Touring Car discussion - WTCC, BTCC etcTouring Cars

[Ardius]

Some more pics of the BTCC grid:

Some truly brilliant liveries to go along with the dreadful ones. Although to be honest, its only really the MG livery that looks awful to me - I don't mind Gilham's traditional green and pink (stands out at least!) and while some of the designs and patterns are poor (the VW Golf in particular), I don't dislike them as mcuh as the MG.

Rob Austin's Audi still looks the best car by far in terms of the car's bodywork design as well as the colours and design of the livery. I also quite like the face-lifted Toyota Avensis. Proton looks pretty smart too.

 

[nitrorocks]

The black Vauxhall is looking pretty good amongst the others.

 

[Prince.M5]

I much prefer last year's livery for the Proton. What happened to Marriot?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Some truly brilliant liveries to go along with the dreadful ones. Although to be honest, its only really the MG livery that looks awful to me - I don't mind Gilham's traditional green and pink (stands out at least!) and while some of the designs and patterns are poor (the VW Golf in particular), I don't dislike them as mcuh as the MG.

Yeah, the MG one is horrible (though I do like the car). I'm not really a fan of the #43 Binz design, either. Even without my colour-blindness, the green and pink Gilham design is a monstrosity.

That said, I do like the Welch Proton, Jackson's Focus, and Morgan's Avenesis. And you haven't linked to it, but Andrew Jordan's Pirtek Civic looks great, too.

 

[Strittan]

Oh how I wish they could bring back the Super Touring regulations. 4-door saloons only, stock width, aero kits in form of front spoiler and rear wing only, 19" wheels and slammed.

 

[Liquid]

I agree. I'd love for super tourers to come back, but it was a cost issue. By the time the regulations were scrapped in Britain, there were just 3 teams and 2 independents, so they made 3 cars per team and introduced Class B to make the grid bigger.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Actually the super tourers hated the 19' and slammed aspect as this slowed them down.

It was done purely for the marketing aspect.

 

[Liquid]

It all took a major turn when Alfa Romeo arrived in the UK with their 155 Silverstone special and the adjustable spoilers. Production-based touring cars have never been the same since.

This is in comparison to silhouette 'touring car' racing like Class 1 DTM/ITC, which had much more technology

 

[Strittan]

Actually the super tourers hated the 19' and slammed aspect as this slowed them down.

It was done purely for the marketing aspect.

From a driver's perspective, the Super Tourers seems more exciting to drive, judging by Jan "Flash" Nilsson's reaction at the end of this video anyway. He is driving in the STCC and were driving this S40 back in the late 90's.

​

Eventhough they may be a fraction slower, they're still miles more awesome than the touring cars of today.

 

[Clark]

Will continue supporting my local driver in this awesome looking Civic.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Oh how I wish they could bring back the Super Touring regulations. 4-door saloons only, stock width, aero kits in form of front spoiler and rear wing only, 19" wheels and slammed.

This.

I'm not liking the "DTM look-a-like" changes that seem to be happening.

 

[Furinkazen]

BTCC Thread created for 2012 by yours truly.

 

[Ardius]

Why do people keep referring back to the Super Tourers as "proper touring cars"? Wasn't that the start of the move away from converted roadcars to outright prototypes with bodyshells? ST was when huge racing organisations such as Williams and TWR came in and started propelling the costs skywards giving it an F1-inspired focus on developing down to the tiniest parts for the smallest advantage.

I'm not particularly sad that the ST days are long gone because they were never sustainable and were no where near as good value for money as today's BTCC. The past couple of years I've felt the BTCC has easily matched the quality of action and racing we got in the 90s even if the quality of the drivers and the teams still might not be as good.

I rather like that the series is focusing on making itself cheaper to run and attempting to remain good value for money. I completely disagree with the DTM remarks seeing as we still get good racing and the aero of the cars is no where near the ridiculous-ness of that series! And at least the cars still look pretty close to their roadcar equivelants whereas DTM cars look almost nothing like them!

 

[CodeRedR51]

I completely disagree with the DTM remarks seeing as we still get good racing and the aero of the cars is no where near the ridiculous-ness of that series!

For now. Seems to be heading that direction though.

 

[Ardius]

When they start putting uber-diffusers, splitters and hundreds of winglets on the cars, you might have a point. But simply giving them a bigger spec-rear wing and a wide-body kit is not really anything like heading towards DTM..

 

[Strittan]

Why do people keep referring back to the Super Tourers as "proper touring cars"? Wasn't that the start of the move away from converted roadcars to outright prototypes with bodyshells? ST was when huge racing organisations such as Williams and TWR came in and started propelling the costs skywards giving it an F1-inspired focus on developing down to the tiniest parts for the smallest advantage.

I'm not particularly sad that the ST days are long gone because they were never sustainable and were no where near as good value for money as today's BTCC.

You're right about the cost, and that's obviously why the ST cars disappeared, but it was also what made them so awesome. The fact that an F1 team like Williams were building touring cars is inspiring in my opinion.

The Williams Renault Laguna is one of my favorites from this era. Touring cars will never look this bad*** again.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Especially in that colour scheme. 👍👍👍👍

 

[Ardius]

Fair enough if you like it (I liked it at the time and I like current BTCC so its no difference to me) but its hardly a "proper touring car" - to me a proper touring car is a car that has almost no changes from its roadcar version....i.e. going back to the 60s/70s era when it was literally just the car with some slight tuning for racing and a straight fight between Mini Coopers, Jaguars, Cortinas and various American muscle cars.
But ST era was no more proper than todays cars are - after all the current S2000 regulations are merely an evolution of ST and NGTC is a slight twist making some of the parts, spec parts. So I don't really where this grand difference is beyond the teams being much bigger and more expensive..which is something that I don't really care for in touring cars.

International sportscars, open wheel and rally can keep their super-teams with massive budgets. I rather like the touring cars being mainly a bunch of small teams fighting for their own little championship with less interference from big names and manufacturers. Seems friendlier this way and less cold and professional all the time.

I don't see any difference in the looks of the cars either - seeing as they are mainly dictated by the styles of their era. I'm starting to think most people that bang on about the ST days are merely being nostalgic rather than actually seeing any real difference. I too loved the ST cars but I don't agree with this seemingly popular mentality that the current cars somehow look inferior.
I understood and agreed with people back in the early 2000s when the BTCC was pretty dire - back then it was easy to say the ST era was a golden era. But nowadays I can barely agree at all, we are currently witnessing some fantastic racing and the grid is pretty damn strong!

 

[CodeRedR51]

Fair enough if you like it (I liked it at the time and I like current BTCC so its no difference to me) but its hardly a "proper touring car" - to me a proper touring car is a car that has almost no changes from its roadcar version....i.e. going back to the 60s/70s era when it was literally just the car with some slight tuning for racing and a straight fight between Mini Coopers, Jaguars, Cortinas and various American muscle cars.
But ST era was no more proper than todays cars are - after all the current S2000 regulations are merely an evolution of ST and NGTC is a slight twist making some of the parts, spec parts. So I don't really where this grand difference is beyond the teams being much bigger and more expensive..which is something that I don't really care for in touring cars.

I think the ST cars look closer to a road car than the new stuff.

 

[Strittan]

I don't see any difference in the looks of the cars either - seeing as they are mainly dictated by the styles of their era. I'm starting to think most people that bang on about the ST days are merely being nostalgic rather than actually seeing any real difference.

The Super Tourers were all 4-door saloons, were stock width and had no body kits.

You're telling me this Civic fits into that description?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Nope!

 

[nitrorocks]

Still a good looking car.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

The Super Tourers were all 4-door saloons, were stock width and had no body kits.

That's not entirely true...

 

[Ardius]

I think the ST cars look closer to a road car than the new stuff.

The Super Tourers were all 4-door saloons, were stock width and had no body kits.

You're telling me this Civic fits into that description?

Chevrolet Cruze, Chevrolet Lacetti, Vauxhall Vectra, Seat Toledo, MG ZS, Lexus IS200, BMW 320i, Toyota Avensis, Audi A4, Vauxhall Insignia....
These are all 4-door saloons. Again, I don't see why touring cars have to be 4-door saloons to look good though or for them to be proper touring cars. There is nothing wrong with hatchbacks or coupes. Just as there wasn't 40 years ago when we had Minis and Mustangs.

As for "no bodykits" . I'm sure the stock Laguna came with those skirts, splitters, spoilers...

I still don't see this massive difference that makes ST look closer or better to the roadcars. Only the recent NGTC regulations have really started to change the look with these wide body kits and slightly bigger spec-spoilers. But even this isn't such a big difference that it makes the cars un-identifiable with their roadcar counterparts.

 

[daan]

Bring these days back



Jaaaaags on skinny tyres going sideyways all the time and being steered by the throttle.

 

[Liquid]

Bring these days back

I wouldn't mind Group A. That Nissan sounds fantastic.



Andy Rouse at a track day in his old Sierra. Straight past the Porsche and Subaru.

 

[Strittan]

Again, I don't see why touring cars have to be 4-door saloons to look good though or for them to be proper touring cars. There is nothing wrong with hatchbacks or coupes. Just as there wasn't 40 years ago when we had Minis and Mustangs.

I'm aware they haven't always been 4-door saloons, but the fact that they were in the 90's is perhaps part of the reason it's considered the "golden era".

As for "no bodykits" . I'm sure the stock Laguna came with those skirts, splitters, spoilers...

I wouldn't go as far as saying a front splitter and a rear spoiler is a bodykit, but I guess you do.

I still don't see this massive difference that makes ST look closer or better to the roadcars. Only the recent NGTC regulations have really started to change the look with these wide body kits and slightly bigger spec-spoilers. But even this isn't such a big difference that it makes the cars un-identifiable with their roadcar counterparts.

That's your opinion. To me there are quite big differences.

 

[Ardius]

For a car to use a splitter and spoiler effectively..it helps if you have a bodykit to go with it. There were quite visible differences on the ST cars and they did have bodykits - the lower ride heights were not just suspension setups but also extended front, side and rear-ends.
Thanks to the super-budgets of the big teams, they took the cars to windtunnels and developed the bodywork rather than simply slap on the splitter and rear wing and have at it.

 

[Strittan]

For a car to use a splitter and spoiler effectively..it helps if you have a bodykit to go with it. There were quite visible differences on the ST cars and they did have bodykits - the lower ride heights were not just suspension setups but also extended front, side and rear-ends.
Thanks to the super-budgets of the big teams, they took the cars to windtunnels and developed the bodywork rather than simply slap on the splitter and rear wing and have at it.

As far as I know they just modified the original front quarters (bended them) to fit the large wheels. Sure, the splitter and spoiler were probably adjustable, but they are still just a splitter and spoiler, and not a bodykit. Seems to me that you just want to turn a blind eye to the differences because you personally are against ST or something.

It's all a matter of opinion. I personally love the idea of ST, big budgets and manufacturer teams, while you obviously don't. I also think the touring cars of today would look miles better if they reintroduced ST, but that is not likely to ever happen, because it's simply too expensive, unfortunately.

 

[Ardius]

I'm not against ST, I in fact said I wasn't bothered whether we had either regulations and I grew up with those cars!
But I don't understand this popular opinion that ST was the be all and end all of BTCC and that it seemingly can never hope to meet that standard. And I still don't see this big difference in appearances except the cars being mostly sedans in the 90s and the now mandatory wide-body designs.

You are right that I don't like big budgets and manufacturers though - and the resason is BTCC 2001...when the manufacturers have had enough spending ridiculous amounts all we are left with is a series that requires huge budgets to win but barely anyone competing.

ST did take the BTCC from no live coverage to full live coverage (even now live qualifying coverage!) and propelled it into an internationally-watched sport (though no where near like V8 Supercars, DTM or SuperGT..it is at least viewed abroad). For this I can't deny ST was a very good thing for BTCC. But I don't really agree with people saying it was "proper touring cars" and that it is the target for all future iterations to meet.