WTCC: The Balancing Act

There are times when covering the World Touring Car Championship is a frustrating business.

Fundamentally, it has many of the ingredients of a fantastic championship. It has top class drivers, three committed manufacturers in BMW, Chevrolet and SEAT and a largely very strong calendar. But there are times where it is somewhat ... unsatisfying.

Last weekend's round at twisty Mexican circuit Puebla was one of those. There are very good reasons for the WTCC being in Mexico and at that circuit - Mexico City's Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez simply wouldn't draw a big enough crowd - but that doesn't stop it being a cobbled-up 'roval' track made up largely of first and second gear corners.

But the track wasn't a big problem - especially seeing as it didn't turn into the gravel rally stage which it has resembled on the championship's previous visits!

No, it's the frustrations of performance balancing which reigned supreme in Mexico. SEAT dominated the weekend - that is an irrefutable fact. You do not lock out the top six positions in a race without something of an edge.

What's more, the form of SUNRED Engineering's petrol-powered Leon in the hands of Tom Coronel proved the car is very well suited to the track. It's no secret that Puebla - with its high altitude giving an edge to forced induction - was always going to be a SEAT track, but ultimately the second race in particular was not satisfying to watch.

Cue Chevrolet and BMW understandably hitting out at the edge the diesel SEATs have. This is fairly standard fare for the WTCC - it is a performance balancing category and this is the nature of things.

And that's one of the big problems the WTCC has. What's more, it's not so much the concept of performance balancing which is the problem, especially in such a production-based form of racing.

It means that it is impossible simply to say "well done to SEAT for producing such a strong car", no matter how much you want to emphasise the traditional foundation stone of racing that says if you make a better car you deserve to win.

For the sternest critics it's easy just to say that to "save" touring car racing it should return to a more "pure" formula. Frustrating as performance balancing is, this is Ben Tre logic.

Allow a far less restricted formula to run free and costs snowball, as they did in the Super Touring era, which ended with Ford blowing £10 million to win the British Touring Car Championship in 2000.

What's more, allowances have to be made to make it possible for manufacturers to compete on relatively even grounding with vastly differing cars. How else could a Chevrolet Lacetti - which is an economy family car with the heart and body of a Daewoo - compete with a BMW 320si, which retails at well over twice the price?

Say what you want about creating a more pure category in which the best car wins, but make the regulations significantly less restricted and you'll have a category which no-one can afford to compete in and which most of the world's manufacturers do not have a suitable car to use. The result - you will have destroyed the WTCC in order to save it.

So what's the problem with performance balancing? In short, it's all about perception. It's very easy to be critical of decisions made by the FIA Touring Car Bureau, and there have been times where it has over-reacted, such as in the first half of last season where a flurry of changes were made. But its job is difficult. Actually, no. Make that impossible.

Balancing up front and rear-wheel drive, turbo and normally aspirated, petrol and diesel, budget family car with BMW's so-called "homologation special 320si", is quite simply not possible.

Even if you could get a Leon TDI, a Leon TFSI, a Lacetti and a 320si to do identical theoretical lap times, there are still so many other factors to consider. Tyre wear, start-line effectiveness and a whole spectrum of characteristics which influence race results beyond outright pace. Though that's not to say the current balance is correct.

Andy Priaulx in a petrol engined BMW 320si © XPB/LAT

Despite winning last year's drivers' and manufacturers' title, BMW haven't been in a position to win race one of a weekend for almost a year, leading to the threat of the marque launching their own diesel WTCC car.

Despite the rumours flying around that this car could be introduced imminently after Jorg Muller set some eyebrow-raising times in a barely race-developed test hack in the winter, the lack of an oil-burning 320si road car means it would be four months before it would be eligible to race even if they committed to a production car run now.

But should BMW be forced down this road - which motorsport boss Mario Theissen is not keen on - this could have serious repercussions for the championship.

Chances are, such a car would be a rocket ship because BMW diesel production engines are so strong, then where would that leave the WTCC's other marques - Chevrolet and the effectively fully-independent N.Technology/JAS Honda team if the rules still give oil-burners the edge?

Still, it's better than the alternative of a BMW withdrawal, which has been suggested in some quarters. It's no coincidence that Theissen was bringing pressure to bear for a rules rejig on the same weekend he was celebrating his team's first Formula 1 pole position!

BMW has been a cornerstone of the WTCC since the S2000 regulations were introduced in 2002, and to risk losing it would be a big mistake.

So what does all this add up to? Chances are, despite the fact that SEAT was always expected to dominate in Curitiba, and in Puebla in particular, there are unlikely to be wholesale changes.

The boost pressure of the diesels will more than likely be tightened up sooner rather than later, although with their top drivers getting closer to the maximum success ballast figure of 70kg, next month's first European round at sea level in Valencia should be a little closer.

The important thing is to make sure that after dominating the early stages of the season SEAT doesn't have to spend a later spell feeding for scraps to make up for it. A shame that the championship is so overshadowed by these kinds of arguments rather than appreciating the engineering skill that lies behind the success of the cars, but it's a very necessary evil.

The bottom line is that performance balancing is here to stay. While single-seater racing has turned to the near-universal concept of one-make racing to ensure a level playing field both financially and competitive, the marketing imperative which is the cornerstone of touring car racing makes this impossible.

Performance balancing as a concept is still relatively immature in motorsport, and much as it is an anathema to racing purists, there's nothing pure about a silent racetrack when you suddenly realise you haven't got any competitors left.