Could Supertouring be a possibility today?

[nickyf1]

I was looking at the article on Flash Engineering shaking down their Volvo S40 on TcT and though to myself. S2000 has been around for almost 7 years, about the same lifespan as its predecessors group A and Supertouring. And I thought, could Supertouring be reintroduced today with some form of cost cutting? Quite an interesting disscussion point I thought.

[Speed-King]

I'm not a tech-guy, but maybe we should first identify the differences between STC and S2000 and then check them one by one.

[THIM]

I thought, that the main reason to introduce S-2000 was reducing costs. So It's just cheaper version of ST. Am I wrong?

[kmchow]

S2000 was a cheaper version of ST. However, I feel that ST was more successful than S2000 currently is in the same amount of time.

It's hard to explain why. The more difficult global/financial challenges? Too many racing series?

It's understandable and reasonable--but I feel that b/c of the tougher economic times, every manufacturer would only race/support a race series that they will win at. So globally, you have a bunch of series with only a few manufacturers/cars in each.

In an "ideal" racing world, you'll have manufacturers/cars in every country racing to the same championship rules. In some countries, the cars will do better, some other countries, no so well.

The other challenge that seems to be occuring is that one manufacturer spends $2M, another $4M and say another spends $10M. While money is no guarantee for success, it seems that the 2M budget manufacturer complains and gets rules breaks so that it will competetive against a manufacturer spending $10M.

[Aslak Vind]

The current problem with the S2000 cars, is that it costs a fortune to get those last tenths out of them. The engines doesnt have the torque or the strength, the same with the suspension, you need precious parts.

The same thing with the rest of the car, it is still to much a production car.

[kmchow]

Originally Posted by Aslak Vind

The same thing with the rest of the car, it is still to much a production car.

There's a fine balance btwn race versus showroom. If it becomes too racy or silhouette, you can't brag about how much it's like the street/showroom version. If it's too showroom, you might not be excited enough by it?

OTOH, does the average fan care how showroom or standard the car is?

[Icebaby]

I think its essential the cars look production based so fans can relate to the brand image, Super touring was expensive on two fronts, cars as mentioned but also the drivers it attrached being paid high wages.

Running the cars now with cost measures introduced proberbly would work, the current BTCC cars are ok but could do with more power.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by kmchow

There's a fine balance btwn race versus showroom. If it becomes too racy or silhouette, you can't brag about how much it's like the street/showroom version. If it's too showroom, you might not be excited enough by it?

It's not really a question of what the car looks like. Externally the shell may be completely stock, it's what's under the skin that makes a difference. Much of the engine gear and running gear on a S2000 is derived from the production model, this not only makes them relatively fragile it also means that as Aslak has already said after the initial development it becomes relatively expensive to squeeze anything more out of them.

ST, although in theory production based, allowed what were in effect custom build race parts. These were more expensive to start with but less prone to breaking and relatively less expensive to develop.

For example one the reasons Class 2/ST allowed sequential gearboxes was that it was cheaper to buy an off the shelf racing 'box and fit inside a new casing than it was to develop a road car 'box able to cope with the demands of racing.

[Sodemo]

One thing is for sure though, is that S2000 cars are far more reliable overall than the ST cars of old.

[Aslak Vind]

The griplevel is also vastly improved, compared to a ST car, I am told.

[JMeissner]

Far more reliable, according to who?


As for the grip-level, the ST cars had narrower tyres but a lot more downforce, what kind of grip do you mean?

[Aslak Vind]

Originally Posted by Aslak Vind

The griplevel is also vastly improved, compared to a ST car, I am told.

Well, I just spoke with a Danish driver who tested both kind of cars. And he reported back, that he was amazed how much grip and how high cornering speed the S2000 car had.

Could just be down to a modern suspension?

[BertMk2]

Suspension and tyres have moved on - you're talking 10 years of progress in both areas.

[werner]

Originally Posted by kmchow

There's a fine balance btwn race versus showroom. If it becomes too racy or silhouette, you can't brag about how much it's like the street/showroom version. If it's too showroom, you might not be excited enough by it?

OTOH, does the average fan care how showroom or standard the car is?

This is an important point. Touringcars should be about racing cars that sort of are equal to the ones you see on the road. Otherwise succes in racing would mean nothing for the quality or performance of the roadcars. If that is the case, there would be no incentice for manufacturers to try to win. Because when you want to show you have the basic technology to built high-teck cars, there are series like Le Mans or F1.

What would be an improvement for touringcarracing is that they should be harder to drive fast. When you have a car that is 1 second slower, but a fantastic driver can win 1 second on drivingskills versus a good driver, it makes sense to hire the fantastic driver. And that's the one I'd like to see. Nowadays (so I've heard) the cars are much easier to drive compared to ST-cars.
Another thing that is alright to a certain level, but could be improved still, is the mixture of several formats and tracks for the championships. There are offcourse already twisty tracks and slow tracks, and also the weatherconditions are different for other races, but the WTCC, and maybe also the other championships could do with an endurancerace or 2, so that not only the fastest car wins all the races, but cars with a low fuelconsumption or tirewear have a chance asswell. This may especially be nice in national championships where there isn't a lot of variety in tracks, although otoh the extra costs and the physical ability of the average driver might be a bigger problem over there.

[stedevil]

Yeah, 1-2 endurance races per year, would be both good to watch and for sure lower maintenance costs for S2000 cars as well (ensuring cardesigns would be less close to the limit so they can last a full endurance race).

[kmchow]

Originally Posted by redshoes

It's not really a question of what the car looks like. Externally the shell may be completely stock, it's what's under the skin that makes a difference. Much of the engine gear and running gear on a S2000 is derived from the production model, this not only makes them relatively fragile it also means that as Aslak has already said after the initial development it becomes relatively expensive to squeeze anything more out of them.

ST, although in theory production based, allowed what were in effect custom build race parts. These were more expensive to start with but less prone to breaking and relatively less expensive to develop.

Is there anything special about the 2L displacement? Why not make them 2.2L or 2.5L for example? that's a cheap way to squeeze more power? OTOH, that's what the proposed turbocharger/supercharger rules are for, to incr the hp at relatively low cost.

[Bramzel]

Originally Posted by kmchow

Is there anything special about the 2L displacement? Why not make them 2.2L or 2.5L for example? that's a cheap way to squeeze more power? OTOH, that's what the proposed turbocharger/supercharger rules are for, to incr the hp at relatively low cost.

Because those engines don't sell as good in Europe as the smalle ones do. And as Motorsport is still 'only' Marketing for the manufacturers that won't be an option I'm afraid.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by kmchow

Is there anything special about the 2L displacement? Why not make them 2.2L or 2.5L for example?

If you go back to the original BTCC formula of the early 90s that eventually became Super Touring, there was no great technical reason for using 2.0l engines. That was chosen, along with all the other size/shape requirements, simply because that's what most manufacturers built in the biggest numbers.

Back then fleet sales were a huge part of the UK market. If you had a company car you paid tax on it, and generally the rate of tax was determined by the size of the engine. 2.0l was at the top end of the most common tax band. There was no (tax) benefit having a 1.8 and anything larger than 2.0 put you into a higher tax band, so 2.0 became the most popular seller. The details would have been different in other European countries but the principal was similar.

These days fewer people drive company cars and tax rules have changed so a lot of manufacturers sell more 1.8l or 2.2l cars.

I guess the advantage of sticking with 2.0 now is that even if you don't build a 2.0 model it's relatively easy to bore out a 1.8 or sleeve down a 2.2 to suit. If you went to 2.5 it's unlikely you could use a 1.8 block and expect it to work, which potentially rules out more manufacturers.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by JMeissner

Far more reliable, according to who?

Just from my own observations.

I remember attending BTCC races throughout 1997 - 1999, and there would always be one or two cars retire through engine problems.

I cant remember the last time a leading S2000 car failed in the WTCC, probably one of the SEAT TDi's, but as they are new tech thats bound to occur I guess.

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by kmchow

S2000 was a cheaper version of ST. However, I feel that ST was more successful than S2000 currently is in the same amount of time.

The most important reason for the success of ST was the large involvement of manufacturers. If WTCC or BTCC had the same amount of manufacturer involvement I am sure it would be much more popular.

[the sniper]

Originally Posted by FIRE

The most important reason for the success of ST was the large involvement of manufacturers. If WTCC or BTCC had the same amount of manufacturer involvement I am sure it would be much more popular.

I 100% agree. The only other thing that is holding the WTCC back is it's rights being owned by Eurosport. If they were more smart and open minded they could massively increase the WTCC's promotion and popularity. In the UK WTCC is virtually unknown, we had a three time world champion in what were closely fought seasons, yet Andy Priaulx's only coverage in the mainsteam media was a quick mention on the BBC's News sports section the morning after Macau '07 and an invitation to a quite popular sports quiz show. A British Tetris World champion would receive more coverage then Andy did (on three occasions)!

I was/am a big fan of Supertouring, the cars were brilliant, but am I the only one that thinks S2000 produces much better races more consistently? Yes there were great races, Donington '98 spring to mind, but there could be some real processions, even Murray Walker mentioned in one of his books that ST races could be as boring as Formula 1.

If S2000 had the same Manufacturer support as ST, had the same amount of National series using it as ST did and only allowed 3 box cars to be homologated (I can't stand the hatchbacks), I would have to say of the two, that I prefer S2000...

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by the sniper

The only other thing that is holding the WTCC back is it's rights being owned by Eurosport.

That to me sounds like a very British centric view. I assume more people in the world have access to Eurosport than to BBC.

[FIRE]

I don't Eurosports involvement blocks other channels (e.g. BBC, ITV) to cover WTCC. In Holland RTL is covering WTCC. German ZDF covered a few years the German round. I don't know about other countries.

[touringlegend]

Originally Posted by the sniper

In the UK WTCC is virtually unknown, we had a three time world champion in what were closely fought seasons, yet Andy Priaulx's only coverage in the mainsteam media was a quick mention on the BBC's News sports section the morning after Macau '07 and an invitation to a quite popular sports quiz show.

Yes I remember that appearance on A Question of Sport - to be honest I thought the other 5 participants were a bit bemused and hadn't a clue who this guy was!!


The thing I found most entertaining about Super Touring car's was the actual noise they made - they sounded like a 'real' racing car.

The S2000 cars (and to a larger extent the BTC spec cars) have this cringeworthy pop when changing gears..

Although to the original question - could ST work today - doubt it. Look at the privateer input there has been especially in domestic championships - and for the better in my eyes.

[the sniper]

Originally Posted by stedevil

That to me sounds like a very British centric view. I assume more people in the world have access to Eurosport than to BBC.

Yes, of course. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of Eurosport, but just because it is available doesn't mean people are watching it. Take the UK for example, it has a reach of at least 12 million homes and is in favourable positions in the EPG sports sections, yet on average each race only gets around 50,000 viewers. The problem for Eurosport is it's image. As TV production and presentation gets more and more flashy, Eurosport keeps to the same old tierd format. Admitedly, there isn't much that they can do due to their multi-language format, but they basically haven't changed anything since the relunch in '91. Some would say they've only backwards since '91...

I would suggest Eurosport do something radical, pay major broadcasters around Europe (RTL (Germany, Netherlands) RAI, TF1 (easy as they own Eurosport), BBC, ect...) to show an hour long WTCC highlight show early on a Sunday evening the week following a meeting. They should make them put a good effort into it like they would for something like F1. The next year they should do the same thing but ask for a small fee, then increase the price of the rights year by year if popularity is sustained or increases.