BTCC 2019 season discussion, News and Rumours!

[medius]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

What is this loophole you speak of?

The one which allows a boxer engine to have half of it located behind the windscreen wipers significantly improving the centre of gravity and locating a huge chunk of mass towards the centre of the car. Basically thanks to the Levorg being RWD and boxer it has the 'front' 2 cylinders between the front wheels, the 'rear' 2 cylinders live much closer to the dashboard with the gearbox. No iline 4 can match that. It has been discussed in this thread in much greater detail many many pages ago, I forget which pages exactly.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by medius

The one which allows a boxer engine to have half of it located behind the windscreen wipers significantly improving the centre of gravity and locating a huge chunk of mass towards the centre of the car. Basically thanks to the Levorg being RWD and boxer it has the 'front' 2 cylinders between the front wheels, the 'rear' 2 cylinders live much closer to the dashboard with the gearbox. No iline 4 can match that. It has been discussed in this thread in much greater detail many many pages ago, I forget which pages exactly.

Which isn't a loophole, just the way the NGTC rules are written.

What have they done to close this 'loophole'?

As Faux explained, there was a rule amendment to allow the car to enter as RWD, and everything else was/is within the rules: https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2781988

[DaviePHD]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Which isn't a loophole, just the way the NGTC rules are written.

What have they done to close this 'loophole'?

As Faux explained, there was a rule amendment to allow the car to enter as RWD, and everything else was/is within the rules: https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/sho....php?t=2781988

It's also worth noting that the Fan Favourite "Sherman" also had it's ending mounted lower and further back than any road going Audi A4. I reckon compared to the road car it may also have enjoyed a significant weight and CofG shift just like the Levorg did.

But wait! Sherman didn't start kicking everyone's arse halfway through it's first season!

I don't have problem with rules, but they should apply to all competitors, not just the successful ones.

[Alfisti]

The upshot is the car is perfectly legal. They (BMR) discussed it with TOCA and were green lighted.

The rest is history:

It ran awful, BMR identified the manifold as the cause and in the spirit of competition (TOCA + other teams) they were allowed to change it.

It then went too well and in the spirit of competition TOCA tried to neutralise the cars COG advantage. Which led to all sorts of grumbling from certain quarters. The car then was poor or stellar dependent on the track.

There never has been any legality doubts, or if there have been they've passed me by!

[RS67]

Originally Posted by DaviePHD

It's also worth noting that the Fan Favourite "Sherman" also had it's ending mounted lower and further back than any road going Audi A4. I reckon compared to the road car it may also have enjoyed a significant weight and CofG shift just like the Levorg did.

But wait! Sherman didn't start kicking everyone's arse halfway through it's first season!

I don't have problem with rules, but they should apply to all competitors, not just the successful ones.

The Audi would never be able to get anything like a CoG improvement that the Subaru could. In fact I doubt it would be any better than the BMW.
A road going cars engine position is limited because it is longitudinal with a transfer box to drive the front wheels. Because the ngtc car would also require a transfer box to run fwd and as there is no TOCA supplier of an ngtc transfer box, the car was allowed to run as rwd and use the TOCA rwd gearbox.
The only car it would of achieved a better CoG than, would be the road car, not the BMW race car.

[VIVA GT]

But that has always been the 'trick' to successful Touring Car Racing. Choose the 'best car' for the job or one that can be made the best within the rules. It wasn't cheating, it was using the situation to their advantage...

[S griffin]

Exactly. Just like the Alfa 155 Silverstone or the Audi A4 Quattro 4wd

[Robin Marriott]

I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding of the term ‘legal’ here.

The car IS legal or it wouldn’t be able to race, the issue comes from the fact that you wouldn’t be able to build it how it was originally built, given the rule changes since day one. Therefore building one to day one spec would not be legal.

The team have acknowledged that the car was built because it had an advantage over any other layout according to the rules at the time, which is why it was built in the first place. No other car would have worked.

Whether you see that as a loophole or not is an aside, it was built to rules which have since been altered.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Robin Marriott

Whether you see that as a loophole or not is an aside, it was built to rules which have since been altered.

What has been changed in the rules that would mean it couldn't be built today?

I understand a CoG calculation is applied to RWD cars, but that doesn't change the build.

[Robin Marriott]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

What has been changed in the rules that would mean it couldn't be built today?

I understand a CoG calculation is applied to RWD cars, but that doesn't change the build.

Exactly that. The COG rule is not the same as it was when the cars were originally built, therefore it would be impossible to build the car to the original spec.

[RS67]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I understand a CoG calculation is applied to RWD cars, but that doesn't change the build.

RWD cars have to carry weight further forward in the car to negate the shift of weight over the rear wheels when accelerating off the start line.
The Subarus had the choice of ballast on the bulkhead just below the windscreen to reduce the CoG advantage of all cars including on rwd cars or a lower boost level.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Robin Marriott

Exactly that. The COG rule is not the same as it was when the cars were originally built, therefore it would be impossible to build the car to the original spec.

As I understand it, the cars are still built exactly the same. It is just the application of a ballast or ride height adjustment.

It is entirely possible, within the rules, for any other team to build a Subaru Levorg to the exact same spec as BMR did originally. They would then (as with all RWD cars) be subjected to the CoG check.

Are you suggesting that the BMW 1-series is also no longer able to be built to the same spec as it was when first entered, because the CoG rule applies to that car equally?

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by RS67

The Subarus had the choice of ballast on the bulkhead just below the windscreen to reduce the CoG advantage of all cars including on rwd cars or a lower boost level.

there is no lower boost level. its either weight on the bulkhead or a raised floor height.
gow oultined it on his forum in 2017;

to negate the cog the subarus have the choice of taking some more weight on the bulkhead or a raised floor height. they dont have to run at a lower boost. Just to clarify, it's not related to front/rear weight distribution; it's a calculation to even-out the centre of gravity (CoG) difference between the flat-four and inline-four engines when mounted in RWD cars.

The team have had the CoG calculation since it was done by RML, agreed and issued on January 20th at the BTCC Design Group meeting - the team is a member of that Design Group.

In very simple terms it's a graph that provides the team with a sliding-scale combination of some weight added to the front bulkhead or an increase in the sprung-mass floor height of the car (but not the front aero ride-height). Providing it meets the line on the graph then the team can decrease the weight on the bulkhead and increase the floor height, or vice-versa, to suit the balance of their car.

[BobJones]

Wow, we're back here...

How about rampant speculation on the remaining seats?

[RS67]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

there is no lower boost level. its either weight on the bulkhead or a raised floor height.
gow oultined it on his forum in 2017;

to negate the cog the subarus have the choice of taking some more weight on the bulkhead or a raised floor height. they dont have to run at a lower boost. Just to clarify, it's not related to front/rear weight distribution; it's a calculation to even-out the centre of gravity (CoG) difference between the flat-four and inline-four engines when mounted in RWD cars.

The team have had the CoG calculation since it was done by RML, agreed and issued on January 20th at the BTCC Design Group meeting - the team is a member of that Design Group.

In very simple terms it's a graph that provides the team with a sliding-scale combination of some weight added to the front bulkhead or an increase in the sprung-mass floor height of the car (but not the front aero ride-height). Providing it meets the line on the graph then the team can decrease the weight on the bulkhead and increase the floor height, or vice-versa, to suit the balance of their car.

You're right the other option was raised ride height. I knew they had an option of how they wished to counteract the CoG advantage.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by BobJones

Wow, we're back here...

How about rampant speculation on the remaining seats?

yeah its groundhog day around here

[Mike Harte]

Now that everyone has done the hokey-cokey and finished their navel gazing, can it be accepted that the concept of the Subaru Levorg as it is raced in the BTCC is legal.

It was originally built to an interpretation of the then current rules, and, after TOCA considered it in depth and it had completed some racing miles, TOCA insisted on a fairly minor change by implementing one of two options.

Nothing has changed since then, but then for some it's just not a Honda! And to make it worse (a heinous crime), Jason Plato was involved.

[S700UBO]

Is Chris James back yet?

[porsche962fan]

Team 48 taking over Rob Austin's Alfa ?

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Now that everyone has done the hokey-cokey and finished their navel gazing, can it be accepted that the concept of the Subaru Levorg as it is raced in the BTCC is legal.

It was originally built to an interpretation of the then current rules, and, after TOCA considered it in depth and it had completed some racing miles, TOCA insisted on a fairly minor change by implementing one of two options.

Nothing has changed since then, but then for some it's just not a Honda! And to make it worse (a heinous crime), Jason Plato was involved.

but it doesn't take away from the main point

if one team had to go from the grid, like Lord Gow wishes , best it would be for BMR and their car

followed by Team HARD and their game changer driver carousel

[S griffin]

That’s your opinion mate. Not sure everyone will agree with you

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by S griffin

That’s your opinion mate. Not sure everyone will agree with you

then make a poll if 1 team should leave which one ?

[ExplodeTheApex]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

then make a poll if 1 team should leave which one ?

We get it, you're a Honda fanboy. Leave it there.

[mark_l]

If we want to stop the argument about if one car is legal and another is not, why not make it a one make championship. After all everything else on the TOCA package is already.

Honda seems to be the most abundant manufacturer so it makes sense to use that as the base marque.

[JDMROB]

Talking of the TOCA package is there many entries on any of the support grid? Haven't seen much news.