So what exactly was wrong with the BTC-rules?

[Speed-King]

I never really cared much about this era of BTCC before, because when they raced according to these rules, I was still a DTM-fanboy and had no real way of watching the British series.

I stumbled across some pics of BTC-cars today and found they were not bad looking at all, and the videos on youtube aren't bad, either.
Actually it looked quite a lot like the early-millenium DTM with mostly coupés on the grid and big, but not yet insane rear wings and fenders.
So overall, I was rather impressed. Especially the Peugeot was a great looking car.

But when I read on here about these years, it seems like most people don't have fond memories of that era.
What's the reason for that? Lack of numbers and grids being filled by the production cars? Or just the come-down/withdrawal from the ST-era, that made look the then new cars kinda stupid?
Ironically, that's why ST never really caught on in Germany, as it just couldn't hold a candle to DTM/ITC.

[BootsOntheSide]

Launching the regs one year before the Super 2000 spec was always going to be a problem - it made far more sense for companies to develop a car within regulations which apply in multiple countries. In an era when a lot of car companies were merging, and many had achieved all the publicity they set out for when they joined the BTCC, it wasn't feasible to wait a year for the ETCC to finalise its regulations. Opening it up to WTCC cars ensured works SEATs plus a supply of BMWs and the odd Alfa and Chevvy - and the changeover hasn't caused established teams like Dynamics/Halfords or WSR/RAC to lose out.

[westfieldbend]

so the fact that the world championship runs to a set of regulation means everyone has to follow them... it make sense though, but why could WTCC just have cars to BTC spec, then nobody would have to change...

[Craner Curves]

The ETCC would have had similar regs, had BMW not insisted on pushing through the Group N+ regs, or S2000 as we know them.

[Bramzel]

I'm glad they did, I by far prefer the S2000 look over the BTC looks with their bulky sidepods.

What were the differences under the skin between the two? Why weren't the Honda Integra's from Halfords for example converted to S2000 rules as they were still very competative?

[redshoes]

It's all politics and timing. With SuperTouring dead and what was to become S2000 still some way off the BTCC had to do something new. At one stage it looked like the FIA's answer might not be that far from BTC but the manufacturers couldn't agree and S2000 kept getting delayed and changed.

The BTC early races were very short of cars and some of the non-works cars were quite frankly a joke. However we had a genuine 3-way battle between the Vauxhall drivers which was more than enough to make up for the lack of other cars. Personally I enjoyed the Super Production cars being there, their races were often better than the BTC guys.

Once MG and Honda got involved and the general level of preparation improved things got a lot better.

[Ed Peters]

Also, I believe that the basic components like brake calipers, suspension units, control units and so on were controlled and vetted by TOCA!

A lot of components are stamped with the TOCA logo!

[Jimmy Magnusson]

People didn't like those years because car counts were down. The rules would have been a success if the FIA hadn't gone and done their own thing a year later. There was nothing the BTCC could have done; ST was (sadly) failing and had to be replaced. The ESTC still had some life in it, and so it rolled on for another year. I'm not sold on the BTCC side pods and high rear wings, but beneath the skin they are much better than S2000.

[Craner Curves]

Originally Posted by Bramzel

I'm glad they did, I by far prefer the S2000 look over the BTC looks with their bulky sidepods.

What were the differences under the skin between the two? Why weren't the Honda Integra's from Halfords for example converted to S2000 rules as they were still very competative?

That would have cost far too much money to do, as very little was transferable from BTC to S2000.

[duke_toaster]

Differences?

BTC-T had more leeway for engine tuning, with about 300 rather than 280hp. However BTC-T cars were heavier.
BTC-T had a single gearbox for everyone, 6-speed seqqy I think.
BTC-T allowed coupes like the Integra.
The suspension rules where more liberal so they were less fragile.
Also, wheels were single bolt rather than S2000-style five stud ones like road cars. For that reason, BTC-T cars are only allowed to have one guy per side to change tyres and S2000 cars can have two.

I like the like of BTC-T, if S2000 goes they should consider something that's a bit more BTC-T in style.

[Sodemo]

I hated the look of the BTC cars.

They just looked "cheap". S2000 looks far more like what the ST era did, the rear wings on the BTC cars were frankly ridiculous.

If I recall correctly, at one stage the BTCC was seriously considering the new DTM rules instead of the BTC regs it eventually adopted.

[duke_toaster]

The BTC-T cars do look a bit marmitey, it is good if the cars look a bit outrageous/silly to make it more like motor racing.

If the BTCC was considering the DTM rules I wouldn't have thought it would fly : I wouldn't see Thruxton, Croft, Knockhill et al getting appropriate licences for the V8 cars, and the costs would go through the roof.

I could go on a rant about a possible replacement for S2000 which could be heading for end of life, but that's a side issue!

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

If the BTCC was considering the DTM rules I wouldn't have thought it would fly : I wouldn't see Thruxton, Croft, Knockhill et al getting appropriate licences for the V8 cars, and the costs would go through the roof.

But then again, the British might have kept the German megalomania in check and DTM rules wouldn't have degenerated into the current mess. The ruleset DTM startet with in 2000 seemed pretty OK.

[duke_toaster]

True, but it couldn't have been adopted without only going to about three different tracks.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

True, but it couldn't have been adopted without only going to about three different tracks.

Hmm, would be interesting to compare laptimes from STW in 1999 and DTM in 2000, I wonder how radical the difference actually would be. Maybe I'll google for those times tonight.

[duke_toaster]

Lap times aren't the issue with maximum grid sizes in the UK. The issue is engine capacity : and the cutoff for the larger size is 2000cc.

[touringlegend]

The maximum number of starters simply reduces with engine capacities / or depending if the cars are saloons or single seaters.

[nickyf1]

The only races I have been too are BTCC races during the BTC-T era, so I have nothing to compare it with, but I thought the Protons and the MG's looked very nice.

[KA]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Lap times aren't the issue with maximum grid sizes in the UK. The issue is engine capacity : and the cutoff for the larger size is 2000cc.

British GT which doesn't have too many under-2 litre cars has certainly put 29 cars on track at Thruxton at least once in the last few years, so the grid size issue may not have been that significant if BTCC had gone another (ie over 2-litre) route?

[duke_toaster]

What's the maximum at Knockhill or Brands Indy though? It should be in the blue book somewhere (but I don't have it) ...

[touringlegend]

For Knockhill, & Brands in brackets
Racing & Sports Cars over 2000cc - 22 (26)
Racing & Sports Cars up to 2000cc - 28 (28)
Other Classes - 32 (32)

[duke_toaster]

As DTM cars would be Racing and Sports Cars over 2000cc, wouldn't that mean that pre-qualifying would have to take place at Knockhill? If they could get such a field anyway.