'09 LMS Round 2, Spa May 8th-10th

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by cptkablamo

Does anyone know why Ibanez Racing Service, RML, Ranieri Randaccio and Strakka have negative points from Spa???

Engine changes for the first three certainly (RML post Barcelona) means they get a 10 place grid penalty an a reduction of 2 points - The same was true for the #007 Lola Aston

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Engine changes for the first three certainly (RML post Barcelona) means they get a 10 place grid penalty an a reduction of 2 points - The same was true for the #007 Lola Aston

The RML penalty was officially withdrawn, as the engine damage which provoked the change could clearly be related to the quality of the petrol. It was considered a case of force majeure. As the Lola had to start from the pitlane after its major shunt during free practice, a grid penalty would not have meant anything. In the end, in Spa, the car again had to withdraw due to fuel related engine problems.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by henk4

The RML penalty was officially withdrawn, as the engine damage which provoked the change could clearly be related to the quality of the petrol. It was considered a case of force majeure. As the Lola had to start from the pitlane after its major shunt during free practice, a grid penalty would not have meant anything. In the end, in Spa, the car again had to withdraw due to fuel related engine problems.

Huh, penalty withdrawn, then why is that not reflected in the points? Pure hogwash! They were just further penalized for having the shunt which overrode the original (lesser) set back. To imply that the penalty was withdrawn is nothing but a whitewash, as it was already moot, given the fact that the car was starting from the pit lane!


L.P.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Huh, penalty withdrawn, then why is that not reflected in the points? Pure hogwash! They were just further penalized for having the shunt which overrode the original (lesser) set back. To imply that the penalty was withdrawn is nothing but a whitewash, as it was already moot, given the fact that the car was starting from the pit lane!


L.P.

I am not implying anything.
There was an official communique that the penalty for the RML car was withdrawn. I have seen it and I have read it.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Huh, penalty withdrawn, then why is that not reflected in the points? Pure hogwash! They were just further penalized for having the shunt which overrode the original (lesser) set back. To imply that the penalty was withdrawn is nothing but a whitewash, as it was already moot, given the fact that the car was starting from the pit lane!


L.P.

Originally Posted by henk4

I am not implying anything.
There was an official communique that the penalty for the RML car was withdrawn. I have seen it and I have read it.

You mis-understand, it was not meant that you implied!



L.P.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

You mis-understand, it was not meant that you implied!



L.P.

just repeating what you said does not make it in any way clearer to me what you actually want to say.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by henk4

I am not implying anything.
There was an official communique that the penalty for the RML car was withdrawn. I have seen it and I have read it.

I read the letter imposing the penalty, but saw nothing to suggest it had been rescinded or withdrawn. The official points table, posted on the LMS website, still states “-2” for RML, so where did you see the communique that withdrew the penalty? Or am I just totally confused by the last half-dozen posts?

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Thumper

I read the letter imposing the penalty, but saw nothing to suggest it had been rescinded or withdrawn. The official points table, posted on the LMS website, still states “-2” for RML, so where did you see the communique that withdrew the penalty? Or am I just totally confused by the last half-dozen posts?

Mea (maxima) Culpa
I glanced through the communique in Spa and reread it just now at home. The RML appeal was actually rejected, whereas I thought it had been accepted. So a lot of the confusion caused above is entirely my doing. Sorry for that.
They made the same decision for the 35 car (Oak Racing) and the Nr 28 (Ibanez), based on the fact that 4 turbo engined cars finished the race in Barcelona and one even won the Green X Challenge. Apparently some turbo engines work better with the currently supplied fuel. I have a feeling though that the last word on this matter has not been said yet.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by henk4

Mea (maxima) Culpa
I glanced through the communique in Spa and reread it just now at home. The RML appeal was actually rejected, whereas I thought it had been accepted. So a lot of the confusion caused above is entirely my doing. Sorry for that.
They made the same decision for the 35 car (Oak Racing) and the Nr 28 (Ibanez), based on the fact that 4 turbo engined cars finished the race in Barcelona and one even won the Green X Challenge. Apparently some turbo engines work better with the currently supplied fuel. I have a feeling though that the last word on this matter has not been said yet.

Thanks for clearing that up. I recognise your point about the other turbo-engined cars, but it's also worth looking at the overall LMP2 results from Barcelona and Spa - setting aside disqualifications for a moment - and noting that the best finishes are dominated by cars with normally-aspirated engines (Judd, Zytek and Porsche), while the turbo cars have (on the whole) tended to be also-rans and retirements. Obviously a bit of a generalisation, but may be valid.

As seems to have been the case in 2008, any team running a turbo-engined car has to play a game of compromise between performance on the one hand, and reliability on the other. It is possible to make the engines last, but only by de-tuning them to such a degree that the car is no longer competitive. Some teams may be content with just finishing a race, but most want to win - they wouldn't be there otherwise. As things currently stand, turbo-engined cars aren't about to win without a huge amount of luck.

[kingkai]

I saw a letter hanging at Spa saying that RML appealed for a non penalty due to tire change between qualification and the race. They need to start on the last set of qualification tires. And appeal denied.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by henk4

just repeating what you said does not make it in any way clearer to me what you actually want to say.

If in fact what had been stated in the first post on this subject was correct (evidently not), then it would have been the entity who released said statement that was implying, not you for posting it! The reason being that the original penalty was superceded by the 2nd penalty given for the changing of tires between qualifying and the race. Therefore the, supposed, rescinding of the first penalty is moot and nothing but whitewash/fluff to make them look better! Also in further annoyance was the fact that the points did not reflect the previouos penalty being rescinded, which came part and parcel with the 10 grid positions!



L.P.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by kingkai

I saw a letter hanging at Spa saying that RML appealed for a non penalty due to tire change between qualification and the race. They need to start on the last set of qualification tires. And appeal denied.

Any number ?(I have decisions/notifications 1 to 14).
Anyway, that looks like a very curious penalty, as RML did not participate in the qualifications in the first place.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

If in fact what had been stated in the first post on this subject was correct (evidently not), then it would have been the entity who released said statement that was implying, not you for posting it! The reason being that the original penalty was superceded by the 2nd penalty given for the changing of tires between qualifying and the race. Therefore the, supposed, rescinding of the first penalty is moot and nothing but whitewash/fluff to make them look better! Also in further annoyance was the fact that the points did not reflect the previouos penalty being rescinded, which came part and parcel with the 10 grid positions!



L.P.

as I said, how could RML be penalised for changing tyres between the qualification and the race, when the car crashed heavily during Saturday morning's first free practice and could only be driven on Sunday morning for a couple of laps just prior to the race as the warm up was canceled? The Radical (#26) changed four tires before the race and started from the pitlane (in third position behind #25 and #23, which was also allowed to change four tires).

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by henk4

as I said, how could RML be penalised for changing tyres between the qualification and the race, when the car crashed heavily during Saturday morning's first free practice and could only be driven on Sunday morning for a couple of laps just prior to the race as the warm up was canceled? The Radical (#26) changed four tires before the race and started from the pitlane (in third position behind #25 and #23, which was also allowed to change four tires).

Hmm, then they were not penalized, per se, but allowed to take part in a race in which they had not qualified!

9.8 - Exceptional cases :

9.8.1

– Without exceeding the number of cars admitted to start the race and on the proposal of the Race Control, the Stewards may accept cars which have not qualified for reasons of force majeure provided that :
a/ They are judged capable of achieving the minimum qualifying time
b/ The drivers offer all safety guarantees
c/ They start the race from the back of the grid

d/ The fastest driver in the team shall start the race

So I would think this came into play, and it still superceded the original penalty for changing the engine.

L.P.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Hmm, then they were not penalized, per se, but allowed to take part in a race in which they had not qualified!

Decision Nr 8. "Car no 25 is allowed to race but will start from the pitlane in 2nd position behind car no.23"

That''s the complete wording. Nothing about tyre changes.

The 007 Lola-Aston Martin had also not qualified, but was allowed to race.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by henk4

Decision Nr 8. "Car no 25 is allowed to race but will start from the pitlane in 2nd position behind car no.23"

That''s the complete wording. Nothing about tyre changes.

The 007 Lola-Aston Martin had also not qualified, but was allowed to race.

I could frankly care less about the cause of the second penalty!

If in fact what had been stated in the first post on this subject was correct (evidently not), then it would have been the entity who released said statement that was implying, not you for posting it! The reason being that the original penalty was superceded by the 2nd penalty___FWFR____. Therefore the, supposed, rescinding of the first penalty is moot and nothing but whitewash/fluff to make them look better! Also in further annoyance was the fact that the points did not reflect the previouos penalty being rescinded, which came part and parcel with the 10 grid positions!

L.P.

[Audi Racer]

Who else agrees that the ACO better do something quick in the rules to give more torque to a petrol engined car because Sportscar racing has the potential to catch some huge fish in the names of Toyota Ferrari Renault and BMW.Maybe Porsche too. Formula1 is not looking too good right now. Also the ACO should change the 2011 engine regs big time. I have a feeling that Next Year we will have some heavyweight manufacturers looking for a place to take there motorsport program.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Who else agrees that the ACO better do something quick in the rules to give more torque to a petrol engined car because Sportscar racing has the potential to catch some huge fish in the names of Toyota Ferrari Renault and BMW.Maybe Porsche too. Formula1 is not looking too good right now. Also the ACO should change the 2011 engine regs big time. I have a feeling that Next Year we will have some heavyweight manufacturers looking for a place to take there motorsport program.

maybe the new entrants could select the diesel option if they want torque....

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by henk4

maybe the new entrants could select the diesel option if they want torque....

Why not create a formula that is inclusionary, not exclusionary?

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Why not create a formula that is inclusionary, not exclusionary?

back to the CAN-AM days....

[WouterM]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Who else agrees that the ACO better do something quick in the rules to give more torque to a petrol engined car because Sportscar racing has the potential to catch some huge fish in the names of Toyota Ferrari Renault and BMW.Maybe Porsche too. Formula1 is not looking too good right now. Also the ACO should change the 2011 engine regs big time. I have a feeling that Next Year we will have some heavyweight manufacturers looking for a place to take there motorsport program.

The first and only time a bespoke Works petrol car raced against the diesels, it clinched pole. Since then, the diesels have been further penalized...

[Tim the Grey]

When was this Wouter? R10 debut? I suspect you may be right, and until a well funded factory petrol entry, the diesel will continue to rule the roost...

For all the hype, I don't see AM as quite there. More of a publicity stunt/gimmick to keep AM in the public eye.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

When was this Wouter

The Acura at Sebring 2009. This is first real factory LMP-1 petrol car. And they chose for a 4 liter aspirated engine, which has a lot of BHP but not so much torque. But as Audi decided to quit the USA we will hardly know how things could have been. Pity the Acura will not come to Europe.
On the other hand the performance of the Kolles Audis indicates the difference between a factory supported diesel team and an arms-length supported private team. Also in Spa the Audis were never really in contention.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

For all the hype, I don't see AM as quite there. More of a publicity stunt/gimmick to keep AM in the public eye.

I agree. But they are close enough to warrant the assumption that a petrol entry with the resources Peugeot and Audi have would be capable of competing with the Diesels.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

I agree. But they are close enough to warrant the assumption that a petrol entry with the resources Peugeot and Audi have would be capable of competing with the Diesels.

AM is using a customer Lola chassis, the Speedy Lola AM at Spa, was not really much slower than the works cars. The best example of a "works" entry last year that harassed the diesels were the LMP2 Porsches under ALMS regulations and even that was not a full works effort. (Porsche likes to sell cars and not race them)