British F3 Silly Season 2012

[strider]

Originally Posted by RF_Racer

Well said I agree with that, but BF3 is the victim of its own success. As for allowing teams to have wind tunnels and developing the cars aerodynamics and spending millions in the process is just madness and must be outlawed.

How much better it would be if you knew what you were talking about.

In other news, Carlos Sainz Jr has become the first driver to sign with Carlin for 2012.

[jondownunder]

Shouldn't there be a separate British F3 silly season thread by now?

Anyway, saw in Autosport that Signature are considering entering the British series if numbers in the Euro Series are low. Think they said they could possibly do both, but I just skim-read it in the newsagents, so don't quote me on that.

[strider]

Next year's British F3 calendar has now been announced and it looks pretty good to me, although much the same as this year's apart from the addition of Pau at the expense of a race in Germany - just for you, bella!

Thankfully the National Class will be just that, not the Rookie Class, which was a daft idea. I think it will be much stronger next season.

[strider]

It escaped my notice until I read this that next year the winner of Race 2, the one with the partly reversed grid, will get maximum points in the same way as the winners of Races 2 and 3 who have established their grid positions by speed and ability.

Ridiculous. Tiff Needell put it very well on Twitter: "Winning a reverse grid race in F3 next year gets same points - so a lucky draw has same value as a hard earned pole! "

[chunterer]

That does indeed seem a bit farcical!

Why on earth the need to do that, a cynical ploy to ensure entries are as high as possible perhaps? After all this new scheme increases the chances of doing well?

[davyboy]

I guess it's to allow a driver from the 'non Carlin class' to get a win

... sorry I couldn't resist that.

[strider]

Strangely enough I think it may have done for that very reason and to engineer peace between the teams!

[jondownunder]

I think it's a horrible idea to award full points. Reversed grids are a travesty in themselves to me, but to give equal reward in terms of points to mediocre drivers compared to those who properly earned them is ridiculous.

[Flavio Galtieri]

Personally I love reversed grids races. Anything that shakes up the status quo a bit usually provides a better race and encourages overtaking, which is what we want isn't it? The drivers have to cope with it when they move up to GP3 or GP2 so why not?

And full points makes sense to me, might just make the difference in a close season. Otherwise you might as well dish out the points after qualifying.

[Carsandmotorracing]

Wrong, just plain wrong.

[jondownunder]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

Personally I love reversed grids races. Anything that shakes up the status quo a bit usually provides a better race and encourages overtaking, which is what we want isn't it? The drivers have to cope with it when they move up to GP3 or GP2 so why not?

And full points makes sense to me, might just make the difference in a close season. Otherwise you might as well dish out the points after qualifying.

No doubt reverse grids can produce entertaining races, but it's so contrived. With passing so difficult on most circuits, you're awarding mediocrity with a likely run to the win or a podium from the front. This now goes further than GP2/GP3, and I can't believe anyone could be comfortable with a reverse grid win being deemed as worthy of points as a dominating performance in qualifying and the race.

Just because GP2 started this trend, I'm not happy to see it filtering into the series below. I don't think they'd get away with it in F1 - imagine the media and fan backlash if they tried reverse grids! Enough critics already refuse to see motor racing as a sport.

When looking back at a season, I personally disregard the race 2 wins in GP2 as all but meaningless; at least they have the sense to award fewer points. I still maintain reverse grids have no business in proper racing. Unless we accept this is now an entertainment product alone like BTCC (minus the crowds), not a pure and fair sport (in terms of letting the best driver/team combination win).

I'd rather see more boring races as long as it means every race means something and it's easy to see who's got it and who hasn't. That's the way it always used to be, in F1, F2, F3000, F3... damn this modern era!

[bella]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

The drivers have to cope with it when they move up to GP3 or GP2 so why not?

well, yes. but then i think we have to look at why gp2 and gp3 do it in the first place. it's hardly to prepare for f1, is it? if your end goal of doing f3 is to prepare yourself for a paid career in ANY motorsport, sportscar included, reverse grids aren't relevant. you can prepare yourself for fighting through the field easily by having a crap qualifying session so essentially you're preparing yourself for something frivelous in the first place.

however, if the reason they're implementing and rewarding reverse grids is to give drivers from other teams a chance to win and be in the championship battle... hmm.

[tristancliffe]

I'd rather have success ballast than reverse grids.

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by bella

well, yes. but then i think we have to look at why gp2 and gp3 do it in the first place. it's hardly to prepare for f1, is it? if your end goal of doing f3 is to prepare yourself for a paid career in ANY motorsport, sportscar included, reverse grids aren't relevant.

Well, being of a certain age I can certainly understand the point of the "purists" who would rather see no reverse grids, but surely these days it doesn't hurt to spice the show up a bit for both spectators and viewers whilst encouraging a bit a racing at the same time.

Otherwise I can imagine a scenario where a driver with sufficient funds could simply join the best team at each level and then simply have to worry about his or her teammate each weekend.....never have to overtake a single soul all season.

Surely the reason we all loved Villeneuve, Mansell, Senna et al was because they were fighters, they overtook people, usually when others wouldn't? I just see reversed grids as a small step in keeping that skill alive.

[edenrace]

Just joined today before jetting off to Macau. MTB trainers ...thats me.

[edenrace]

Reverse grids gives the opportunity for a driver to get on the podium therebye helping them to secure funding to continue in racing,surely this is good to keep teams running. Same points just closes up the scores , the best driver still wins, note I said driver because F3 is about drivers not teams as the teams in British F3 are all very good and you need a good driver to win. In 2011 the top 7 have all raced in F3 for at least 2 years.

[strider]

Originally Posted by edenrace

Reverse grids gives the opportunity for a driver to get on the podium therebye helping them to secure funding to continue in racing,surely this is good to keep teams running. Same points just closes up the scores , the best driver still wins, note I said driver because F3 is about drivers not teams as the teams in British F3 are all very good and you need a good driver to win. In 2011 the top 7 have all raced in F3 for at least 2 years.

Good to see you on here edenrace. About three years too late but better late than never.

The argument for reverse grid races is understood and as it was worked well enough, but to extend it further down the grid and given the same points for a race result based on the luck of the draw rather than ability is a nonsense. I can't imagine that a win achieved in those circumstances would give the same satisfaction to a driver as one won fair and square.

Maybe they should have the qualification race in Macau and then reverse the grid for the final. Would give everyone a chance regardless of ability.

[jondownunder]

Originally Posted by edenrace

Reverse grids gives the opportunity for a driver to get on the podium therebye helping them to secure funding to continue in racing,surely this is good to keep teams running.

Might I suggest many drivers who can't otherwise get on the podium have no business in F3, and don't deserve that funding to continue?

I'm an old school purist and don't like reverse grids, but it seems they're here to stay. And if we must gift the mediocre/inexperienced meaningless podiums to show off to sponsors, I maintain it's going too far to award full points. It devalues the whole championship and puts huge question marks over whether the final points mean anything. Before this points change drivers down the field could still get the odd good result to satisfy sponsors etc and help keep their team in business.

Originally Posted by edenrace

Same points just closes up the scores , the best driver still wins, note I said driver because F3 is about drivers not teams as the teams in British F3 are all very good and you need a good driver to win. In 2011 the top 7 have all raced in F3 for at least 2 years.

Sorry, I don't agree, with 33.3% of races with an element of lottery to them, the best driver won't necessarily win any more. I would hate to see the title go to someone who racked up a lot of reverse grid wins.

Plus I wouldn't agree that all the teams are equally "very good"... some of the Carlin drivers are fairly mediocre IMHO, and likely wouldn't have finished so high up in the championship with a lesser team.

Welcome btw

[bella]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

Otherwise I can imagine a scenario where a driver with sufficient funds could simply join the best team at each level and then simply have to worry about his or her teammate each weekend.....never have to overtake a single soul all season.

Surely the reason we all loved Villeneuve, Mansell, Senna et al was because they were fighters, they overtook people, usually when others wouldn't? I just see reversed grids as a small step in keeping that skill alive.

i think there's been a couple of family bought and run teams in f3-fr3.5 who have shown it's not really that easy. outside of those teams, i'm not sure i see what's wrong with paying the most for the very best and knowledgable engineers, isn't that what happens in the Real World? if you can afford the most well made and well tailored clothes, for example, you buy them. if you can't, you make the best of what you can afford.

keeping the skill alive? crikey, isn't it what puts the "racing" in "racing driver"? that's the same reason i don't agree with timed races rather than lapped ones - you're supposed to be racing to the finish, not droning round in circles till the clock runs out, where's the urgency in that!

i think the fact the young drivers going into f1 shock the old fart establishment with how racy and competitive they are on circuit shows that no matter how processional some racing is now, the guys who really badly want it will still move heaven and earth on the track to get it.

[edenrace]

In an ideal world all the best drivers would have adequate funds to go racing in the higher levels. To enable championships and teams to survive you must attract drivers, sadly not enough can find the budgets and the number of series available to those that can is vast. Therefore you have to run a series to attract drivers , if we had enough super talented funded drivers then I too would be a purist. However I am a realist and I believe the teams who run in F3 understand what is required to have decent sized grids, hence the changes for 2012.

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by bella

outside of those teams, i'm not sure i see what's wrong with paying the most for the very best and knowledgable engineers, isn't that what happens in the Real World? if you can afford the most well made and well tailored clothes, for example, you buy them. if you can't, you make the best of what you can afford.

I suppose it depends whether you think sport ought to mirror the "Real World"? I rather like the thought of the financial underdog winning from time to time, hopeless romantic that I am....

The skill of overtaking is what I'm talking about. Reversed grids with full points should encourage that surely? Imagine if the championship hinged on a driver getting from 8th to 2nd? Not good for the purist maybe but great for the rest of us?

[bella]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

I suppose it depends whether you think sport ought to mirror the "Real World"? I rather like the thought of the financial underdog winning from time to time, hopeless romantic that I am....

The skill of overtaking is what I'm talking about. Reversed grids with full points should encourage that surely? Imagine if the championship hinged on a driver getting from 8th to 2nd? Not good for the purist maybe but great for the rest of us?

well in the Real World the financial underdog does win too. skill is only rewarded by money once it becomes apparent, without wanting to sound too existentialist for a thursday

lots of championships do hinge on the very scenario you suggest. for example, the fr3.5 title in the final race was down to whether jean eric vergne could keep it on the circuit and in the points after he'd collided with wickens and damaged his car. epic stuff. and that's from... a series that doesn't do reverse grids

back to formula 3 and it'll be interesting to see how the drs wing works in the f3 open next year. someone ought to keep an eye on it and see whether a reverse grid in british f3 creates as many overtaking opportunities as drs does

is there not an arguement that says that if the field is very evenly matched in terms of pace anyway that reversing a grid really isn't going to make much difference?

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by bella

well in the Real World the financial underdog does win too. skill is only rewarded by money once it becomes apparent, without wanting to sound too existentialist for a thursday

Ah, that'll be why ex F3 winner Max Chilton is testing an F1 car next week then? I knew I liked Simone de Beauvoir, just couldn't remember why?

[strider]

Originally Posted by bella

is there not an argument that says that if the field is very evenly matched in terms of pace anyway that reversing a grid really isn't going to make much difference?

That's the point. The cars and drivers are evenly matched so the one gifted pole position in race 2 should be able to stay ahead if he's any use at all.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

Ah, that'll be why ex F3 winner Max Chilton is testing an F1 car next week then? I knew I liked Simone de Beauvoir, just couldn't remember why?

...i was thinking of names such as anton nebylitskiy and filip salaquarda to prove that you can't just go around throwing money at a family owned team but yes, ok...

as for cigarette sponsorship, i always felt oil companies should step into the breach, but we're clearly in a far too politically correct world for that to be a good thing any more

eta:

Originally Posted by strider

That's the point. The cars and drivers are evenly matched so the one gifted pole position in race 2 should be able to stay ahead if he's any use at all.

so from both ends of the discussion we've come to the conclusion it's no good at all, unless you have big pace gaps between drivers. which, if it isn't there by way of having a varied talent pool in driving and engineering terms, needs to be created with more dodgy flappy wings and iffy tyres.

so we're back to square one on the creating drama front then!