STEWARDS REPORT RE PENSKE ENGINE

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Jamolad

Are you sure the front 2 cylinders were not affected?

So they said on Rusty and the Dude (or whatever it's called).

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Maggo

I think T8 took out the sandbags out of the trunk they put in when they decided to concentrate on Bathurst win. Since then you see the true potential of T8

I have thought similarly, it is really sus.

[Jamolad]

Originally Posted by bluesport

So they said on Rusty and the Dude (or whatever it's called).

They did say that...and they were corrected.

There goes your theory then, huh?

[Forda]

Originally Posted by V12muscleman

Then I wonder if the hundreads of people who abused him will apologise. Whatever you think of Walkinshaw it’s pretty poor form for someone to call him out like that and only tell the side of the story that suited him when clearly the full story, if anything, makes Scotty Mac appear to have behaved poorly and triggered the chain of events...

Who or what are you referring to as the "hundreds of people who abused him"?

Let's not forget Walkinshaw needlessly initiated the whole thing himself, falsely accusing McLaughlin of cheating.
Makes him as a team owner look like a complete fool:

Originally Posted by TheAustralian

The Australian has obtained the allegedly abusive comment that Walkinshaw Andretti United boss Ryan Walkinshaw sent to the DJR/Team Penske driver following the Sandown 500 earlier this month.

“It is so unfair they caught you guys for cheating,’’ Walkinshaw wrote in a text message sent to Scott McLaughlin.

Claimed to be a “bit of banter’’ that was sent as a response to a comment made by McLaughlin earlier that day, the Ford driver replied by declaring he was glad he knocked back an offer to sign with Walkinshaw Racing in 2016.

“I made the right decision by not signing with you in 2016,’’ McLaughlin wrote.

Walkinshaw on Friday fronted up to set the record straight following a claim that he had not abused McLaughlin. The allegation emerged after Holden driver Nick Percat on social media compared McLaughlin to disgraced cyclist Lane Armstrong.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...0a8b9182b0e7c7

Originally Posted by V12muscleman

Regardless of the engine issue, it was a breach. Other engines have been pulled and found they were not. Take your medicine and move on.

Including the exact same 'Q' engine - 10 times during the season up until Bathurst in fact.

And there was never a problem with it previously regarding valve lift; until it developed some sort of an issue, generated excessive water pressure, and shared its oil with its water.
At which point the adjudicators thought measuring a damaged engine was great idea.

Originally Posted by V12muscleman

But let’s never forget that DJR Team Penske committed one of the worst acts I’ve ever seen in 40 years of watching the Bathurst 1000 with their team order on Coulthard that utterly destroyed the races of many of the teams down pit lane.

Your alarmist view is also very selective.

All they really did was double the generally accepted 20 second safety car buffer; which 888 had previously gotten away with a few years before, without even a mention.

Safety cars themselves are the issue affecting race results, particularly longer distance ones.

If the entertainment factor of the SC wasn't enacted so readily, and if Supercars had tightened up the rule book regarding them over the 25+ years they've had to do so, then this whole thing wouldn't have been an issue at all.

But that complacency has produced a $150k windfall, so there's that as well.

Originally Posted by V12muscleman

For that alone I can fully understand the anger and frustration that is clearly present in pit lane this weekend towards them.

Who, other than the BJR/WAU/888 cartel, constitute this vague, so-called pit lane anger 'movement'?

[Umai Naa]

I see the peanut gallery is alive and well this morning

[Forda]

Claiming the moral high ground isn't going to stem festering issues, which are being washed around with half-truths and very limited facts.

[Umai Naa]

Who are you trying to convince, besides yourself?

[Forda]

Not trying to convince anybody, it's self-evident from the levels of discussion being generated.

Who are you trying to convince your esteem is as high as you consider it to be?

[Umai Naa]

Seems to me like people are just adding fodder for you and your like-minded mates to back-pedal over.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Jamolad

They did say that...and they were corrected.

There goes your theory then, huh?

Not at all, why would it?

[Jamolad]

Originally Posted by bluesport

...there was no problem with the front bearing so the front two cylinders were not affected.

The front two cylinders were affected...that is where you theory falls over

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Jamolad

The front two cylinders were affected...that is where you theory falls over

That was my assumption after they said that there was no problem with the front two cylinders, the info I got said cam bearing problem but maybe it was both.

Where did you hear that the front two were affected?

[Umai Naa]

Cylinders 1 and 5.

[Jamolad]

Originally Posted by Forda

Including the exact same 'Q' engine - 10 times during the season up until Bathurst in fact...

CAMS report: The Authorised Representatives tendered a volume of materials:
- A copy of the Engine Build Sheet for the Q Engine which recorded the inlet valve lift as measured by the engine builder when the engine was refreshed on 16 September 2019 as 0.706”

Was it checked 10 times between it's "refresh" and Bathurst qualifying? Was it even checked once between it's refresh and the test it failed less than 4 weeks later?

Originally Posted by bluesport

That was my assumption after they said that there was no problem with the front two cylinders, the info I got said cam bearing problem but maybe it was both.

Where did you hear that the front two were affected?

CAMS report: An in-engine check of valve lift is commonly performed at Events and is a straightforward process, particularly on cylinders 1 and 5 which are at the front of the engine and easily accessible. Of the inlet valve lift exceedances, two of the cylinders were 1 and 5.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by Jamolad

CAMS report: The Authorised Representatives tendered a volume of materials:
- A copy of the Engine Build Sheet for the Q Engine which recorded the inlet valve lift as measured by the engine builder when the engine was refreshed on 16 September 2019 as 0.706”

Was it checked 10 times between it's "refresh" and Bathurst qualifying? Was it even checked once between it's refresh and the test it failed less than 4 weeks later?



CAMS report: An in-engine check of valve lift is commonly performed at Events and is a straightforward process, particularly on cylinders 1 and 5 which are at the front of the engine and easily accessible. Of the inlet valve lift exceedances, two of the cylinders were 1 and 5.

I'm not going to get into and endless argument over it, whatever floats your boat, it's all done and dusted now.

[Maggo]

Originally Posted by bluesport

That was my assumption after they said that there was no problem with the front two cylinders, the info I got said cam bearing problem but maybe it was both.

Where did you hear that the front two were affected?

https://www.cams.com.au/docs/default...rsn=c5416c31_2


page 5 of 6:

An in-engine check of valve lift is commonly performedat Events and is a straightforwardprocess, particularly on cylinders 1 and 5 which are at the front of the engine and easily accessible. Of the inlet valveliftexceedances, two of the cylinders were 1 and 5. Again, because it could be anticipated that the valve lift in cylinders 1 and 5 would be checked, it can be inferredthat it is unlikely that DJRTP would have knowingly allowed the valve lift in those cylinders to be exceeded;

[johnh875]

There are more than 2 camshaft bearings. The difference is small enough that it could well just be a discrepancy between measurement techniques between how the engine builder did it and the documented Supercars procedure (different equipment). Not a mistake they'll make again no doubt.

On the Newcastle thread there was mention of oil in water - it is not necessarily a 2-way street depending on what has failed and where.

Don't think this is particularly complicated & the report says enough.

[djr81]

Originally Posted by johnh875

There are more than 2 camshaft bearings. The difference is small enough that it could well just be a discrepancy between measurement techniques between how the engine builder did it and the documented Supercars procedure (different equipment). Not a mistake they'll make again no doubt.

For my 10 cents worth I reckon this is at the heart of the issue.

[Maggo]

I think the point is: When you build your engine close to the tolerance limits then you have no tolerance in measuring or if something goes wrong.
Can we close that chapter now?

[djr81]

Originally Posted by Maggo

I think the point is: When you build your engine close to the tolerance limits then you have no tolerance in measuring or if something goes wrong.
Can we close that chapter now?

No the point is the measurement tolerences should be well within the tolerences for anything else you may consider. Otherwise the system doesnt work.

[Langers]

I did LOL a bit at the irony of a Walkinshaw calling someone out for cheating

[Trevor]

CAMS are going to swing by this decision, people are now trolling through all their technical decisions of the past to look for inconsistencies and they are finding heaps. They may very well rue the day they made the call on the DJRTP engine

[Forda]

Originally Posted by Trevor

CAMS are going to swing by this decision, people are now trolling through all their technical decisions of the past to look for inconsistencies and they are finding heaps. They may very well rue the day they made the call on the DJRTP engine

It will be very interesting to see what gets unearthed, and the effect which that ultimately has.

[Jamolad]

Originally Posted by Trevor

CAMS are going to swing by this decision, people are now trolling through all their technical decisions of the past to look for inconsistencies and they are finding heaps. They may very well rue the day they made the call on the DJRTP engine

What are some examples?

[Denosaur]

Originally Posted by Trevor

CAMS are going to swing by this decision, people are now trolling through all their technical decisions of the past to look for inconsistencies and they are finding heaps. They may very well rue the day they made the call on the DJRTP engine

Supercars technical team checked the engine, and all the evidence was handed over to the CAMS stewards and race directors to make the call.

So who's going to rue the day, CAMS or Supercars??

Read the stewards report from the investigation/hearing carefully and you'll find that DJRTP made sure that they got a decent deal out of this by dropping in nicely this was the deal they got last year when they had the wrong drop gear in the car during The Bend round, which then painted CAMS into a corner as to how they needed to deal with this one.

Once the precendent has been set, you leave the door open for everyone after to argue for the same deal. That's the day that they'll rue when they catch the next one.