New BTCC rules 2011 ‘Next Generation Touring Car’ (NGTC)
- Thread starter thepharcyde
- Start date
Not really as they will be Turboed engines which dont rev as much anyway especially not on a limited/universal turbo. And the fact the racing engines are all pretty similar in the series currently and dont have any VTEC stuff in them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 20,189
- Location
- Middlesbrough
I think the Civic is going to be outlawed aswell?
Minimum length of the car required is 4.4m. The Civic is 4.2m according to Parkers.
But there is still the Integra for the Hondas though.
Minimum length of the car required is 4.4m. The Civic is 4.2m according to Parkers.
But there is still the Integra for the Hondas though.
Is that the length of the touring car ar the standard car? As in sure they will be able to find a bit of trim to stick to the back of it to meet the length.
or use the accord instead
I think the key thing is that the manufacturers are gone because of the high cost for the return on their investments. This was true of both the super tourer era and now in hard times and the S2000 era. BTCC had an interesting spec 2001-2006 with the BTC spec 2 litre cars. The switch to S2000 and being in common with the WTCC and other championships should have worked with a bigger market to buy and sell the cars. However the cars are more production based so teams had to develop all their own parts and a it was unlimited development to shells, that meant parts wear and break more. All this was pushed in by BMW at the start of the S2000 rules probably so they could make the best car which imo they have! In the BTC rules you had some standard parts provided by Toca designed for racing and could not do to much to the shell so development costs were kept down.
These new rules seem to be a more focused and improved set of BTC rules. Bigger cars are good, more power for more speed is good, standard parts keeping costs down is good. We will either have more teams, or bigger and stronger teams, independents will have an easier and cheaper time of producing a competitive car. No RWD is not so great but it would be hard to balance the cars just like now, especially in the WTCC.
These new rules seem to be a more focused and improved set of BTC rules. Bigger cars are good, more power for more speed is good, standard parts keeping costs down is good. We will either have more teams, or bigger and stronger teams, independents will have an easier and cheaper time of producing a competitive car. No RWD is not so great but it would be hard to balance the cars just like now, especially in the WTCC.
BMW
Ok it's a turbo diseasal, but definately 2.0L and turbocharged.
Oh yeah...
. Meh, I don't think the 1 Series counts anyway, I mean he's barely even in the race most weekends 
.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
Success ballast?
The best touring car era came from homologation rules, identical bodies to the 2,500 road going examples.
The best touring car era came from homologation rules, identical bodies to the 2,500 road going examples.
Yes with the Sierra Cosworths etc. The problem these days is no manufacturers = no 2500 cars so no car to race!
I wanted to post this link to a 2004 BTC spec era race
Works SEAT S2000 spec
Works Vauxhall BTC spec
Works Proton BTC spec
Works Honda BTC spec
Privateer Hondas BTC spec
Privateer MGs BTC spec
Privateer Vauxhalls BTC spec
Privateer BMW S2000 spec
80s?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
I'd be happy with anything from the 90s.
Front wheel drive? Seriously? WHY?!?!?! It is a racing series; I'm sure the drivers are skilled enough to handle RWD...
The cost of having a production RWD is no higher than having a production FWD vehicle really
Sometimes I despair where mainstream motorsport is heading - with all the rules that are not making it any better.
End of the day, Roger Clark spend £200k to build the Time Attack Impreza with a Nitrous 800whp, so I expect something better and faster from the mainstream racing series.
The cost of having a production RWD is no higher than having a production FWD vehicle really
Sometimes I despair where mainstream motorsport is heading - with all the rules that are not making it any better.
End of the day, Roger Clark spend £200k to build the Time Attack Impreza with a Nitrous 800whp, so I expect something better and faster from the mainstream racing series.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,238
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Yes it is. Plus its not about cost, ist about where the base vehicles sit in the market, driving dynamics do not come higher than interior space on many cars.
So? Its easy when you have no rules, would make for a boring race series like that anyway. Nitrous???? In racing???
Go back to your PS3.
I dont think i have ever been in a FWD car that has removed the Arch in the floor pan where the drive shaft would go for a RWD car
And i cant think of any other way you would save space
My guess would be it being down to cost.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,238
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
I dont think i have ever been in a FWD car that has removed the Arch in the floor pan where the drive shaft would go for a RWD car
And i cant think of any other way you would save space
My guess would be it being down to cost.
Thats a stiffening part of the monocoque that vastley increases the floor depth and hence the 'beams second moment of inertia'. A real transmission tunnel will take more space once you consider the prop shaft and exhaust and then the dynamic clearances, and thats before you consider the north south engine setup with the gearbox intrusion on the bulkhead and the rear end underfloor package space taken by the rear diff.
Go sit in a 1 series BMW and you will see exactly what I mean.