Not really all that surprising I guess... (Driver Pairings @ Walkinshaw Performance) - Page 5

racer69 · 29 Aug 2006, 17:48 (Ref:1696868)

Quote:

Originally Posted by B!tchie Renault

As the endurance races form part of the championship, then the rules should dictate that the driver entered in a particular car number should be in the same car all year. This also should allow 2 car teams to spread their talent over both cars rather than having one gun team and a couple of one a year racers to run the second car. The sport also has a lot of betting in place and it will prevent a lot of punters betting on a car that did not have the full timers in it. eg the Richards/Dumbrell car in 2005 ran as car 24 when everyone expected that they would run as car 11.

It also has each driver still competing for the championship.

Why are we hellbent on saying who can and can't drive together in the enduro's? Why shouldn't a team be allowed to field what it thinks is it's best line-up for a shot at victory?

This hasn't been an issue since it started counting for the championship in 1999, why is it all of a sudden now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan 52

Probably that drivers can not score championship points for more than 1 team during a season.

What happens then if a driver and team have a legitimate falling out mid-season and split, that rule would effectively stop the driver from finding another drive.

RotorFan · 29 Aug 2006, 23:11 (Ref:1697169)

Quote:

Originally Posted by racer69

What happens then if a driver and team have a legitimate falling out mid-season and split, that rule would effectively stop the driver from finding another drive.

Extremely good point. Maybe they'll make it so that you can only change once in a season without affecting your points, and not switch back. Not that I agree with making up a rule at all anyway.

People are very suspicious/wary/scared of HRT/TWR it seems. This hasn't been a problem before, now HRT does it and the rules have to be changed. Seems to happen quite a bit.

There does seem to be any good argument against it.

retro · 29 Aug 2006, 23:35 (Ref:1697185)

**********

Quote:

Holden links stand, for now

**********

Quote:

Holden reshuffle to stay, for now

deeks6 · 29 Aug 2006, 23:43 (Ref:1697191)

SHOCK !

HORROR !

SURPRISE !

V8SC Board allows Holden to do what they want ....

rustyinsthoz · 30 Aug 2006, 00:34 (Ref:1697205)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deeks6

SHOCK !

HORROR !

SURPRISE !

V8SC Board allows Holden to do what they want ....

Yeah, only Ford teams should be allowed to do what they like.

As for this whole driver swapping thing, I just don't see what the drama is. Its been done before by other teams. All TW is doing is protecting G Tanders and R Kelly's championship position and giving the drivers a better chance at Bathurst.

hrt_rulz01 · 30 Aug 2006, 02:53 (Ref:1697258)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deeks6

SHOCK !

HORROR !

SURPRISE !

V8SC Board allows Holden to do what they want ....

stop complaining. it looks like it going to be overuled for bathurst.

mongrelpunt · 30 Aug 2006, 09:58 (Ref:1697432)

This isn't really as big an issue as everyone makes out. Everyone wanted HRT/HSVDT as 1 team under TWR all season, and they got what they want. Now they're all bleating that they should be under 2 seperate teams. Teams were happy when HRT & HSVDT only got half the test days as them under the same banner, but now are complaining.

Would it be a big of a deal if Mark Winterbottom said that he was racing at Britek with Warren Luff at Sandown & Bathurst? Or if Paul Morris was racing at Team Kiwi with Paul Radisich? TWR is just pushing the boundarys of the laws that were brought in to stop them gaining an advantage.

And only time will tell if it is the right move. Tander could roll off the grid at Bathurst and fall back 15 places, and have an accident with Brad Jones and Greg Ritter coming out of Murray's Corner...........

pete55 · 30 Aug 2006, 10:57 (Ref:1697473)

Garth Tander said tonight that they have been given the go ahead to run as planned.

Chatters · 30 Aug 2006, 11:20 (Ref:1697493)

The V8 website is also saying that Tander and Skaife will be paired.

racer69 · 30 Aug 2006, 12:45 (Ref:1697566)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongrelpunt

Would it be a big of a deal if Mark Winterbottom said that he was racing at Britek with Warren Luff at Sandown & Bathurst? Or if Paul Morris was racing at Team Kiwi with Paul Radisich? TWR is just pushing the boundarys of the laws that were brought in to stop them gaining an advantage..

Exactly right. Or in the other way, if Warren Luff had been given an FPR seat for the enduro's, it wouldn't make a blip on the radar, it would probably be applauded by everyone.

This whole argument in many ways is just people having a whinge for the sake of it......

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrt_rulz01

stop complaining. it looks like it going to be overuled for bathurst.

I still can't see how they can/will over rule driver contracts.

No matter what decision they make, it is going to affect drivers who actually have a proper falling out with a team trying to get another drive.

pete55 · 30 Aug 2006, 13:17 (Ref:1697586)

Quote:

Originally Posted by racer69

No matter what decision they make, it is going to affect drivers who actually have a proper falling out with a team trying to get another drive.

You mean like all the drivers who have driven for Craig Gore.

Rombles1 · 30 Aug 2006, 13:57 (Ref:1697621)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deeks6

So, with this ruling about drivers, there are no rules ...

What if Ford offered Murf a couple of hundred G's just to drive the enduros with say, Lowndes or Bright? is that now OK?

If it is agreeable to all parties to Murf's current contracts, then yes, I see nothing wrong with that. Can't see it being ok with all those parties though, so won't happen.

With the HRT/HSVDT contracts, effectively all that is happening is a contract with Tom is being replaced by another contract with Tom. And Tom will of course agree to that.

Do the HRT/HSVDT contracts even need to be torn up and re-written for this to happen? Do those contracts have exclusivity clauses which would actually stop them driving for the other part of the team?

D.R.T. · 30 Aug 2006, 14:52 (Ref:1697662)

Funny to read in AA O'reilly saying that it seems HRT/Toll are wanting to run as one four car team rather than two separate teams.

Wasn't that the whole point of grouping them at the start of the year.

I am all for the move by TWR or whatever he calls himself these days.

Kerri · 30 Aug 2006, 15:09 (Ref:1697674)

My opinion fwiw, is that the co-driver for the enduros should be chosen from the second tier VESA development series.
Then each current driver has to drive their own cars and can not drag the second cars driver over, then they ALL just have to hope the development driver is up too the task.

Go ahead shoot me down but isn't that what the development series if for, developing drivers for the step up to Level 1 ????

If you do want to shoot me down that's fine but I can't reply till Monday as we are off too Sandown ourselves for racing at 6am in the morning , so please be nice guys

Alan Jones · 30 Aug 2006, 19:45 (Ref:1697940)

this decision IMO is a bad one for the sport.
It's a great one for Holden, and gives them the best chace of securing another victory at the premier race of the year and will certainly help sell the new VE -though going by the pics of the latest SS, it'll do fine regardless of the outcome.
Call me a whinger if you like, but from my side of the fence Ford's campaign for a win at the mount has taken a mighty blow.
i can't understand the argument saying that as they only get limited test days, they should be allowed to swap drivers - surely the fact that when they arrive at the track and have 4 cars to play withversus 2 negates any perceived disadvantage.

SRabbit · 30 Aug 2006, 21:52 (Ref:1698091)

I actually take the opposite view - I think this decision has given Ford a leg up.

Who would you rather race - 2 cars that are both now set-up driver wise for gaining maximun benefit to the Championship challenge and so will be hell-bent on avoiding any rubbish just to gain points

or

1 car with 2 drivers who are outside chances at best to win the Championship and so their only mission for the day is to drive the wheels off the car for a win at all costs as they don't really have anything to lose??

Tander/Skaife and Kelly/Kelly are 8/10ths combinations - Kelly/Skaife would have been 10/10ths from go to whoa....

6.213km · 30 Aug 2006, 22:07 (Ref:1698107)

I totally agree.

If all of this was about winning Bathurst then you'd leave T.Kelly with M.Skaife, they are the defending champions afterall, with nothing to lose, and when your main competition is in the championship hunt, they are less likely to fight you to the death because they have another agenda.

I am looking forward to how it all pans out.

pete55 · 30 Aug 2006, 22:46 (Ref:1698122)

We won't have to worry about it next year as the loophole will be closed. Testing restrictions may also be looked at reguarding teams of more than two cars.

Conrod Kieron · 30 Aug 2006, 23:03 (Ref:1698129)

Quote:

Originally Posted by racer69

This whole argument in many ways is just people having a whinge for the sake of it......

Thats unusual coming from you racer, I thought you were very much for the purity of the sport?

If so you'd be able to see the longer term consequences and be whinging along with us

RotorFan · 30 Aug 2006, 23:13 (Ref:1698131)

I've said this before, but I really do wonder what kind of championship people actually want.

How narrow do you want it? Teams don't even have much chance to employ strategy in races, let alone outside of races. Control parts, blueprint, parity adjustments, linear points system, grouping restrictions, two manufacturers.

If your argument is "racing should be done on the race track - passing and whatnot", then thats being ruined with push to pass anyway.

The ONLY whinging that is happening is based on completely false information and misunderstanding of the situation. Every single argument against it uses false information. Here is another one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Jones

i can't understand the argument saying that as they only get limited test days, they should be allowed to swap drivers - surely the fact that when they arrive at the track and have 4 cars to play withversus 2 negates any perceived disadvantage.

That ISN'T the argument at all! They should be allowed to swap drivers because the rules allow ANY TEAM to do it, regardless of grouping.

The *only* slightly valid argument people have against it is that they are supposedly afraid it will open the floodgates for drivers swapping teams all over the shop. I can't imagine any other base for a complaint for all the teams that complained to VESA. What a load of crap. They don't care about that, they just dont like the fact that HRT/HSV have minimised the risk of losing points.

retro · 31 Aug 2006, 00:42 (Ref:1698144)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conrod Kieron

Thats unusual coming from you racer, I thought you were very much for the purity of the sport?

If so you'd be able to see the longer term consequences and be whinging along with us

ok I'll bite what are the long term consequences...50 drivers in 1 car...

Chatters · 31 Aug 2006, 07:40 (Ref:1698218)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerri

My opinion fwiw, is that the co-driver for the enduros should be chosen from the second tier VESA development series.
Then each current driver has to drive their own cars and can not drag the second cars driver over, then they ALL just have to hope the development driver is up too the task.

But that's the point: The most of the V8DS drivers wouldn't be up to the challenge... I mean someone like Lowndes or Tander resting with the hopes of winning Bathurst in the hands of a relative rookie. Sure there are a handul of good drivers out there in the Development Series, but it would be a first in, first serve basis, and the low running teams would have their chances virtually eliminated by getting the raw end of the deal.

6.213km · 31 Aug 2006, 07:55 (Ref:1698235)

Could you imagine the uproar, if Craig Lowndes hands over to his development series co-driver and he hit the wall? Come on guys, surely we want to see the best drivers in the best cars. We don't want to see our heros Bathurst or Sandown campaigns being ruined by inexperience.

The development series exists, as the name suggests, to promote & prep & develop talent. To allow drivers to gain experience so that one day, they may be given the opportunity to drive for a level one team if they are good enough.

The idea of making it compulsory for teams to select co-drivers from the development series would only lead to more Level one teams entering one or two cars in the development series so that they can allow their co-drivers to race all year.... Cost Cost Cost....

What would happen to all the independently run teams currently competing in the development series ? They'd either have to pre-qualify for each and every round for limited grid spots, or V8supercar Australia would need to set up a development-development series.................

lookleft · 31 Aug 2006, 07:59 (Ref:1698240)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chatters

But that's the point: The most of the V8DS drivers wouldn't be up to the challenge... I mean someone like Lowndes or Tander resting with the hopes of winning Bathurst in the hands of a relative rookie. Sure there are a handul of good drivers out there in the Development Series, but it would be a first in, first serve basis, and the low running teams would have their chances virtually eliminated by getting the raw end of the deal.

They are low end for a reason ..... don't think first pick of co-drivers will drag Rod Nash Racing to the front of the grid! Anyway, back on topic...

My only issue with it is the damage it does to the "brand". We hear every other week that it is a brand they are building and need to get better media coverage against football etc. - can't remember the last time a footy team traded star players for a couple of games they had to win to make the finals. Just looks silly. Fans are built around driver and / or teams - what jacket does a Todd Kelly fan wear now? Don't want all those 16 year old girls walking around naked now do we

Either way I see it as a bonus for Ford.

At least it is not as bad as the "fake" wins one P Brock achieved in 83 and 87.

retro · 31 Aug 2006, 08:07 (Ref:1698247)

Ch 10 cross to Sandown for the story...Tander standing there...half way through a big yawn...kinda summed it up right there...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A surprising project from Belgium...	Bramzel	Sportscar & GT Racing	9	3 Oct 2005 09:36
Well, you'll never guess what.....	Invader	Trackside	9	7 Apr 2001 17:09
Surprising news	angst	Formula One	46	24 Aug 2000 00:11