Oulton - Page 3

Robin Marriott · 24 Jun 2019, 10:15 (Ref:3913897)

It should be like it is in most club level racing, one qualifying session, your fastest time is taken for race one, second fastest time for race two.

Winning race one putting you on pole for race two doesn’t seem to work, there’s far too many occasions where the same driver wins race one and two.

The issue there is getting a qualifying session where people are able to get two laps in without a red flag...

crmalcolm · 24 Jun 2019, 14:56 (Ref:3913953)

Quote:

Originally Posted by btccbloke

I seem to remember BMR being allowed this to shakedown the Subaru's so clearly possible

There's a big difference in the requirements at the circuit for a shakedown of 1/2 cars compared to a full 30-car session.

HopAlong · 24 Jun 2019, 15:24 (Ref:3913964)

Personally I think the Hard tyre is one of the reasons for the poor races, along with the resurfacing at Croft and bits of Thruxton. Its meant we haven't seen the difference in car speed between people who've looked after tyres better as there has been virtually no drop off like years prior. Doesn't help that the last three rounds have had that tyre.

btccbloke · 24 Jun 2019, 15:45 (Ref:3913969)

Quote:

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

There's a big difference in the requirements at the circuit for a shakedown of 1/2 cars compared to a full 30-car session.

Yes, but my point is that the facility is there, the Friday support session seems to finish at about 4,I don't believe they couldn't roll the btcc cars out if an extra practice was so crucial

sceptic · 24 Jun 2019, 17:11 (Ref:3913980)

Quote:

Originally Posted by btccbloke

Yes, but my point is that the facility is there, the Friday support session seems to finish at about 4,I don't believe they couldn't roll the btcc cars out if an extra practice was so crucial

Support race testing finishes at 5pm.
Except at Donington, where it's on Thursday and Thruxton, where it's about three weeks earlier.

There really isn't any scope for BTCC testing on a Friday. As well as there not being any free track time, Friday is used for scrutineering the BTCC cars.

And some of the drivers aren't available on Fridays.

So the two practice sessions both need to be on Saturday, and there needs to be a minimum 90 minute gap between them, and a further minimum 90 minute gap before qualifying.

The Saturday timetable works pretty well as it is, and there's not much scope for changing it.

The qualifying format could be, probably should be, changed however. It just needs to fit into a 30-40 minute window.

crmalcolm · 24 Jun 2019, 17:33 (Ref:3913981)

Quote:

Originally Posted by btccbloke

Yes, but my point is that the facility is there, the Friday support session seems to finish at about 4,I don't believe they couldn't roll the btcc cars out if an extra practice was so crucial

Remember this is a series where teams previously would miss events because of travel time.

Necessitating that teams are able to run a full practice session every Friday as not an insignificant extra burden.

redshoes · 24 Jun 2019, 17:52 (Ref:3913986)

Quote:

Originally Posted by touring fan01

what his this future wish list got to do with a discussion on oulton park this weekend anyway?

I was thinking the same.

Hopefully a friendly mod will be along shortly to split out the testing/timetable discussion into a separate thread.

Motormouth94 · 26 Jun 2019, 11:59 (Ref:3914257)

I don't really understand why the success ballast was decreased - it was increased to 75kg in the first place in order to avoid repetitive R1/R2 results, which we now seem to be getting fairly regularly again....

In my opinion, if we went back to 75kg race winning ballast, there is actually no need for a reverse grid race. When the reverse grid was first introduced in the mid noughties, the drivers finishing at the back of the top 10 were (with respect) not usually anywhere near the pace of the top 5 or 6 drivers in the championship Therefore, excitement was guaranteed as those slower drivers fought tooth and nail to drag a result out of race 3, and the faster drivers found themselves racing people they didn't often come across. Nowadays, even drivers finishing somewhere like 15th position are more than capable of holding on at the front with no weight, especially if they are on the preferred tyre. By getting rid of the reverse grid, you guarantee that for races 2 and 3, the cars at the front will be slower (or at least in theory) than the cars behind them, thus guaranteeing overtaking/more exciting racing.

As for Oulton this weekend, I think only AMD and BTC are likely to be able to challenge the rear wheel drive cars, and BMW are likely to win at least 2, maybe all 3 races - first ever win for Oliphant perhaps....?

Sodemo · 26 Jun 2019, 12:54 (Ref:3914264)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motormouth94

I don't really understand why the success ballast was decreased - it was increased to 75kg in the first place in order to avoid repetitive R1/R2 results, which we now seem to be getting fairly regularly again....

In my opinion, if we went back to 75kg race winning ballast, there is actually no need for a reverse grid race. When the reverse grid was first introduced in the mid noughties, the drivers finishing at the back of the top 10 were (with respect) not usually anywhere near the pace of the top 5 or 6 drivers in the championship Therefore, excitement was guaranteed as those slower drivers fought tooth and nail to drag a result out of race 3, and the faster drivers found themselves racing people they didn't often come across. Nowadays, even drivers finishing somewhere like 15th position are more than capable of holding on at the front with no weight, especially if they are on the preferred tyre. By getting rid of the reverse grid, you guarantee that for races 2 and 3, the cars at the front will be slower (or at least in theory) than the cars behind them, thus guaranteeing overtaking/more exciting racing.

As for Oulton this weekend, I think only AMD and BTC are likely to be able to challenge the rear wheel drive cars, and BMW are likely to win at least 2, maybe all 3 races - first ever win for Oliphant perhaps....?

The success ballast was reduced because at 75kg + 30kg RWD penalty the BMW was something like 105kg heavier than the other cars and resulted in occasions like at Silverstone when they could barely qualify in the top 10, I think Turks managed 16th or something in that qualifying session. Even at 54kg, the BMWs (and Subaru’s in theory) could be as much as 84kg heavier than the FWD cars.

Motormouth94 · 26 Jun 2019, 13:49 (Ref:3914270)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The success ballast was reduced because at 75kg + 30kg RWD penalty the BMW was something like 105kg heavier than the other cars and resulted in occasions like at Silverstone when they could barely qualify in the top 10, I think Turks managed 16th or something in that qualifying session. Even at 54kg, the BMWs (and Subaru’s in theory) could be as much as 84kg heavier than the FWD cars.

However that clearly wasn't such a disadvantage over a season, since a BMW comfortably won the championship last year... And this years' BMW seems to have an even bigger advantage

Johno.UK · 26 Jun 2019, 14:29 (Ref:3914272)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motormouth94

However that clearly wasn't such a disadvantage over a season, since a BMW comfortably won the championship last year...

Not by winning races though which would have given them the biggest weight penalties for races 2 and 3.

Given it's the newest and best funded car on the grid with two of the best drivers out there it's not surprising they're doing well.

S griffin · 26 Jun 2019, 14:33 (Ref:3914273)

I think the current system is right. There's no need to go back to high ballast of the last few seasons. It makes it too hard for a title leader to qualify in the top ten, which doesn't seem right

crmalcolm · 26 Jun 2019, 15:59 (Ref:3914298)

Quote:

Originally Posted by S griffin

It makes it too hard for a title leader to qualify in the top ten, which doesn't seem right

I think this is just the reason to bring back higher ballast.

title leader qualifying at the front is one reason behind processional racing.

btccbloke · 26 Jun 2019, 22:24 (Ref:3914350)

then can we not consider qualifying ballast free, with championship ballast then added in for the race?

Matt K · 26 Jun 2019, 23:33 (Ref:3914355)

Quote:

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think this is just the reason to bring back higher ballast.

title leader qualifying at the front is one reason behind processional racing.

So maybe it would be better to reverse whole field? 🙄 racing is racing, the best wins at the end. When a random driver gets pole and the championship leader struggles to qualify inside the top ten it's just a sign that something's not right. Similar to WTCR where you can dominate one weekend and be last the other just because someone is changing BoP...