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

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

I always thought the rule was if the road car was 4WD/AWD, then the NGTC gearbox options forced a transverse engine to become a FWD race car and a longitudinal engine to be a RWD race car.

From a bit of eBay research, it appears that the 2.0TSI petrol is still a longitudinal mounted block... so not quite sure what the issue here is

It is a bit more nuanced than that.
As I understand it - you can only select a 4WD/AWD model if there is no 2WD car in the range:

"A large-scale series production 4WD touring car will be considered only if an equivalent 2WD version does not exist."

So the regulations mandate that they are to use a 2WD variant of the A5.

The problem here is that the A5 in 2WD form is FWD with a longitudinal engine. The NGTC components (gearbox) for longitudinal engines will only work if configured for RWD.

So you end up with a car that is FWD in road going form, but RWD in NGTC spec - that is against the regulations (as currently written).

[antnee]

Ahhh, that makes more sense now. I assume that rule was ignored for Mr Austin's Audis then?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

Ahhh, that makes more sense now. I assume that rule was ignored for Mr Austin's Audis then?

I think the rule was introduced because of the A4 entry. Rob found a 'loophole', exploited it and now it is closed. Motorbase seem to want it open again.

Remember that when the A4 first appeared, the ruleset was in its infancy and the intent was to be as open as possible. The regulations were being promoted, and the A4 joined two Toyotas at the first round of the season. Without it - the Toyota Avensis would have been the only car in its class for the debut NGTC season.

[BTCC frog]

So, my train of thought about what the grid could look like in 2023:

WSR will surely stick with Colin Turkington and Stephen Jelley, although Turkington's drive always seems to be at risk! MB Motorsport have talked about expanding to two cars, which could mean splitting with WSR or adding a fourth BMW. I suspect it just won't happen and Hill will remain as the third WSR driver.

Team Dynamics will probably stick with Shedden, and while I would be less sure about Rowbottom, he will most likely stay as well. They might have another attempt at getting a third car, but I no longer think it would be for Matt Neal. Maybe Henry Neal? I expect Josh Cook to stay at BTC Racing, and Jade Edwards too. Plato's retirement opens up a spot there, maybe for a return for Senna Proctor (I don't know under what terms he left) or someone like Jack Goff or Dan Lloyd. Both Honda teams might run a new car.

Rory Butcher will probably stay with Toyota, but will require a new teammate now Ricky Collard has retired, and possibly two if the team try again to run three cars. Another potential place for Crees, Proctor or Lloyd maybe?

Motorbase might switch cars, but I would be surprised if the lineup of Sutton, Cammish, Jackson and Osborne was not retained. Similarly, Ciceley will surely stick with Morgan and Gamble.

Excelr8 have confirmed Tom Ingram and Tom Chilton will remain, but for some reason I think Lloyd and Butel will leave. This opens up two places in a good team for next year, maybe another potential place for Proctor, Goff or Crees.

I think it will just be a one-season blip for Power Maxed, and they will be back next season with a new car and a star driver to lead the team. I was actually surprised to see Ash Hand will be remaining because for some reason I thought it would be just one season for him, but if he were to be paired with someone like Jack Goff in a new car I think that would be a strong lineup. Michael Crees therefore might lose his drive, but I think he was considerably better in 2022 than in previous years so hope he finds another seat, because he has the potential to win races, in my opinion, and be around Proctor-Smiley level in the future.

Laser Tools are probably going to run a new car for Aiden Moffat and a teammate, possibly involving a return to Front-Wheel-Drive? I think Dexter Patterson deserves another season.

Team HARD will surely keep Bobby Thompson, Aron Taylor-Smith and Nic Hamilton, as well as running a fourth Cupra. I don't think Will Powell will stay, but his replacement will probably be either Carl Boardley or someone I've never heard of. If it is not Boardley, I think he will drive a fifth HARD car, not a Cupra, and possibly an Infiniti. I don't think Parfitt will stay on the grid.

In terms of new teams, Graves Motorsport and Max Coates have been rumoured, as have Restart Racing and Chris Smiley. I hope both make it onto the grid.

I don't think Tom Oliphant will return, but hope to see Jack Goff, Senna Proctor and Chris Smiley all back on the grid. My more unlikely hopes would be a return for Andrew Jordan, Mat Jackson, Sam Tordoff, Matt Neal, and Jason Plato not retiring.

Also, an unpopular opinion perhaps but I am looking forward to the return of the option tyre. It is a little gimmicky, but far less so than success ballast or reversed grids because it affects everyone equally, and it makes the races more exciting because drivers fight through the pack from lowly grid slots more often because of it, while the skill of racecraft becomes particularly important as a result.

[antnee]

The Laser Tools guys usually pick cars quite well - do you think they could buy some i30's off Exceler8?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

The Laser Tools guys usually pick cars quite well - do you think they could buy some i30's off Exceler8?

From their past experience with the A Class, they are (AFAIK) reluctant to take on someone else's design. In September last year, I posted the below in response to a query about why Laser Tools could not be 'pegged back'.

When you look at the circumstances, personally I think it was a combination of Frederico Turrata and Antonio Carozza that saw them picking a good car, rather than Laser Tools themselves. Moffat Snr had not intended to race them initially.

If they are wanting to buy i30s from Excelr8 (or cars from elsewhere) I think they would want the rights to modify the design with that too. I can't see Excelr8 permitting someone else to modify the design when they are re-working the cars themselves for 2023. Same would go for 330e's from WSR and FK8s from TD. The only option would be the (seemingly) outdated Astra or switching to a Focus if Motorbase build a new car.
Considering that their success with the Q50 came while Carozza was engineering the car - would they be confident of doing a better job with the Focus than Carozza has done in 2022?


"Firstly - the design of the car (in terms of initial homologation process). The Mercedes that Aiden drove previously was an inherited design, one that was designed for Adam Morgan. That may not sound like a major point, but from the outset Laser Tools were having to adapt someone else's philosophy. One that they were not involved in the concept phase for, and may be different to one that would suit Aiden's style. Ciceley owned the rights to the design, and prevented Laser Tools from taking the car in certain design directions.

So what we saw from Laser Tools with the Mercedes was a heavily compromised situation. The team may have had a lot more potential that couldn't be unlocked with the Mercedes.

Secondly - the foresight of Frederico Turrata in 2019, urging Moffat Sr to put the Infinitis on the track sent them (seemingly) down the right road to success. The Q50s were initially purchased as demo vehicles for Raceworx and were in the Laser Tools workshop. Frederico (Hexathron) saw them and spotted the potential, provided they could homologate the 2019 model. Free of the Ciceley constraints, and with their purchase from Palmer coming with rights to the design, they were able to effectively bring a new model to the grid. This model incorporated all of the lessons to date with NGTC, and was designed around Sutton's style.

Thirdly - the development and expertise that can be shared within the team. When they were running the Mercedes, they were using someone else's design. Using their own design, they also have access to the full range of engineers who developed the car. With Hexathron and the legacy knowledge of what was 888 (BMR) working on the car, the philosophy and approach can be shared across initially 2 and now 3 cars and drivers. Antonio Carozza has proven himself with NGTC machinery, and with the same engineering staff who were part of the development now running the car(s), the benefits can be seen.

Finally - compare it to other cars on the grid. It's RWD and running a Swindon engine. Those features are shared with other cars, but not simultaneously. Why do I say this? When the Subaru was doing well, there were two features on the car that could be 'restricted' without detriment to anyone else. The CoG benefit was negated through a CoG calculation, and whilst it still remained dominant they could also restrict the engine power.
"

[antnee]

Good point but the difference being - the A-class wasn't a championship winning car where as the i30 is (and has it's own engine!)

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by antnee

Good point but the difference being - the A-class wasn't a championship winning car where as the i30 is (and has it's own engine!)

True - I accept that the A-Class was not as near the front as the i30. I'm just looking at the delta between Morgan and Moffat's scores when they were both in the same car.

I wonder if Laser Tools would be willing to risk the same again by taking on a car that is designed and engineered around Ingram. Are they confident they can do a better job with it?

I guess look at it another way - if you take on a car designed, built and engineered by someone else, can you expect to outscore that team? Or is it better to take a different approach with your own design?

I think that TD seem to be the only team on the grid that have supplied a car that others have been competitive in. Eurotech bagged a title for Jordan and Cook has been in contention this year. Other than that - I can't recall a customer team getting much silverware. If anything - maybe a Cupra from the sister team looks a good prospect?

[thetool]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Other than that - I can't recall a customer team getting much silverware. If anything - maybe a Cupra from the sister team looks a good prospect?

Motorbase did ok with Arena-built Fords. Other than that there hasn't actually been many examples of teams running hand-me-down cars. Mostly a case of teams buying the same chassis from a single contructor (GPRM).

[coffinpilot]

I see that the Sutton/Patterson Infiniti is up for sale at Race Cars Direct

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by thetool

Motorbase did ok with Arena-built Fords. Other than that there hasn't actually been many examples of teams running hand-me-down cars. Mostly a case of teams buying the same chassis from a single contructor (GPRM).

BTC racing with their Dynamics Civics ?

AMD with with old Civics who were in title contention

[S griffin]

I do know BMR did quite well with the VWs they bought from Team HARD

[thetool]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

BTC racing with their Dynamics Civics ?

AMD with with old Civics who were in title contention

Read the post I was replying to.

[auroan]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think the rule was introduced because of the A4 entry. Rob found a 'loophole', exploited it and now it is closed. Motorbase seem to want it open again.

Remember that when the A4 first appeared, the ruleset was in its infancy and the intent was to be as open as possible. The regulations were being promoted, and the A4 joined two Toyotas at the first round of the season. Without it - the Toyota Avensis would have been the only car in its class for the debut NGTC season.

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.

[auroan]

Originally Posted by antnee

I always thought the rule was if the road car was 4WD/AWD, then the NGTC gearbox options forced a transverse engine to become a FWD race car and a longitudinal engine to be a RWD race car.

From a bit of eBay research, it appears that the 2.0TSI petrol is still a longitudinal mounted block... so not quite sure what the issue here is

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

[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.