[WTCC] New entrants in the championship

[helterskelter]

I just opened this up to discuss the current situation with all of you. We have recently mentioned a Subaru project for the Wtcc: how do you think the current situation will affect the chance for new entrants to come into the championship?
IMO, it is clear that they are destroying the championship. As I have already stated before, the Wtcc started a slow death from the very moment the Leòn TDi hit the track. Putting a Turbo and a N/A engine on the same track and making them race against each other was the worst thing that could have been done.
No blame on SEAT, they did a great job based on existing rules. The whole thing has been and still is being handled in the worst possible way. I think the organizers are just running one month towards Seat, the next month towards BMW, the next month towards Chevy, and I don't want to imagine what would happen if Lada were competitive enough to fight for the points!
In this climate, if you were a Subaru Motorsport manager and you had the intention of stepping into the championship, would you still do it now that Safety Car crashes and off track dramas seem to be normal in the Wtcc?

[Speed-King]

The WTCC in its current guise is as bankrupt as the DTM from a sportive point of view. And STCC seems to be getting themselves in the same kind of trouble lately with the Volvos and the Volkswagens as mentioned in Flash's latest article.

So, in a nutshell, I think it is time for a big solution, Super2000 has run its course. We are close to the beginning of a new decade, and that has usually meant new touring car regs in the last 40 years.
The WTCC doesn't need a reform - I think we are beyond that point by now - it needs to go down in flames and be reborn as a better series until it gets corrupted by the manufacturers once again.

Flash wrote "WTCC is dead, long live WTCC". I think he's pretty spot on, even though the privateer series envisaged by him would probably more viable as an ETCC.

As for the original question: if I was Subaru, I would watch the developements very carefully, but at the same time pressure for a new start, if only to have less of a developemental deficit.

[Matt]

What would the new regs be? Hopefully not some *******ized Super1600 regs. Touring cars may be about the cars you and I drive on the road, but I certainly wouldn't want to have a racecar that potentially makes LESS horsepower than the hottest street version.

IMO, keep the 2,0l engines, bump the power up to about 320, and find a way to lower all the suspension costs. Possibly making a spec set of suspension components, that are given out at each round, and collected at the end? Therefore, the teams cannot spend extra money trying to make different suspension components and driving up the costs.

[Speed-King]

I would use Nürburgring SP-rules as a starting point. I don't know, however, how much havoc heavy manufacturer involvement could wreak on that rulebook, so it might have to be modified a good deal.

As for Matt's suggestion: I think you can effectively have FWD and more than 300-ish bhp, so 320 would probably heavily favour the RWD-cars.

[Matt]

SuperTouring cars had around 320.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by Matt

SuperTouring cars had around 320.

Indeed, and they also had narrower tyres then S2000 cars and yet they put the power down very well, but at the same time not TOO well as the S2000 cars do. Its no match to drive a S2000 car from that aspect, when you want the power on you can basicly just put your foot down, it wont spin the tyres. Some 320-350 hp in a fwd car will take some skill not to spin your wheels furiously, but yet not favour rwd cars too much I reccon. From what I can tell anyway.
I never liked the S2000 regs, and I hope the S1600 regs wont be anywhere near the same. I'd rather see Alan Gow set up a set of regs first and then make FIA follow. He atleast does not give way for the manufacturers threads and opinions.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

Indeed, and they also had narrower tyres then S2000 cars and yet they put the power down very well, but at the same time not TOO well as the S2000 cars do. Its no match to drive a S2000 car from that aspect, when you want the power on you can basicly just put your foot down, it wont spin the tyres. Some 320-350 hp in a fwd car will take some skill not to spin your wheels furiously, but yet not favour rwd cars too much I reccon. From what I can tell anyway.
I never liked the S2000 regs, and I hope the S1600 regs wont be anywhere near the same. I'd rather see Alan Gow set up a set of regs first and then make FIA follow. He atleast does not give way for the manufacturers threads and opinions.

I think the last Neil Brown Honda engine was pushing out close to 330BHP from what I can remember back in 2000.

I wouldn't like to see a series make its own rules only for nobody else to adopt them.
Thats what happened with the BTC rules, and the FIA went their own way.

I think its better to get the rules sorted first, then roll them out to championships.

[werner]

I don't think the current S2000-rules are that bad. Surely, the diesel-appendix complicates everything a bit, but should not be the end of the world either.
The only thing the FIA should do is make rules, announce them early, and then stick to them, at least for a year. The makers of the rules should be competent objective engineers who can predict well what the effects of the rules will be on the competiveness of the cars. They should be guarded against any influences that manufacturers possibly might have.

[awrb]

Playing Race Pro got me thinking about the regulations the other day when on was driving their WTCC Extreme cars. Basically, powerful, light, RWD cars with good looking bodykits and not much grip. How viable would those cars be though? How expensive would it be to strip down a road car, add in a new (possibly spec) drivetrain, and beef the suspension up a bit. And have everyone using the same fuel. How hard could it be?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by awrb

Playing Race Pro got me thinking about the regulations the other day when on was driving their WTCC Extreme cars. Basically, powerful, light, RWD cars with good looking bodykits and not much grip. How viable would those cars be though? How expensive would it be to strip down a road car, add in a new (possibly spec) drivetrain, and beef the suspension up a bit. And have everyone using the same fuel. How hard could it be?

Those cars are awesome btw.

It would basically be like another V8Star I think.

[werner]

I'd not like that. I like the differences in cars. Strong and weak points give's you things to discuss on forums like this one. And it gives manufacturers the chance to show their products on a track. The whole idea of touringcarracing is racing with cars that are like the one's the fans drive themselves on the road. You'd throw that away with v8star-like cars.
It is no surprise that the subforum least used on this forum is the DTM-subforum. Isn't that the championship with superstars driving bloody fast beasts, that share a brandlogo, and maybe a headlight or something with their roadgoing counterparts but nothing else, on some of the greatests tracks the touringcarworld has to offer?

[helterskelter]

A solution could be getting a driver (not contracted to any manufacturer, of course) to test the cars on the same day on the same track conditions, at the beginning of the year. They'd see more or less how the cars are different from each other, stay within a range of not more than 4 tenths and base the weights on that. The compensation weights would do the rest of the job during the year.
I know it sounds crazy, and yet...

[THIM]

Present weight rules are quite OK. And Diesels must race with petrols, it must be like on the market. If we will have 1600 turbopetrols, and some turbodiesels, we can use present FIA rates for turbo cars against N/A, it would be 1600*1,7/1,5 = 1813 cm^3 - that's capacity for Diesels, could be rounded to 1900. Together with keeping present weight rules, as I stated, it would IMHO give a quite interesting championship
And, I would let 4WDs race, with proper ballast of course

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

A solution could be getting a driver (not contracted to any manufacturer, of course) to test the cars on the same day on the same track conditions, at the beginning of the year. They'd see more or less how the cars are different from each other, stay within a range of not more than 4 tenths and base the weights on that. The compensation weights would do the rest of the job during the year.
I know it sounds crazy, and yet...

Like GT3? That could work, I think SuperStars does this.

Part of the issue with the current weight adjustment system is that it isn't designed to work with cars that are faster in some areas but slower than others, in a more pronounced way than normal. I'm talking about the tractors here.

I'd like to see something that is a little like BTC-T, and a little like the current WRC rules. I'd go for 2 litre turbo cars (430hp, dyno tested to that limit and shared formula with rallycross, rallying and endurance racing), based on EuroNCAP class Small Family Car and Large Family Car. BTC-T/ TC2000 style wide body kit and wide track, coupled with a flat floor and low ride height to make the cars fast and spectacular. 4WD and RWD permitted along side each other, as 4WD is something that manufacturers like Subaru and Mitsubishi would want. Rear wings would be primarily cosmetic, but larger than now to make the cars look more racy as well as a good place for sponsorship.

2.0T is a popular engine size for both performance versions and performance oriented cars. A price cap on a complete car, as well as one on an engine and other key parts, would be a sensible idea.

These cars would be permitted to be detuned for national elvels, or a similar deal 280hp 2WD class with 1.6 engines could be used. That would be hatchbacks, as I would personally have great satisfaction in seeing a Renault Twingo with a bodykit beating Lancers on corners, only to be gobbled up on the straight and the process to repeat itself

Whether this is realistic in this climate is debatable.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

A solution could be getting a driver (not contracted to any manufacturer, of course) to test the cars on the same day on the same track conditions, at the beginning of the year. They'd see more or less how the cars are different from each other, stay within a range of not more than 4 tenths and base the weights on that. The compensation weights would do the rest of the job during the year.
I know it sounds crazy, and yet...

Isn't that, basically, the FIA GT3/4 system??

[awrb]

duke_toaster, that's a great sounding series. Email that to Max Mosely now! Of course, equalizing that will be tough, but I'm sure doable. FWD/RWD seems pretty fairly done at the moment. I wouldn't be too keen on the price cap, however. Let them spend what they want, but try to make the rules so it won't make too much difference.

And Helterskelter, I'm just not keen on that system. For a start, do you test indy cars making them potentially as good as the manufacturer ones? And I don't like the fact that development is then either stopped throughout the season, or totally devalues the weights given. Rules need to be made and stuck to.

[helterskelter]

Hey guys I didn't know this system was used, my idea must not be that crazy, then.

Originally Posted by awrb

And Helterskelter, I'm just not keen on that system. For a start, do you test indy cars making them potentially as good as the manufacturer ones? [...] Rules need to be made and stuck to.

No, I wouldn't make a difference between indies and works: that's why indies have a different championship.
Absolutely true, rules need to be made and stuck to. That's why you decide the weights at the beginning of the year AFTER having compared performances and then leave the balance to the ballast system. Aren't weights decided just based on the 'FWD or RWD' and 'GBS or H pattern', and then everything is left to the ballast system?
I would put things more oriented to the road cars. Put the safety equipment on, basic engine developement (exhausts, ECU and so on), set it up as a racing car, possibly with a sequential gearbox and standard rear wings, and there we are; a relatively cheap car, heavily based on the production cars and accessible to more people, which means more people on the grid and outside the track. And leave the equalization to the system I talked about in my other post and a serious ballast system. We don't need superpowerful cars if the grid is made out of 15 drivers. I'd rather have something that looks more like a road car, but is clearly as aggressive-looking as a racing car should be, maybe a little less powerful but still very fun to drive and, most of all, much cheaper.
Superstars, for instance, are good, but a lot of people don't recognize the models the cars derive from.

[awrb]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

No, I wouldn't make a difference between indies and works: that's why indies have a different championship.
Absolutely true, rules need to be made and stuck to. That's why you decide the weights at the beginning of the year AFTER having compared performances and then leave the balance to the ballast system.

So the indys wouldn't be equalised in this pre-series session? And would that mean development is not allowed throughout the year, because if everyone is tested and compensated, and then BMW say 'ooh look, we've got our new suspension' that will render the whole process as useless.

We just need rules where the manufacturers thousands of pounds don't help as much. Which is why I was saying about spec parts earlier in the thread. I'd rather have one or two spec parts that we can't see than an equalisation session pre-season.

[FIRE]

A performance balanced series like GT3, GT4 and Italian Superstars is an option. It would be a great to way bring costs down. Take for example Seat. The performance of the Seat Leon Supercopa is (I think) around 1 second slower a lap as the Seat Leon S2000 but costs are much lower (3 or 4 times less?). It will also give close racing and because of lower costs probably also more manufacturers (or independent companies who develop cars).

The only big question is: do manufacturers want this? In GT3 and GT4 we see involvement of manufacturers. Audi is very serious about their Audi R8 GT3 and BMW brought a GT4 version of the M3 on the market. Audi had also a factory team in the Italian Superstars series for several seasons. But I am not sure a performance balanced series would attract factory teams like we currently have in WTCC. On the other hand it would maybe even better if there were no factory teams. Why not teams entering like Oreca, RML, Schnitzer, ROAL, Sunred entering cars with backing from sponsors? Manufacturers could maybe pay salaries of some drivers, track sponsoring, TV sponsoring, prize money.

About the cars. I would like to see the return of the bigger saloons like Mondeo (instead of the Focus), Accord (instead of the Civic), Passat (instead of the Scirocco) with 320 bhp 2L of 2.5L engines. Touring car racing is for me large grids, many different cars and close racing. It's not about high tech. If I want to see that I watch endurance racing (Le Mans prototypes) or F1.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by awrb

Playing Race Pro got me thinking about the regulations the other day when on was driving their WTCC Extreme cars. Basically, powerful, light, RWD cars with good looking bodykits and not much grip. How viable would those cars be though? How expensive would it be to strip down a road car, add in a new (possibly spec) drivetrain, and beef the suspension up a bit. And have everyone using the same fuel. How hard could it be?

Isn't that what the DTM is?

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by awrb

So the indys wouldn't be equalised in this pre-series session? And would that mean development is not allowed throughout the year, because if everyone is tested and compensated, and then BMW say 'ooh look, we've got our new suspension' that will render the whole process as useless.

We just need rules where the manufacturers thousands of pounds don't help as much. Which is why I was saying about spec parts earlier in the thread. I'd rather have one or two spec parts that we can't see than an equalisation session pre-season.

Independent cars are not equalized at the moment, except for a -15kgs for the indy BMWs, so nothing would change from that point of view. And yes, developement is one of the most expensive things and what makes the difference between works and independent cars, apart from the fact that works teams build their own cars while the indies buy them from BMW Motorsport-Seat Sport-RML.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by FIRE

About the cars. I would like to see the return of the bigger saloons like Mondeo (instead of the Focus), Accord (instead of the Civic), Passat (instead of the Scirocco) with 320 bhp 2L of 2.5L engines. Touring car racing is for me large grids, many different cars and close racing. It's not about high tech. If I want to see that I watch endurance racing (Le Mans prototypes) or F1.

I basically agree with the rest of your posts. I don't see the reason why the cars should be so powerful: what is the purpose of that? I'd rather see more cars on the grid with less powerful engines. Having a great engine, superperforming and fast, may be cool, but it raises the costs. I was talking to Harry Vaulkhard, an independent driver who races with s2000s as we all know, and he said that the engine is one of the biggest pains in terms of costs. With less stuff changed on the engine, they need less maintenance and are less likely to get broken. This is what makes cup racing less expensive than multibrand racing (generally, of course).

[awrb]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Isn't that what the DTM is?

Yeah it is, but that also has mental aero kit's that kill the racing and the manufacturers spend far too much on the cars. I was thinking about whether it could be done on a much lower budget, hence my mention of spec parts, and with tighter aero regs than the DTM.

So, how about making the suspension spec? I think 300BHP as mentioned earlier in the thread sounds good, and keeping the multi-drivetrain idea, but there seems to be a lot of money spent on suspensions, and that's been one of the criticisms of S2000. And it's not exactly a component we'd notice.

I've just noticed that my thoughts are kind of leaning toward Jonathan Palmers T1 thing. I can't remember the exact details of that, but wasn't that a kit you bought from him that could be then put on to any saloon/hatch car and then a cosmetic body kit. And why did that fail (apart from Palmer being involved).

[awrb]

Originally Posted by helterskelter

Independent cars are not equalized at the moment, except for a -15kgs for the indy BMWs, so nothing would change from that point of view. And yes, developement is one of the most expensive things and what makes the difference between works and independent cars, apart from the fact that works teams build their own cars while the indies buy them from BMW Motorsport-Seat Sport-RML.

But if you had this session, would the petrol and diesel SEAT's be tested separately, because then the petrol SEAT in the indy hands would be up there with the works cars, and I can't see the manufacturers liking that too much. I'm not trying to pick hole here though, I'm just not sure how this system would be implemented.

As for the no development, I think they'd probably just spend more money on next years car, and the whole year developing that. I also think it kind of kills the essence of motorsport. I don't mind if one car is ahead of the others, just so long as there's racing between those cars, and the others have a chance to catch up. Or I could just be missing the point.

On the in-team racing note, how about a rule saying only two cars per team, but doing the BMW thing and running three teams is fine. I think that would get rid of some of the SEAT style politics.

[snowen250]

Im not sure what rules are best to replace S2000, i am personally far from convinced it needs changing! Yes the WTCC suffers from politics, but the BTCC for example is doing very well indeed, the S2000 cars provide great racing. What the WTCC needs is strong leadership and a GT3/4 equivelancy formula at the start of the season. Then this stupid mid season rule changing would have been avoided.
You must also look at this from a marketing view, the S2000 cars do at least look similar to joe public to there road going counterparts. Stuff like race extreme style less so and so will be less marketable to the companies themselves.
Simon