[VASC16R1R2R3] Clipsal 500 Adelaide

[Reload]

Just a bloody shame that after such a great race 2 that there isn't pages and pages of comments on how great race 3 was and why Clipsal is one of "the" events of the year.

[GTRMagic]

Crowd Numbers

[Alan52]

Except for 1 apologist the rest of us should ignore everyone agrees the rule created a bad look for the category.I was talking to a couple of casual fans today who watched it and thought it was a joke.
Whatever the solution is this situation should never be repeated.Teams pitting their cars to have them simultaneously refuelled and draining the same fuel back out their vent pipes to the fuel towers is farcical.

[Average Punter]

There were a few cars that pitted before the "start" and topped up with fuel.

Would have to assume they were starting with full tanks and then refilled them as soon as possible.

Not sure who they were but were they able to dump the required 140litres?

I only ask as it's been suggested that anyone starting on full tanks could never have met the 140litre rule

[chavez]

Originally Posted by 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

Only in very very rare occasions does the fastest guy not win.

Percat was the fastest guy yesterday. His average speed for the race tells us that.

No-one else was faster over the race distance.

That is how Motorsport works.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Reload

Just a bloody shame that after such a great race 2 that there isn't pages and pages of comments on how great race 3 was and why Clipsal is one of "the" events of the year.

agreed, but it rained really heavy, twice.

Thats motorsport

[Ospi]

Originally Posted by Average Punter

There were a few cars that pitted before the "start" and topped up with fuel.

Would have to assume they were starting with full tanks and then refilled them as soon as possible.

Not sure who they were but were they able to dump the required 140litres?

I only ask as it's been suggested that anyone starting on full tanks could never have met the 140litre rule

They don't need the car to be able to carry the fuel, just for the fuel to enter the car (according to the wording of the regs). What the teams do is fill the car then keep filling which causes fuel to enter the overflow of the fuel hose. Basically the fuel goes in and comes straight back out again.

[Umai Naa]

Originally Posted by Ospi

They don't need the car to be able to carry the fuel, just for the fuel to enter the car (according to the wording of the regs). What the teams do is fill the car then keep filling which causes fuel to enter the overflow of the fuel hose. Basically the fuel goes in and comes straight back out again.

Which is a pretty rediculous concept in itself.

But hey, if it keeps the Peckys of the world entertained, then who are we to argue?

[Ospi]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Which is a pretty rediculous concept in itself.

But hey, if it keeps the Peckys of the world entertained, then who are we to argue?

Well the idea is to ensure they all spend the same amount of time in the pits, and it works in that regard. With the mercs gone they can dump the rule though, the Nissan and Volvo consumption is basically on par these days.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Which is a pretty rediculous concept in itself.

But hey, if it keeps the Peckys of the world entertained, then who are we to argue?

Thats just childish, and shows you are ignorant and have no understanding of why we have the fuel rule or why we enforce rules

140 litres is not there for entertainment, Its there to create parity between the manufacturers, If it was about entertainment then it would be two pit stops, similar to race 1 and 2. Its not a rule i like, but its a parity issue.

But once the rule is in place it has to be enforced, otherwise we have one driver putting in 140 litres and another getting an advantage because the race has been shortened.

Entertainment would be that they let cars get away with it so that ignorant people get an unfair winner. Would make a few posters on here happy so it appears

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Ospi

Well the idea is to ensure they all spend the same amount of time in the pits, and it works in that regard.

Isn't slick pitwork one of the fundamentals of races involving pitstops? The less time spent in the pits the better as it is part of the strategy?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by one five five

Isn't slick pitwork one of the fundamentals of races involving pitstops? The less time spent in the pits the better as it is part of the strategy?

It doesnt stop slick pit work at all, as we say yesterday, errors still happen. But it creates parity between the brands

You are aware i assume that the cars actually would need to make pit stops in this race anyway? This just forces them to put in a certain level of fuel.

a side effect is that its also means teams dont run their cars excessively lean which reduces engine wear and cost as some were trying to do

[one five five]

Originally Posted by peckstar

a side effect is that its also means teams dont run their cars excessively lean which reduces engine wear and cost as some were trying to do

Another side effect is teams who manage to get good fuel economy (even with other cars of the same brand) have their advantage negated

It's a rule for rules sake, we are into the fourth year of this rule cycle, surely something could/should have been worked out by now to enable this gimmicky rule to be abolished

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by one five five

Another side effect is teams who manage to get good fuel economy (even with other cars of the same brand) have their advantage negated

It's a rule for rules sake, we are into the fourth year of this rule cycle, surely something could/should have been worked out by now to enable this gimmicky rule to be abolished

sure, what your idea, thats simple and easy to understand

[Accident]

I'm not particularly a fan of the rule but it serves its purpose and it has been in place for what... 3 years prior to this (was it put in first year for enduro time, or was it reaction during second year of the new rules?)? It hasn't really caused any problems I can think of before, it was just the right mix of conditions that factored into it for race 3.

What are the alternatives? Just ignore all the fuel stuff and let the Holdens and Fords win easily thanks to their better fuel mileage*? Or we can give the less efficient cars bigger fuel tanks, and watch them sit in the pits for longer as all the other cars cruise by on the track? The people complaining now would most likely be complaining then too, and probably much more often as those sort of changes would affect every race, rather than just one weird weather-affected race.

The current rule isn't that bad as far as fuel parity goes. The amount is the same for everyone, but it still leaves a slight advantage to more efficient teams because they can start with less in the tank so they have a lighter car and are easier on tires and such. The fact the amount isn't necessarily related to the amount required to fill the tank or finish the race also still allows for smooth pitwork and strategy to come into play as to when to put some in and how much, and we still see stops often dictated by tire changing speed so it hasn't taken away (much) from that aspect.

As pecky pointed out, you can't just throw out a rule when a race is declared wet because a race can be declared wet well after the start of the race, when strategies have already started. Changing the ruling mid-race would create just as much complaining and upset teams and drivers, if not more given that many alternatives are less straightforward.

Any time you throw a rule out at any point during the course of an event, you are screwing people, just who you are screwing changes with the time that it is thrown out. Any ruling needs to be stuck to for the duration of the event. Any changes that are made need to be made well enough in advance that teams have time to take the change into account when doing their jobs.

The ruling was 140 liters for the race. If that was going to be dropped, it needed to be made clear that it was being dropped BEFORE the race officially started, as we already saw teams acting according to that rule before the green flag even dropped, and it probably would have affected a lot of the cars before they even headed out onto the grid in regards to how much they filled the car for the start. For that matter it probably would have affected calculations that were made by the engineers the night before (if not further in advance).

This was one bad race where a lot of unforeseen factors played a part. The lack of clarity about the official start of the race was pretty silly, and the changing of the penalty overnight was too. They could have probably clarified that the 140 liter rule was still in effect, but if some teams just assumed it wasn't in place anymore (what they would have based that on I don't know, it's not normal to assume rules change mid-race) then that is their own fault, and they should have at least cleared it up with an official before banking on it.

It seems to me people are freaking out over a weird occurrence we aren't likely to see again for a long time, if ever again, and I haven't seen anyone suggest a more sensible alternative that doesn't create just as many possibilities for grey areas and exceptions and questions and potential to confuse fans if the cards fall the wrong way.

XXX liters of fuel must be put in the car over the course of the race. If you don't have room for it in the tank, vent it. It doesn't get much more simple than that.

*That may not be the case anymore, since the fuel drop rule is in place it doesn't necessarily give us a clear picture of how equal the fuel economy is between the cars as we don't always know how much each car started with or how much they are venting, so it's harder to judge if the others have caught up with the 2-valve engines. Obviously, if the 4-valve motors are on equal ground to the 2-valve motors then it is time to drop the rule again.

[Terry S]

One thing I have not seen mentioned is where the cars stopped while the race was suspended.

It was on the fast lane of the pits, and they were not allowed to work on the cars.

Remember a couple of years ago at Bathurst when the race was suspended. The cars were lined up on the track opposite the pits, and were allowed to be worked on. I think Whincup's crew changed a drive shaft during this suspension.

Why the differences now?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Terry S

One thing I have not seen mentioned is where the cars stopped while the race was suspended.

It was on the fast lane of the pits, and they were not allowed to work on the cars.

Remember a couple of years ago at Bathurst when the race was suspended. The cars were lined up on the track opposite the pits, and were allowed to be worked on. I think Whincup's crew changed a drive shaft during this suspension.

Why the differences now?

They were allowed to work on thier cars, just not re-fuel, change tyres or drivers, same as 2014 bathurst. "As per the rules" Tim said

Rule 10.1.7

Officials have the choice on wheer to stop the race, either grid or fast lane. I guess this time they choose fast lane due to the weather

[velly4]

If they must persist with parity in every single aspect I'd rather they control the pit time with fuel flow restrictors in the filling rigs.

I know with different length races this may be hard to find the right balance but at least it would add a bit more of a variable to races.

[Terry S]

Peckstar after all your posts over the last days over various threads, my mental image of you is a guy standing by himself on the beach singlehandedly trying to turn back the in coming tide.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Peckstar after all your posts over the last days over various threads, my mental image of you is a guy standing by himself on the beach singlehandedly trying to turn back the in coming tide.

Your welcome for providing the info you were after

a few continually negative people on a forum is far from a tide and i am far from alone,

[Compromised]

Peckstar, love him or hate, is correct 100%.

Problem is 99% of fans do not have the knowledge of rules or patience with them that he seems to have.

Take me - I know the rules, I know they cant be changed ad hoc, I know the weather was chaotic,but I'm still totally dissatisfied with race 3. Now, imagine what the average punter with no knowledge of any but the most basic rules thinks about what transpired on Sunday.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Compromised

Peckstar, love him or hate, is correct 100%.

Problem is 99% of fans do not have the knowledge of rules or patience with them that he seems to have.

Take me - I know the rules, I know they cant be changed ad hoc, I know the weather was chaotic,but I'm still totally dissatisfied with race 3. Now, imagine what the average punter with no knowledge of any but the most basic rules thinks about what transpired on Sunday.

Im not satisfied with sundays race , im dounnbtful anyone would be satisfied with sundays race, the weather and the time certain finished killed it, well maybe nick percat and LDM are happy.

But thats just what happens with live sport. It cant be managed, thats part of the enjoyment of it

Like i keep saying, even the most average punter, knew it was 140 litres. It was well explained. Commentators and especially the laughing buffoon were a big part of the problem with creating confusion.

Imagine if they just said "cars must put in 140 litres or they will be penalised a minimum of a pit late drive through" instead of "cars must put in 140l or something "might" happen we dont know what but it could be x or y or z "

However it was the first time this has happened, we now know, wont happen again

[Reload]

Communication failure in Clipsal start chaos

8 March 2016
- V8 Supercars

Widespread confusion at the start of V8 Supercars' showpiece Clipsal 500 could have been avoided with better communication from race control, says Red Bull team manager Mark Dutton Read More

[Compromised]

From Reloads link -

“For us (at BJR), we had a little discussion about it and felt that, even though there was a mix-up with the timing and it was confusing, the race had started.
But we didn’t bring our car in at the first opportunity because we were still unsure and thought it better to play it safe."

So we've got BJR, possibly T8 and DJR, not pitting early due to confusion. Not exactly numpties we are talking about. Percat comes in early and wins. Fair to say the confusing start influenced the race outcome then?

The question now is who was responsible for how race 3 "started"?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Compromised

From Reloads link -

“For us (at BJR), we had a little discussion about it and felt that, even though there was a mix-up with the timing and it was confusing, the race had started.
But we didn’t bring our car in at the first opportunity because we were still unsure and thought it better to play it safe."

So we've got BJR, possibly T8 and DJR, not pitting early due to confusion. Not exactly numpties we are talking about. Percat comes in early and wins. Fair to say the confusing start influenced the race outcome then?

The question now is who was responsible for how race 3 "started"?

wow LDM was able to work it out, but triple 8 werent, Whats going on at triple 8, struggling with the 3 cars structure (which they admitted are)

Whats the old saying when the green flag drops the BS stops. The green flag dropped and Triple 8 were found wanting.

The article says that PRA were clear on what was going on and confirmed it as well

out of interest

V8 Supercars reviews starts

It was complicated by the race being red flagged after a marshal was affected by lightning.