[VASC16R1R2R3] Clipsal 500 Adelaide

[codename_47]

Absolutely stunned at the finish to this race

Were we watching some sportscar series or the le mans 24 hours (which for all its legendary status loves to over-regulate some of the fun out of the sport)

No, this was V8 Supercars, and teams, media and commentators were struggling to inform the average viewer what was going on.
I consider myself quite the hardcore fan and I'm still at a loss to understand
A)Why the fuel drop rules were necessary (Commentators tried to explain it a couple of times but then something else would happen and they didn't quite finish it)
B)Why the championship doesn't have a dispensation in the rule book to say when X happens these rules are out the window
C)Why some of the teams seemed as much at a loss about the whole thing too.

Woe betide any new fans who came across this race as their first experience.
I'm sure they were quite enjoying the early going with all the rain related crazyness, great overtaking, surprises, drama and mistakes etc, only for it to end in a giant head scratching "eh?" moment.

I never expected V8 supercars, a championship that seemingly founded itself on blokey-bloke Ford Vs Holden rivalry, to be this "Nerdy"

The sad thing about it is it has tarnished what, before that, was easily the best race of the year of any championship that has started racing.
Lots of drama, some great overtaking and such and for once refreshing to see a governing body showing a degree of bravery and intelligence when running racing in the wet.
Too many other series these days throw the SC the second the clouds start spitting and base their decisions on rain they're seeing on the radar rather than at the race venue.
This was a proper old school wet race, so kudos for them for letting it run as much as they did and only red flagging when it becomes absolutely necessary.
(Take note TUSC/Sportscar racing in general. Saw a couple of their races last year where they put out the SC when it was just light rain and no one had even slightly ran wide. Of course they were praised to high heaven for being "anticipatory" by the usual suspects with vested interests rather than ruining the challenge of wet weather racing)

Only other black mark in the race was no Penalty for SVG for hitting the leader out of the race.
For a long time V8 Supercars rules on contact have been very clear, yet Shane was barely past the rear bumper when he made contact with the other car.
The fact he got no penalty for that is very suspicious indeed.

Aside from all that, it was a bloody good race.
As i say, it's a shame we're now lost in debating stupid fuelling rules instead of able to appreciate a great race in tough conditions.

[Compromised]

Yeah that's got to be the biggest travesty of this whole affair - Saturday was bloody good. The racing really was top shelf. Then Sunday came along... The racing was still good, but it's a shame things outside of that seemed to taint everything

[GM10]

I think that Falcons will have troubles this year, without the manufacturer's support. It's a pity for Mozzie and also Frosty.

[Terry S]

So now I see that the penalty for not adding 140L has been increased overnight to 60 seconds, rather than the 30 seconds penalties issued yesterday.

Does ANYONE in race control really know the rules?

[Compromised]

Maybe an earlier start in the future? You know, so it's actually the Clipsal 500?

[SJA]

In motorsport the best/fastest car/team/driver package is supposed to win on the day. The rules are meant to be structured towards this end. This is not what occurred on Sunday, meaning the rules now require serious attention.

Those who crashed out notwithstanding, what happened to the best/fastest car/team/driver package’s in the running on Sunday? Were they in the hunt as they should have been? No. Where were they? They were taking unnecessary fuel stops by way of a contrived rule which put them out of the running. Did they need fuel? No. Does it make ANY sense? No. Is it fair? No. Did it ruin the racing for all stakeholders and viewers and create an artificial result no one understands? Yes.

Time to get real those of you on the side of the rules. If this is the type of “racing” you want to see, and are actually okay with yesterday’s result you are truly lost. You should be outraged.

Since when in the history of motorsport has the victor of a race been determined by how much drop his fuel tower has had?! The Fuel Tower 500?! It’s contrived. It’s stupid. It made no sense to the teams let alone the viewing public!

And what’s with the penalties. How to they quantify 30 (or 60) seconds for that “breach”? Is it the same rationale they used to come up with the 5 minute stop-go penalty in ’02? Seriously…

I hate people who say, “Well, that’s it. I’m done with this series. I’m never watching another V8 Supercar race again.” When we all know that’s completely untrue. But I have to admit, if this was my first race and someone had to explain to me what was going on… Well, that alone is an issue. No one should have to explain to you what’s going on (motorsport is or should be a pretty simple concept from a viewer’s perspective – it’s a sign there’s already something wrong if cars racing around a circuit is no longer about cars racing around a circuit). What was worse this weekend is that no one, not expert commentators or teams could really explain what was going on either. That’s a big problem.

You know what, forget the fuel. Does anyone know when the official start of the race was yet? Or is it still just floating around in Schenken’s head?

[CDM]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Blanchard is a ****ing plonker.

After all the cock-up's & BS that went on over the week-end, I still think Blanchard takes the top award for "W*nk*r of the Weekend"

I cant believe how he came come round T1 locked up, run up the back of someone who was quite obviously getting out of the way and was clearly no-where near the actual race circuit let alone the racing line, and then put the blame on Tander for stuffing up his race.... LoL... what a ******!

[peckstar]

SJA Thats not how motorsport works. Well at least not in endurance racing. Strategy also comes into play. This means the fastest guy doesnt always win.

On the weekend, the fastest guys all played follow the leader and got caught out. Their strategy turned out to be poor.

If they had have pitted before the red flag, they most likely still would have won, They were all ahead of Cam waters in the queue and he pitted and finished 4th.

Nothing to do with the rules, just a failure to strategise correctly, and too many fans trying to excuse the failure. All the cars that had to pit at the end, made a pit stop at the same time as Percat on lap 42. But the didnt fill the tank, at that stage the race was time certain and they failed to change their strategy

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by CDM

After all the cock-up's & BS that went on over the week-end, I still think Blanchard takes the top award for "W*nk*r of the Weekend"

I cant believe how he came come round T1 locked up, run up the back of someone who was quite obviously getting out of the way and was clearly no-where near the actual race circuit let alone the racing line, and then put the blame on Tander for stuffing up his race.... LoL... what a ******!

I was wondering if perhaps Mr Tander had distracted Mr Blanchard, perhaps surprised him, especially since Mr Blanchard seemed to be mid-way thru an accident on his own before the #2 HRT car was in proximity...

[SJA]

peck, I said best/fastest, as in and/or. I realise strategy comes into play, but this is a totally different story. The race on Sunday was not race distance by any definition of the word. How then can this convoluted rule still apply in the same way? This is not typical strategy, applied in the context of the conditions on Sunday, this is artificial strategy, creating an artificial result.

Cars pulling in for fuel when they don't need fuel (because of a stupid rule), sacrificing genuine leading and podium positions in the process, handing these positions to (frankly) unworthy recipients is insanity. This is not what people pay to watch and its not what teams invest to compete in.

The (surviving) best and/or fastest package did not stand on the top step on Sunday. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by SJA

The (surviving) best and/or fastest package did not stand on the top step on Sunday. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by SJA

peck, I said best/fastest, as in and/or. I realise strategy comes into play, but this is a totally different story. The race on Sunday was not race distance by any definition of the word. How then can this convoluted rule still apply in the same way? This is not typical strategy, applied in the context of the conditions on Sunday, this is artificial strategy, creating an artificial result.

Cars pulling in for fuel when they don't need fuel (because of a stupid rule), sacrificing genuine leading and podium positions in the process, handing these positions to (frankly) unworthy recipients is insanity. This is not what people pay to watch and its not what teams invest to compete in.

The (surviving) best and/or fastest package did not stand on the top step on Sunday. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Becasue the rule was everyone must put in 140 litres, its pretty simple, not complicated, put in 140 litres. Most of the drivers had put it by the time the red flag came out, some most notibly triple 8 had not. There are no variables to it, just put in the 140litres

If you change the rule mid race with some variable that is not fair on those who obeyed the rule, You are suggesting an unfair mid race rule change.

The drivers that were leading after the red were only leading because they didnt put in fuel before the red, If they had have put in fuel they probably would have won, but they chose not to, even though they pitted

This is a classic example of why we dont want the pits closed during safety cars, because when the pits are closed people get punished if they havent completed their pit

[CDM]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Becasue the rule was everyone must put in 140 litres, its pretty simple, not complicated, put in 140 litres. Most of the drivers had put it by the time the red flag came out, some most notibly triple 8 had not. There are no variables to it, just put in the 140litres

If you change the rule mid race with some variable that is not fair on those who obeyed the rule, You are suggesting an unfair mid race rule change.

The drivers that were leading after the red were only leading because they didnt put in fuel before the red, If they had have put in fuel they probably would have won, but they chose not to, even though they pitted

This is a classic example of why we dont want the pits closed during safety cars, because when the pits are closed people get punished if they havent completed their pit

Agreed. You certainly cant change a rule mid race.

However to me an obvious solution would be 140L over the whole race, so pro-rata the amount required. So you must have put in 70L if the race is called at half distance or 105L if the race is called at 75% etc etc

[SJA]

I'm not arguing with the rule or the simplicity of the rule. I'm arguing with its sheer existence and its applicability, particularly in this case. I would also argue that if a race had no definable start and didn't go race distance by any definition then a contrived rule such as this, which clearly altered the race results, should not be valid!

It's pretty simple. Not complicated.

Race control knew by lap 3 it would be a time certain finish, which was then further shortened by half an hour for some inexplicable reason. Regardless, this is clearly a case of the series being mindlessly rule bound instead of mindfully rule guided.

The event legally couldn't have been classified as a race? Could it?

The event should be classified on grid starting positions and everyone awarded half points. That's the only fair way it could and should have been handled.

[SJA]

What's the intended purpose of the 140L fuel tower drop rule anyway? Can someone please enlighten me?

If it's about economy/fuel burn surely there are other ways to measure this without bringing red tape and bureaucracy into the situation, which has no place on the race track!

Red tape and bureaucratic rules are not the way to handle whatever reason this rule was created for. Cars stop for fuel when they need fuel, they stop for tyres when they need tyres. YES, strategy comes into this, but RACE TRACK strategy, not we have to comply with article 4.3.2.1-A strategy! It's just ridiculous - no one sitting at home or in the stands cares! And if it gets to a point (and it is getting there) that you can't enjoy a race without having the rule book open on your coffee table... well! I'm amazed how you can't see this as a legitimate, major issue.

If the rule does have to exist for a legitimate reason, why isn't pro-rata applied to it as CDM asks?

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by SJA

What's the intended purpose of the 140L fuel tower drop rule anyway? Can someone please enlighten me?

Originally it was to compensate for the poorer fuel consumption of the Volvo, Nissan and AMG 4 valve engines compared to the Holden & Ford powerplants.

What now seems to be the case is that Holden & Ford teams can apparently lean the heck out of their engines to get thru on one tank of juice in the same distance.

Which in itself is good for those teams, but not for anyone else.

And leaning out an engine can increase wear on it, and risk of failure from running hotter/holing pistons etc...

So.. the fuel drop takes away an engine tweakage..

[Reload]

Fuel drop debate rages after 'crazy' Clipsal 500

7 March 2016
- V8 Supercars

A frustrated Scott Pye has slammed Race 3 of the Clipsal 500 as a 'non-event' after both DJR Team Penske Fords fell foul of minimum fuel drop regulations in the rain shortened contest Read More

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by SJA

I'm not arguing with the rule or the simplicity of the rule. I'm arguing with its sheer existence and its applicability, particularly in this case. I would also argue that if a race had no definable start and didn't go race distance by any definition then a contrived rule such as this, which clearly altered the race results, should not be valid!

It's pretty simple. Not complicated.

Race control knew by lap 3 it would be a time certain finish, which was then further shortened by half an hour for some inexplicable reason. Regardless, this is clearly a case of the series being mindlessly rule bound instead of mindfully rule guided.

The event legally couldn't have been classified as a race? Could it?

The event should be classified on grid starting positions and everyone awarded half points. That's the only fair way it could and should have been handled.

So you have created a variable, and what happens when it rains at 50% race distance rather than the start, will you have a new rule for that as well. What happens when there is a long safety car at 75% for rain or an incident, will there be a rule for that as well? So many variables compared to "Put in 140 litres"

The rules have to be equal for everyone, variable rules will mean they are not equal. That is unfair.

The rules of v8 supercars are clear. if the race completes 50% race distance then then full points are awarded. That is the agreed way of handling things

Effictevely your rule about awarding the win based on grid positions is saying whoever is fastest in practise one may very well have won the race (because thats what the rules allow for)

[SJA]

What about the cars that couldn't fit the required fuel in (bring their towers down) for such a short race because of how much they started with?

Why does a rule such as the one you describe not factor in the amount of fuel a car starts with? Shouldn't the amount a car starts with be deducted from the tower level?

[SJA]

Do you see what's happening here? The avg punter can't stay on top of this.

[Compromised]

“We pitted Shane (van Gisbergen) two or three times in a row. Under Safety Car he was using very little fuel, so we were just pitting him to fill up the vent line and sending him again."

That's real racing!!!!!!

[SJA]

What would have happened if all cars started on full tanks?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by SJA

What about the cars that couldn't fit the required fuel in (bring their towers down) for such a short race because of how much they started with?

Why does a rule such as the one you describe not factor in the amount of fuel a car starts with? Shouldn't the amount a car starts with be deducted from the tower level?

Let me quote dutto to you from reload link

Everyone was able to get the fuel in, you just had to come in and out of the pits,” Red Bull team manager Mark Dutton told Speedcafe.com.
“We pitted Shane (van Gisbergen) two or three times in a row. Under Safety Car he was using very little fuel, so we were just pitting him to fill up the vent line and sending him again.
“It’s not the way you normally do it (achieve the minimum fuel drop), but if anyone says they couldn’t do it, it’s a cop out.”

Last year JC pitted on lap 42 to get to the finish, Guess what? Nick pitted on lap 42 this year. We were in the fill to finish window and they can actually pit earlier than that to get to the finish.

It doesnt factor in the amount of fuel that each cars starts with because thats strategy for each team, Each teamcan make their own decision. Its means the rules is simple. "Put in 140 litres" No complications, just put it in

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Compromised

“We pitted Shane (van Gisbergen) two or three times in a row. Under Safety Car he was using very little fuel, so we were just pitting him to fill up the vent line and sending him again."

That's real racing!!!!!!

So triple 9 made a startegic error at the start by giving him too much fuel. Thats the strategy of Endurance racing. More triple 8 stuff ups

Couldnt they read a weather map?

Looks it not ideal, but its better than what you have offered, variables depending on what happens during the race, that is not equal for everyone

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Originally it was to compensate for the poorer fuel consumption of the Volvo, Nissan and AMG 4 valve engines compared to the Holden & Ford powerplants.

What now seems to be the case is that Holden & Ford teams can apparently lean the heck out of their engines to get thru on one tank of juice in the same distance.

Which in itself is good for those teams, but not for anyone else.

And leaning out an engine can increase wear on it, and risk of failure from running hotter/holing pistons etc...

So.. the fuel drop takes away an engine tweakage..

When the Nissan motor was down on power did we put a restrictor plate on the kre/noonan motors? Why is power not equalised to the same degree as fuel efficiency?

Let them go I reckon. You want to lean out, hey it's your money. Want to run less fuel, go for it, just make sure you've got enough. Need more power/fuel efficiency, develop your bloody motor