'09 FRC Round 3, Long Beach - Page 2

HORNDAWG · 18 Apr 2009, 06:29 (Ref:2443526)

Hmm, I hate this! IMO the #62 should be struck from the GT-2 pole winning position as they failed tech after Qing for a ride height violation and will start from the back, but it would move my pick into that position. So I am taking a straw poll on whether or not to DQ Risi's pole run!

L.P.

TheNewBob · 18 Apr 2009, 08:02 (Ref:2443555)

Hmm, even though I picked the #62 car for pole, I think we need to be fair on this. That said, we hardly knew they were going to run illegally... maybe full points for both cars to save any arguments?

mattt · 18 Apr 2009, 08:16 (Ref:2443564)

I've got neither but i think as the car ran illegally and therefore was removed from the qualifying results it should be from these aswell

Marcel ten Caat · 18 Apr 2009, 14:01 (Ref:2443786)

http://www.imsaracing.net/2009/event...ng%20Beach.pdf

Qualifying result stays unchanged if one looks at the IMSA results...the car is just moved to the back for the race

mattt · 18 Apr 2009, 14:08 (Ref:2443789)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattt

I've got neither but i think as the car ran illegally and therefore was removed from the qualifying results it should be from these aswell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger

http://www.imsaracing.net/2009/event...ng%20Beach.pdf

Qualifying result stays unchanged if one looks at the IMSA results...the car is just moved to the back for the race

As the qualifying results haven't been changed then the results shouldn't be changed.
I just presumed they would be removed from the qualifying results as they would be in the series i'm used to

The Badger · 18 Apr 2009, 17:11 (Ref:2443903)

Violation is a violation , regardless of why , what or who is responsible .

HORNDAWG · 18 Apr 2009, 20:03 (Ref:2444032)

Well even in the teams own press release they call it a DQ for qualifying. Here

L.P.

Canada ALMS fan · 18 Apr 2009, 20:28 (Ref:2444041)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattt

As the qualifying results haven't been changed then the results shouldn't be changed.
I just presumed they would be removed from the qualifying results as they would be in the series i'm used to

I will accept what the majority decides. I think because the car was not legal it should be excluded. They are my favourite team but don't look at who I picked for pole.

Heck, you can win a 24 hr Grand Am race 14 lbs underweight and not be excluded.

Canada ALMS fan · 18 Apr 2009, 20:29 (Ref:2444042)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

Hmm, even though I picked the #62 car for pole, I think we need to be fair on this. That said, we hardly knew they were going to run illegally... maybe full points for both cars to save any arguments?

I'd go for this.

The Badger · 18 Apr 2009, 21:12 (Ref:2444056)

Well , the car didnt get pole as its time was disqualified . It was an illegal time set with an illegal car , so its out the window as far as im concerned .

The Badger · 18 Apr 2009, 21:42 (Ref:2444074)

DSC's qualifying results show the Risi car as last on the grid with times disallowed . So thats the Farnbacher/Loles car on pole in my book .

TheNewBob · 18 Apr 2009, 22:12 (Ref:2444090)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Badger

DSC's qualifying results show the Risi car as last on the grid with times disallowed . So thats the Farnbacher/Loles car on pole in my book .

That sounds pretty fair. I'd pondered the possibility of more people here disagreeing because they'd be getting punished for Risi's error, and I can understand how some may be a little disgruntled with that. But its the final results which count afterall, and those final results have #62 at the back of the grid.

zac510 · 18 Apr 2009, 22:13 (Ref:2444091)

**** I missed this

Well can't be worse than Round 2 where I didn't miss it and still got 0!

Marcel ten Caat · 19 Apr 2009, 19:12 (Ref:2444910)

Guys...DSC could be putting them with times disallowed, official IMSA papers (both qualifying result and final grid) show them with their fastest time

Perhaps we should also give Patrón Highcroft Racing the win as IMSA made a mistake and that cost them victory

HORNDAWG · 19 Apr 2009, 20:09 (Ref:2444945)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger

Guys...DSC could be putting them with times disallowed, official IMSA papers (both qualifying result and final grid) show them with their fastest time

Perhaps we should also give Patrón Highcroft Racing the win as IMSA made a mistake and that cost them victory

The results are provisional until the protest is resolved! Both IMSA and ALMS sites are still provisional results. So don't laugh to hard yet!!

L.P.

The Badger · 20 Apr 2009, 23:15 (Ref:2445921)

Where are they posted horny ?

HORNDAWG · 21 Apr 2009, 02:16 (Ref:2445987)

IMSA You will notice that no final race results are posted at this page yet.

ALMS They have posted the final race results but:

Quote:

†Results for P1 are provisional pending outcome of appeal.

as noted on the scoring sheet!

L.P.

prototype · 21 Apr 2009, 18:02 (Ref:2446462)

What are the updated points standings?

HORNDAWG · 21 Apr 2009, 23:32 (Ref:2446656)

Quote:

Originally Posted by prototype

What are the updated points standings?

Hmm, refer to the post before yours (#42).

L.P.

The Badger · 23 Apr 2009, 15:53 (Ref:2447927)

I ment the competition points standings smartass !!!

prototype · 24 Apr 2009, 02:19 (Ref:2448308)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Badger

I ment the competition points standings smartass !!!

Me too!

HORNDAWG · 24 Apr 2009, 03:16 (Ref:2448311)

Have either of you seen an official non-provisional final race results yet? I haven't!

The protest represents a full 1/3 of the rounds points. They are usually resolved fairly quickly!

L.P.

**joeb** · 24 Apr 2009, 12:56 (Ref:2448615)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Badger

I ment the competition points standings smartass !!!

I think since the (race) points aren't finalized yet, then the (competition) points can't be finalized either.

HORNDAWG · 24 Apr 2009, 20:35 (Ref:2448849)

Well this is what I have come up with, de Ferran is winner in P-1 and Farnbacher-Loles was the GT-2 pole sitter. On the pole situation:

Quote:

Unless the penalty says "Time Disallowed" they keep their time. Because they are moved to the back of the grid, they are no longer considered the pole sitter, further they are not eligible for awards such as lap records. So yes, the 87 car became the class pole sitter, being the car furthest up in the grid in the GT2 class.

L.P.

Canada ALMS fan · 24 Apr 2009, 21:51 (Ref:2448894)

I agree with the above post. Also, the results appear final now.
http://www.imsaracing.net/2009/event...ng%20Beach.pdf

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
'09 FRC Round 2, Catalunya	HORNDAWG	Predictions Competitions	32	9 Apr 2009 21:53
'09 FRC Round 1 Sebring	HORNDAWG	Predictions Competitions	39	26 Mar 2009 23:15
ALMS Round 3: Long Beach, April 18-20, 2008	dxk1	North American Racing	159	24 Apr 2008 15:16
Toyota Atlantic: Round 2 Long Beach	Jay	ChampCar World Series	20	14 Apr 2003 13:33