As the Avon Tyres British GT Championship packs its bags for the long drive to Spa-Francorchamps this weekend, it would be easy to assume that everything was hunky dory in the burgeoning series – grids are healthy, the racing good (with five different winners from the first six races in both GT3 and GT4) and the title-chases very much alive in both classes.
However, a number of issues and challenges have presented themselves this season which, if not addressed, could spell trouble for SRO. Equally, though, there are a number of opportunities available to the series that could potentially see it much stronger in years to come. We’ll consider both in turn.
The Challenges
1) Championship Penalties
After some pretty terrible driving-standards were witnessed in the first half of the 2013 season, the organisers made sensible moves to clamp down on the more serious transgressions and restore order to proceedings. In came a ruling that would see any licence endorsement be further punished by the loss of three championship points for every penalty point applied to a racing licence; the most obvious consequence of this being that Jonny Adam missed out on being co-Champion with Andrew Howard after an incident at Snetterton. This rule was subsequently revised before the start of the 2014 season to state that the loss of championship points would now apply to both drivers in a car (a ruling that would have seen a different champion last year had it been in effect then).
All very sensible, you might think. But what has transpired in 2014 is a proliferation of seemingly draconian punishments for various racing incidents.
Oulton Park saw Rob Barff, Colin White and Rembert Berg all handed licence endorsements and loss of points for contact with other cars in the first race, while Gary Eastwood received the same punishment in the second race. This meant that the #18 FF Corse Ferrari left Cheshire on a grand total of -12 points.
Since then, we have had (from the official results):
Rockingham
* Cars 8 & 29 – 10 second penalty, 3 penalty points added to their licence and -9 championship points for driving in a manner incompatible with general safety
Silverstone
* Car 17 – Regulation C1.1.5 – 30 seconds added to race time for avoidable contact with car 79
* Car 77 – 6 seconds added to race time for a short tyre change pit stop
* Car 45 Driver Alain Schlesinger, excluded from the meeting and 4 penalty points on licence and -12 championship points
* Car 6 Driver Phil Dryburgh, regulation C1.1.5 excluded from the race for avoidable contact with car 23 and 4 penalty points on licence and -12 championship points. Also fined £500
Snetterton
Race 1
* Car 55 – 5 second penalty applied for exceeding track limits
* Car 888 – Excluded from the race result for driving in a manner incompatible with general safety MSA ref C1.1.5. Derek JOHNSTON receives 4 points on his license. Both drivers of Car 888 – Lose 12 Championship points.
* Car 38 Reinstated into the results fined £500 and a drop of 6 grid places for the next round. Mark Poole receives 3 points on his licence and both Mark Poole & Richard Abra lose 9 championship points.
Race 2
* Car 55 – 35 second penalty applied for exceeding track limits
* Following a collision at the start of the first part of the race Car 6 excluded and fined £1000 driving in a manner not compatible with safety. John Gaw receives 4 points on his licence and a loss of 12 championship points for both drivers of car 6 John Gaw & Phil Dryburgh.
* Driver of Car 2 Steve Tandy receives a formal reprimand and 2 points on his licence with a loss of 6 championship points for both drivers Steve Tandy & James Appleby, following contact with car 13.
Is this level of punishment really justified? The 888 exclusion at Snetterton effectively cost Derek Johnston and Luke Hines 27 points (15 for third place and 12 for the penalty), which is surely excessive in anyone’s book; especially with the TV footage suggesting that a drive-through or stop-and-go penalty would have been a more expected punishment for a simple tap from behind.
Several of the drivers involved have been vocal in their unhappiness, with Rob Barff approaching DSC at Rockingham following his Race 1 punishment at Oulton:
“I want to go on the record that I’m very unhappy with the penalty handed to me after Oulton. At the time I just accepted it, even though I wasn’t sure what had happened, but having now seen the footage it’s obvious that it was just a racing incident – I went to the outside of the GT4 and John Gaw went the other, but I just clipped it and crashed. Everyone who knows me will tell you that I haven’t got a nasty bone in my body, and yet I was penalised for driving in a manner likely to endanger others. And when you factor in that Gary also has points deducted, it’s massively embarrassing. People like Gary are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on racing in British GT, and yet a decision like this can ruin a season; and potentially affect the career and livelihood of a professional racing driver.”
Ironically, Barff was at the centre of another controversy later in the weekend at Rockingham after being handed what many thought to be an unduly lenient penalty for passing a red light at the end of the pitlane during the second Safety Car period in the two-hour race that he and Eastwood went on to win.
Oman Racing Team Data Engineer, Jim Hersey: “Michael [Caine] had had to sit at that light for 50 seconds during the first caution – which the officials later admitted was a mistake – and that dropped him right back and cost us any chance of challenging for the win. And then we had to watch as Rob drove past the red light and was given a drive-through that still left him in the lead. So what’s the message? That we should tell drivers to ignore red lights from now on?
“I’m not in any way suggesting Rob tried to cheat – he’s not that kind of person. There’s no datum penalty for running the light and he’d have had no way of knowing that he’d only get a drive-through, even if it was a deliberate act; he was handed a penalty and he served it. I’m saying the penalty didn’t fit the crime.”
Perhaps more worryingly for the organisers, drivers and teams have been venting their frustrations openly on social media, which is certainly not good for the image of the championship.
Encouragingly, the organisers have already taken moves to bolster the decision-making process and have drafted in the highly-respected SRO Sporting Director, Jacquie Groom, to support Clerk of the Course Bernard Cottrell. However, with controversial calls still being made, it is surely time that teams’ demands for an impartial former driver to also be situated in Race Control – to better separate racing incidents from actual transgressions – be met. This would be a simple step to take and would defuse a lot of the anger currently being generated.
Hersey again: “The driver briefings are important, too. I haven’t been in one of Bernard’s, but when I was a TM in the Blancpain Endurance Series in 2012, Eduardo Freitas’ briefings were epic. They were so comprehensive and definitive, that everyone was afraid to ask any questions at the end of them!”
A clear guide to rules and penalties needs to be produced by the organisers in order to provide much-needed clarity on this important issue and consistency must be maintained in the decision-making process. Without such guidance, how long before we start to see drivers and teams leave the series in frustration? The introduction of series-provided judicial cameras would also help in resolving incidents, as DSC understands that a suspiciously high number of data cards currently ‘fail’ when asked to be produced.
As an aside, Bernard Cottrell has recently revealed that he is being treated for Leukaemia. DSC sends its very best wishes for a swift and full recovery.
2) Mixed Classes
With the recent – and most welcome – boom in GT4 numbers, has also come controversy regarding the mixing of the GT3 and GT4 classes; several collisions between GT3 and GT4 cars having been followed by calls from some quarters for separate races. This is not unlike the situation in the FIA WEC and at Le Mans in recent times, when we have seen GT and prototype racers at loggerheads over various incidents – the one pointing the finger of blame at the other on several occasions.
The situation in the BGT has arisen, it appears, from the fact that we now have the scenario of GT3 cars having to find a way past GT4 battles that may now contain several cars, where previously there would perhaps have been just two or three.
When contact occurs, there normally follows a pattern of GT4 drivers accusing the GT3 drivers of aggression, and the GT3 drivers accusing the GT4 drivers of inexperience and inattention. But whatever the truth or otherwise in these allegations, might there also be another factor?
After Snetterton, where the #38 MP Motorsport-AMR Aston Martin – and its owner/driver Mark Poole – was penalised for contact with the FF Corse Ferrari, rumours began to circulate that Poole was considering pulling out of the series after Spa as a result of the penalty. However, after DSC’s Stephen Errity caught up with him at the recent Blancpain race at Paul Ricard, it seems the rumours may be true but for completely different reasons:
“Yeah, we’re looking at it pretty hard post-Spa. I don’t think there’s really dissatisfaction with the way it’s organised. It feels to me a little bit like the cars have evolved to a point where 30+ of them on a grid on some of the tight British circuits – particularly in sprint format – is a bit problematic. The cars do race in other sprint series, like the Blancpain Sprint Series, but they tend to be on slightly wider tracks with more leeway, so it would be great if we got some consideration about the format going forward.
“Certainly for us we’d be more interested if the races were longer. There’s just that slight lessening of intensity and need to all jam through the first corner at the same time, which is always an issue in sprint races, but I think particularly on some of the UK circuits, it feels like that needs looking at.
“I don’t have so much of a problem with GT3 and GT4 in the same race. I think the evolution of GT4 is great. Whether that eventually gets to a point where it’s sustainable in its own right, I don’t know, but it’s not a huge problem for me. What it does when thrown in the mix with GT3 cars – in qualifying in particular and on some of the tighter circuits – exacerbates the problem I mentioned earlier.
“We’re definitely on for Spa, but after that we’ll see. We’re loving our experience here in the Blancpain Endurance Series and I think it’s fair to say that as a team we’re biased towards longer races. I think that’s partly down to the car, which suits them. British GT has gone from strength to strength in the last few years and I don’t want to be overly critical of it, but it seems to me that the combination of where the cars have got to and the circuits we have to go to means you need willing co-operation of other drivers to get by and you don’t always get it.
“I think there’s been a bit of inconsistency in the stewarding, but don’t get me wrong, it’s a nightmare of a job and I certainly wouldn’t like to do it. I think the referral and appeal process is pretty effective. People are always a bit sore when they’ve had a penalty, but as long as the rules are consistently applied, it should be fine.”
So have the cars themselves now outgrown some of the UK circuits? Certainly, Oulton Park now seems very narrow for GT3 cars, so perhaps there is an argument for separating the classes on safety grounds at such circuits? But that should be the exception, rather than the norm, and the two classes should race together. Many teams and drivers – both Pro and Am – have aspirations to race at a higher level in due course, so it is important that they gain experience of dealing with multi-class traffic. In other words, the remedy is education, not apartheid.
One sensible and easy move to make, though, would be the introduction of separate qualifying sessions for GT3 and GT4, as has been suggested already.
3) Balance of Performance
Complaints about the BOP have been an ever-present issue in the BGT since the GT3 and GT4 classes were introduced, but they seem to be on the rise again in 2014. The series has adopted a new set of adjustments that are intended to reflect the circuit being raced on – fast and flowing, tight and twisty, etc. – and these in turn are based on the Blancpain GT BOP. However, the concern is that ad-hoc adjustments (allowed in the regs) are being made, not to equalise the cars but to equalise the drivers; and Stéphane Ratel himself has repeatedly stated that the USP of his series is that the drivers make the difference because the cars are equally balanced. Again, these concerns may or not have any basis in fact, so the impetus should be on the organisers to ensure that the process is transparent in order to allay any such suspicions.
A conversation with Gavan Kershaw (back in the BGT this year with ISSY Racing) several seasons ago, saw the Lotus driver suggest that the best way to equalise the cars during the season would be to hold an unannounced test after a race. In other words, several cars would be selected at random from Parc Fermé after a race (also chosen at random) and kept under those conditions to the next day. An independent driver would then be brought in to drive those cars under the same conditions as the official pre-season BOP tests. Only then would the cars be released to the teams, while the data from the test would be the basis for any further performance adjustments. An eminently sensible solution, and one that Trackspeed’s TM Keith Cheetham agrees would have the support of the teams today.
But is there another solution?
Jim Hersey: “Pretty much all the cars carry data-loggers, and the ones that don’t have them can fit them for a very reasonable cost. They are required in the Blancpain Endurance Series, but not currently in BGT. The Supercar Challenge also uses them, where they take a cam signal from the ECU and an air-pressure measure from the manifold and use that info to determine time penalties at stops to balance the field. It also eradicates the need for lead as a balancing measure, which is bordering on the dangerous in some GT4 cars. Lead also affects the integrity and handling of the car, making it more difficult for the amateur driver to race.
“The problem is that you need expert support from the manufacturer – the system has to be policed by the supplier as the data is too complex for non-expert users – and there’s a cost involved in that too.”
But it is not just complex data-systems that need extra investment. DSC understands that currently only the top three finishers in each class are scrutineered at each meeting, due to manpower, and also that the series does not possess a set of GT4 homologation papers at all! Such a low level of policing gives rise to rumours of ‘hooky’ cars and subsequent discontent, and more checks need to be made in order to raise levels of trust.
4) The Racing Package and TV
British F3 is dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that.
While it was once the place for aspiring F1 drivers to learn their craft, it is clear from the six cars (and three finishers in one of the races) that the British Formula 3 Championship has reached the end of the line; and yet, this is still being sold as a key component of the raceday package at several BGT meetings.
With all due respect to the Mini, VW, Ginetta and F4 fields, the support package for the British GT meetings is overdue a major overhaul and needs an injection of new blood.
Also, the TV package has actually worsened since last year, with the amount of live coverage reducing from three races to none! Yes, there was truncated same-day coverage of the Silverstone 500, but that is not live coverage. And the C4/Motors TV highlights programme continues the unfathomable practice of featuring one race (on double-header weekends) to the virtual exclusion of the second. Moreover, the times of broadcast for the terrestrial channel (C4) are insufficient to attract decent viewing figures, while Motors – for all its good work – is very much a niche channel.
In a year when entry fees have increased significantly (and with no early-bird discount on offer), it’s little wonder that teams and drivers are feeling short-changed.
A whole new approach to the promotion of the series is required. Currently, the level of active promotion is negligible, with often little indication that there is a race meeting going on until you are inside the circuit. This is because the promotion is left to the circuits, who have little incentive to do much as a result of the fee they charge SRO for the use of the circuit. As a result, the BGT continues in a very small bubble that rarely coincides with the outside world, and with its true worth and potential unrealised.
The Opportunities
So there are several issues to be addressed – some more urgently than others – but none are insurmountable.
It seems appropriate at this point to acknowledge the many achievements of SRO’s small team in dragging the BGT from the edge of oblivion to the point where it is now, undoubtedly the strongest in its two-decade history. Hard work and dedication from all of them have turned around the series in astonishing style.
However, it is also apparent now that they are victims of their own success and it seems that all their efforts now are being expended on maintaining the status quo, rather than taking the series to the next step. What is needed now is investment – in terms of people, expertise and, yes, money. The good news is that they don’t have to look far for much of the potential investment.
1) The Gentleman Drivers
The sums of money involved in racing at GT3-level in British GT are – to us mere mortals – eye-wateringly huge, with a half-million pound commitment from some individuals not unremarkable. The thing is, though, that these same individuals – the ‘Gentleman’ racers – are able to do this as a result of success in the business world. They have made enough money to indulge their racing passions, but they also know the value of money and have not got to this level through squandering the stuff; so why not tap into that vast pool of business acumen to mutually benefit both racer and organiser?
The recent DSC interview with Triple Eight racer and director Lee Mowle – here – suggested that there currently exists a ‘them and us’ situation between teams and organisers, with little contact beyond the day-to-day racing. This is madness, on so many levels. The series owes its very existence to the patronage of such Am racers, but there seems to be little effort invested in cultivating relationships. Again, this is probably due to workload, but such an investment must surely be worth it? Of course, some of them will simply be there to race and are happy with that, but others – Mowle and Andrew Howard being the obvious examples – have already seen a reason to invest in the sport at a greater level and have a vested interest in its growth. Others may be considering it, but remain unconvinced yet. The right appointment here of a business development officer (or whatever they would be called) may well yield quick results.
2) The Package
As has already been mentioned, the support package for the BGT lacks the wow factor and often feels like it’s been thrown together at the last moment from what’s available. Not only does this provide an underwhelming offering for the paying public, it also undermines the prestige of the headline series.
When the Blancpain GT Sprint visited Brands Hatch recently, the support package included the Bute Motorsport GT Cup, with its large fields of GT3 and other machinery.
There was no controversy in this – indeed, it wasn’t even commented upon – and the large crowd enjoyed a fine weekend’s racing. So if SRO and GT Cup can coexist on the same bill peacefully for one meeting, why shouldn’t this be the case in the future? Sure, both series have their own goals and ambitions, and aligning their seasons fully may not be desirable for either party, but why not co-operate to host GT Festivals three or four times a year? GT Cup is an MSVR series, and the BGT races on MSV circuits, so Oulton Park, Snetterton and Brands Hatch seem like ideal candidates. Costs can be shared by both series, teams can offer drives in both series, and it won’t be confusing for spectators – sprint races for GT Cup and longer races for BGT.
In terms of building a crowd, DSC has long argued that the best way to get people along is to make the cost as low as possible and to target families, and kids in particular. Yes, under-15s currently get in free anyway, but their parents will need to shell out in excess of £20 each for raceday entry, and there are plenty of alternative sources of entertainment vying for their money. It’s a constant source of bewilderment and frustration that a circuit is happy to attract a small crowd to a race meeting and then to provide a burger van and a merry-go-round as ‘entertainment’.
It can’t be that difficult to arrange a season of free entry to the BGT – the Belgians are doing it this weekend at Spa and they’re throwing in a 25-hour race as well! If you invite local schools to get involved in similar fashion to that seen at the Fuji WEC race last year, the kids will identify with the series and the seeds for growth will be sown.
In addition, a modest investment in local promotion – radio, TV, posters – will surely pay off when combined with free admission. The best way to sell a product is to show it off to the customer, but you don’t sell much when the product is hidden from those customers. Thus, the series also needs to work on securing much better – and ideally terrestrial – TV slots in order to further widen the potential audience.
The series should appoint a sports marketing agency to evaluate the whole package and reveal its true worth. What are the TV rights worth? What potential income is there from merchandise? From branding? From ticket promotions? Does SRO have any idea? Now is surely the time to find out.
Or maybe it’s time to take a really deep breath and start a dialogue with the auld enemy – TOCA – with a view to shared meetings. Unthinkable? Again, there is a precedent, with the FIA GT Championship and the WTCC sharing meetings in seasons past.
With more and more ‘cross-fertilisation’ taking place – Triple Eight and Motorbase coming across from the BTCC and United Autosports going the other way – the walls are tumbling anyway. The BGT would be able to tap into the TV package and huge attendance enjoyed by the BTCC, while the latter would gain a very promotable, prestigious and instantly popular series.
The event could be marketed as ‘Best of British’ or similar. The one-hour race format would suit such a package, while the Blancpain Endurance Series calendar could be adjusted to accommodate those teams and drivers who would also like to do the longer races.
This may sound like a merger along the lines of TUSCC – and it would involve the swallowing of some large egos – but at least it would not involve the headache of the grids merging. Why couldn’t it work?
So there we have it. The British GT Championship has risen to unprecedented heights on the back of hard work from the likes of Benjamin Franassovici and Bernard Cottrell, but if the series is to have a long-term future now is the time for an injection of personnel, money and fresh thinking. It may be time to grasp the nettle, but any pain will surely be quickly compensated for. The alternative is to risk the BGT going the same way as BF3.
MH
