Supercars cooling disqualification

[Terry S]

I refer to Saturday's disqualification of the two 888 Camaros for having additional cooling aids.

This very wrong in my opinion. The drivers are employees of 888.

Under Workplace and Safety Laws, 888 have a duty of care to provide a safe working environment to their employees.

If the cars' cockpit temperature was too high, then 888 had duty to cool it.

Any Supercars rules cannot override this. Supercars seem to believe they are not subject to the law of the land.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Terry S

I refer to Saturday's disqualification of the two 888 Camaros for having additional cooling aids.

This very wrong in my opinion. The drivers are employees of 888.

Under Workplace and Safety Laws, 888 have a duty of care to provide a safe working environment to their employees.

If the cars' cockpit temperature was too high, then 888 had duty to cool it.

Any Supercars rules cannot override this. Supercars seem to believe they are not subject to the law of the land.

I guess it should have all been sorted out prior to the race, all the other teams obeyed the the rules so the question is whether or not unfair advantage was gained by T8?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Terry S

I refer to Saturday's disqualification of the two 888 Camaros for having additional cooling aids.

This very wrong in my opinion. The drivers are employees of 888.

Under Workplace and Safety Laws, 888 have a duty of care to provide a safe working environment to their employees.

If the cars' cockpit temperature was too high, then 888 had duty to cool it.

Any Supercars rules cannot override this. Supercars seem to believe they are not subject to the law of the land.

Sorry but that isn't what happened and is not what the team was penalised for. The team was penalised for mounting the driver cooling in the wrong part of the car - has a specific location that it can be mounted in (which is where 888 mounted the additional cooling on Sunday).

Nothing at all to do with WHS laws, duty of care or Supercars believing that it is not subject to the laws of the land.

Personally, sounds to me like a mess with contradicting accounts of a conversation in the 888 garage and the penalty feels harsh but it wasn't for the reason you suggest.

[kittle]

Originally Posted by Terry S

I refer to Saturday's disqualification of the two 888 Camaros for having additional cooling aids.

This very wrong in my opinion. The drivers are employees of 888.

Under Workplace and Safety Laws, 888 have a duty of care to provide a safe working environment to their employees.

If the cars' cockpit temperature was too high, then 888 had duty to cool it.

Any Supercars rules cannot override this. Supercars seem to believe they are not subject to the law of the land.

Quoting WHS laws is incorrect in this case mate.

Under the rules they are allowed to supply extra cooling to the drivers that require it. Its the positioning that was incorrect by T8.

I think you need to look into the incident more instead of the WHS laws.

[dirtymacca]

"I refer to Saturday's disqualification of the two 888 Camaros for having additional cooling aids.
This very wrong in my opinion. The drivers are employees of 888.
Under Workplace and Safety Laws, 888 have a duty of care to provide a safe working environment to their employees.
If the cars' cockpit temperature was too high, then 888 had duty to cool it.
Any Supercars rules cannot override this. Supercars seem to believe they are not subject to the law of the land."

I guess most sports would be guilty... boxing promotors, football etc would all be subject to "duty of care" if that is the case.

[AnnoyedMoose]

Originally Posted by Terry S

This very wrong in my opinion. The drivers are employees of 888.

888 chose to fit a cooling system that didn't include a helmet cooler, just a vest. Other teams chose to stick with the old system even though it was heavier.

When they decided not having a helmet cooler was a mistake all they had to do was to put the helmet cooler on the passenger side or put in writing that they wanted to put it on the drivers side.

They did neither so it's 100% their fault. As other teams have said the cockpit temperatures weren't that high anyway.

For the 2nd race they had it on the passenger side so it was always possible.

[mite5255]

Was the helmet cooling unit installed in the drivers side of the cars for scrutineering on Thursday

[AnnoyedMoose]

Originally Posted by mite5255

Was the helmet cooling unit installed in the drivers side of the cars for scrutineering on Thursday

Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't really. The onus is on the teams to present a car that complies with the rules not for the scrutineers to check everything.

[mite5255]

Originally Posted by AnnoyedMoose

Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't really. The onus is on the teams to present a car that complies with the rules not for the scrutineers to check everything.

Isn't it the job of the scrutineers to make sure race-cars are legal to race before they hit the track

[AnnoyedMoose]

Originally Posted by mite5255

Isn't it the job of the scrutineers to make sure race-cars are legal to race before they hit the track

It's their job to make sure the car is safe to race above all else. Eligibility scrutineering is often done after the sessions not before otherwise things could be changed and then it's generally only the top 3 and a random sample.

Not 100% sure on how SuperCars does it but that is what happens in other national series I've been involved with as a mechanic.

As I say in all motorsport I've been involved with it's entirely down to the entrant to present a car that complies with the rules not for the officials to pick up anything that might be illegal.

[GreenMachine]

This ^^ , especially the last sentence.

I wouldn't go racing on anyone's verbal, even if they run the show.

My practice, back in the day when I worked for a quid, was to email their statement back to them, 'Just confirming, you informed us that we could ....' , and I did it as soon as I put the phone down or got back to the office. Can't remember anyone ever coming back and saying 'no I didn't'. These days you can do it standing in the same spot as he walks out the door, no excuses.

[Terry S]

I guess most sports would be guilty... boxing promotors, football etc would all be subject to "duty of care" if that is the case.[/QUOTE]


Have you seen today's news that a legal class action is being launched against the AFL for negligence in relation to the players concussions.

So, it's coming.....

[GTRMagic]

Appeal Dismissed



I feel sorry for car #97.. it’s pilot is gunna be angry again….

[AnnoyedMoose]

Never expected anything else unlike all the warriors posting on FaceBook. No written request and no written approval. Everything else is just noise.

[Average Punter]

What a shame this photo is now destined for the shredder...

[kittle]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Appeal Dismissed



I feel sorry for car #97.. it’s pilot is gunna be angry again….

What about car 88 as well??

As Dutto said, they should have followed up with written approval. But they didn't...

[GreenMachine]

Quelle surprise!

Very basic mistake to take someone's word without confirming it appropriately.

I guess when you want something to be so, you hear in that context regardless of what the other party says/means. Confusion/conflict then ensues, until someone says 'show me the rules, show me the exemption' ...

[Langers]

Originally Posted by Terry S

I refer to Saturday's disqualification of the two 888 Camaros for having additional cooling aids.

This very wrong in my opinion. The drivers are employees of 888.

Under Workplace and Safety Laws, 888 have a duty of care to provide a safe working environment to their employees.

If the cars' cockpit temperature was too high, then 888 had duty to cool it.

Any Supercars rules cannot override this. Supercars seem to believe they are not subject to the law of the land.

For what it's worth, I side heavily with T8 on this issue as I strongly suspect they did have reason to believe Burgess (a long time mediocre motorsports manager) had given his consent to the setup.

That said:
(1) I can almost guarantee drivers wouldn't be employees. There would be a driving / media / sponsor support services contract between SVG Pty Ltd and T8REA

(2) T8 chose to run a less effective cooling system, being the Chill Out system WITHOUT the helmet cooling fan supply. Their choice, no-one forced them to do that.

(3) Due to the very nature of the activity, the interpretation of OH&S rules around motorsport isn't quite as black and white as you've outlined, particularly for those on the front line (mostly drivers, somewhat also pitcrew). As an example, you often see teams in 24hr races going 36+hrs straight without sleep. In a normal environment with risk of collision, fire, burns, cuts, heavy lifting etc this wouldn't be permitted (think a factory / foundry / machineshop), but in motorsport it is.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Langers

For what it's worth, I side heavily with T8 on this issue as I strongly suspect they did have reason to believe Burgess (a long time mediocre motorsports manager) had given his consent to the setup.

So it comes down to bad management at T8.... in this day and age Whincup or Dutton, having allegedly received the verbal ok from Burgess, should have sent him an email confirming conversation at such and such time and place in which Mr Burgess confirmed our system to be legal to race. That could have been in Burgess's inbox before he left the T8 garage. Then Burgess would simply reply with a 'yes thats so' or a 'no you have misinterpreted / misunderstood what I said. I said the system is fine, the location is not or whatever.'

Had they confirming correspondence of their conversation and alleged approval T8 might have had a case.

(Then the matter of whether Burgess has the authority to make that judgement becomes the focus. The Appeal panel suggested he did not.)

I daresay it would never have become an issue if RD was involved. The i's would have been dotted and the t's crossed