Touring Car discussion - WTCC, BTCC etcTouring Cars

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

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.

There was abit more too it than that Some of the body panels were made of special "thin" metal and some panels were "smaller" than they should have been.

 

[Strittan]

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.

I don't think I've ever claimed them to be more "proper" than any other touring cars, but I do think they're the most awesome ones that has raced on this planet.

To better demonstrate the difference in exterior mods, I made a quick photoshop of how the 2012 Toyota Avensis could look if the ST regulations were still present.

There was abit more too it than that Some of the body panels were made of special "thin" metal and some panels were "smaller" than they should have been.

Thinner metal, sure, but same shape as stock. What were these "smaller" panels?

Call me blind, but I can't spot any difference from the original cars, apart from the modified front quarters, the rear spoiler and the splitter added to the modified stock bumper. Mind helping me?

 

[Strittan]

DP, sorry...

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Thinner metal, sure, but same shape as stock. What were these "smaller" panels?

Call me blind, but I can't spot any difference from the original cars, apart from the modified front quarters, the rear spoiler and the splitter added to the modified stock bumper. Mind helping me?

RML sold one of their works nissans at the end of the 90's to a privateer team. During testing the car got damaged meaning it needed a new windscreen and door which they duly got from a Nissan dealer. They tried to fit them to discover the roof had been lowered so the panels and windscreen wouldn't fit.

 

[Ardius]

I don't think I've ever claimed them to be more "proper" than any other touring cars, but I do think they're the most awesome ones that has raced on this planet.

To better demonstrate the difference in exterior mods, I made a quick photoshop of how the 2012 Toyota Avensis could look if the ST regulations were still present.

I still believe there were more adjustments to the car than simply lowering it and sticking splitters and wings on it. As I said before some of the bigger teams did take these cars to windtunnels and presumably made adjustments to some of the bodywork.
Look at the splitter area - the bodywork on many of the cars had to be extended like on the 1997 Ford Mondeo. As you have done here with the Avensis - doesn't this constitute a "body kit"?

Hmm, and the only difference I see here with NGTC is a bigger rear wing, a smaller splitter and the exhaust coming out of the side....so much for ST looking all that much different.

I never said you claimed they were proper touring cars - do not put words in my mouth. Just because you are the one debating doesn't mean everything I talk about refers to you. There were people earlier in this thread however, who were saying this and its something I've heard quite often in the past.
My point is not that you are saying any of this, its that other people have this opinion and I don't agree with it - I don't see these huge differences and I don't think the racing was all that much better except that the drivers and teams involved were better quality. I feel like I've repeated this multiple times now.

The reason we got onto the looks of the cars is because I felt there isn't all that much difference between ST and then S2000 and NGTC. So for people then to be saying the ST look was better or that the series is heading towards DTM is quite an extreme opinion - in my opinion. Especially as the true touring cars look is like I kept saying - in the 60s/70s.

 

[Strittan]

Look at the splitter area - the bodywork on many of the cars had to be extended like on the 1997 Ford Mondeo. As you have done here with the Avensis - doesn't this constitute a "body kit"?

In my opinion, no, because it's only the front.

I never said you claimed they were proper touring cars - do not put words in my mouth. Just because you are the one debating doesn't mean everything I talk about refers to you. There were people earlier in this thread however, who were saying this and its something I've heard quite often in the past.
My point is not that you are saying any of this, its that other people have this opinion and I don't agree with it - I don't see these huge differences and I don't think the racing was all that much better except that the drivers and teams involved were better quality. I feel like I've repeated this multiple times now.

You are the one making a big thing out of this. All I ever said was that I wished ST would return. Then you came about and started the debate.

 

[Ardius]

Indeed I did start the debate - your point? And actually you did more than say you wanted ST to return, you started responding to my posts, which is natural for a debate. I don't really see what you are trying to say here, yes I came in and stated my position and opinion and yes people responded - thats what I'm here for! I'm not saying people can't have their own opinions, I'm saying I don't agree with them and explaining why! Having to repeatedly explain why though makes me feel like my posts aren't being read properly and people are missing some of the points I'm trying to make.

Anyway, if you feel that only changing the front is not a bodykit...then why is it different for changing the sides? The only major difference for NGTC is that the cars are wider and have extended wheel arches. If this is a bodykit but extending the front is not, why?

I don't really see it as a huge difference - and your respsonse to this was to refer to ST cars as having no bodykits..implying you feel there is a huge difference in appearances.
We're not exactly talking the difference between say a current Formula 1 car and a 90s F1 car are we? Or the difference between an LMP and a Group C car? Or to be more relevant - the difference between a DTM, SuperGT, V8 Supercar and a BTCC NGTC car?

 

[Pezzarinho17]

Sorry this is mid debate, but can someone give a brief summary of differences between the S2000 body shape and the NGTC body regs?

 

[homeforsummer]

The reason we got onto the looks of the cars is because I felt there isn't all that much difference between ST and then S2000 and NGTC. So for people then to be saying the ST look was better or that the series is heading towards DTM is quite an extreme opinion - in my opinion. Especially as the true touring cars look is like I kept saying - in the 60s/70s.

I'd agree with you. Really, any BTCC car between around 1995 and 2000, then post-2005 ish has been very different from the road car in terms of bodywork, and all touring cars after about 1991 have been very different in terms of construction.

There's certainly a lot more work to the bodies of Supertouring than Strittan is implying. His photoshop is nice, but a look at any ST car will reveal that the front and rear splitters were vastly different to the road car bumpers, and the wheelarches were increased in size hugely. This is most evident from a look inside the car - to accommodate the 19" wheels a lot of work was needed on the arches.

Pre-95 Supertourers were externally very similar to the road cars - down to the bodywork, bumpers and everything, though they still had major work done to the chassis and engines were relocated in most of them too. Post-98 Supertourers were most different - most had front arches virtually up to the bonnet line, and the most aerodynamic addenda.

Pre-supertouring were pretty close to the road cars, though obviously still highly tuned. A look at an old Astra GTe or BMW M3 reveals how similar they were. Post-supertouring were externally quite close - with a few bits of plastic stuck on the outside of the cars to make them look a bit more racy - but by this time the engineering was still quite different, and during the supertouring era we'd seen drivers move further back and further towards the centre-line of the car.

If we were to see any return to Supertouring, my preference would be for 94 and previous styles, where dedicated aerodynamic devices were banned (with homologation, a la Alfa and Renault, being the only way to stick a wing on the back of the car).

That's not entirely true...

Quite. Two of the most successful supertourers ever - the Mondeo and Laguna - were 5-door hatchbacks (at least, the Mondeo was in 2000 when it was most successful in the BTCC).

 

[Liquid]

If we were to see any return to Supertouring, my preference would be for 94 and previous styles, where dedicated aerodynamic devices were banned (with homologation, a la Alfa and Renault, being the only way to stick a wing on the back of the car).

I would love this. Watch the 1992 season review to see the cars flying all over the place. Aerodynamics make overtaking much harder.

Homoglation is what started killing the STs. That Alfa 155 Silverstone was the start of a very expensive road.

 

[homeforsummer]

To be fair to Alfa, although it was their fault for starting the ball rolling, from 1995 onwards the aero stuff had nothing to do with homologation anyway, it was all dedicated aero devices.

 

[TheCracker]

Bring these days back



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

Those days still exist daan

 

[Liquid]

To be fair to Alfa, although it was their fault for starting the ball rolling, from 1995 onwards the aero stuff had nothing to do with homologation anyway, it was all dedicated aero devices.

This is true, because the aero packs were permitted in 1995, but the point was that Alfa used the homoglation rules to get the ball rolling.

It worked for a time; 1995 was a fantastic season. As was 1996 when Biela wasn't winning (8 wins from 26 races). 1998 was also a good year. Costs simply got out of control, hence 3 cars per team in 2000. Shame really, because the ST was my favourite era of touring cars.

---

Go to 3:46. Anyone who knows their supertourers will know what is wrong with the sound at that point.



Why on earth does that Renault have a Volvo engine?! No wonder it fails at 5:10, it's fitted to the wrong car!

 

[Strittan]

I still stand by my opinion that the Super Tourers are far more similar to the road cars than the S2000's. That's just my opinion though, and I respect yours.

 

[daan]

Those days still exist daan

Do you not run on new (grippier) tyres though?

 

[homeforsummer]

I still stand by my opinion that the Super Tourers are far more similar to the road cars than the S2000's. That's just my opinion though, and I respect yours.

You're welcome to your opinion, though its validity varies hugely depending on which STs you're referring to. Very early 1990s ones, yes, probably more similar than current touring cars are. Late 90s cars, not even slightly. If you've had a poke around different generations of touring cars it's clear to see which bits are road car and which bits are race car and there's very little road car in a late 90s ST.

 

[TheCracker]

Do you not run on new (grippier) tyres though?

Pretty much so. We use the same Dunlops CR65's as they used back then - or at least they're made with the same molds and crossply carcass construction. The actual physical make-up of the rubber may be more contemporary, as rubber technology has obviously advanced since then. But they probably offer only a little more grip then they did back in the day. We're also required to run the same diameter and width of wheel that the cars were homologated with back in the day.

But the vid you posted looks to be from the very late 50's, so is a slightly earlier era, and the tyres may have moved on between then and the early 60's that our regs are based on.

 

[Strittan]

You're welcome to your opinion, though its validity varies hugely depending on which STs you're referring to. Very early 1990s ones, yes, probably more similar than current touring cars are. Late 90s cars, not even slightly. If you've had a poke around different generations of touring cars it's clear to see which bits are road car and which bits are race car and there's very little road car in a late 90s ST.

I'm talking about 1995 to 1998 (In 1999 they cut the front wheel archs up, which I didn't like too much.) This is my favorite era of BTCC, and any other Touring Car Championship for that matter, and I think the bodies, not the whole car, but the bodies themselves look more stock than the S2000 cars. The main reasons being the larger rear spoiler and the wide bodykits on the S2000 cars. Again, I'm talking about the bodies and the bodies alone, not the wheel sizes, not the ride hight, not the interior, not the drive train, not the suspension, but the bodies. I'm sorry if I haven't made this clear earlier, but I thought it was obvious.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm sorry if I haven't made this clear earlier, but I thought it was obvious.

That makes more sense now. Though I'd say that if looking similar to road cars is your bag, then the 92-94 supertouring cars were even truer to their road-going counterparts. 95 is where they gradually started getting silly and by the end of the decade they were pretty wild.

To illustrate, 94 vs 95 vs 99 BTCC Lagunas. 99 illustrates the very much non-standard wheelarches! 94 is basically completely stock on the outside:

Always had a soft spot for that generation Laguna thanks to the BTCC.

 

[Liquid]

That 1995 Laguna is just sex.

 

[Tom]

That 1995 Laguna is just sex.

I'm having a crisis...

 

[Strittan]

That makes more sense now. Though I'd say that if looking similar to road cars is your bag, then the 92-94 supertouring cars were even truer to their road-going counterparts.

I know, but that's not my bag actually. For some reason I think the '95 - '98 look more awesome. I think it's the mix of the stock and race look.

To illustrate, 94 vs 95 vs 99 BTCC Lagunas. 99 illustrates the very much non-standard wheelarches! 94 is basically completely stock on the outside:

Those pictures also demonstrates what I've been trying to say all the time (Eventhough I may not have made it clear enough.) That the '95 - '98 ST's looked the same as the pre-'95 ST's, except for the front bumper/splitter and the rear spoiler = more stock looking bodies than the S2000 cars in my opinion.

And yes, those are the ugly wheel archs I meant. I guess they did that so that it would be easier to change tires. Most of the cars were FWD anyway, and they'd usually just change the front tires on pit stops.

 

[Strittan]

If I had to pick a favorite year I'd say 1998, because of Rydell's BTCC title and Bathurst 1000 win. Both in the Volvo S40. 1995 was a pretty good year as well, with an amazing 13 poles for Rydell in the Volvo 850. If he'd not been as horrible in the starts as he was, who knows how many wins and championships he could've gotten.

Rydell's and Harvey's 1995 850 had one of the best liveries BTCC has ever seen IMO.

 

[homeforsummer]

That 1995 Laguna is just sex.

I prefer the 94 car. The pic above doesn't do it justice (the 94 BTCC vid does though). Also have a soft spot for the (not pictured) 97 car, mainly because I started following Menu when he started in the series and the 97 car was his title-winner.

 

[Liquid]

I prefer the 94 car. The pic above doesn't do it justice (the 94 BTCC vid does though). Also have a soft spot for the (not pictured) 97 car, mainly because I started following Menu when he started in the series and the 97 car was his title-winner.

Coincidentally I was watching the 1994 season today. Production based Laguna is so badass. But the livery is too bare for me, from the front. 1995 gets the nod on the liveries. Blue/Yellow as opposed to Yellow/Blue.

I also liked the 1998 livery, the first of the Nescafe Green/Gold schemes. I thought it looked great.

 

[Sureboss]

See now, I prefer the 99 Laguna, but that's probably just because of the livery rather than owt else, even with those wheelarches the livery just seems to make it work.

 

[Liquid]

1999 is just too plain for me. It has one or two sponsors, but not many because they knew Renault were pulling out. On the other hand, the Arena International independent Laguna of 1999 is one of the best looking plain liveries of all time.

Evolution of the Laguna

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1998 - Independent

1999

1999 - Independent

 

[Strittan]

The '96 is my favorite Laguna, followed closely by the '98. The green/gold combo is pretty damn sexy I have to say, but it would look much better without the big yellow area on the bumper. They should've made the "RENAULT" lettering yellow instead.

 

[Tom]

'95 and '96 are pure sex.

 

[Strittan]

Will Hoy taking you behind the scenes at the Williams Renault back in 1995. 👍

​