Discussion
They don't have turbos like most of the rest of the field. The Chevys' are in the same boat. It's supposed to be equalised via adjusting boost pressure but its not. Just ask Plato 
The BMWs' have even been allowed to use a shorter first gear again the last couple of races. A rule change was made previously that they had to use a longer one to handicap their advantage from a standing start.
The BMWs' have even been allowed to use a shorter first gear again the last couple of races. A rule change was made previously that they had to use a longer one to handicap their advantage from a standing start.
Altrezia said:
Compared to the Ginettas or Porsches it's dull as dishwater. Crashes != interesting racing.
You're entitled to your opinion but that is not what I said or how I see it.How many crashes were there at the last round at Croft? I don't recall anything too terrible. The season so far has had a good spread of winners and podium finishers, and there are several competitive cars. Its a far cry from the dark days after Super Touring was scrapped and we basically had Vauxhall and that was it.
Agree the Carrera Cup always dishes up great entertainment.
Alan Gow and his technical committee are going to use the summer break to analyse in detail the "parity issue" between the Turbos and the NA cars, so we'll see what comes of that.
Croft masked the NA power disadvantage as it's a circuit where, for various reasons, the BMWs have always run very well. It fundamentally suits their handling balance and setup. However, you called it correctly - on the longer straights in the first half of the lap, Mat Jackson's (turbo) Focus pulled away from Collard with such ease that he wasn't able to get close enough to make a move in the 2nd part of the lap, where the BMWs handling comes on strong.
The turbo'd cars will argue that the NA cars have an advantage under braking - but any such advantage disappears when they can overtake "mirror-signal-manoeuvre" style down the straights, as seen at Oulton Park. The ease with which Jackson's Focus overtook Foster on lap 1 of race 3 there was ridiculous. He'd pulled out, gone past and pulled back in before the braking zone for the hairpin.
There's clearly still a big power advantage for the turbos, and "parity" is - in my opinion - still some way off.
Croft masked the NA power disadvantage as it's a circuit where, for various reasons, the BMWs have always run very well. It fundamentally suits their handling balance and setup. However, you called it correctly - on the longer straights in the first half of the lap, Mat Jackson's (turbo) Focus pulled away from Collard with such ease that he wasn't able to get close enough to make a move in the 2nd part of the lap, where the BMWs handling comes on strong.
The turbo'd cars will argue that the NA cars have an advantage under braking - but any such advantage disappears when they can overtake "mirror-signal-manoeuvre" style down the straights, as seen at Oulton Park. The ease with which Jackson's Focus overtook Foster on lap 1 of race 3 there was ridiculous. He'd pulled out, gone past and pulled back in before the braking zone for the hairpin.
There's clearly still a big power advantage for the turbos, and "parity" is - in my opinion - still some way off.
GreenMan said:
Alan Gow and his technical committee are going to use the summer break to analyse in detail the "parity issue" between the Turbos and the NA cars, so we'll see what comes of that.
Croft masked the NA power disadvantage as it's a circuit where, for various reasons, the BMWs have always run very well. It fundamentally suits their handling balance and setup. However, you called it correctly - on the longer straights in the first half of the lap, Mat Jackson's (turbo) Focus pulled away from Collard with such ease that he wasn't able to get close enough to make a move in the 2nd part of the lap, where the BMWs handling comes on strong.
The turbo'd cars will argue that the NA cars have an advantage under braking - but any such advantage disappears when they can overtake "mirror-signal-manoeuvre" style down the straights, as seen at Oulton Park. The ease with which Jackson's Focus overtook Foster on lap 1 of race 3 there was ridiculous. He'd pulled out, gone past and pulled back in before the braking zone for the hairpin.
There's clearly still a big power advantage for the turbos, and "parity" is - in my opinion - still some way off.
i'll second that!!!Croft masked the NA power disadvantage as it's a circuit where, for various reasons, the BMWs have always run very well. It fundamentally suits their handling balance and setup. However, you called it correctly - on the longer straights in the first half of the lap, Mat Jackson's (turbo) Focus pulled away from Collard with such ease that he wasn't able to get close enough to make a move in the 2nd part of the lap, where the BMWs handling comes on strong.
The turbo'd cars will argue that the NA cars have an advantage under braking - but any such advantage disappears when they can overtake "mirror-signal-manoeuvre" style down the straights, as seen at Oulton Park. The ease with which Jackson's Focus overtook Foster on lap 1 of race 3 there was ridiculous. He'd pulled out, gone past and pulled back in before the braking zone for the hairpin.
There's clearly still a big power advantage for the turbos, and "parity" is - in my opinion - still some way off.
GreenMan said:
Alan Gow and his technical committee are going to use the summer break to analyse in detail the "parity issue" between the Turbos and the NA cars, so we'll see what comes of that.
Croft masked the NA power disadvantage as it's a circuit where, for various reasons, the BMWs have always run very well. It fundamentally suits their handling balance and setup. However, you called it correctly - on the longer straights in the first half of the lap, Mat Jackson's (turbo) Focus pulled away from Collard with such ease that he wasn't able to get close enough to make a move in the 2nd part of the lap, where the BMWs handling comes on strong.
The turbo'd cars will argue that the NA cars have an advantage under braking - but any such advantage disappears when they can overtake "mirror-signal-manoeuvre" style down the straights, as seen at Oulton Park. The ease with which Jackson's Focus overtook Foster on lap 1 of race 3 there was ridiculous. He'd pulled out, gone past and pulled back in before the braking zone for the hairpin.
There's clearly still a big power advantage for the turbos, and "parity" is - in my opinion - still some way off.
Tim Harvey said in commentary that overtake was due to Jackson carrying much more speed through the chicane. I'm sure the turbo helped but it wasn't the sole reason. Croft masked the NA power disadvantage as it's a circuit where, for various reasons, the BMWs have always run very well. It fundamentally suits their handling balance and setup. However, you called it correctly - on the longer straights in the first half of the lap, Mat Jackson's (turbo) Focus pulled away from Collard with such ease that he wasn't able to get close enough to make a move in the 2nd part of the lap, where the BMWs handling comes on strong.
The turbo'd cars will argue that the NA cars have an advantage under braking - but any such advantage disappears when they can overtake "mirror-signal-manoeuvre" style down the straights, as seen at Oulton Park. The ease with which Jackson's Focus overtook Foster on lap 1 of race 3 there was ridiculous. He'd pulled out, gone past and pulled back in before the braking zone for the hairpin.
There's clearly still a big power advantage for the turbos, and "parity" is - in my opinion - still some way off.
IMO I thought this was the closest racing of the year so far.
GreenMan said:
The turbo'd cars will argue that the NA cars have an advantage under braking - but any such advantage disappears when they can overtake "mirror-signal-manoeuvre" style down the straights, as seen at Oulton Park. The ease with which Jackson's Focus overtook Foster on lap 1 of race 3 there was ridiculous. He'd pulled out, gone past and pulled back in before the braking zone for the hairpin.
Is this what happened back in the "good old days" when they were racing Camaros against Escorts?"Is this what happened back in the "good old days" when they were racing Camaros against Escorts?"
Not really as back in the day there were three or four classes divided by engine capacity. But at some circuits, where handling and braking were more important, there was plenty of "David and Goliath" racing going on, Minis versus Mustangs, etc, and you can guess which side the crowd was on!
Not really as back in the day there were three or four classes divided by engine capacity. But at some circuits, where handling and braking were more important, there was plenty of "David and Goliath" racing going on, Minis versus Mustangs, etc, and you can guess which side the crowd was on!
rallycross said:
last race was much closer except the honda team which are clearly much quicker than anyone they can still drive by on the straights they need more weight added or less boost (they already run less boost than the other turbos but they still have a huge advantage).
My perception is that in terms of the field as whole the advantage of the turbo cars is nothing like as great as some are claiming, if it was then we wouldn't be seeing BMWs and/or Chevys consitently running as far up the field as they have been and the championship table would look very different... What seems to have happened is that Honda have put an absolutely stonking package together which just happens to have (and make very good use of) a turbo engine but would still be Pretty Damned Competitive with an NA engine - take the Hondas out of the equation and while the turbo cars clearly have an advantage in some places on some circuits they're far from all conquering...I'm as keen on close racing as the next guy but when you start ballasting or restricting cars on an individual basis rather than looking at the overall picture it's carrying things too far, clearly on their day both the Chevys and the BMWs are capable of getting very good results, and that's good enough for me - if we were to go down the road of juggling the boost/weight figures to try to get every single car running identical lap times at every circuit then the whole idea of car development goes out of the window and we might as well be watching the Clio cup...
bigbadbikercats said:
rallycross said:
last race was much closer except the honda team which are clearly much quicker than anyone they can still drive by on the straights they need more weight added or less boost (they already run less boost than the other turbos but they still have a huge advantage).
My perception is that in terms of the field as whole the advantage of the turbo cars is nothing like as great as some are claiming, if it was then we wouldn't be seeing BMWs and/or Chevys consitently running as far up the field as they have been and the championship table would look very different... What seems to have happened is that Honda have put an absolutely stonking package together which just happens to have (and make very good use of) a turbo engine but would still be Pretty Damned Competitive with an NA engine - take the Hondas out of the equation and while the turbo cars clearly have an advantage in some places on some circuits they're far from all conquering...I'm as keen on close racing as the next guy but when you start ballasting or restricting cars on an individual basis rather than looking at the overall picture it's carrying things too far, clearly on their day both the Chevys and the BMWs are capable of getting very good results, and that's good enough for me - if we were to go down the road of juggling the boost/weight figures to try to get every single car running identical lap times at every circuit then the whole idea of car development goes out of the window and we might as well be watching the Clio cup...
I agree the Honda is blatantly a great all round package. The point is there is supposed to be parity between the turbo and NA cars. Would the Honda be so much quicker than a Chevy (the other lead team) with an NA engine? I think not.
GreenMan said:
There's clearly still a big power advantage for the turbos, and "parity" is - in my opinion - still some way off.
Now, while i agree they may have an advantage, how far do you handicap the turbo engined cars before people like JP are happy?? I'm not turning this into a Jason Plato witch hunt, i happen to think he is the outstanding driver in BTCC, but his team knew that turbo engines were being introduced this season, and yet now they find themselves being left behind, it seems they want them pegged right back.Granted there should be some form of parity, but if you keep pegging them back, then what was the point in allowing them to race with turbo engines this season, why not just say no turbo's untill 2012(or whenever the NGTC rules take effect)? If you were Andy Jordan, and you kept getting pegged back, until the NA cars were able to run with you, and beat you, wouldnt you be a bit pissed off, especially considering he put in the miles last year when the turbo engine was problematic?
01 Matt Neal 140 T
02 Mat Jackson 131 T
03 Gordon Shedden 120 T
04 Andrew Jordan 111 T
05 James Nash 104 T
06 Jason Plato 100 N/A
07 Robert Collard 66 N/A
08 Tom Chilton 64 T
09 Alex MacDowall 47 N/A
10 Paul O'Neill 32 N/A
Ok Take the Honda out of the champ and theres not much difference is what someone mre or less just said. There is the standings. Best N/A is 6th and if people take their bias off he is the best driver in the field. Only man to touch him is Neal and Jackson(on one of his good days).
There is NO parity at all. The N/A cars are competing because they are running massively aggressive set ups to the point its almost dangerous. N/A cars have had a fair few punctures this season. The Chevy is a top top car and was clearly the best car in the WTCC last season yet it cant get anywhere near the indi turbo cars.
Take last race for example. Tony Gilham held Plato behind him for half of race 3. No disrespect but TG isnt on the same planet and with parity he would not have been an issue. The lack of parity has cause some N/A drivers to become overly aggressive aswell. Look at Paul O'neill. Such a clean and genuine driver in his integra last year. He was a joy to watch. This season he is having to force doors open and jump down the inside where there isnt a gap to try and pass because he knows he simply can not get onto terms any other way. So far this season has been a bit of a farce really. I have always felt Alan Gow is slow to react to anything to do with Honda supremacy and he is taking as much time as possible to try and even up the field. This could have been narrowed down atleast 3 races ago.
And im a TOC supporter btw before the bias rants arrive.
02 Mat Jackson 131 T
03 Gordon Shedden 120 T
04 Andrew Jordan 111 T
05 James Nash 104 T
06 Jason Plato 100 N/A
07 Robert Collard 66 N/A
08 Tom Chilton 64 T
09 Alex MacDowall 47 N/A
10 Paul O'Neill 32 N/A
Ok Take the Honda out of the champ and theres not much difference is what someone mre or less just said. There is the standings. Best N/A is 6th and if people take their bias off he is the best driver in the field. Only man to touch him is Neal and Jackson(on one of his good days).
There is NO parity at all. The N/A cars are competing because they are running massively aggressive set ups to the point its almost dangerous. N/A cars have had a fair few punctures this season. The Chevy is a top top car and was clearly the best car in the WTCC last season yet it cant get anywhere near the indi turbo cars.
Take last race for example. Tony Gilham held Plato behind him for half of race 3. No disrespect but TG isnt on the same planet and with parity he would not have been an issue. The lack of parity has cause some N/A drivers to become overly aggressive aswell. Look at Paul O'neill. Such a clean and genuine driver in his integra last year. He was a joy to watch. This season he is having to force doors open and jump down the inside where there isnt a gap to try and pass because he knows he simply can not get onto terms any other way. So far this season has been a bit of a farce really. I have always felt Alan Gow is slow to react to anything to do with Honda supremacy and he is taking as much time as possible to try and even up the field. This could have been narrowed down atleast 3 races ago.
And im a TOC supporter btw before the bias rants arrive.
Okay, that's a fair point, but like i said, surely if you knew as a team owner that you could run a turbo engine, and chose not to, then that's your fault, and the rules shouldnt be changed on a race by race basis to make it suit your car/driver combo?
Granted, lets have parity, but instead of cutting more and more turbo boost,to the point where they wont be able to compete with the NA cars, why not give the NA cars a weight advantage over the turbo cars for example, that would bring them closer together
Granted, lets have parity, but instead of cutting more and more turbo boost,to the point where they wont be able to compete with the NA cars, why not give the NA cars a weight advantage over the turbo cars for example, that would bring them closer together
snowy slopes said:
Okay, that's a fair point, but like i said, surely if you knew as a team owner that you could run a turbo engine, and chose not to, then that's your fault, and the rules shouldnt be changed on a race by race basis to make it suit your car/driver combo?
Granted, lets have parity, but instead of cutting more and more turbo boost,to the point where they wont be able to compete with the NA cars, why not give the NA cars a weight advantage over the turbo cars for example, that would bring them closer together
Its a transition period. The teams that wanted to continue with NA power were promised parity with the new turbo NGTC cars if they did so. Its as simple as that.Granted, lets have parity, but instead of cutting more and more turbo boost,to the point where they wont be able to compete with the NA cars, why not give the NA cars a weight advantage over the turbo cars for example, that would bring them closer together
I can see why Chevy wanted to stick with the old spec cars as long as possible given how much they must have spent developing what has been a very successfull car.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff