Printable View
Or how about people open their eyes and look. Any idiot can see that the turbo cars are clearly much quicker out of corners and along the straight, it was even noticeable at Brands where the straight is relatively short.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Webster
Agreed! Its not fair, and needs sorting.Quote:
Originally Posted by barryfullalove
They reduced the boost on the turbo before Thruxton and there was a measly 2mph difference! You really think they should penalize them even more? What happens at the tight twisty circuits? Yes the cars weigh the same but the weight distribution on the turbos is more over the front which ain't good for the tyres, the torque out of the bends ain't good for the tyres and the lack of engine breaking ain't good for the breaks! I recon a small 2mph advantage on the fastest circuit in the country (which we won't be visiting again till next year!) is already a big enough price to pay!
Equivalency formulas don't work. Period. See F1 in the late turbo era, up against the 3.5s, for that. And indeed the CART/USAC years of the Indy 500, when they tried to run two sets of rules. Frankly, TOCA should never have made the promise to keep things equal, because it's never going to happen.
Mind you, this series hasn't been about "pure" racing since about 1997, so it's difficult to read too much into any kind of data you might produce to prove/disprove any argument. Qualifying times aren't necessarily the best indication, and straightline speed isn't either - race pace and tyre wear need to be taken into account. And with things like success ballast and reversed grids (two of modern motor racing's desperate measures to improve the "show", along with mandatory tyre stops, which the BTCC no longer does) trying to gauge accurately what the real performance levels are is difficult.
If anything, TOCA should have either mandated the turbo for everyone, or set up a two-class structure; the halfway house of the moment just looks like a desperate attempt to fill grids. I like the variety of the series - we could do with a couple less one-make series on the support package, but that's an issue for another time - but the "catch-all" mentality of the moment seems to be creating its own problems. I imagine it won't be long before the BMW squads are pleading for their first gear issues to be sorted out too, as they're going nowhere this season.
Better still - give everyone a V8. That'll stop the complaints on all levels ;)
Oh, and commiserations Jason on tonight's Fifth Gear. Beaten by a turbo again...
Brands.... 2 wins out of 3 for Plato.... no argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by barryfullalove
And any idiot can read the fact that both MacDowell and Plato set fastest laps in 2 of the last 3 races. Plato couldnt be caught. Fact. Look at race wins. Its not hard to work out that if Plato hadnt been punted off or had a puncture he would be up with the leaders in terms of points.
Is Tom Onslow-Cole moaning or is he getting on with developing his car.....
Sadly, there are too many people who won't even listen to the case for equivalence simply because it's Jason Plato who is making it. Maybe ITV should speak to Rob Collard, Paul O'Neill, Dick Bennetts or Marvin Humphries about it, because they're all affected too - probably more so.
Brands Indy curcuit is a short lap and the the turbo's only really had a significant advantage between Clearways and Paddock Hill. On a longer lap (like Thruxton) the turbo advantage is far greater. Expect Brands (Indy) and Knockhill to be the only circuits where the turbo's won't have as great an advantage.Quote:
Brands.... 2 wins out of 3 for Plato.... no argument.
The fastest cars through the finish line speed trap at Brands, in qualifying and all three races, were ALL of the turbo's except Tom Onslow-Cole and the two Toyota's (and, in race 1, Matt Neal, who was eliminated before reaching the speed trap). Fastest non-turbo wasn't even Plato - it was Rob Collard, 10th in race 3 at 126.1mph, 2.5mph quicker than his fastest in 2010 but 4.5mph off the pace of the fastest turbo this year and slower than the likes of Liam Griffin, Jeff Smith and Tony Gilham. Last year, only Tom Onslow-Cole, in the turbo LPG Focus, was quicker through that speed trap, at 127.1mph. This year, 127.1mph would have been, at best, 9th fastest (in qualifying), Gordon Shedden being fastest of all at 131.6mph in races 1 and 3. All of the leading non-turbo drivers went faster through the finish line speed trap than in 2010 - Plato's best was 2.5mph faster, MacDowell 1.4mph faster, Collard 2.5mph faster and O'Neill 1.6mph faster than he was in the Integra and 1.8mph faster than Plato was in the Cruze. But all were eclipsed by the turbo's.
Plato qualified 3rd - arguably, that would have been 4th had Gordon Shedden been able to participate in the session. You don't have to overtake anyone in qualifying!
Race 1, Plato got lucky when Matt Neal was eliminated on the first lap and Gordon Shedden was starting from the back. Once in front, Plato is good enough to stay there - but he needed the luck to get there in the first place.
Race 2 - Plato started from pole with Shedden two rows back and Neal right at the back of the grid . As Plato has said, once in front he can stay ahead of the turbos. It's passing them that's the issue.
Race 3, and with a reverse grid, Plato has 5 turbo cars ahead of him. He and Rob Collard both make better starts than Shedden, who gets back past Collard on lap 3. Plato makes up a place only when Jordan drops out, holds off Shedden for 16 laps but finally Flash got past. Neal wins from pole, never headed. And Paul O'Neill becomes the only non-Turbo runner except Plato to get onto the podium in 2011 - again, benefitting from the reverse grid.
TOCA promised equivalence, so there is absolutely no argument that RML, WSR, Geoff Steel and TechSpeed "should have got a turbo". Come 2013, the turbo's will have it all to themselves. Until then, Mr Plato, like him or hate him, is making a very valid point on behalf of ALL of the non-turbo teams!
The point has already been made but I'll repeat it anyway. IF the difference was noticeable on Brands then any circuit with a longer straight it will be obscene. When we get to the likes of Snetterton, Silverstone and even Oulton we'll see the difference on the straights will put the turbo cars well ahead. The only reason that Plato could win and get fast laps at Brands was because the majority of the track is a corner of somesort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Webster
And the reason that AmD are just getting on with developing is because they know that their car is a bit ****, whereas we all know that the Chevvy is a very strong car...at least for an N/A
Has everyone already forgot about the 0.1 bar reduction in boost for the turbos before Thruxton? Figures from Brands are now totally irrelevant! A 2.2mph advantage, at the fastest track in the country, for Neal over Plato is nothing and will be even less at every venue left on the calendar! How much more of a handicap do you want imposed on the turbos just to keep Plato happy? Much more and it'll be the turbo teams walking and we'll be left with a few Cruzes and a couple of beemers! To be honest I'd rather see all the na teams pull out than continuously begging back the best cars on track and stop holding back the progress of the cars that are ultimately the future of the BTCC!
You seem to be ignoring the main point, which is that equivalency, like it or not, was promised, yet has not truly been delivered. Even a cursory glance at each round so far shows that it is all but impossible for the normally-aspirated cars to actually race the turbos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce-1980
The Thruxton top speed issue isn't a proper comparison as the the Hondas were certainly on the rev limiter well before the end of the back straight. Turbo cars have more of a torque advantage than bhp so gain the advantage in the first part of the straights.
I didn't agree with Jason last year when he complained about the LPG turbo Focii (??) being too fast as it only related to a couple of cars and it was clear from the races that they might have more speed on the straight bits for whatever reason they soon suffered from tyre degredation and became sitting ducks near the end of races.
This year it is completely different, and agree that Jason's points are more than valid, - the majority of the field are turbo cars and there are a significant number with well sorted chassis (Honda and Vauxhall) that are able to preserve grip for most if not all of the race. It is clear as BDunnell says that it is impossible for the naspro cars to race the turbo cars and it was specifically written into the championship that there would be equivalence.
I don't really know what the solution is as further limiting boost negates the whole point of turbocharging in the first place - maybe fuel should be limited but the decline in driving standards and omni-present safety cars make that unworkable.
As above, equivalency formulas don't work......
Time to get a NGTC engine Jason.............and send the bill to Alan Gow
WT