New vs Old

[V6.]

How much slower are the current cars compared to the old ones? The current ones have no aero package but what other differences are there cos its very hard to tell when your watching.

[John]

I reckon the brakes will be less efficient than ST cars, gearboxes are now standardised arent they?

Also the engines need to last a long time now (because of the rules and the fact you can lose points) so will be more reliable but less powerful than their equivalents in ST because they only needed to last a weekend (or a race) as there was no punishment for changing engines every weekend.

[John]

Also if anyones interested I've looked up the pole positions for Croft over the last few years. Worked back from 2002 but realised when I got back to 1997 I should have picked a different circuit because Qualifying was washed out, however I picked Croft because there havent been any circuit changes since it was reopened and there is only one layout (unlike Oulten) so any differences are down to the cars or the weather conditions:

1997
No qualifying

1998
1m 21.984
1m 22.454

1999
1m 21.459
1m 21.028

2000
1m 20.920
1m 20.517

2001
1m 26.171
1m 25.920

2002
1m 25.511
1m 25.267

Average for ST is 1m21.394
Average for 'new look' is 25.717

Difference is 4.3s

[touringlegend]

4.3 seconds aint damn bad at all a difference, considering the length of Croft. Visually noticing a difference between ST and BTCT would be hard I would think.

[John]

Thats what I thought - 4.3s out of a 1m20 something lap isnt very much at all (considering the difference in regs and costs).

[thommo_fan]

the new cars visually move around a lot more on the track.
they've also got about 30bhp less then a st

[John]

Standardised rear wings on the new cars (which I guess is part of the aero package mentioned already)

[touringlegend]

Which just shows everyone why ST died...they spent so much money on tiny improvements that made them fractions of seconds quicker per lap...

[thommo_fan]

i prefer the new cars because the racings better now than in the last few years of ST.

[bramble]

give it a few more years and i'm sure the times will be even closer.

[John]

Would be interesting to compare with the early STs (ie 1991/92) and with the old GpA Sierras - but obviously cant do that with Croft as it wasnt used back then and other tracks have had layout changes / modifications.

Any idea what to try? Snetterton might work, but I cant be sure whether its the same as it was in the late 80s??

Thruxton is the other suggestion but it was resurfaced in the late 1990s which reduced laptimes by a fair bit.

[touringlegend]

The last corner at Snetterton was different up till about the end of 1987, but apart from that I can't think of any other changes to the circuit. :)

[John]

Might give that a go then next time Im bored!! Unfortunately it requires trailing through the review videos from 1996 and before unless someone has an easier way of getting info like pole times and/or fastest lap times from that time period? :rolleyes:

[The Stig]

Is there a TOCA Tour website archive ?

[John]

Dunno if I dare say this on here - but I dont think its that good. Only goes back to 95 and only gives the final championship tables. I've collated more info than that already but not got information for specific races prior to 1997 yet - working on it though!

[touringlegend]

Only back till 1995 though, not sure if it has lap times etc.

[AussieV8]

This is quite strange as we are talking about this same topic on the V8 site.

[Mocko]

Mind you, the Super T's were knocking on the doors of GT2 cars.

2000: ST- 1:20.157
2002:GT2- 1:19.425 (2nd-TVR Cerbera)
2002:GT3- 1:21.194 (GT3 Pole-Porsche 911)

What took pole for the BTCC... a Mondeo? A Mondeo faster than a Porsche 911?!?

By the way, the Super T's of 2000 had 320 BHP that's 50 BHP difference. Who said that the BTC-T's didn't look visually slower? WHAT?!?!? Watch the cars crawling up the Knockhill front straight and you'll see how tediously slow they are. The BTC-T's track is too big for one to spin and they are too slow. Still lovely racing though.

[McKay]

Why was there no 1997 qualifieing at croft? how did they make a grid!

[John]

It was a bit damp up here in 97 so Qualifying was washed out.

They based it on championship order - so Menu got 2 poles

[John]

Originally posted by Mocko
What took pole for the BTCC... a Mondeo? A Mondeo faster than a Porsche 911?!?

Rydell I would think without looking it up.

[V6.]

Originally posted by Mocko
The BTC-T's track is too big for one to spin
Wondered why they never seem to loose it despite having no proper aero.

[touringlegend]

Been watching the 1989 review today and Snetterton was still different then, not sure when the last corner was changed. :s

[John]

Oh. What's different about it? Cant say I've noticed it being different on the reviews?

I did notice the absence of a bridge at the end of the Revett Straight on one of the reviews though.

Out of interest did you notice the times?!

[V6.]

Dont know if they changed it but on the vids ive watched recently revits straight looked a bit dangerous cos from the footage it looks like if you spin to the left you go into the trees:(

[touringlegend]

The difference is at the chicane at Snetterton.

Instead of being hard on the brakes for a very sharp right, followed by a left of the same sharpness, it used to just kink right, then left, which made the cars much quicker over the line.

[John]

Never noticed that - will keep a look out next time.

so...... looks like Thruxtons where the experiment is going to have to be undertaken then?!!!

[AussieV8]

The old are just exciting as the new. I remember the days of the turbo Seirra how they blu the V8's away at Bathurst but when they used to blow a turbo that was awesome.:)

[McKay]

The bridge moved from after the Esses to just before them. Thats the only change i noticed. That happened 1997? Does anyone know why?

[Alan]

Right then John.

Thruxton 1995, May 6/8 (it says?)

Qualifying poles - Round 5 Alain Menu 1:18:262

Round 6 James Thompson 1:18:229

Does that help?
Plenty more where that came from!

[John]

Thanks Alan - heres 97-99
Will post 00-02 next but if anyone can fill in blanks please do so!

1997:

1st visit
1:16.850 - Menu (Renault)
1:16.538 - Menu

2nd visit
1:16.341 - Rydell (Volvo)
1:16.392 - Thompson (Honda)

1998:

1st visit
1:15.603 - Rydell (Volvo)
1:15.786 - Rydell

2nd visit
1:15.916 - Rydell
1:15.492 - Reid (Nissan)

1999:

1st visit
1:16.105 - Rydell
1:15.798 - Rydell

2nd visit
1:15.100 - Rydell
1:15.408 - Rydell

[John]

Ok heres 2000 - 2002

2000

1:13.048 - Muller (vauxhall)
1:12.680 - Plato (vauxhall)

Class B
(1:22.022 - Morrison, Pug)
(1:21.686 - Morrison, Pug)

2001

1:17.508 - Plato (vauxhall)
1:17.611 - Plato (vauxhall)

Production
(1:21.275 - Harrison, Pug)

2002

1:16.567 - Muller (vauxhall)
1:16.369 - Muller (vauxhall)

Production
(1:22.837 - Kaye, Honda)
(1:22.465 - Kaye, Honda)

[Alan]

Qualifying times for 1996 @ Thruxton:

Round 5 - 1:16.676, Frank Biela, Audi

Round 6 - 1:16.820, Joachim Winkelhock, BMW

Think that is the missing year, but not sure what this proves.

Also they resurfaced the circuit in 2000 or 2001, and as I recall that affected the times (and caused less tyre wear?)

All we can really say is the new cars were about 5 seconds a lap slower.

Ho hum!

[speedy king]

2002 touring qualifying time is vertually the same as the ST in 1997 there

[bramble]

you could also say that they are about 5 years behind. thats not bad really, considering the rule changes.

[John]

I think the track was resurfaced in time for the 2000 round (which is backed up by the massive time reduction in 2000).

Here are some gaps having taken averages for each year:

From 95 to 99 the pole time decreased by 2.647s
From 99 to 00 the pole time decreased by 2.739s
From 00 to 01 the pole time increased by 4.696s
From 01 to 02 the pole time decreased by 1.092s

Class B/Production times are less clear
2000 average was 1:21.854s
2001 average was 1:21.275s (decreased by 0.579s)
2002 average was 1:22.651s (increased by 1.376s)

Presumably this increase is due to weather conditions or something, but it didnt affect the Tourers lap times - any ideas??

[thommo_fan]

shouldn't the 2000-2001 be an increase of 4.696s?

[John]

Well spotted! I'll edit it now!

[thommo_fan]

if the average pole time decreases by another second this year then the difference between 2000 and 2003 would only be 2.6.

and if my maths are right that would make the 2003 btc-touring car as fast as the 1999 super touer.

and last years btc-touring car was over a second faster then the 1995 super tourer.

thats very impressive.

[John]

Just come across some numbers from 1983 Thruxton Qualifying:

2501-3600cc class:
Steve Soper 3.5l Rover Vitesse 1:27.10

1601-2500cc class:
Jon Dooley 2.5l Alfa Romeo GTV6 1:31.69

upto 1600cc class:
Richard Longman 1.6l Ford Escort RS1600i 1:32.64


Seems quite a lot slower than the ST cars - anyone know if thats likely to be due to anything else apart from the cars (eg changed layout - presence of a chicane or something?)

[Reynard]

John, AFAIK the circuit layout at Thruxton hasn't changed between 1983 and now... I may be wrong, but help is at hand:

There is a book available called "Thruxton - the first 30 years", written by P Lawrence and published by TFM in 1997. It's ISBN No is 0-9530052-2-4

If you want to get your hands on it, Chaters has it in stock and it costs £12. It's an interesting little read (I don't have it though, but I've borrowed a copy on occasion) and it even has all the race results from each meeting held at the circuit up until 1996.

Hope this helps.

I think the difference in times is down to the cars and the technology available 20 years ago... ;)

[speedy]

AFAIK, the BTCC was mainly a privateer, (or team developed cars) series, up until around 1989 or so. Manufacturers didn't tend to run the teams themselves, or officially enter as such, it was down to teams to decide what cars to run.

When the tv coverage started, the series started to get noticed, and become more important - manufacturers wanted more involvement, and spent more on the teams, and on their own developments.

Plus, early 80's technology didn't include data logging, telemetry, sensors, fuel injection, etc that could make a car go faster!

[Reynard]

Ahem...

So, Speedy, how would you then account for the works Minis run directly by the British Leyland competitions department that were competing in the British Saloon Car Championship - the precursor to the BTCC - in the mid to late 1960s? (I'm a Mini nut so that's why I'm using this as an example)

I believe these Minis were pretty successful for quite a number of years, not just in class, but also overall... :) Names like Steve Neal, John Rhodes and Gordon Spice spring to mind...

There were also works Triumph Dolomites, works Jaguars, works Rover SD1's, works Fords, works BMWs, works Vauxhalls etc all well before 1989.

Of course there were privateer teams out there, but back then, the definition of "works" was different than what it is today - depending on the manufacturer. The feedback about the cars was a two-way process and privateer teams who showed good competitiveness were often brought under the works' wing and given access to the parts bin, making them effectively semi-works cars.

Even despite this sharing of resources, works or manufacturer-run cars have always competed in the BTCC since the earliest days for the reason that racing success in the primary national saloon car championship would guarantee both good sales figures for the stock road cars and those based on the racing version as well as plenty of publicity.

Even in today's manufacturer-based environment within the BTCC, you could argue that the "works" cars are not works cars because they are run by teams outside of the manufacturer's competition department e.g. Nissan and Ray Mallock, Vauxhall and Ray Mallock, Alfa Romeo and Prodrive, Volvo and TWR, Ford and RouseSport, MG and West Surrey Racing etc...

On occasions, manufacturers do see fit to run a BTCC team directly from their competitions department - like Vauxhall in 1989 and in 1995 for instance - and this is what I would personally be inclined to term as "works". But these days that is the exception rather than the rule...

Thought provoking?

[speedy]

I didn't mean there weren't any works teams - just that the impetus in the 70's and 80's came from the team rather than the manufacturer.

At least thats my understanding anyway. I'm probably wrong, but then I was'nt around in the 70's!

[Reynard]

Hokay, I see Speedy. No problems. I was knee high to a mars bar in the mid 1970s but then I bought all these Autosport back issues... (And I wonder why the hell my house is sinking)

Back then, it were the actual manufacturers and their respective competitions departments that had control over the way race car development went. They were the only ones with the real resources to do the necessary testing on new bits as there was far less sponsorship and general corporate involvement etc.

So non-works teams that wanted to compete, bought basic-spec race-ready cars direct from the manufacturer and as a result did not have to do any preparation and developement work themselves. All they needed to do was turn up and race. If they wanted to go faster, there was the option of buying extra bits from the official tuning workshop.

But the difference was, that the regulations governing the BTCC back then stayed in place for quite a long time in comparison to the current day and this allowed for the gradual developement of a car over time rather than the frantic R&D work done today and even more so in the Super Touring era. So basically a car could remain competitive over the course of five or six years or more as a result of regular but small modifications.

Though in the case of the Mini, the basic car remained the same, but every time they wanted to change the engine specs (and take body shell updates in to account), they had to homologate yet another version of the Cooper - which is why there are so many different ones: 997 Cooper, 998 Cooper, 998 Cooper S, 1071 Cooper S and 1275 Cooper S...

[Mocko]

According to a racingcircuits website on the net Thruxton has not changed since 1963!

:confused:

may just be the website

Anyway

Thruxton nowadays



Thruxton pre '63

[John]

Very interesting - any explanations behind the change of some of the corner names? (eg Hanger Rise to Brooklands)

[Mocko]

Maybe in honour of the worlds first purpose built race track: Brooklands.

[John]

You're asking for trouble with that!! ;)

Thruxton circuit was the same in the early 80s so that means in 20 years the time has dropped by about 15 seconds in very rough numbers. Which in even rougher numbers is about a second a year (which seems reasonable).

When will this stop? Presumably its not possible for times to continue to decrease at such a rate or in a few years they'll be lapping Brands Indy in 10 seconds!! (well maybe thats a slight exaggeration but where do you think times will stabalise?)

[John]

Found a load of 1992 data and.......

Round 2 at Thruxton the fastest times in qualifying were:
1:20.77 by Cleland in the Vauxhall in session1 and
1:21.60 by Rouse in the Toyota in session2

[Stuart]

Just to give you another benchmark, in 1989:
Dave Brodie 1:20.64 Sierra RS500 Cosworth,
Frank Sytner 1:23.86 BMW M3
John Cleland 1:24.58 Vauxhall Astra GTE
Tony Crudgington 1:28.35 Toyota Corolla

Although the Sierra's were chucking out 500bhp+ by the end of 1990, Andy Rouse reckoned a Super Tourer to be quicker over a lap because of the aero pack and Chassis development despite only hitting 320bhp at best.

As for Thruxton, if you didn't see Rouse on full opposite lock, foot flat on the floor, exiting the final chicane in his Cossie you missed a treat.

[John]

So the 92 STs were about the same speed as the 89 RS500s, thats very interesting. And thats before the major aero develpoments of 94/95.

Dunno what it shows - maybe how difficult the RSs were to drive, or how undeveloped they were in terms of lap time over horsepower/top speed??