in the championship. But the BMW's get the exact same weight penalty as the Seats?

So how is that going to make any difference between those two makes?

[helterskelter]

Funny thing is, if they work well in quali, BMW will never be able to pass them due to Seat's super top speed. So, even if BMW have the pace, like the first 2 races have shown Seat are most likely to take the top spots of the podium again. I expect Chevy to be very competitive in Morocco, anyway, and surprises from Lada are possible, since everyone has to learn a new track from scratch (remember the 3 Lada drivers also had this huge handicap) and therefore I believe van Lagen might be in for a chance to get some points in one of the races, if nothing gets broken on the 110 and he manages to do all the free practice and test sessions without problems.

[touring fan01]

But is that what the equalisation was meant to acheive? To give the Chevvy and Lada's a 60kg advantage while the BMW's and Seats remain the same?

I though the point was to close up any discrepancy in the performance of all the cars.

The Seats have obviously been better than the BMWs but this has done nothing to change any of that.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

I though the point was to close up any discrepancy in the performance of all the cars.

That is exactly what they have done. The TDIs are NOT quicker than the BMWs. The reason they have won is superior qualifying teamwork, not screwing up wet race setups and skilled drivers.

Check the laptime numbers and compensation weight calculations for your self.

http://www.touringcartimes.com/forum....php?f=2&t=170

[redshoes]

The equalisation system works by comparing fastest lap times. SEAT may be difficult to overtake but if you look at the lap times there's actually very little difference between them and BMW.

Originally Posted by helterskelter

I expect Chevy to be very competitive in Morocco

Absolutely, especially if they've got the flat bottom along with a 60kg reduction.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by stedevil

That is exactly what they have done. The TDIs are NOT quicker than the BMWs. The reason they have won is superior qualifying teamwork, not screwing up wet race setups and skilled drivers.

Check the laptime numbers and compensation weight calculations for your self.

http://www.touringcartimes.com/forum....php?f=2&t=170

Forget lap times because those can be directly massaged and controlled by the drivers. The team and drivers are not stupid enough to do times that will give them a great weight penalty! As Jack Brabham famously said, its best to "win at the slowest possible speed".

Instead of the theory and the calculations just look at the facts. They have won every race easily and each of the top two Seat drivers has 50% more points than the top BMW driver. Anyone who thinks that the BMW's and Seats are perfectly evenly matched and that the Seats are not quicker than the BMW's is living in complete denial.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Forget lap times because those can be directly massaged and controlled by the drivers. The team and drivers are not stupid enough to do times that will give them a great weight penalty! As Jack Brabham famously said, its best to "win at the slowest possible speed".

Do you really think that in the heat of a race a driver will forgo catching and passing a car in front in case he goes too fast, or in qualifying will anyone not try to get pole.

Anyone who thinks that the BMW's and Seats are perfectly evenly matched and that the Seats are not quicker than the BMW's is living in complete denial.

Not perfectly matched but not as far apart as you think.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Do you really think that in the heat of a race a driver will forgo catching and passing a car in front in case he goes too fast, or in qualifying will anyone not try to get pole.

Well if you have plenty of performance in hand, then yes. Plenty of drivers and teams do that all over the world when they have a dominant car and don't want to show its true form and get a performance penalty. They drive to within an envelope, which is faster than all the others by 'just enough' through short-shifting the revs etc.

Notice how when they introduced the restricted revs and boost to the Seats and that it didn't effect their performance at all? Its because they had plenty of performance in reserve as has clearly been shown.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Notice how when they introduced the restricted revs and boost to the Seats and that it didn't effect their performance at all? Its because they had plenty of performance in reserve as has clearly been shown.

And because they have all the off-season to further develop the car

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by redshoes

And because they have all the off-season to further develop the car

As had BMW...

My point is that this new equalisation formula is wide open to abuse, by drivers and teams who are able to 'manage' their performance. The old "win at the slowest possible speed" trick.

I would much rather they base it on results.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by redshoes

The equalisation system works by comparing fastest lap times. SEAT may be difficult to overtake but if you look at the lap times there's actually very little difference between them and BMW.

Did anybody notice that we're talking about circuit racing and not rally? If you're talking about rally, then the BMW is quicker, as the laptimes may even be faster; if you're talking, as we are, about circuit racing, then it's pretty different.
Of course if I am racing in Imola, for instance, and I want to overtake a SEAT and I'm driving a BMW, all I have to do is hope for the driver in front to make a mistake (which sounds like F1, just horrible...). If, for instance, I wanna overtake him at the Piratella, I won't be able to, because when he accelerates he gains meters that I am not able to take back until we get to the braking, but at that point my advantage is useless, as I don't have a chance to overtake. Same thing if I want to pass on the Tamburello, because the SEAT driver has much more top speed than I do.
So, what are we talking about?
You say it's about skill: then why didn't SEAT win when the only difference in the team was Rydell not being there? It's a world championship, they're mostly great drivers and all of them are great teams. This story that Jaime Puig continuously puts forward is a joke: suddenly, when the TDIs came in, Seat Sport and its drivers became more skilled than BMW Motorsport, its teams and its drivers. What a weird coincidence. Sounds interesting... So, I suppose that if Jaime Puig took over the Honda Accords and had the same drivers he'd still win, since it's only about the team and the drivers.
Why doesn't he tell the truth? Yes, we have a great team and great drivers (which is absolutely true, don't get me wrong) but we also have a great car and its carachteristics make the ultimate difference.
Were it not so, he'd have stuck with the Tfsi.
So, going back to Morocco, I think it's gonna be Seat again. TBH I'd prefer a mix of the system that was there last year and the system used this year: you take the best 2 results of the best drivers of each make and give weights to the models they're driving, using a coefficient for quali, Race 1 and Race 2 to make things more appropriate. Substantially, something inspired to the way they give constructors' championship points. Then, for instance, the best classified model has a +40kgs penalty, the second one 20, the 3rd one 10 and so on (just a naif example). Don't you think it'd be more realistic? This system would also be less subject to any suspect of cheating, as touring fan01 correctly stated. What do you think about that?

[awrb]

The point of this system though is to close up any gaps in lap times, without being a cheap 'load the weight on the best driver' system. BMW need to now find a way to get past the SEAT's, it's not just handed to them on a plate. and as for the cheating, I couldn't see that happening in quali, just the race, and only then if in a dominant lead. By only taking the fastest lap, and not an average for example, they have largely eliminated that from the races, and by weighting quali higher than the races, it should all be quite fair.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by awrb

The point of this system though is to close up any gaps in lap times, without being a cheap 'load the weight on the best driver' system. BMW need to now find a way to get past the SEAT's, it's not just handed to them on a plate. and as for the cheating, I couldn't see that happening in quali, just the race, and only then if in a dominant lead. By only taking the fastest lap, and not an average for example, they have largely eliminated that from the races, and by weighting quali higher than the races, it should all be quite fair.

Believe me, it's possible to 'cheat' (I don't think it's actual cheating, it's exploiting the loopholes in the rules, which is one of the jobs of the teams IMO) during quali, if you have a big gap. I remember my dad being superfast in Vallelunga in 2006 with the C1 Cup, he'd slightly pull the throttle so that he was slower but the others just didn't realize he was doing it on purpose. In that case it was made to let the opponents believe that our limit was the one that the laptimes showed, so that they'd slow the improvements down because they thought that the best laptime was still pretty near. In this case it has a different purpose, but if you're an experienced driver you know where to 'lose' 3 tenths, especially during quali, if you want to. I'm not sure they're doing it, but it's certainly possible.
The system I was thinking of would punish the MODEL used by the driver who wins, not the driver who wins. I thought this new system would be a good one but of course laptimes alone are not enough to determine the competitiveness of a car during a whole race weekend. That's why I was talking about that different system.
Like that, practically, the model who scores more points in the championship gets the heaviest ballast. Sounds more linked to reality, as the points gained are those who determine the champion, after all, not the laptimes...!

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by awrb

The point of this system though is to close up any gaps in lap times, without being a cheap 'load the weight on the best driver' system. BMW need to now find a way to get past the SEAT's, it's not just handed to them on a plate. and as for the cheating, I couldn't see that happening in quali, just the race, and only then if in a dominant lead. By only taking the fastest lap, and not an average for example, they have largely eliminated that from the races, and by weighting quali higher than the races, it should all be quite fair.

Of course its open to abuse both in quali and race.

The Seat drivers know exactly what their car is capable of doing, and all they can just do is drive the car to well within that envelope. The team would set them a lap time to acheive and to stay within. That sort of thing has been going on for years, in all sorts of categories.

Anyone would be very naive if they didn't think that the drivers of the fastest cars out there don't play that game, so that they are not weighed down with a reduction in their performance.

Thats why a results based formula is better. Because they are not going to throw away race results are they?

[stedevil]

Yes yes, we all know, if BMW is not winning, the rules are broken.

Gosh some people are fanatical brand fans...

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by stedevil

Yes yes, we all know, if BMW is not winning, the rules are broken.

Gosh some people are fanatical brand fans...

Strangely enough I don't even like BMW's. Their domination was bad for the WTCC.

But I do like evenly competitive cars.

And if you think the current equalization formula is perfectly fair and fine and not open to abuse then thats great. Very naive, but great.

[duke_toaster]

Maybe it's time for BMW to introduce their tractor, then?

[awrb]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Anyone would be very naive if they didn't think that the drivers of the fastest cars out there don't play that game, so that they are not weighed down with a reduction in their performance.

Thats why a results based formula is better. Because they are not going to throw away race results are they?

If the drivers are holding back in the SEATs, then they're playing the rules aren't they, which is what you've got to do in any sport.

If you use a results based formula, lets say the SEAT's are all leading by miles, lapping some back-markers and one of the back-markers takes a SEAT out, and the rest of the SEAT's all pile into one another because they were in their long train formation, and it means non of them can start the second race. For the next meeting, the SEAT's would be -60Kg and so would run away with it, while the BMW's and Chevy's are fully loaded. The current system takes the racing out of the ballast system and looks purely at pace.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by awrb

If the drivers are holding back in the SEATs, then they're playing the rules aren't they, which is what you've got to do in any sport.

If you use a results based formula, lets say the SEAT's are all leading by miles, lapping some back-markers and one of the back-markers takes a SEAT out, and the rest of the SEAT's all pile into one another because they were in their long train formation, and it means non of them can start the second race. For the next meeting, the SEAT's would be -60Kg and so would run away with it, while the BMW's and Chevy's are fully loaded. The current system takes the racing out of the ballast system and looks purely at pace.

This would hardly happen, and anyway it would be the same problem if all the SEATs have a crash on the first lap of a race.

Originally Posted by stedevil

Yes yes, we all know, if BMW is not winning, the rules are broken.

Gosh some people are fanatical brand fans...

As usual you act like you know everything and we're the poor stupid little freaks. The problem is not that BMW are not winning, the problem is that we have a domination in terms of points and race wins. Are you going to give me a table stating that yes, SEAT have won 4 races, but BMW have had some fastest laps? Don't do it, it'd be useless. 4 SEATs in the first 5 places, 4 wins out of 4, 18 points ahead of BMW... Do I have to keep it going?
Truth is, the last BMW win goes back to Oschersleben, 31st August: it means that in 12 races no BMW has been able to win a race. SEAT have won 9 races out of those 12, so do you call it an equal championship?
Otherwise, we can still do it like F1, the best manufacturer with the highest budget comes in, builds the best car and wins it. But that is not touring cars...

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

And if you think the current equalization formula is perfectly fair and fine and not open to abuse then thats great. Very naive, but great.

The naive person is you, because you completely disregard what happens on track and ONLY look at the points scored list. Rarely does points scored tell the whole story, especially not from a few individual races from a whole season.

Qualy Curitiba: Seat uses proper teamwork to drag themselves up with a 5 car train. BMW all go out alone, not even 2 by 2.

Race 1: BMW has problems passing cars in front at the same pace... no ****? SEATs behind BMW also has problems passing them, but apparently if things are equal, it's unfair for BMW... Maybe they should give out "free pass" cards to all BMW drivers so SEAT drivers needs to slow down and let them past?

Race 2: 1-4 on the grid is BMWs. However they have all screwed up their wet race setups and just plummet down through the field. Even JMs BMW starting from the very back of the grid finishes ahead of the 4 BMWs starting at the front by the end of the race. He is quicker than all SEATs BTW. But quickest are 2 chevies.

The next race weekend: Puebla, at really high altitude, the track that has never ever favoured the BMW. EVerybody and their mother traditionally walked over them here. What happenens? Not only do BMW get pole, their pace all weekend is easily on par with the Seats. The only thing they do not manage is to actually win either race, but they have multiple podiums.

Yet you seem to have convinced yourself that things are unfair. Good analysis work there.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

the problem is that we have a domination in terms of points and race wins.

The fact that you consider this a problem, totally ignoring WHY it is like that (as in what happened in the races) confirms that you are 100% biased towards BMW and can not accept them being beaten through teamwork and driver skill.

If JM would have started from the front in race 2 Curitiba, or ANY of the 4 BMWs up there would have had proper wet race setups, they would have had a win.

Also, in Puebla, Andy Priaux almost got a race win as well (he was easily 1s quicker than the 2 cars infront), but got only to 3rd because FARFUS held him back. Farfus couldn't pass the Seat infront of him, because his engine was overheating, but he sure wasn't going to let Andy past. He knows darn well Priaux is one of his main contenders for the WDC title and he wont deliberately give away 4-6 points relative to him.

Also, you convently scew the numbers to make your point by saying "4 seats in top 5" when place 3-6 are all separated by only 4 points in total (2 seats and 2 BMW), and that is WITH the huge Curitiba race 2 screwup.

If Im supposed to say something equally dumb and meaningless I can state "BMW is too light, because 6(!!) out of 10 cars in the top 10 are BMW... do I need to go on?"

Please come back to earth... it's pointless to have a discussion with you when your POV is that lobsided.

[awrb]

But it's not a one make series anyway, so there is going to be differences in car performance. It you don't want to see that, the Renault Clio Cup's not bad. If the SEAT's are better than the BMW's, then BMW need to improve their car.

LADA haven't ever won a WTCC race, so I think SEAT need 1000Kg, BMW 750, Chevrolet 500, and LADA can keep their -60.

[Jon411]

According to Crash:

"The Chevrolet Cruze, LADA 110, SEAT Leon TFSI and the BMW of Alex Zanardi – which is fitted with a sequential gearbox – will also have 20kg deducted from their minimum weight."

If this is correct, Am I missing something here - but are you allowed to change gearbox during the year? If you are and you are at Proteam or Engstler - surely it would make sense to change to the Sequential box - as you would be running lighter than you would be with the 5 speed car now?

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

Otherwise, we can still do it like F1, the best manufacturer with the highest budget comes in, builds the best car and wins it.

Last time I checked it was a (relatively) pennyless non-manufactorer team using customer engines that's been doing all the winning.

As Honda spend many years and many millions proving, highest budget and best car are not the same thing.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

Like that, practically, the model who scores more points in the championship gets the heaviest ballast. Sounds more linked to reality, as the points gained are those who determine the champion, after all, not the laptimes...!

That would only work if points were awarded to every driver. As it is there may be minimal performance difference between the car that continually finishes 8th and the car continually in 9th but by the end of the season there would be a significant difference in points.

Also all things being equal, BMW and SEATare less more to score points simply because they run more cars, so a system based purely on points would unduly handicap them.

The thing to remember is that this system isn't just a replacement for the driver success ballast, it's also a replacement for the mid-season tinkering. You know the sort of thing, we think SEAT are quicker so give them 30kg extra, next month we think BMW have caught up so remove 15kg, it's a full moon so Chevy get -10kg. All very unscientific.