[VASC19R25] SuperCheap Auto Bathurst 1000, Mount Panorama 10-13th October (WITH POLL)

[Compromised]

To be fair, why would you bother checking anyone else's engine?

Nobody has come close to Scott all year. Not a witch hunt, think of it as a compliment

[Jamolad]

Originally Posted by bluesport

It looks like it is a witch hunt, supercars did everything possible to make sure a Mustang didn't win Bathurst in the months leading up to the race but still failed, so a technical anomally may be only avenue left to them.

"Not out of the ordinary" now defined as a witch hunt?

Standard practice and no anomally will be found...would be incredibly sad if the engine checks were to find the Scotty Factor

[Average Punter]

Originally Posted by gtcapri

Who did it actually disadvantage?

Sorry I don't see that that is relevant.

A forward pass is a forward pass. Just because they don't score a try doesn't make it suddenly OK.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Jamolad

"Not out of the ordinary" now defined as a witch hunt?

Standard practice and no anomally will be found...would be incredibly sad if the engine checks were to find the Scotty Factor

But to dyno test both engines, has this been the case in previous years?

[David Towe]

Originally Posted by Forda

A very good synopsis, and the silence is deafening.



Supercars on one hand say they welcome additional manufacturer involvement and support, but then on another hand act completely differently by soon trying to burn those newly welcomed entrants.
Volvo - check. Nissan - check. Ford Mustang - check.

Two points, firstly there is no deafening silence here. I've already nailed my colours to the mast, I think they should be disqualified and suspended for a few meetings for perhaps the second worst sporting behaviour in history. The worst being Trevor Chappel's underarm bowl in the cricket test against the Kiwi's way back when.
Secondly, there is no manufacturer involvement is V8 kit Cars other than money and permission to call a kit car a Mustang or a Commodore anyway.

[David Towe]

Originally Posted by bluesport

But to dyno test both engines, has this been the case in previous years?

I would think it has been the practice in the past. I know from personal experience that when you can put in a performance that is surprising to some, there are people who are very quick to label you a cheat. I've had it done to me several times and have always offered my car for examination just so I can (childishly) say "I told you so" to them. If DJR aren't cheating they've got nothing to fear. I do, however, understand the annoyance at having to prove there is nothing wrong in the face of constant speculation.

[Jamolad]

Originally Posted by gtcapri

Who did it actually disadvantage?

I'll have a go.

It is really common for lapped cars to stay out when SC is called, get their lap back when leaders pit, race around unobstructed by SC, pit on the next lap, then join the back of the queue fueled and tyred and back on lead lap (or down one less lap).

There were at least 4 cars that did not pit even after being caught behind Fabian driving Miss Daisy...2 of those (Simona and someone else) still managed to get ahead of Scotty but behind JW, the other 2 (or more) ended up just behind Scotty.

All 4 of those would have got a lap back if not held up behind Fabian, and there may have been others that would also have stayed out but decided to pit once they realised Fabian made it so they could not get their lap back.

Those 4 (or more) that stayed out were 100% disadvantaged - can't see how you could argue they weren't. Argue they weren't going to win the race, but don't argue they were not disadvantaged.

Other than that, some drivers would have managed to jump Fabian and SVG if those 2 had to stack. Those drivers were disadvantaged.

There would have been others forced to stack longer behind their sister car than they should have due to everyone entering the pits bunched up behind Fabian. Those drivers were disadvantaged.

Seems naive to say it only impacted Fabian and SVG.

Plus others that were on lead lap and carrying more fuel may have chosen to stay out and get track position, hoping for another opportune SC. This one is a "maybe" though, so can't say there were definitely drivers planning to do this that were not able to.

So Fabian and Team Penske deliberately disadvantaged at least 4 cars that stayed out but did not get a lap back; everyone that would have gained track position on 12 and 97; and everyone that had to stack or stack for longer due to being closer to their sister car. They also disadvantaged anyone that would have been able to gamble on an alternate strategy.

[Jamolad]

Originally Posted by bluesport

But to dyno test both engines, has this been the case in previous years?

Can't say, but seems to be the new norm under the new technical department.

Burgess and Little know most of the tricks of the trade and seem intent on cleaning up the loopholes, anomomlies and interpretations that they suspect are being exploited. And when I say "suspect", in some cases they likely know where to look and what to look for as they had a hand in developing/implementing what they now need to police.

Havin said that, I don't think they are dyno'ing the engines due to any specific concerns - just easy way to confirm there is nothing illegal that could be missed or would not be identified via traditional strip-down check (which they will also do). They are just being thorough and the engines will dyno within specs/tolerances.

They really do seem to be much more vigilant with all facets of the job and have addressed a lot of the short-comings in rules/specs/testing that have festered for years. Glad they got these 2 together on this in advance of the next gen cars.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by David Towe

I would think it has been the practice in the past. I know from personal experience that when you can put in a performance that is surprising to some, there are people who are very quick to label you a cheat. I've had it done to me several times and have always offered my car for examination just so I can (childishly) say "I told you so" to them. If DJR aren't cheating they've got nothing to fear. I do, however, understand the annoyance at having to prove there is nothing wrong in the face of constant speculation.

Constant speculation from sore losers, it looks they can't get Scotty for anything he did on the track so they'll try their best to get him on some minor technical breach.

[Jamolad]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Constant speculation from sore losers, it looks they can't get Scotty for anything he did on the track so they'll try their best to get him on some minor technical breach.

Well I guess they do need to have a thorough look given Penske put cars out there last year that were in tech breach at least twice...Fabian excluded from PI qualifying due to illegal wing; and they themselves admit Scotty would have been excluded from the Bend quali with the drop-gear so they covered it up until after the race so they could only be fined rather than start rear of grid.

So yeah, not like Team Penske don't field cars outside the rules, and they admit to covering it up when they do, so can understand them being thorough. Won't find anything though.

[jiminee]

Originally Posted by David Towe

Two points, firstly there is no deafening silence here. I've already nailed my colours to the mast, I think they should be disqualified and suspended for a few meetings for perhaps the second worst sporting behaviour in history. The worst being Trevor Chappel's underarm bowl in the cricket test against the Kiwi's way back when.
Secondly, there is no manufacturer involvement is V8 kit Cars other than money and permission to call a kit car a Mustang or a Commodore anyway.

The underarm was unsporting but it was NOT illegal, as long as the umpire was notified prior to the delivery the rules allowed for it.

That is an important difference as what car 12 did on Sunday was both illegal AND unsporting.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by gtcapri

Who did it actually disadvantage? Fabian Coulthard, who got the applicable drive thru penalty. Every one else was back in their rightful positions at the re-start behind the safety car. You could argue that car 97 was the only beneficiary as he didnt have to double stack. Everyone behind Coulthard wouldve still been tripping over each other in pitlane regardless if he was on the bumper of the car in front or half a lap behind. They were all line astern at the restart.
So with that in mind, should Lowndes be stripped of his 2015 win as the lap down Whincup held the field back on the restart to give Lowndes a gap large enough to those behind? Whats your moral views on that? Was that acceptable is it since it disadvantaged those able to actually catch Lowndes. I thought not.........

As well as the 4 cars who didn’t get there lap back there were cars behind 12 who wouldn’t have had to double stack and would have jumped him.
Safety cars are the root of all evil.Bring on the virtual Safety Car.Also a rule that says that any car run by the REC owner that gets an advantage by its team mate doing a Coulthard also gets a drive through.That’ll stop them.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Jamolad

Well I guess they do need to have a thorough look given Penske put cars out there last year that were in tech breach at least twice...Fabian excluded from PI qualifying due to illegal wing; and they themselves admit Scotty would have been excluded from the Bend quali with the drop-gear so they covered it up until after the race so they could only be fined rather than start rear of grid.

So yeah, not like Team Penske don't field cars outside the rules, and they admit to covering it up when they do, so can understand them being thorough. Won't find anything though.

Last year is all done and dusted, you holden supporters are a bunch of sooks.

[djr81]

A random observation/queston:
Is fuel economy (or lack thereof) causing a problem at Bathurst?

It used to be a stint was 32/33 laps - there would be four stops (Safety cars aside) and the run to the finish would be from lap 129 or thereabouts. There was a nice balance between fuel economy/endurance and tyre life. If you could run longer your critical lap came back into the 120's and you had an advantage at the end of the race, providing the tyres would last.

With E85, smaller tanks, llambda probes, more aero and grippier tyres this year a tank of fuel was only good for 23 laps, which gives you a critical lap of 138, puts everyone on a very similar strategy, negates concerns about tyre life and ramps it up over pitlane congestion.

So the question is: Will next years cut in downforce be anything like enough to restore the cars endurance to give us back an endurance race? Or does something else need to be done? Or should it?

[Average Punter]

Good work djr.

We were talking about that during the race.

When was fuel saving even a "thing"? It came up over and over again during the race.

The only time I can remember it coming into play "in the old days" was in 2004 when Murph jumped a heap of cars in the last pitstop to take the lead (and ultimately the win)

For a long time it was five even(ish) stints, three for the A driver and two for the B.

Seems the shorter range has thrown a lot of that strategy out and made it more of a fuel race.

[paydirt]

GET RID OF THE SAFETY CAR, FULL STOP.....Break the (Mt Panorama) track into 6 zones...1km each zone...Zone 1 is from Hell Corner to Griffen's Bend...Zone 2 is Griffen's Bend to Reid Pk etc etc...Each zone has yellow flashing lights...If there is a crashed car at The Cutting (zone 2), then zone 2 becomes a 60km/h zone with yellow lights ON, (NOT FLASHING)… Zone 1 has yellow lights FLASHING to warn drivers of potential trouble ahead, so slow the F down before you get into zone 2....Therefore, Zone 1 can be driven at race pace, but no overtaking, & zone 2 will have a 60km/h speed limit....By the time you get to Zone 3, accelerate for all you're worth!....This will eliminate the need for a safety car trundling down Conrod Straight because of an incident 4km away !...Many of us have been trackside & witnessed this example of an incident, where a car has been in the pits for service etc, then blasts out onto the track, straight through the crash zone at full tilt, with the intention of catching the rear of the pack. This scenario needs to be addressed. Good God, now I need a drink!! Ohh, did I mention that the Safety Car is a total Pain In the A#@e ?

[f351c]

The move to E85 was mostly responsible. Engines drink more to make the same amount of power on E85 vs the previous 98 Octane fuel.

[Jerico]

Bit of an update from my last post Monday. ZB Radio was still talking the race yesterday, which is very unusual as not a sports station at all. It was the morning show with the host Mike Hoskins who is probable our number one broadcaster at present and has the top rating show in NZ. Mike interviewed Greg Murphy at 8-40 yesterday morning. You'll be able to find it ZB on demand if you wish to check. Anyway the main points were Greg didn't condone Team Penske's actions. Also backed up my post on Monday by saying there are a lot of very unhappy people in pit lane right now and many rocks being thrown. Greg's take on the radio chat to FC in the incident was in his opinion code.

Mike being a pretty shape operator also spoke of the teams interview, which sounded like he wasn't overly impressed with it. Asking Greg, that team guy [Story] if he'd done a better job without all that silly stuff would you think they may not be dealing with all this now? Greg answer was I think he'd wish he'd handled it better.

The more I see Story the less I want to see him. They had just put their driver FC in a very bad position and instead of playing a very straight bat in the interview he did what he seems to do a lot of now, put on the stupid grin and played the smart ass. By doing that I feel they exposed FC even more. Maybe someone needs to remind Story he's not the star.

[Micklegend]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm out of popcorn.

[Gaz170]

Originally Posted by Denosaur

Interesting how T8 have also been very quiet on this matter....

And yet so many people are willing to blame Roland Dane for all the controversy.

[Gaz170]

To me the solution is to close the pit exit and only open it for a short time each lap after the last car of the safety car train has passed. Also implement a set speed limit (80km/h?) under the yellow flag, even if you have not yet caught up to the safety car. That should solve all this speeding to the pits garbage.

I don't like what Fabian did, but you can't penalise car 17 for it. The rules need to be changed to stop this sort of garbage.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Gaz170

And yet so many people are willing to blame Roland Dane for all the controversy.

What can Roland say? It didn't hurt Jamie as he was still in front anyway and Giz benefitted as he didn't have to double stack and get jumped by other cars exiting the pits.

[JAFA851]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Barry Ryan feels DJRTP significantly altered the race and that they should be excluded as a team from the event to "set a precedent"

https://www.speedcafe.com/2019/10/15...Bf73xAQxOH96pI

One does wonder what PitSmart says.

It's not often I agree with Barry Ryan, but he's right on the money here.

[David Towe]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Constant speculation from sore losers, it looks they can't get Scotty for anything he did on the track so they'll try their best to get him on some minor technical breach.

That's the point of my post. They keep trying it on me too. My problem is not with Scott, it's with the instructions and behaviour of the team in slowing Coulthard down and leaving a 1km gap

[Forda]

Originally Posted by JAFA851

It's not often I agree with Barry Ryan, but he's right on the money here.

His opinion is largely irrelevant, particularly more so given he had two cars running completely out of sync with the race.

His efforts might be better placed in getting his own team running properly, before worrying about anyone else's.