Silverstone Notebook – Part Two

Here’s a second selection of happenings, views and opinions from last weekend’s 6 Hours of Silverstone.

WEC Wild Cards

One other nugget that did emerge from the ACO media Q&A is that in addition to a regular c.30 car entry the ACO also envisage local wild card entries at each race.

AstroTurf

This one is quite simple really.  With such huge attention these days paid to circuit safety it's clearly unacceptable to have what is essentially an aesthetic component of the circuit causing a hazard.

Almost everywhere it was placed the Silverstone AstroTurf was torn to shreds, more than one team suffering as a result of clumps of displaced plastic carpet were caught on aero or ingested into the myriad vents that a modern endurance race car sports. 

It seems bizarre that whilst we can actually have a Safety car called for relatively small pieces of debris on the racing surface the equivalent of a full length of stair carpet was left in several places on the racing line!

It looked awful, quite at odds with the normally sacrosanct standards that see debris on the circuit treated with real seriousness, its removal seen as a matter of urgency. 

The answer too should be refreshingly simple -

Silverstone either need to find a foolproof way to stick the damn stuff down or replace it with something that they can - but they need to do it now, before a mechanical hazard becomes a more physical threat.

Aston Gets Air

We’d heard that the incident which saw the #007 Lola Aston Martin lose a tyre had seen the car briefly airborne, and that is confirmed by this picture – reproduced here courtesy of Joe Taylor and  www.twitter.com/LolaRacer

Traffic and Penalties

There were several moments during an excellent 6 Hours of Silverstone which had the press room on their collective feet, but few more so than when the message popped up on the timing screens that the JMW Ferrari had received a 60 second stop-go penalty after the race stewards had investigated contact at Becketts between Rob Bell's 458 and the Audi R18 of Allan McNish.

The reason for the reaction was both the severity of the penalty and the clear attribution of blame in the direction of the Ferrari for an incident that looked, at worst, a racing incident from Bell's perspective or wrong place, wrong time on the part of McNish.

Feelings were running high post penalty chez JMW but Rob Bell, despite obvious irritation both with the penalty, and being blamed for the incident, was typically measured in his response, explaining clearly to DSC how the incident had occurred from his perspective:

“I was near the end of my first stint and was in a group of GT cars battling for position. The lead Peugeot had caught and passed us going into Maggotts."

”As I got to Becketts I glanced at my rear camera (which points directly behind), there was nothing there and I committed to the right hand apex but was hit from the rear, which pushed me off the circuit to the left."

“Luckily I had no damage and I continued having only lost one place. At no point did I see who or what had hit me. I was later told that it was Audi no.2 with Allan McNish driving. I was annoyed I had been hit from behind but also disappointed we had made contact and sorry to hear he had damage, however I thought nothing more of it and got on with the race. After all I was hit from the rear, on line and we are all told by the race director that it is the responsibility of the prototype, (or faster car) to overtake safely.”

It’s typical of both men that they’ve discussed the incident since, and haven’t fallen out over either the event or the subsequent penalty.

“Allan is a world class driver and someone I have the greatest amount of respect for professionally and personally. This view has not changed. My frustration is not with him, he was doing his job and thought he could make the move."

“Becketts is a risky overtaking opportunity at best. The faster car relies entirely on the slower car seeing him and being in full control i.e. not already drifting to the right. Time and time again we see incidents here, the other Audi also had contact here during the race and earlier in the year, we had a high profile GT race accident (the now infamous Westbrook Mucke GT1 clash).  It can be done but it is high risk when both cars are racing."

“When you have 1200 kg of GT car on old tyres it’s a little tricky to say the least. The line means you use kerb on the left (4th gear) which sends you to the middle of the road, you then have to straighten the car, to open the corner up as much as possible to ensure the best possible run through the right apex going onto Hangar straight. This varies depending the speed you carry, tyre wear, fuel load etc. So although we have one optimum line to stick to it can change a bit throughout the race. Having said that, my line on this lap was no different to my previous or the one after.

“I think Allan was unlucky. On this particular lap I was fast through Maggotts but still correcting my car mid way through the left of Becketts, with a host of cars around me, all having their own issues. When I corrected to oversteer I glanced behind (not my right hand mirror, I didn’t have time) and then committed to the right. He had obviously assumed I’d seen him and went for a gap that then disappeared. At no point was he anywhere near alongside me. Should I have seen him? Well, I was doing my best to control my car and still be quick, all of which he has to account for."

The point moved on from the individual incident to a wider issue – the relative treatment of the GT runners with the issue in hand used as a pretty vivid exemplar:

“In this instance I glanced behind me and saw nothing. I can’t be expected to constantly look behind me and to both sides, can I?  At some point I have to commit to the corner. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.....a place he chose to be."

“I am told that the penalty was given because they (the race stewards) said the contact was avoidable. I agree, the contact may well have been avoidable but only if Allan hadn’t tried it on this lap!"

“My worry is there seems to be a growing belief that GT cars are cannon fodder for prototypes and that our race is not as important. I agree that prototype cars are amazing and they do win outright but there are more professional drivers and manufacturers in GT at present and we are not there to stay out of the way. There has to be a balance so we can all put on a show, enjoy our sport and all go home in one piece.”

This incident again raises the question as to whether the embedding of a driver steward for ILMC/ WEC events would be a step forward – DSC believes it most certainly would and very many in the paddock agree.  It seems there were precious few at Silverstone that agreed with either the apparent attribution of blame, or certainly the scale of the penalty in this instance.  Certainly in Formula One much of the heat of controversial incidents and subsequent stewards decisions has been dissipated by the credibility of a recent competitors input and understanding. That’s a view roundly endorsed by Rob Bell:

“I applaud the recent FIA decision to have a respected former driver to look at and make calls on driving standards and incidents in F1. You may not always agree with their judgement either but at least you have confidence in their understanding.“

Make no mistake the stewards have a tough, and often thankless, job, but their decisions are a very public part of the sport – Anything that adds clarity and credibility to that should be welcomed with open arms.