Why did super-touring collapse?

[Sherman]

Ok, simple enough question. I have to do a 10,000 word dissertation for my History degree, and i wanted to answer the question, why did the super-touring era collapse in Britian?

Any ideas? I need to have a range of issues to discuss, and financial concerns seem to be the main area. I would also be grateful for any 'insider' knowledge, as i know alot of people on the site know the BTCC inside-out (looking towards Invincible and redshoes.....!). It would be good if people could state their opinions, but if you do could you back it up with some evidence (opinions are useless without any truth behind them!)

The range of answers i get will determine whether i am able to write 10,000 words on the subject! Thanks for your help!

[Mal-b]

save yourself writing 10,000 words when you can say it in one word.....COSTS. The cost of running a super touring works team ran into the millions of pounds, the returns for the manufacturers did not justify the huge expense.

[JAG]

Costs and large manufactuers taking over smaller manufactuers.

[redshoes]

History ???? SuperTouring ???? Is the mid-90's treated as history now?? What happened to the Crusades, Middle Ages, Queen Victoria and the First World War?

BTW, what do we get for doing your homework for you?

[Sim_Da_BTCC_Man]

Will that even pass a history exam? I don't think so some how but I don't know the sylabus.

[Carrie]

Blimey, my History lecturer would have had heart failure if I'd come up with the idea of studying touring cars for my dissertation. Mind you, I think I'd have struggled to combine that with Archaeology
I really am amazed that a university would accept that as a dissertation subject.

[kmchow]

Several years ago, I wrote a 1.5 page article on why the NATCC collapsed. Since you're writing 10,000 words, I guess you will have to seriously elaborate on the details!

Clarifying the cost explanation/issue, the development of aero aids contributed to those increased costs. Manufacturers started devoting more time/money to tailor aero kits for their cars and later, even particular championships. This means you couldn't run one car for 10 championships. You started having 2-3 kits for the different championships. As well, manufacturers started running more tests at race tracks.

Then there's the engine development costs. Costs rose as teams sought to increase hp from about 240hp (circa 1991) to the rumored 320hp by 2000. Those increased 80hp didn't come cheap. Then there's the emergence of F1 teams or F1 related companies to help develop the cars. Alfa (Ferrari), Renault (Williams), Ford (Cosworth/Reynard), Volvo (TWR), Honda (Prodrive/Benneton). Any more??

[Tim Harvey Fan]

It is just like an arms race-as each team developed more advanced equipment, costs rose until there was a point where manufacturers refused to put in the money, in exhange for the comparatively small amount of credibility they were receiving from viewers.

[supertouring]

Like most racing series there seems to be peaks and troughs, just look at F1 at the moment. I think when it started it was relatively cheap, but as the stature of the series grew, new manufacturers joined who were willing to put big money in just to get the PR. However, as everyone pushed up the costs, once a team had got the championship win and therefore the required PR, did it make sense for them to continue in the series? Unlikely.
I think it was a casualty of its own success, and it should have been brought back into line well before its demise.

[racer69]

The main problem was costs. Had an international championship come along at some stage, like an ETC or another WTCC, then that i'm sure would have prolonged the life of the class, after all there were major international races right around the world for Super Touring Cars between 1993 to 1999, the World Cup (93-95), the 1994 Asia Pacific Championship, the Macau Guia races, Bathurst 1000 (97-98), Tourist Trophy, the international event in South Africa in 1996, if all these had been around at the same time and a series could have been organised, suddenly the manufacturers are able to get to race in different areas through 1 team, rather than getting separate teams for each part of the world for a domestic series, but i'm getting off track here

As mentioned above, the loss of independence by car companies. Ford bought Volvo so one was lost, Renault bought Nissan, bye bye one, or as it turned out both. BMW decided to concentrate of F1 and so.

Also the conplexity of the cars rose, and when the FIA took over as rule maker some of their changes raised costs.

It falling was a huge shame , but to be expected i guess, Touring Car classes only seem to have a shelf life of roughly 10 years before they get a freshen up.

A fantastic period for Touring Cars as a whole though

[kmchow]

Building on racer69's comments, I think the collapse of the NATCC also hurt the BTCC. For one, the NATCC could have provided another series for ex-Works cars to go as well as more indirect coverage for the BTCC. Ford could have easily transferred their Mondeos over to the NATCC. Honda was doing just that already. Alternatively, perhaps the manufacturers could have also built extra cars for the NATCC, thereby spreading out their R&D costs.

[kmchow]

oh yeah, I also recall reading that the Toyota South Africa withdrew from their series and leading that to collapse after Toyota USA was slow to announce a partnership to develop a Camry based ST car. Though the ironic thing is that Toyota USA eventually did build one, but they also withdrew after Dodge withdrew from the NATCC.

So Sherman, think you have enough ideas to write a 10,000 word dissertation?? But if you do complete it, you should post your article somewhere. Perhaps supertouring's website?

[speedy king]

Alain Menu

[kmchow]

Besides the appearance of F1 teams/F1 related teams in ST/BTCC, perhaps another reason for the BTCC/ST's demise could be the salaries demanded by all the former/aspiring/failed F1--versus the traditional touring car--drivers that started to appear in ST/BTCC??

[supertouring]

I would be happy to post the article on the site, it is something I have yet to cover in detail. I am still at a point where I am enjoying researching its growth period!

[JMeissner]

Originally posted by speedy king
Alain Menu

LOL!

[Sodemo]

It was Alfa's fault - there is your conclusion.

[kmchow]

oh yeah, I forgot to blame Alfa for starting the aero kit wars. Hmmm, we blame Alfa for ST demise while in F1, they blame Alfa's cousin, Ferrari. OTOH, wasn't BMW caught illegally widening the wheel wells of their ST cars back in '97 or '98? I think that's another reason why the ST cars got the wheel well extension in '00.

[racer69]

Did the need for aerodynamic aids really affect the costs in a huge way though? They were introduced in '95, but it wasn't until '99 that the cracks started appearing in the class.

[Sherman]

Hmmm, as i thought, costs is the main area, but i could elaborate on the aerodynamics side. I think 10,000 words is going to be too hard to achieve, unless i get loads of evidence together.

This is all very helpful, i must thank you all. So far i reckon:
1) Costs of aerodynamic features
2) Costs of drivers
3) PR costs
4) Dwindling crowd numbers
5) The increase, then rapid decrease in factory team numbers
6) Emergence of F1 team subsidaries
7) Management buyouts eg Nissan and Renault
8) Changeover of ownership from TOCA to BMP

I still have a fair while to collect evidence, so that shouldnt be too much of a problem. As for the other ocmments:

Redshoes: we cant cover an area of history which someone else has done, hence i thought id try this. As for what you will get-i have yet to decide....

Carrie: they havent accepted it yet, but i cant see to much hassle. A friend last year did a question "To what extent did the World Wrestling Federation affect the US elections of 2001?" !!!!

Anyhoo, this is helping, so thank you. im starting to understand which areas to concentrate on.

[BootsOntheSide]

The addition of the areodynamic aids had an effect because it damaged the quality of the racing, and showed that a manufacturer could bend the rules to suit their own marketing aims. Audi left once 4WD was banned, Ford and Renault's buyouts took away 2 other entries, and eventuallly the constructors involved just got as much as they could have from it. A change in the rules system wasx essential to avoid Touring Cars as a whole imploding.

[racer69]

Originally posted by Sherman
8) Changeover of ownership from TOCA to BMP

When BMP bought TOCA in 2000, it was already decided much earlier by TOCA that the BTCC wouldn't be run to Super Touring regulations in 2001.

Did Audi specifically leave due to 4WD being banned. They started development of a FWD A4 in 97 and 98, then pulled out (what a waste of money), which made it look like they had withdrawn due to 4WD being banned, but they went into Sportscars running RWD cars, plus there was a factory Audi ST team in Australia in 1999 running FWD A4's, so i'm not sure 4WD was the deciding factor.

[touringcarnut]

That's it Sherman, think about the evidence you're going to need.
You need LOTS of sources, especially as the reader is not going to have a clue what it is you're on about!
Good luck mate, it's a tough topic to write that amount on. Sounds better than my dissertation topic of "rational utilatarian morality in the legal system"!

Try and ask some ex-drivers for their comments! you could include a video!

[Sodemo]

Bascially in 1994 Alfa Romeo entered the championship, with its 155, it totally dominated the opening rounds. By rounds 5 or 6 there had been a protest by BMW, Vauxhall, and I think Renault that the rear wings Alfa had fitted did comply with the ones holomogated on the road cars.

There was some rule that you had to manufacture 50,000 of the cars you were going to race. Alfa ran with extended rear wings, the protest was upheld and Alfa were made to run with wings that were a few inches lower.

As a result of this by mid season (the Silverstone GP round) BMW, Renault for sure and maybe a few others had developed aero kits, and had them fitted.
Purely an observation, the areo kits first fitted mid season did not look as 'beefy' or substantual as the ones fitted at the start of the 95' season, when all cars were fitted with rear wings and front splitters. In fact the ones fitted mid-94 did look like the ones avaliable on the road cars.

[redshoes]

The '94 wing WERE standard road car ones. Prior to 1995 the minimum build was 2500, which is why Alfa could afford to create the '156 Silverstone' homolgation special. Alfa's trick was a few extra bits which were supplied with the road cars, but not actually fitted to them. It's not the first time such a trick has been tried, from memory BMW have done virtually the same thing in the past.

In 1995 the min build was increased to 25,000 (not 50,000) and proper (non-road car) wings and spliters were allowed. So yes, they would have looked more 'beefy' because they were.