Brands Hatch BTCC
Discussion
jasonplato said:
Look Guys and girls,
The formula for changing the boost after each race was agreed by all the teams at the beginning of the year. This calculation is done mathematically based on lap time averages of qualifying, and races over a rolling 2 race meeting basis. There is no human intervention.
As far as the initial boost settings prior to the season, this was calculated by engine experts who analysed each engine type/make and set the base line boost pressure to equalise the various engine outputs, both torque and BHP.
This is absolutely necessary as some engines will be better or less suited to a racing environment and will produce better or worse figures than other manufactures. This was again agreed by all the teams prior to the season. What we need to have is all engines at the first race of the year outputting very similar or near identical BHP and Torque figures, this was achieved by the pre season engine tests.
Not sure what you are arguing about now.
if it is that all engines should be on the same boost pressure at the beginning of the year? well this just simply would not work, those with the best base engine would win everything.
It has to be a level playing field at the beginning and then about the driver and team improving the chassis to get the advantage. I for one do not want to be being passed on the straights or passing on the straights.
Hope this clears things up.
JP
That's great, thanks for sharing.... but based on this then how come you were suggesting Aron Smith had far too much boost at Knockhill and the 'regulations were a joke'. ????The formula for changing the boost after each race was agreed by all the teams at the beginning of the year. This calculation is done mathematically based on lap time averages of qualifying, and races over a rolling 2 race meeting basis. There is no human intervention.
As far as the initial boost settings prior to the season, this was calculated by engine experts who analysed each engine type/make and set the base line boost pressure to equalise the various engine outputs, both torque and BHP.
This is absolutely necessary as some engines will be better or less suited to a racing environment and will produce better or worse figures than other manufactures. This was again agreed by all the teams prior to the season. What we need to have is all engines at the first race of the year outputting very similar or near identical BHP and Torque figures, this was achieved by the pre season engine tests.
Not sure what you are arguing about now.
if it is that all engines should be on the same boost pressure at the beginning of the year? well this just simply would not work, those with the best base engine would win everything.
It has to be a level playing field at the beginning and then about the driver and team improving the chassis to get the advantage. I for one do not want to be being passed on the straights or passing on the straights.
Hope this clears things up.
JP
I can't see why your stance has changed so much since Knockhill Jason.
mnkiboy said:
jasonplato said:
It has to be a level playing field at the beginning and then about the driver and team improving the chassis to get the advantage. I for one do not want to be being passed on the straights or passing on the straights.
Doesn't the fact that the boost increase is based on lap times mean that the cars with the best chassis are being penalised? Sureley it should be based on straight line speed, otherwise the cars with the best chassis (for example the works Hondas) end up being passed on the straights, because they were judged to have been too fast round the corners.Obviously I realise it's not your decision, but do you agree?
Munter said:
When you say "they realise" you do realise the "they" you are referring to is a bit of maths. There is no human involved in the decision. It's entirely done with numbers in a bit of logic.
You are arguing that something along the lines of:
For Audi if delta > 2 seconds over weekend then increase boost by 0.25 psi before next weekend
Now try arguing with it again and see if it responds.
What thats doing though is giving say the VW maximum buy its still not really doing much for it, so that's stagnating , then you have Tony Hughes, when he let O'Neill drive does Paul have the increased boost from Tonys poor results? Does Tony inherit Paul's decrease from his improvement in results ? may not seem a big deal but if this programme clearly can't take into account when a driver is just doing well from hitting that sweet spot.You are arguing that something along the lines of:
For Audi if delta > 2 seconds over weekend then increase boost by 0.25 psi before next weekend
Now try arguing with it again and see if it responds.
Just too many variables that mean its not working that well on equalisation.. certainly not on track anyway..how can anyone say that equalisation works when two cars can come from the back of the grid to the front... clearly that's not equalisation at work is it?
And you can't just say its driver as the programme takes all into account based on lap times. Something went wrong, but it just so happened to keep the championship table close ..
Am I understanding this right, do the BTCC organisers really believe that monitoring the intake manifold pressure alone on all of these engines will allow them to control output? if so then there is a massive hole in these regs!
Example;
At the start of a given BTCC season you make your engine perform badly by deliberately setting valve timing and ignition timing to sub-optimal settings, then claim (and prove on a dyno if necessary) that your base engine needs something crazy like 350kpaA to make the car package perform "on the pace".
Then lets say that you do well at race meeting number-1 and you are told to reduce the boost target for your engine, you do this at the same time as bringing the valve timing and or ignition timing a step closer towards being optimal, the net effect is that the engines output remains unchanged.
Rinse and repeat this technique for the rest of the season and by the last race the boost will be much lower, but valve timing and ignition advance closer to optimal and potentially the power unchanged all season.
Ok so admittedly I'm a technical director of a motorsport company (not involved in BTCC) but this seems like a blindingly obvious loop hole to me, unless of course I'm missing something.
Example;
At the start of a given BTCC season you make your engine perform badly by deliberately setting valve timing and ignition timing to sub-optimal settings, then claim (and prove on a dyno if necessary) that your base engine needs something crazy like 350kpaA to make the car package perform "on the pace".
Then lets say that you do well at race meeting number-1 and you are told to reduce the boost target for your engine, you do this at the same time as bringing the valve timing and or ignition timing a step closer towards being optimal, the net effect is that the engines output remains unchanged.
Rinse and repeat this technique for the rest of the season and by the last race the boost will be much lower, but valve timing and ignition advance closer to optimal and potentially the power unchanged all season.
Ok so admittedly I'm a technical director of a motorsport company (not involved in BTCC) but this seems like a blindingly obvious loop hole to me, unless of course I'm missing something.
SamBorgman said:
Am I understanding this right, do the BTCC organisers really believe that monitoring the intake manifold pressure alone on all of these engines will allow them to control output? if so then there is a massive hole in these regs!
Example;
At the start of a given BTCC season you make your engine perform badly by deliberately setting valve timing and ignition timing to sub-optimal settings, then claim (and prove on a dyno if necessary) that your base engine needs something crazy like 350kpaA to make the car package perform "on the pace".
Then lets say that you do well at race meeting number-1 and you are told to reduce the boost target for your engine, you do this at the same time as bringing the valve timing and or ignition timing a step closer towards being optimal, the net effect is that the engines output remains unchanged.
Rinse and repeat this technique for the rest of the season and by the last race the boost will be much lower, but valve timing and ignition advance closer to optimal and potentially the power unchanged all season.
Ok so admittedly I'm a technical director of a motorsport company (not involved in BTCC) but this seems like a blindingly obvious loop hole to me, unless of course I'm missing something.
The 'base' boost levels were set using data provided by (I think) Lotus and iirc were derived from flow benching the heads, not dynoing the complete motors. Thus no way to 'nobble' the baseline boost figures. Example;
At the start of a given BTCC season you make your engine perform badly by deliberately setting valve timing and ignition timing to sub-optimal settings, then claim (and prove on a dyno if necessary) that your base engine needs something crazy like 350kpaA to make the car package perform "on the pace".
Then lets say that you do well at race meeting number-1 and you are told to reduce the boost target for your engine, you do this at the same time as bringing the valve timing and or ignition timing a step closer towards being optimal, the net effect is that the engines output remains unchanged.
Rinse and repeat this technique for the rest of the season and by the last race the boost will be much lower, but valve timing and ignition advance closer to optimal and potentially the power unchanged all season.
Ok so admittedly I'm a technical director of a motorsport company (not involved in BTCC) but this seems like a blindingly obvious loop hole to me, unless of course I'm missing something.
Now 'sandbagging' by teams to gain boost for a particular round- thats harder to police!!
Kim
SamBorgman said:
Ah fair enough I'm guessing Lotus engineering, that makes more sense. Although I'm not sure I can agree with you that there is "no way" to nobble that test.
I agree that theres always a way, but I was meaning short of outright cheating. I'm assuming that the motors are 'sealed' or at least theres a 'fiche' detailing the important dimensions, porting, etc. though. Or maybe not? Maybe somebody on here knows.Kim
decadence said:
then you have Tony Hughes, when he let O'Neill drive does Paul have the increased boost from Tonys poor results? Does Tony inherit Paul's decrease from his improvement in results ? may not seem a big deal but if this programme clearly can't take into account when a driver is just doing well from hitting that sweet spot.
Doesn't matter who the driver is. In anycase, Adam Morgan's been the quickest of the Swindon Toyotas all year, so it's his results the levels are measured by. IainW said:
decadence said:
then you have Tony Hughes, when he let O'Neill drive does Paul have the increased boost from Tonys poor results? Does Tony inherit Paul's decrease from his improvement in results ? may not seem a big deal but if this programme clearly can't take into account when a driver is just doing well from hitting that sweet spot.
Doesn't matter who the driver is. In anycase, Adam Morgan's been the quickest of the Swindon Toyotas all year, so it's his results the levels are measured by. There is still an issue of if a car / driver combo is good at a particular track then come the next race weekend there performance at the last track gets them a boost penalty for the next track, which maybe is a bad track for them anyway, so they take a double hit, treble including success balast, then hope to get and increase next track and so on...so surely next season just give all teams their boost level and then let them get on with it and build a car and driver package around that.
The other point i want to make is that i was under the impression of the 'dark arts' being practised by ToCA / Alan Gow from certain drivers in the championship who have alluded to it both in 2011 and 2012...... I don't think the fans would of noticed or cared were it all kept quiet from start of 2012...the fall out from 2011 dragged into 2012, from no surprise...Mat Neal and Jason Plato......
Edited by decadence on Thursday 18th October 19:10
Edited by decadence on Thursday 18th October 19:11
Edited by decadence on Thursday 18th October 19:12
decadence said:
so surely next season just give all teams their boost level and then let them get on with it and build a car and driver package around that.
You mean get their baseline level at the beginning of the year and stick to it? Which doesn't necessarily mean they are on the same level of course, all depends on the findings of the independant experts. It would be interesting to see if that worked.There is so much talk and confusion regarding turbo boost levels that people just keep moaning and nobody will win the argument.
To sum up my thoughts:
The BTCC organisers set the general rules to the Championship and with the engine rules half the teams will be happy as if their car is under performing they get help to make them better.The other half that are doing well have a bit of a handycap to peg them back.All teams sign up to this as they want an entertaining championship.
As the organisers and teams want an exciting championship that goes down to the last race of the season with two,three or four people with a chance of winning the title.This proves the rules are spot on so well done the organisers.
What would you lot on here be saying if Jason Plato,Matt Neal or Gordon Shedden ran away with the championship and had won the title by round seven.
You would be saying they need to make the cars more equal they should change the turbo boost to make things more equal.
To sum up my thoughts:
The BTCC organisers set the general rules to the Championship and with the engine rules half the teams will be happy as if their car is under performing they get help to make them better.The other half that are doing well have a bit of a handycap to peg them back.All teams sign up to this as they want an entertaining championship.
As the organisers and teams want an exciting championship that goes down to the last race of the season with two,three or four people with a chance of winning the title.This proves the rules are spot on so well done the organisers.
What would you lot on here be saying if Jason Plato,Matt Neal or Gordon Shedden ran away with the championship and had won the title by round seven.
You would be saying they need to make the cars more equal they should change the turbo boost to make things more equal.
Edited by btcc123 on Thursday 18th October 19:37
Damnit. The Plato/MG marketing machine is working. I'm almost tempted at £9,999.
http://mg.co.uk/news/2012/10/12/drive-away-in-near...
http://mg.co.uk/news/2012/10/12/drive-away-in-near...
IainW said:
decadence said:
so surely next season just give all teams their boost level and then let them get on with it and build a car and driver package around that.
You mean get their baseline level at the beginning of the year and stick to it? Which doesn't necessarily mean they are on the same level of course, all depends on the findings of the independant experts. It would be interesting to see if that worked.Problem with above is that if you did it maybe the smaller teams would go elsewhere and maybe even the mid teams. So we are stuck with it I suppose.
This whole "they have a quicker car" "parity" argument started in 2011 when basically Honda went turbo and Chevy RML stayed with n/a and asked for "parity", then the whole season was marked by moaning and petty squabbles, but ultimately that was RMLs choice to run n/a.. like picking the fat kid at school for the 3 legged race race then moaning when you lost..
Maube if some of the drivers acted a bit more maturely or at least kept their gobs zipped at bit more (I'm talking about more than one driver here), then maybe when you google "boost moaning BTCC 2012" you wouldn't see loads and loads of forums pop up with massive threads like this about ruddy boost!!
At £9995 the MG6 looks a reasonable buy.The car has depreciated over £5000 from its list price.
I would suggest that its list price is £3000 more than it should be,the interior plastics quality is very poor and the car has high running costs due to its poor fuel economy and high emissions.
I would not want to buy an ex press car or demonstrator and the offer in the advert may only be for the £495 deposit,£198.84 x 59 months and final payment of £199.84.
On finance the car would cost £12426.40.
Dont think thats a particularly good buy.
I would suggest that its list price is £3000 more than it should be,the interior plastics quality is very poor and the car has high running costs due to its poor fuel economy and high emissions.
I would not want to buy an ex press car or demonstrator and the offer in the advert may only be for the £495 deposit,£198.84 x 59 months and final payment of £199.84.
On finance the car would cost £12426.40.
Dont think thats a particularly good buy.
decadence said:
This whole "they have a quicker car" "parity" argument started in 2011 when basically Honda went turbo and Chevy RML stayed with n/a and asked for "parity", then the whole season was marked by moaning and petty squabbles, but ultimately that was RMLs choice to run n/a.. like picking the fat kid at school for the 3 legged race race then moaning when you lost..
In the interest of historical accuracy, may I point out that RML (and others) didn't ASK for parity, they were PROMISED it, pre season, in the regulations.Very different, n'est pas?
Kim
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff