[BTCC] Round 4 - Thruxton, 18th May 2008

[BootsOntheSide]

Some good racing, just a shame the punctures were so frequent. Teams probably need to look at the setups to prevent it in future? Andy Jordan deserved a big result from race 3 as well. Great drive from TOC though, he's starting to look like a star of the future.

[BILTEL]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Some good racing, just a shame the punctures were so frequent. Teams probably need to look at the setups to prevent it in future? Andy Jordan deserved a big result from race 3 as well. Great drive from TOC though, he's starting to look like a star of the future.

Agree with TOC and Jordan. Superb!!!

[awrb]

Gutting for Andrew Jordan, really deserved a good result. Gio was amaing in that last race too. Shame how Turkington just didn't have pace though, was it just the weight?

I think that after 12 races Jelley needs to really prove himself next time out, cos one points dire really. And he just lost it in R3.

Great weekend though, really good, fair racing

[snowen250]

Great last race, heartbreaking for Andrew Jordan!
Nice clean racing all round
Simon

[trebor901]

i went today and i have to say it was some of the best wheel to wheel racing ive seen in a while in BTCC, no excessive banging and pushing, just a really nice fast paced race. Also i was so rooting for Andy Jordan to win Race 3, he so deserved it and i was absolutely gutted when they announced over the tannoy that he was pulling into the pits. Also well done to the stewards in race 1, it cant just be coincidence that SEAT failed the ride height check yesterday in qualifying AND today in Race 1. Cheating seems to be their way of winning at the moment.

[Hazard]

Originally Posted by trebor901

Also well done to the stewards in race 1, it cant just be coincidence that SEAT failed the ride height check yesterday in qualifying AND today in Race 1. Cheating seems to be their way of winning at the moment.

Damage to Plato's car is the reason why Plato failed the right height check in race one.

He rightfully pointed out the double standard that Gordon Shedden was able to use accident damage to mitigate against a penalty, whereas SEAT were disqualified.

The rules have to be equally enforced to be fair.

[trebor901]

how did Plato have damage after race 1? he for once didnt actually plough into anyone.

[tator2001uk]

i think overall today was a good advert for btcc, independents and teams closely battling, couple of points

A - Im glad plato was so honest bout his unhappyness haha worth a laugh

B- why does Gio get away with the constant nudging etc(jordan in to chicane) i can guaantee that he does it again at croft to anyone he feels shouldnt be near im

C-is matt neal just the drive steady get team points driver?? e didnt try to overtake half the race

D-well done jackson and jordan

E-Jelly binned stockton??? and jordan???? hes useless.....sorry but put the car in someone elses hands

[Icebaby]

E-Jelly binned stockton??? and jordan???? hes useless.....sorry but put the car in someone elses hands[/quote]

I did say this a 2 rounds ago, Its just not working and really WSR should hand the money back to Jelley and put someone else in the car, you just can't justify 1 point in a car that has race winning potential.

[Hazard]

Originally Posted by trebor901

how did Plato have damage after race 1? he for once didnt actually plough into anyone.

Giovanardi hit him. Standard bumper to bumper stuff. Not a crash per se.

[gregc]

Originally Posted by tator2001uk

B- why does Gio get away with the constant nudging etc(jordan in to chicane) i can guaantee that he does it again at croft to anyone he feels shouldnt be near im

C-is matt neal just the drive steady get team points driver?? e didnt try to overtake half the race

In my view Gio is no worse than anyone else - in fact there's other drivers who are far worse. I'd say that incident with Jordan was a racing one.

As for Neal, he's struggling to get used to the car - he seems to slowly be getting there, but to paraphrase an overheard conversation in the paddock "It doesn't help when you're consistently getting beating by a 21 year old!"

All that aside - great day's racing today. TOC was superb again, gutted for Andy Jordan in the last race, not just holding on in second,also putting some serious pressure on Plato.

Some great young talent in the series at the moment.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by Icebaby

I did say this a 2 rounds ago, Its just not working and really WSR should hand the money back to Jelley and put someone else in the car, you just can't justify 1 point in a car that has race winning potential.

He's having a torrid time adjusting to tin-tops, but I doubt he'll be removed by WSR.

[gomick]

great to see the "junior" VX racer giving his name team-mates a run for there money...

[sceptic]

Originally Posted by stedevil

The issue here isn't that the punishment is too low, problem is that it's completely arbitrary. If you get "caught" at the beginning of a session, you get no punishment at all but can adjust the settings and go out to set a new time. If you get caught too late you end up at the very back of the grid. Same offence, two completely different penalties. How is that in any way fair or equal?

You do get punished if you are caught at the beginning of the session - you have all your times deleted up to that point.

If you are setting unusually fast times, then the chances are, you will be called into scrutineering next time you pit.

If any team is in doubt as to the legality of their car they can voluntarily have it checked by the scrutineers.

And because the track was a lot faster at the start of the session than at the end, those cars which did have their times deleted were always at a disadvantage.

[werner]

Originally Posted by gregc

As for Neal, he's struggling to get used to the car - he seems to slowly be getting there, but to paraphrase an overheard conversation in the paddock "It doesn't help when you're consistently getting beating by a 21 year old!"
Some great young talent in the series at the moment.

To be honest, this was only the first meeting inwitch TOC outscored neal. And before this weekend TOC had not showed a lot in BTCC, while Neal is a 2-times champion, so for now I still think Neal will beat TOC in the championship.
But it would be nice to see if TOC can get Neal to really work hard for that, and be truly a future star.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Hazard

Damage to Plato's car is the reason why Plato failed the right height check in race one.

He rightfully pointed out the double standard that Gordon Shedden was able to use accident damage to mitigate against a penalty, whereas SEAT were disqualified.

The rules have to be equally enforced to be fair.

Hazard, while I totally agree that the rules have to be equally enforced, do we know that the level/type of damage where equal.

Shedden's damage, as judged by the scrutineers, was the cause of failing the ride-height check.
Plato's damage, again as judged by the scrutineers, wasn't enough/the cause of the car failing the ride-height.

It could be that the rules were applied unfairly, I don't know. What I wouldn't want to see happening is a case where a car is setup outside the rules, sets a blistering flying lap, and then the driver just ditches it in gravel to allow 'accident damage' as an excuse for failing scrutineering.

[GroupOfOne]

Just watched the highlights of this on ITV4 earlier this evening. What was it with ITV (ok Kravitz & Edwards) referring at least twice to O-Cole's first every BTCC win

Looked pretty good action, though I guess that's the whole point of a highlights programme. Seemed to be very little car-on-car contact this weekend (and there wasn't even that much at DP last round), standards improving, or drivers just wary of the credit crunch when it comes to repair bills?

Big well done to O-Cole though, some very good performances there. Nice to see Turkington at the front too.

[safc_fan89]

Ben Edwards quickly corrected his comment to 'first win for TOC at VXR'. Kravitz on the other hand...I think it's obvious that he doesn't give two hoots about the BTCC and is only doing it for a bit of extra cash. His aggressive interviewing 'technique' isn't particularly present to watch either.

[GroupOfOne]

Originally Posted by safc_fan89

Ben Edwards quickly corrected his comment to 'first win for TOC at VXR'.

Ah right, I don't remember hearing that on the highlights (at the end when he's wrapping up the race three result), so either I wasn't listening or it didn't make it into the highlights package.

As for Kravitz, he mentioned it once, then again when he was interviewing T O-C, during some long winded question about winning in other formulae-touring car-saloon championships or something.

[stedevil]

Originally Posted by sceptic

You do get punished if you are caught at the beginning of the session - you have all your times deleted up to that point.

You are repeating exactly what I wrote in my post. You also seem to not realize that the severity of the penalty for having to start at the back of the grid is a lot harsher then having to go ut and set a new laptime.

And because the track was a lot faster at the start of the session than at the end, those cars which did have their times deleted were always at a disadvantage.

In 90+% of the cases later in the qualifying session gives better times. Also, IMO, rules should be made intelligently enough to give the same level of penalty no matter when in a session an infringement is discovered. "Set new time" and "start at back of the grid" in no way is in parity with each other.

[werner]

Good thinking, that should be changed.

[Hazard]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Hazard, while I totally agree that the rules have to be equally enforced, do we know that the level/type of damage where equal.

Shedden's damage, as judged by the scrutineers, was the cause of failing the ride-height check.
Plato's damage, again as judged by the scrutineers, wasn't enough/the cause of the car failing the ride-height.

It could be that the rules were applied unfairly, I don't know. What I wouldn't want to see happening is a case where a car is setup outside the rules, sets a blistering flying lap, and then the driver just ditches it in gravel to allow 'accident damage' as an excuse for failing scrutineering.

Agreed. Which is why is becomes a grey area - which always causes problems.

Like you say, to assume that accident damage wasn't deliberately attained in order to 'pass' the ride/height check, then the other extreme should be taken.

It should be the case that Shedden's times were therefore disallowed.

[redshoes]

Normally he doesn't comment on specific cases but Alan Gow has answered a question about this on his Q&A forum http://www.btcc.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6278

The stewards are allowed some digression is they believe the ride height failure was solely the result of accident damage. In this they deemed that this was true in Plato's case. The way I read it, they decided that the accident damage was not the sole reason why the car failed, rather than saying there was no accident damage.

Without actually seeing the underside of the car it's difficult for anyone here to make an accurate judgement.

[Aunt Sally]

What digression did they use when Plato's SEAT clearly did not pass the height check on the front of the car after race three!

Clear for all to see on ITV4!

[touring fan01]

I read motoring news today and Alan Gow made a good point when they interviewed him. He basically said the team had failed the ride height 3 times in the last 3 race meetings so its not unusual that team makes mistakes like that.

Plato isnt going to publicly blame his team for stuffing up again so I guess he tried to blame someone or something else.