New BTCC rules 2011 ‘Next Generation Touring Car’ (NGTC)

[rypt]

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.

You do not HAVE to have a longitudional engine setup for FR; it is the favoured and easier way but not a necessity.

End of the day though; the slight increase in cost would not lower the demand for any of the FR vehicles as production vehicles really

 

[Jonnycoupe]

You do not HAVE to have a longitudional engine setup for FR; it is the favoured and easier way but not a necessity.

End of the day though; the slight increase in cost would not lower the demand for any of the FR vehicles as production vehicles really

Thanks for that. Any chance you can come into work and give me a hand one day? Whilst you're here guru'ing can you show me a car with such a overcomplicated setup?

Slight increase in cost is somewhat overlooking the issue, along with shrinking the inside of the car.

 

[Clarkey]

show me a car with such a overcomplicated setup?

evo converted Satria with the front drivetrain binned and welded.
If you mean a production car then you have me stumped.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Sorry you'll have to see through the obtuseness.

Im sure some exist but id like the poster who made the reference to them to actually give me an example.

 

[rypt]

There is no such production car because no-one has felt the need to go down that route, since such a transverse FR would be derived from an AWD setup [like the Evo and Celica GT4 setup] - and if you have AWD; why offer FR?

However, there are Evos and other cars that have been converted to being FR using their original gearboxes.

My point was ... it is possible to achieve that without too much of an issue; but there simply isn't the need since it is far easier to flip the engine than than to have to develop a different kind of gearbox with a transfer case

The interior car space is not much of an issue on the saloons be they FF, AWD or FR ... interior car space only becomes an issue in the small car segment.


The point is still; how can a professional racing series be justified when the less-professional stuff offers faster and more powerful cars.

 

[Clarkey]

The point is still; how can a professional racing series be justified when the less-professional stuff offers faster and more powerful cars.

It's been that way for a good while now with support series such as the Carrera Cup and Ginetta G50 Cup being quicker than the headline races, doesn't make them more exciting though does it.

Still, I'm not defending the changes, I love watching the BMW's, they are the only cars on the grid that I like and love to see them own the rest of the field off the line and then run away to victory Turbo engines are crap too IMO, the sound of the 2l NA screamers is the way it should be on the race track. FWD and big power turbo and ungainly throttle response is surely going to slow them down?

Can't disagree with the outlawing of the FN Civics though, they are terrible, maybe they will be replaced by FD body ones, will lose the VTEC soul though

 

[rypt]

The point is; they keep saying "this is to drive down costs and bring in more participants" - but if support series can field fast and powerful cars on a fraction of the budget of the main series teams - why can the main series teams not do that?

Imagine if every BTCC car was a 2.0L Nitrous injected AWD beast

 

[Jonnycoupe]

The interior car space is not much of an issue on the saloons be they FF, AWD or FR ... interior car space only becomes an issue in the small car segment.

No it doesnt.

Rear legroom in executives cars is as much of an issue as how many golf clubs go in the boot.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

The point is still; how can a professional racing series be justified when the less-professional stuff offers faster and more powerful cars.

Cos they have rules...

These rules means you have to push the envelope of the components and use new technology which in theory can filter down to the road cars.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Imagine if every BTCC car was a 2.0L Nitrous injected AWD beast

Do they do a race season of 12 weekends and 3 races per weekend then?

 

[rypt]

The point is that interior space is not really effect by the drive-train layout to a very large degree unless you have something like an I6 or V10 under the hood

Do they do a race season of 12 weekends and 3 races per weekend then?

No, but nor do they have a budget as large as the touring car teams

But the racing time is not that far off per track .. each BTCC race is around 25 min; and time attack has 3 sessions of 20 min.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

The point is that interior space is not really effect by the drive-train layout to a very large degree unless you have something like an I6 or V10 under the hood

Yes it does.

I just dont know where you are basing your argument from. The area i work at is always doing drivetrain package studies and some of the things that end up being altered to support the proposals are rather extensive.

This is why most cars dont bother with RWD other than dynamic issues aswell.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

No, but nor do they have a budget as large as the touring car teams

Not having to meet strict FIA safety requirements does that to a one off prototype. Do you know what portion of the budget actually goes into making the car?

Roger Clark with BTCC rules would be no where near the factory cars. No where near.

 

[rypt]

Yes it does.

I just dont know where you are basing your argument from. The area i work at is always doing drivetrain package studies and some of the things that end up being altered to support the proposals are rather extensive.

This is why most cars dont bother with RWD other than dynamic issues aswell.

So tell me then, why does an RWD vehicle have to have less rear passenger leg space than an FWD one?
The only thing RWD might do is lower the boot space due to rear suspension positioning..

The Daewoo Lacetti only offers a tiny bit more leg room than say the Impreza as a result of being a tiny bit longer (~7cm) - and offers less than the 3 series.

Impreza
Lacetti
3 Series

Not having to meet strict FIA safety requirements does that to a one off prototype. Do you know what portion of the budget actually goes into making the car?

Roger Clark with BTCC rules would be no where near the factory cars. No where near.

Time Attack vehicles are all OEM chassis; have competition level roll cages (MSA/FIA) and overall safety regulations do not make them any less safe than anything the FIA mandates.

The difference is that Time Attack says ... use any engine you want, any turbo, supercharger, injection you want and any drive-train you want.
However all the Time Attack cars are also mostly road legal cars; passing the required noise level tests.
There is no reason to restrict things down to BTCC level.

The Time Attack Silverstone Record is 57.989s; the BTCC one is 1m00.270s
Knockhill: TA - 51.666s; BTCC - 53.007s
Brands: TA - 48.901s; BTCC - 48.942s
Snetterton: TA - 1:09.834s; BTCC - 1m11.145s

 

[Jonnycoupe]

So tell me then, why does an RWD vehicle have to have less rear passenger leg space than an FWD one?
The only thing RWD might do is lower the boot space due to rear suspension positioning..

Have you heard of a transfer box, prop shaft and rear diff?

Id like to know why you have suggested the suspension positioning is effected by RWD.

 

[SoliD]

The Time Attack Silverstone Record is 57.989s; the BTCC one is 1m00.270s
Knockhill: TA - 51.666s; BTCC - 53.007s
Brands: TA - 48.901s; BTCC - 48.942s
Snetterton: TA - 1:09.834s; BTCC - 1m11.145s

800hp and they can only beat the btcc by just over 2 seconds around silverstone. Shows just how quick the BTCC cars are with such limited horsepower.

 

[rypt]

RWD does not need a transfer case - that is for 4WD; and is not even a requirement for that as shown by Subaru having all the functionality contained within the transmission.

Prop shaft at worst eliminates one of the rear seats - but for most people having 3 seats vs having 2.5 seats is not really an issue (.5 of a seat due to it being a bit uncomfortable - but then again look at the 3 series above that 3rd seat is not too bad).

The Rear Diff would not affect passenger space but would only impact on boot space (as it is located behind the passenger compartment). The diff is also not that large of a component overall.

As for suspension positioning? For RWD or AWD you want to optimise the rear suspension geometry as power is going to these wheels so how they behave will have a very noticeable impact on the overall car dynamics.
Having said that, it is in fact FWD suspension geometry that is more complicated due to your desire to load the front wheels during acceleration ... so you reverse the anti-drive geometry ... but this messes up the caster curves.
Let's not forget about torque steer as a result of unequal drive-shafts.

RWD cars are far simpler to engineer; and handle and respond better.

The reason for production car switch to FWD has very little to do with costs, ease of manufacture or space ... it is to do with insurance and "perceived" safety.

 

[rypt]

800hp and they can only beat the btcc by just over 2 seconds around silverstone. Shows just how quick the BTCC cars are with such limited horsepower.

2 seconds is quite a lot... especially given how both BTCC and Time Attack use the non GP circuit

 

[Jonnycoupe]

As for suspension positioning? For RWD or AWD you want to optimise the rear suspension geometry as power is going to these wheels so how they behave will have a very noticeable impact on the overall car dynamics.
Having said that, it is in fact FWD suspension geometry that is more complicated due to your desire to load the front wheels during acceleration ... so you reverse the anti-drive geometry ... but this messes up the caster curves.
Let's not forget about torque steer as a result of unequal drive-shafts.

RWD cars are far simpler to engineer; and handle and respond better.

The reason for production car switch to FWD has very little to do with costs, ease of manufacture or space ... it is to do with insurance and "perceived" safety.

What a load of rubbish.

Show me a performance FWD that still has unequal shafts?

I can tell you know the cost of a product is very much why they stay FWD. Honda changed to there trailing arm setup on the civic just to get the Magic seats in.

Rest is suspension buzzwords I dont think they are pertinant to the argument. My point was the packaging and pickup points of the rear suspension isnt heavily influenced by the drivetrain, Im fully aware they demand different characteristics.

RWD does not need a transfer case - that is for 4WD; and is not even a requirement for that as shown by Subaru having all the functionality contained within the transmission.

That transmission is bigger than a typical box as it contains transfer unit! The naming of things doesn't dictate their size.

 

[Zip]

Nitrous injected

Just to get this straight.

Nitrous is a load of ****. You can easilly build a car fast enough and not use something that will last maybe 30 seconds if you have the budget for it.

Im glad that motorsport(Big ones) dont allow the crap.