McLaren AUTOSPORT BRDC Award 2011

[bella]

Originally Posted by Flavio Galtieri

I know what you mean but how would you feel about a non aero car being involved in the tests? Or are you happy with everything as it is?

anyone without aero experience should be judged relevant to that. as kevin has said numerous times on this and relevant threads, it's not purely judged on times. if a driver has no aero experience, but has an excellent mind, good understanding of data and a willingness to listen and take that in then presumably those qualities will be judged far and above a simple ability to get in the car and pull out a time. the latter tends to be drivers who won't go very far unless they have a wallet the size of a 40ft container, and in that case all bets are off anyway.

[krt917]

Hi all,

Lots of opinions and things to pick up on, which I'll leave for now as we're on Press Day!

However, I just wanted to clarify: Oliver Rowland is not backed by McLaren - he was dropped from their driver development programme last year.

As I've said before, there's no fix or politics, just the judges debating and looking over the data etc until we reach a decision. I know conspiracy theories are good fun, but why would McLaren, Autosport and the BRDC(not to mention the F2, DTM and GT teams) put all that time and effort into running cars at Silverstone if we'd already decided who we wanted to win?!

[EastonNeston]

Thank you for clarifying that Kevin.

I'd say that finishing 2nd in UK F Renault in your FIRST season in cars, with several wins, while driving for what was effectively a totally new team. None of the engineers or mechanics had been with Fortecs FR UK team the previous season, was a successful season. To them go on to win the 'finals' series builds further on that success.

I find it very disappointing that many here are unwilling to accept the decision of the judges, all respected, knowledgable & reputable people.

Hopefully, the other finalists will go forward next season with results to show they would have been worthy winners.

[bella]

Originally Posted by EastonNeston

I find it very disappointing that many here are unwilling to accept the decision of the judges, all respected, knowledgable & reputable people.

we *all* have favourites - and least favourites - for many varied and valid reasons. we all see different drivers and team stories to different depths and from different perspectives.

the key is to not let those stand in the way of recognising a job well done.

thanks for the clarification, kevin. good luck with press day

[50-SIX]

I'm FF at heart, and I admit it would have been nice to have an FF winner in Malvern.

This is not to say Rowland didn't deserve it. I'm not going to proclaim that I know all of Rowland's background, but from what I have read, he seems to have an exceptional Karting pedigree, and also a pretty damn good record in cars for 1 year at it. Condiering this, along side the personal tradegies he has had to deal with over the past couple of sesonas, makes his results even more impressive.

Of course, he may have just won based on being the best in the tests on the day, but that would be very boring wouldn't it?

[cleanup]

For what its worth, I think its great that Roland won and not because he was the best on the day but because he is the best driver and prospect from the candidates. The award is so prestigeous, many think its about politics etc etc, we will never know but for me, its to identify and promote our next British prospect to the higher levels of single seater racing. Yes Roland is well backed by RSF but its because its well deserved and with such backing, its likely Roland will go far, its what this country needs. I do also think some of the other candidates are also very talented but that aside, its no good long term giving the award to a driver that will not likely achieve, you need talent and above all, bags of cash so good luck to Roland and well done the judges, they got it right, perhaps now they have learned from the huge cock up made in the Dean Smith year.

[krt917]

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay in coming back.

Right, I'll try to cover off the various points, probably across a couple of posts!

Originally Posted by rddave

McLaren and RSF backing..... No need to say anymore

Disgrace

As I've already said, he hasn't been McLaren backed since last year. And I don't see what the RSF has to do with it, especially seeing as we've been critised for Calado not winning in 2009!

Originally Posted by rddave

It's just pure politics.

There was a time back in the day that I used to believe that they genuinely tryed to help up and coming drivers, but alas, those days are long gone.

I can assure you it isn't politics. It's about the purest form of competition - drivers on-track at the same time in the same cars - as we can get, which is why I love being involved.

Some people think we should help the driver who is best funded as they are more likely to get to F1. Others feel we should help the least funded because they really need it. In reality, we pick the driver that does the business on the track, whether they are well-funded or not.

Originally Posted by Redracer77

Another shambles of an awards.....

Come on, you can do better than that surely?

I do take the point about more transparency and it is something we talk about a lot. We've tried to make a step towards that this year with my piece in the mag about what actually happens over the two days. Saying more about the performances of the drivers always has the scope to make some drivers look bad, if they have had a poor performance for whatever reason, and we're trying to help the six, not hinder. Just being chosen shows they have done a good job during the year.

[krt917]

Originally Posted by Peter Cammish

The fact is FR UK is a much higher level in terms of teams/data etc (not driving) and it has to be incredible difficult to come from FF to the Autosport Awards and perhaps the organisers should look at a balance, why not put a FF in the test along with a wing car it is after all a driving competition so why load the competition in favour of guys from FR?

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your considered response.

I can see why the suggestion of including a Formula Ford has come about, but remember what the award is trying to do: find the driver most likely to get to F1 based on their performances in cars they (generally) haven't driven before.

As many on here know, I am a fan of Formula Ford, but they are out of step with all other mainstream single-seater categories in not having wings. To go up the ladder, and therefore to get to F1, you have to be able to do the business in a slicks-and-wings car. Even if a Formula Ford was included,the weighting would therefore be towards the aero single-seater.

Also, if we were to include one, drivers from other categories could well argue the FFord drivers had an unfair advantage, so would we then need a Formula Renault car as well? From my point of view, we already know how good the drivers are in their own categories - that's what got them chosen.

Remember that we do usually have a GT or touring car as well, which tend to be far less aero dependent and therefore should give a 'mechanical grip' driver an opportunity to show their strengths.

Finally, in my experience, the very best drivers can jump out of a FFord and be quick in an aero car pretty quickly, though I accept Renault drivers hve a headstart.

I personally can't decide whether being a FFord driver intrinsically hinders drivers, or whether it says something more about the relative strengths of the FFord and FR fields. Remember, Jenson Button and Anthony Davidson won the award straight out of Ford and I'm not sure the jump to driving an aero car has got significantly bigger since then.

It will be interesting to see if the new EcoBoost car goes someway to bridging the gap, with the demise of the H-pattern gearbox.

[barnettracing]

Originally Posted by krt917

Saying more about the performances of the drivers always has the scope to make some drivers look bad, if they have had a poor performance for whatever reason, and we're trying to help the six, not hinder. Just being chosen shows they have done a good job during the year.

Surely this is the thing though. I agree that "just being chosen" shows all six have had a good season; to get chosen does show that you are one of the standouts of the year.

However, your point that "saying more about the performances of the drivers always has the scope to make some drivers look bad" contradicts your final sentence. It wouldn't make them look bad as everyone would understand that just by being a finalist they have talent. No one is going to think that Alex Lynn won't make it to F1 JUST because he stuffed the F2 car into the Copse barriers. What it does show to the reader though, is that this was one of the contributing factors in why he didn't win the award.

The very fact that the Award is supposedly judged on just one day's performance is enough alone to show that the performance on this sole day should represent the ambitions/talent/prospects of a driver across the rest of their career.

Surely, if you were able to overcome this supposed problem by creating greater transparency in the judging process it would be a sign of high-level journalistic writing; not just assuming the reader will accept the blank result without any true details.

At the end of the day, either of Malvern, Lynn or Rowland were good enough to win the Award. But, being able to truly see why Rowland won (in performance terms at least) would help to appease the feelings that Lynn or Malvern (as favourites) were 'done over', for want of a better term.

[FFfan]

For obvious reasons I have up until now declined to comment on this thread but now that the dust has settled a little feel that it is probably ok to do so.

First of all I would like to thank everyone on here and everywhere else, particularly at the BRDC Awards lunch on Monday (the day after the Autosport Awards Dinner) for the support that they have shown for Scott. Naturally along with four other finalists he is disapponted. That is inevitable. But all five runners up can rightly hold their heads high for being there in the first place and as barnettracing above rightly said no one will think Lynn is suddenly a bad driver because he crashed during the test. I understand conditions were very difficult and it is a such a fine line between hero and zero in situations like this.

I personally would like to see more transparency on the results and perfomances of the drivers just because I am curious but I have my doubts whether it would actually quell all the arguments and conspiracy theories. Perhaps it could just be made available to the finalists themselves on the condition that they sign a confidentuality agreement? What would be lovely (speaking selfishly as a parent of a finalist) is a video record of the event but I understand that this would probably push up costs. But it would be great for the likes of me, who quite rightly is not permitted to attend the event, to see Scott driving the cars.

Of course there can only be one overall winner here and that is understood. But some consolation to the runners up would be nice. A few years ago all the finalists were given a free race in the BTCC supporting Porsche challenge so something similar would be nice or perhaps a voucher for Grand Prix racewear or something like that?

Considering that Scott didn't begin racing until spring 2009 for him to be selected twice as a finalist in 2010 & 2011 is amazing and he wouldn't have missed it for the world. Whichever way you look at it it has to be a life enrichening experience.

Congratulations to the 2011 winner Ollie Rowland. We wish him a long & successful career.

Dominic Malvern - Father of Scott

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by kipper

Also, it is worth noting that former winners Dario Franchitti and Paul di Resta also display Italian flags on their crash helmets; whilst Ralph Firman Jnr's design includes a large shamrock due to his Irish ancestory.

Actually, Franchitti has the Hungarian flag on his helmet, because of his Magyar ancestry (his surname is properly Ferenciti).

[JNWRF01]

Kevin - tks for taking the time to come on here to clarify a few urban myths. Out of interest - are there any "rules" to the run offs ? ie if you crash you are out? if you overrev/blow a motor etc etc... I dont expect Autosport to publish times - we are all experience enough to know that Silverstone in November can change minute by minute with our lovely weather - but a set of rules of engagement would be interesting. I know a few years ago the winner was rumoured to be the fastest one that didn't crash - or is that just idle pub gossip??

I think most people on here associate with Scott Malvern more than the others as he has come thro the club racing ranks, and its good to see a young lad who clearly has a talent working so hard to find a way to become a pro.

[krt917]

Hi all,

Thanks again for the interest. I'll try to answer some of your questions without going on too long!

Originally Posted by barnettracing

Surely, if you were able to overcome this supposed problem by creating greater transparency in the judging process it would be a sign of high-level journalistic writing; not just assuming the reader will accept the blank result without any true details.

Originally Posted by FFfan

I personally would like to see more transparency on the results and perfomances of the drivers just because I am curious but I have my doubts whether it would actually quell all the arguments and conspiracy theories. What would be lovely (speaking selfishly as a parent of a finalist) is a video record of the event but I understand that this would probably push up costs.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to be more transparent, though I think Dominic is right to say that some people would still come up with conspiracy theories! As someone who spends most of his time trying to convey what I have witnessed at race meetings, I sometimes find it frustrating not to be able to say more about the tests because they invariably throw up some interesting things, some of which would surprise people.

To be fair, I think we are making moves in the right direction. We haven't kept Lynn's crash a secret this year and I have tried to explain the process a bit more in the mag. There's still some way to go before we start publishing lap times, but the discussions of what we should reveal are ongoing.

Originally Posted by FFfan

A few years ago all the finalists were given a free race in the BTCC supporting Porsche challenge so something similar would be nice or perhaps a voucher for Grand Prix racewear or something like that?

Yes, that would be cool. It depends on what deals etc. we can strike in any given year I believe. Of course, beyond that, all finalists are welcome to contact any of the judges for advice or to get hold of someone (obviously, I mean the judges who are more important than I!). The idea is to help all the finalists, not just the winner, which is why we now give feedback to them at the Autosport show.

Originally Posted by JNWRF01

Kevin - tks for taking the time to come on here to clarify a few urban myths. Out of interest - are there any "rules" to the run offs ? ie if you crash you are out? if you overrev/blow a motor etc etc... I dont expect Autosport to publish times - we are all experience enough to know that Silverstone in November can change minute by minute with our lovely weather - but a set of rules of engagement would be interesting. I know a few years ago the winner was rumoured to be the fastest one that didn't crash - or is that just idle pub gossip??

I wouldn't say there are any hard-and-fast rules. Basically, each incident is taken on its merits. A spin or minor off isn't necessarily a decider, but obviously a bigger crash might be. I assume you are referring to 2007. I wasn't a judge then so I wouldn't like to comment on the decision-making process of that particular contest.

Originally Posted by JNWRF01

I think most people on here associate with Scott Malvern more than the others as he has come thro the club racing ranks, and its good to see a young lad who clearly has a talent working so hard to find a way to become a pro.

Yes, I think that is fair, and Scott is indeed to be applauded. I've known Scott longer than any of the other finalists for that very reason. Of course, when it comes to making the decision that can't come into it, but I understand why Scott is a bit of a fan favourite!

[krt917]

Just one more thing!

Originally Posted by FFfan

Perhaps it could just be made available to the finalists themselves on the condition that they sign a confidentuality agreement?

That's an interesting one. I'd be surprised if the drivers didn't have a pretty good idea of what was going on and who was going quickly. Although we don't let them see the other finalists' times, surely they speak to each other and keep and eye on what the others are doing? Scott is probably better placed than I to answer that, but I often get the impression that most finalists have an idea about how they got on relative to everyone else by the end of the two days.

[Deemun]

The six 2011 finalists are on stage every day at the International Autosport Show at the NEC as well as taking part in the show in the Live Action Arena.

Here's is yesterday's stage interview with Derek Warwick & Henry Hope Frost and the promo film

http://www.autosport.com/video/

http://www.autosport.com/video/#player

[EastonNeston]

Good to see that 2010 & 2011 finalist, and 2010 FRUK champion, Tom Blomquist has become part of the McLaren driver development program.
It shows that the ability Tom has shown so far has been recognised by a top level f1 team.
Remember that Tom was only 16, and the youngest driver in the series when he became champion.