2009 Mclaren Autosport young driver awards

[Flavio Galtieri]

Personally I've always been impressed with Smith. OK so he might be more reserved on camera than some but so what? He has delivered the goods in style.

I'd like to see him do F2 as another year flogging around the same UK tracks he'll never race on again in BF3 for a ridiculous amount of money would only be of use if he won it, but even then what next?

At least winning F2 would get him an F1 test like Soucek.

[krt917]

Originally Posted by Deemun

One thing I would like clarified, and obviously this didn't apply just to Dean, has the ruling on previously or currently competing in F3 or equivilent formula been relaxed?

No, the rule states that they can't have raced a Championship-class F3 car during that season. Smith did a one-off Championship Class outing at Donington at the end of 2008 (and scored two fourths), but that was it.

As far as I know the rule hasn't been changed - I believe it was what kept Lewis Hamilton out of the Award - certainly not in recent times.

[runshaw]

Originally Posted by miniman

Sorry I usually subscribe to the theory if you can't say anything nice then don't speak, but puleeeese! FOUR YEARS to win Formula Renault! and consistent, yes, but boring both on and off track!

Ridiculous post. You seem to have somehow ignored the views of everyone on here and not taken into consideration Smith's circumstances whatsoever. You should stick to your theory's more often because you have just made yourself look like a fool. Who on earth are you to come here and critisize the winner of the most prestigious award a junior driver can win after claiming the Formula Renault title despite not competing in the pre-season testing and opening rounds simply because he was trying to secure a seat in F3 after his performances at Donington in 2008 warranted him a drive? But of course he didn't have budget so he did the next best thing, and look what he's just won through determination.

[strider]

Originally Posted by ivanalesi

Btw, may be it's not the correct thread, but what is going on with Nick Tandy? I just wanted to see a guy who started in Minis to drive F1 McLaren and he's pretty talented

It's sort of the right thread but a couple of years too late. Nick is definitely better than Stefan Wilson, who did win it, but then JP had a big say in how things went in recent years until now. Last thing I heard Nick and Porsche Supercup were being mentioned in the same sentence.

[jondownunder]

He was right up at the front in the final rounds at Abu Dhabi, and finished 2nd in the German series at Dijon. It's a shame if he's lost to single seaters, as I think the guy is seriously talented.

[FFfan]

Originally Posted by runshaw

Ridiculous post. You seem to have somehow ignored the views of everyone on here and not taken into consideration Smith's circumstances whatsoever. You should stick to your theory's more often because you have just made yourself look like a fool. Who on earth are you to come here and critisize the winner of the most prestigious award a junior driver can win after claiming the Formula Renault title despite not competing in the pre-season testing and opening rounds simply because he was trying to secure a seat in F3 after his performances at Donington in 2008 warranted him a drive? But of course he didn't have budget so he did the next best thing, and look what he's just won through determination.

Well said!

[ivanalesi]

I think F2 would be the right championship for someone like Nick. No testing, super teams and bang on the pace, also he must be respected by Palmer and co.

[krt917]

Originally Posted by strider

It's sort of the right thread but a couple of years too late. Nick is definitely better than Stefan Wilson, who did win it, but then JP had a big say in how things went in recent years until now.

I'm sure you won't believe this, but that wasn't the case.

I'm a big fan of Nick's and know him well - if I had the money I'd stick him in a top F3 (or even GP2) team - but he knows why he didn't win the award in 2007!

[strider]

Originally Posted by krt917

I'm sure you won't believe this, but that wasn't the case.

I'm a big fan of Nick's and know him well - if I had the money I'd stick him in a top F3 (or even GP2) team - but he knows why he didn't win the award in 2007!

No, if you say so I'm happy to believe you, but I still think Nick should have won the award!

[krt917]

Well I'm not going to disagree with you!

[FFfan]

Originally Posted by krt917

Well I'm not going to disagree with you!

Top ten's in Autosport make interesting reading; nice to see drivers from sub-national level being recognised for their achievements

[krt917]

Cheers! I must say, it's quite fun being part of the top 10 list-making (I've always been a sucker for lists!), except for the fact that you always have to leave people out who you'd like to mention. I've already had one driver contact me to ask why he isn't in the list and he has a good case, as do many others.

So, go on then, I'm asking for it! What do people think? Who should be higher/lower, or who should we have included?

Kevin Turner
Autosport

[Deemun]

Originally Posted by krt917

Cheers! I must say, it's quite fun being part of the top 10 list-making (I've always been a sucker for lists!), except for the fact that you always have to leave people out who you'd like to mention. I've already had one driver contact me to ask why he isn't in the list and he has a good case, as do many others.

So, go on then, I'm asking for it! What do people think? Who should be higher/lower, or who should we have included?

Kevin Turner
Autosport

No complaints from me; but as you say with only 10 drivers for each category its going to be very hard not to miss out some worthy cases. If you could have had a top 15 or 20 (yes I know space limits this) then perhaps Dan Cammish,for instance, would have made the National list. But generally it's a pretty accurate reflection of the season. I probably would've had Butcher & Malvern in equal 2nd place in the top 10 club drivers listing as they were very hard to seperate & I think Scott did a great job given Rory's greater experience but its not a moan. It was great also that the pair of them were picked as the top rivalry as they had some great battles this year and I'm sure it helped both of them to raise their game. By contrast look at Rory's pretty easy ride back home in the Scottish Championship. He was probably pleased (or maybe not) that Scott decided to only make one trip north of the border this year!

[boyndie]

I read comments made by miniman, and agree, then see the response it attracted. Thank god there is someone out there like miniman who actually says it as it is. For sure, Dean Smith is a good driver and congrats to him in getting the award however, the harsh reality is that Dean has been around for many years, has far more experience than the other candidates and had a huge advantage. I just dont get the autosports awards, to me it is to recognise and award the next possible british formula one champion or top of any major series, not too act as a consolation prize for someone who has reach his peak. Smith is someone who has been tested and failed before and on one day can prove himself slightly quicker in a car he already has experience in or if he could do more press ups or whatever they do, just crazy. The criteria should be changed, namely only new award candidates only, none of which have ever raced the test cars and that have very limted car experience but with success in what they do.Win or lose, the prestige will help some talented young drivers, give them a chance.The award should never be given to the person who needs the money more. Its so obvious that previous experience is not taken into account, Dean has been around for years, yes he won the BMW championship years ago but only recently inherited the renault uk title due to calado`s mechanical failures and his mysterious last round penalty from pole to start from 9th or 10th!! More race wins, more poles, more fastest laps in only his second year in cars, these are award winning facts. For me and probably many honest others, the best race driver and best current british prospect, by far, didnt win the award!!

[strider]

That's a curious post.

Jamie Calado is fully sponsored by Racing Steps and has already signed to race with Carlin BF3 next year. He has no need of the award, other than the title.

On the other hand, Dean Smith has always had to struggle to find the money and several of us on here think he was a far more deserving candidate, so the result is just fine.

[Gaz]

Dean Smith ran well at Donington in his only F3 outing to date back in 2008, unfortunately money meant he couldn't make the jump and attempt to prove himself over a season. Hopefully winning this award will allow him access to a quick car in a competitive category, then me can really assess his ability. For me, he was always in a no win situation this year coming back to Formula Renault, but he did a good job. He's now won Formula BMW as well as Formula Renault here in the UK, not many young drivers out there can say that!

As for the award itself, I lost respect for it the night they decided to give it to Stefan Wilson in 2007. As time has proven, that was a rather bizarre decision!

[50-SIX]

Originally Posted by Gaz

As for the award itself, I lost respect for it the night they decided to give it to Stefan Wilson in 2007. As time has proven, that was a rather bizarre decision!

Here here!

[boyndie]

Originally Posted by strider

That's a curious post.

Jamie Calado is fully sponsored by Racing Steps and has already signed to race with Carlin BF3 next year. He has no need of the award, other than the title.

On the other hand, Dean Smith has always had to struggle to find the money and several of us on here think he was a far more deserving candidate, so the result is just fine.

An interesting but somewhat alarming reply. Effectively, you are suggesting that Dean Smith was more deserving because he needs the money more!! To think and suggest that a far superior driver and british prospect in Calado was denied the award because he has sponsorship is very insensitive and politically incorrect.I am sure he wanted to win just as much as all the other candidates. I see that additional comments are coming through regarding Wilson getting the award over and above other more deserving candidates. This years decision albeit so clearly wrong is obviously not the first year the award has taken a curious detour. Using your words, the result is NOT just fine.

[krt917]

OK, I'll bite!

Originally Posted by boyndie

The harsh reality is that Dean has been around for many years, has far more experience than the other candidates and had a huge advantage. I just dont get the autosports awards, to me it is to recognise and award the next possible british formula one champion or top of any major series, not too act as a consolation prize for someone who has reach his peak. Smith is someone who has been tested and failed before and on one day can prove himself slightly quicker in a car he already has experience in or if he could do more press ups or whatever they do, just crazy.

Dean does indeed have more car racing experience than the other candidates and this was, and is always, taken into account. You need to remember, though, that James Calado had tested several times with Carlin prior to the test while Dean hadn't sat in an F3 car for over a year. James also had much more experience in karting, which shouldn't be overlooked, so the gap in their relative experience isn't as big as first appears.

There seems to be a misconception that what the drivers do during the season has an impact on the final decision. The fact is the drivers' seasons get them chosen, then the scores are effectively reset. You could well argue that James had a better season than Dean in FRUK - though our correspondant who went to virtually every round, knows them and the teams well wouldn't agree - but the point is it is not the important factor when it comes to who wins the award.

The decision is based on how the drivers perform over the test days. As it happens James and Dean were - predictably - very close, but Dean edged it. If we just chose the guy who everyone already rated then there wouldn't be a need for a test and we'd just get accused of jumping on the bandwagon of a driver who looks the most likely to make it.

As for Dean failing before, are you aware of why he failed before? Are you saying that if a guy has another great season - at the right level - but has appeared before he should just be ignored?

[krt917]

Originally Posted by boyndie

The award should never be given to the person who needs the money more.

It isn't, unless they were the best driver in the tests.

Originally Posted by boyndie

Its so obvious that previous experience is not taken into account

It is - please see above.

Originally Posted by boyndie

I see that additional comments are coming through regarding Wilson getting the award over and above other more deserving candidates. This years decision albeit so clearly wrong is obviously not the first year the award has taken a curious detour. Using your words, the result is NOT just fine.

I shan't comment on 2007 as I wasn't a judge (though I was at the test), but in all due respect how would you know the decision is "clearly" wrong? Do you have access to the data and lap times?

I too believe that James Calado is a fine talent - and he is not the only one out there - and I hope he will go far. That is one problem with the award - you only get one winner, but that doesn't mean the other drivers aren't good!

[Gaz]

I'd be interested to know why Jonathan Palmer and Snetterton had nothing to do with the Awards this year? Would it be wrong for me to put two and two together? There was something a little political about that 2007 decision. I wasn't at the test days and have no access to any information from them. However, Stefan must have produced form on those days that he'd never produced before or since - he couldn't even hold a handle to a very average bunch of Class B racers in F3 in 2008!

Just as the FIA are accountable when it comes to decisions I think there should be a written explanation each year to explain why the award was given to a certain driver over the others. That would then give more credit to the award and the driver, as well as installing faith into the decision that is reached.

[Mak]

Originally Posted by Gaz

I'd be interested to know why Jonathan Palmer and Snetterton had nothing to do with the Awards this year? Would it be wrong for me to put two and two together? There was something a little political about that 2007 decision. I wasn't at the test days and have no access to any information from them. However, Stefan must have produced form on those days that he'd never produced before or since - he couldn't even hold a handle to a very average bunch of Class B racers in F3 in 2008!

Just as the FIA are accountable when it comes to decisions I think there should be a written explanation each year to explain why the award was given to a certain driver over the others. That would then give more credit to the award and the driver, as well as installing faith into the decision that is reached.

It is good to have an award such as this to help up and coming drivers. I do not think that any accountability to you, or anyone other than those who actually have an input into this award is necessary. If you would like to fund such an award then you could expect an account. As it is, it already has great credability amoung the racing industry. As with all awards not everyone can be pleased and not all deserving selected.

[Gaz]

Well we have this award shoved down our throats week in and week out in Autosport magazine leading up to the Awards evening. Readers help decide the finalist for this award so I feel a certain degree of accountability is required. If it was an award, kept in house like some of the category Scholarships then it would be a different matter in my eyes. The lack of accountability is the reason that questions are asked, particularly when you consider years such as 2007......

[krt917]

Thank you for your support Mak.

I am, however, happy to respond to Gaz's points.

Originally Posted by Gaz

I'd be interested to know why Jonathan Palmer and Snetterton had nothing to do with the Awards this year? There was something a little political about that 2007 decision. I wasn't at the test days and have no access to any information from them. However, Stefan must have produced form on those days that he'd never produced before or since - he couldn't even hold a handle to a very average bunch of Class B racers in F3 in 2008!

I wouldn't like to speak for Jonathan, who was a great supporter of the event for some years, but I don't believe there was any major issue that resulted in him not being involved this year. The BRDC increased their involvement to fill the void, hence running the tests at Silverstone.

It certainly had nothing to do with Stefan's win, which has attracted a lot of discussion. I have my own views on 2007 that I will keep to myself, but I'm sure the decision was made in good faith - i.e. it wasn't political, but was a judgement made by the judges given the events at the tests.

Originally Posted by Gaz

I think there should be a written explanation each year to explain why the award was given to a certain driver over the others. That would then give more credit to the award and the driver, as well as installing faith into the decision that is reached.

This is something that has been discussed. Obviously we're not obliged to, but I think it would be good to give a bit more info. It's still being discussed, but I'm afraid I can't say anything more at the moment!

[boyndie]

Originally Posted by krt917

OK, I'll bite!



Dean does indeed have more car racing experience than the other candidates and this was, and is always, taken into account. You need to remember, though, that James Calado had tested several times with Carlin prior to the test while Dean hadn't sat in an F3 car for over a year. James also had much more experience in karting, which shouldn't be overlooked, so the gap in their relative experience isn't as big as first appears.

There seems to be a misconception that what the drivers do during the season has an impact on the final decision. The fact is the drivers' seasons get them chosen, then the scores are effectively reset. You could well argue that James had a better season than Dean in FRUK - though our correspondant who went to virtually every round, knows them and the teams well wouldn't agree - but the point is it is not the important factor when it comes to who wins the award.

The decision is based on how the drivers perform over the test days. As it happens James and Dean were - predictably - very close, but Dean edged it. If we just chose the guy who everyone already rated then there wouldn't be a need for a test and we'd just get accused of jumping on the bandwagon of a driver who looks the most likely to make it.

As for Dean failing before, are you aware of why he failed before? Are you saying that if a guy has another great season - at the right level - but has appeared before he should just be ignored?

Regretably for me, you have access to information that I am not aware but I have to comment as a true and honest fan of real motorsport talent. I was at every Renault race this year and quite honestly, I must have been watching different races to your correspondant however, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Dean was indeed great at Rockingham, that`s one to him, can`t think of any other races unless we include the ones where Calado was watching from the sidelines with mechanical failures, not difficult to beat him there!
I obviously didn`t know James and Dean were close in the test but not suprised. I had read that James had tested a F3 before the awards test but if you are suggesting that the gap in their relative experience isn`t as big as it first appears is nonsense, karting has no comparison to aero cars and for James to adapt and achieve success in less than 2 years compared to Deans 5 or 6 years is remarkable. We only need to think back to Lewis`s first year in Renault to see how hard it is, even someone of his brilliance.Isn`t it strange why Lewis never won the award? Perhaps he was seen to be the driver at that time who looks the most likely to make it. If it is true what you say and James and Dean were close in all the tests, not just the driving, James should have been the clear choice but as previously stated and if it`s all about winning the award, it`s unfortunate that James is already good enough to attract sponsorship and maybe the selection process was clouded due to this. In answer to your last sentence, I strongly believe that the award should be offered to first time candidates only, it`s great for any driver to gain the nomination but not right to be in competition with drivers who have been and failed before.Perhaps they should select a complete line up of veterans to make it fair so not to be ignored. I say good luck to both Dean and James and the other 2009 candidates, I know who my moneys on.