Printable View
Does anyone else thing this is a daft rule or is it just me?
Generally at a WTCC meeting once the first race is up and running there may be a battle for 1-4th but after that only 9th place man is trying to better his place. Those in 5th to 8th all seem to be happy to sit it out knowing that there better off in second race of the day.
They would be better off doing a BTCC Lottery grid then everyone would have to race in first race.
At least it's not as bad as when Jason Plato always used to go for tenth in the BTCC in 2004/5!
That frustrated me soo much! that was the only reason why he was getting p*ssing got poles! Slimey man.
I tend to think that reverse grids are a bad idea, far too gimmicky, have no place in a serious championship, and that they show a lack of confidence in the competitiveness of any series that uses them. Then I watch a race like the second one at Brno on Sunday, which was made exciting by the reverse grid, and I suddenly don't feel as strongly about it...
The BTCC 'pick a ball' system may look incredibly tacky, but it is really the only fair way of doing a reverse grid and avoiding people deliberately dropping back into a certain position. Doesn't mean I like it, though.
I agree, lose the 'reverse grids' full stop.
Why are the losers getting rewarded with poles, and the people doing a good job & winning races getting penalised?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VX_Rules
Yes i noticed that too, JP seems to sit back and hope for the reverse grid or get the lottery pole.
Suppose thats the only glory he will get these days !!!
If there's a rule, it's there to be bent. I don't personally think it's a good rule for the BTCC, but anyone who tries to stay back and get the pole is just taking advantage of the crazy rule! Nothing "slimy" about it at all :rolleyes:
I don't see why they can't just have two qualifying sessions. I don't like these reversed grid ideas, but at least in things like GP2 or the F3 Euroseries race two counts for fewer points.
Either that or have done with qualifying and randomise the entire grid, then reverse it for race two. That way it's fair for everyone. It'd make keeping a season-long average grid position count easier too ;)
imo the reverse grid is the least contrived part of the WTCC, at least that rule is there for everyone and is the same for all the teams - the BMW's, Seats (diesel), Seats (petrol), Honda and Chevvy all seem to run to different weights now, and many of them have been changed at least once this season. The boost pressure for the diesels has changed, Seat are allowed Aero rule breaks, Chevvy have rule breaks as to their suspension arrangement and the Lada's keep turning up with an illegal engine but allowed to compete - makes it virtualy impossible for the fans to decide who is actually the quickest team or driver, especially when you factor in the success ballast, which is enough to completley ruin a cars competitiveness, unlike the BTCC where you can still win with ballast on
All very good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Exactly :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mp3 Astra
It's a stupid rule, but any driver who doesn't use the rules to their advantage isn't doing their job.
Long times ago I saw a WTCC race and it looked very interesting. I tried to know sth more about series and found out these stupid rules. Reverse order on grid to 2nd race is of course stupid, but there is also a ballast added to cars depends of what type of engine competitor use - I don't know details could someone explain it to me?. For me such a rules make the series no longer sport but the show. I' would very like to watch WTCC (it's like F1 to tourism cars) but those absurdal rules prevent me from it. Would you imagine in F1 with similar ideas? 100 % agree with Robinho and Bdunell this should have no place in serious championship. I really don't know why FIA ruin this super racing and changed into show.
well, it may be a bit 'tacky' but at least it isnt as bad as when they first introduced the idea, with that rubbish 'spinny pointer' thingy or whatever it was. in concept it is a silly idea, but the racing produced is fantastic, and it makes a drivers job less easy, especially if they are trying to win all three races in a weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
so to me, i except this slightly silly concpet because of the exciting results.
I think teh BTCC system works fine - reversed grid shakes things up and the lottery prevents drivers only fighting for 8th.
Very well thought through
WT
It does work very well, its just the selection process that lets it down! If it wasn't live on ITV4 we wouldnt even see the draw!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasted Talent
I like the reverse grids because it stops one man winning every race (unless you copy Mr Plato in 04!) I think it keeps the racing close but the WTCC is generally useless because there are way too many rule breaks for the cars...
Did anyone watch the first race in Macau over the weekend? About three or four cars deliberately slowed down to try and finish 8th.
The sad part is that was the most interesting bit of the whole race :s
if they are going to reserve the grid then reserve exactly half that finished.... 20 finish and 10 get reversed. Give even more of the mid-field a chance
You said it. The FIA tend to ruin every championship they run. They ruined the DTM back in 1996 and it went to the wall. They tend to get involved when they shouldn't and make up rules and change them constantly throughout the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by havk
it is not a case of ruining it but trying to appease everyone.
Just remember that in the BTCC Mr Gow just puts out a safety car whenever he feels like it.
I would prefer tweaks and other interventions than see the same car or brand winning every race by a mile
i agree because you don't want to end up woth what we got in the end of the supertouring era when one car/team would dominate the seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Les
Best era of the BTCC? Mid 90's. Reverse grids? Nope.
Two longer races, individual qualifying. Give the race chance to develop and tyres become important.
They have made the BTCC and the WTCC a gimmick sport. It rewards random-ness and disregards acheivement.
It is about time they moved back to two races with no stupid rules.
Couldn't agree more. I think allowing Turdo Diesels in hasn't helped either. Ballast also doesn't help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezza
I'm personally not bothered if one marque dominates because they do a good job, it's the way motorsport is and you can't have a fluffy form of motorsport where everyone wins some of the time yet the racing is actually fair and exciting, it just doesn't exist. There are winners and then there are LOSERS. It's just the way motorsport is.
Yes totally agree with 2 posts above. So there is no good international touring car series.
The same king of rules are in BTCC "Sunday’s third round grid is decided by the finishing order of the second race but, uniquely, with the leading positions reversed"; "After both the first and second races on Sunday, the following weight handicaps are added to the top five finishers’ cars before the start of races two and three respectively: 1st – 45kgs; 2nd – 36kgs; 3rd – 27kgs; 4th – 18kgs; 5th – 9kgs. Sixth place or lower does not carry any ballast" by http://www.btcc.net/html/regulations.php
I wonder if the same situation is in Swedish Touring Car Championship?
An interesting touring car championship could be International Superstars Series. First it was Italian Championship but in 2007 was added International Superstars Series. I will see how this series is developing. http://www.superstars.it/eng/
A reverse grid with a points reward would make sense in Race Two:
3 points - Driver who makes up most grid positions in second race.
2 points - Driver who makes up second-most grid positions in second race.
1 point - Driver who makes up third-most grid positions in second race.
5 points - Driver who wins first race (starts last) wins race two.
3 points - Driver who was second in first race wins race two OR race one winner wins.
1 point - Driver who was third in first race wins race two, second in first race is second in race two, or winner of first race is third in race two.
Two point bonus for a driver who can sweep the two races.
In theory, 30 points could go to the driver who wins both races -- 10 for the two wins, 8 for the most improved driver.
When USAC Midgets ran the "Night Before F1" double feature midgets, that 25-lap oval race had the format with the 24-car format -- 25 green flag laps and each lap took around 20 seconds. The grid for Race Two was reverse Race One. If the guy who was dead last won, not only did he score the two races, $50,000 would be paid to the double winner.
WTCC promoters should take the cue from O'Reilly Raceway Park and consider both a points bonus and a cash bonus. Maybe both the points reward and EUR 10,000 bonus each weekend with cash carry-over each week would send fans happy. If someone won, half to the winner and half to the winner's charity.
Imagine a driver, down by 21 points, in the final weekend of the season, runs off and wins the first race while the points leader finishes second (gains 2 points). So both cars are sent to the rear for race two. The points leader crashes out, and the winner of race one passes everyone to win. That's 10 points gained on the points leader. (Down now by 9 points). He gained the most positions, naturally, in the second race and collects the three-point bonus. But since he was the race winner, he collects five points. That puts the lead down to one. But that's a clean sweep -- two more points. That driver has won the title by dominating the final weekend.
Winning both ends of the race should be worth the 10,000 euro and equivalent to a third win.
thats a complicated but brilliant Idea :)
15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyC
1 for pole
1 for FL
No reverse grids.
Two races of 25 laps or one of 15 and one of 30 (with a pitstop).
This applies to BTCC and WTCC.
SIMPLE AND EFFECTIVE.
The Bureau, chaired by Jonathan Ashman, president of the FIA Touring Car Commission, oversees the sporting regulations and ensures that costs do not spiral out of control, as they have done in so many other motor racing championships.Ashman said: “The Bureau is there to assist a manufacturer to cost-effectively adapt a road car into a racing car. Ordinarily, manufacturers would have to resort to expensive solutions to get them racing. But we can vary the regulations to make sure a manufacturer can be competitive without spending lots of money.”
This does not mean that the Bureau makes decisions which settle races. Rather it helps a manufacturer to get into a position from which it can begin to be competitive.As Ashman put it: “We help them to get onto the bottom rung of the competitive ladder. But then getting them to the top is up to the team and the drivers.”The other members of the Bureau are Gabriele Cadringher, President of the FIA Manufacturers' Commission, and Jacques Berger, President of the FIA Technical Commission. All decisions made between the three have to be unanimous.It is certainly working as the price of an average competitive touring car has only risen by 10 per cent over the last four years. Much of this is because under the regulations there are not a lot of areas to throw money at. Ashman said: “We don’t use major electronics or hydraulics so there is no opportunity to spend in those areas.”
Have a nice day