Smaller turbo engines and bigger wheels planned for WTCC

[FIRE]

But (IMO) the main reason they switch to turbo engines is because the rally version of S2000 will have also turbo engines.

[Aslak Vind]

How about respecting the cost control sissue, instead of changing regs constantly??

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Aslak Vind

How about respecting the cost control sissue, instead of changing regs constantly??

Maybe first allow engines to be up to date and than lock it down 5-10 years? 2L N/A engines are already non relevant/outdated in normal roadcars. Eg I would much prefer to see eg the new 1,4L Turbo + Supercharger VAG engine with both better fuel economy AND power than a 2L N/A engine for the next 5-10 years. 2L N/A is, plain and simply, old, inefficient and boring.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Martin Haven

and anyway, just how many manufacturers have 2-litre turbo 4-door family saloons??

SEAT... No

Seat Exeo will have 2.0 TFSI with 200 bhp

[Sodemo]

Jeez, the only thing wrong with the current regs is that the TDi boost is too high.

Lower it, but give the TDi's back some of their high end revs and im sure a lot of the teams would be happier.

The FIA totally went the wrong way with how they tackled the TDi's. They should have gone for boost pressure from the outset, rather than cutting back revs then altering the weight. The problem is acceleration, which is where the boost comes in. Therefore, tackle the boost.

The FIA really do not have a clue, you only have to look at the state of the stale F1 regs to realise that, although, it only took them 10 years to realise that all the changes they made in 1998 were utter garbage. At least for the 2009 season we will have something new, and *hopefully* better.

[Thorney]

We had the same issue in Sportmaxx (and potentially still do for next year maybe) in that the FI cars were limited to a certain boost level determined by dyno runs of the cars to ascertain power (for the weight). We dyno'd all the cars, measured boost and that limit was set. DL1's were used in cut down form that recorded boost levels and that was logged and checked after each race.

However the problem comes with torque. Its relatively easy to map an FI car to limit the overal boost and hence peak BHP but still map the car to generate large levels of torque so whilst the car sat nicely in the power/weight regs its torque/weight was completely different.

If you compare two of our cars (when they both ran in Sportmaxx, we pulled the M3 after two rounds as it clearly didn't really fit). The Astra VXR ran at 1200kg's and 265bhp, the M3 at 350bhp and 1600kg's so pretty level, but the Astra ran 340lb of torque and the M3 300lb so taking into account it was over 400kgs heavier there was no way it could compete. So boost only is not a silver bullet method to level the palying field between FI and NA as they do provide drive in different ways.

The other recognised method is intake restriction but as this places great stress on the turbo (potentially needing replacement each race) it gets expensive, ask the rally boys who usually run restructors in certain classes, they will go through 3/4 turbos a weekend - not cheap.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Thorney

The other recognised method is intake restriction but as this places great stress on the turbo (potentially needing replacement each race) it gets expensive, ask the rally boys who usually run restructors in certain classes, they will go through 3/4 turbos a weekend - not cheap.

The obvious solution... the turbo has to last as long as the engine (3 races). So that means, dont overstress the turbo, or you will start at the back row each race...

[duke_toaster]

4 races in the WTCC, IIRC.

[Aslak Vind]

Guys, any higher bids?

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Aslak Vind

Guys, any higher bids?

Yes, I actually meant 3 race weekends. :P

[stedevil]

http://www.touringcartimes.com/news.php?id=2969

Wohhoo... calling something 90% a fossil fuel a Biofuel... some marketing department must have worked overtime to lay that golden egg.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Laughable really. Am I wrong in saying STCC race on 100% 2nd Generaton fuel, aka real Biofuel? Someone knows for sure what they run on?

[stedevil]

Not exactly.

STCC (not counting Volvo) run on alkylate petrol, which is sort of a super clean petrol that you normally put into eg lawnmowers that dont generally have good combustion nor any exhaust cleaning. It's still fossil fuel though.

JTCC and the Camaros (+Volvo in STCC) run on an special "E85" that is cleaner than normal E85, though it's "only" 80% Biofuel.

[Aslak Vind]

Why is it called E85, when its only 80% bioethanol?

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Aslak Vind

Why is it called E85, when its only 80% bioethanol?

It's within the technical specs for being sold as "E85". And while the fossil part is higher than normally for E85, it's more environmental friendly than the fossil part normally in E85, especially less cancerogenic.

[JMeissner]

Seems like we will se 1.6 liter turbo engines from 2010:

http://www.touringcartimes.com/news.php?id=2973

[stedevil]

Finally something that makes sense

The Turbo unit being a common unit for sure will help cutting costs as well.
Too bad we have to wait all the way to 2010 before we see it implemented, but I guess with WTCC starting so early in the season, 2009 would have been too early.

[Bramzel]

Nice indeed

[Clive Brown]

C'mon guys , let's get real here . The FIA are involved , so all previous experience tells us that they will screw up . The old boys in blazers have a great track record of waiting for a series to become successful , taking it over , and then ruining it .

In all the years I've watched and been involved in motorsport , I struggle to think of a single example of an engine equivalence formula really working . It couldn't be done for gas turbines , it wasn't achieved in respect of the Wankel rotary , and the bike guys never managed it for the two -stroke . Consider this ; in 1983 , the 1500 cc BMW F1 Turbo unit made about 1500 horsepower in qualifying trim . The limiting factor then was survivability , and arguably the most important discipline in engine development then was materials science . Twenty-five years on , I reckon 1000 bhp per litre would merely be a starting point ; in 1983 the 358cu. in. NASCAR two-valve pushrod V8 ran to about 7500 rpm and made about 600 bhp , whereas today's iteration of the same basic engine turns about 2000 rpm more , and makes nearly 750 bhp !

Turning to naturally-aspirated motors , before an artificial restriction was imposed by means of a rev. limit , F1 units produced about 930 bhp from 3000 cc , so that's 310 bhp per litre . Do the math , as they say at MIT ....

At the time of the Turbo F1 cars , I believe Gordon Murray said something along the lines that turbocharging was ruining motor racing ; it was crazy to have a motor that was good for three laps , and then required a rebuild . In my opinion , Murray was right ; I see forced induction as engine tuning for the simple-minded . Why bother with the traditional skills of porting , polishing , and painstaking research into valve sizes and shapes and cam design , when with a turbo motor , if it ain't quick enough , you just stick on a bigger compressor , or screw the wastegate down a bit further ? The thin end of the wedge for the WTCC was allowing the diesel turbo into the series in the first place . The compression ignition engine is , quite simply , inferior in terms of specific power output to the spark ignition motor , and accordingly , the oil-burner should never have been allowed forced induction by way of compensation for its innate inferiority .

How about two litres , 9000rpm rev. limit , minimum 15000 units of the base car , 5000 units sold for homologated variations . Wheel size as per homologated car . No breaks for FWD ; if manufacturers think it's inferior , then why opt for it in the cars they foist upon the public in the first place ?

Whaddya think ?

[werner]

I think that would make it a BMW-only championship. What you forget is that roadcars are not only made to go fast, but also must have a decent boot, and be cheap. FWD accomplisches both. The turbo wouldn't cause the problems you tell they will, because they are standard, ie you cant just screw a bigger one on your car when you need more power.
If there where any cars built to your sescriptions, they would be pretty cool though.

[Clive Brown]

So both the Seat Leon and the Chevrolet Lacetti have generously-sized boots , do they ? IMHO , they are actually just another couple of nasty bland little Euroboxes . Anyway , a real Chevrolet has at least 302 cubic inches , and drives through the proper set of wheels !

The unseemly stampede by manufacturers to produce transverse-engined FWD cars was as bone-headed as it was wrong . It came out of a lack of independent thought in the aftermath of the unveiling of Issigonis's Mini and later 1100/1300 series , and was partly driven by the mistaken belief that FWD allowed the use of a flat floor plan , and thus the seating of three abreast in comfort in the rear seat of a modestly-sized car . Nonsense , of course ; in the absence of a central tunnel , the floorpan has all the structural rigidity of a wet newspaper in a high wind , and apart from that , where do you run the exhaust ?

Neither are FWD cars necessarily cheaper to produce . The requirement to transmit power through the same set of wheels that steer the vehicle means that front driveshaft joints with a high degree of articulation are required , and these are costly to manufacture .

When BMW were designing the E36 , they did produce running FWD platforms ; that option was rejected on the grounds of inferior chassis dynamics . Similarly , the RWD layout of the Renault 5 Maxi Turbo came about because Renault engineers determined that it was not possible to put more than 200bhp through the front wheels without there being unacceptable consequences to the traction and handling characteristics of the car .

The superiority of RWD is so simple , if you really think about it ; the tyres at one end of the car do the turning and most of the braking , whilst those at the other put the power down . It's funny how the FWD teams always seem to be lobbying for the use of a hard-compound control tyre !

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

So both the Seat Leon and the Chevrolet Lacetti have generously-sized boots , do they ? IMHO , they are actually just another couple of nasty bland little Euroboxes . Anyway , a real Chevrolet has at least 302 cubic inches , and drives through the proper set of wheels !

Euroboxes? Both are normal family cars in Europe, where most of the WTCC's support is. Leave the bloated vehicles with comedy handling and dire fuel economy to the US.

As for the the whole name issue, following all the - ahem - financial irregualities GM couldn't sell the cars as Daewoos. And in proper units 302 cu in is 4948 cc. Seen the price of petrol recently?

Two litre or less cars are the normal cars in Europe, so the manufacturers want to promote them.

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

So both the Seat Leon and the Chevrolet Lacetti have generously-sized boots , do they ? IMHO , they are actually just another couple of nasty bland little Euroboxes . Anyway , a real Chevrolet has at least 302 cubic inches , and drives through the proper set of wheels !

The unseemly stampede by manufacturers to produce transverse-engined FWD cars was as bone-headed as it was wrong . It came out of a lack of independent thought in the aftermath of the unveiling of Issigonis's Mini and later 1100/1300 series , and was partly driven by the mistaken belief that FWD allowed the use of a flat floor plan , and thus the seating of three abreast in comfort in the rear seat of a modestly-sized car . Nonsense , of course ; in the absence of a central tunnel , the floorpan has all the structural rigidity of a wet newspaper in a high wind , and apart from that , where do you run the exhaust ?

Neither are FWD cars necessarily cheaper to produce . The requirement to transmit power through the same set of wheels that steer the vehicle means that front driveshaft joints with a high degree of articulation are required , and these are costly to manufacture .

When BMW were designing the E36 , they did produce running FWD platforms ; that option was rejected on the grounds of inferior chassis dynamics . Similarly , the RWD layout of the Renault 5 Maxi Turbo came about because Renault engineers determined that it was not possible to put more than 200bhp through the front wheels without there being unacceptable consequences to the traction and handling characteristics of the car .

The superiority of RWD is so simple , if you really think about it ; the tyres at one end of the car do the turning and most of the braking , whilst those at the other put the power down . It's funny how the FWD teams always seem to be lobbying for the use of a hard-compound control tyre !

Ok let's look to the sedans of the American big 3: Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion, Ford Taurus and Dodge Avenger. Now a question for you Mr Brown. How many of these big Americanboxes have RWD?

And how many of these cars have a engine bigger as 302 cubic inches (= 4.9L)?















(answer 1st question: 0, 2nd question: 1, only Impala; source:
http://www.newcars.org)

[Clive Brown]

The Chevrolet thing is called 'irony' , guys ! For those of us with fond memories of the great days of British and European Gp.2 Touring Car racing , the Chevrolet name should be laid decently to rest , not deployed by a cynical marketing department ( but is there any other type ? ) to apply some sort of gloss to what is a frankly a pretty inferior product .

It is also wrong to attribute GM's financial woes to ' irregularities ' ; serially-incompetent management yes , but to use a term that implies malpractice is unfortunate , to say the least .

I'm not suggesting a return to a ' big banger ' formula for the BTCC , ETCC , or WTCC ; as duke_toaster says , the norm across most of the world is two litres or less . None of this , though , takes away from the fact that the layout of the BMW 320 is inherently superior , and that the only reason that the Chevrolet Lacetti and the Seat Leon TDi were able to compete on anything like equal terms at all was as a result of regulation breaks granted by the FIA after special pleading from both manufacturers . Moreover , in the case of the concessions granted in respect of the turbo diesel engine fitted to the latter , far from ensuring a level playing field , the end result was anything but .

It might have restored a degree of equity if towards the end of races and after the SEATs had cooked their front tyres , the BMWs had been granted an extra degree of licence by race stewards to ease the Seats out of their way as they baulked them through every corner .... as they say in NASCAR , ' rubbing is racing ' !

Joking aside , it is surely wrong to adjust the rules simply so that an inferior product can compete with a better one ; it should be down to Chevrolet and SEAT to construct a platform as good as the BMW , not to handicap BMW for their technical excellence . Given the choice of any of the road cars upon which the WTCC contenders from the respective manufacturers are based , I know which one I'd pick !

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

it was crazy to have a motor that was good for three laps , and then required a rebuild

How is that in any way relevant to WTCC where engines have to last 3 weekends?

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

Why bother with the traditional skills of porting , polishing , and painstaking research into valve sizes and shapes and cam design , when with a turbo motor , if it ain't quick enough , you just stick on a bigger compressor , or screw the wastegate down a bit further ?

I completely agree, why go on to beat the dead NA horse, when it's already proven since long it's an old inferior technology. This is exactly why it's high time to kill of the NA engine. It's a big, heavy, unefficient, outdated technology. I would much rather have my next cars engine be a 1,4 L Turbo+Compressor engine that is both quicker/stronger than a 2L NA and still uses less fuel. You can double those numbers to 2.8L vs 4L if 1.4 sounds like sifi for you.

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

The superiority of RWD is so simple , if you really think about it...

Of course in the real world, where you might come across non track perfect surfaces, possibly even covered with snow or ice, a FWD car has a better chance of taking your, and your family, from A to B without hitting a truck in the opposing lane after losing control. FWD is superior for every day safety, and most people spend more time driving on roads than on racetracks.