PK Carsport exclusion + appeal.

[minimangler]

Originally Posted by Chaos81

Probably because they don't want to embarrass themselves by overturning what they had already ruled.

Yep. A red face would clash with Stephane Ratel's white shirt and floppy hair Then again, so does egg on the face, and that's well and truly there already

[smh]

Its the teams responcibility to ensure the car has the correct capacity tank. Every car I've worked on has had a capacity check then balls fitted to reduce it to the legal limit. Its impossible to make the tank exactly the right size down to 1 litre, as the bags do have an amount of give when full. True the amount is tiny but it was outside the limit. We always ran 1 - 2 litres under the required capacity as in the vipers the heat would expand the tank, if the vent/rollover pipe didnt work properly it could blow the tank out by quite a bit!

[Tim the Grey]

But, as stated above in this thread, the scrutineers failed to test the tank correctly, using fuel at 34 degrees, as against 20 degrees (IIRC). The fuel supplier to FIAGT has stated this accounts for the 2 litres extra capacity?
Personally, I find it strange that this car has not failed any other scrutineering before or since, with, the team claim, exactly the self same tank installed in the same way???

[Jonerz]

Good point Tim. I think it'll be tough for the FIA to turn around on this dicision. Tougher for the PK-Carsport team as this, naturally, hinders their chances at the championship. Unfortunate, they really had a terrific run that weekend. The way Kumpen drove in qualifying was awe-inspiring! He was really wheeling that car.

Chris

[minimangler]

If it has passed before and after, excluding it here is an absolute joke, end of. And what is most annoying is it gives the bloody maserati another win, and one without doubt it does not deserve. (you could argue they don't deserve any of their victories but that is another topic for another discussion ) I just wish it could be changed.

[smh]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

But, as stated above in this thread, the scrutineers failed to test the tank correctly, using fuel at 34 degrees, as against 20 degrees (IIRC). The fuel supplier to FIAGT has stated this accounts for the 2 litres extra capacity?
Personally, I find it strange that this car has not failed any other scrutineering before or since, with, the team claim, exactly the self same tank installed in the same way???

But its not down to the scrutineers to check the capacity before the race only after. Theres also nothing to say one of the team went into the tank for some reason and left out some displacement balls. I'm not suggesting they were cheating, 2ltrs is not enough to have an advantage, just they didnt check it properly at their workshop. One question, why would you be putting fuel at 34 degrees into a car for a capacity check?

[dxk1]

I'm not sure how a technical inspection is done, nor am I sure on how many of the competitors an inspection is done. However, it seems that these inspections should be done under pre-described rules. At the end of the race, the fuel cell would most likely be almost empty as no one runs with a great deal of extra fuel and fuel consumption has become somewhat of a science. Thus, I would think that the fuel cell is somehow either completely emptied or the fuel inside is precisely measured. At this point, one would fill it up from some type of accurately calibrated device. Why would this device not have fuel at the prescribed temperature? If there is a possibility that the fuel is not at the correct temperature, there should be a sliding scale with a precise formula by which calculations are performed. If fuel temperature is not to be taken into account, why is the rule not written that way, instead it appears to prescribe fuel at 20 C! It just doesn't seem like we know the entire story and it would be nice if the FIA put out a specific finding as to why they are adamant about this DQ and why PK's arguments have been so lightly dismissed.

There are rules and there is the spirit of the rule. Rules are normally written so that no one can get an advantage over other competitors. This seems like they are applying a rule in a way that totally flies in the face of logic and are penalizing a team that obviously did not benefit from the infraction (if one took place) since the race required 2 stops and was only 2 hours in length. It was clear from the beginning that PK had the fastest car of the weekend and they were going to win whether they used a 90 litre fuel cell or a 105 litre fuel cell. But at this point, I feel we are all just flogging a dead horse.

DK

[smh]

It used to be they took a fuel sample, then you showed them the tank was empty- showing the pump out pipe spitting fuel out. Then the tank would be filled with a measured amount. No fuel pump removes every last drop, some tanks still have a litre or 2 left in them that cant be scavenged. So without opening the tank and mopping it out it should always come short of the 100 ltr mark when refilled.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by smh

It used to be they took a fuel sample, then you showed them the tank was empty- showing the pump out pipe spitting fuel out. Then the tank would be filled with a measured amount. No fuel pump removes every last drop, some tanks still have a litre or 2 left in them that cant be scavenged. So without opening the tank and mopping it out it should always come short of the 100 ltr mark when refilled.

I guess when they put in the measured amount of fuel, it should come from a calibrated tank that is held at the appropriate temperature (20 C). If not, would the test not be invalid?

DK

[kingkai]

second time penalising PK (as with the C6-r last year at spa, as in 2005, when the Fia hadn't build there registring PC box in properly and accuising GLPK for braking the rules). Do they hate corvettes that much?
Im still afraid for this years Spa result. Think is stays this way, but trusting the Fia, no...

[minimangler]

hmm.

i think the fia should be thrown out

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by kingkai

second time penalising PK (as with the C6-r last year at spa, as in 2005, when the Fia hadn't build there registring PC box in properly and accuising GLPK for braking the rules). Do they hate corvettes that much?
Im still afraid for this years Spa result. Think is stays this way, but trusting the Fia, no...

In this is not the SRO, FIA? As they run FIA-GT and is this the way that the SRO is going to officiate the rest of the GT series that they govern? A glimpse into the future?

L.P.

[Sportscarguy08]

second time penalising PK (as with the C6-r last year at spa, as in 2005, when the Fia hadn't build there registring PC box in properly and accuising GLPK for braking the rules).

Are you sure this was Spa? i attended the race with that team and dont recall them being penalized in 2006..

Regardless i think the FIA DQ' ing the team in germany isnt justified and right...I wish the best for them when they go to appeal the decision...If it was a team like Vitaphone it would have been overturned instantly....

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by minimangler

hmm.

i think the fia should be thrown out

Now ..... thats the best idea ive heard in awhile

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Sportscarguy08

...If it was a team like Vitaphone it would have been overturned instantly....

So the Stewards/FIA are biased? Quite an assumption there.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Sportscarguy08

Are you sure this was Spa? i attended the race with that team and dont recall them being penalized in 2006..

Regardless i think the FIA DQ' ing the team in germany isnt justified and right...I wish the best for them when they go to appeal the decision...If it was a team like Vitaphone it would have been overturned instantly....

As the other poster said this wasn't 2006 but 2005