Spin The Wheel

[fabricator/61]

Come on TOCA get with it. We have a full grid with some excellent racing and how do they set the reverse grid for race 3, the winning driver from race 2 spins an exceptionally tacky perspex wheel with the drivers who finished 5 thru 10.This is the age of the computer,surely a simple random selection programme could be used!!! or something like the National Lottery uses with six numbered balls. Someone who works with me reckons the wheel system could be abused, so that the person spinning checks to see where the driver who finished fifth is and gives the wheel a light weight spin hoping to get him on pole improving his chances of getting a better grid position!!

[Caroline]

Have to agree it looks naff. Not the most professional look.

[Dave B]

The reverse grid is a good idea in theory, but it's execution makes an otherwise excellent race series look like a laughing stock on national TV.

It's even more tacky than the Have I Got News For You "Wheel of News", and that's deliberately ironic.

On a related note: either have a reverse grid or ballast. Not both.

[AlexD]

Can't say I'm a fan of how it looks, but I almost always love the race it produces.

[BDunnell]

It's time to do away with reverse grids. They have produced several race winners who wouldn't otherwise have won — I don't object to that happening in unusual circumstances, but not because of the sporting regulations — and the championship now is competitive enough not to need gimmicks of this sort.

For instance, while Mike Jordan's win at Mondello last year was down to a reverse grid, he has proved on many occasions, especially last weekend at Thruxton, that he is competitive in qualifying and races without being helped. He deserves to be up at the front of grids; John George, with respect, does not.

[tintin]

It's less open to abuse than the playing cars were last season.

[BDunnell]

It's less open to abuse than the playing cars were last season.

The playing cards were probably less open to abuse than the automatic reversal of the top 10 finishers, but no system of deciding the grid in races in a major championship should be open to any abuse at all.

[BeansBeansBeans]

They should get rid of the wheel of fortune and introduce a Clown Shoes rule. Before each race a driver's name is pulled from a bowler hat, and the driver in question must compete whilst wearing a big pair of clown shoes.

[VkmSpouge]

I kind of enjoy the wheel, I find it quite funny seeing the faces of drivers spinning around and around.

[AlexD]

Hmm, but it certainly has an air of 'It's a Knockout!' about it...

I'm not sure this season needs it anyway. It's been good enough!

[Dave B]

They should get rid of the wheel of fortune and introduce a Clown Shoes rule. Before each race a driver's name is pulled from a bowler hat, and the driver in question must compete whilst wearing a big pair of clown shoes.

Oh yeah typical: come up with a rule which is wildly biased in favour of Matt Neal :rolleyes:

:p :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

On a related note: either have a reverse grid or ballast. Not both.

I agree :up: I've asked Alan Gow about his on his forum. Reversing the grid to put heavy cars at the back and light cars at the front doesn't make any sense :confused:

[inimitablestoo]

I don't see why they don't use a variation on the system used for the 1997 Tourist Trophy: the grid for race one is reversed for race two, and the grid for race three is based on an aggregate of results from the first two races. Either that or qualifying counts for one of the grids, with the other grids drawn randomly (one in the order as drawn, the other the reverse of that grid). If we've got to have reverse grids, let's go the whole hog and reverse the lot...

[SEATFreak]

Being brutally honest Fabrizio Giovanardi's feeble effort when he came to spin the wheel at Thruxton sums up the contempt I think even I have for this rather childish way of deciding the reverse grid.

On the issue of whether or not the reverse grid works, those wishing to abolish it based on the theory that races have produced winners who wouldn't have won - look at Dave Pinkney at Thruxton. He was on pole but ended up finishing 13th. The natural strength of the better cars (the Leon, the Civic and the Vectra) do prove in the end by and large too strong.

Though having said all that I would be happier if the reverse grid system was abolished and we just had straight races with no complexities.

[ATF]

Being brutally honest Fabrizio Giovanardi's feeble effort when he came to spin the wheel at Thruxton sums up the contempt I think even I have for this rather childish way of deciding the reverse grid.


He didn't even do it at Rockingham, TOC did and he finished 2nd!! Stupid idea, they should just scrap reverse grids AND success ballast.

[RED VXR]

Have to agree it looks naff. Not the most professional look.

Have to agree here, looks very unprofessional considering the BTCC is potentially seen world wide. Dosent do it any favours.

[KILOHMUNNS]

Let's invite Nicky Campbell and have a game of "Wheel of Fortune"!!!

[racer69]

What looks sillier though, spinning a wheel, or a bunch of cars slowing down on the last corner trying to see who can finish further down the order...?

I vote for the two-race mid-90s system, didn't seem to do the series too much harm then.

Or even better, why not just a single one-hour race?

[SEATFreak]

I don't see why they don't use a variation on the system used for the 1997 Tourist Trophy: the grid for race one is reversed for race two, and the grid for race three is based on an aggregate of results from the first two races.

My head hurts. As someone once told me ages ago.

That is even more complex than the current system. Aggregate results? How do work out the aggregate in terms of motorsport results as a pose to football results? Add the placings you achieved in the first two together and that is your placing for race three?



I vote for the two-race mid-90s system, didn't seem to do the series too much harm then.

As daft as inimitablestoo's idea is complex. The meeting would feel all too short. Seeing the Carrera's and the SCC is nice but who of us go to Thruxton, Mondello or Croft to see mainly the Carrera's or the SCC? Three races is far more generous on spectators and fans alike.

[stevenlcroucher]

They might as well have the winner bob for a nunmbered apple in a big bucket of water.

[stevenlcroucher]

nunmbered? Numbered.

[fabricator/61]

A one hour race would require fuel stops, that might liven it up abit, and now the wheels are on five wheel nuts a tyre change would really stir things up!!

[ATF]

I vote for the two-race mid-90s system, didn't seem to do the series too much harm then.

Or even better, why not just a single one-hour race?

That's exactly what Alan Gow is moving away from! During the longer races we used to have, cars used to spread out more and the last part of the race was often processional.

A one-race format wouldn't work at all, especially given the attrition rate of the BTCC - three sprint races are much better IMO.

[Winchester]

The cars only have fuel tanks big enough to take them just over a race distance.
Imagine pitstops - they would have to lift the boot up and fill the fuel tank up from one of those big cylinders!
So that's never going to happen.
Three sprint races is great as far as i'm concerned. The WTCC would be so much better if it employed the same tactic - two really short races is hardly value for money.

[SEATFreak]

That's exactly what Alan Gow is moving away from! During the longer races we used to have, cars used to spread out more and the last part of the race was often processional.

I vaguelly recall the final years of the Feature Race (2001-2003) and from what I do recall the top 3-4 cars were nearly always the 888 Vauxhall Motorsport and Egg:Sport cars. So it is not as if the top 4 were varied. Which seemed to me to make it worse. Nearly always Astras.


A one-race format wouldn't work at all, especially given the attrition rate of the BTCC - three sprint races are much better IMO.

I think of the the teams that consistently fail through various understandable reasons to get the cars fit enough to run. Like BTC Racing who have the most DNS this season with 8. They are under enough pressure without it being a scenario where you fail once to get your car(s) to run you miss the entire meeting. TH Motorsport didn't make Race 2 at Thruxton but John George did do Race 3 and got 12th.

[tin-top fan]

Imagine pitstops - they would have to lift the boot up and fill the fuel tank up from one of those big cylinders!
So that's never going to happen.


AFAIK the stcc has pitstops- not sure if the cars are refueled during them though......

[Dave B]

I vaguelly recall the final years of the Feature Race (2001-2003) and from what I do recall the top 3-4 cars were nearly always the 888 Vauxhall Motorsport and Egg:Sport cars. So it is not as if the top 4 were varied. Which seemed to me to make it worse. Nearly always Astras.
The Astras were dominant, that's true; and Plato, Thompson and Muller were the dominant drivers. If they were the fastest guys in the fastest cars, why shouldn't they always be at the front? It doesn't always make for good TV, that's the only trouble.

[SEATFreak]

Spot on Dave. They were the Arsenal of the BTCC's talent at the time and had the right to be at the top of the series racing at the front battling for outright wins and trophies because they were the best talent with the top teams. But my worry I was thinking at the time was that nearly consistently the cars that trailed in just behind were going to be Vauxhall's other Astras -Egg's. And nearly all the time the best points were going to all of Vauxhall's Astras as VLR and later MG as competitive as they were just didn't have that which made Vauxhall so strong.

Though unlikely to happen again in quite that way, my worry with a one hour long race is the top 4 will be for the most part dominated by the two factory teams VXR and SEAT. I think they would have the resources to last. Team Dynamics may but I think teams BTC Racing, Kartworld or Sibsports may not.

[Nick The Flick]

They should get rid of the wheel of fortune and introduce a Clown Shoes rule. Before each race a driver's name is pulled from a bowler hat, and the driver in question must compete whilst wearing a big pair of clown shoes.

That is just a silly idea. It would be far more suitable to have the following for race 3. No reverse grid, but it lines up like this:

Pole: Tows a caravan
2nd: Has a small trailer attached
3rd: Has a roof cycle carrier, with two mountain bikes
4th: Has to race with two lengths of wood (or maybe a ladder) in the car, which overhang, so the boot has to be kept closed with a bungee or an old piece of rope or washing line.
5th: Has a 140l roof box
6th: Has a yapping dog in the back to break concentration
7th: Has one of those "Fish Sticker Speed Restrictors", which once stuck to the back of your car, don't allow you to travel above 45mph.

It makes far more sense, and you would be able to see who was in pole later on i the race, simply by seeing who has the caravan.

[KILOHMUNNS]

That is just a silly idea. It would be far more suitable to have the following for race 3. No reverse grid, but it lines up like this:

Pole: Tows a caravan
2nd: Has a small trailer attached
3rd: Has a roof cycle carrier, with two mountain bikes
4th: Has to race with two lengths of wood (or maybe a ladder) in the car, which overhang, so the boot has to be kept closed with a bungee or an old piece of rope or washing line.
5th: Has a 140l roof box
6th: Has a yapping dog in the back to break concentration
7th: Has one of those "Fish Sticker Speed Restrictors", which once stuck to the back of your car, don't allow you to travel above 45mph.

It makes far more sense, and you would be able to see who was in pole later on i the race, simply by seeing who has the caravan.

You forgot about the space saving spare wheel, and the car without the break lights!

[SEATFreak]

Can I make more suggestions?

8th: A sticker with a slogan that isn't funny.

9th: A daft and embarassing car toy that is equally as unfunny.

10th: An "L" plate.

[racer69]

The cars only have fuel tanks big enough to take them just over a race distance.

Not hard to fix, fit a bigger fuel tank?

People used to say the same about the Super Tourers, how they were only meant to last a sprint race etc etc..... didn't stop them running flatout for 1000km at Bathurst though, managing to run 200 odd kilometres on a tank of fuel as well.

I'm always a fan of a single race at the meeting, its all got to happen in the one race, no second chances.....

[tintin]

Not hard to fix, fit a bigger fuel tank?


The size of the fuel tank is mandated under the S2000 rule. Fitting a bigger one isn't an option.

[Griffin]

I agree the wheel does look rather gimmicky for such a high profile series. The cards weren't as bad last year though.

As for one long race, no thanks. Even a few years down the line, I love the fact we get 3 BTCC races on the sunday, as the headline act, it's nice to have that on offer.

I think a revision of the third race rules ought to be reconsidered.

[SEATFreak]

As for one long race, no thanks. Even a few years down the line, I love the fact we get 3 BTCC races on the sunday, as the headline act, it's nice to have that on offer.

I think a revision of the third race rules ought to be reconsidered.

I just feel I would feel a bit short changed with anything less than three races more than anything else.

I think I felt I was in 2001 at Croft. Their was only two races, both of which in the Touring Class was dominated again by Vauxhall Motorsport and Egg:Sport with Peugeot Sport lagging a few race places behind. Race 1 was won in the Touring Class by Jase with Yvan in second and James Thompson in third. It was the same three only with Yvan winning and Jase in second. Seeing all this in a rather rainy and dull August Sunday. Not my ideal raceday. In fact I hated it.

I don't even know if the support series was anyhing decent.

A more inventive Race 3 I think needs to be considered.

[BDunnell]

I just feel I would feel a bit short changed with anything less than three races more than anything else.

I think I felt I was in 2001 at Croft. Their was only two races, both of which in the Touring Class was dominated again by Vauxhall Motorsport and Egg:Sport with Peugeot Sport lagging a few race places behind. Race 1 was won in the Touring Class by Jase with Yvan in second and James Thompson in third. It was the same three only with Yvan winning and Jase in second. Seeing all this in a rather rainy and dull August Sunday. Not my ideal raceday. In fact I hated it.

I don't even know if the support series was anyhing decent.

A more inventive Race 3 I think needs to be considered.

Why? What is wrong with a straightforward motor race? I think the BTCC is perfectly entertaining without gimmicks.

And to compare anything with 2001 is irrelevant, because it was such a transitional year and Vauxhall was the only fully-prepared team to do the whole season.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Touring cars worked fine in the 90's with 2 races. I would like to see a bit more variety in the race length. Four seasons of sprint races is starting to get samey. But if they had pit-stops, then the BTC-spec cars would win as they could change tyres in 6seconds and it would take the rest 30 seconds. So I predict Jordan, Hughes and George will win.

[SEATFreak]

And to compare anything with 2001 is irrelevant, because it was such a transitional year and Vauxhall was the only fully-prepared team to do the whole season.

What has the fact is was a transitional year or the fact Vauxhall was the only team prepared to do a whole season got to do with it? You have gone on a complete tangtent.

I even stated early on it what my point was meant to illustrate. That anything less than a three race format would leave me feeling short changed. It may not leave you short changed which I have a feeling you will say in your own way but I cannot speak for you and your feelings.

I want to feel I am getting great value for money and a really great long day out and having two BTCC races as their was in 2001 (which is how I brought 2001 into the equasion) would not leave me with much to enjoy in the way of the BTCC.

Three flat out races with one mandatory pitstop per car would be OK for me. The one pitstop could be less about refuelling or new tyres and more about using the stop to put a driver into a stronger position.

[racer69]

The one pitstop could be less about refuelling or new tyres and more about using the stop to put a driver into a stronger position.

Contrived pistops though just adds more gimmicks to the thing, and doesn't help the racing. What is the point of having pit stops when they aren't required (ie... to refuel, or to replace worn tyres)


We have had compulsory pitstops in the V8Supercars for years. It hasn't helped the racing in any way. Who wants to see passes happen in the pits??

[Nick The Flick]

I really liked the tyre-changing days. Bring them back Gowie. Go on, I dare ya!

Obviously, you'd want to get rid of those silly little wheel nuts too. Real race cars have just the one nut (a bit like Hitler)