ETCC: Volvo critisising new rules

[JMeissner]

Volvo critisising new rules
ETCC 02/07/02

Volvo Motorsport boss Olle Odsell had a few words on the new rule changes for the ETCC. This discussion took place at a Swedish site called RacingBar. Olle begins to speak on the fact that the valve lifts differs from 4-cyl, 5-cyl and 6-cyl engines.

"A few comments on the ETCC-rules and the latest decided changes. The different vale lifts for 4-cyl, 5-cyl and 6-cyl are based on the simple fact that with more cylinders and more valves you get a larger total valve area. The different vale lifts was introduced to compensate this. Though the rules does not allow that you change the size of the valves, so the engine's suitability depends much on how the base engine looks. Here Alfa Romeo has got a good engine to start from. Then there is also other advantages and disadvantages with other numbers of cylinders, as for example in weight, friction and rpm reliability, so it is not obvious which engine type is best in this set of rules."

"When it comes to the difference between front wheel drift and rear wheel drift it is the laws of the physics which leads to that a front wheel driven car decreases the pressure on the front wheels during an acceleration while a rear wheel driven car increases the pressure, and can thereby lead a bigger drive force. This means that a rear wheel driven car has an advantage at the start and acceleration from slow corners, and this motivates a small weight difference to give equal performance."

"From Volvo's side we have been against that they have gone in and changed the rules after only four races in a completely new set of rules. None of the competing makes have reached the full potential in the set of rules yet, and we had before Anderstorp for example never run a single race in rain. Now the FIA has made changes that only BMW benefits from, and they are put in to action immediately, which is very strange. You could think that Volvo would benefit from being able rev another 250 rpm, but the problem is to take advantage of this we probably need new camshafts and a new mapping, and that our homologated gear settings are no longer optimal. And this we cannot fix in one week. Though BMW ought to be able to use their 9000-rpm immediately, as they have run their Super Production engines over 9000 rpm, and their gear settings are fitted for these rpm's."

"These latest changes came as a complete surprise for us, as they haven't been decided in the preparing FIA-meetings where all rule changes shall pass, and these changes undermines the stability in the ETCC and makes us and other manufacturers doubtful to continue our launch on this series."

Source: www.racingbar.com

Johan Meissner
johan@meissner.se

[touringlegend]

I never like a series where either BMW or the FIA is involved...

[kmchow]

Hmmm, this is a very sad development. I wonder what does this all mean to the ETCC? OTOH, I recal predicting that BMW will only give into the sequential transmission choice if they get something else in return...

[MaxSport]

Thanks, JM.

I do tire of manufacturer sabre rattling. I know Odsell is just doing his job and he may have some good points, but these threats of "taking our ball and going home if we don't get our way" get old.

It is bad enough to say that Volvo might leave, but to also suggest that other manufacturers might not commit to the '03 ETCC is potentially damaging to the momentum of the series. I don't think it was correct to appear to speak on behalf of other manufacturers in a public forum. Leverage the ETCC and say that Volvo is not happy, if you must, but casting doubts about the stability and the future of the series is uncalled for,IMO.

I am not so sure that BMW and other rear wheel drive cars didn't deserve a weight break. However, the way the rules were changed doesn't sound proper.

I agree that it doesn't look good to suddenly change the brand new rules just prior to mid season. On the other hand I doubt that Odsell would have had a problem with a mid year change to sequential gear boxes. Maybe the organisers will throw Volvo a bone and make the switch from street gearboxes this year instead of waiting until next season.

The success ballast should keep any make from running away with the series, even if the rule changes turn out to be an over adjustment in favor of BMW or any other manufacturer.

Lets all remember that Berger said last August that they would not race in the ETCC this year. Yes, BMW leveraged the series into doing what they wanted as far as the gearboxes and suddenly they were doing ETCC after all. Berger then says that the rules needed fine tuning and once again they got their way. (Given the domination of Alfa, it was probably not a hard sell.) The point is that just as the ETCC wanted to make BMW happy, they will want to keep Volvo happy as well.

The problem is trying to keep them all smiling. It is the biggest problem in production based motorsport. The organisers don't have as many of these kind of issues in "spec series" like CART and F-1. Their problems are more about it currently costing too much.

At least touring cars have, for the moment, overcome the cost vs value imbalance. Because of this, and other factors, I can't help but continue to be optimistic about the future of the ETCC.

KM

[Michael H]

I just hope everything is resolved, and we see more entrants in 2003. After this weekends racing you would think that the rules are settling in well...or was Alfa sandbagging?

[touringlegend]

Maybe Alfa delibrately finished lower down so as to not gain a weight penalty at the next round.

I think Odsell's comments are fair enough, Volvo was already messed around with last year, having a car built to the regulations when BMW suddenly wanted the regs changed, then BMW have the cheek to say Volvo's campaign is half hearted because they only have a few cars!

[alfanano]

Ultimately there is never a solution to this one. If the FWD cars dominate, the RWD manufacturers will push for a weight reduction and if the RWD cars win everything the FWD brigade will demand that the weight is put back on. We will never know which team / manufacturer / driver is doing a good job – there is no absolute physical law that says X kgs in a RWD car will put it on the same level as a FWD car.

To be honest, the only real option (as adopted by the old BTCC) is to ban RWD cars! Very few manufacturers actually make them anymore and I’d rather see a few more FWD models than single make (BMW) racing.

One point to note; these changes are going to make budgets rise as the FWD teams will have to work even harder just to keep up with BMW’s “unfair advantage”.

[Alfa Fan]

I really hate BMW. They come into Sportscars and cheat. They come into ETCC and completly change the rules. Do BMW pay the FIA or something....

[redshoes]

RWD was never banned by the BTCC. It's just that the only manufacturer with a RWD SuperTourer was BMW and they weren't interested. The proposed 2001 rules, anounced in 1999 but never adopted, were for FWD only, although even they would have allowed RWD if a suitable comitment was made.

True what you say though. Any weight penalty on RWD always (usually) translates as a penalty on BMW whereas a FWD penalty can effect many teams.

[Alfa Fan]

I really hate BMW. The people their are idiots. Volvo did so much work on their Volvo S60 only to have to scrap it and start from scrstch. They come into Sportscars and cheat. They come into ETCC and completly change the rules. Do BMW *********** or something....

BMW have always been like this. *************************. Another thing i don't like is how they treat fellow competers. The=ir drivers are always hitting the Alfa Romeo's and Volvo's in an attempt to win.

I would have been pleased if any of the other manufacturers had one. A win for Volvo, Nissan, Honda or Alfa Romeo would have satified me. But not BMW. The only reason they decided to run in the ETCC was because there cheat of a car in GT ot GTS( can't remember) was banned from competing in the American Sports Car Championship. Why can't BMW accept they are not the best at every thing.

BMW walk into every series and they either win straight away or upset all the other manufacturers until they get there way. Who is the head of BMW Touring Car team?

I really hoe rumoures they are enering the British Touring Car Championship are not true. Although the rules are said to be set in stone until the end of 2006 how long would that last if BMW approach TOCA Saying they will run 5 or 6 cars. TOCA would be delighted and would probably upset the other manufacturers that have been in it for a while.

Rant over!

Rant edited by Redshoes, who can give you the number of a good libel laywer

[kmchow]

Hnmm, at first I criticize BMW, now I'm defending them. Go figure...

OTOH, I guess you have to compromise and bend the rules backward if you want BMW--basically the bedrock and founders of touring car racing. Without BMW, not too many touring series could have survived and gotten where they are now? Who wouldn't a prestigious manufacturer like BMW racing in the series? Plus, it really helps finding sponsors when you can say that BMW is racing in your series. You can have a major automobile name in your series.

Can you imagine what the rule bending farce would be like if Mercedes said they were going to race the C-Class?

[100%VauxhallFan]

Just as a side note - aren't all the rules changing next year anyway? I thought the Super 2000 rules are just being used for 2002? But, I dont think there will be a change, not if the STCC is adopting the Super 2000 regs - the STCC must see a future in these regs if they are going to use them.

Vovlo's threats are idle - they wont leave the series after all the money they have put into it.

On the point of Alfa deliberately going slower to avoid weight penalties - I thought that at first, but then remembered that the weight is given out for the highest points scored over the two races.

[alfasud]

Originally posted by kmchow
BMW--basically the bedrock and founders of touring car racing.

Hmmm, I kind of like the BMW myself.... E30 M3 was one of my favourites of all time, but founders of touring car racing???? In the 1950's when the Alfa Romeo 1900 was known as "The family car that wins races", BMW were still building bubble cars

So if we are to dish out favours based on a historical basis, I'm not sure if BMW should get any special treatment.

Nor should companies who produce lame production cars with small valves expect any favours either. Maybe the race department at Volvo should talk to the production car design team about the problem.

But I don't think increasing the RPM limit is a good move if you want to keep costs down. The ironic thing is that long crankshaft straight 6 engines are a bad choice for high RPM anyway.... if you want to pull high RPM a V6 is the way to go. That's why Merc, Alfa, Opel used V6 engines in the old Class 1 DTM.

[MaxSport]

"Nor should companies who produce lame production cars with small valves expect any favours either. Maybe the race department at Volvo should talk to the production car design team about the problem"

I had the same thought,Alfasud. Maybe FoMoCo should race a 2L V6 version of the ST 220 in the ETCC instead.

KM

[JMeissner]

Originally posted by MaxSport
"Nor should companies who produce lame production cars with small valves expect any favours either. Maybe the race department at Volvo should talk to the production car design team about the problem"

I had the same thought,Alfasud. Maybe FoMoCo should race a 2L V6 version of the ST 220 in the ETCC instead.

KM

Well I don't think FoMoCo would do that, the 5-cyl engine is really a very known sign for Volvo and changing that in to a engine which is unavalible in a road going Volvo... Well, I don't think thats the road to go...

[Michael H]

The main thing is that we have stability. Hopefully this is the last change for the year. I know what they are trying to do by changing the rules, but we just saw a very close weekend of racing. Maybe there is no need for change? Things like this happen in life.

I just hope it doesn't put off Opel, Nissan, Honda and SEAT, and anyone else interested.

[touringlegend]

Originally posted by Michael H
The main thing is that we have stability. Hopefully this is the last change for the year.

Hardly, and I doubt it will be the last change.

[MaxSport]

Speaking of Ford, did you all see the Focus that will be entered at the next two rounds?

It would seem that Ford Germany may have something to do with this program and that it might continue into 2003.

Would a four door Focus meet the rules concerning minimum dimensions for ETCC '03? Perhaps they would race a Mondeo V6 instead.

If Ford Germany decide to race in the ETCC, would Volvo continue as well, or would Detroit stop that from occuring?

Given Volvos recent unhappiness concerning the rules, maybe it will be Ford representing FoMoCo in the ETCC.

[100%VauxhallFan]

I've just been reading about the ETCC this year and have one question:

Are the cars using the "Super Production +" rules, or the "Super 2000" rules this year?

I'm quite confused.

[JMeissner]

Super Production+ cars are Super 2000 cars... The original Super 2000 cars never came in to action, exept for one Volvo S60 which was scrapped due to BMW...

So Super Production+ cars were put in to action and later got the name Super 2000...

[Alfa Fan]

Does any one no why the FIA let BMW change all the rules? Apoligies for the comments above, I know they were unnessercery-i was just annoyed by BMW. Sorry to nyone who was offended by my comments.

[kmchow]

Don't worry about offending anyone Alfa Fan, I think that TC fans are very open to discussion. I think it is turning out that having BMW is a love-hate relationship. You love them b/c they bring in an incredible level of dedication/enthusiasm/prestige to a TC series. However, the hate side is that b/c of their demands and/or on track success, at times it becomes a problem!