MSA Formula 2016 Thread

[cds_uk]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Caroline is this year'sTicktum - needs a long ban to let him grow up a little

Ticktum is/was way quicker than Caroline though, hopefully he gets another chance in F4, ban must be up soon.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by cds_uk

Ticktum is/was way quicker than Caroline

True everywhere except in Jamie Caroline Land! He really thinks he is exceptional... and thought he would win every race once he switched to Fortec where he is the third quickest driver, just ahead of current inexperienced back marker Bird

[qwertyuiop]

Ticktum has way more ability than Caroline for sure.
I think he will be racing in a much higher category then F4 next year.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by qwertyuiop

Ticktum has way more ability than Caroline for sure.
I think he will be racing in a much higher category then F4 next year.

Sounds like mayhem!! And also depends n what sort f licence he might get.

[BtccLee]

The series produces fascinating and very good action... But surely it's just BF3 all over again. Carlin, Fortec, Arden if you want to win. I know they want it to be the "most competitive/toughest to win" series but you need more than 12 cars truly in the fight. I just want to see some sign that people in power realise that the series, from the outside looking in, appears to be heading down the slippery slope taken by many a Junior single-seater series.

[10TENTHS]

What are the budgets for a season? That's probably a large part of why there are only 16 entrants.

The distribution of winners is indeed quite concentrated:

Carlin: 10
Arden: 4
JHR: 4
Double R: 2
Fortec: 1

Same with pole positions.

Carlin: 8
JHR: 2
Double R: 2
Fortec: 2

It isn't hugely different in BRDC F3 though.

Wins:

Carlin: 11
Double R: 3
Douglas: 3
Lanan: 3

Pole positions:

Carlin: 9
Double R: 2
Douglas: 1
Lanan: 1
HHC: 1

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

*Rant alert*

Upon consideration, I think the stewards set a confused and awful precedent with regards to the race 2 incident. One driver lacked racecraft entirely and caused a fairly sizeable accident, on a start-finish straight moving across on another driver - on a another circuit in a bigger car, that could have ended in a much, much more serious incident. The other driver lacked civility and lashed out physically accordingly.

However, given the natures of these incidents, why on earth a punishment such as an exclusion is given to a driver for simply being hot headed whilst only a 10 place grid penalty for someone for quite simply potentially threatening the health/life of another competitor is very, very confusing. The stewards have effectively ruled that the punishment for civility off the race track is a far worse offence than lacking any respect and regard to safety on it. Florescu wasn't ever going to cause any major harm to DeFrancesco, whereas DeFrancesco could have caused major harm to Florescu and/or himself. The penalties set a confused and quite dangerous precedent to set for youngsters. It effectively states that what you can get away with on track isn't as serious as a comparatively more minor offences occurring off track.

I'm sorry but this ruling is just confusing given the incidents, and, given the dangers of motorsport, is ethically backwards. Given the choice between a massive avoidable car accident and a minor assault, I would choose the latter every time, but the stewards have clearly ruled that the latter is a far more serious offence than the former. In the nature of what happened in race 2, in the hypothetical situation that DeFrancesco had have driven safely and not caused an accident, there would never have been a physical backlash from Florescu. This isn't excusing his actions, but is just logically true. And if anyone dare suggest that I am playing down Florescu's assault, or even endorsing it in some way, you are being dishonest. It's a bizarre ruling setting a muddled and backwards precedent and I feel it needs to be called out for these reasons.

[cds_uk]

Biscuits, i couldn't agree more, as i said earlier on in the thread i think the exclusion was incredibly harsh, they have effectively ruled him out of the championship with that, ok i appreciate it was a silly thing for him to do but surely a 10 place grid drop would have sufficed aswell?

[mark_l]

Florescu should of been (or still may be) banned for 30 days for physical assault.

MSA Blue Book

C 2.6.2 For offences involving abusive language or
behaviour, physical assault or threat of physical
assault, the Stewards of the Meeting after holding an
enquiry can impose an immediate suspension of
licence for up to 30 days. On imposing such a
sentence, the Stewards should confiscate the Licence
of the person concerned which will be forwarded to the MSA, together with a report on the enquiry.
The matter may then be considered by the MSC
National Court, who can impose a further penalty if
appropriate.

Where Stewards of the Meeting are satisfied that a
physical assault or a threat of physical assault has
occurred, then no appeal against their sentence is
allowed.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

So my exact point applies, this time questioning the rule in place rather than the incident itself. My reasoning doesn't need to change in order to question the impact, meaning and ethics of the rule in place relative to the consequence of the actions. A lack of civility on track can have far more serious consequences than a lack of civility off it.

[10TENTHS]

Never liked grid penalties. I'd prefer a points deduction instead, especially for the more egregious incidents. Repeated collisions should result in a suspension.

[sceptic]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

So my exact point applies, this time questioning the rule in place rather than the incident itself. My reasoning doesn't need to change in order to question the impact, meaning and ethics of the rule in place relative to the consequence of the actions. A lack of civility on track can have far more serious consequences than a lack of civility off it.

I disagree.
This isn't the 1970s and drivers who start fighting outside the car need to have the book thrown at them. The punishment has to be big to deter others from doing the same.

I don't expect civility on track. Respect certainly, but these drivers are taking part in a race not a Sunday afternoon drive in the countryside. All of them will be pushing hard, and need to be ruthless.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Originally Posted by sceptic

I disagree.
This isn't the 1970s and drivers who start fighting outside the car need to have the book thrown at them. The punishment has to be big to deter others from doing the same.

I don't expect civility on track. Respect certainly, but these drivers are taking part in a race not a Sunday afternoon drive in the countryside. All of them will be pushing hard, and need to be ruthless.

I fully agree with your first point (although the reasoning that "it isn't the 1970s" is an invalid point. It's the current year. I already knew that, and that has no impact on how drivers threw punches.) However, I'm afraid that I object to your second point somewhat. There is a difference between being ruthless and being dangerous. Perhaps civility is the wrong word too, as I also expect racing, but I feel that there is no place for driving another competitor off track and into a solid object, especially on a straight on the race track. I feel that, as the consequences could be far more severe in the latter, the punishments should reflect that. That is the basis for my argument, as the human cost of dangerous behaviour on the race track can far outreach the human cost of dangerous behaviour off it.

Whilst I am well aware that I am using the extremes of a hypothetical situation to use as my argument rather than the realities of this exact situation, the possibility that the likes could take place suggests to me that punishment should be given out accordingly. My argument is that the punishment should be tougher for DeFrancesco as a safeguard for future action - to set a firm precedent - as the impact could end up being far greater. It's purely an argument of principle.

This is quite an interesting topic to look at for me, from a purely ethical standpoint.

[10TENTHS]

Wiping away the race 1 win is completely nonsensical given Florescu did nothing wrong in that race. The car wasn't illegal either.

With those points he would be leading the championship. I don't have any argument with sitting him out of the third race.