[BTCC] Donington Park GP, 26/27 August, Rds. 22/23/24

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by sceptic

Sutton only has a 42 point lead. There's three times that many available still. It's definitely not over.

Sometimes I wonder why you even bother following the BTCC, as all you do is whinge about it.

you seriously think anybody can outscore Ash Sutton by 43 points in just 6 races ??? seriously ! ?????????????????


what next , will you tell us that politicians are honest and they really care for the people ????

[Robin Marriott]

Originally Posted by CarfanLUFC

I certainly think Ingram can feel aggrieved today both with the stewarding and NAPA 'tactics'

The decision to swap places with Hill was 50/50 but Rowbottom driving a clearly damaged car then blocked Ingram into Redgate allowing Sutton through. Have to question why NAPA didn't bring him in with that much damage and why the officials didn't give him the meatball flag.

Pretty poor all round today in terms of decision making. Ingram should walk away today feeling he's been very very hard done by.

The way I saw it it didn’t look like an intentional block. Yes the car was damaged but it was still moving at racing speeds until the tyre burst when Rowbo turned in. Ingram was just unfortunate to be on the wrong (out)side and get held up.

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

you seriously think anybody can outscore Ash Sutton by 43 points in just 6 races ??? seriously ! ?


what next , will you tel us that politicians are honest ? ?

I mean… look what happened to Cammish this weekend.

But on the other hand, he only needs, what, a lead of about 24 more points by the end of Silverstone to seal it a meeting early? Which, if he gets pole again and wins the first two races, is not all that unlikely!

I guess you’re always going to have years that are close and others that are not, but it does feel like we’re missing a few extras in the hunt for wins. Obviously there was no Cammish today, Turkington has been a bit underwhelming, Cook hasn’t had the car underneath him, Butcher couldn’t pass a Hard Cupra in that last race. Even Collard is 7th in the championship! (in fairness, I think he drove much better today. Maybe I forgot something!) Even Thompson wasn’t far off but was forced to drop out.

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by Robin Marriott

The way I saw it it didn’t look like an intentional block. Yes the car was damaged but it was still moving at racing speeds until the tyre burst when Rowbo turned in. Ingram was just unfortunate to be on the wrong (out)side and get held up.

Yeah really don’t think that was intentional at all, but surprised he didn’t pull into the pits, looked a lot of damage from the outside! Perhaps he’ll come on here and give us the rundown!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by CarfanLUFC

I certainly think Ingram can feel aggrieved today both with the stewarding and NAPA 'tactics'

The decision to swap places with Hill was 50/50 but Rowbottom driving a clearly damaged car then blocked Ingram into Redgate allowing Sutton through. Have to question why NAPA didn't bring him in with that much damage and why the officials didn't give him the meatball flag.

Pretty poor all round today in terms of decision making. Ingram should walk away today feeling he's been very very hard done by.

You could also argue that Hill should have been called in with all the damage on his car, with bits and pieces falling off on the live track.

And I personally don't believe that Ingram should have been penalised for not giving more room to Hill on the last lap of Race 1; Hill should have expected Ingram to need all that normal racing line especially as the track was still really wet at that point, and it would have been extremely likely that Ingram would have had a huge moment if he tried to turn on any more steering lock.

The ruling of the Race director, which was then endorsed by the Stewards, could lead to some very risky overtake movements on the outside placing all the responsibility to the leading car driver. It was a bad decision, and I hope that Ingram appeals to the MSA to have it overturned; not just for the points, but for the sake of racing in the future.

[porsche962fan]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The ruling of the Race director, which was then endorsed by the Stewards, could lead to some very risky overtake movements on the outside placing all the responsibility to the leading car driver. It was a bad decision, and I hope that Ingram appeals to the MSA to have it overturned; not just for the points, but for the sake of racing in the future.

what would happened to Shedden today ? !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ibkXtsu4wI

[porsche962fan]

and somehow despite the Ash Sutton steamroller BMW have a real chance at constructors

BMW 658
Ford 648

while at teams NAPA pretty much done it

NAPA Racing 591
Team BMW 450
BRISTOL STREET MOTORS with EXCELR8 447

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

and somehow despite the Ash Sutton steamroller BMW have a real chance at constructors

BMW 658
Ford 648

while at teams NAPA pretty much done it

NAPA Racing 591
Team BMW 450
BRISTOL STREET MOTORS with EXCELR8 447

That's not really surprising given that the BMW has been the best car for most of the season, but that Turkington and Hill are in different teams.
It really underlines how well Sutton has driven, and he deserves the plaudits.

[AnnoyedMoose]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The ruling of the Race director, which was then endorsed by the Stewards, could lead to some very risky overtake movements on the outside placing all the responsibility to the leading car driver. It was a bad decision, and I hope that Ingram appeals to the MSA to have it overturned; not just for the points, but for the sake of racing in the future.

Don't see how he would have a leg to stand on. The BTCC guidelines as referenced on the previous page are very clear and every race briefing I've attended for a race run under the MSUK (hasn't been the MSA since 2018) they've made it very clear that a car on the outside must be given room. Funnily enough 9 times out of 10 they say just do the opposite of what a BTCC driver would do any you'll be fine.

It certainly hasn't been enforced consistently but trying to appeal based on incorrect decisions in the past is unlikely to work IMO.

[Northern Monkey]

Lloyd was driveshaft failure

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Robin Marriott

Tim Harvey with some spicy comments!

TH- “The rules are written by people who do not know how racing cars work”
DA - “It has gone to the stewards and the stewards have upheld that decision”
TH - “The stewards also do not know how racing cars work”

TH - “[…]That’s the rules but they’re stupid”

I would expect that TOCA, BARC and Motorsport UK will be having words with Mr Harvey about that. Something about disrepute, perhaps?

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

That's not really surprising given that the BMW has been the best car for most of the season, but that Turkington and Hill are in different teams.
It really underlines how well Sutton has driven, and he deserves the plaudits.

Looking at the points it would seem Turkington and Hill are the WSR nominated drivers?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Looking at the points it would seem Turkington and Hill are the WSR nominated drivers?

For the Manufacturers/Constructors, they are the BMW nominated entries. But for the Teams', "Laser Tools Racing with MB Motorsport" is a different entry to "Team BMW".

[Petoli]

Originally Posted by Evantra

Slightly strange: Excerl8 gets an engine change penalty but a 20 point deduction goes to Speedworks!

https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...ine-Change.pdf

Can anyone explain something

So Ingram was guilty of Having changed an engine above the number permitted within 1.16.2

The team got point deducted

However in these cases

https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...ine-Change.pdf
https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...y-Thompson.pdf

They contravened the same regulations but got a driver points deduction but no mention of the teams getting a points deduction

https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...ine-Change.pdf
https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...ine-Change.pdf

They contravened the same regulations but both the teams and the drivers got a points deduction

in some incident on the driver gets points deduction in some both the team and driver loose points while in others only the team

Why is there a difference

[Adamcas87]

Originally Posted by Craner Curves

He should be in the second WAU Mustang in my opinion.

Was offered a drive a few years back in the Supercars Championship but he was only offered a one year deal, he wanted a multi year deal

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Petoli

Can anyone explain something

So Ingram was guilty of Having changed an engine above the number permitted within 1.16.2

The team got point deducted

However in these cases

https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...ine-Change.pdf
https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...y-Thompson.pdf

They contravened the same regulations but got a driver points deduction but no mention of the teams getting a points deduction

https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...ine-Change.pdf
https://www.barc.net/wp-content/uplo...ine-Change.pdf

They contravened the same regulations but both the teams and the drivers got a points deduction

in some incident on the driver gets points deduction in some both the team and driver loose points while in others only the team

Why is there a difference

It is because there are permitted numbers of engines for each driver, team and Manufacturer.
So in the case of Excelr8/Hyundai, they start the season with 2 engines for each driver, and 8 engines in total for the team.

If you follow the timeline (and penalties) then the first action was 21 May 23 (Halstead). This would have been the third engine for Halstead (5pts), but still within the 8 engine allocation for the team.

The next action was 12 Aug 23 (Chilton). This would have been the third engine for Chilton (5pts), and also the 9th engine used by the team (10pts).

Then you reach the last action on 26 Aug 23 (Ingram). This will have been the second engine for Ingram (no penalty) but also the 10th engine for the team (20pts).


Engines used:

Date	Ingram	Chilton	Halstead	Pearson	Team
21 May 23	1	2 or less	3	2 or less	9 or less
12 Aug 23	1	3	3	2	9
26 Aug 23	2	3	3	2	10

Which means that if Excelr8 make another engine change this season, it is certain that the driver involved will be penalised, and the team will be deducted 30pts.

[GT6]

Well this weekend was better than i expected but still seems to be lacking the old BTCC excitement and the sutton domination again makes the leveling up supposed to stop that happening look a massive waste of time. i am expecting the last brands hatch meet to be a little pointless by then with all the campionships well and truely decided before it starts

[AnnoyedMoose]

Could make Brands very good as no-one will be bothered with taking the "safe" route and racking up points. They will want wins.

[mattcanary]

Cannit believe no-one has metioned those tyres on the chicance.

Disgraceful way of trying to control track limits, (somehting which is mintiored far too closely in my opinion).

A MIni landed on its roof, a Porsche suffered ended up in the barrier and Jake Hill's car took substantial damage for hitting the tyres when they were virtually unsighted because of cars in front of them.

ARe the organisers waiting until someone gets badly injured in an accident casued by them, before admitting they are a horrendously bad idea?

[Evantra]

Originally Posted by mattcanary

Cannit believe no-one has metioned those tyres on the chicance.

Disgraceful way of trying to control track limits, (somehting which is mintiored far too closely in my opinion).

A MIni landed on its roof, a Porsche suffered ended up in the barrier and Jake Hill's car took substantial damage for hitting the tyres when they were virtually unsighted because of cars in front of them.

ARe the organisers waiting until someone gets badly injured in an accident casued by them, before admitting they are a horrendously bad idea?

Tim Harvey did! And Paul O’Neill and Tiff Needell had a spat over it on Twitter.

Has caused the same problems and aggrievances over so many years now but doesn’t look like it’s set to change.

[Mike Harte]

Concerning the tyre stacks at the chicane, mainly the problem lies with the drivers rather than any other reason; after all, they all know that they are there.As long as drivers are prepared to take so many risks, there will always be a problem.

The stacks are there because most drivers will take diabolic liberties with track limits. Take the case of Hill. The stacks had already been hit by another driver and moved further back from the curbs and therefore the track, so Hill took the risk of going further over the curbing, possibly because he was unsighted but also, as mentioned by Harvey at the time, Hill chooses to have his seat so low in the car that he can barely see over the bonnet. That's not the fault of the tyre stack.

From memory about the Mini, again that was the result of various drivers attempting manoeuvrers that are more than likely going to result in an incident. In that case, that Mini's crash was the cause by other drivers taking, in my opinion, unnecessary risks and I was surprised that those in charge didn't take any action.

I believe that action was taken in the case of the Porsche.

[mattcanary]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Concerning the tyre stacks at the chicane, mainly the problem lies with the drivers rather than any other reason; after all, they all know that they are there.As long as drivers are prepared to take so many risks, there will always be a problem.

The stacks are there because most drivers will take diabolic liberties with track limits. Take the case of Hill. The stacks had already been hit by another driver and moved further back from the curbs and therefore the track, so Hill took the risk of going further over the curbing, possibly because he was unsighted but also, as mentioned by Harvey at the time, Hill chooses to have his seat so low in the car that he can barely see over the bonnet. That's not the fault of the tyre stack.

From memory about the Mini, again that was the result of various drivers attempting manoeuvrers that are more than likely going to result in an incident. In that case, that Mini's crash was the cause by other drivers taking, in my opinion, unnecessary risks and I was surprised that those in charge didn't take any action.

I believe that action was taken in the case of the Porsche.

Doesn;t mwan tyre racks are a good silution. They are downright dangerous, ugly and unnecessary I feel
WE re probably never going to agree on the issue of track limits.
But even if for arguments's sake, we do gre ethat track limits should be monitored to the nth degree, then these tyre blocks are downright dangerous, and should never be used on a racetrack again.

It is not always drivers taking liberties with the track limits that hit them anyway; often they get pushed into them by a rival car or have nowhere else to go in close, bunched racing

[Mike Harte]

Possibly the reason that we disagree about the stacks is because I raced Special Saloons in the 60s, a time where we had natural scenery as well as other man created objects to negotiate. For example, many tracks had sections that were almost tree lined - an example of this was at Oulton between the exit of the pits and Old Hall corner. You went off there at your peril.

At the chicane at Crystal Palace, plus other corners there, there were earth banks with walls of wooden railway sleepers on the face.If you hit them, they didn't move.

We, in the main, managed to negotiate all these things and you have to take into account that our cars were far more unstable that today's cars. Unlike current BTCC cars which almost drive as though on rails, our cars were all on treaded tyres that had nowhere near the grip of current ones, and our cars spent almost as much time sliding around as they went in a straight line. Yet we managed it on the whole.

The tyre stacks may not be the perfect solution, but they are better and far more forgiving than if armco was used. And yes track limits are a major problem, because if you give current drivers an inch, they will take a mile.

[Sodemo]

I thought the idea of tyre stacks on corner apexes went out of the window in the 90s. Ridiculous things.

[redshoes]

I don't think anyone particular like the tyre stacks but I've yet to hear a convincing argument for an alternative. High kerbs can be just as dangerous in getting a car airborne. Don't forget that most circuits are also used by bikes and generally the riders prefer to keep their knees and elbows attached.

Maybe you just remove the kerbs and gravel traps and ignore track limits completely. If you've ever watched NASCAR on a road course you'll know what an utter farce that becomes.