BTCC 2007 - rumours (merged)

after listening to an interview with Ian Harrison on crash.net , it was quite interesting in a few points that he came up with:

-that the s2000 regulations are technically weaker than the BTCC regs that they are replacing
- there is absolutely no inscentive to run a third car, even if someone with the budget came along
- that he expects quite a few btcc-spec cars out there next season, including what looks like the Sport Hatches running again



I have to say with point 1 though, is this resentment caused by the fact that Seat now have a head start whereas previously Vauxhall have been the team to beat, or are the new regs really that bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cookingfat

One will have BTCC experience and the other has a very rich dad!

---

Can I suggest the rich dad one could be Max Chilton?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tin-top fan

after listening to an interview with Ian Harrison on crash.net , it was quite interesting in a few points that he came up with:

-that the s2000 regulations are technically weaker than the BTCC regs that they are replacing
- there is absolutely no inscentive to run a third car, even if someone with the budget came along
- that he expects quite a few btcc-spec cars out there next season, including what looks like the Sport Hatches running again

I have to say with point 1 though, is this resentment caused by the fact that Seat now have a head start whereas previously Vauxhall have been the team to beat, or are the new regs really that bad?

---

How did Ian come to pretty much all three points? Especially points 1 & 2. Though I do agree with point 3. Techspeed are rumoured to be running the Sport Hatches but are likely to continue with the Astra Coupes. In what way is the S2000 regs weaker than the BTCC weaker and how is there no incentive to run three cars?

Re the point about possible resentment, as a SEAT fan of course I am gonna say yes because VXR are our only works rivals, but I really do think that. Certainly I get the impression he is edgy about his chances in 2007.

[quote="tin-top fan"]after listening to an interview with Ian Harrison on crash.net , it was quite interesting in a few points that he came up with:

-that the s2000 regulations are technically weaker than the BTCC regs that they are replacing
- there is absolutely no inscentive to run a third car, even if someone with the budget came along
- that he expects quite a few btcc-spec cars out there next season, including what looks like the Sport Hatches running again


In the interview, Ian Harrison made no mention of which Championship the Sport Hatches will run in, so don't jump to any conclusions - he merely talked about potential customers and the sales process is moving along.

With reference to the "strength" of the S2000 regs, I think his frustrations lie more in their apparent ambiguity. It's difficult to argue they are technically inferior as we have seen the SEATs always on the pace, so even if the tech regs can be interpreted in a number of ways, it obviously also provides a broader framework wo work within to modify and develop the parts and get them working at their best. Previously BTCC teams had rules specifying exactly what components were required, now the base car and how this can be modified seems a far more important variable.

Just seen SEATFreaks' post.

Think the decision of number fo cars to run to remain at 2 is based on the fact hatt only 2 cars can score manufacturer (and team?) championship points. However I think 3 would still prove beneficial on points scoring if one car got taken out for example. However there is also a cost element to work in there which ultimately I guess is what it comes down to

it would be cool to see astra gtc's in 2007 ( i hope for o'neill and smith !! )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEATFreak

In what way is the S2000 regs weaker than the BTCC weaker and how is there no incentive to run three cars?

---

Listen to the interview and he'll give you the answers.

I do see his point, as the rules are quite vague when it comes to certain items like suspension. I blame BMW anyway. The ETCC was going to adopt the BTC-T rules until they stuck their considerable oar in and made them use a modified Super Production formula instead, which suited them. I fear costs going through the roof again with S2000 and teams spending more money to make the best of what base car they have, especially those which are really not best suited to racing.

I have a document I can go to in order to get the difference in size between BTC and the S2000 cars and guess on that whether the S2000 cars would peform better, so what is the fundemental differences between the BTCC rules and the S2000 rules?

Is it much like the WTCC where there is the presence of different types of evolutions and variants? Would a Group N BMW 320i say in the WTCC which has to comply with say the evolution of the type (ET), (I am assuming means a car which has to have all the components that relates to that evolution of 320i), also comply with a BMW 320i in the BTCC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain

Listen to the interview and he'll give you the answers.

I do see his point, as the rules are quite vague when it comes to certain items like suspension. I blame BMW anyway. The ETCC was going to adopt the BTC-T rules until they stuck their considerable oar in and made them use a modified Super Production formula instead, which suited them. I fear costs going through the roof again with S2000 and teams spending more money to make the best of what base car they have, especially those which are really not best suited to racing.

---

That's a very good summary of the situation. :up:

I am sure that costs will rise, because they always do and there isn't much that can be done to stop them. Some manufacturers will always spend more than others, and given that it's basically impossible to impose a budget cap that covers every aspect of a team's operation, there is really no way in which championships can prevent these situations occurring. Look at the example of Alfa in the 1994 BTCC — one team exploited the regulations to their maximum extent, spent a lot of money on winning the championship and thereby forced the hand of the powers-that-be when it came to the technical regulations. That had the knock-on effect of pushing everyone's budgets up and, in the end, killing off Super Touring.

As for those teams with inherently less suitable base cars, the example of Chevrolet shows that they can still enter the WTCC and get given certain breaks to render the car competitive, rather than just face the consequences of running an unsuitable machine (as happened with such as the Mazda 323F and Renault 19 in the BTCC).

Could this be the way that Clyde Valley run Chevies in the Championship next year? http://www.motorsportads.co.uk/race-...cars/7489.html (thanks for the link Iain :D )