[WTCC] Race 9 & 10 - Valencia (SPA), 31st May 2009

[FIRE]

Schedule
Free Practice 1: Saturday 08:4509:15
Free Practice 2: Saturday 11:4512:15
Qualifying Q1: Saturday 15:1515:35
Qualifying Q1: Saturday 15:4015:50
Warm Up: Sunday 09:3009:45
Race 1: Sunday 12:5013:20
Race 2: Sunday 15:0515:35

The turbo diesel SEAT Leons have been granted an increased boost pressure for the next round of the World Touring Car Championship at Valencia next weekend.
...
The FIA Touring Car Bureau has responeded by raising the limit to 2.7 bar, with pressure spikes during gear shifts allowed provided they last less than one second.
The FIA has also clarified the technical regulations regarding overreving, following the dispute at last weekend's Pau round.
The maximum rev limit remains at 8500 for petrol cars and 4200 for diesels, but cases of overreving while downshifting, wheelspinning or jumping over kerbs will not be punished.
...
The weights for each of the cars at Valencia have also been confirmed. The laptimes from the events in Mexico, Morocco and France were taken into account with the BMW 320si emerging as the quickest car. It will receive a further 40kg of ballast, while the Chevrolets will get 30kg and the diesel SEATs 20kg.
The other cars, the Lada 110, petrol-powered SEAT Leon and Alex Zanardi's sequential gearbox BMW will have a further 20kg deducted.

Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75509

[touring fan01]

These weight calculations are getting ridiculous.

The BMW's have not even won a race this year but have gained even more weight than the Chevvies and Seats, who have won every race ?!

Its all very well to have mathmatical calulation based on lap times, but the reality is that the on-track results are very different.

It just makes no sense to further penalise and slow-down a car that hasn't even won a race!

This championship is turning into a complete farce.

[werner]

Well, in Pau, 8 of the 16 pointscoringpositions have gone to BMW, and 3 of the 6 podiums. That there's no win for them has nothing to do with them not being fast enough, but all with just being outsmarted and outraced by Huff an Menu. (And offcourse being punted out of the race by the safetycar)
Imo it does make sense to slow down the fastest car, and that apparantly is the BMW. This to make sure every driver have the same chance to win a race.
(And no, that BMW has not been able to win a race yet does not prove BMW-drivers have a lower chance. Statistically, the number of races is to low and the number of variables that obviously have an impact on the outcome of the races is to high)

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by werner

Well, in Pau, 8 of the 16 pointscoringpositions have gone to BMW, and 3 of the 6 podiums. That there's no win for them has nothing to do with them not being fast enough, but all with just being outsmarted and outraced by Huff an Menu. (And offcourse being punted out of the race by the safetycar)
Imo it does make sense to slow down the fastest car, and that apparantly is the BMW. This to make sure every driver have the same chance to win a race.
(And no, that BMW has not been able to win a race yet does not prove BMW-drivers have a lower chance. Statistically, the number of races is to low and the number of variables that obviously have an impact on the outcome of the races is to high)

Right.....so if the Lada was setting fastest laps, but was unreliable and kept breaking down so didn't get any results - then it should be slowed down by having more weight added?!
Of course not.

The championship should be based and decided purely on results, not theoretical math calculations.

[werner]

Well, the Lada should be made more reliable in your case. But I don't think reliability is a very big problem in the WTCC.
The championship Ã*s based on results. And to give every driver a fair chance at a good result the cars should be about equally fast.

[Les]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Right.....so if the Lada was setting fastest laps, but was unreliable and kept breaking down so didn't get any results - then it should be slowed down by having more weight added?!
Of course not.

yes it should - say the Lada got pole every time and lead every race but then broke down then it has the potential to go and win the races but a slow car that finishes would never win.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by Les

yes it should - say the Lada got pole every time and lead every race but then broke down then it has the potential to go and win the races but a slow car that finishes would never win.

Really?

You think its correct to put more weight on a car that does the fastest lap but never features in the results - and to put less on the cars that win all the races? You don't see anything wrong with that scenario do you?

Ballast should be given to the most successful cars - the ones that have achieved the best results. Not the ones that have the least success!

[helterskelter]

BMW didn't win because the stewards played with the quali results and stole away a pole from Priaulx. 2 BMWs in the first 2 position at the start and Huffy would have had a much harder time in passing both of them. For this race, overreving while downshifting, jumping kerbs and spinning the wheels is not a problem anymore. In the meantime, during quali the poleman broke the rules for less than 100 rpms and got back to 5th, and so did other 8 drivers.
During the other race this happens for 15 people and nothing is done. this is getting so funny and actually I don't know wether to laugh or cry. We talk about the weight system and they play with the championship with no respect towards the resources a manufacturer puts into the championship, the racing drivers who need great results to find a job the next year and, most of all, US!!! WE keep the championship alive because we watch it and they play with it as if they were doing a poker tournament in a club near their homes.
As for BMW having the max weight because it's faster, I don't think it makes much sense. First of all, true that BMW have taken 3 podium spots out of 6, but remember the other 3 were taken by Chevy, who won both races. What happens now is that SEAT have a higher turbo pressure allowed, are 20kgs lighter than the BMWs and are leading the championship, after having won half of the races that have been held. Chevy are 10 kgs lighter, though they won the rest of the races. BMW are the heaviest car in the field but haven't won a single race. So this is equalization... Equalization is there to make it possible that you have as many people fighting for the championship at the last race. Basically, let's say it honestly, it's there to make everyone happy with the championship and have their share of wins.
A reasonable system would be giving the penalty weights based on the models' success: Leòn TDis win 4 races in a row? Max ballast for all Leòn TDis; Cruzes win 4 races in a row? Max ballast for Cruzes.

[awrb]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

Really?

You think its correct to put more weight on a car that does the fastest lap but never features in the results - and to put less on the cars that win all the races? You don't see anything wrong with that scenario do you?

Ballast should be given to the most successful cars - the ones that have achieved the best results. Not the ones that have the least success!

If the car is the fastest and doesn't win, the team have to solve the problem by fixing the car not getting less weight.

How about if one driver always makes mistakes. He's the fastest, but always spins out of the lead. Should he get less weight so he can get a win?

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by awrb

If the car is the fastest and doesn't win, the team have to solve the problem by fixing the car not getting less weight.

How about if one driver always makes mistakes. He's the fastest, but always spins out of the lead. Should he get less weight so he can get a win?

With respect I think you are missing my point.

Let's forget reliability and talk about how good a car is over the race distance. If, just for example, the Seats were unbeaten and won every race because their car was better over the full race distance (but their fastest lap times were below the BMW's or Chevvies) then how on earth is it right that the others should get even more ballast and the Seats get less? You can't see an issue with that and how ridiculous it would be?

This system only concentrates on lap times, not results. I can't think of any other form of sport that further penalises a competitor that has not achieved the same level of results as the leaders.

Do you really think it would be correct if a car had won, say, 9 out of 9 races and totally dominated the championship - but other cars who may be faster over a single lap, but not over the whole race distance, should be slowed down even more and given less chance to win? That is what this system can do because it doesn't take into account the results acheived.

Any ballast system should only be set on results - it shouldn't be any other way. To do it solely on lap times while totally ignoring the race results, is pure nonsense.

[awrb]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

With respect I think you are missing my point.

Let's forget reliability and talk about how good a car is over the race distance. If, just for example, the Seats were unbeaten and won every race because their car was better over the full race distance (but their fastest lap times were below the BMW's or Chevvies) then how on earth is it right that the others should get even more ballast and the Seats get less? You can't see an issue with that and how ridiculous it would be?

This system only concentrates on lap times, not results. I can't think of any other form of sport that further penalises a competitor that has not achieved the same level of results as the leaders.

Do you really think it would be correct if a car had won, say, 9 out of 9 races and totally dominated the championship - but other cars who may be faster over a single lap, but not over the whole race distance, should be slowed down even more and given less chance to win? That is what this system can do because it doesn't take into account the results acheived.

Any ballast system should only be set on results - it shouldn't be any other way. To do it solely on lap times while totally ignoring the race results, is pure nonsense.

But if the ballast system was based on results, it would also be taking into account deriver performances and luck, and I don't think it's fair to punish a driver for doing a good job, or for having good/bad luck. Is it fair if Muller has to have +20kg over Gene because he is a better driver?

No ballast system is perfect, but this is the closest.

[redshoes]

Do you think we can have just one WTCC thread that doesn't descend into an argument over the merits or otherwise of the ballast system.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by awrb

Is it fair if Muller has to have +20kg over Gene because he is a better driver?

Of course it is...because that's exactly the whole point of a ballast system; so that one driver/car doesn't dominate too much.

But a ballast system that makes the least successful drivers even slower is totally nonsensical. For example, why should a mid-to-rear of the grid privateer BMW get exactly the same ballast as the best/fastest BMW? You really think that makes sense and is near "perfect"?

Ballast should be given to the most succesful drivers based on their results. It shouldn't be given to the slowest drivers purely based on the lap times of the fastest ones!!

[awrb]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Do you think we can have just one WTCC thread that doesn't descend into an argument over the merits or otherwise of the ballast system.

Yes ok, but with all these politics it isn't that easy.

So who do we think is going to have the pace this weekend? I think BMW could do well regardless of the weights. They've got a really quick car, they just haven't quite made it yet. I'd love to see Priaulx and JMuller win the races, and from there launch an attack for the title. The Chevys should be quick as well, but will SEAT have recovered from Pau by this weekend?

The Indy battle has been great this year, but I think it's difficult to predict what's going to happen at the sharp end really, Porteiro, Engstler and Coronel have been so close. Boardmen looked quite good in Pau, so maybe he can get himself closer to that fight.

I'm just glad we're going to see a race held on racing circuit, not some streets.

[touring fan01]

BMW are talking of quitting the WTCC.
Who can blame them?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75577

[werner]

Helterskelter: Equalization is there to make it possible that you have as many people fighting for the championship at the last race.

No, no no! definitely not! I don't want to see a driver that is clearly head and shoulders above all other drivers to still be unsure about the title at the last event. I want him to win it with a landslide.
Offcourse I would even more like to see very equal drivers to battle it out until the final round.

[helterskelter]

Originally Posted by werner

Helterskelter: Equalization is there to make it possible that you have as many people fighting for the championship at the last race.

No, no no! definitely not! I don't want to see a driver that is clearly head and shoulders above all other drivers to still be unsure about the title at the last event. I want him to win it with a landslide.
Offcourse I would even more like to see very equal drivers to battle it out until the final round.

That's TC racing. The rules are designed to make the championship equal. If you don't want that, you have to remove the ballast system and just make the cars go out as they are.
Another example: what if we are, say, in Monza? The race winner has no slipstream while the guys battling for 6th or 7th have a great advantage in terms of laptimes. So the guy in front takes a 4s lead and goes on to win because he has the best car, but the guy who was battling for 6th made a whole lap using the slipstream of his opponent and lapped 0.5s quicker on one lap. The guy who won was clearly the quickest in the field, but the laps that go on to make the ballast system make him look as if he were 0.5s slower than the guy who came 6th and finished the race a few seconds behind him. Is that fair?

[helterskelter]

I think SEAT will be very fast. Without the problem of not having an irregular turbo pressure while downshifting and a 2.7 turbo pressure they will be very quick. Also, they're running 20kgs lighter than the BMWs and 10 kgs lighter than the Chevys. They are the ones to beat, IMO

[werner]

@ Helterskelter: a good example where a resultsbased system would work better. Although it would be evened out by the fact that the weight is determined by a 3-race average.
Anyway, the current system and a system based on (car)-results both have its flaws. But I would defend both systems anyday compared to the former system that only penalizes good performances of the drivers, with the result that 2 drivers driving the same car with a different weight. If anything is unfair, that is.

[helterskelter]

Priaulx managed to win 4 championships in a row, so maybe it's not that hard to win notwithstanding the ballast if you're a good driver. Same thing for Yvan. On the other hand, this year, were it not for Pau, a VERY particular situation, a domination would have been pretty much predictable. If the rules are designed to make things equal, I don't think this one is...

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Do you think we can have just one WTCC thread that doesn't descend into an argument over the merits or otherwise of the ballast system.

Looks like we can't

oh well

[helgi]

Haven't the Bureau clone drivers yet? Strange and unfair. If they equalize then they should equalize it to the end.

[andy_b]

seems like SEAT (finally) have a revised livery? Hope so, current one stinks!

http://media.seat.com/galeria/main.p...e9c5f0d4d41a20

[Alfa Fan]

I don't see the word SEAT anywhere on that car! Omnious sign of times to come?

[redshoes]

How much did you see the word SEAT on the previous livery?