[iV8SC14R070809] Winton 400, Winton -4-6 April

[johnh875]

It is an interesting contrast between the Slade 'non-penalty' (in the scheme of things) versus the 'double' penalty Ricciardo got for being let go with a loose wheel. Of course I'm not saying they are the same severity, but they are within the same postcode at least.

I think Ingall got off lightly with the suspended part of the fine. A pretty ridiculous reaction for being pinged for putting two other guys off the road after poking his nose in such a a non-move. Did he forget the other guys were racing him?

[bludvl_x19]

Originally Posted by naca

that fool Damien White.

While I'm not going to argue against this point here...

Originally Posted by naca

Speaking of CAMS/V8SC they still haven't announced at what speed the drivers who where supposedly speeding where at. Yet more incompetence by that fool Damien White.

When have they ever announced pit lane speed infringments? And I think you may be surprised to discover that Damien has no part in the process from infringment > penalty given, other than maybe walking to the team garage and informing them of a decision made.

[peckstar]

Damien White: The Official Word from Tassie and Winton

He is clear, concise and logical.

the only issue is how long it took to get this comment

explains the difference between whincup at Clipsal and Slade at Winton which is good

Larko was apparantly wrong when he showed us the timing at winton, should have been looking at pit exit

and Rusty was just out of line (and got off easy IMO)

[mikuni]

The plot thickens..

LDM RELEASES DATA TO PROVE PIT SPEED INNOCENCE

[Mixer]

Where is LDM's data coming from, wheel speed sensors?

I'm going to say I am wanting to trust something outside the car more than this, but there was a lot of infractions.

[TWRv12]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Damien White: The Official Word from Tassie and Winton

He is clear, concise and logical.

You have a copy? It's deleted!

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by TWRv12

You have a copy? It's deleted!

Now that's weird!

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Now that's weird!

Wow I wonder if there was a problem with the timing loop?

[Buckshot]

Originally Posted by TWRv12

You have a copy? It's deleted!

The link has also been removed from the Facebook feed...what's going on ?

[JC Ohope]

Originally Posted by TWRv12

You have a copy? It's deleted!

Google Cached Copy

Enjoy

And just in case it drops out of there (sorry for the long quote):

I know it’s a term I use a lot, but the passion displayed in the last few weeks is at a level reminiscent of Murphy and Ambrose in each other’s face pointing fingers at Bathurst or Skaife shaking his fist trackside at Eastern Creek.

So strong is the power of the emotion and anguish, that the cries for blood of any official that played a part in the disqualification of Lowndes in Tasmania were soon swept away, however replaced with cries for the same blood in protest for Ingall’s penalty not Lowndes’.

Let’s bounce back to the Apple Isle first, and Lowndes’ exclusion from qualifying. For those who missed it, his car had tape covering a hole in the side window for which he was excluded.

The rules are clear; and the focus was on the potential safety and performance implications by the team taping up the hole. The side window, by its approved and mandated design, has what is described as a “handle hole” and the rule explains that the window must be able to be removed at any time by an official if so required. The Stewards determined that by taping it over, a hole was no longer present, and that it wouldn’t be possible to remove.

While the Stewards focused on whether or not the hole existed by the fact it was covered, the rules also clearly state that “no part of a Car is permitted which actually or potentially increases downforce or reduces drag”. It would have been difficult to argue that by covering it there wasn’t “potentially” a reduction in drag; no matter how small.

At a circuit where the difference between being third and 20th was just over two tenths of a second, and the spread of the entire field was only six tenths of a second, a gain of .002s would have gained you a position; so any small advantage gained outside the rules requires a firm hand.

Only four days after the high tension of Symmons Plains, the rolling roadshow was setting up at Winton where, again, the controversy and drama continued from day one.

Confronted with a circuit normalising after being treated for cracks and break-up, I was met with calls to cancel first practice and pleas for more tyres. Instead we pressed on, and it wasn’t long before the lap record was smashed as the circuit ‘gripped up’ to levels never seen.

The real excitement started though when we reached the first Pedders Chrysler Safety Car period in the first race on Saturday. Russell Ingall and his crew decided to roll the dice by pitting for a new set of tyres on lap 16. On a circuit that was responding well to new rubber it was a fantastic gamble.

Despite reports in the media to the contrary, Ingall was not two seconds or more a lap quicker than Wall in the laps prior to the contact. You can review the lap times here, which clearly shows there was only one full lap after a safety car restart, during which Wall was a mere 0.1538 slower – less than two tenths of a second. On the next lap, they worked their way through only six turns before the contact. Accusing Wall of excessive blocking seems wide of the mark.

Expecting someone to get out the way just because you’re quicker is a strange expectation. It’s a motor race. Race the person in front, don’t punt him off, and don’t expect a free pass. Why is that difficult to comprehend?

Although I don’t influence the decision, I completely agreed when the pit lane penalty was issued. As for waiting for a post-race review, it was not necessary. The driving standards observer could not have made it clearer in his opening address to all drivers in the first drivers' briefing of the year, where he said, “If it is clear that you gained position and/or cost someone else position by contacting their car, you will be given a pit lane penalty. We will not be holding off for a post-race review.”

Well, in this case Ingall (as he later conceded) contacted the car in front, gained himself a couple of positions, and cost two other cars positions.

The spray he gave at the end of the race was classic Ingall; confrontational, explosive and filled with passion. Yes, it could be asked what else would be expected when a microphone is shoved under his nose as soon he got out of the car, but that defence soon faded when in the hours later he was still firing off the same tirade regarding officials and the decision.

The irony is the penalty was completely justified and his moaning about it ensured that the focus wasn’t on his standard of driving, but instead it was on the “how dare you; I missed a podium because you penalised me”. He nailed Wall in the rear quarter in what appeared to be a moment of impatience and copped a drive through penalty. To talk about officials generally as he did, which included inciting aggression, was an unfair attack on the thousands of officials that help make V8 Supercars possible.

If we thought when Sunday rolled around that the hysteria would continue to centre on Ingall we were only partly right. It wasn’t until the race was in full flight that we encountered two more controversies; pit lane speeding, and the penalty applied to the #47 of Tim Slade – or more importantly, to his team.

It’s important to first clarify what tools are used to determine pit lane speed. In addition to the two radars on pit lane, two timing lines, separated by five metres, are at pit entry. The timing system does a time over distance calculation, and if the average speed in that distance is greater than 40km/h then a breach has occurred.

Contrary to Larko’s explanation during the telecast the second line is not on the right hand bend in the pit lane. Both lines are completely parallel, and both are contained in the straight line of the pit entry. It is a mathematical equation based on two immovable lines which receive a signal from a fixed transponder which is located identically in every car. Across the three days of the Winton event there were 479 entries by the Championship cars for a total of 13 breaches – that’s less than three out of every 100 entries.

On pit lane itself two radars operate under the control of locally sourced officials; typically two officials for each. These officials receive a briefing note on how to operate them; however they are very straight forward.

That said, we agree with the fans. It seems crazy to wipe a car out of a race for a speed infraction of one or two km/h. V8 Supercars has commenced a review into the tools, the system and the penalties around pit lane speeding.

While the nominated speed is a safety measure, we must remain mindful in the review that a performance advantage is had by exceeding it. While doing 41km/h over the pit entry line delivers only a 0.01 quicker time over the five metres than someone doing the prescribed 40km/h, let’s not forget to what extent a team may go to in search of that time in qualifying, where a 0.01 can make a three or four starting grid difference.

Finally, we ended the day with a hugely controversial one. Tim Slade’s crew fumbled causing a wheel to bounce and wobble its way onto pit lane. The subsequent penalty of $3000 and 30 team points brought immediate comparisons to the pit lane drive through penalty Jamie Whincup received in Adelaide where his car controller was deemed to have worked on the car.

Let me clarify firstly that the Stewards operate to a table of recommended penalties created and approved by the V8 Supercars Commission. Try not to direct your anger at them, and don’t be confused by the crisp white shirts, the Stewards are not paid – they are volunteers; and their mandate is to enforce the rules we provide them.

I completely agree that on the surface the two penalties seemed out of whack and inconsistent. There we had, in two different events, a breach caused completely by the team and not the driver. In both cases the driver was simply sitting behind the wheel waiting for the crew to complete their tasks. So both deserve a team penalty, right; like the one Slade’s team copped?

When the table of penalties was given a refresh at the start of last year the discussion around the car controller rule had two focal points – safety and performance advantage. An errant wheel, on the other hand, has only safety implications. A runaway wheel cannot be of advantage to the driver.

Not allowing the car controllers to work on the car ensures that they are completely focused on the car and all its working crew, ensuring they’re aware of any safety issues that may arise. Take them away from that and you have two resultant effects – firstly, your “safety eyes” are gone, and secondly (and this is where it gets tricky), you have an additional person to work on the car, which teams that comply with the rule don’t have = a performance advantage.

In the Whincup example, you won’t get an argument out of me that there was any performance gain; there wasn’t in my opinion. However, if the Stewards applied a different, lesser, penalty based on their interpretation that the work the car controller carried out didn’t give them an advantage, what are they to do next time a car controller works on a car and, for example, cleans out the leaves and rubbish form the front splitter? I can guarantee you, if it wasn’t the same penalty as any previous breach then that team complains, and the fans scream for consistency in the penalties.

It does highlight that the table of penalties needs another review; and this is something we have already commenced. Taking Whincup out at Adelaide and not Slade in Winton is confusing for the fans, and they’re the ones we need to please.

The semantics of establishing to what extent a person breached or didn’t breach becomes frustrating for the viewer and while it’s critically important for the Championship outcome that those penalties are right, we need to improve the system so the viewing spectacle is not ruined.

[ford71]

Removing an article like that can make people suspicious.

[PVDA]

NEWS Flash: Larko stuffed up.

I'm told the first sensor loop he showed at Pit Entry was in fact the second loop and what we called the second loop was in fact where they dug a ditch across the entry years ago to put a drain in.

The two loops are in a straight line with no turn or curve involved...........

Another thing to take into account as they cross the entry loop is tyre slip, that is the brakes are slowing the wheels (and the data) but the entire car is sliding over the loops at more than the allowed limit.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by PVDA

Another thing to take into account as they cross the entry loop is tyre slip, that is the brakes are slowing the wheels (and the data) but the entire car is sliding over the loops at more than the allowed limit.

My first thought.

[STEALTHY]

Can anyone explain why the speed guns were showing 41 on seperate occasions, yet a second penalty wasn't applied? If they are so accurate, apply the rules evenly, or dont ****in bother!

[Umai Naa]

Yeah, I saw the footage of Mr McLaughlan serving his penalty, with the radar gun clearing showing 41.

Either the guns are innacurate, or the operater is unintentionally using the old policeman's trick of alternating between the windscreen and number plate to fudge the reading.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Yeah, I saw the footage of Mr McLaughlan serving his penalty, with the radar gun clearing showing 41.

Either the guns are innacurate, or the operater is unintentionally using the old policeman's trick of alternating between the windscreen and number plate to fudge the reading.

That means that the radar guns can be inaccurate and that they should not be hand held.

[Umai Naa]

I think the biggest issue is V8SC haven't got the money to employ specific people to perform these sorts of tasks to an exact standard.

Not having a go at the volunteers they utilise here, but there'd be a clear difference in outcomes comparing someone who does it almost week-in, week-out, to someone who might only weild the radar gun maybe once or twice in their life.

Also worth noting, that the radar gun used, does not show the operator where they are pointing it at, at any given time. They're pretty much pointing it in the general direction of a race car, and picking up what they assume is it's speed. Hence why the police issue ones have a display on them with cross-hairs and everything.

It's not a perfect system, by any means. However, years gone by, you'd get maybe one or two cars at worst in a race, getting pinged. All of a sudden, the show rocks up to Winton in 2014, and half the field gets done. So what's changed?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Also worth noting, that the radar gun used, does not show the operator where they are pointing it at, at any given time. They're pretty much pointing it in the general direction of a race car, and picking up what they assume is it's speed. Hence why the police issue ones have a display on them with cross-hairs and everything.

It's not a perfect system, by any means. However, years gone by, you'd get maybe one or two cars at worst in a race, getting pinged. All of a sudden, the show rocks up to Winton in 2014, and half the field gets done. So what's changed?

They are not radar guns, they are lasers, so they can be aimed at a very specific spot on any vehicle, using the sight with crosshairs etc that is on top of the "gun". They are accurate enough to locate onto a rear vision mirror of a car 2nd, 3rd or 4th in line and be completely accurate.

Even though most seem to colloquially call them radar guns, they are lasers and have been for quite a few years now.

Don't know what happened at Winton, but it's not that unusual to have these little bumps from time to time. Normally come race time the teams have got any issues sorted out with the put speed (they cop a fine if pinged during practice) and maybe all the stuff going on with the track surface distracted a few of them? Who knows?

[GTRMagic]

All it points to is what Mr Ingall has been saying.. if there is any doubt, wait till after the race and hear from everyone before making a (wrong) call...

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

Can anyone explain why the speed guns were showing 41 on seperate occasions, yet a second penalty wasn't applied? If they are so accurate, apply the rules evenly, or dont ****in bother!

because 41 is under the allowed tolerance

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by Trevor

because 41 is under the allowed tolerance

Not according to Damien White In the article above. Hence the rules havnt been applied evenly and its a joke to even try in the first place

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

I think the biggest issue is V8SC haven't got the money to employ specific people to perform these sorts of tasks to an exact standard.

Not having a go at the volunteers they utilise here, but there'd be a clear difference in outcomes comparing someone who does it almost week-in, week-out, to someone who might only weild the radar gun maybe once or twice in their life.

The radar operators at Winton usually do it using similar units at all Winton events so around 12 times a year.

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

It's not a perfect system, by any means. However, years gone by, you'd get maybe one or two cars at worst in a race, getting pinged. All of a sudden, the show rocks up to Winton in 2014, and half the field gets done. So what's changed?

Wasn't it 5 cars getting done so we only had a 10 car field if half the field got done

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

Not according to Damien White In the article above. Hence the rules havnt been applied evenly and its a joke to even try in the first place

whatever

what would I know?

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

Not according to Damien White In the article above. Hence the rules havnt been applied evenly and its a joke to even try in the first place

In an article that has mysteriously vapourised?

Trevor is onto something here