Spec engines for the WTCC & Rallying for 2011
Discussion
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76501
Is that what the sport(s)need? I'm really not sure it's what I wanted to see. For 1 thing who is going to build these things?
To say nothing of the idea that all cars will sound the same in future. Dull dull dull.
Is that what the sport(s)need? I'm really not sure it's what I wanted to see. For 1 thing who is going to build these things?
To say nothing of the idea that all cars will sound the same in future. Dull dull dull.
Don't see the point. One MAKE series are pretty good. The TVR series for example but one SPEC like the Porsche Supercup, Clio's and others are a minefield. Yes the best drivers win BUT there is no change series wise and the racing at the front is pretty sterile and to be frank boring to watch. They NEED the safety car to mix it up. Even the Ginetta Juniors suffer from this. F3 shows this. At some circuits the best drivers do win. However the mix of engines and chassis means that sometimes other drivers get in the mix as their strength's come the fore. As well as which you can spot a good driver "over peddling" a mediocre car.
I'm not sure I agree with all of the comments above. I think there is a requirement, or should be a requirement to tackle some of the issues associated with both performance equilisation and running costs. The BTCC has introduced a new series of rules which are based on a 2.0 litre turbo charged engine, but the FIA felt that a 1.6 unit was more appropriate for the S2000 cars used in WTCC and Super 2000 rallying.
One make racing does not always ensure the best driver wins, the theory is great but the practice is somewhat different, often with scrutineers and governing bodies struggling to keep abreast of developments to the cars and changes being made by teams. We are running cars in the SEAT Supercopa in Spain this year along with some rounds of the European Clio Cup and scrutineering in both of those series is far more stringent than that found in the UK - we have found cars impounded in post race scruntineering for 4 or more hours including engines and gearboxes being dropped out, something which just doesn't really happen in the UK - driving standards are also policed with far greater force - something I totally agree with - but even then there are those teams who will push the rules to the N'th degree.
I guess the thinking with this is a combination of cost reduction and the introduction of a level playing field. One of the biggest costs of running a S2000 car at the moment is the engine contracts - its not simply a question of firing it up and running it, most of the engines are leased from engine builders with a program of race meeting support. This can add significantly to a seasons budget and to run in the BTCC let alone WTCC you shouldn't probably expect a lot of change from £100k simply for engines over the course of the year with rebuilds and maintenance - with budgets currently running at about £400-500k for a front running car (plus damage) thats a big chunk of the budget, and even more for privateers that are perhaps running on budgets of c.£200-300k. The introduction of a single enginer is also going to be controversial as you limit manufacturer interest in the series perhaps, but I do think that is good value in going for a smaller capacity forced induction engine that is less 'stressed' than a similar powered N/A engine. As an example we are running the Leon this season with a 2.0 litre TSI engine producing around 305bhp - up on the BTCC cars which are producing around 285-300bhp, indeed the Leon is quicker than a BTCC car, part of the reason it was never run in its full european spec in the UK. Yet we are probably only looking at one engine build during the season, and if properly maintained and not over stressed (thanks to the DSG pretty much impossible) than it should do a season (depending on testing mileage).
I can certainly see the logic and I think that there is value in a reduction in engine capacity and a swap to forced induction, but whether WTCC or Super 2000 rallying is the place for it, a championship so reliant on manufacturer support, then I'm not sure. From the point of view of costs then I think it is definately worth looking in to, and something has to be done to ensure the future of the sport by limiting costs and reducing the barriers to entry for new teams.
I hope the above waffle makes sense - somewhat longer than I originally intended!
One make racing does not always ensure the best driver wins, the theory is great but the practice is somewhat different, often with scrutineers and governing bodies struggling to keep abreast of developments to the cars and changes being made by teams. We are running cars in the SEAT Supercopa in Spain this year along with some rounds of the European Clio Cup and scrutineering in both of those series is far more stringent than that found in the UK - we have found cars impounded in post race scruntineering for 4 or more hours including engines and gearboxes being dropped out, something which just doesn't really happen in the UK - driving standards are also policed with far greater force - something I totally agree with - but even then there are those teams who will push the rules to the N'th degree.
I guess the thinking with this is a combination of cost reduction and the introduction of a level playing field. One of the biggest costs of running a S2000 car at the moment is the engine contracts - its not simply a question of firing it up and running it, most of the engines are leased from engine builders with a program of race meeting support. This can add significantly to a seasons budget and to run in the BTCC let alone WTCC you shouldn't probably expect a lot of change from £100k simply for engines over the course of the year with rebuilds and maintenance - with budgets currently running at about £400-500k for a front running car (plus damage) thats a big chunk of the budget, and even more for privateers that are perhaps running on budgets of c.£200-300k. The introduction of a single enginer is also going to be controversial as you limit manufacturer interest in the series perhaps, but I do think that is good value in going for a smaller capacity forced induction engine that is less 'stressed' than a similar powered N/A engine. As an example we are running the Leon this season with a 2.0 litre TSI engine producing around 305bhp - up on the BTCC cars which are producing around 285-300bhp, indeed the Leon is quicker than a BTCC car, part of the reason it was never run in its full european spec in the UK. Yet we are probably only looking at one engine build during the season, and if properly maintained and not over stressed (thanks to the DSG pretty much impossible) than it should do a season (depending on testing mileage).
I can certainly see the logic and I think that there is value in a reduction in engine capacity and a swap to forced induction, but whether WTCC or Super 2000 rallying is the place for it, a championship so reliant on manufacturer support, then I'm not sure. From the point of view of costs then I think it is definately worth looking in to, and something has to be done to ensure the future of the sport by limiting costs and reducing the barriers to entry for new teams.
I hope the above waffle makes sense - somewhat longer than I originally intended!
1.6 Turbo? I no people say engines do not make the championships, but that is a weak unit- unless they are allowed to go for the mad 400bhp anti lagged units.
Might as well go and watch the Clio Cup.
I used to love watch the Lister Storms thunder around the UK circuits, and I also loved the 2 litre six-pot Super Touring cars.
I still, only just, enjoy the 320si, but most of the other cars I see racing are shocking.
Historical racing FTW- along as the FIA are not involved.
Might as well go and watch the Clio Cup.
I used to love watch the Lister Storms thunder around the UK circuits, and I also loved the 2 litre six-pot Super Touring cars.
I still, only just, enjoy the 320si, but most of the other cars I see racing are shocking.
Historical racing FTW- along as the FIA are not involved.
Adrian, As a petrol head I agree with you - having been lucky enough to drive some fantastic historics and big engined GT stuff over the years it certainly is a spectical and adds to the experience (probably why I also have a classic for the road!), but contemporary racing, particularly when manufacturer supported, such as Super 2000 and the WTCC must also ensure it is consistent with technologies and relative to road cars for manufacturers to justify expenditure on it.
My understanding from Autosport is that the BTCC will use a 2.0 litre turbo (unclear as to whether derv will be allowed) of manufacturers design (thus for example SEAT/VW/AUDI already produce a unit, as do Vauxhall etc) and chassis regs will also change to 5 doors, mass produced UK shells (ie no grey imports) and standard engine loctions etc.
WTCC and Super 2000 (presumably now to become S1600 - although that already exists?!) to be a manufacturers design 1600 Turbo running on petrol (but I'm not sure who produces this as an engine? Vauxhall/Opel I think but as it stands it limits the potential manufacture I think).
WTCC and Super 2000 (presumably now to become S1600 - although that already exists?!) to be a manufacturers design 1600 Turbo running on petrol (but I'm not sure who produces this as an engine? Vauxhall/Opel I think but as it stands it limits the potential manufacture I think).
Edited by TimCrighton on Thursday 25th June 10:23
I can see how a spec-engined series is good for independents cost-wise. There are, however, enough series for teams on limited budgets who are happy to run spec engines. The Renault Clio Cup springs to mind.
Surely what attracts independents to the big, manufacturer-dominated series like the WTCC & WRC is being able to sell to it's sponsors the idea of being seen with the big boys?
If the manufacturers lose interest in these series as a result of being told whose engine they are allowed to run & go somewhere else where they can do what they want then the series will be left to independents whose reason for being there has gone.
What are the chances that the manufacturers now get together, threaten the FIA with creating their own series & the FIA backing down?
Given this week's event is in F1 the chances are rather high I suspect.
The independents will benefit too if the ideas F1 now has about technology transfer can be continued.
I'm not against smaller engines, I just don't see why they have to be spec motors in the top level(s) of touring car/rallying.
Surely what attracts independents to the big, manufacturer-dominated series like the WTCC & WRC is being able to sell to it's sponsors the idea of being seen with the big boys?
If the manufacturers lose interest in these series as a result of being told whose engine they are allowed to run & go somewhere else where they can do what they want then the series will be left to independents whose reason for being there has gone.
What are the chances that the manufacturers now get together, threaten the FIA with creating their own series & the FIA backing down?
Given this week's event is in F1 the chances are rather high I suspect.
The independents will benefit too if the ideas F1 now has about technology transfer can be continued.
I'm not against smaller engines, I just don't see why they have to be spec motors in the top level(s) of touring car/rallying.
IMO this is a bad move. Rallying as a sport is very exciting to watch, especially at the top level. Ask any rally fan, what his favourite, sound and sight rally car is, it will most likely be a BDA Escort at 10K in the forest, or a 6R4. What Rallying needs IMO is 2.5l N/A Engines, limited to 10k, the block based on a current production unit and 4WD. And,, not to stringent on the noise!
The bigger the spectacle the more popular it will become.
The bigger the spectacle the more popular it will become.
For me as a spectator (genuine, honest one model spec series like, say Clio Cup apart) the appeal of a series is pretty much in direct proportion to the variety of (genuinely competitive) machinery taking part - taking the example of Touring Car racing the high point for me (if I'd been old enough to do more than see photographs, old film, and the Goodwood Revival!) would have been the days in the'60s when you'd see whacking great Ford Galaxies rumbling around wheel-to-wheel with Minis with the odd Jag MK11s mixing it up amongst them. Rover Vitesses going head to head with BMW M3s etc in the '80s was great too, Sierra Cosworth RS500 domination (while undeniably giving good, close, fast racing) was a bit of a turn-off for me after the first few times.
The rules we've seen over the last few years have been kind of an uneasy compromise - yes there are different manufacturers, yes there are different shapes but at the end of the day you can only get so much variation between FWD, 2 liter, N/A 4-pots and the presence of the BMWs (while entirely welcome) or the diesel SEATs didn't lift the spectacle too much for me.
What I would like to see is a set of rules which require/allow entrants to make genuine choices, favour different cars at different circuits, and encourage close racing between cars which look different, sound different, behave differently, and (while equal-ish when averaged out across a whole season) are quick in different places and my gut feeling is that the way to get this is to have rules which are loose in terms of what you can race (ideally allowing some old school Heavy Metal in!), and are tight in terms of what you can do to it with costs being constrained by keeping the cars a lot closer to "showroom" spec than we have now.
Jag XF-R v BMW M3 v Ford Focus RS anybody...?
--
JG
The rules we've seen over the last few years have been kind of an uneasy compromise - yes there are different manufacturers, yes there are different shapes but at the end of the day you can only get so much variation between FWD, 2 liter, N/A 4-pots and the presence of the BMWs (while entirely welcome) or the diesel SEATs didn't lift the spectacle too much for me.
What I would like to see is a set of rules which require/allow entrants to make genuine choices, favour different cars at different circuits, and encourage close racing between cars which look different, sound different, behave differently, and (while equal-ish when averaged out across a whole season) are quick in different places and my gut feeling is that the way to get this is to have rules which are loose in terms of what you can race (ideally allowing some old school Heavy Metal in!), and are tight in terms of what you can do to it with costs being constrained by keeping the cars a lot closer to "showroom" spec than we have now.
Jag XF-R v BMW M3 v Ford Focus RS anybody...?
--
JG
german tony said:
Surely what attracts independents to the big, manufacturer-dominated series like the WTCC & WRC is being able to sell to it's sponsors the idea of being seen with the big boys?
You've answered your own question there, mate. Don't forget that Mossy was not only in charge of F1 but of all motorsports run under the FiA banner as well. He wants the manufacturers out of motorsport. His reasons have not been given - some suggestions that they don't stay doesn't really run given Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Renault and Toyota.One wonders if the manufacturers were brought in for a discussion with regards to the direction of WRC and WTC.
I think all the formulae under the control of Mossy have been going through terrible times of late and the publicity surrounding the risk to F1's existence has pushed these others into the background.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff