Clipsal 500 - Stewards Penalties

[RaceTime]

STEWARDS PENALTIES: V8 Supercar Championship Series Round 1, Clipsal 500
Adelaide 18-21 March 2004


FRIDAY 19 MARCH


The following cars/drivers were found to be in breach of Rules, speeding
in pit lane:
Car #9, Russell Ingall - a penalty of $300 was applied.


WPS Motorsport (car #23) was found to be in breach of Rule,
non-attendance at the Team Managers Briefing. A penalty of $500 was
applied.


The following cars/drivers received drive-through penalties during
Practice:
* Car #18, Warren Luff, for overuse of Turn 2 kerb;
* Car #29, Paul Morris, for overuse of Turn 2 kerb;
* Car #14, Terry Wyhoon, for overuse of Turn 2 kerb.


Full details at http://www.racenews.com.au/?racenews=5921

[00 XR8]

"An inquiry was convened into an incident involving car #29, Paul Morris, and car #21, Brad Jones, at turn 6 during Race 1. The Stewards considered evidence from both parties and the Driving Standards Observer. The Stewards found that there was no evidence to support a breach of the Rules by either driver. No further action was taken."

You are bloody kidding me!

And what about Bright nailling Luff, punting him out of 2nd place in R1? No mention of it at all. Front guard makes contact with rear bumper, car spins off and drops back to last in the train. Incredible!

[RaceTime]

- haven't you noticed how many 'insufficient evidence' answers there have been lately.

Does it seem like the Stewards have gone from one extreme to the other recently? Or maybe someone or team has thretened legal action (and surely it wouldn't because the inquiry into the E Ck Skaife/Ingall incident only just stopped short of calling them liars....)

[Hazza]

Naw, they're just setting up a precedent, from now on, they can refer to cases with the response:

"Not enough evidence, precedent from P.Morris Vs. B.Jones"

and

"Racing incident, precedent from : G.Murphy Vs. Race Director"

[vortexo]

Sunday 21 March


The following drivers received a drive through penalty during the Race 2:
Car #29, Paul Morris, driving infringement;
Car #75, Anthony Tratt, exceeding the pit lane speed limit;
Car #12, John Bowe, exceeding the pit lane speed limit, and a second drive-through penalty for a driving infringement;
Car #23, Mark Noske, driving infringement.

I see Mark Noske got a penality as well???????

[vortexo]

He might have been doing burnouts out the back of the pits.:-)

[cav]

Why dont you post something constructive next time, instead of having a go at people

[RaceTime]

cav - and why don't you crawl back into a hole - the penalties list is issued by CAMS and is regularly issued after a race meeting.

Maybe you don't want to see them, others do. If you don't want to see them - do everyone a favour and simply **** off.

[twig]

Why don't you come up with your own threads cav, come up with your own ideas as well mate!

Why the hell are you on a discussion forum to tell people not to discuss things? Looks like you may have some screws loose mate.

We all know a troublemaker when we see it.

[Crash Test]

Crickey people, why don't we cut out the niggle and unknot yer knickers, it's just a forum...

Cav, if you don't like something, you don't have to say anything about it...

How about we get back on topic ey?

Car #110, Chance of a Lifetime, was found to be in breach of the Rules, non-attendance at Team Managers Briefing and failure to present car to scrutiny. Stewards imposed a penalty of $250 for non-attendance at Team Managers Briefing and $250 for failure to present car to scrutiny."
- How does a car not rock up to scruitineering?

- what happened with car 43 in qualifying?

- what is the go with the ECU looms not being right?

[RaceTime]

Has anyone else noticed that the penalty of a drive through i npractice and qualifying is now being handed out?

Anyone know the reason for this stupidity - after all - is a drive through really going to stop people from getting pinged for speeding?

Scrutineering no show - maybe still working on car? But as these cars are now pampered by being scrutineered in their garages it would mean that the car wasn't at the track at it's appointed time. However, considering it was the Chanfe of a Lifetime car - need more really be said??

ECU - again, maybe work from previous meeting not having been finished properly?

[Crash Test]

But the ECU loom seemed common between a few cars...

[Kerri]

I don't know who Cav is yet but this is not the only thread this person has had a go in with bad comments.

[Kerri]

We may not all agree with some comments from Race or others for that matter, but at least there is someone here who posts information which most of us want to read & are appreciative of & if you don't like it P*** Off. Sorry guys, I can't stand people like this, I have to put up with these types every week in motor racing, I shouldn't have to put up with them on this forum.

[FatBoy]

Well said Kerri...

I've had a "difference of opinion" with RT as well but he's a decent bloke who is willing to share plenty of interesting info... I for one appreciate his input...

cav: Mate, it's already been said - Don't like it, don't read it...

[Kerri]

That having been said, lets move on guys.

[RaceTime]

Re ECU - Possible that they were worked on by a common person?

Personally I fail to see how an 'wiring loom' problem or inconsistency would affect the cars - if there was a problem with the actual connections in the loom then this would be a more serious problem than just the 'loom' - or so I would have surmised....

[RaceTime]

FatBoy and Kerri - thanks for the support - however, to let you in on a little secret - RaceTime and RaceNews will be retiring in about 2 weeks time - so cav and her mates won't have to worry any more - they can find somewhere else to get information...

[deeks6]

Bright not getting penalised is the worst joke i've ever seen.

Skaife also punted Lowndes and got away with it...OK, he hit some oil, but he still made 2 positions because of the incident.

[GROUPA]

cav wrote




I will let this one go thru to the keeper being the moderators....great way to start off posting on a forum

Keep up the good work Steve....will call you soon

Matt

[lcfp2297]

Originally posted by Crash Test
But the ECU loom seemed common between a few cars...

The one of note is the PWR car in Race 1...could it be the one that came from last to 5th?

Sounds similar to a car last year that ECU irregularities during qualifying...

Cheers

[Matt H]

cav, go and get yourself buggered.

without such people as rt, we wouldnt be privy to some information and details on motorsport as we are getting now.

keep it up rt.
cheers

[sizzle]

"Team Dynamik was found to be in breach of Rules, in that refuelling of
car #44 and #45 took place without a fire attendant in the required
position. A penalty of $4,000 was imposed by the Stewards"

This one is interesting, LRT get pinged ten grand at Winton last year for refuelling one car without the fire extinguisher guy, Team Dynamik do it with two cars and get a substantially smaller fine.

Is it safer if you refuel two cars without the extinguisher?:confused: :confused:

[RaceTime]

Dynamik didn't have a 'fire attendant' - I am presuming they did have an extinguisher handy though.

[sizzle]

LRT had an extinguisher, the problem was the bloke who was supposed to man it was under the car looking at a suspension problem.