Silverstone BTCC
Discussion
Vocal Minority said:
Thanks to Mr Plato for the information on how the boost is calculated, that is something I didn't know - all I had heard was heresay - and if the teams signed up to it then it is fair enough.
Though as an armchair enthusiast, I would suggest maybe the rules would benefit from a bit of further fine tuning, as the swings in form that they produce are a bit wild to those watching on and coupled with a lack of clarity with the rules on turbo boost (or at least lack of clarity in how they are communicated to the layman) it is easy to see why this sort of conjecture and arguing occurs.
As I said earlier there are valid commercial concerns for equivalency, it is a lot of peoples livlihoods and getting bums on seats is the priority essentially.
However, whilst I understand (and fully accept) Jason's explanation above, some more clarity and communication from the organisers (or even each teams press officers) would help to soothe the uneasiness I previously mentioned as to precisely where these relatively drastic variations in form from weekend to weekend come from. After all the fans are the customers and the other half of the 'transaction' (if you look at it in cold hard terms).
Can't disagree with any of that..Though as an armchair enthusiast, I would suggest maybe the rules would benefit from a bit of further fine tuning, as the swings in form that they produce are a bit wild to those watching on and coupled with a lack of clarity with the rules on turbo boost (or at least lack of clarity in how they are communicated to the layman) it is easy to see why this sort of conjecture and arguing occurs.
As I said earlier there are valid commercial concerns for equivalency, it is a lot of peoples livlihoods and getting bums on seats is the priority essentially.
However, whilst I understand (and fully accept) Jason's explanation above, some more clarity and communication from the organisers (or even each teams press officers) would help to soothe the uneasiness I previously mentioned as to precisely where these relatively drastic variations in form from weekend to weekend come from. After all the fans are the customers and the other half of the 'transaction' (if you look at it in cold hard terms).
Dan Friel said:
Vocal Minority said:
Thanks to Mr Plato for the information on how the boost is calculated, that is something I didn't know - all I had heard was heresay - and if the teams signed up to it then it is fair enough.
Though as an armchair enthusiast, I would suggest maybe the rules would benefit from a bit of further fine tuning, as the swings in form that they produce are a bit wild to those watching on and coupled with a lack of clarity with the rules on turbo boost (or at least lack of clarity in how they are communicated to the layman) it is easy to see why this sort of conjecture and arguing occurs.
As I said earlier there are valid commercial concerns for equivalency, it is a lot of peoples livlihoods and getting bums on seats is the priority essentially.
However, whilst I understand (and fully accept) Jason's explanation above, some more clarity and communication from the organisers (or even each teams press officers) would help to soothe the uneasiness I previously mentioned as to precisely where these relatively drastic variations in form from weekend to weekend come from. After all the fans are the customers and the other half of the 'transaction' (if you look at it in cold hard terms).
Can't disagree with any of that..Though as an armchair enthusiast, I would suggest maybe the rules would benefit from a bit of further fine tuning, as the swings in form that they produce are a bit wild to those watching on and coupled with a lack of clarity with the rules on turbo boost (or at least lack of clarity in how they are communicated to the layman) it is easy to see why this sort of conjecture and arguing occurs.
As I said earlier there are valid commercial concerns for equivalency, it is a lot of peoples livlihoods and getting bums on seats is the priority essentially.
However, whilst I understand (and fully accept) Jason's explanation above, some more clarity and communication from the organisers (or even each teams press officers) would help to soothe the uneasiness I previously mentioned as to precisely where these relatively drastic variations in form from weekend to weekend come from. After all the fans are the customers and the other half of the 'transaction' (if you look at it in cold hard terms).
I do want to see close racing but i don't want to see this much variation from race to race. There's always going to be one car that's good on one circuit but not on another so in my opinion equalization cannot be based on the last 2 races.
decadence said:
i think we are still another year off this whole 'parity' argument taking a back burner....
I've got a long memory and the whole parity issue has been about for years, with the RWD and 4WD getting big weight penalties, the S2000 v BTC argument among others. The only thing now is that parity was promised. It won't go away any time soon. Adrian W said:
playalistic said:
This equalisation sounds so complex to enforce (reliably) no wonder it's a complete minefield.
I'd side with JP's logic but for the fact that most of the teams make the same complaints regarding unfair boost as being levelled by some of the posters here. So somebody has got it wrong. I'm just not sure who
As I said about 20 pages ago, it's not how much boost that is important, its how and where it makes the boost, you can completely change the Characteristics of the engine with different cams and playing with the timing, To equalise the cars the Torque and power curves would need to be the same, if they publish the graphs you could see the truth about the different cars I'd side with JP's logic but for the fact that most of the teams make the same complaints regarding unfair boost as being levelled by some of the posters here. So somebody has got it wrong. I'm just not sure who
Maybe the spec engines should be NA with restrictor plates. All the other series seem to cope this way without much argument.
playalistic said:
Maybe the spec engines should be NA with restrictor plates. All the other series seem to cope this way without much argument.
Though presumably MG & Honda (presuming that manufacturer teams, in real terms, probably hold a bit of sway) would probably prefer the turbo option, as it is becoming increasingly relevant to road car tech.jasonplato said:
All the turbo engines were analysed at the beginning of the season by turbo engine experts appointed by TOCA to check flow rates, torque and BHP, the baseline boost pressure for each engine was then set to equalise the advantages/disadvantages that the various engines may have due to their basic design. An in season rolling boost adjustment calculation was agreed by all the teams. In simple terms, lap times from the 2 previous race meetings (qual, R1,R2 and R3) are used to decide the boost adjustments. The formula for this adjustment was decided and agreed by all the teams at the beginning of the season. For the record, boost adjustments can only go up and not down from the baseline boost. So when people say Hondas boost has been reduced, they are talking rubbish. What it means is that Honda have not had a boost increase because their lap times from the previous 2 race meetings mean they were the quickest! For the record, only the fastest car is taken into account when adjusting the boost.
Maybe we might have a sensible thread, but I doubt it.
Ding ding
Ok, so that explains why the MG's and the Ford is faster than the Hondas. It still seems to be the case that some teams are given an advantage over others throughout the season as the tweaks are implemented? This doesn't necessarily mean that the best driver/car/team will be victorious as shown by some of the "lesser" drivers quali times. Maybe we might have a sensible thread, but I doubt it.
Ding ding
I still don't really understand why they have to be fiddled with at all once a baseline has been set and I understand that the decision to do so has nothing to do with anyone except TOCA.
Most of the people on this thread (apart from decadence, I think you might have run over his cat or something) are genuine fans who pay their money and stand in the pissing rain to support their team and would like to understand how the system works and why there are so many random discrepancies between race weekends. It isn't simply a bash MG or Jason Plato thread (apart from decadence) but insulting "this place" and its members isn't going to endear you to your critics. I doubt you're bothered about that but everyone supports somebody and collectively we all make up the audience that keeps the sport going.
Edited by StoatInACoat on Tuesday 9th October 14:03
[quote=StoatInACoat]
Most of the people on this thread (apart from decadence, I think you might have run over his cat or something) are genuine fans who pay their money and stand in the pissing rain to support their team and would like to understand how the system works and why there are so many random discrepancies between race weekends. It isn't simply a bash MG or Jason Plato thread (apart from decadence) but insulting "this place" and its members isn't going to endear you to your critics. I doubt you're bothered about that but everyone supports somebody and collectively we all make up the audience that keeps the sport going.
Point taken, however, people who post non biased genuine posts know that my snipe is not aimed at them.
Most of the people on this thread (apart from decadence, I think you might have run over his cat or something) are genuine fans who pay their money and stand in the pissing rain to support their team and would like to understand how the system works and why there are so many random discrepancies between race weekends. It isn't simply a bash MG or Jason Plato thread (apart from decadence) but insulting "this place" and its members isn't going to endear you to your critics. I doubt you're bothered about that but everyone supports somebody and collectively we all make up the audience that keeps the sport going.
Point taken, however, people who post non biased genuine posts know that my snipe is not aimed at them.
jasonplato said:
Point taken, however, people who post non biased genuine posts know that my snipe is not aimed at them.
I think most of us realise that, however, given that there is some debate from a spectator's perspective as to the efficacy of the equivalence formula, what in your opinion, would be the best way to promote a level playing field for the series? None of us want a one make series and there will always be someone who complains about the rules, but do you think this year is 'as good as it gets' or could it be improved?I hate turbo's in racing because as we see from the BTCC you will never please everyone all of the time & someone, rightly or wrongly, will always be aggrieved over boost levels etc etc.
So is the simple answer to not use the sodding things at all? Why not set a maximum cc level - I think 3500 sounds about right (would prefer 5000 but some people on here seem to think that's a daft idea).
That way of all the cars run to the same capacity & all have the same number of cylinders - 8 seems a good number to me -- which then reduces the opportunity for people to whinge.
I did mention 5 litre V8's yesterday along with a budget cap. One person said he thought that a budget cap was funny but oddly didn't quantify exactly why he thought it was funny.
I also said a budget cap works in F1 so why not in BTCC?
If the cars ran to the same basic engine spec then the racing would, or should, be purer & the best drivers will win the races.
I suspect we all know who those might be however even then people would still b
h about it!
All this bhing on PH is getting tiresome as are the on track squabbles & shunts although that has been a part of touring car racing for as long as I can remember which, for the benefit of MGJohn, is way back into the 70's.
At least JP has posted some interesting stuff although not being technically minded when it to comes to boost etc I dont profess to understanding it in great detail so I will leave that to those who do understand.
I am looking forward to the racing at Brands Hatch but I'm not looking forward to the moaning & bhing that will inevitably go with the racing.
So is the simple answer to not use the sodding things at all? Why not set a maximum cc level - I think 3500 sounds about right (would prefer 5000 but some people on here seem to think that's a daft idea).
That way of all the cars run to the same capacity & all have the same number of cylinders - 8 seems a good number to me -- which then reduces the opportunity for people to whinge.
I did mention 5 litre V8's yesterday along with a budget cap. One person said he thought that a budget cap was funny but oddly didn't quantify exactly why he thought it was funny.
I also said a budget cap works in F1 so why not in BTCC?
If the cars ran to the same basic engine spec then the racing would, or should, be purer & the best drivers will win the races.
I suspect we all know who those might be however even then people would still b
h about it!All this b
hing on PH is getting tiresome as are the on track squabbles & shunts although that has been a part of touring car racing for as long as I can remember which, for the benefit of MGJohn, is way back into the 70's.At least JP has posted some interesting stuff although not being technically minded when it to comes to boost etc I dont profess to understanding it in great detail so I will leave that to those who do understand.
I am looking forward to the racing at Brands Hatch but I'm not looking forward to the moaning & b
hing that will inevitably go with the racing.
StoatInACoat said:
jasonplato said:
All the turbo engines were analysed at the beginning of the season by turbo engine experts appointed by TOCA to check flow rates, torque and BHP, the baseline boost pressure for each engine was then set to equalise the advantages/disadvantages that the various engines may have due to their basic design. An in season rolling boost adjustment calculation was agreed by all the teams. In simple terms, lap times from the 2 previous race meetings (qual, R1,R2 and R3) are used to decide the boost adjustments. The formula for this adjustment was decided and agreed by all the teams at the beginning of the season. For the record, boost adjustments can only go up and not down from the baseline boost. So when people say Hondas boost has been reduced, they are talking rubbish. What it means is that Honda have not had a boost increase because their lap times from the previous 2 race meetings mean they were the quickest! For the record, only the fastest car is taken into account when adjusting the boost.
Maybe we might have a sensible thread, but I doubt it.
Ding ding
Ok, so that explains why the MG's and the Ford is faster than the Hondas. It still seems to be the case that some teams are given an advantage over others throughout the season as the tweaks are implemented? This doesn't necessarily mean that the best driver/car/team will be victorious as shown by some of the "lesser" drivers quali times. Maybe we might have a sensible thread, but I doubt it.
Ding ding
I still don't really understand why they have to be fiddled with at all once a baseline has been set and I understand that the decision to do so has nothing to do with anyone except TOCA.
I think increases in boost are used to keep the less developed cars closer to the front runner's overall lap times. So the Hondas started with less boost and have had far less increases in boost over the season making the power gap larger.
Still, they've been at the front all year so they don't have much to complain about. Silverstone speed problems could have been a calculation error, they were competitive at Rockingham when they shouldn't have been due to the weather. Or a conspiracy. PH loves conspiracies, I think the NGTC cars have been given an advantage over the S2000s to encourage a change to the new cars.
I like the idea of a turbo engine, the cars used in the BTCC usually reflect what people are actually buying (apart from a few anomalies over the years) and the engines should too. The cars have a little over 300hp so in theory it should be cheaper and more reliable to get that out of a 2.0 turbo than the old NA engine - you can buy a Mitsubishi with more power than that AND it has a warranty.
EDLT said:
At the beginning of the year Neal was said that their engines made less boost than the other cars, so their baseline is lower. The Fords use the TOCA engine, which saw some use last year so is probably pretty well developed compared to Honda who built their own.
I think increases in boost are used to keep the less developed cars closer to the front runner's overall lap times. So the Hondas started with less boost and have had far less increases in boost over the season making the power gap larger.
Still, they've been at the front all year so they don't have much to complain about. Silverstone speed problems could have been a calculation error, they were competitive at Rockingham when they shouldn't have been due to the weather. Or a conspiracy. PH loves conspiracies, I think the NGTC cars have been given an advantage over the S2000s to encourage a change to the new cars.
I like the idea of a turbo engine, the cars used in the BTCC usually reflect what people are actually buying (apart from a few anomalies over the years) and the engines should too. The cars have a little over 300hp so in theory it should be cheaper and more reliable to get that out of a 2.0 turbo than the old NA engine - you can buy a Mitsubishi with more power than that AND it has a warranty.
Just a few points here in the interests of accuracy:I think increases in boost are used to keep the less developed cars closer to the front runner's overall lap times. So the Hondas started with less boost and have had far less increases in boost over the season making the power gap larger.
Still, they've been at the front all year so they don't have much to complain about. Silverstone speed problems could have been a calculation error, they were competitive at Rockingham when they shouldn't have been due to the weather. Or a conspiracy. PH loves conspiracies, I think the NGTC cars have been given an advantage over the S2000s to encourage a change to the new cars.
I like the idea of a turbo engine, the cars used in the BTCC usually reflect what people are actually buying (apart from a few anomalies over the years) and the engines should too. The cars have a little over 300hp so in theory it should be cheaper and more reliable to get that out of a 2.0 turbo than the old NA engine - you can buy a Mitsubishi with more power than that AND it has a warranty.
- Neal didn't say the Honda's engine produces "less boost": ahead of the season, all of the engines were submitted to an independent lab to assess the flow efficiency of the heads. Based on this assessment of engine efficiency, baseline boost pressures were calculated with the intention of ensuring that all the cars started the year with similar engine performance.
- Honda's engine was built and developed by Neil Brown Engineering (possibly the finest engine builders in British motorsport), who also built the BMW-based unit in the eBay Motors/WSR BMWs
- The Ford engine was developed by Mountune, themselves highly-respected performance engine tuners in the Ford world, and is not the TOCA unit
- The MGs do use the TOCA unit, I suspect for one or more of a range of reasons: there's no suitable MG unit to provide a base; the project came together very late in the day and developing a bespoke engine and drivetrain wasn't realistic in the timeframe; the TOCA unit would start the year with quite generous baseline boost as the GM-based engine isn't actually all that efficient, which MIGHT [note MIGHT] help with low-down torque characteristics
- One of the main goals of the equalisation algorithms Jason describes above is to ensure that "parity" is achieved between NTGC and S2000 chassis. Alan Gow went on record at the start of the year to say that 2012 is a season in which an S2000 car (with NGTC power) could win the title - as S2000-spec cars have narrower wheels and smaller brakes they inevitably lose out in the corners to well-developed NGTCs, and without some degree of power equalisation the best of the (slightly heavier) NGTC cars would run away with it. Next year the gloves come off NGTC, and much of the need for equivalency between what are essentially completely different chassis goes away.
Hope that's useful (Jason et al, please do correct me if I'm wrong on this!)
GreenMan said:
- The Ford engine was developed by Mountune, themselves highly-respected performance engine tuners in the Ford world, and is not the TOCA unit
Is that the case for the Motorbase NGTC? I know Mountune were involved with the Aon Ford engines but have no idea if Motorbase had developed an engine or just gone with the TOCA unit.egomeister said:
Is that the case for the Motorbase NGTC? I know Mountune were involved with the Aon Ford engines but have no idea if Motorbase had developed an engine or just gone with the TOCA unit.
Yes, the Motorbase NGTC car is Mountune powered(edited as I checked!)
Edited by GreenMan on Tuesday 9th October 17:18
GreenMan said:
I don't know for 100% certain but I'd be very surprised if they abandoned a well-known-to-them (and very good) NGTC-spec engine that Mountune produced and instead installed the TOCA block which, to them, would be largely an unknown quantity...
Ah ok, forgot they were already NGTC spec - makes sense!Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff