The next race of the ILMC (Intercontinental Le Mans Cup) and LMS (Le Mans Series) championships is in Silverstone. The ILMC championship has three rounds to go and there's everything to play for, but in the LMS there are only two races left. As a result, some of the class championships in LMS are close to a resolution.

In this blog entry, I will attempt to summarise the championship situation in each class. This will serve the dual purposes of explaining what is needed for given competitors to win their class championships and giving a summary that will enable a newcomer to pick up what's where. 

LMP1

It's a tight championship at the moment:

Tinseau/Collard/Jousse (#16 Pescarolo) lead on 28 points (other points in this list relative)

Belicchi/Boullion (13 Rebellion) -3 points

Jani/Prost (#12 Rebellion) -3 points

Piccini/Cortes (#23 MIK Corse) -26 points 

In theory, everyone entered for the LMS can still win because there are more points on the table (30) than the leading drivers possess (28). However, some teams have withdrawn from Silverstone. These teams' drivers (Hope's and Quifel's Pla/Amarel) are too far away to catch up the gap in a single race and therefore are not included in the above list.

Incidentally, all of these cars are petrol entries - Hope was the sole hybrid entry and all the diesel entries are ILMC-only (they'll be in the race for ILMC things and can deny points to LMS entries by finishing ahead of them, but they don't compete for the LMS themselves). 

It is theoretically possible for Tinseau, Collard and Jousse (the Pescarolo trio) to take the title at Silverstone. However, if they win and get pole, they still need both Rebellions to finish in 9th place or below for that to happen. This is in a class with only 10 cars total, so really that's saying the Rebellion drivers need to retire or have a total disaster of a race if the title is to be settled in Silverstone. Tinseau, Collard and Jousse look good to get the title because they've been consistently slightly better than the Rebellions, but in Imola the tables were turned, so it would be foolish to bet on any of the three driver combinations taking the trophy. Better to enjoy the fight unfold and, most likely, continue into Portugal.

Silverstone is likely to be a low-scoring round for all 4 because the big points are likely to be taken by the diesel cars. This is bad news for Piccini and Cortes, who need to win in order to stay in the title hunt. It would take a bizarre set of circumstances for that to happen.   

Teams 

Rebellion has two cars in their team while the other contenders have only one. This puts Rebellion in a strong position for the team title because it is matching Pescarolo for points. All they need is to have one of their cars ahead of Pescarolo in both races. If it's #12 in one race and #13 in the other, the Rebellion will take the team title but Tinseau, Collard and Jousse will have the driver title. 

LMP2 

Drivers

The LMP2 class has been riven with conflict all year due to a cost-cutting formula running alongside the previous unrestricted spending regime. Hopefully the fact that 2012 will make the cost-cut method mandatory will reduce the arguing that has overshadowed a tightly-fought season.

Ojjeh/Kimber-Smith (#41 Greaves Motorsport) 35 points (other points relative)

Watts/Kane/Leventis (#42 Strakka Racing) -5

Kraihamer/Crem (#45 Boutsen Energy Racing) -10

Firth/Beche/Thriet (#46 TDS Racing) -12

Companc/Russo/Kaffer (#39 Pecom Racing) -13

Gates/Garoffel/Phillips (#43 RLR Motorsport) -18

Lombard (#41 Greaves Motorsport) -20 

Rosier/Basso (#44 Extreme Limite) -21

Frey/Meichtry (#40 Race Performance) -22 

Collins/Newton/Erdos (#36 RML) -27 

Half of the LMP2 field is likely to be out of the running for the title at the end of Silverstone. Collins, Newton and Erdos require 3rd to keep their chances going, while Frey and Meichtry "merely" need 7th and pole or 6th without pole to stay in. Silverstone is likely to be a low-scoring round due to the presence of the ILMC LMP2 entrants Signatech and OAK, even if the problem is not as pronounced for the LMP1s.

Rosier and Lombard need  8th place (or 7th and pole) to stay in. Gates, Garoffel and Phillips merely need to finish because there are only 11 cars and 11th yields 2 points.

It would take a pretty remarkable set of circumstances for Ojjeh and Kimber-Smith to win the title here. Even if they won and got pole, they'd need OAK and Signatech to share the podium with them and for Watts, Leventis and Kane to finish 8th or worse in class.

Lombard is a special case. He joined the #41 Greaves car in Imola, so short of his longer-standing team-mates getting injured before the race without making the car unraceable (which is virtually impossible), he cannot gain the title due to Ojjeh and Kimber-Smith scoring many points before his arrival. He'll definitely be able to contribute to the team title though.

Teams 

All the teams have only one car in LMP2, so the team fight is as above.

GTE-Pro 

Drivers

This is arguably the most complicated of the five championships to explain. There are two reasons for this.

Firstly, this is one of the series for which there are bonus points for making an engine last 15 or more hours. The 15 hours do not all need to be in a race but they do need to be in ACO-sanctioned events (which in practise means Sebring and Le Mans count towards engine timings). The other classes have them, but in LMP1 hardly anyone runs an engine long enough to get the bonus point, LMP2 has only had 2 cars get the bonus points so far and in GTE-Am, virtually everyone is going to get the same points at the same race because the cars are nearly all synchronised in terms of engine hours. The GTE-Pro drivers will all get an engine point barring mechanical failures, but some are due to get it in Silverstone and others in Portugal. The effect on the title fight is subtle. 

Secondly, GTE-Pro, and only GTE-Pro, has a "dropped score" system for this year. Originally, all scores were meant to count, but at the start of the first race at Paul Ricard, a "Safety" Car caused a crash that took out nearly all the Porsches... and affected hardly anyone else. In an attempt to make up for this huge mistake, the "dropped-score" rule was put in. For championship purposes, the Porsches could pretend Paul Ricard was just a bad dream. 

Currently, the GTE-Pro title chase stands thus:

Fisichella/Bruni (AF Corse #51) have 44 points (other points given are relative to this)
Melo/Vilander (AF Corse #71) -16 points
Simonsen/Farnbacher (Hankook #89) -17 points
Walker/Bell (JMW #66) -22 points
Lieb/Lietz (Farnbacher #77) -26 points
Goosens/Holzer (Prospeed #75) -27 points
Hancock/Dolan (JOTA #79) -30 points 

Granted, some of the gaps are larger than in either prototype class. However, the "dropped score" system means that there is still plenty of opportunity for a fightback, even without relying on retirements.

Fisichella and Bruni are due to get an engine point in Portugal and currently would drop their second-place-with-pole at Le Castellet - a rather hefty 14 points. The latter is why the championship is nowhere near a done deal. Had all scores counted, scoring more points than Melo and Vilander would have almost been sufficient to take the title (other people would also have needed to be not too far ahead) - and only once so far this season has that happened. For Silverstone to be guaranteed to count towards their score it would be necessary for Fisichella and Bruni to win. Sealing the title in Silverstone would take some major misfortune for their competitors.

Vilander, Melo, Simonsen and Farnbacher are their closest rivals. They are due to get their engine point in Portugal. Vilander and Melo would currently drop 1 point from Spa and Simonsen and Farnbacher would drop a non-score. To guarantee staying in the title chase, they all need seventh with pole or sixth without. For each race which any of the four has finished, they have been at least fourth.

Walker and Bell are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop a non-finish at Imola. They need third place to guarantee staying in the title chase.  They've been quite unlucky this year but also fast, so it is possible for this to happen.

Lieb and Lietz, the defending champions, are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop the non-finish in Le Castellet.  To guarantee staying in the title fight, they need to score second with pole and not need an engine change, which is a pretty tall order.

Goosens and Holzer are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop the non-score at Le Castellet. To guarantee remaining in the title chase, they need to come second, get pole and hope Fisichella and Bruni don't win.

Hancock and Dolan cling to the title chase by the skins of their teeth on account of getting their engine point at Silverstone. They also drop a non-finish at Le Castellet. They need to either get second and pole, or win and hope Fisichella and Bruni do not get pole, in order to stay in the title fight. 

Teams   

AF Corse 46 points - to drop 14 points at Le Castellet (other teams' points relative)

Hankook -21 points - to drop 0 points at Imola

JMW -24 points - to drop 0 points at Imola

Felbermayr -30 points -  to drop 0 points at Le Castellet

AF Corse are likely to win this one, simply because they have two cars in the LMS (compared to everyone else's one) as well as a points lead of which Red Bull in F1 would be jealous, proportionally speaking. Given that an AF Corse car has only retired once out of 6 LMS entries, it would be asking a lot for anyone to take the team title off them at this point.

GTE-Am

Drivers

Armindo/Narac (#67 IMSA) 41 points (other points relative) 

Cioci/Perrazini/Lemeret (#61 AF Corse) -2 points

Felbermayr Jr (#88 Felbermayr) -17 points

Christodolou/Quaife (#82 CRS) -23 points

This is the tightest class battle in the series. Unless Armindo and Narac win their class and get very lucky with opponents' results, the battle will go to Portugal. Felbermayr Jr needs to finish the race or get class pole to stay in the title fight in Portugal, while Christodolou and Quaife must get seventh with pole or sixth stay in the title fight.

Teams

All four teams have one car apiece, so the team battle is in the same state as the driver one.

This blog entry was prompted by the Formula 1 Blog entry "Vox Certatus: Playing Favourites", which was about favourite teams and drivers and why we thought them so. Initially I took the question at face value, providing a somewhat lengthy response covering Force India, Hill, Fisichella and... ...Montoya. With stating why I disliked the latter, I inadvertantly kicked over a hornet's nest.

When next I visited, I cleared up a small misunderstanding concerning how I'd worded one particular phrase (or so I thought), but then the discussion drifted in a way I hadn't expected. F1 Kitteh asked me:

So you would rather have ‘scripted **’ than ‘verbal abrasiveness’? 

This is the question which I intend to answer here, since the "essay" proved too long for the comments section of Formula 1 Blog.

In my opinion, there are three kinds of verbal abrasiveness. One of them can be a good thing. Another is generally a somewhat bad thing, but can be very bad depending on the particular circumstances. The third one is always very harmful, and unlike the second one it harms everyone, not just the speaker.

To indicate these, here is my personal sliding scale of verbal abrasiveness and scripting, from best to worst:

Situational, justified verbal abrasiveness <- scripting/situational unjustified verbal abrasiveness <- persistent verbal abrasiveness

 
If someone is liable to be sharp-tongued only in specific situations and there appears to be good reason (e.g. they've just had a really stupid steward's decision against them), that would be better than any form of scripting.

An unjustified sharp-tongued incident tends to lead to biologically scripted behaviour, which is about as accurate as behaviour scripted by the powers-that-be (i.e. not very). This is why I rate behavioural and psuedopolitical scripting on the same level. I don't expect those involved to give the explanation for their behaviour as it is frequently obvious in context, but without some reason for being abrasive, one often finds that common sense and logic go out of the window alongside the politeness. I would consider Scott Speed as an example of someone who washed out of F1 partially because there was confusion over whether his situational abrasiveness was justified or not. I thought it was (from what I heard of it) but Franz Tost differed in opinion.

It's the people who are always abrasive, who cannot seem to go five minutes without denigrating someone or pointlessly attacking some slight, who are the least accurate and the most likely to drive me up the wall even reading their words. Most people like that end up putting off their sponsors and mechanics early in the junior formulae and therefore never get seen by the talent scouts, let alone anyone in F1.

Nonetheless, a few do drift into F1. Some people really like such people, possibly because they are so different to those around them or because they can identify better with them. Personally I cannot identify with them at all because I am accustomed to people who have a reasonable (though frequently imperfect) concept of keeping a civil tongue in their heads. People who don't get mad or dismissive at absolutely everything. And it's this which made me dislike Juan Pablo Montoya and Eddie Irvine. However good they may have been as drivers, as people they disappointed me and their ways of talking about others was the primary clue for me to come to this opinion.

(Incidentally, I prefer truthfulness - whether that's Mark Webber's brand of bold statements or Kamui Kobayashi's calmer candour - over any of the above).  

Ultimately, the limitations of particular drivers' attitudes, personalities and methods of thinking have a large influence on their enduring support base. Performance comes and goes but character tends to stay stable - most of the time. Different people tend to resonate with different drivers according to those characters, unless they are the sort of people who support based on performance (be that success or underdog status) or who support more abstract entities such as teams. Even then, teams have group cultures which invoke the general principles discussed here.

Speech is one of several doorways to the revelation of character. It's one of the more accessible ones to the general spectator, especially when spoken in places where journalists have taken the trouble to record the results. Look closely enough and the clues are all there.

Which drivers really think a given way v. those who are claiming it due to conditioning. 

Which drivers really respect - or even like - another v. those who pretend to respect another v. those who have dropped the pretence.

What each driver is hoping for in F1.

Which ones are likely to be around in a strong enough position to achieve those hopes.

Some signals in speech are more obvious indicators of character than others. A habit of persistently abrasive speech is pretty obvious. I just didn't realise it would be so controversial.

Script Frenzy Update:  20 pages of prose, which should become 40 pages of script when formatted. I feel confident about this challenge.