Engine Equivalency - The Facts

[Jason Plato]

Ladies, Gentlemen, Boys and Girls

There is a tremendous amount of nonsense being talked about on various forums regarding the equivalency of the Turbo and Non-Turbo cars.

For the record here are some facts:

• S2000 chassis with Turbo engines are running the same base weight as Non Turbo cars.

• At Brands Hatch: Qualifying
Best Non-Turbo car was 0.373 secs off pole time. Qualifying P3
The pole time in 2011 is 0.437 secs faster than the Pole time from 2010
Jordan is 0.706 secs faster in 2011 than 2010 with same weight
Matt Neal is 0.570 secs faster in 2011 than in 2010 but is carrying 36kgs more ballast in 2010

• At Donington: Qualifying
Best Non-Turbo car was 1.233 secs off pole time. Qualifying P8
The pole time in 2011 is 1.2 secs faster than the Pole time of the AON LPG Turbo car from 2010!
Gordon Shedden is 1.276 secs faster in 2011 than 2010 with same success ballast
Matt Neal is 1.475 secs faster in 2011 than in 2010 but is carrying 27kgs more ballast in 2011
Plato is 0.215 secs faster in 2011 than in 2010 with same success ballast
Jordan is 1.161 secs faster in 2011 than in 2010 despite carrying 36kgs more weight!
Chilton is 0.591 secs faster in 2011 than his 2010 Pole time in the AON LPG Turbo!
Nash is 1.821 secs faster in 2011 than in 2010 despite carrying 27kgs more weight!

• At Thruxton:Qualifying
Best Non-Turbo car was 0.962 secs off pole time. Qualifying P5
2nd best Non-Turbo car was 1.636 secs off pole. Qulaifying P11
The pole time in 2011 is 0.981 secs faster than the 2009 pole time of Giovanardi (On pole by 0.320 secs)
The pole time in 2011 is 0.977 secs faster than the 2010 FP2 of Giovanardi (quickest by 0.273 secs, Q wet)
Shedden is 1.581 secs faster in 2011 than 2010 FP2 with same weight
Neal is 1.037 secs faster in 2011 than in 2010 FP2 despite carrying 36kgs more ballast in 2011
Neal is 1.088 secs faster in 2011 than 2009 despite carrying 36kgs more ballast in 2011
Boardman is 1.272 secs faster in 2011 than 2010 FP2 with same weight
Jackson did same time in 2011 and 2010 FP2, however 2010 P3, 2011 P8

• 2009 Brands Qual .............. 2010 Brands Qual ................ 2011 Brands Qual
1. 48.857 – Neal..................... 1. 48.647 – Plato ................. 1. 48.210 – Neal - Turbo
2. 48.877 – Giovanard............. 2. 48.780 – Neal .................. 2. 48.465 – Jordan - Turbo
3. 48.926 – Collard................. 3. 48.791 – Shedden ............ 3. 48.583 - Plato
4. 49.022 – Turkington............ 4. 48.830 – McDowell ........... 4. 48.623 - Nash - Turbo
5. 49.073 – Jordan ................. 5. 48.871 – Chilton - Turbo ... 5. 48.658 - McDowell
6. 49.121 – Adam ................... 6. 48.885 – Jackson ............. 6. 48.667 - Jackson - Turbo
7. 49.180 – Shedden ............... 7. 48.902 – Nash ................. 7. 48.668 - Chilton - Turbo
8. 49.514 – Jelley .................... 8. 48.947 – Tordoff .............. 8. 48.752 - Boardman - Turbo
9. 49.514 – Plato ..................... 9. 49.100 – O’Neill ................ 9. 48.849 – O’Neill
10. 49.611 – Jones ................. 10. 49.110 – Onslow-Cole .......10. 49.036 – Neate - Turbo

• 2010 Donington Qual ....................... 2011 Donington Qual
1. 11.328 – Chilton - Turbo ................... 1. 10.129 – Neal - Turbo
2. 11.409 – Onslow-Cole -Turbo ............ 2. 10.172 – Shedden - Turbo
3. 11.448 – Shedden ............................ 3. 10.477 – Nash - Turbo
4. 11.577 – Plato .................................. 4. 10.556 – Jordan - Turbo
5. 11.604 – Neal ................................... 5. 10.737 – Chilton - Turbo
6. 11.717 – Jordan ................................ 6. 11.074 – Smith - Turbo
7. 11.822 – O’Neill ................................. 7. 11.309 – Jackson - Turbo
8. 11.834 – Collard ................................ 8. 11.362 – Plato
9. 11.916 – Boardman ............................. 9. 11.425 – McDowell
10. 11.919 – McDowell ........................... 10. 11.440 – Collard

• 2009 Thruxton Qual ............ 2010 Thruxton FP2 .................... 2011 Thruxton Qual
1. 17.985 – Giovanardi ............. 1. 17.981 – Giovanardi .............. 1. 17.004 – Shedden - Turbo
2. 18.305 – Neal ...................... 2. 18.254 – Neal ....................... 2. 17.066 – Jordan - Turbo
3. 18.326 – Plato ..................... 3. 18.325 – Jackson .................. 3. 17.217 – Neal - Turbo
4. 18.354 – Jordan ................... 4. 18.534 – Jordan ................... 4. 17.759 – Chilton - Turbo
5. 18.407 – Turkington ............. 5. 18.542 – Chilton - Turbo ....... 5. 17.966 – Plato
6. 18.708 – O’Neill ................... 6. 18.585 – Shedden .................. 6. 18.122 – Onslow-Cole - Turbo
7. 18.830 – Jones .................... 7. 18.946 – Plato ....................... 7. 18.249 – Smith - Turbo
8. 18.916 – Thompson ............. 8. 19.077 – O’Neill ..................... 8. 18.325 – Jackson - Turbo
9. 18.952 – Eaves .................... 9. 19.259 – Glew ....................... 9. 18.327 – Boardman - Turbo
10. 19.018 – Jackson ............... 10. 19.280 – Pinkney ................. 10. 18.341 – Nash - Turbo


TOCA have promised all teams that equivalency in performance will be regulated for the 2011 and 2012 BTCC Seasons.

Below is how Alan Gow answered some questions on his personal forum on BTCC.NET

Question on: Turbo and Non-Turbo car equivalence – 18th April 2011

Dear Alan,

Thanks for giving us an entertaining start to hopefully another great season.

My post is about turbo and non-turbo car equivalence, Jason Plato commented on a TV interview after last weekend’s races at Donington that you gave your word that you would adjust the rules for them to fight at the front, and it was now time to see how honourable you and TOCA were to their word..! Is this true? And if so can you tell us what the adjustments are when they happen?
Thanks and keep up the good work.

Alan Gow – 18th April 2011
“Clearly we have always stated that there should be performance parity between the two types (normally aspirated and turbo) for the next two seasons. That is not an issue and is a policy known and agreed by every team - and one we have publicly stated many times over the last 18 months.

In very simple terms; the performance of the fastest/best of each type should be comparable for 2011 and 2012 – of course given that they are of a comparable level of quality of driver/team/car/preparation and that, at times, each car will have their own strengths and weaknesses at differing circuits.

Obviously we need to analyse the data thoroughly but, as a guess, I would say it's likely there will be an adjustment before Thruxton. I fully expect more tweaks will be made throughout the season (either way) as teams continue to refine their cars....all of which makes for a fascinating championship, as we are already seeing. “
________________________________________

Question on: NGTC/S2000 engine parity –20th April 2011
Hi Alan,
Last year there appeared to be parity between the NGTC and S2000 engine cars. As far as I'm aware there was no need to restrict the NGTC engines during last season and were allowed to run without change. Yet the NGTC engine cars were still among the faster cars through the speed traps. I'm assuming the engines are still running under the same parameters this year but where the teams have been able to develop their cars and engines in other ways have been able to outperform the S2000 engine cars as we saw at Donington. My concern is that although we all wish to see some sort of parity with the two engine types, any sort of handicap would be penalising them for all the hard work the teams have done in developing their cars to get them working better.

Alan Gow – 21st April 2011
“Your statement is based on the incorrect assumption that the engines are running under the same parameters as last year - which they are not.”

This year all NGTC engines have a significantly revised turbo system, which has changed their engine performance/characteristics.”
________________________________________

The simple facts are that despite a reduction in turbo boost prior to Thruxton, it is still totally impossible for a non-turbo car to get anywhere near pole position and therefore the only way that a non-turbo car can win races is by lucking in on the reverse grid or waiting for cars ahead to fall off, breakdown or make large mistakes.

Racing cars nearly always overtake on the brakes into corners unless mistakes happen, how then can a non-turbo car overtake a turbo car when the turbo cars accelerate much faster due to increased torque and produce a higher top speed due to increased power. The turbo cars are so far ahead when it comes to the braking zones, any passing is by and large impossible.

This is not a whinge, it is the simple facts of the problem all the teams and drivers of Non-Turbo cars face.

TOCA have promised equivalency, we all want to see it, before it is too late.
In my opinion, based on my years of experience, we need a massive reduction in turbo boost pressure AND a substantial air restrictor fitted prior to the next BTCC round.

Hopefully this should put an end to the churlish, biased and factually incorrect forum statements people make.

I hope this has cleared a few things up.

Kind regards,

Jason Plato
2001 and 2010 BTCC Champion
More Wins, Podiums and Fastest Laps than any other driver in the history of the championship.

[BDunnell]

Alan Gow – 21st April 2011
“Your statement is based on the incorrect assumption that the engines are running under the same parameters as last year - which they are not.”

This year all NGTC engines have a significantly revised turbo system, which has changed their engine performance/characteristics.”

Very interesting. Would this be part of efforts to encourage entrants to go down the NGTC route, despite the claims that there would be parity at present?

[Allyc85]

Thanks for taking the time to present the facts, looks like Mat Neal was a second out when he said he was doing the same lap times as last year at Thruxton!

[VX_Rules]

It's funny how people react when at the opposite end of the argument. Were the SEAT TDi days that long ago they cannot be remembered?

[Brooklands78]

Interesting statistics from JP - and the equivalence argument potentially has more far reaching consequences than just how it affects the n/a drivers!

When, on 2nd June 2009, TOCA announced their “Next Generation Touring Car” proposals and the introduction of turbocharged engines, their press release included a section headed “Performance Parity”. This is what it says:

“A policy of equivalence in overall performance between the current S2000 and the ‘Next-Gen’ cars will be maintained until 2013, to provide asset protection for the S2000 cars and parity of competition throughout that period.

In simple terms, the two specifications of cars will be equally eligible for outright honours – and be equivalent in overall performance – until 2013”

Based upon those assurances, RML and WSR chose to keep running existing normally aspirated cars, whilst TechSpeed and Geoff Steel Racing invested in S2000 cars with normally aspirated engines, with the not unreasonable expectation that their cars would be competitive. TechSpeed and Geoff Steel Racing have persuaded sponsors to put up substantial sums of money in the expectation of their logo’s and liveries being afforded the kind of media exposure that “equivalence on overall performance” should bring.

Those sponsors parted with their cash expecting to see their cars competing for podiums, not scrapping amongst themselves for a top ten place, out of sight of the TV cameras.

At Brands Hatch, Dave Newsham pointed out to me that he’d crossed the finish line at 123.4mph in the Geoff Steel BMW, making him the slowest through the speed trap in race 3. In 2010, in the exact same car, Mat Jackson went through the same speed trap at exactly the same speed - 123.4mph. Jackson was 2nd fastest, with only Tom Chilton in the turbocharged LPG-powered Ford Focus going faster.

Newsham’s own press release after Brands Hatch stated “It has also become apparent that the turbo-engine cars are 8mph faster than non turbo S2000 cars down the straights, that equates to approx half a second advantage per lap!” and, “the power of the turbo cars really showed". He said that he "was a sitting duck down the straights”. After Donington, where he qualified 19th and finished only one of the three races, in 15th place, Newsham jumped ship to join Special Tuning, citing in another press release “irreconcilable differences”. That same press release also noted that Special Tuning’s SEAT Leon “has a strong turbo charged engine”. Whatever his reasons for leaving Geoff Steel Racing, clearly turbo power was enough of an issue for him to repeatedly refer to it in his press releases! And GSR was left with two S2000 n/a cars not being used at Thruxton. So much for "asset protection"!

Something has to be done to quickly redress the balance - whilst JP has had some success this year, Rob Collard and Paul O'Neill are struggling to pick up points. They haven't become bad drivers overnight!

[BDunnell]

It's funny how people react when at the opposite end of the argument. Were the SEAT TDi days that long ago they cannot be remembered?

I don't recall the diesel SEAT being on a level of performance so far ahead of the petrol cars as the turbos are today ahead of the normally-aspirated machines.

[Jason Plato]

Just in case we hear the argument .."but what about the diesels?"

Here are some facts regarding the Diesel Turbo

The regulations for Diesel powered S2000 cars had been written and in the public domain for years before SEAT Sport took the gamble on developing Diesel technology for S2000 cars. Any manufacturer could have done the same and produced an engine. What there certainly was not, was any promise of equivalency from either governing body. The regulations and technical specifications were available to all.

It is fair to say SEAT Sport saw an opportunity to have an advantage in straight line performance with the Diesel. However it should be noted that there are huge differences between Turbo Diesel and S2000, namely
* Diesel engines are very heavy compared with modern S2000 race engines
* Diesel power delivery is not race track friendly, very low revs and huge torque surge
* absolute zero engine braking

But the differences are irrelevant to any argument, what is totally relevant is that no governing body promised teams and drivers an equivalency in performance during a specific period, namely a period of phasing in new NGTC regulations in 2011 and 2012.

So, please do not bring Diesel into the current debate in the 2011 BTCC, it is totally and absolutely irrelevant. The situation then is at polar opposites than what is today.

Just one other point, which should also go some way to help people understand.

If TOCA had made no promises of equivalency during the phasing in of NGTC equipment in 2011 and 2012 from the point of view of performance, asset protection et all, then we would not be having this debate.

I repeat, if promises of performance equivalency had not been given by TOCA, I and all the other Non Turbo teams would not be protesting. We would have no argument and in fact, in reality, we would have less cars on the grid and many of the non turbo teams would have gone to a Turbo engine package.

I hope this makes things crystal clear for all.....

Kind regards,

Jason Plato

[MrJan]

Jason, interesting to see that you gained a second on last years Thruxton time, did a 18.946 in 2010 FP2 and a 17.966 in Qualy this year. If those were similar conditions then that's an astounding jump, especially given the difference between times was 'only' a few tenths at the other two tracks. What do you think this could be down to, tyres, track conditions or simply a better setup (or perhaps more agressive) this year?

[Bruce-1980]

Obviously all cars are going to be quicker than they were the previous year! Its called development! Just because Gow promised equivalencey, that doesn't mean RML don't have to bother developing the car over winter then expect the other cars to be reigned in to suit you!

Even O'Neil (124.6mph) and Collard (125.6mph) were faster than you (124.3mph) through the speed traps at Brands! (3 race average from the fastest speed trap) Are you telling me WSR and Tech-Speed (both relatively small teams running n/a cars) improved their cars more over the winter than RML improved your 2010 championship winning Cruze!? The Cruze, however, was the fastest na car by Thruxton so it has improved since the first race. Remember last season? Chevy were nowhere for the first part but were unbeatable by the end! Are you sure its not partly complacency on RMLs part that has left you a little behind at the early stages of the season?

Comparing your car to Mat Neals at Thruxton, he was only 2.2mph faster! (3 race average from the fastest speed trap) This is Thruxton, the fastest track on the calendar! "Every car will have its own strengths and weaknesses at each track" so surely the 2.2mph difference is just the Turbos strength on a fast circuit!

Last season you had the best car, this season you don't! Last season the championship, eventually, came to you,! This season you're gona have to work a bit harder for it! Or we could just make every car thats a threat to your title defense drive round on 3 wheels!?

[Andrew Webster]

Well said Sir!!! (Bruce-1980). All I see from the above data is that you are CONSISTANTLY off qualifying pace EVERY YEAR.

2009 Brands you were 0.7 seconds off pole... 2011 you were 0.3 seconds off pole.
2009 Thruxton you were 0.4 seconds off pole... 2010 you were 1.0 second off pole!!... 2011 you were 0.9 seconds off pole.

So relatively you are qualifying better this year than previous years.

Your data shows that only ONCE have you had a pole position in the quoted races. You blatently ignore that other teams have developed their cars further and suggest that it is just the addition of a turbo that has made them quicker.

How about some RACE data? That would be a more interesting to read. Fastest laps? Race wins? put things into perspective and stop trying to manipulate the situation to suit your now slower car.