|
| Site Partners: | SpotterGuides | Veloce Books |
| Related Sites: | Your Link Here |
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 06:52 (Ref:718136)
|
#1 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 37
 |
Let the Controversy Begin !
What more can I say about the closing stages of the Sandown 500.
Should Skaife be penalised for not having his rain light working ?. |
||
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:05 (Ref:718141)
|
#2 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 84
|
What - so all those cars in front of him could see him coming? hehe... sorry... it is an interesting question, but I think that cars are often allowed to run with damaged panels, bits dangling off and so on... and unless it is very dangerous it seems to be okay. Maybe lights would fall into that same category?
|
||
|
|
__________________
Andrew Quested. Author, "The Holden Racing Team". (See my 'home page' for details.)
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:10 (Ref:718146)
|
#3 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,508
|
The only trouble if they punish HRT for that infringment is then you'd have to make sure every car on the track had their rain lights on, you just can't disqualify Skaife because the Channel Ten commentators highlighted it.
|
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:10 (Ref:718147)
|
#4 | ||
 Race OfficialVeteran
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,259
|
we dont need to get that technical - although some will say rules are rules..... had nothing to do with the jason richards incident - spewing for richards/wills - that would have been great for the series if they had won... maybe bathurst for them
|
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:13 (Ref:718150)
|
#5 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 328
|
No Bathurst belongs to SBR
|
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:16 (Ref:718154)
|
#6 | ||
|
Race Official Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,259
|
it should - but
|
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:22 (Ref:718161)
|
#7 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 84
|
One interesting thought here... has the Ambrose/Ingall combination been proven? It seems the pad change and driver change tripped them up a bit. I know it sounds like a small thing, but could the seat shuffle and belt adjustments (as the drivers are different sizes) be too much fiddling around at such an important time? Could that be why Russell didn't pump the pistons enough? I dunno... just thinking with my keyboard... again...
|
||
|
|
__________________
Andrew Quested. Author, "The Holden Racing Team". (See my 'home page' for details.)
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:25 (Ref:718163)
|
#8 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,508
|
Good point Quested, on the way out of the pits Ingall seemed more concerned with adjusting his belts rather than the job at hand. It is certainly something for SBR to look at before Bathurst.
|
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:29 (Ref:718166)
|
#9 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 328
|
Don't really know whether the driver pairing of Ingall and Ambrose has been proven.
But I know I'd love to see what the combination of Winterbottom and Ambrose could do. |
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 07:34 (Ref:718171)
|
#10 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 5,449
|
As a driver combination, yes believe it has been shown that they CAN work together. Yes - there was a slip up *(stuff up - whatever you want to call it) and, as jetsetter says, this will most certainly be addressed before Bathurst.
In reality, better that what happened, happened at Sandown rather then Bathurst - keep in mind that Ambrose and Ingall still managed 5th - the points are now Ambrose 1519 to Murphy's 1413 - when you take out the worst result you get Ambrose 1423 and Murphy 1299 (Murphy actually comes out worst because he has been the more consistent and therefore loses more points - 114 to 96). Last edited by RaceTime; 14 Sep 2003 at 07:35. |
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:04 (Ref:718198)
|
#11 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,042
|
If it is in the rules that if you don't have your rain light going in the rain you are disqualified, then #1 should be disqualified.
|
||
|
|
__________________
"The Great Race" 22 November 1960 - 21 July 1999
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:06 (Ref:718199)
|
#12 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 120
|
D. 3.6 Rain Light.
From the operations manual.
D. 3.6 Rain Light. "The cars rain light must be illuminated at all times when it is running on wet-weather tyres". |
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:10 (Ref:718201)
|
#13 | |||
|
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
From the operations manual. D. 3.6 Rain Light. "The cars rain light must be illuminated at all times when it is running on wet-weather tyres". It does not specify penalty. But a rule has been broken. |
|||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:13 (Ref:718202)
|
#14 | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 40
|
This is ridiculous. I'd be one of the loudest to cheer if Skaife was disqualified but this is just stupid.
What about all the drivers who were running around on slicks with their rain lights on?? Are they going to be disqualified too??? |
|
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:13 (Ref:718203)
|
#15 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 5,449
|
Stewards reports yet to be issued..
|
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:15 (Ref:718205)
|
#16 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 5,449
|
Different issue - *IF* is is shown that the light works then clearly a rule has been broken.
However, what I would find disgusting, is if the light has been switched off....for whatever reason |
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:19 (Ref:718209)
|
#17 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 84
|
I agree with Jono - this is all a bit ridiculous, and I would say that no matter what teams or drivers were concerned. I think the intention of that rule would be safety related, and given that it was late in the race and that Skaife was leading, I don't know what difference the lights would have made. And yes, driving on slicks in wet weather was probably more dangerous than driving without lights on wets... point being that to penalise Skaife for the lights out would be ridiculous.
Oh - assuming that the lights being off was not intentional, and I can't imagine any reason why it would be. |
||
|
|
__________________
Andrew Quested. Author, "The Holden Racing Team". (See my 'home page' for details.)
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:20 (Ref:718211)
|
#18 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,135
|
certainly very interesting point there. What sort of penalty would come as a result of him turning that off?
I did think, when i heard it had been turned off that it might be a little iffy. But what about the case if he has the headlights on? Although he probably didnt have them on either, if he was struggling for electrical power. |
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:25 (Ref:718214)
|
#19 | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5
|
Car #1 should have be disqualified for breach of (D. 3.6 Rain Light) in the avesco operations manual.
The rain light is a safety issue, its a bit like a formula 1 car's rain light shutting down and someone plowing right into at 300km/h and killing both drivers. It's a real black and white decision in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:29 (Ref:718216)
|
#20 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,510
|
Quote:
As much as I'd like Skaife to be disqualified, a fine would probably be a more appropriate penalty. |
|||
|
|
__________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:30 (Ref:718218)
|
#21 | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 58
|
If he had left the rain light on would he have finished the race?
It looked like he was running out of battery and the draw of the rain light (they draw a lot of power) may have killed the power to the fuel pumps. |
|
|
|
__________________
Whale Oil Beef Hooked
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:32 (Ref:718221)
|
#22 | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20
|
I suspect that if he is brought before the Stewards that Skaife and team will only get a fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:32 (Ref:718223)
|
#23 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 938
|
The rain light is there for safety reasons and turning it off creates a dangerous situation. Therefor, a penalty should be applied.
Methinks a $100 fine might be issued here. An exclusion would be best though.... 
|
||
|
|
__________________
“Jamie, Jamie, Jamie. What you have to do is you have to say look; the fact of the matter is that I’m red hot, that Todd Kelly is a ******, I have always thought he was, and I was just mowing him down based on ability”. – Neil Crompton talking to Jamie Whincup, post Bathurst 2005.
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:34 (Ref:718226)
|
#24 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 120
|
Fines do nothing. It requires a loss of points or time penalty, if proven guilty.
|
||
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2003, 08:37 (Ref:718230)
|
#25 | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 58
|
How about they don't count the laps that the light was off!
|
|
|
|
__________________
Whale Oil Beef Hooked
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Red Warning Light - "Rain Lamp" | BugEyed | Racing Technology | 8 | 16 Mar 2006 19:05 |
| Looks like rain! (merged) | Marbot | Formula One | 84 | 7 Oct 2004 12:24 |
| Webber? A rain god? Takes Pole! (merged) | ParkLife | Formula One | 62 | 6 Apr 2003 13:48 |
| Will Richmond ever see the light of day? | Raoul Duke | NASCAR & Stock Car Racing | 7 | 7 May 2002 07:42 |
| DINIZ IS OUT Prost is on the Orange light to the END (Merged) | renaultbel | Formula One | 20 | 6 Nov 2001 10:12 |
Linear Mode
