[VASC16R25] SuperCheap Auto Bathurst 1000: 6-9 Oct (WITH POLL)

[Sandgroper]

Back on topic as some here say

[ford71]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Mr Moffat used the cross entering rule again in '84 when his Rx7 got squished in the start line melee, and he stepped into the other car..

Mr Johnson drove 2 cars in 1985 in practice & qualifying (and withdrew one) and later raced 2 different Sierras in the 1988 Bathurst event..

Mr Brock switched between his BMWs too back in 1988.. till they both expired..

Mr Skaife drove both Nissan Skyline GT-Rs in the race in 1991, squeezing the quick times out of the #2 car till it blew up.

It has probably happened even more often than that, but not as successfully on-track as the two times Mr Brock did it in a Holden..

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

Back on topic as some here say

Interesting stuff though, and its somewhat related

[racer69]

Originally Posted by ford71

Ditto, hard to understand how that was ever even allowed or encouraged via rules.
Ridiculous stuff.
I remember that Bathurst incident put my old man off the sport.

The rule was common place in world motorsport, it wasn't unique to Australia. It was common place in European endurance racing for Sportscars and Touring Cars, even in F1 for a period, for instance Fangio only won the 1956 F1 title after taking over teammate Peter Collins car mid-race (Collins himself had a chance at the title too which he gave up when he handed the healthy car over)

These sorts of rules were still in place in the FIA GT Championship as late as 1997, Bernd Schneider winning the Championship after picking and choosing which of the three Mercedes he would hop into at the first pitstop as the season wore on.

Originally Posted by ford71

Funny I don't recall reading about this before and I dont remember it coming up before yet the 05 / 25 Phil Brock Commodore story is well known. Guess it would be different if Moffat had have won that day.
Thanks for the heads up.

Here is some footage of the Moffat cross entry in Morris' car mid-race in the 1980 HF1000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZkeOsLNMEA

[FIRE]

In VLN and Nurburgring 24h it's still allowed drive 2 cars in the race.

[Tja]

Originally Posted by FIRE

In VLN and Nurburgring 24h it's still allowed drive 2 cars in the race.

Yes, but I guess rules regarding seat time are more strict these days than they were in the past.
I believe Audi had one R8 GT3 in this year's 24h race that they knew they would have to withdraw if all their cars were still running after a certain amount of time because of the allowed maximum seat time for the drivers.

[ford71]

Originally Posted by racer69

The rule was common place in world motorsport, it wasn't unique to Australia. It was common place in European endurance racing for Sportscars and Touring Cars, even in F1 for a period, for instance Fangio only won the 1956 F1 title after taking over teammate Peter Collins car mid-race (Collins himself had a chance at the title too which he gave up when he handed the healthy car over)

These sorts of rules were still in place in the FIA GT Championship as late as 1997, Bernd Schneider winning the Championship after picking and choosing which of the three Mercedes he would hop into at the first pitstop as the season wore on.



Here is some footage of the Moffat cross entry in Morris' car mid-race in the 1980 HF1000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZkeOsLNMEA

Cheers

And that youtube vid is the same one I watched last night Ended up sitting at the PC for well over an hour after tea watching different bits oif footage from that era..... not quite what the original plan was for the evening.

[peckstar]

Just saw LArko explain the JW penalty on RPM, good explanation. Would suggest that the penalty was fair.

Interesting that by Jdub trying to redress that would mean an admission of guilt

[Reload]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Just saw LArko explain the JW penalty on RPM, good explanation. Would suggest that the penalty was fair.

Interesting that by Jdub trying to redress that would mean an admission of guilt

Not at all as with the inconsistencies with the guilty and not guilty decisions this year maybe he just thought that he'd play safe, redress and get Scott a little later.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Reload

Not at all as with the inconsistencies with the guilty and not guilty decisions this year maybe he just thought that he'd play safe, redress and get Scott a little later.

Thats not the way it will be seen. Team told him too also.

[Reload]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Thats not the way it will be seen. Team told him too also.

Yeah whatever.

[peckstar]

only saying what Larko said.

[peckstar]

appeal dismissed

less than an hour

[peckstar]

riple Eight Race Engineering Statement:

Red Bull Racing Australia tonight learned that the appeal against the 15-second time penalty for a driving infringement handed to Car 88 at the 2016 Bathurst 1000 cannot be heard by the National Court of Appeal due to a technicality.

As a result of Rule B5.1.1 in the Supercars Operations Manual, the appeal made by the Team against the penalty imposed on Car 88 cannot be presented and the Notice of Intention to Appeal should not have been accepted by the Stewards.

We respect the authority of the Court and wish to thank all those who have supported us during this process, particularly our fans, our Team Partners and the respected industry members in the Sport who independently voiced their opinions that Jamie raced hard and fair and nothing more. With just three events remaining this year, the Team is focused on delivering our partners and fans the best possible results for a strong finish to the 2016 season.


I think this is code for we stuffed up again, but were too stubborn to back down

[Mixer]

So the court can take 14 days to make its hearing, but the team has to lodge a protest within an hour of the event, the specifics of which cannot be changed later.

Sounds like a convenient technicality to me.

[dirtymacca]

Originally Posted by Mixer

So the court can take 14 days to make its hearing, but the team has to lodge a protest within an hour of the event, the specifics of which cannot be changed later.

Sounds like a convenient technicality to me.

Yep..... it was a dumb arsed protest from the start. Remember they only protested the penalty 15 seconds.

[dirtymacca]

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

Yep..... it was a dumb arsed protest from the start. Remember they only protested the penalty 15 seconds.

Bit there is no denying that T888 had the race by the balls.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

Bit there is no denying that T888 had the race by the balls.

so why werent they at the front?

[Umai Naa]

You don't seriously think that with 11 laps to go, he wouldn't have won anyway?

The car was a jet, they were conserving fuel. They would have still won, without colliding with #33.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

You don't seriously think that with 11 laps to go, he wouldn't have won anyway?

The car was a jet, they were conserving fuel. They would have still won, without colliding with #33.

He was not fueled to the finish without a safety car. (which ultimately he caused).

So no I cant say for sure that he would have won, neither can anyone. If anyone does they have no understanding of motorsport

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mixer

So the court can take 14 days to make its hearing, but the team has to lodge a protest within an hour of the event, the specifics of which cannot be changed later.

Sounds like a convenient technicality to me.

You're not understanding the process. The court members are appointed but they don't consider the appeal until the appeal hearing itself, which they did for the first time last night - hearing lasted a total of 50 minutes (which is next to nothing).

It hasn't been 14 days, it took 8 days (including a weekend) for there to be an available timeframe for all the court members.

Typically, the first thing that happens in an appeal hearing is for the court to decide if in fact it can accept the appeal, before the hearing proper commences.

Clearly in this case, the appeal shouldn't have been accepted by the stewards under the rule quoted (I think it says that penalties applied during a race can't be appealed, or something like that).

The team must lodge a notice of intent to appeal within an hour of the race finish, for professional teams that is actually not so onerous - they check 100% where they stand under the rule book and if they believe they have a strong case, they lodge the notice.

The team then gets 48 hours to put together the detailed submission (in this case they got a time extension as well) so they have at least those 2 days.

Yes, it was dismissed on a technicality, but I don't know that it would be "convenient" or not - typically, people such as senior lawyers and QCs are good at being impartial.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Yes, it was dismissed on a technicality, but I don't know that it would be "convenient" or not - typically, people such as senior lawyers and QCs are good at being impartial.

While legally correct, this is actually a denial of natural justice, and flawed processes allowed it to be so.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Mixer

While legally correct, this is actually a denial of natural justice, and flawed processes allowed it to be so.

wow thats an amazing ability to understand a report that has not yet been released.

Motorsport is like that. GT got taken out, will he ever get natural justice!

I think you are just making up stuff to cover over that T8 stuffed up their appeal

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mixer

While legally correct, this is actually a denial of natural justice, and flawed processes allowed it to be so.

Originally Posted by peckstar

wow thats an amazing ability to understand a report that has not yet been released.

Motorsport is like that. GT got taken out, will he ever get natural justice!

I think you are just making up stuff to cover over that T8 stuffed up their appeal

It's not a denial of natural justice as the teams commit to abide by the rules of the series when they enter and the rule about not being able to appeal "in race" penalties has been in place for a while. This concept has been tested in the courts by VASC teams and other sports and every time the court takes the view that the team agreed to abide by the rules - denial of natural justice does not stand up.

I'm not convinced that T8 stuffed up so much although clearly they changed their minds on the terms of their appeal after the appeal lodgement deadline. The stewards should simply have not accepted the appeal and referred T8 to the relevant rule. You'd have to say that arguably both T8 & the stewards got that one wrong after the race.

[GTRMagic]

Is it just me, or is it getting a bit ridiculous when Tekno calls itself, and others call Tekno a "small team"

Story Here

Running a full house 888 chassis, with the latest KRE engines, and 7 full time staff.. and a multinational brand (even if they aren't paying full freight) on the sides..

Which expands to 10 staff for Bathurst...
The Other 10 Bathurst Winners

[T-star]

Sounds pretty small to me