Please everyone, lets be factual.

[Jason Plato]

Dear All,

In an attempt to stop the ridiculous totally inaccurate banter that frequents the forums, would you all please read and understand the following facts before making any further silly posts. You are all perfectly entitled to have your own opinions, however these must be based on facts rather than total bias to whoever you may or may not be supporting.

1. There were NO equivalency regulations regarding the Turbo Diesels in 2008. Those regulations had been available for any team or manufacturer to adopt years prior to 2008.
SEAT Sport believed they could gain an advantage and invested many millions over many years developing the Diesel engine. I repeat, there were NO equivalency regulations in place.

2. Turbo Diesels have been banned in the BTCC from 2009 because of the performance advantage they have.

3. TOCA made a promise to all the teams and drivers prior to the 2011 season that there will be performance parity between turbo and normally aspirated engines for the 2011 and 2012 BTCC seasons. One of the main reasons for this was asset protection. For the 2013 season onwards, the performance of the turbo engines will be turned up and normally aspirated engines will become uncompetitive.

4. The definition of Parity is: [Encarta English Dictionary]
1. Equality - equality of.
2. Similarity between things - the quality of being similar or identical.

5. The BTCC Series Director stated publically on 21st April …
“This year all NGTC engines (turbo) have a significantly revised turbo system, which has changed their engine performance/characteristics.” When compared to 2010.

6. The Series Director stated publically on 18th April …
“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”

7. The teams that have not adopted turbo engines early (before 2013) have every right to demand performance parity. It has been promised by TOCA prior to and during the 2011 season.

8. As a professional driver, with many years of BTCC experience, I have a duty to myself, my team, my sponsors and investors to make complaint when promises and/or agreements are not being honoured. I also, as a human being, have the right to respond to unfounded public criticism.

9. If there had been NO promises of performance parity between the two engine types by TOCA I would have no complaint.

For the record, if my complaints and opinions which are based on facts and data (of which a fraction of, I have shared with you above) has caused offence, then as a gentlemen I apologise. However, I trust that if you read and understand the above points you will agree, I have a very valid complaint.
I hope this will put an end to the churlish forum banter.

Sincerely,

Jason Plato

[Dave B]

I hear you, and respect you for speaking out both on the live broadcast and on this forum.

Let me ask you one question, and please understand I'm playing devil's advocate rather than making an accusation: how do you know that Steve Neal's team aren't simply doing a better job than you? They're breezing past you on the straights, that's obvious for all to see, but how is anybody to know that this wouldn't have happened anyway?

As I said in the other thread, maybe they're just better and it would be unfair to penalise them for that. Maybe they've got an inferior car but are being handed an unfair advantage. That's what I hate about equivalency formulae, it's simply impossible for us to make a fair comparison between two teams running to different specifications.

[Daniel]

Dear All,

In an attempt to stop the ridiculous totally inaccurate banter that frequents the forums, would you all please read and understand the following facts before making any further silly posts. You are all perfectly entitled to have your own opinions, however these must be based on facts rather than total bias to whoever you may or may not be supporting.

1. There were NO equivalency regulations regarding the Turbo Diesels in 2008. Those regulations had been available for any team or manufacturer to adopt years prior to 2008.
SEAT Sport believed they could gain an advantage and invested many millions over many years developing the Diesel engine. I repeat, there were NO equivalency regulations in place.

2. Turbo Diesels have been banned in the BTCC from 2009 because of the performance advantage they have.

3. TOCA made a promise to all the teams and drivers prior to the 2011 season that there will be performance parity between turbo and normally aspirated engines for the 2011 and 2012 BTCC seasons. One of the main reasons for this was asset protection. For the 2013 season onwards, the performance of the turbo engines will be turned up and normally aspirated engines will become uncompetitive.

4. The definition of Parity is: [Encarta English Dictionary]
1. Equality - equality of.
2. Similarity between things - the quality of being similar or identical.

5. The BTCC Series Director stated publically on 21st April …
“This year all NGTC engines (turbo) have a significantly revised turbo system, which has changed their engine performance/characteristics.” When compared to 2010.

6. The Series Director stated publically on 18th April …
“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”

7. The teams that have not adopted turbo engines early (before 2013) have every right to demand performance parity. It has been promised by TOCA prior to and during the 2011 season.

8. As a professional driver, with many years of BTCC experience, I have a duty to myself, my team, my sponsors and investors to make complaint when promises and/or agreements are not being honoured. I also, as a human being, have the right to respond to unfounded public criticism.

9. If there had been NO promises of performance parity between the two engine types by TOCA I would have no complaint.

For the record, if my complaints and opinions which are based on facts and data (of which a fraction of, I have shared with you above) has caused offence, then as a gentlemen I apologise. However, I trust that if you read and understand the above points you will agree, I have a very valid complaint.
I hope this will put an end to the churlish forum banter.

Sincerely,

Jason Plato

I think you might have more luck pissing into the wind Jason. I've been on here for over 10 years and it's no different to any other forum, people will think they're right because they want to be right or they want their favourite team to have an advantage. Just last week we had people in the F1 arguing that Pastor Maldonado should have moved out of the way for Hamilton in Monaco like Schumacher did. Anyone who watches racing would know that it's unreasonable for one driver to be expected to act in exactly the same manner as any other driver. I did ask whether Pastor should drive off a cliff is Schuey did so, but strangely enough I didn't get an answer.

Personally I feel that touring cars in general are a mess these days compared to the good ole days of Supertourers where you either built a car to win or you were Peugeot and the best thing about your car was the livery.

To come back to my original point, personally I wouldn't bother arguing with people on a forum, they can say whatever they want to say for whatever reasons and the nature of forums means that people can just say whatever they want to say whether it's true or not and whether any intelligent thought has gone into it.

[Alfa Fan]

I think the evidence for them not being able to do that is from last year, where they were on a par/ever so slightly slower than the Chevrolet's in a straight line. No-one in the history of the championship, certainly post Super Touring, has developed an engine that could just blow by cars the year after it was struggling to match them. (The Aon Ford is a special exemption).

[Jason Plato]

Dave,

The simple facts of the matter are engine power and torque is what makes a car go in a straight line, chassis is for braking and corners. I have a development of a car which won the world championship last year and a quicker car than i had in 2010, A year that I won the championship and dominated the second half of the year when Honda and Chevrolet were competiting to the same set of rules. It is clear to see that the all the turbo cars are quicker in a straight line than the non turbo cars, and the Honda has the best turbo engine. Imagine how quick my car would be with a turbo engine in?

[Daniel]

Dave,

The simple facts of the matter are engine power and torque is what makes a car go in a straight line, chassis is for braking and corners. I have a development of a car which won the world championship last year and a quicker car than i had in 2010, A year that I won the championship and dominated the second half of the year when Honda and Chevrolet were competiting to the same set of rules. It is clear to see that the all the turbo cars are quicker in a straight line than the non turbo cars, and the Honda has the best turbo engine. Imagine how quick my car would be with a turbo engine in?

To continue Dave's line of thought..... Put a turbo engine in and lets see how fast you are.

To be fair I agree with you, I've never liked equivalency formula's at all because they can never work properly for situation. Penalising RWD cars based on their dry performance is silly when they're clearly at a disadvantage at some times during a wet race. There should be 1 set of rules for everyone and if someone chooses to bring a better racecar to the track which is built to the same regs then they should win.

[Jason Plato]

Daniel,

I think you may be right, probably wasting my time engaging with fans! No doubt I will recieve a bashing for this.

Cheers JP

[Alfa Fan]

The problem with the idea of putting a turbo in the Chevrolet is who is going to pay for it? They can't use the TOCA engine as its a manufacturer entry, so it would have to be a Chevrolet engine. I'm sure that if it was as simple as just switching to a turbo, they'd have done it at Brands!

Just a note: http://www.motorsportforums.com/touringcars/145822-disreputable.html#post929888

Lots of data regarding engine situation in that post, and a comparison to other perceived disparities in the last 3-4 years.

[Mark]

I think you may be right, probably wasting my time engaging with fans! No doubt I will recieve a bashing for this.


Not at all, we need your perspective otherwise it's just uninformed speculation!

[Daniel]

Not at all, we need your perspective otherwise it's just uninformed speculation!

The problem is that anyone can come on here, say that Jason is wrong and call him a crybaby purely because he's not winning. As someone who needs to maintain a certain image it would be silly for him to argue the point and get involved with a slanging match with some halfwit on a forum. Therefore things are stacked against someone like Jason.

[Dave B]

Daniel,

I think you may be right, probably wasting my time engaging with fans! No doubt I will recieve a bashing for this.

Cheers JP
Probably, after a career like yours you'll always have fans and haters in equal measure. I've disagreed with you on some things over the years but always respected that you've spoken out, and publicly rather that bitching about it behind the scenes. We don't want robots, we don't want corporate spokesmen who give bland platitudes after every race. We want to know that racing - and winning - actually means something to you guys. The sport would be a hell of a lot duller without likes of Plato, Muller and Reid (I'm showing my age! :p )

[Daniel]

The problem with the idea of putting a turbo in the Chevrolet is who is going to pay for it? They can't use the TOCA engine as its a manufacturer entry, so it would have to be a Chevrolet engine. I'm sure that if it was as simple as just switching to a turbo, they'd have done it at Brands!

But then that's the fault of the rules :) Why should one team be able to use a TOCA engine and another not be able to use it?

BTW Jason, I'm not suggesting that you don't post because clearly it's a great thing that you DO post on here, merely that it's best you don't take any misguided posts to heart as they are merely opinions and opinions are like buttholes, everyone has them and they stink! :)

[Daniel]

Probably, after a career like yours you'll always have fans and haters in equal measure. I've disagreed with you on some things over the years but always respected that you've spoken out, and publicly rather that bitching about it behind the scenes. We don't want robots, we don't want corporate spokesmen who give bland platitudes after every race. We want to know that racing - and winning - actually means something to you guys. The sport would be a hell of a lot duller without likes of Plato, Muller and Reid (I'm showing my age! :p )

Agreed, tell you what Jason, next time you get a penalty I dare you to say "It's because I'm white isn't it?" :D

[MrJan]

Agreed, tell you what Jason, next time you get a penalty I dare you to say "It's because I'm white isn't it?" :D

I'm liking that, it's sure to go down well :uhoh:

[MrJan]

I think you might have more luck pissing into the wind Jason. I've been on here for over 10 years and it's no different to any other forum, people will think they're right because they want to be right or they want their favourite team to have an advantage.

Is that always the case though? I think that a lot of us started thinking differently about things when Anthony Warmbold started posting his blog. It's not always the case but I think that certain rebuttals to some accusations can have a positive affect. Sure you'll always get some people that still see it as black and white, but like Dave I've got respect for someone that comes out and directly answers some of the criticisms levelled at them.

[Alfa Fan]

But then that's the fault of the rules :) Why should one team be able to use a TOCA engine and another not be able to use it?

They are allowed by the rules to use it, the point is a manufacturer is not going to put another makes engine in their car. They HAVE to run Chevrolet engines for marketing / advertising reasons. I can't think of a manufacturer who has ever run an engine produced by someone else.

[Daniel]

Is that always the case though? I think that a lot of us started thinking differently about things when Anthony Warmbold started posting his blog. It's not always the case but I think that certain rebuttals to some accusations can have a positive affect. Sure you'll always get some people that still see it as black and white, but like Dave I've got respect for someone that comes out and directly answers some of the criticisms levelled at them.

True enough but I think that's the exception rather than the rule :)


They are allowed by the rules to use it, the point is a manufacturer is not going to put another makes engine in their car. They HAVE to run Chevrolet engines for marketing / advertising reasons. I can't think of a manufacturer who has ever run an engine produced by someone else.

I will have to apologise for my ignorance then ;)

[Jason Plato]

They are allowed by the rules to use it, the point is a manufacturer is not going to put another makes engine in their car. They HAVE to run Chevrolet engines for marketing / advertising reasons. I can't think of a manufacturer who has ever run an engine produced by someone else.

Again, you are missing the point.
One of the reasons performance parity was promised was for asset protection, RML have a massive amount of money tied up in perfectly good S2000 engines, infact perfectly good enough to win the 2010 WTCC and 2010 BTCC. It's not a case of could they, should they.

[Daniel]

Again, you are missing the point.
One of the reasons performance parity was promised was for asset protection, RML have a massive amount of money tied up in perfectly good S2000 engines, infact perfectly good enough to win the 2010 WTCC and 2010 BTCC. It's not a case of could they, should they.

Parity is always going to be messy I suppose. I mean they can try and penalise RWD cars for their better launch, but if it rains and they can't get heat into the tyres then they're doubly penalised! Personally I'm completely against success ballast as well, I'd like to think that if I wasn't as good as someone else that the onus is on me to improve so I can challenge them, rather than asking that they be penalised to artificially close the gap!

[Marshall]

I feel that something like the ACO's concept of a data logger that can be fitted to cars to measure engine (not chassis) performance and return that data to the governing body so they can make running parity adjustments between fuel types would probably be a welcome stepping stone to a solution, however I'd imagine this would be a relatively large investment for TOCA to make when their view is towards eventually phasing out the S2000 equipment.

I agree that if you've been promised all engines types will be competitive with one another, then you should expect your governing body to deliver on the promise. Honda and Chevrolet are both excellent teams, I think its fair to expect that they should be on a level playing field.

While I'm against the WTCC way of offering constant dispensations to ensure everyone is competitive no matter how good their equipment is, I think that here a top team is suffering because the rules disadvantage their equipment from the outset.

[stevie05]

I've personally never been your biggest fan Jason, but I really can't see how anyone can think that the equalisation that was promised is even close. If they think it's close, then they really need their eyes tested. Sure, they may argue that you've won four races. Let's remind them that two of those were at Brands Hatch, from the front of the field and a track with no significant straights. Thruxton was a reverse grid win with no weight in the car and of course Oulton Park was Matt (Neal) having a "senior" moment. ;) Even at Brands Hatch, by the end of the pit straight the gap the turbo cars would pull on the full S2000 cars was crazy.

There were also a couple of examples of Nick Foster getting overtaken way before the Island hairpin in race three at the weekend. Tim Harvey kept saying how he was just getting out of it early, but the turbo cars were clearly by him before the braking area. Perhaps he didn't want to make a fuss about it, considering the rumours he might be in a turbo car somewhere soon. ;)

For those that think parity has been achieved, then it's also worth remembering just how old the Civic and Vectra are. They first appeared in the BTCC in 2007. This is the fifth year for both cars and cars that are that old surely won't have much performance to find in them. The Cruze is in it's third season in full S2000 spec (including the 2009 WTCC) and is still being developed by the best team in touring car racing, RML. Suddenly the Vectra's and Civic's get these turbo engines and are suddenly as quick or significantly quicker than the newest and fastest S2000 car there is. Even Matt Neal said in a interview that was shown before the races said they had an advantage with the turbo!

Unfortunately, given the situation with the Ford's last season, I don't see Toca actually ever getting this right. The worrying thing to me is Alan Gow seemed to genuinely think they had it about right. Whilst people may not like it, if there was a level playing field then the Cruze would almost certainly be walking it.

[Andrew Webster]

Wow if this isn't Honda jealousy to the extreme then what is?? Matt takes out Shedden.. who is in 3rd place?? erm Mr Plato? What! ahead of all the other turbo cars! impossible!! and how far behind over race distance? ohh not very....

You had the quickest car last year, you havent this year. period.

How do you define true equivalency? that every car passes the finishing line together? only one car can win, why should the rules be amended to make sure that is you? Why dont AMD get a turbo increase to push them up the field... stupid, unworkable and quite frankly pathetic from a professional driver.

How about this.. would someone like to average the race time for all the turbo cars and then for all the NA cars from the results at Oulton, then compare the times. That would be an interesting figure.

Are all the turbo cars equivalent? Do they all lap at the same speed? nope! Why oh why is it that the ONLY car you seem to think you should have parity with is the Honda? Is that fair on the rest of the field to be restricted further?

[Daniel]

Wow if this isn't Honda jealousy to the extreme then what is?? Matt takes out Shedden.. who is in 3rd place?? erm Mr Plato? What! ahead of all the other turbo cars! impossible!! and how far behind over race distance? ohh not very....

You had the quickest car last year, you havent this year. period.

How do you define true equivalency? that every car passes the finishing line together? only one car can win, why should the rules be amended to make sure that is you? Why dont AMD get a turbo increase to push them up the field... stupid, unworkable and quite frankly pathetic from a professional driver.

How about this.. would someone like to average the race time for all the turbo cars and then for all the NA cars from the results at Oulton, then compare the times. That would be an interesting figure.

Are all the turbo cars equivalent? Do they all lap at the same speed? nope! Why oh why is it that the ONLY car you seem to think you should have parity with is the Honda? Is that fair on the rest of the field to be restricted further?

People like you are the exact reason we don't get more professional drivers on here.......

[Dave B]

I hope this will put an end to the churlish forum banter.

Apparently not :s

[Alfa Fan]

Don't feed the troll. In the couple of months he's been on this forum this is the only topic he's commented on, so there's clearly some agenda...

[MrJan]

Don't feed the troll. In the couple of months he's been on this forum this is the only topic he's commented on, so there's clearly some agenda...

Nah, he's just stupid and obviously struggles reading.

People seem to really misunderstand the difference between engine equivilancy and chassis equivilancy.

[Eurotech]

Maybe Mr Plato should just attempt some "Classic Matt Neal" moves on the opposition if TOCA leave the situation as it is now...

[Andrew Webster]

Troll blah blah... dont make me laugh! Why arent you all realistic? Lets take Honda out of the equation for a minute, pretend they dont exist. Lets also look at the last race at Oulton - a fairly balanced track. Plato would have qualified 2nd 1/100th second off pole. There would be 2 turbo cars in 3rd and 4th then MacDowall and O'Neill in 5th and 6th. Turbos 1, 3 and 4 NA cars 2, 4 and 5. I would say thats pretty damn equivalent.

Now race results, Race 1: Plato and MacDowall 1st and 2nd, BMW's 4th and 5th. Race 2: Plato and Collard 1st and 2nd. Race 3: Plato 9th after punting Collard off.

The ONLY issue and Platos SINGLE focus is on Honda as he is quicker than the rest of the field.

This is not a personal vendeta but the view of THOUSANDS of fans, look at the comments all over Facebook and Twitter.

To Daniel: The reason there arent more professional drivers on here is because they are being exactly that, Professional. Not moaning that his car is faster than mine.

Barryfullalove: I have no problem problem understanding the difference between engine equivilancy and chassis equivilancy but most people clearly do. Honda have built an engine to the same spec as all the other turbo teams but their car is quicker. Plato is as quick as all the other turbo cars bar the Hondas..... duh thats not rocket science to work out where the performance gains are and that is the point I am trying to make. Reducing the boost to all cars would be grossly unfair.

[Eurotech]

Troll blah blah... dont make me laugh! Why arent you all realistic? Lets take Honda out of the equation for a minute, pretend they dont exist. Lets also look at the last race at Oulton - a fairly balanced track. Plato would have qualified 2nd 1/100th second off pole. There would be 2 turbo cars in 3rd and 4th then MacDowall and O'Neill in 5th and 6th. Turbos 1, 3 and 4 NA cars 2, 4 and 5. I would say thats pretty damn equivalent.

Thats a good argument, well done. Just a shame you were too busy with your anti-Plato rant to notice that Oulton was a wet race. N/A cars are always going to do better in the wet cos of the way the power is delivered. Don't treat us like idiots if you don't know the facts yourself.

[Eurotech]

Now race results, Race 1: Plato and MacDowall 1st and 2nd, BMW's 4th and 5th. Race 2: Plato and Collard 1st and 2nd. Race 3: Plato 9th after punting Collard off.
Thats a good argument, well done. Just a shame you were too busy with your anti-Plato rant to notice that Oulton was a wet race. N/A cars are always going to do better in the wet cos of the way the power is delivered. Don't treat us like idiots if you don't know the facts yourself.

[Eurotech]

Now race results, Race 1: Plato and MacDowall 1st and 2nd, BMW's 4th and 5th. Race 2: Plato and Collard 1st and 2nd. Race 3: Plato 9th after punting Collard off.
Thats a good argument, well done. Just a shame you were too busy with your anti-Plato rant to notice that Oulton was a wet race. N/A cars are always going to do better in the wet cos of the way the power is delivered. Don't treat us like idiots if you don't know the facts yourself.

[MrJan]

Barryfullalove: I have no problem problem understanding the difference between engine equivilancy and chassis equivilancy but most people clearly do. Honda have built an engine to the same spec as all the other turbo teams but their car is quicker. Plato is as quick as all the other turbo cars bar the Hondas..... duh thats not rocket science to work out where the performance gains are and that is the point I am trying to make. Reducing the boost to all cars would be grossly unfair.

The Honda clearly makes up a huge amount of time on the straights, you don't have to be a genius to see that. That means that the car is not EQUIVILANT. I'm not saying that reducing the boost to all cars is the answer, but it is quite clear to me that too much of the Honda speed is coming from their turbo engine. Unless of course you're saying that the mad straightline acceleration and pull of that Honda is coming from a really nice chassis.

Clearly it's pointless debating this with you though, your outrageous anti-Plato stance is quite clearly what you're actually forming your opinions from.

[Andrew Webster]

Thats a good argument, well done. Just a shame you were too busy with your anti-Plato rant to notice that Oulton was a wet race. N/A cars are always going to do better in the wet cos of the way the power is delivered. Don't treat us like idiots if you don't know the facts yourself.

Oh sorry I am glad you can wave your magic wand and make sure the rest of the season will be dry. I would bet a hefty sum that there will be quite a few more wet races this year. The best thing about the BTCC is that different cars suit different tracks and different conditions. So in what way did I treat you like an idiot? by stating a few facts and figures?

I am not anti-plato I am anti spit-my-dummy-out-because-i-am-not-in-the-fastest-car, there is a big difference!

It is clear that Honda have a quicker car this year, last year Plato had the quickest car. So where does all this equivalency rubbish stop? when Plato is qualifying in pole every week? when cars can't overtake? If thats what people want then the BTCC may as well move to a one make series like the clios!

[Daniel]

Oh sorry I am glad you can wave your magic wand and make sure the rest of the season will be dry. I would bet a hefty sum that there will be quite a few more wet races this year. The best thing about the BTCC is that different cars suit different tracks and different conditions. So in what way did I treat you like an idiot? by stating a few facts and figures?

I am not anti-plato I am anti spit-my-dummy-out-because-i-am-not-in-the-fastest-car, there is a big difference!

It is clear that Honda have a quicker car this year, last year Plato had the quickest car. So where does all this equivalency rubbish stop? when Plato is qualifying in pole every week? when cars can't overtake? If thats what people want then the BTCC may as well move to a one make series like the clios!

Blah blah blah disregard barry's excellen statement blah blah blah

[Andrew Webster]

The Honda clearly makes up a huge amount of time on the straights, you don't have to be a genius to see that. That means that the car is not EQUIVILANT. I'm not saying that reducing the boost to all cars is the answer, but it is quite clear to me that too much of the Honda speed is coming from their turbo engine. Unless of course you're saying that the mad straightline acceleration and pull of that Honda is coming from a really nice chassis.

Clearly it's pointless debating this with you though, your outrageous anti-Plato stance is quite clearly what you're actually forming your opinions from.

Ok i will address this "mad straightline acceleration" : Figures from Oulton -

Speed trap figures:

Shedden 91.73mph
Neil 91.57 mph
Plato 91.28 mph

0.3 - 0.4 mph slower! oh my god!

Drivers fastest lap time in race 2: Plato 135.0, Jordan 135.7, Jackson 134.8, Neil 134.5 are these miles apart? Plato finished 2.3 seconds ahead of the 2nd placed car once the two Hondas had been taken out. If he was struggling to make mid table I could understand the argument but he is faster than the rest of the field!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Where is the speed trap at Oulton? I was wondering, when the live speed trap figures were coming up on the TV, whether or not the speed trap was in the braking zone for Knickerbrook. It could make sense that the braking zone would be extended in damp condition.

[Daniel]

Ok i will address this "mad straightline acceleration" : Figures from Oulton -

Speed trap figures:

Shedden 91.73mph
Neil 91.57 mph
Plato 91.28 mph

0.3 - 0.4 mph slower! oh my god!

Drivers fastest lap time in race 2: Plato 135.0, Jordan 135.7, Jackson 134.8, Neil 134.5 are these miles apart? Plato finished 2.3 seconds ahead of the 2nd placed car once the two Hondas had been taken out. If he was struggling to make mid table I could understand the argument but he is faster than the rest of the field!

Congratulations for posting top speeds to try and prove that two cars were ACCELERATING at the same rate

barry seems to like a good Facepalm so.....

http://www.lolblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/doublefacepalm.jpg

[jwrodgers76]

My first post on here so please feel free to shoot me down ! I found this site through a post and thread through a twitter post and have read it with interest. I have recently got back into touring cars after a lapse and to be fair could be classed as 'Pro-Honda' however would much prefer Honda Racing to win after a hard fought battle rather than run away with the title. A few questions (Not opinions) that anyone with the knowledge could answer for me.

1, In terms of the of the Chevrolet Chassis would it be fair to say that RML have benefited from the budget and development of the WTCC programme which has allowed the Chevrolet Chassis to reach its evolutionary peak of performance earlier than otherwise would have been the case due ? Would it be also fair to say that the budget for the Chevrolet WTCC programme has been reduced this year and a casualty of this is that the rate of development is not what it has been in the past.

2, If the above is true then could this have been classed as a historical un-fair advantage ?

3, I heard some rumours that apparently the Chevrolet Cruze's engines hydraulic tappets were opening higher than the allowable valve clearance when the engine was running and this was giving Chevrolet a advantage in the fact that this allowed more fuel/air into the cylinder leading to higher specific outputs. Is this true (This is a ideal opportunity to dispell those rumours if you have the factual information on this subject to hand) ?

4, Could the Honda Civic chassis be a better base platform to work with (In terms of overall chassis and aerodynamic capability) but has taken longer to reach it's evolutionary peak due to a lower rate of development and budget ?

5, Could it not be that JP (Please do not take this as a insult but MS is now being regularly out raced by NR in Mercedes Benz F1 so it can happen to the best of people) personal performance is being affected by both the current performance parity issue but also factors such as age and that this is making the parity gap between the Honda and Chevrolet bigger than it should be.

6, Would it be fair to single out Honda for further restrictions when it is evident that they have (Or should I say NBE Ltd) developed the Civic Engine into a very capable unit which is better than the other NGTC spec cars (At the moment) ?

7, Would it be fair to single out the other NGTC Spec cars to further restrictions based on the fact that TOCA would have to impose restrictions on all the NGTC cars when Honda have done a good job with the engine ?

8, I think it is clear to see that the Honda's and have 'cruised' by other non-NGTC cars in some races but could some of this not be attibutable to the fact that the chassis is better and so it has allowed the Honda to carry a higher corner apex speed and get better traction coming out of the corner allowing a higher speed at any given point down the next straight ?

9, In 2010 Jason Plato qualified at Oulton Park in 1m27.389s and in 2011 the time was 1m27.782s compared to Gordon Shedden in 2010 1m27.350s and 2011 1m27.355s. Essentially with a NGTC spec engine Gordon qualified v.slightly slower than in 2010 with a S2000 engine. Whereas JP was considerably slower in qualifying. Does this mean that the Chevrolet is slower and has taken a step backwards in terms of set up or was JP just slower this year ?

10, Could tyre choice (Especially at Oulton Park) and that tyre choices suitability to a particular car not have played a big part in the respective performance of different cars ?

The above questions are not designed to defend Honda as they do not address the full issues but are to try and open up the discussion rather than just concentrate soley on 'they are faster so restrict them' ! However I do feel that Honda have developed a 'sweet' package with the Civic and NGTC spec engine and the car has reached it's peak of performance.

I can agree that the current situation would appear (And I say 'appear' as I cannot catagorically say 'is' as I do not have all the information to hand) unfair but I do not have all the information to hand (or am suitably qualified) to be able to pass judgement. I think, unfortunately, due to circumstance TOCA have put themselves in a corner with performance parity during the changeover period as there will always be people unahppy with the decisions made especially where emotions are concerned. I also feel that the new NGTC spec engines will ultimately save very little money as companies will pour more money into the engines to eek every last drop of performance out of them to give themselves a on track performance advantage however that is another subject entirely !

Right let me get my tin hat on before the replies come in !

Regards
James

[cali]

Why someone here does not understand that turbos can pull away quicker from corners and speedtrap values are not really valid as N/A cars are still pulling while turbos have been in a limiter for a while.

C'mon turbos and N/A engines are not comparable, nor parity ever can be achieved

[Andrew Webster]

http://www.tsl-timing.com/toca/2011/112203trg.pdf

Page 24.

Please read the FACTS. Ideal (theoretical) laptimes based on best sector times compiled in to one lap.

[Daniel]

http://www.tsl-timing.com/toca/2011/112203trg.pdf

Page 24.

Please read the FACTS. Ideal (theoretical) laptimes based on best sector times compiled in to one lap.
Not quite sure what you're trying to prove?

[Alfa Fan]

If anything he's just shown Plato did the best he possible could whilst the Dynamics Honda's could have been even further ahead. May I suggest that's not what he was hoping to show!

[Daniel]

I was wondering.....

[MrJan]

1, In terms of the of the Chevrolet Chassis would it be fair to say that RML have benefited from the budget and development of the WTCC programme which has allowed the Chevrolet Chassis to reach its evolutionary peak of performance earlier than otherwise would have been the case due ? Would it be also fair to say that the budget for the Chevrolet WTCC programme has been reduced this year and a casualty of this is that the rate of development is not what it has been in the past.[/i]

Is there anything wrong with development coming from knowledge in other championships?

2, If the above is true then could this have been classed as a historical un-fair advantage ?

TOCA never promised parity between cars in previous years, just this one. Even then it's between turbo and N/A nothing to do with chassis.

3, I heard some rumours that apparently the Chevrolet Cruze's engines hydraulic tappets were opening higher than the allowable valve clearance when the engine was running and this was giving Chevrolet a advantage in the fact that this allowed more fuel/air into the cylinder leading to higher specific outputs. Is this true (This is a ideal opportunity to dispell those rumours if you have the factual information on this subject to hand) ?

You want proof to dispel some pretty lively rumours? WTF, if you want to level those sort of accusations then YOU'RE the one that should be bringing facts to the table.

4, Could the Honda Civic chassis be a better base platform to work with (In terms of overall chassis and aerodynamic capability) but has taken longer to reach it's evolutionary peak due to a lower rate of development and budget ?

Maybe, slightly irrelevant when we discussing the advantage that comes from the turbo

5, Could it not be that JP (Please do not take this as a insult but MS is now being regularly out raced by NR in Mercedes Benz F1 so it can happen to the best of people) personal performance is being affected by both the current performance parity issue but also factors such as age and that this is making the parity gap between the Honda and Chevrolet bigger than it should be.

Maybe that's true, maybe JP is forgetting to press the pedal as hard in his old age. The Hondas breeze past people on the straight, that's clear.

6, Would it be fair to single out Honda for further restrictions when it is evident that they have (Or should I say NBE Ltd) developed the Civic Engine into a very capable unit which is better than the other NGTC spec cars (At the moment) ?

TOCA promised parity, if that means singling out one type of car then so be it, it's no different to AON last season

7, Would it be fair to single out the other NGTC Spec cars to further restrictions based on the fact that TOCA would have to impose restrictions on all the NGTC cars when Honda have done a good job with the engine ?

The restrictions should match the relative performance of the engine, however you're into a real nightmare with rules there.

8, I think it is clear to see that the Honda's and have 'cruised' by other non-NGTC cars in some races but could some of this not be attibutable to the fact that the chassis is better and so it has allowed the Honda to carry a higher corner apex speed and get better traction coming out of the corner allowing a higher speed at any given point down the next straight ?

Possibly so, however I believe that much of the straightline acceleration comes from the engine as Honda have seemingly lept forwards in terms of development.

9, In 2010 Jason Plato qualified at Oulton Park in 1m27.389s and in 2011 the time was 1m27.782s compared to Gordon Shedden in 2010 1m27.350s and 2011 1m27.355s. Essentially with a NGTC spec engine Gordon qualified v.slightly slower than in 2010 with a S2000 engine. Whereas JP was considerably slower in qualifying. Does this mean that the Chevrolet is slower and has taken a step backwards in terms of set up or was JP just slower this year ?

Could be down to all kinds of factors, how did other drivers get on? I think that Collard, MacDowell and Neal are the most relevant as they're same drivers in same cars. If Collard and MacDowell were also slower then it suggests that the track was slow this year. If not then Jason was slow this year :) If Neal had a similar situation to Shedden then it would suggest that it's down to the new engine in the Civic.

10, Could tyre choice (Especially at Oulton Park) and that tyre choices suitability to a particular car not have played a big part in the respective performance of different cars ?

That's the case everywhere. Are you saying that the tyres picked by the NA cars this season lack grip on the exit of corners compared to those on the turbo cars?

Answers....sort of. I think we can all agree that stating parity would be given was stupid, and I agree that the NGTC engine will do little to lower the costs of the top teams.

I still think that people should just be using their eyes more to see the problem. It's quite clear that the turbo cars (and in particular the Hondas) have a major straightline advantage, certainly across the first part of the straight. Top speeds are largely irrelevant too, the cars will probably be geared to a fairly similar top speed so it's how quickly they get there that matters.

[inimitablestoo]

I think we can all agree that stating parity would be given was stupid.
Absolutely. The only thing that was more stupid was believing it could be done...

[jwrodgers76]

All I was trying to illustrate, in my earlier questions, is that in all motorsport there are always un-fair advantages and that there are too many variables and that you cannot simply use your eyes to see the speed problem. Consistently hanging onto the parity issue will not solve it as you cannot have true parity due to the number of variables that there are irrelevant of what TOCA stated.

In terms of qualifying times for McDowall, Neal and Collard. All were slower in 2011 than 2010 so it probably just highlights what I said above re' too many variables. I also know that Gordon thought he made a bit of a mess of the lap that put him on pole and thought he could have gone faster but this wouldn't have been down to the turbo assistance but down to his driving.

The other thing I know is that this years Civic is dynamically well ahead of last years Civic as they have had some major breakthroughs in terms of the suspension and the level of rear wheel steer that the car generates in certain corners which allows much higher apex speeds, than other cars, to be carried which obviously has a direct impact on the early part of the next straight.

What is concerning is the way that this is spilling over, too much in my view, into the public domain and that could cause the public to switch off if they feel the series is manipulated too much. I can fully appreciate JP's frustrations but I feel that the outburst after race 2 on Sunday didn't help his cause, his image or more importantly the sport as a whole. I can see why he did it but think that he may have regretted the manner it was done later on.

[Daniel]

All I was trying to illustrate, in my earlier questions, is that in all motorsport there are always un-fair advantages and that there are too many variables and that you cannot simply use your eyes to see the speed problem. Consistently hanging onto the parity issue will not solve it as you cannot have true parity due to the number of variables that there are irrelevant of what TOCA stated.

Then don't promise parity....

[MrJan]

All I was trying to illustrate, in my earlier questions, is that in all motorsport there are always un-fair advantages and that there are too many variables and that you cannot simply use your eyes to see the speed problem. Consistently hanging onto the parity issue will not solve it as you cannot have true parity due to the number of variables that there are irrelevant of what TOCA stated.

In terms of qualifying times for McDowall, Neal and Collard. All were slower in 2011 than 2010 so it probably just highlights what I said above re' too many variables. I also know that Gordon thought he made a bit of a mess of the lap that put him on pole and thought he could have gone faster but this wouldn't have been down to the turbo assistance but down to his driving.

The other thing I know is that this years Civic is dynamically well ahead of last years Civic as they have had some major breakthroughs in terms of the suspension and the level of rear wheel steer that the car generates in certain corners which allows much higher apex speeds, than other cars, to be carried which obviously has a direct impact on the early part of the next straight.

What is concerning is the way that this is spilling over, too much in my view, into the public domain and that could cause the public to switch off if they feel the series is manipulated too much. I can fully appreciate JP's frustrations but I feel that the outburst after race 2 on Sunday didn't help his cause, his image or more importantly the sport as a whole. I can see why he did it but think that he may have regretted the manner it was done later on.

Do you work for Honda or summint?

[RMLCruzeing82]

People like you are the exact reason we don't get more professional drivers on here.......


i agree.

now on topic and im going to put aside that im one of Plato's long time fans...im just going to put my view across best i can as a fan of motorsport

i a fan doesn't want to see a car over taking another car with ease(Smith VS Oneill at thuxton race 2 at Campbell as an example) and i dont want to see a driver getting bad results and knowing he/she has got what it takes to win races when things are on a level playing ground and miss out simply because of a car being faster.

i want to see a fair battle with two of more drivers with fair cars lap after lap but...

how can you put N/A and Turbo powered cars on a level playing ground with out punishing or throwing out one or the other.

Its like me racing in a Ford Sierra Cosworth and my mate racing in a Vauxhall Cavalier SRI, there pretty simuller cars in size and the sirerra being a little bit heavier but im always going to win with the sierra simple because of the fact ive got more power because of the turbo unite and thats exactly what happening in the BTCC now.

Personally if id of waited for the turbos till 2013 because in my view this equality thing with the N/a and Turbo cars will never get resolved.

[Dave B]

Sierra Cozzie vs Cavalier SRi? I feel 21 again :D

[RMLCruzeing82]

Sierra Cozzie vs Cavalier SRi? I feel 21 again :D
:p

[Andrew Webster]

Not quite sure what you're trying to prove?

If you look at the 'best' laptimes you will see that MacDowall and Plato are 3rd and 4th quickest. Only beaten by the Hondas.

Now go back and re-read the Original Post.

Platos argument is about promised parity between NA and Turbo cars - He is quicker than the whole field bar the Hondas! It is not parity that is the issue, the real issue is that Plato cant cope with the 2 Honda cars being quicker than his.

[RMLCruzeing82]

If you look at the 'best' laptimes you will see that MacDowall and Plato are 3rd and 4th quickest. Only beaten by the Hondas.

Now go back and re-read the Original Post.

Platos argument is about promised parity between NA and Turbo cars - He is quicker than the whole field bar the Hondas! It is not parity that is the issue, the real issue is that Plato cant cope with the 2 Honda cars being quicker than his.

and your failing to understand the n/a cars are going to be quicker in the wet but there only beaten by the Honda shows just how much of an advantage the Honda's have

[Andrew Webster]

and your failing to understand the n/a cars are going to be quicker in the wet but there only beaten by the Honda shows just how much of an advantage the Honda's have

Those times were for Saturday - Qualifying - Hot and Dry

You are failing to read the OP, the argument isn't about Honda its about PARITY - it is now as close as it can ever be given different cars and engines.

And what has the weather got to do with it unless you can guarantee its dry every race? Impossing further restrictions on turbo cars will give the NA cars and even bigger advantage in the wet! All for what? So Plato can beat Honda?

[MrJan]

So Plato can beat Honda?

No, so he can have a chance of beating Honda.

[Daniel]

No, so he can have a chance of beating Honda.

I would perhaps suggest that it's time to stop feeding the troll.

[I am evil Homer]

I think the whole basis of the argument is flawed: it suggets you can have two, well three different approaches with a huge number of other variables (chassis, set up, tyre wear) and make it all "equivalent" on every single track the series visits.

Clearly the turbo engines have an advantage some of the time and perhaps a further boost reduction is needed but I honestly think it's going to have to be taken on a circuit by circuit basis.

[Andrew Webster]

No, so he can have a chance of beating Honda.

And what about the rest of the field that he is already quicker than? what about their chance of beating HIM if further restrictions are impossed? The entire grid is roughly where they were last year apart from the Hondas. Platos problem isn't about NA v Turbo it's about Chevy v Honda and his asumption that he should be leading the field because he won last year and has a bigger budget.

Quit the silly troll remarks please, if you cant handle an opinion different to your own then I suggest you dont comment at all.

[MrJan]

And what about the rest of the field that he is already quicker than? what about their chance of beating HIM if further restrictions are impossed? The entire grid is roughly where they were last year apart from the Hondas. Platos problem isn't about NA v Turbo it's about Chevy v Honda and his asumption that he should be leading the field because he won last year and has a bigger budget.

Quit the silly troll remarks please, if you cant handle an opinion different to your own then I suggest you dont comment at all.

The Honda advantage comes from the fact that their own tubby engine is better than the NGTC. TOCA promised that this wouldn't be showing until 2013. It's now 2011. What's so difficult to understand here? We've seen one type of car penalised before, so why not alter the restrictor on the Honda and not the NGTCs?

[Andrew Webster]

The Honda advantage comes from the fact that their own tubby engine is better than the NGTC. TOCA promised that this wouldn't be showing until 2013. It's now 2011. What's so difficult to understand here? We've seen one type of car penalised before, so why not alter the restrictor on the Honda and not the NGTCs?

Now that would make perfect sense, but that is not what Plato is asking for. Regarding a restrictor for Honda - is it not a better chasis that is enabling them to obtain higher cornering speed and carry more speed onto the next straight rather than an outright engine advantage? How could that be restricted? It would have made more sense to have impossed a rule that the only turbo cars allowed entry would be NGTC engined cars but it is now too late for that.

One thing I do know - Neil and Shedden are both in my FantasyDrivers.com team :)

[Mark]

How are they meant to be equivalent? Power output? Torque? I guess we need TOCA to be very specific here.

If you had some parameters to measure, rather than just performance on the track, then put both the engines on a dyno and tweak them until they match. Then anything else is down to the chassis.

Yes, I know turbo / NA have different driving characteristics but it has to be based on something!

[Robinho]

I Think Mark has hit the nail on the head - what is defined as parity here.

Thanks to Jason for coming in here and daring to post in what is a prettly inflammatory topic without the input of a driver.

If Toca are promising parity in lap times, then it is true that they aren't far off - it is true as many have stated here that it is only the Hondas that were faster than the Chevvy's last weekend, when you look at lap times alone.

It is also a fact that the Hondas are faster on the straights, as are most of the Turbo cars, but even here we don't have equivalency. How can parity be mandated between turbo and N/A egines, when the turbos (and to a lesser extent the N/A's) are not all equal to begin with?

Furthermore, I'd like to know if there are any disadvantages to the Turbo engine - is it heavier? it certainly works the tyres harder. So whilst they may be quicker on the straights and they falling below the potential of the chassis in S2000 form in the corners. this would seem to be the case to some extent as the advantage in the straights is partly nullified by the ability of the N/A cars in the twisty bits. Would it be considered unfair if the advantage and disadvantage of the turbo were comparable over a lap and then they removed just the advantage? one side will always come off worse in that scenario. In that cae they would have to limit the turbo cars on the straights but givem them a weight break so they can mainatin the lap time but not have the racing advantage on the straights.

For me thats the issue at hand, the racing advantage. Overall in laptime the cars are not far off, some monir tweaks and they would be running very close laptimes, but, in a racing situation having a faster car on the straights is always an advantage for overtaking and for not being overtaken.

This is why i don't believe the parity arguement is as simple as purely limiting the power of the turo cars, but also in allowing them to be comparable to the N/A's through the corners also, where it can be argued the turbo's currently have a slight disadvantage.

a few silly comments aside i think it has to be clear that in a racing situation it is not right that the turbo cars can overtake on the straights before having to make an outbraking manouvre. But equally i hope that it is realised that if this advantage is removed, it would be unfair if the turbo cars don't receive some sort of weight break or similar to allow parity with the N/A's in handling.

It also is abundantly clear that the Honda's are definately getting the best from the Turbo's at the moment, and that penalising all the Turbo's equally would be pretty unfair as some of them are only just competitive at the moment and to drop them to the back because Honda had an advantage is also wrong. Of course it would be rightly argued that why should Honda be penalised more under the same set of regs for getting the job done better compared to the other Turbo's.

It is an absolute minefield and I can fully understand the standpoint of Jason, and would expect if the changes go too far the other way we'll be hearing a very similar tune from Mr Neal. I also do not envy Alan Gow, having promised parity and being attacked from all side when attempting to deliver what seems to be the impossible.

and as for Chevvy's getting turbos, perhaps the Go Mobile team should invest, seeing as they are not a factory team, they could run whatever they liked and then in theory they should have the best handling car with the fastest engine and we could all rejoice in Paul O'Neill winning multiple races!

[Mark]

Then lets be scientific, again put the engines on a dyno and run them through a racing lap simulation, you can measure how much 'work' (in the scientific sense of the word) each of them do and then adjust accordingly. Then put on further adjustments for the weight of the engines, or put ballast on the NA cars to make them the same. Then leave it all the hell alone!

[cali]

Then lets be scientific, again put the engines on a dyno and run them through a racing lap simulation, you can measure how much 'work' (in the scientific sense of the word) each of them do and then adjust accordingly. Then put on further adjustments for the weight of the engines, or put ballast on the NA cars to make them the same. Then leave it all the hell alone!

Sounds like a lot of money wasted ... otherwise this would be a good idea

[Mark]

Sounds like a lot of money wasted ... otherwise this would be a good idea

Wasted? I wouldn't say that. But as a governing body you can't just promise things like equality without backing it up somehow. Just going "Oh they are a little bit fast, give them some weight or a restrictor" is not the way to run a professional racing series.

[RMLCruzeing82]

Those times were for Saturday - Qualifying - Hot and Dry


yeah you right there. i thought you was talking about the race times.

[I am evil Homer]

Wasted? I wouldn't say that. But as a governing body you can't just promise things like equality without backing it up somehow. Just going "Oh they are a little bit fast, give them some weight or a restrictor" is not the way to run a professional racing series.

Where was equality ever promised? I remember seeing quotes from Gow about them studying the new cars to look into performance parity but did he ever say "we will ensure parity"? Genuninely interested but I honestly don't remember hearing him say that

[Alfa Fan]

Yes it was definitely, in the initial announcement. S2000 had previously been assured to be the main type of car/engine until 2013 under TOCA's Asset Protection scheme.

[F1boat]

It's a very difficult situation. I have said, in the other post of Mr. Plato, that we should wait for Oulton Park, but it was a wet race and it is very difficult to get clear conclusions from wet races. Still, from what I saw it is obvious that "Honda" has produced the best turbo car and it has an advantage over the "Chevrolet". However, I think that it is clear that "Chevrolet" is now faster than the "Vauxhall" and "Ford Focus" and BMW was significantly more competitive... so "Honda" are simply exploring their fast car. I do not think that it is right to equalize "Chevy" to "Honda" and leave the rest in dust. From what I see now, BTCC is producing the most entertaining race on Earth, we have four different cars winning races and very dramatic finishes. That's why I am against for more changes, for now.
And while I do not like statements like the one Mr. Plato made after Race 2, in no way this diminish my view of him as a driver - possibly the best torung car driver, actually. Best luck in races!

[Andrew Webster]

It's a very difficult situation. I have said, in the other post of Mr. Plato, that we should wait for Oulton Park, but it was a wet race and it is very difficult to get clear conclusions from wet races. Still, from what I saw it is obvious that "Honda" has produced the best turbo car and it has an advantage over the "Chevrolet". However, I think that it is clear that "Chevrolet" is now faster than the "Vauxhall" and "Ford Focus" and BMW was significantly more competitive... so "Honda" are simply exploring their fast car. I do not think that it is right to equalize "Chevy" to "Honda" and leave the rest in dust. From what I see now, BTCC is producing the most entertaining race on Earth, we have four different cars winning races and very dramatic finishes. That's why I am against for more changes, for now.
And while I do not like statements like the one Mr. Plato made after Race 2, in no way this diminish my view of him as a driver - possibly the best torung car driver, actually. Best luck in races!

Well said :) .... A few of the drivers might disagree with the closing statement though :D

[cali]

Wasted? I wouldn't say that. But as a governing body you can't just promise things like equality without backing it up somehow. Just going "Oh they are a little bit fast, give them some weight or a restrictor" is not the way to run a professional racing series.

Oh yes, I agree with you but I think this method will be very expensive, nothing else.

[Alfa Fan]

So the 0.05 bar change that was suspended last time has been introduced. Will be interesting to see what effect that has at Croft. What people seem to forget is that even if TOCA do go a little bit to far towards NA cars, they can always change back! I seriously, seriously doubt we'll see any meeting this season where the NA have a comparable advantage to that enjoyed by the turbo teams at Donington.

[inimitablestoo]

And even if they do, you can bet they'll still be whining...

[BDunnell]

And even if they do, you can bet they'll still be whining...

Which I'd again say isn't really the point. Forget the way the point is made by some of those protesting. Their objections are factually correct. Equivalency is an absurd concept, but it was promised, and therefore should be delivered. Watching the Oulton rounds again highlighted how it hasn't happened yet.

[Allyc85]

Is this for every turbo car then? Seems harsh on teams like Dyno Jet and RAR that are struggling for speed that they have the same penalty as the ones with seemingly too much!

[BDunnell]

Is this for every turbo car then? Seems harsh on teams like Dyno Jet and RAR that are struggling for speed that they have the same penalty as the ones with seemingly too much!

I don't see how such a measure could be enforced for some turbo teams and not others. That would be truly farcical, as if the situation isn't farcical enough already. But such is the rod TOCA has made for its own back.

[Andrew Webster]

BTCC :: Dunlop MSA British Touring Car Championship (http://www.btcc.net/html/generalnews_detail.php?id=2466&month=0&year=2011&form=&searchterm=)

"So the 0.05 bar change that was suspended last time has been introduced." nope if you read the above ..'The above revised boost limit is in addition to that advised in CB16, which remains suspended. The Administrator continues to reserve the right to promptly implement the previously notified revision, to individual cars (in accordance with CR 1.11.2.a), at any time during the course of an event if/when deemed required and given that the 24hr notice period provided-for in the regulations has previously been communicated.'

Absolute joke!

[Alfa Fan]

Yawn. We're not getting into the semantics of which 0.05 bar boost reduction has applied. Move along.

[Andrew Webster]

Yawn. We're not getting into the semantics of which 0.05 bar boost reduction has applied. Move along.

Rather an important point, Yawn, Keep up....

[Jason Plato]

Master Andrew Webster, do yourself and everyone else a favour and go back to page 1 and read and more importantly UNDERSTAND what are the facts. Your argument is totally and utterly worthless. It's fine to not support me, really it is. Just get a grip on reality.

[Bezza]

Dear All,

In an attempt to stop the ridiculous totally inaccurate banter that frequents the forums, would you all please read and understand the following facts before making any further silly posts. You are all perfectly entitled to have your own opinions, however these must be based on facts rather than total bias to whoever you may or may not be supporting.

1. There were NO equivalency regulations regarding the Turbo Diesels in 2008. Those regulations had been available for any team or manufacturer to adopt years prior to 2008.
SEAT Sport believed they could gain an advantage and invested many millions over many years developing the Diesel engine. I repeat, there were NO equivalency regulations in place.

2. Turbo Diesels have been banned in the BTCC from 2009 because of the performance advantage they have.

3. TOCA made a promise to all the teams and drivers prior to the 2011 season that there will be performance parity between turbo and normally aspirated engines for the 2011 and 2012 BTCC seasons. One of the main reasons for this was asset protection. For the 2013 season onwards, the performance of the turbo engines will be turned up and normally aspirated engines will become uncompetitive.

4. The definition of Parity is: [Encarta English Dictionary]
1. Equality - equality of.
2. Similarity between things - the quality of being similar or identical.

5. The BTCC Series Director stated publically on 21st April …
“This year all NGTC engines (turbo) have a significantly revised turbo system, which has changed their engine performance/characteristics.” When compared to 2010.

6. The Series Director stated publically on 18th April …
“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”

7. The teams that have not adopted turbo engines early (before 2013) have every right to demand performance parity. It has been promised by TOCA prior to and during the 2011 season.

8. As a professional driver, with many years of BTCC experience, I have a duty to myself, my team, my sponsors and investors to make complaint when promises and/or agreements are not being honoured. I also, as a human being, have the right to respond to unfounded public criticism.

9. If there had been NO promises of performance parity between the two engine types by TOCA I would have no complaint.

For the record, if my complaints and opinions which are based on facts and data (of which a fraction of, I have shared with you above) has caused offence, then as a gentlemen I apologise. However, I trust that if you read and understand the above points you will agree, I have a very valid complaint.
I hope this will put an end to the churlish forum banter.

Sincerely,

Jason Plato

I fully agree with you, JP - but four rounds in to the championship I think the damage has already been done.

However, you need not worry, as Shedden and Neal clearly love crashing into each other!

[Allyc85]

Hitler turns into Jason Plato on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/25207852)

Bit of fun ;)

[inimitablestoo]

4. The definition of Parity is: [Encarta English Dictionary]
1. Equality - equality of.
2. Similarity between things - the quality of being similar or identical.

Having given this some thought, I think it hinges upon which of these definitions Chairman Gow decides to follow. There is, after all, no argument if two things are equal; they are either equal or they are not. But how similar are two similar things? And how similar do they have to be before they're too similar? And perhaps most importantly, can you really draw a reasonable conclusion between two things and their similarity (or otherwise) when one of those things is already loaded up with ballast before you start?

I offer up again my fair and equal solution: everyone run a non-turbo engine and a turbo engine. Weld them together, and you've got a V8. Now honestly, who could complain about that? :D

[m.lowe]

to the keyboard warriors on here don't shoot me down, but what mm restriction is there on these turbo cars?
Just thinking in rallying between the S2000 engine and Group N4 cars of Mitsubishi and Subaru where they run a 33 mm restrictor.

How much difference is there in the GM / Vauxhall vectra engine in construction (non turbo engine)
if it is very similar then if it were possible to borrow a turbo vectra engine, put it in the Cruze and compare it against a Honda.

Going back to the Seat and Mr Plato don't shoot me down but that did have an advantage as it was a turbo car
Can I ask as I cannot remember if there was any complaints about that car back then please.

Team AON did have an advantage last year and worked within the rules and that kept getting penalised.

If the Honda is to be restricted then cars like Andrew Jordans and others should be too as they have the same chance as everyone winning should others retire and fall by the wayside.

Mr Plato does RML have plans to turbocharge their cars for the future

If this cannot be resolved for this year then next year it should be decided either all cars have or don't have turbos and then lets see how equal they really are
or even bring in the 1.6T engine for quality sooner

[m.lowe]

This year I have started to watch more BTCC since last year and I have enjoyed it despite whats under the bonnet and with ©Platogate as there are times I didn't agree with his way as the same as Matt Neal. This is not a personal thing against them only what happens in the sport.

I feel its better to say what you think rather than people wondering what you think.

I feel that IF its all down to one man re Alan Gow what will happen to a turbo engine if they keep messing with its set up and it goes bang the cost to the team would be a lot and would Mr Gow compensate a team or would a team be able to take action against Mr Gow.

If what Jason is saying is right then the rules should be made clear and simple in English (translations available for anyone other than english to be pc) :-)

[Daniel]

Hitler turns into Jason Plato on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/25207852)

Bit of fun ;)

Whilst I had to say I had a bit of a chuckle at that, Jason is right. Parity was promised and parity hasn't been delivered.

I think there's a very poor attitude on this forum regarding people who quite rightly complain when what was promised isn't delivered. What should Jason do? Stand there grinning like a halfwit while others have a performance advantage that TOCA PROMISED would not exist?

Any joker like Andrew Webster who seemingly has an axe to grind can sign up on the forum and make Jason out to be a whiney so and so when his complaints are perfectly legitimate. Whether TOCA should have promised parity when everyone knows that the characteristics of a turbo engine and a normally aspirated engine are so different that you can't really produce parity to the point where both engines will have the same performance over the length of a track.

[m.lowe]

you can't really produce parity to the point where both engines will have the same performance over the length of a track.

The FIA are trying to do this with the regs on R4 cars against S2000 as the R4's have a different restrictor this year

[Daniel]

The FIA are trying to do this with the regs on R4 cars against S2000 as the R4's have a different restrictor this year

Well it's easier in rallying as the cars are (usually) never racing each other on the stage :)

I should have qualified my statement by saying that for cars racing each other on a track you can't really produce parity to the point where both engines will have the same performance at all points on the track.

[m.lowe]

My point being if people want to compare qualifying and lap times of the cars then the stage times of rally cars will show how much advantage or disadvantage a car has over its rival on either a track or a stage in the same conditions

[BDunnell]

Whilst I had to say I had a bit of a chuckle at that, Jason is right. Parity was promised and parity hasn't been delivered.

I think there's a very poor attitude on this forum regarding people who quite rightly complain when what was promised isn't delivered. What should Jason do? Stand there grinning like a halfwit while others have a performance advantage that TOCA PROMISED would not exist?

Any joker like Andrew Webster who seemingly has an axe to grind can sign up on the forum and make Jason out to be a whiney so and so when his complaints are perfectly legitimate. Whether TOCA should have promised parity when everyone knows that the characteristics of a turbo engine and a normally aspirated engine are so different that you can't really produce parity to the point where both engines will have the same performance over the length of a track.

If it transpires that TOCA has achieved some form of parity this weekend at Croft, as qualifying seems to indicate it might, that's probably the best we can hope for. Artificial it may be, but such is the situation that's been created. And, as I've said over and over again, those who have taken against the way Jason has voiced his objections should simply forget about him and re-consider the matter. The factual basis of his complaint is exactly the same as has been made by Dick Bennetts, and I don't think it can be faulted.

[Daniel]

If it transpires that TOCA has achieved some form of parity this weekend at Croft, as qualifying seems to indicate it might, that's probably the best we can hope for. Artificial it may be, but such is the situation that's been created. And, as I've said over and over again, those who have taken against the way Jason has voiced his objections should simply forget about him and re-consider the matter. The factual basis of his complaint is exactly the same as has been made by Dick Bennetts, and I don't think it can be faulted.

Well as with any complaint by a driver, people will view it differently depending on which driver it is, just like people react differently when someone on here criticises a certain driver. I criticised Lewis Hamilton for his efforts in Canada and Monaco and suddenly I'm a Lewis-hater. Now had I criticised Algesuari I doubt anyone would accuse me of being a hater.

Can't people have an opinion just because it's their opinion and not because they have some sad vested interest in criticising some driver on a forum? Can't Jason merely have his view because it's his view? Heck, to someone like myself who doesn't follow the BTCC religiously, it makes a crapload of sense if what he's said is true.

[m.lowe]

You certainly can have a view "criticise" a driver for what he does on track when you are watching a race is one thing
Its when people get personal thats another issue be it BTCC, rallying or whatever sport

Regardless of who a driver is or what they acheive I just want to see them all racing

[F1boat]

If it transpires that TOCA has achieved some form of parity this weekend at Croft

True. Any more restrictions will be gross. Now cars seem really close to each other. And I admit that it is nice to see fast BMWs. And Honda won again :)

[Robinho]

i think today has proved that there is parity (or close to) in lap times between the top s2000 and top NGTC engined cars, but that this does still translate into a racing advantage for the NGTC engined cars as it makes them very difficult to overtake and makes it easier for them to overtake others. That said both MacDowall and Plato both managed to get past turbo cars today, especially in the last race, but what appeared to be the faster BMW's never got a genuine overtaking opportunity in race 3 against Jackson as come the braking zones he was always several car lengths ahead. The restriction brought in for croft have brought the field closer together, and croft certainly suits a powerful car as there are some long drags from slow corners

[BDunnell]

i think today has proved that there is parity (or close to) in lap times between the top s2000 and top NGTC engined cars, but that this does still translate into a racing advantage for the NGTC engined cars as it makes them very difficult to overtake and makes it easier for them to overtake others.

Yes, agreed.


That said both MacDowall and Plato both managed to get past turbo cars today, especially in the last race, but what appeared to be the faster BMW's never got a genuine overtaking opportunity in race 3 against Jackson as come the braking zones he was always several car lengths ahead.

And, I'd add, because Collard never gave Jackson a tap going into the hairpin, which he could quite easily have done.

[Robinho]

i thought Collard drove brilliantly today

[Allyc85]

I think he has been driving well all year, you can certainly see hes getting everything out of the BMW.

[Andrew Webster]

Whilst I had to say I had a bit of a chuckle at that, Jason is right. Parity was promised and parity hasn't been delivered.

I think there's a very poor attitude on this forum regarding people who quite rightly complain when what was promised isn't delivered. What should Jason do? Stand there grinning like a halfwit while others have a performance advantage that TOCA PROMISED would not exist?

Any joker like Andrew Webster who seemingly has an axe to grind can sign up on the forum and make Jason out to be a whiney so and so when his complaints are perfectly legitimate. Whether TOCA should have promised parity when everyone knows that the characteristics of a turbo engine and a normally aspirated engine are so different that you can't really produce parity to the point where both engines will have the same performance over the length of a track.

Steady on I havent made Jason out to be anything, he did that himself! I have no axe to grind and I am entitled to my opinion thank you. My argument would be the same REGARDLESS of which driver was acting this way. Do you read anything else other than this forum? Have a look at the official BTCC page on facebook and the comments left on there by FANS. You might be shocked at peoples opinion.

Everybody happy now that the NA cars are quicker than the turbos? propably not. Indeed Plato when interviewed said "well we are quick in the corners" implying that he still isnt as quick on the straights when he set the fastest speed in the speed trap and had pole!!! amazing.

Had to chuckle at all the sly digs through the paddock - Jordans helmet sticker, Jacksons comments etc

[Andrew Webster]

i think today has proved that there is parity (or close to) in lap times between the top s2000 and top NGTC engined cars, but that this does still translate into a racing advantage for the NGTC engined cars as it makes them very difficult to overtake and makes it easier for them to overtake others. That said both MacDowall and Plato both managed to get past turbo cars today, especially in the last race, but what appeared to be the faster BMW's never got a genuine overtaking opportunity in race 3 against Jackson as come the braking zones he was always several car lengths ahead. The restriction brought in for croft have brought the field closer together, and croft certainly suits a powerful car as there are some long drags from slow corners

??? The NA cars were more difficult to overtake than the turbo cars! The BMW's were all over Jackson, could Shedden catch the BMW's? Jackson was quicker one half of the circuit and the BM's were quicker the other half, they were touching bumpers through the second half of the circuit both under braking and through the corners.. which race were you watching? If Plato hadn't have had mechanical problems I have no doubt he would have been in the top 3 for all 3 races which would have put at least 3 NA cars in the top 5 for each race.

The turbo cars qualified slower than they did last year. The only driver/car to beat their time from last year and go quicker....... Plato.

[MrJan]

I think we're fairly close with the new restrictors, probably about as close as we'll get. But the issue is still there because of the characteristics of the engines. The turbos pull away along the straights and then the NAs make it up in the tighter stuff. There was a reason why Jackson was quickest to Sunny out, it's because it's the quick part of the circuit. Then out of the hairpin you could see he still had a bit on the BMWs.

Top drive for Foster though, definitely deserved getting that 2nd place as he didn't get shaken once he let Collard through. For what is effectively an 'old boy' ploughing in some cash to enjoy himself (a la John George, Shaun Hollamby et al) he's certainly got some pace, and getting better all the time.

Tough weekend for Plato though, knocked from pillar to post in all three races.

[BDunnell]

Top drive for Foster though, definitely deserved getting that 2nd place as he didn't get shaken once he let Collard through. For what is effectively an 'old boy' ploughing in some cash to enjoy himself (a la John George, Shaun Hollamby et al) he's certainly got some pace, and getting better all the time.

One in the eye to those — including me, on occasion — who have denigrated the current BTCC line-up as being too full of amateur/gentleman drivers. Foster's drives yesterday in races two and three were every bit as good as anyone else's, and much better than many.

[Eurotech]

The turbo cars qualified slower than they did last year. The only driver/car to beat their time from last year and go quicker....... Plato.

Yeah thats cos the Chevy is 25kgs lighter than last year. duh.

[cali]

Yeah thats cos the Chevy is 25kgs lighter than last year. duh.
And someone biased poster above does not yet seem to understand the difference of these two engines ... oh dear ... he is still talking about speedtrap numbers ... I guess acceleration/torque does not mean nothing then

[I am evil Homer]

You can't equalise torque...the engines just have different characteristics as the diesel engines did vs the petrols. I think as it stands we're about as equal as it's going to get.

[Andrew Webster]

And someone biased poster above does not yet seem to understand the difference of these two engines ... oh dear ... he is still talking about speedtrap numbers ... I guess acceleration/torque does not mean nothing then

Your expertise in mechanical engineering was obviously learnt at the expense of your english. Would you like to explain and express an opinion rather than an attempt at wit?

[Daniel]

Perhaps English isn't his first language?

[Andrew Webster]

Perhaps English isn't his first language?

A good point, and if so then I apologise for that comment. It would be nice for the torque point to be explained though :)

[Robinho]

if you manage to equalise the engines then you HAVE to equalize the handling of the cars also. never going to happen. on a circuit quite favourable to power the S2000's were thouroughly competitive. in the twisty stuff they will murder most of the turbos

[Daniel]

if you manage to equalise the engines then you HAVE to equalize the handling of the cars also. never going to happen. on a circuit quite favourable to power the S2000's were thouroughly competitive. in the twisty stuff they will murder most of the turbos

I think the point is that parity shouldn't have been promised in the first place if it weren't possible.

[BDunnell]

if you manage to equalise the engines then you HAVE to equalize the handling of the cars also.

I'm not sure why.

[Mark]

I believe the promise was to equalise the engines, not the cars.

[BDunnell]

Precisely.

[Daniel]

why?

[BDunnell]

Because clearly equalising the cars is an impossible task, even more so than is equalising the engines.

[Daniel]

No, I mean why equalise engines but nit the whole cars performance?

[Alfa Fan]

Because its a competition!

[Mark]

No, I mean why equalise engines but nit the whole cars performance?

Because the promise was that na engines will not be at a disadvantage compared with the turbos. It's up to the team or manufacturer to make a good car.

[Daniel]

Because the promise was that na engines will not be at a disadvantage compared with the turbos. It's up to the team or manufacturer to make a good car.

But the engine's performance is only evident when it's on the track in a car. You can't simply hook up an engine to an engine dyno and somehow magically ensure parity. The different ways in which the cars develop power means that's simply not possible.

[Mark]

Why not?

[Daniel]

Why not?

Have you ever driven a petrol turbo engined car and then compared it to a car with a revvy high powered naturally aspirated engine? They're two totally different things! They develop power in completely different ways.

[AndySpeed]

If the car performance and engine performance were matched a huge number of people would lose interest as the series would be no different to the MINI challenge. Stop going off on one Daniel...

[Daniel]

If the car performance and engine performance were matched a huge number of people would lose interest as the series would be no different to the MINI challenge. Stop going off on one Daniel...

Jeez calm down there dearie. So how do you feel that this magical parity should be achieved then?

[BDunnell]

What was a reasonably sensible discussion on the actual issue of engine parity seems to have gone down a decidedly silly avenue now.

[Daniel]

What was a reasonably sensible discussion on the actual issue of engine parity seems to have gone down a decidedly silly avenue now.

I don't see why? I think the discussion of how NA and turbo engines deliver their power is very relevant? The problem is that you can make it so two cars can do the same lap time but one car may be "racier" on certain tracks than the other car.

[BDunnell]

I don't see why? I think the discussion of how NA and turbo engines deliver their power is very relevant? The problem is that you can make it so two cars can do the same lap time but one car may be "racier" on certain tracks than the other car.

So what?

[Andrew Webster]

The only way there could ever be parity would be if all the cars were all supplied from a single supplier with sealed ecu's etc just like the clio cup. Is that what anyone wants in the BTCC? I think not. What we like to see and expect to see is different cars, be it down to FWD v RWD, Turbo v NA, Wheelbase differences etc all performing differently on different tracks. Certain cars suit certain tracks, certain tracks suit certain drivers, a weak showing from a team one weekend then changes to a strong performance the next weekend etc etc. The big problem with all the tinkering is that one teams gain is another teams loss, it is impossible to please everybody.

[F1boat]

The only way there could ever be parity would be if all the cars were all supplied from a single supplier with sealed ecu's etc just like the clio cup. Is that what anyone wants in the BTCC? I think not. What we like to see and expect to see is different cars, be it down to FWD v RWD, Turbo v NA, Wheelbase differences etc all performing differently on different tracks. Certain cars suit certain tracks, certain tracks suit certain drivers, a weak showing from a team one weekend then changes to a strong performance the next weekend etc etc. The big problem with all the tinkering is that one teams gain is another teams loss, it is impossible to please everybody.

Well said!

[Daniel]

The only way there could ever be parity would be if all the cars were all supplied from a single supplier with sealed ecu's etc just like the clio cup. Is that what anyone wants in the BTCC? I think not. What we like to see and expect to see is different cars, be it down to FWD v RWD, Turbo v NA, Wheelbase differences etc all performing differently on different tracks. Certain cars suit certain tracks, certain tracks suit certain drivers, a weak showing from a team one weekend then changes to a strong performance the next weekend etc etc. The big problem with all the tinkering is that one teams gain is another teams loss, it is impossible to please everybody.

Then surely you must agree that the promise of parity was a silly one :)

I quite agree with you that different configurations make for interesting competition and I wish the rules were written in such a way that it allowed for variety rather than just cars which are usually more or less the same configuration.

[Andrew Webster]

Then surely you must agree that the promise of parity was a silly one :)

Indeed! Thats what I have been saying all along :) All the crying and moaning in the world will never make the cars equal. Even the same engine in two different cars will result in some perfomance difference be it handling or acceleration.

[PDS]

Indeed! Thats what I have been saying all along :) All the crying and moaning in the world will never make the cars equal. Even the same engine in two different cars will result in some perfomance difference be it handling or acceleration.

FINALLY!!! Now we have an agreement. A bit slow on the uptake guys..

Although Alan Gow has been seen to walk on water, even the BTCC cannot produce Miracles!!

Interesting interview in this weeks Autosport with Ian Harrison at 888.

It seems he is pissed that 888 are, like other 'turbo teams', stuck in the firing line with all this turbo reduction and weight issue between the top NA car (Chevrolet) and the top turbo cars (Honda).

Also, in his opinion the Swindon Engine (AKA the official TOCA lump) is being left behind in the development wars...

[Daniel]

Indeed! Thats what I have been saying all along :) All the crying and moaning in the world will never make the cars equal. Even the same engine in two different cars will result in some perfomance difference be it handling or acceleration.

But Jason is right to complain then :)

[Andrew Webster]

Interesting interview in this weeks Autosport with Ian Harrison at 888.

It seems he is pissed that 888 are, like other 'turbo teams', stuck in the firing line with all this turbo reduction and weight issue between the top NA car (Chevrolet) and the top turbo cars (Honda).

Also, in his opinion the Swindon Engine (AKA the official TOCA lump) is being left behind in the development wars...

Maybe he should have a paddy in the pit lane and demand Alan Gow comes down to explain :D

[inimitablestoo]

I assume we're not allowed to use a certain other phrase Ian came up with on this, a family forum? ;)

[PDS]

I assume we're not allowed to use a certain other phrase Ian came up with on this, a family forum? ;)

Yeah.. I thought it was very well put!

[Andrew Webster]

Not much complaining from Chevrolet in the WTCC

Are Chevrolet really boring us? - Can I race it?... (http://neilhudson.typepad.com/blog/2011/06/are-chevrolet-really-boring-us.html)

"But for 2011, Chevrolet will win the championship, in the same way Red Bull Racing would utterly dominate in Formula 1 if you took out Ferrari and McLaren. Expecting anything but Chevrolet domination this year in the World Touring Car Championship would be ludicrous. If the FIA did peg the Chevrolets back so the pack would catch them, as is done in some other championships, it would be moving too much 'sport' from motorsport and veering it too much towards motor-entertainment, which isn't fitting from an 'FIA' and 'World' class championship. "

[Robinho]

apples and oranges though. Did the WTCC organisers promise the 2l NA engines and other 1.6 turbos would be equal with the works chevvies?

[F1boat]

Not much complaining from Chevrolet in the WTCC

Are Chevrolet really boring us? - Can I race it?... (http://neilhudson.typepad.com/blog/2011/06/are-chevrolet-really-boring-us.html)

"But for 2011, Chevrolet will win the championship, in the same way Red Bull Racing would utterly dominate in Formula 1 if you took out Ferrari and McLaren."
Even with Ferrari and McLaren, RBR are doing a fine job, at least for now xD

[MrJan]

So how do you feel that this magical parity should be achieved then?

By using clever people and maths/science bods that know more than the numpties (myself included) on this forum? It's way beyond me and, I suspect, everyone else, but what I am capable of determining is when parity isn't being met....although I still think that Croft was about as close as we'll get.

[F1boat]

Croft was OK. No more changes, please...

[Andrew Webster]

Croft was OK. No more changes, please...

Your request was ignored :( :( :(

[F1boat]

Your request was ignored :( :( :(

Well, I won't bother with the BTCC anymore, obviously the organizers are very biased. Pity that there is only one ETCC race per year, looked like real fun.

[AndySpeed]

Shh, I was enjoying all of the peace and quiet over the summer...

[inimitablestoo]

It's a shame the racing returns next weekend. It rather detracts from the excitement of miniscule differences in engine performance being made to try and inject some much-needed excitement into a once-great series :rolleyes:

[F1boat]

It's a shame the racing returns next weekend. It rather detracts from the excitement of miniscule differences in engine performance being made to try and inject some much-needed excitement into a once-great series :rolleyes:
:D