[BTCC] BTCC 2019 - Brands Hatch Indy - Rounds 1, 2, 3

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Curious - how do you know that Tim noticed it?

After the penalty was awarded, Tim said that he had noticed it but didn't want to say anything.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Tim Harvey is going so far out of his way to not incriminate certain drivers that it's getting a bit silly. Plato parked too far ahead on the grid, and Tim noticed it and didn't say anything so as not to draw attention to it.

Those sort of jump start / out of position penalties are based on 'judges of fact'. They are too busy looking out the window at what is happening on track to be able to pay attention to the TV coverage.

Likewise, any driving standards type penalties will be based on reviewing all available evidence (video or otherwise), not based solely on what the bloke on the telly says. He needs to stop sitting on the fence. The point of the second (expert/ex-driver) commentator is to offer an opinion.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

When the penalty was announced, Tim said he saw it and didn't want to say anything at the time. Quite literally the opposite of what his job is.

OK - hadn't picked up on that.

Although, I think what he may have meant was that whilst he may be employed to commentate, he does not want to be seen as interfering with the judicial procedures in place.

I can't recall him stating that a driver should be penalised (or even pass comment on a possible transgression) until after the officials are already aware of or acting upon an incident.

[crmalcolm]

If Tim Harvey had drawn the viewers' attention to JP's out-of-box position - can we really be certain that posters would not claim that he is interfering?

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If Tim Harvey had drawn the viewers' attention to JP's out-of-box position - can we really be certain that posters would not claim that he is interfering?

There are enough tin-foil-hat wearers, would we notice a few more?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Those sort of jump start / out of position penalties are based on 'judges of fact'. They are too busy looking out the window at what is happening on track to be able to pay attention to the TV coverage.

Teams are watching the TV coverage, and we've seen in other series teams lodge appeals and protests based on what has been seen and said on TV. It's absolutely not out of the question for someone to protest something due to seeing it on TV. 2009 Australian GP with the Trulli and Hamilton incident is the most high profile example of this, but it happens in sportscar racing a lot.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If Tim Harvey had drawn the viewers' attention to JP's out-of-box position - can we really be certain that posters would not claim that he is interfering?

It's a commentators job to draw the viewers attention to significant events. Tim is far too diplomatic at the best of times, and now he's just not bothering.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Teams are watching the TV coverage, and we've seen in other series teams lodge appeals and protests based on what has been seen and said on TV. It's absolutely not out of the question for someone to protest something due to seeing it on TV. 2009 Australian GP with the Trulli and Hamilton incident is the most high profile example of this, but it happens in sportscar racing a lot.



It's a commentators job to draw the viewers attention to significant events. Tim is far too diplomatic at the best of times, and now he's just not bothering.

But if a commentator is drawing the viewers' attention, he is also drawing the teams' attention. Therefore, unless he highlighted every single infringement that he spots on screen, he is open to accusations of bias.

Better off to leave the officiating of the event to the officials, and than pass his comment on matters once they are in the hands of the officials. As implied by the title 'commentator', he should be passing comment not passing judgement.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Teams are watching the TV coverage, and we've seen in other series teams lodge appeals and protests based on what has been seen and said on TV. It's absolutely not out of the question for someone to protest something due to seeing it on TV. 2009 Australian GP with the Trulli and Hamilton incident is the most high profile example of this, but it happens in sportscar racing a lot.

its different with the grid. its purely based on if one of the judges has seen it or not at the time. so a team raising later it or the tv commentator seeing it doesnt change anything if an official judge hasnt seen it and reported it at the time

[HopAlong]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Curious - how do you know that Tim noticed it?

He said something like "I thought I saw him over his grid spot but I didn't want to say anything in case..." when the penalty was announced. (just in case you needed to read it a 4th time, my I'm slow at typing)

Great days racing by the way, great to have cars with different strengths and weaknesses, makes for great racing. I would like to see less of the "BMW and Subaru are too quick" when they do well and no one complains when a Honda wins with double/triple the gap.

I also hope they don't keep up with the frequent cutting to Blundell running around in no mans land, rather than the actual action. I guess it isn't is bad as when they overdid showing the driver's family before the overtake had even finished.

Surprised Chilton is the only penalty, surely Hamilton should have gotten something for nearly wiping out the leader.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But if a commentator is drawing the viewers' attention, he is also drawing the teams' attention. Therefore, unless he highlighted every single infringement that he spots on screen, he is open to accusations of bias.

Better off to leave the officiating of the event to the officials, and than pass his comment on matters once they are in the hands of the officials. As implied by the title 'commentator', he should be passing comment not passing judgement.

I personally think ignoring things like cars out of grid slots and cars hitting others, and then later saying "I didn't watch to say anything" isn't really an acceptable quality level tbh.

He doesn't need to pass judgement. He could just say "Jason is quite far forward in his slot", or "Sutton accidentally loved tapped the back of the Audi there". That gives the benefit of the doubt. Completely ignoring it (in JPs case) and changing the details or what happened (in the Audi/Subaru case) is poor.

[Robin Marriott]

Originally Posted by Johno.UK

Lots of people seem to be totally misunderstanding what Nic meant when he said he was there on his own merit in a recent interview.


What he meant (and actually said) was that he raised the sponsorship and he did the deal. His brother didn't pay for it as many assume.


Now of course his name is going to open more doors than any other disabled driver but there's nothing he can do about that.

If Lewis turns up to support his brother that shouldn't diminish in any way what Nic has achieved.

While I partly agree, my annoyance was with the ‘rumour has it Lewis might be here’, ‘oh look there’s Lewis’, ‘maybe he’ll come for a chat with us’ bits. They made the point about it not being about Lewis, then made it about Lewis...

[BLiTZ]

Originally Posted by Robin Marriott

While I partly agree, my annoyance was with the ‘rumour has it Lewis might be here’, ‘oh look there’s Lewis’, ‘maybe he’ll come for a chat with us’ bits. They made the point about it not being about Lewis, then made it about Lewis...

I noticed this too, "The fog's stopping Lewis from landing his helicopter" FFS.

They even cut off Steve/Tim/Paul mid-sentence just as they were discussing something relevant about Turkington to show Lewis talking to Nic in the car.

Wonder if they'll cut to shots of James Martin next time he's in Plato's pit?!

[mprmke]

They wanted to point out that the drive was all about Nic and his own sponsors etc. Of course his name gives him an advantage in some respects, but he's done well on his own merit without any major involvement from anyone else.

But.....

They're not really going to completely ignore the fact that a multiple time F1 World Champion is there in the pit lane are they?!

[Robin Marriott]

I think I’m just annoyed because I’m not a Lewis fan, so him getting TV coverage just irritates me

Anyway...

I was impressed by Nic this weekend, the car obviously works for him.

Bobby Thompson also impressed me, shame he made the wrong call after race one on tyres though, he could have had a mega weekend, him and Goff are clearly getting the best out of the CCs.

Same with Jelley, didn’t think much of him last year but he had a great weekend.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by mprmke

They wanted to point out that the drive was all about Nic and his own sponsors etc. Of course his name gives him an advantage in some respects, but he's done well on his own merit without any major involvement from anyone else.

But.....

They're not really going to completely ignore the fact that a multiple time F1 World Champion is there in the pit lane are they?!

And I am sure that Monster sponsoring Nic is no way connected to the fact that they just so happen to also personally sponsor F1's Hamilton.

I would like to say that Nic has really come on as a driver and appears to improved significantly. I am sure that nearly tripping up the leader will have been a lesson learnt.

[GT6]

So Nic Hamilton has a brother would appears to be a tattoo artist's bill board and who drives a car in a race series that is about as noncompetitive as it could possibly be. Nic races in a series that had something like 17 different winners last year and is about the most competitive race series. Now who is the racing driver?

[SnoodyMcFlude]

Originally Posted by GT6

Now who is the racing driver?

Both of them?

I think, whilst getting fairly widespread coverage (including on BBC website, despite no other BTCC articles), it would be nice to hear Nic occasionally say “obviously the surname helps”.

But that’s how motorsport works, if you can generate the cash then you do it. Like Blundell, I’d be surprised if he expects to be competitive but it’s probably easier for him to get sponsors to raise the budget for a BTCC season than doing some single make championship.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by GT6

So Nic Hamilton has a brother would appears to be a tattoo artist's bill board and who drives a car in a race series that is about as noncompetitive as it could possibly be. Nic races in a series that had something like 17 different winners last year and is about the most competitive race series. Now who is the racing driver?

I think I will start referring to Lewis as Nic Hamiltons brother on the F1 forum.

[mattcanary]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It's not a matter of whether Neal was at fault or not. If driver A is at least partially at fault, and benefits from the contact, then a form of redress is required.

If Chilton had 30%, 50% or 100% liability, and benefited from the contact, then it has to be addressed. Neal did not benefit from the contact, so the amount of liability he has for the incident is irrelevant.

The simple way to look at incidents involving contact is to ask two simple questions:
Did driver A benefit from the contact?
Was driver A at least partially responsible for the contact?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then driver A has a responsibility to redress the gain received, or the stewards will probably step in.

No, you have to look at the incident itself.
Unless someone is blatantly to blame for an incident, no punishments should be handed out in my opinion.

You win some, you lose some. If you are making a genuine attempt to get past someone fairly, then you shouldn;t be penalised if contact results.

[mattcanary]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And I am sure that Monster sponsoring Nic is no way connected to the fact that they just so happen to also personally sponsor F1's Hamilton.

I would like to say that Nic has really come on as a driver and appears to improved significantly. I am sure that nearly tripping up the leader will have been a lesson learnt.

Well, he was considerably better last year in Clios than he had been before. Wouldn;t be that surprising if he has improved again,

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by mattcanary

No, you have to look at the incident itself.
Unless someone is blatantly to blame for an incident, no punishments should be handed out in my opinion.

You win some, you lose some. If you are making a genuine attempt to get past someone fairly, then you shouldn;t be penalised if contact results.

Unfortunately for that assessment, the rules are not being applied that way in 2019.

Regardless of whether your attempt to get past is fair, if you are at least partially to blame, then you have to accept that you can not have an advantage from the contact.

All Chilton had to do (as Jelley did) is concede the place back and try again.

The official BTCC website wording(s):

'Chilton […] was adjudged to have gained an advantage during contact […] Chilton failed to give the position back during the race itself and was therefore penalised'


'As part of the Driving Standards Guidelines issued to all drivers, ‘A driver who gains an unfair advantage through contact caused by them will be penalised, unless they surrender that advantage before a further lap is completed’, and this is something that Chilton failed to do during the incident. […] Jelley made similar contact with Neal during the race in a separate incident but relinquished his position as the guidelines dictate.'


It's clear to the drivers and the officials. So as much as it might be disagreed with here, that's how it is.

[Johno.UK]

I suppose one thing it does show is how inappropriate Platos punishment was. Start a couple of inches out of position in race 1 and you lose the whole day. Punt someone out of the way and you get five seconds. Not just a BTCC problem. A similar thing happened to Crutchlow in MotoGP.
Always going to be tricky to know where to draw the line between a real advantage and a mistake though.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Johno.UK

I suppose one thing it does show is how inappropriate Platos punishment was. Start a couple of inches out of position in race 1 and you lose the whole day. Punt someone out of the way and you get five seconds. Not just a BTCC problem. A similar thing happened to Crutchlow in MotoGP.
Always going to be tricky to know where to draw the line between a real advantage and a mistake though.

It raises an interesting point really. The 5 second penalty cannot be standard surely. If Chilton had gotten a 5 second gap, would they have given him a 10 second penalty? I suspect the number of seconds if fluid. And like you say, JPs punishment ruined an entire weekend for what was a much more minor infraction.

And then we have Jelly who just punted into the side of Neal, eventually about ending his race.

[Mike Harte]

I just wish that they would just enforce the no-contact rule, which saloon car racing is supposed to have. That would mean a complete ban on 'door handle bashing', 'paint swapping' and 'love taps' and so on. They all invariably upset the composure of the car that's been hit, meaning that the transgressor will have potentially gained an advantage.

With all the technology available in the CoC's control centre, it should be easy to police, and the transgressor should be black flagged immediately.

I would hazard a guess that the drivers would stop doing this immediately after the first culprit was punished in this way.

I appreciate that my view may be considered old fashioned, but having competed for 5 years against the likes of Gerry Marshall and other such great drivers, we never needed to use our racers as bumper cars. And most of the saloon car racing back then was just as exciting as today's BTCC; it just didn't cost us a fortune to have to replace car body parts after each race.

[touring fan01]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I just wish that they would just enforce the no-contact rule, which saloon car racing is supposed to have. That would mean a complete ban on 'door handle bashing', 'paint swapping' and 'love taps' and so on. They all invariably upset the composure of the car that's been hit, meaning that the transgressor will have potentially gained an advantage.

With all the technology available in the CoC's control centre, it should be easy to police, and the transgressor should be black flagged immediately.

seriously?!
so if for example a car in front misses a gear which caused the car to momentarily hesitate and the car right behind tapping him through no fault of his own...your system would black flag that innocent driver immediately!

no thanks

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by touring fan01

seriously?!
so if for example a car in front misses a gear which caused the car to momentarily hesitate and the car right behind tapping him through no fault of his own...your system would black flag that innocent driver immediately!

no thanks

*Devils Advocate hat on*
So, in your example, the car in front misses a gear, causing the car behind to tap him wide, gaining a place, how will race control/Alan Gow/second car's team know this is what happened, so he doesn't have to give the place back to prevent being awarded a penalty?
(Also, with the modern sequential gearboxes fitted to BTCC cars, missing a gear doesn't really happen).