WTCC: FWD Weight in Imola

[Fechna]

After the weight penalties are set for Imola on the official WTCC homepage, do anyone know if the FWD are still minus 20kg or if it was just a occasional thing for Silverstone? If it were so, I fear there will be a big BMW-show for Imola as Tarquini, Rydell and Thommo have also extra weight.

[JMeissner]

The 20 kg is to be there all season.

[SALEEN S7R]

If Silverstone is anything to judge by I dont think we need to worry about BMW domination as much as we were prior to Silverstone. Yes the Alfa's will be carrying more sucess ballast than the BMW's but they should be about equal on weight overall due to the 20kg of weight removal they have had. This should ensure things are pretty equal, for Imola at least, although if BMW win at Imola we could have another Silverstone all over again at Orscherslaben. If Alfa Romeo win at Imola however nothing will change for Orscherslaben as they will already be carrying maximum sucess ballast. Should be another Alfa Romeo win if thats the case.

[E46]

Imola has been always a bad track for BMW, i think they won´t be so fast as were at Silverstone (in spite of less weigth handicap).

[Fechna]

Thanks for your replies. I just was worried because of the way the change of minimum weight was published. From Touringcartimes:

Minus 20 kilos for FWD cars, 2005-05-12, 12:51:49
The Touring Car Bureau has decided to reduce the minimum weight of the front-wheel drive cars by 20 kg, for this weekend’s FIA World Touring Car Championship event in Silverstone.

The decision was the following: “After consideration of the time set during the first two events of the Championship, it has been decided that, for the Silversrtone event, the minimum weight of all the front-wheel drive cars will be reduced by 20 kg.”

Well, I hope it will stay that way for the rest of the season. 30 kilos are just not enough. Just compare it to the extra weight during the Supertouringcar era for RWD...

[gttouring]

i suppose with traction difficulties the only way to make a front driver more competitive is to lose wieght, why not put a 4wd gear box in and disable the front axles?
or is this too much craziness? and the extra drive train wieght would offset the rear drive performance advantagei suppose.
but how did they arrive at the 20 kilo draw?

[Hazard]

The weights can be adjusted up to seven times during the season in the interest of correcting any imbalance. No doubt the effect of Silverstone will be considered...since it was obvious that the success ballast had little impact on BMW at Magny-Cours.

if the now applied success ballast doesn't harm the Seat's/Alfa's at Imola...expect that balance to be altered again.

[Hazard]

And thankfully the Imola handicaps are on the WTCC site so I don't have to work them out:

Tarquini +55kg (Alfa)
Priaulx + 40kg (BMW)
D Muller +35kg (BMW)
Rydell +35kg (Seat)
Farfus +30kg (Alfa)
J Muller +30kg (BMW)
Thompson +20kg (Alfa)
Garcia +15kg (BMW)
Plato +10kg (Seat)
Gené +5kg (Seat)
Giovanardi +5kg (Alfa)

[kmchow]

Originally Posted by Hazard

The weights can be adjusted up to seven times during the season in the interest of correcting any imbalance. No doubt the effect of Silverstone will be considered...since it was obvious that the success ballast had little impact on BMW at Magny-Cours.

This just shows how much more powerful the BMWs are over the competition. Is there an absolute maximum success balast? If so, I guess the WTCC organizers have to reconider upping minimum RWD race weight or decr FWD race weight again?

Perhaps BMW could be sandbagging as well??

[SALEEN S7R]

It does? Didnt anyone see the Silverstone results? The rules break fort the FWD cars helped them a lot, and in turn the FWD cars dominated both race results. Now heading into Imola the BMW's have less sucess ballast, but are still about the same sort of weight that the FWD cars are due to the FWD cars having 20kg less of weight, this being the case why wont the races be close this weekend?

[Alfa Fan]

Silverstone suited front wheel drive cars well remember.

[alfanano]

I think the FWD car performance at Silverstone was slightly flattered by the poor performance of the BMW Deutschland cars. Don’t forget Priaulx did manage to stay with the Alfa’s in the first race despite his huge success ballast (OK, they did just enough to win in the end) and he may well have won the second race.

[E46]

There is a thing what i don´t understand (J. Müller mentioned it at Monza), and it´s an Alfa question. Well, 2004 (like 2005) began at Monza, here we have the best times in qualifying last year by manufacturer:
1st G.Tarquini Alfa Romeo 156 1:58.395
3rd D.Müller BMW 320 1:59.386
7th F.Diefenbacher Seat Toledo 2:00.044
And here coming the interesting thing:
WTCC Qualifying times at Monza
1st D.Müller BMW 320 1:59.009
3rd G.Tarquini Alfa Romeo 156 1:59.709
6th J.Gené Seat Toledo 2:00.316

More details:
Magny Cours 2004
1st J.Muller BMW 320 1:49.357
3rd F.Diefenbacher Seat Toledo 1:49.509
6th A.Farfus Alfa Romeo 1:49.812 (all Alfas were heavily handicapped because of Monza and Valencia wins)

Magny Cours 2005
1st J.Muller BMW 320 1:49.486
2nd R.Rydell SEAT Toledo 1:49.824
5th G.Tarquini Alfa Romeo 156 1:49.985 (not too handicap, yes Thommo but not Tarquini)

My point is: who can explain why Alfa 2005 car is slower than 2004 one? Is really BMW so good or Alfa hasn´t a good car? J. Muller asked this at Monza and now i ask here.

[gttouring]

very true, half of a second per lap in qualifying is very big. although the times are stunning close for tin tops, (well club days have SECONDS between places)
i bet the BMW's have caught up much, and as race teams are known to do they often start a season from scratch much to there detriment. remeber the BTCC Mondeo? before it became a hammer, it was mutated every season and sometimes more than once a season. It got to the point they placed the V6 angled down and low in the chassis so much-the steering rack went between the "V" and right by the intake runners, all to lower CG and weight distribution betterment- this however only helped a little, and the Mondeos were redesigned yet again, until there conquering form was revealed.
I would wager Alfa is trying wacky things within rules ofcourse to get the car just right and it isn't working as they hoped- on top of BMW's obvious advance.

[E46]

Originally Posted by gttouring

I would wager Alfa is trying wacky things within rules ofcourse to get the car just right and it isn't working as they hoped- on top of BMW's obvious advance.

I agree.

[Dani Filth]

BMW advance .. done ..using wacky things within the rules of course .. maybe ..

[kmchow]

Originally Posted by gttouring

I would wager Alfa is trying wacky things within rules ofcourse to get the car just right and it isn't working as they hoped- on top of BMW's obvious advance.

So are you suggesting that Alfa Romeo perhaps tried too hard-- they went revolutionary instead of evolutionary on their chassis? But the revolution isn't actually happening?

[E46]

Originally Posted by kmchow

So are you suggesting that Alfa Romeo perhaps tried too hard-- they went revolutionary instead of evolutionary on their chassis? But the revolution isn't actually happening?

I understand it is gttouring´s point of view. Alfa Romeo lost 2004 championship, so it seems likely they "tried hard" for 2005 but things aren´t working correctly. Look 2004/2005 Alfa times on topic page 1, they are more slow this year. More reasons to explain it please?

[cos]

To further spice things up the FIA have allowed Zanardi's car to shed 20kgs...