Printable View
I understand there should be equivalence across the cars but when does the "advantage" of the turbo stop and the development/better car begin. Jordan was a mid field runner last year and this year he's up the front. He had a ngtc engine last year and it wasn't a problem but this year his car has moved on and now it's a problem. Surely it's unfair if it is partly down to having a better car to keep pegging it back until the chevrolet can keep up.
But in Jason's post he points out that Gow has admitted that the NGTC engine from this year is different from last year. Therefore the advances aren't all down to the chassis as the engine has developed a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwdvectra
And, again, equivalency was promised.
I'm truly shocked at how poor peoples understanding is of whats going on here. I can only wonder at how little the average fan trackside understands if this is beyond the grasp of people who post on internet forums about the series!
It was clear in the rules, that no matter how much development was done on NGTC engines this year, no matter how much more powerful they became, that they would be pegged in line with the S2000 rules that TOCA GUARANTEED would be in place until 2013. GUARANTEED. Part of the reason why teams were able to invest in S2000 machinery!
The S2000 teams DO NOT need to get NGTC engines. Not until 2013 at least. Imagine the NGTC cars were dominant this year and Frank Wrathall was running away with the championship? The other cars couldn't get near him and he was winning most races? Would you then say the other teams should have gone to NGTC?
What you've got to remember is, that every entrant is playing to set of rules they were told would be equivalent. Had it been the other way round and the turbo boost been set too low so as they couldn't get near the other cars, would everyone be happy with that?
It isn't about "the massive amount of work done by turbo teams over the winter", do you really think RML aren't capable? Do you really think RML have left lots of potential in the S2000 engines unused? It is clear to anyone who is willing to take a neutral view of the situation that the balance was wrong before Thruxton. Oulton Park will be the real test of whether they've got it right this time. But if Plato & O'Neill are 1-1.5 seconds off in qually again, then I'm afraid the answer is no. You could argue that Plato might be playing games, but then why would he have won at Thruxton?
If we look at the data published by Mr Plato and look closely at his past qualifying times then it is clear that he has always been off the pace at those races. How can anybody not see that??
To have had equivalency at these races would have put him in a stronger position than in previous years. True equivalency would have qualified him as he did last year and the year before, which is exactly what we got.
If Plato had qualified in pole in previous years for all 3 races I could see the argument, but he didnt, he is no stronger or weaker than in previous years.
To alter the rules again before Oulton would be madness.
The thing I don't like about equivalency rules, and your argument Andrew Webster, is this - what if on last year's lap Plato made a small mistake somewhere on his best run, maybe missed an apex or something, and didn't set an amazing time as a result. Then what if this year he absolutely nailed all of the corner apexes, put in what should produced a quicker lap, but the lack of a turbo holds him back slightly to set a similar time as last year despite the fact his lap was tidier, the car may be handling better than last year, etc.
"Equivalency" is bull****.
Then with a previous form of 9th, 1st, 4th, 3rd and 7th I would say he misses a lot of apexes :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
But that starts from the premise that 'equivalency' is even possible...i'd suggest it's probably not unless you want to change boost pressures from circuit to circuit to into account the track nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Wasn't the whole point of the NGTC regs to "Reduce reliance on WTCC/S2000 equipment, due to increasing costs/complexity and concerns as to its future sustainability/direction"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfa Fan
Even from the outset it was suggested that "the new engine will produce more power/torque," and that an unbranded engine would be available.
It's not like there was no forewarning either, the broad announcements were made mid-2009 and we're now two whole years later. Two years in a race car may as well be the whole entire life cycle of the car for a front running team.
http://www.btcc.net/html/generalnews...se&searchterm=
Wasn't one one of the points of the new-spec cars to get teams to migrate to the new regulations?
S2000 was guaranteed until 2013. The plan was and still is that after that date the NGTC spec will become more powerful. It was suggested that the engine would be more powerful, but would be RESTRICTED UNTIL 2013. I don't see what there is that if difficult to comprehend?
I think you vastly underestimate the expected life-time for touring cars. Look at the Vauxhall Astra Coupe (4 years), BMW 320i (4 years), SEAT Leon (6 years and counting), Chevrolet Lacetti (5 years), Vauxhall Vectra (5 years and counting), Honda Civic (5 years and counting).
It was announced as long ago as 2006 that Super 2000 cars would remain the top class of the BTCC until 2013. If you go back on the S2000 asset protection scheme, whose to say they wouldn't do it with the NGTC cars too, say in 2 years time a better formula emerges. Hypothetically TOCA decide cars can now use 2.5-3 litre engines as of 2013. Would you still be as happy with this? And think that everyone who has just invested in 2-litre versions should just scrap them and build brand new ones again?