Dunlop MSA British Touring Car Championship 2012

[Ardius]

I'm not saying it's easy to police, but it's pretty clear when it's a dirty move.

Yeah, generally you would think it would be easy...but I think stewarding of other series shows that apparently its very difficult. I'd rather not find out.

That's what we've had for a good number of years. Except now the standards are falling. Some discipline is required.

While I agree I just fear it would just go too far the other way. I fear too many people these days are calling for much more than just a little bit of discipline...I just think that some people have in their heads a completely different series that we see, as I've been alluding to, I fear people are too used to F1 style stewarding and basically want to see that but with BTCC's closer racing.

I don't want to find out, I'm quite happy with the dirty racing that does exist as long as we are getting the great racing. I don't see much proof that cleaning up the racing won't effect it negatively either.

 

[Liquid]

Is it just Jeff Allam and the stewards of whichever course they're at, or is there a proper panel for the disciplinary hearings?

 

[Tired Tyres]

That's what we've had for a good number of years. Except now the standards are falling. Some discipline is required.

Giving the cars the same weakness to front and rear damage that the 911's have is a possible solution to punt and pass.

Agree on that. And I take your word that Muller and then Plato opened it. No problem there.

But... the point I was making, Plato (and others) aren't usually penalized nowadays. Especially if there are no major consequences (wrecks) from their actions. He was penalized this time because "he's a punter" and "poor Newsham out of the race".

The move itself, "go for it and let's see what happens" was bold and reckless but not a deliberate punting. It was far less deliberate than the usual dirt nudging out of the way or push from behind under braking to overtake we see all race long, every time, and that many seem to find "acceptable".

Wrong reasons... wrong penalty IMO. But most people here agree just because of Plato and Muller hate, and think they should always "get it".

As I said, I'm not a Plano fan. But I think it's only fair to say what I did.

1 - he made an outstanding job with that team, and in getting these results
2 - this time he got a stupid penalty on that incident

I have no dislike of Plato and I agree that the team did an outstanding job at this race meeting. 👍

 

[Ardius]

Well here's a rare moment! Plato and Neal enjoying each other's company!
http://btcc.net/html/generalnews_detail.php?id=2909

I'm sure it will all kick up again at some point this year. Considering the discussion we are having, its also amusing to read they talk about bumping each other like its all part of the racing and enjoyed giving each other the dirty moves. Perhaps says it all really.

 

[Famine]

I don't see how you've suggested a middle-ground, you've suggested an F1 style panel of stewards.

Which is a middle ground - penalise no-one or penalise every contact. Since not every contact results in drivers losing out, that's unnecessary. Instead we need some experts to decide if anyone has lost out.

I also don't see what the penalty for Lewis at Singapore really does - it neither prevents similar incidents or sends much of a message to the driver.

Prison doesn't just serve as a deterrent for future crime. It serves as punishment for past ones. Same with penalties.

Penalising drivers who cause other drivers to lose out means they lose out too. In the case of Singapore, it wasn't enough - the driver who lost out lost more through the contact than the driver who hit him did even with the penalty and having to stop for a new wing, so in effect he gained by getting advantage over the guy he hit! Clearly the drive-through was insufficient and should have been a stop-go. If the stewards were right and it should be a penalty.

Well here's a rare moment! Plato and Neal enjoying each other's company!
http://btcc.net/html/generalnews_detail.php?id=2909

I'm sure it will all kick up again at some point this year. Considering the discussion we are having, its also amusing to read they talk about bumping each other like its all part of the racing and enjoyed giving each other the dirty moves. Perhaps says it all really.

Given the dressing down they both got for this exchange last year, it's no shock they're putting a good public face on:

(language warning)​

 

[Ardius]

Having experts decide doesn't change anything - we already have experts in F1 and BTCC who are stewarding. There is still a stark difference in style of stewarding and what you are suggesting already occurs in F1.
I still don't understand where you've made a middle ground when you are just desribing the F1 approach. Clearly something more has to be done than simply having a group of experts stewarding.

I don't see how that principle holds when its regarding an incident which wasn't intentional - just because contact happens doesn't mean that a penalty must be served. Just because the other driver loses out doesn't mean a penalty must be served.

I think the difference here is you see a penalty as balancing out a result. I see a penalty as preventing further incidents and sending a message to a driver to either improve their driving or at least to be more careful.

Penalties should not be used as some kind of "an eye for an eye" principle. I hate when they are used this way as not only do we lose one driver from the pack but two when the original incident was just an accident and not mallicious!

Personally if two drivers suffer contact and one retires or is heavily disadvantaged, I treat it as unfortunate but thats what happens. Thats racing. At least keep as many cars in the race as possible. Penalties should only be handed out in order to keep the driving standards up and any racing that does take place fair. But it shouldn't be used to balance a result out so that people suffer the same pain as a result of contact.

 

[Liquid]

If Neal wants to race clean, then he better leave his car in the garage.

 

[Akmuq]

This is very, very annoying. I don't like car park run-off areas. It doesn't punish running wide, unlike a gravel trap.

Same, I wish F1 would go back to gravel traps, suits the braver drivers like a street-circuit and also gives the backmarkers more chances at points due to retirements.

 

[Famine]

Having experts decide doesn't change anything - we already have experts in F1 and BTCC who are stewarding. There is still a stark difference in style of stewarding and what you are suggesting already occurs in F1.
I still don't understand where you've made a middle ground when you are just desribing the F1 approach. Clearly something more has to be done than simply having a group of experts stewarding.

In F1 they penalise everything. Well, if you're black...

I'm not proposing that. I'm also not proposing have a three man panel of politicians, but racers*. F1 tried the approach by having the fourth steward - that the other three ignored.

I don't see how that principle holds when its regarding an incident which wasn't intentional - just because contact happens doesn't mean that a penalty must be served.

Just because the other driver loses out doesn't mean a penalty must be served.

Why? If another driver loses out, why shouldn't there be a penalty on the driver that caused it?

We expect it when we're playing a racing game on the internet. Why not somewhere that it actually matters?

I think the difference here is you see a penalty as balancing out a result. I see a penalty as preventing further incidents and sending a message to a driver to either improve their driving or at least to be more careful.

Penalties should not be used as some kind of "an eye for an eye" principle. I hate when they are used this way as not only do we lose one driver from the pack but two when the original incident was just an accident and not mallicious!

Penalties serve two purposes. One is preventing future accidents and one is penalising (hence the name) past ones. It's not about "balancing out" or "an eye for an eye", but about preventing someone gaining an advantage they shouldn't have through disadvantaging another driver.

What's the difference to Dave Newsham if Plato took him out because he was stupid or because he was reckless? None at all. So why should there be any difference to Plato? He took him out and should have been penalised at the time.

*With more than participation in a few national level amateur rallies and karting events, like Radovan Novak or Surinder Thatthi.

 

[Liquid]

Is it just Jeff Allam and the stewards of whichever course they're at, or is there a proper panel for the disciplinary hearings?

I'm not proposing that. I'm also not proposing have a three man panel of politicians, but racers

So it's just Jeff Allam at the moment, or does he not do it any more?

Get more racers. Get the veterans out. Who raced cleanly? Winkelhock, Biela, Allam, Rouse, Percy. Although the first two probably wouldn't move to the UK just for a job on the disciplinary panel.

 

[Ardius]

But there is a difference between gaining an advantage from intention or accident. Accidental advantage shouldn't be taken away.

And I don't take part in any competitive racing online that I've given back an advantage gained from accident, sure I've given back such advantage in races which I'm not taking seriously, ones which I'm playing for fun.
But in races where I'm racing on the limit, competitively and attempting to win, I don't see why I should be penalised from a genuine mistake no more than I accept when someone else makes one.

Although I've not really taken part in many competitive races online that I've taken this seriously anyway - its not really a straight comparison.

We play online games for fun mostly. The only thing gained from winning is the satisfaction. In the real world, there is far more on the line and far more cost just to get on the grid in the first place! Handing back the places gained also allows us to try again and achieve a clean pass - for example penalising Hamilton didn't allow us to see Hamilton and Massa fight on track again, it simply took not 1 but 2 cars out of the race and put them no where near each other. This is not the same as handing back an advantage gained in an online race - where the race isn't ruined (though some would argue it is when drivers become spread out due to constantly handing back advantages).

I don't think having only drivers as stewards (or other such experts) changes anything. You can still have the two extremes I referred to, its just the decision are a little more well informed. There is still a direction which can be decided, we could still have 3 expert stewards and still have barely any penalties handed out or too many. Stewards can still make mistakes and still get it wrong.

Its also an assumption on your behalf that the 4th steward is ignored, if that was true why are there so many drivers happy to turn up for the job? The only people who haven't come back to do it that I can think of is Damon Hill and that seems to be because of the un-deserved criticism he got just for being there when Schumacher broke a rule.

 

[Famine]

But there is a difference between gaining an advantage from intention or accident. Accidental advantage shouldn't be taken away.

There's no difference to the guy who was taken out by someone else. Why should the offender be treated differently?

I don't think having only drivers as stewards (or other such experts) changes anything. You can still have the two extremes I referred to, its just the decision are a little more well informed.

A better informed decision is a better decision.

Its also an assumption on your behalf that the 4th steward is ignored, if that was true why are there so many drivers happy to turn up for the job? The only people who haven't come back to do it they I can think of is Damon Hill and that seems to be because of the un-deserved criticism he got just for being there when Schumacher broke a rule.

I didn't say that they were, just that the three politicians can come to their consensus decision based on no knowledge of what it's actually like to race professionally and ignore the racer's input. Even a 2 vs. 2 decision goes to the two politicians, because the guest steward is a guest. The only time the guest steward's opinion counts is when he agrees with the majority of the politicians - thus his opinion can be ignored as if he weren't even there. Easily...

 

[Ardius]

But how can you say when a good or bad decision came as a result of ignoring or not ignoring the 4th steward? Sure they can ignore them, but we can't know if they do or don't or at least when they do or don't - hence I can't see how this is proving expert stewards work or why they don't work for F1 because we are unable to say how effective they are.
All we can decide is in prinicple how it could work and I agree that it would help giving expert stewards more say, there isn't really any evidence either way to suggest it would be the way to go.

Whether or not the decision is better informed is effectively irrelevant when the direction of the stewards is dish out harsher penalties - I feel there is more to it than simply having the right people make a right decision. Who is the right person? What if we had 3 experts called Muller, Neal and Plato? Of course, you wouldn't hire them for the job...but this is precisely my point, there is more to it, you have to have some direction, some idea what you want the stewards to do and the types of decisions you want them to come to.

Why should the offender be treated differently? Because one is intentional and one is an accident. I think its fine that in the interests of allowing the maximum amount of people to keep racing, accidental contact is ignored. Its ignored even in F1 from time to time (whereas intentional contact is not). This is quite simply a difference in how I treat accidents - I can accept the disadvantage where others do not. I guess this is something that is personal to me and how I like to see racing, I don't really care for making people pay for their mistakes if they didn't mean it.

 

[Famine]

But how can you say when a good or bad decision came as a result of ignoring or not ignoring the 4th steward?

I haven't.

Sure they can ignore them, but we can't know if they do or don't or at least when they do or don't - hence I can't see how this is proving expert stewards work or why they don't work for F1 because we are unable to say how effective they are.

The very concept of them being "expert" stewards means they would be better able to judge.

Who do you call in a trial to cover facts a layperson cannot cover? An expert witness. I still can't, for the life of me, explain why we have laypeople acting as expert witnesses when judging racing incidents.

Whether or not the decision is better informed is effectively irrelevant when the direction of the stewards is dish out harsher penalties

Why would it be in that direction? It would be in the direction of better informed decisions whether the penalties were harsher, more lenient or non-existant.

I feel there is more to it than simply having the right people make a right decision. Who is the right person? What if we had 3 experts called Muller, Neal and Plato? Of course, you wouldn't hire them for the job...but this is precisely my point, there is more to it, you have to have some direction, some idea what you want the stewards to do and the types of decisions you want them to come to.

For a BTCC panel, I'd take Muller, Neal and Plato over three non-racers any day of the week - after all, look at how they react when someone plays them at their own game... They know how the rules apply to everyone else, they just don't think necessarily they should apply to them.

Not for an F1 panel as none have raced F1.

Why should the offender be treated differently? Because one is intentional and one is an accident.

It makes no difference at all to the outcome though. The guy still gets taken out, accidentally or not.

Plus what's to stop the guy claiming it was accidental? You'd obviously need to refer the decision to some experts...

 

[Ardius]

Referring to the fact that 4th stewards can be ignored is effectively implying they are ignored and hence using F1 stewarding as an example of experts not making a difference isn't the case - true enough but they do have a 4th steward and he does presumably weigh in on some decisions. We can compare at least the stewarding decisions before and after they brought in 4th stewards - which appears to be not much difference at all. Point taken that they don't appear to have much say but I still would have thought being sat in the same room they would have felt compelled to voice their disagreement though...and many of the drivers who have done it have said that the stewards rarely need to ask for the advice as they just read the penalty out of the rulebook.

I agree that there is no need for anyone other than driving/racing experts to be stewards...but still I don't really see it making a huge difference to the results of the stewarding when you have the overall influence of the organisor and the rule-book. You can have penalties ranging from a simple warning or "slap-on-the-wrist" to bans or exclusions. We could have the stewards read a rule book which states that a racing incident requires a warning or a 10 second penalty. Perhaps you would put the stewards in charge of deciding this, but in F1 (and presumably BTCC), the penalty that is given is simply read from the rulebook, its not decided on the basis of the incident.
So, not only would we change to having driver-stewards but also change the way in which penalties are decided i.e. not set in stone by a rule book but fluid and actually up to the stewards discretion.
There is an additional rule in F1 that the stewards can pretty much dish out whatever penalty they want at their discretion, but generally they stick to the rest of the rulebook on it.
So basically, I'd suggest taking away some of the rules in the rulebook and allowing it to be more fluid. The risk here is making steward decisions take longer as more debate would be needed.
What I'm trying to get out of you here is more than just make drivers stewards - its more than that.

I think its pretty clear that Neal and Plato at least seem just a little biased about what makes fair contact. They seem too susceptible to their own personal vendettas and totally unable to see things anything other than their own way. I'm sure they could read the situations right but I think a decent steward (or judge) should be as least party to bias as possible.

Accidental or intentional does make a difference. You and I are just repeating ourselves here - this is just how I see it, if someone does something to me accidentally or intentionally I react in different ways. I don't mind if someone hits me by accident, I do mind when they intentionally do it. I am the "guy being taken out" - I am fine with accidental contact because I'd rather the race ("the race" being both the offender and the rest of the field racing) continue without interrupt than have the offender go out of their way to give the advantage back over an accident. Maybe I'm just one of those "greater good" guys or maybe I just feel that if I was the one making the mistake, I'd rather be continuing my race and apologising later than throwing it all away for penalties. I realise that not everyone sees it that way but then I guess thats why we have different racing.

As for people claiming that it was an accident when it was intentional - that falls under what I referred to as "penalties to remind drivers or punish bad driving". If someone repeatedly has 'accidental' contact its clear they need to be reminded to be more careful, with increasing strength in penalties until they get the message or they are kicked out.
I have always ran the online races and championships I've hosted in the past in this way. I've always felt it was the best thing to do but I haven't really asked people whether they thought it was good or not. Something worth investigating I think for myself.

 

[daan]

But how much is all of this "bump to make him run wide then pass on the next straight" got to do with the fact that the Brands Hatch Indy circuit is pretty much impossible* to pass on? It has no real braking zones, apart from one, easily defendable one, and no real straights. It is a silly circuit.


* Yes, I saw that video of the Ginetta up there, but that's only one...

 

[Famine]

It is a silly circuit.

With touring cars - particularly low performance ones - and other series with slowish cars tightly packed in terms of performance, braking zones are less important for passing than they are in higher performance formulae. After all, you just need a 1% better hookup from the corner (equivalent to getting the power on 20cm earlier in a 50mph corner) on a 400m straight to pull a car length out before the next corner, but braking 1% later gets you almost nowhere (can't be arsed to do the maths, but it equates to a 40cm shorter braking zone and about two metres advantage - half a car length - which isn't enough to pass in a contact series).

Of course when you get to the next corner you used to be able to go round the bend together. These days you just get punted off and blamed for it.

 

[Liquid]

But how much is all of this "bump to make him run wide then pass on the next straight" got to do with the fact that the Brands Hatch Indy circuit is pretty much impossible* to pass on? It has no real braking zones, apart from one, easily defendable one, and no real straights. It is a silly circuit.


* Yes, I saw that video of the Ginetta up there, but that's only one...

For me, therein lies the challenge. Pass the unpassable. Similar to Monaco, only with gravel traps. The swooping left-right at Surtees/McLaren is a great section for demonstrating car control.

 

[homeforsummer]

I wouldn't say Brands is impossible to pass on really. It's just a circuit that drivers need to apply more thought to. It's much harder to dive up the inside on a corner, but we've seen over and over at Brands that drivers can set someone up for a pass as much as a lap earlier, just by forcing the defending driver into ever more defensive lines, which eventually leaves them open for a pass.

As I mentioned in my previous post, taking a wider line at Druids can force the driver in front to go defensive, and invariably they'll run wide at Clearways as their line has been affected around the rest of the circuit. You probably get more passing at Clearways than any other point on the circuit.

 

[Tired Tyres]

But how much is all of this "bump to make him run wide then pass on the next straight" got to do with the fact that the Brands Hatch Indy circuit is pretty much impossible* to pass on? It has no real braking zones, apart from one, easily defendable one, and no real straights. It is a silly circuit.


* Yes, I saw that video of the Ginetta up there, but that's only one...

You can pass at clearways cleanly as at least one TC driver showed in the 3rd race. You pressure the other guy into carrying a bit too much speed, he naturally goes wide and that gives you the inside line for the pass. It is not his fault that everyone else punts in the same place to force the issue so nobody notices it.

Paddock is possible if you can get the other guy to brake late and do the switch back as per that video. You either make the pass or you have the inside line into druids in which case you pass there.

On a 1.2 mile track how many passing places could there be?

I'd like them to race on the full circuit, but we all know why that can't happen too often.

 

[Liquid]

As I mentioned in my previous post, taking a wider line at Druids can force the driver in front to go defensive, and invariably they'll run wide at Clearways as their line has been affected around the rest of the circuit. You probably get more passing at Clearways than any other point on the circuit.

Same could be said for Paddock, run wide on the entry to Paddock, cut back to the inside on the exit and get a run up the inside of Druids. That's happened time after time after time.

 

[tomhart9]

You can pass at clearways cleanly as at least one TC driver showed in the 3rd race. You pressure the other guy into carrying a bit too much speed, he naturally goes wide and that gives you the inside line for the pass. It is not his fault that everyone else punts in the same place to force the issue so nobody notices it.

Paddock is possible if you can get the other guy to brake late and do the switch back as per that video. You either make the pass or you have the inside line into druids in which case you pass there.

On a 1.2 mile track how many passing places could there be?

I'd like them to race on the full circuit, but we all know why that can't happen too often.

I don't get your last statement? They do race the full circuit as well... Last race of the season.

 

[daan]

Anyway, Plato's MG seemed quite quick down the straights. Do you think he'll complain he's got too much boost now..?

 

[Liquid]

Anyway, Plato's MG seemed quite quick down the straights. Do you think he'll complain he's got too much boost now..?

Maybe as much as when he was in the Seat TDi.

I'm not surprised the MG was quick. It's not like RML are a bunch of amateurs.

 

[ASH32]

Anyway, Plato's MG seemed quite quick down the straights. Do you think he'll complain he's got too much boost now..?

No. However Matt Neal has already had a little moan about how his car has the least boost and that was before any of the races, expect the complaints to come from him now.

 

[daan]

I'm not that keen on Plato, but it does seem to be down to his "wasn't my fault" attitude than anything else. I nearly fell off my chair one race last season when he admitted blame after yet another coming together with another competitor! Most BTCC drivers have been guilty of bump overtakes in this current era at some point or other, although there are a few exceptions (Frank Wrathall and Paul O'Neill are/were 2 of the cleanest drivers.)

I seem to recall noticing that John Cleland's Cavalier never seemed to finish a race with both wing mirrors still attached but that's all it was. None of this bump to overtake malarky.

 

[Liquid]

I seem to recall noticing that John Cleland's Cavalier never seemed to finish a race with both wing mirrors still attached but that's all it was. None of this bump to overtake malarky.

Back then though, the cars were slipping and sliding all over the place due to the more production-based nature of the cars and almost no aero, yet they still managed to keep it clean much more often than today.

This year for me: Anybody but Neal. It's pure bias but I don't want Neal to equal Rouse's record.

 

[TheCracker]

It's not like RML are a bunch of amateurs.

(It's Triple Eight )

 

[Liquid]

(It's Triple Eight )

Whoops. Slip of the tongue. But the point still stands. 888 are a very experienced team.

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

Chris James had a little argument with Andrew Jordan on Twitter last night, hopefully he forgets his password soon, its getting shameful:
"Hey Im a spoilt little boy, my daddy has spoon fed me & I throw tantrums like a plastic ****. Who am I!?"

And he calls himself a professional...